&EPA
United State*
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Policy
Planning, and
Evaluation
September 1989
CHARACTERISTICS AND EFFECTS
OF DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL
IN THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT
50
100
Q.
UJ
O
150
275
300
CURRENT
50-75 cms'1
"COLLAPSE" _ '•'
j FLOCCULATED^'1' ;
IMATERIATED ' '
COARSE
MATERIAL
CONSTANT
UPWE'JJNG RATE
I0"5cms-'
c
CURRENT
30cms"
CURRENT
C rm c-l
-------
CHARACTERISTICS AND EFFECTS
OF DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL
IN THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT
SCIENCE-POLICY INTEGRATION BRANCH
OFFICE OF POLJCY: PLANNING, AND EVALUATION
U.S. ENVIRONMJbNTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
September 1989
Prepared by
Science Applications International Corporation
89 Water Street
Woods Hole, MA 02543
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This document presents a synopsis of relevant background information on dredged material
disposal to support EPA's efforts in pursuing the development of ocean dumping policies on the
national and international level. Currently available information from scientific literature, reports
by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), and other documents is compiled and summarized in three sections.
Section I comprises data on amounts and characteristics of dredged material; disposal sites
and disposing methods; fate and effects of dredged material and their predictability; important
research programs on dredged material disposal; and the international aspects of dredging and
disposing. At present, an annual amount of 250 to 450 million cubic yards of dredged material
is disposed at more than 150 sites along the U.S. coasts; these sites are either aquatic or on dry
land. The fate of dredged material at the disposal site is well understood; the sediments are either
dispersed or contained in defined structures such as disposal mounds. Physical and chemical
impacts are well-known in the nearOeld for the short term and quite predictable. Impacts on
benthic communities can be predicted based on existing successional patterns, and impacts on
fisheries can be addressed with the Benthic Resource Assessment Technique (BRAT) method.
Long-term, far-Geld assessments are much more difficult because the physicochemical and biological
processes are very complex.
Major research programs associated with dredged material disposal are conducted by the
COE, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and EPA's Office of Marine
and Estuarine Protection (OMEP).
Data on the international dredging scene are sparse because the only reliable information
is available from the 63 signatories of the London Dumping Convention. Estimates of the
worldwide annual amount of dredged material amount to 1.3 billion tons. Most of this material
is disposed in nearshore waters.
-------
Section n provides an overview of the regulatory framework. Important legislation includes
the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA) of 1972, the Clean Water Act
(CWA) of 1972, and Federal laws concerning wetland protection.
Section HI addresses a number of management and regulatory issues related to dredged
material disposal, including the selection of new disposal sites, human health issues, and
management aspects of monitoring programs. The tiered monitoring approach is presented as a
tool for better linkage between monitoring and decision making, and some cost estimates are
provided. Generally it was found that dredged material disposal should be addressed in a more
integrated way than is currently practiced A lack of communication was observed among involved
agencies and institutions and between these institutions and the public, causing duplication of
efforts and political conflicts.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i
INTRODUCTION 1
SECTION L OVERVIEW 2
A. NEED FOR DREDGING 2
1. Past 2
2. Present 2
3. Future 3
B. DREDGED MATERIAL CHARACTERISTICS 3
1. Sediment Composition 3
2. Effects of Dredging Methodology on Composition 4
3. Chemical Characteristics 4
4. Toritity 8
C DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL 9
1. Amounts 9
2. Available Disposal Sites 11
3. Methods .12
a. dean Dredged Material 12
b. Contaminated Dredged Material IS
D. FATE OF DREDGED MATERIAL AFTER DISPOSAL 17
1. Disposal in Marine Environments 17
2. Disposal in Intertidal Environments 18
E. EFFECTS OF DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL 19
1. Effects on Water Quality and Pelagic Organisms 19
2. Effects on Benthic Organisms 20
F. PREDICTING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF DREDGED MATERIAL
DISPOSAL 23
1. Physical Impact 23
2. Chemical Impact 26
3. Impacts on the Benthic Community 28
4. Impacts on Fisheries 28
G. RESEARCH PROGRAMS RELATED TO DREDGED MATERIAL
DISPOSAL 30
1. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) 30
a. Dredged Material Research Program (DMRP) 30
b. Disposal Area Monitoring System (DAMOS) 31
c. Dredging Research Program (DRP) 31
d Field Verification Program (FVP) 33
2. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 34
a. National Status and Trends Program (NS&T) 34
3. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection (OMEP) 34
a Point Source Discharges to Coastal Waters 35
b. Ocean Dumping Program 35
•••
ill
-------
c, Chesapeake Bay Program 36
a INTERNATIONAL DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL 36
1. Extent of Dredged Material Disposal 36
. 2. General Regulatory Environment 37
' 3. Contrast to US. Programs 38
SECTION IL U.S. REGULATORY FRAMEWORK 39
A. HISTORICAL OVERVIEW AND EARLY REGULATORY ACTS 39
B. MARINE PROTECTION, RESEARCH AND SANCTUARIES ACT (MPRSA)
OF 1972 40
1. Introduction 40
2. Permitting 42
C THE CLEAN WATER ACT (FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL
ACT) 43
1. The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program
Sections 402 and 301, 302, 306, and 307 44
2. The Ocean Discharge Criteria - Section 403 44
3. Dredged Material Disposal - Section 404 45
4. Comprehensive Waste Management in Estuaries and Coastal Waters .... 45
a. The National Estuary Piogram (NEP) - Section 104 ^45
b. Estuarine Management Conferences 46
c. Area wide Planning - Sections 208 and 303 46
D. ADDITIONAL FEDERAL LAWS AFFECTING MARINE WASTE
DISPOSAL 46
1. The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) of 1972 46
2. The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980 47
3. The Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 47
4. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1970 48
5. The National Ocean Pollution Planning Act (NOPPA) of 1978 48
6. The Wetlands Act of 1986 48
E. EPA's WETLAND POLICY 49
SECTION m. MANAGEMENT AND REGULATORY ISSUES 51
A. SITE SELECTION PROCESS 51
B. SHORTAGE OF DISPOSAL SITES 53
C ESTUARINE VS. OCEAN DISPOSAL 54
D. RELEVANCE OF OBSERVED EH-bClS TO HUMAN, RESOURCE AND
ECOSYSTEM HEALTH 55
E. NEED FOR CONSISTENT, EFFECTIVE MONITORING 57
F. SHORT-TERM, NEAR-FIELD VS. LONG-TERM, FAR-FIELD IMPACT
ASSESSMENTS 60
G. THE TIERED MONITORING APPROACH 60
H. NEED FOR MANAGEMENT AND ANALYSIS OF DATA ON DREDGED
MATERIAL DISPOSAL 63
L NEED FOR BETTER LINKAGE BETWEEN MONITORING AND DECISION
MAKING 63
hr
-------
J. INTERAGENCY RESPONSIBILITIES/COMMUNICATIONS 64
K. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION/EXPECTATIONS 65
L. COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH DREDGING 65
1. Cost of Dredged Material Disposal 65
2. Cost of Too Pew Disposal Sites 66
3. Cost of Lost Resources 66
4. Cost of Regulation and Monitoring 68
LITERATURE CITED
70
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1-1. Chemical Characteristics (moles kg'') of Dredged Material (from National
Academy of Sciences, 1989) 5
Table 1-2. Percentage of Contaminants in US. Coastal Waters Originating from
Nonpoint Sources (from US. Congress, 1987) 8
Table 1-3. Geographical Distribution of Dredged Material Disposal Sites (from US.
EPA, 1988). Status of Designation as of 31 December 1986. 11
Table 1-4. Minimum Wave Parameters Required to Cause Resuspension of Typical
Dredged Material Deposited at the Foul Area Disposal Site, Massachusetts
Bay (from SAIC, 1987). U,,,^ Bottom Velocity; d: Water Depth; T: Wave
Period; H: Wave Height 25
Table EM. Federal Agencies Responsible for Management of Paniculate Wastes
Discharged and Dumped in the Ocean1 41
Table DI-1. FDA's Criteria for Initiating Enforcement Against Seafood (from U.S.
Congress, 1987) 59
Table IH-2. Commercial Fish Landings in the United States, 1985 (From U.S. Congress,
1987) 67
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1. Relative Contributions of Dredged Material, Sewage Sludge, and Chemical
Wastes to the Total Dairy Input of Eight Parameters from Ocean-dumped
Wastes in the New York Bight (from Kester et aL, 1983)
Figure 1-2. Amounts of Dredged Material from US. Army Corps of Engineers' Projects
Disposed in Coastal Waters and the Open Ocean, 1974 to 1984 (modified
after US. Congress, 1987).
Figure 1-3. Relative Amounts of Material Dredged from Shipping Channels in the
United States and the Principal Method of Disposal (1 yd3 = 0.765 m3)
(from Pequegnat, 1983)
Figure 1-4. Shoreline Modification of Boston During the Past 210 Years. The Landfill
Substances Were Obtained in Part from the Boston Harbor Dredging
Operations (from Kester et aL, 1983)
10
12
13
-------
Figure I-S. (A) Development of Organism-Sediment Relationships over Tune Following
Physical Disturbance in Long Island Sound (B) Organism-Sediment
Relationships Associated With a Pollution Gradient of a Pulp-null Effluent
• (from Rhoads and Germane, 1986) 22
Figure 1-6. Potential for Sediment Erosion, Transport and Deposition as a Function of
Grain Size and Bottom Current Velocity (from Hjuktrom, 1935) 25
Figure 1-7. Vertical Distribution of Biomass at the Foul Area Disposal Site,
Massachusetts Bay, September 1985 (from SAIQ 1987). DM: Dredged
Material 29
Figure 1-8. Annual Worldwide Quantities of Waste Disposed in the Ocean, 1976 to 1982
(from US. Congress, 1987) 37
Figure m-1. Tiered Approach to Monitoring (from Zeller and Wastler, 1986) 62
VI
-------
INTRODUCTION
During the last two decades, the potential for marine pollution from ocean dumping
activities has become an increasingly sensitive issue that has received considerable attention from
the media and legislative bodies. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) responded
with the development of a National Coastal and Marine Policy statement, and the U.S. Congress
passed legislation banning all dumping of sewage sludge and industrial waste. At the same time,
EPA made a strong commitment to continuously encourage protective measures at the
international level, including the London Dumping Convention (LDC) and the International
Convention on the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL).
This report is a summary document designed to support EPA's efforts on the national and
international level. It is designed to provide a synopsis of relevant background information on the
issues related to dredged material disposal, and is based on a synthesis of available scientific
literature, reports by the COE and EPA, and other documents and recently published books:-
The first section of this report presents an overview of currently available information on
dredged material characteristics and amounts, disposal sites and methods of dredged material
disposal, fates and effects of dredged material disposal and the predictability of these effects,
important research programs on dredged material disposal, and the international aspects of
dredging and disposing. The regulatory framework is presented in the second section, and
management and regulatory issues are addressed in the final section of this report. These issues
include the selection of disposal sites, effects of dredged material disposal on human health, several
aspects of the management of dredged material disposal, such as the design of monitoring studies
and issues related to integration of overlapping efforts, and communication among participating
agencies and with the public.
-------
SECnON L OVERVIEW
A. NEED FOR DREDGING
1. Past
Dredging is the mechanical displacement of sediments for the purpose of creating,
maintaining, or extending ports and navigational waterways. It represents one of the oldest ocean
engineering activities, and dates back to at least the 10th century B.C In the United States,
dredging in support of commercial activities began in the early 19th century with primary emphasis
on the development of the inland waterway system. Significant dredging of coastal ports and
waterways began after 1850 when increasing vessel draft and increased sedimentation due to
widespread clear-cutting of forests required continuous efforts to maintain desired channel depths.
For example, generalized dredging in New York Harbor began after 1860 following the arrival of
the vessel Great Eastern with its 30-ft draft. Gedney and Ambrose Channels, two of the main
entrances to the Port of New York, were the first to be dredged Since that time, more than 1.9
x 109 cubic yards of sediment have been moved to maintain the port (Squires, 1983).
2. Present
The need for dredging remains in the present, both for maintenance of existing harbors and
channels and, as a consequence of the 1986 Water Resources Development Act, for the
construction of new ports. Currently the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) maintains 25,000
miles of commercially navigable channels serving 400 ports, including 130 of the nation's ISO
largest cities (Department of the Army, 1988). About 2 billion tons of cargo are shipped annually
via U.S. waterways; cargo ships are still the most cost- and energy-efficient transportation for bulk
goods such as coal and ores, petroleum products and other chemicals, grains, and finished metal
products. The maintenance and improvement of important seaports is considered to be crucial
for the United States to remain internationally competitive and economically prosperous;
approximately 20 percent of all jobs in the U.S. depend in some way on waterborne commerce.
-------
*
Moreover, continuous maintenance of the navigable U.S. waters is essential for the Nation's
defense capabilities.
3. Future
The on-going initiative of the U.S. Navy to distribute its vessels among a number of ports
rather than concentrating them in the traditionally used bases is an important factor for the
projection of future dredging needs. The harbors included in this homeporting project will have
to be deepened and expanded for the larger vessels. Commercial cargo ships will very likely
continue to increase in size and draft for cost efficiency, requiring the deepening of at least some
of the larger ports on U.S. coasts. Aside from new-work projects, the maintenance of existing
channels and ports will continue at least at the present rate to keep pace with current rates of
sediment transport. For example, the amount of riverine sediments created by erosion are
projected to increase because of expanding deforestation, exploitation of the soil by extensive
agriculture, and aggressive urban development pressure along the nation's estuarine and coastal
waters.
B. DREDGED MATERIAL CHARACTERISTICS
1. Sediment Composition
Sediments are composed of varying amounts of several natural substances: gravel, sand, silt
and/or clay; organic matter and humus (i.e., decomposed organic matter); and chemical compounds
such as sulfides and hydrous iron oxide. The physical properties of dredged sediments, such as
grain size, bulk density, water content, and geotechnical characteristics may therefore vary
considerably, depending, for example, on the time the material has been deposited on the bottom.
Natural sediment properties are of great importance for dredging and disposal management
decisions.
-------
2. Effects of Dredging Methodology on Composition
Dredging methods, i.e. the dredge types, affect the water content of the dredged material
and consequently the dredging efficiency and potential resuspension of material at the disposal site.
If a mechanical or clamshell dredge (also called grab or bucket dredge) is used, the sediment
remains nearly at its original density, while the use of a hydraulic (pipeline or hopper) dredge
produces a slurry with a solids content of about 10 to 20 percent (Lunz, 1987; U.S. Congress,
1987). Fine-grained sediments from mechanical dredges usually remain cohesive and are deposited
as large clumps, whereas material from hydraulic dredges is broken down into much smaller
panicles.
Mechanical dredges are required for contaminated sediments because they prevent
suspension of large amounts of material during dredging and disposal and thus lower the risk of
contamination of the water column. Moreover, cohesive material is likely to form distinct disposal
mounds that can be capped (see below) to isolate contaminants from the surrounding environment.
Hydraulic dredges are used for clean sediments when suspension of material during dredging and
disposal is not hazardous to the environment The deposition of sediments with high water
content aims at dispersal of the material and integration into the natural sediments rather than
containment in a well-defined structure.
3. Chemki: •:!'•;;,, ..^eristics
Chemical characteristics of dredged material have primarily been studied in terms of
anthropogenic contamination. While certain chemicals, such as heavy metals, can be found in
highly variable natural concentrations (Table 1-1), many other compounds including a large number
of organic chemicals are exclusively anthropogenic.
Natural concentrations of chemicals may be significantly exceeded in dredged material
containing anthropogenic substances. Contaminants commonly found in dredged material include
metals, such as cadmium, lead, and mercury; chlorinated hydrocarbons, such as PCBs and DDT;
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs); and petroleum hydrocarbons. Concentrations of these
contaminants may vary over several orders of magnitude, even at a single dredge site. Most
pollutants are adsorbed or tightly bound to organic material and day particles; coarse sediments
-------
with low silt/clay content are therefore generally cleaner than sediments with a large fraction of
fine-grained material.
Table 1-1. Chemical Characteristics (moles kg*7) of Dredged Material (from National Academy
of Sciences, 1989).
Constituent Dredged Materials Average Crustal Materials
Trace metals
Iron
Manganese
Zinc
Copper
Nickel
Chromium
Lead
Cadmium
Mercury
0.02 - 0.90
(0.4 - 10) x Iff3
(0.5 - 8) x Iff3
(0.8 - 9400) x 10"*
(0.2 - 2.6) x Iff3
(0.02 - 3.8) x Iff5
(5 - 1900) x 10-'
(0.4 - 600) x Iff'
(1 - 10) x Iff"
0.61 - 1.03
(12 - 18) x Iff3
(0.92 - 1.26) x 10-5
(460 - 1090) x Iff6
(0.62 - 1.69 x Iff3
(0.92 - 1.92) x Iff3
(48 - 77) x 10-*
(0.89 - 1.6) x Iff6
(0.149 - 0.398) x 10-'
Synthetic organic substances
Chlorinated pesticides 0—10 mg kg"*
Polychlorinated biphenyl
compounds 0 - 10 mg kg'7
Other properties
pH 6-9
Chemical oxygen demand 0.03 - 0.04
Oil and Grease 0.1 - 5 g kg'7
Several attempts have been made to establish quantitative criteria for the contamination of
sediments. However, only a few metals and organics are addressed, and none of the criteria have
proven to be sufficient for a comprehensive assessment of the degree of pollution. The methods
for measuring contaminant levels presented many problems; for example, the Jensen criteria, based
on bulk sediment analysis, will classify natural sediments from certain locations as unacceptable for
open water disposal; elutriate tests adopted by EPA in 1977 are not applicable for post-
depositional evaluations. Bioassays address the toxicity of dredged material on test organisms and
-------
provide the most comprehensive assessment of contaminant levels. However, it is often difficult
to extrapolate potential impacts of contaminated sediments on the fauna actually inhabiting a
disposal site from these tests because the local fauna may vary considerably from the standard test
organisms in its responsiveness to contamination. The EPA presented criteria for the disposal of
contaminated sediments in 1977, and some bioassays have been formalized to standard procedures.
Recent investigations have been aimed towards providing test organisms that comply with EPA's
requirement of being the most sensitive organism, but are also representative of the fauna actually
impacted by dredged material disposal Swartz et aL (1985) proposed the sediment-dwelling
amphipod crustacean Rhepoxynius abronius for the west coast, while Gentile and Scott (19S7)
recommended another amphipod, Ampelisca abdita, for the east coast.
Despite of this lack of quantitative criteria, COE considers only about 3 percent of the
dredged material to be highly contaminated (U.S. Congress, 1987), and an additional 30 percent
are believed to be moderately contaminated, based on the general assumption that sediments
originating from new projects are clean because they were deposited before the industrialization
of the United States, whereas sediments from maintenance dredging are more likely to be
contaminated because they consist of recent deposits. A good example are sediments dredged in
New York Harbor (Fig. 1-1). These sediments not only contribute substantially to the amounts of
suspended solids and metals at the disposal sites, but also to organic carbon, ammonia 2nd
nitrogen. These latter compounds are usually associated with sewage sludge; their appearance in
dredged material documents previous contamination of the harbor sediments by sewage dumping
(Kester et al., 1983). However, the regulations of NPDES (see Section n) are beginning to
impact the contaminant concentrations in recently deposited sediments. As more and more point
sources for contaminants are eliminated, the sediments will become increasingly clean in the future.
although high percentages especially of metals are from nonpoint sources (Table 1-2) and will
therefore not decrease substantially under NPDES regulation. For example, more than 90% of the
chromium contaminating U.S. coastal waters originates from nonpoint sources. Regional
differences may be considerable.
-------
TOTAL QUANTITY OF EACH PARAMETER (TONS DAY'1 )
CHEMICAL TOTAL
SUSPENDED OXYGEN ORGANIC AMMONIA
SOLIDS DEMAND CARBON NITROGEN CADMIUM MERCURY LEAD
15,000 3,200 660 50 2.0 0.026 5.6
100
<
o
<
o
80
60
40
z
Ul
oc 20
ui
a.
O1-
OREDGED
MATERIAL
I
JftSEWAGE
NNSSLUDGE
ZINC
9.3
100
80
60
20
ACID AND
CHEMICAL
WASTES
Rgure l-l. Relative Contributions of Dredged Material, Sewage Sludge, and Chemical Wastes
to the Total DaQy Input of Eight Parameters from Ocean-dumped Wastes in the
New York Bight (from Kester et aL, 1983).
-------
Table 1-2. Percentage of Contaminants in U.S. Coastal Waten Originating from Nonpoint Sources
(from U.S. Congress, 1987)
Region
N Pacific
S Pacific
Gulf of M.
S Atlantic
N. Atlantic
BOD
40
43
40
37
21
TSS
99
99
99
99
99
TKN
62
67
37
36
17
TP
73
78
34
13
18
CD
2
16
4
26
13
CR
92
90
57
34
52
CU
63
91
49
64
60
PB
53
87
53
85
72
AS FE
2 95
<1 90
<1 82
<1 92
<1 69
HG
14
3
3
6
3
ZN
57
78
49
68
56
OIL
55
33
39
79
49
CHL FEC
HCS COL
<1 96
<1 66
<1 84
<1 90
<1 88
4. Tenacity
The toricity of dredged material is typically highest in or close to harbors or estuarine
regions that receive upstream sediments carrying contaminants from municipal and industrial
.discharges. As part of the Field Verification Program, EPA and the COE tested the toxicity of
highly contaminated sediments from Black Rock Harbor (Long Island Sound) on a number of
benthic macroinvertebrates (Peddicord, 1988; Rogerson, Schimmel and Hoffman, 1985). The toxic
substances present in the Black Rock Harbor sediments included high amounts of PAHs, PCBs.
and heavy metals. Of eleven species tested, only the amphipod Ampelisca abdita showed acute
mortality when exposed to deposited Black Rock Harbor sediment. Other adverse effects included
behavioral changes such as impaired burrowing activity in the potychaete Nephtys incisa and the
mollusc Yoldia limatula; and impaired tube building in Ampelisca abdita. Such behavioral
modifications may in the long term impact the density and abundance of a species because it may
lose its ability to escape predation or to feed and breed naturally.
8
-------
C DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL
1. Amounts
The ocean disposal of paniculate wastes, including dredged material, has a relatively long
history in the United States. In or near New York Harbor, marine dumpsites were used before
1880 for the disposal of wastes. In the New York Bight area, which has the longest and most
complex history in ocean disposal of wastes in the United States, dredged material was disposed
as early as 1900. Before the report on waste disposal in the ocean by the Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ) published in 1970, little information was available on the quantities
of wastes disposed in the ocean. According to that report, approximately 48 million tons of total
wastes were dumped into the ocean in 1968 at 264 dumpsites located in Atlantic, Gulf, and Pacific
coastal regions. Dredged material accounted for 80 to 90 percent of these wastes (National
Academy of Sciences, 1989; U.S. Congress, 1987).
At present, dredged material continues to account for the largest amount of wastes disposed
of in U.S. coastal waters, i.e., in waters inside the 3-mile baseline. Calculations on the average
annual amount of dredged material dumped into the ocean range from 75 million wet metric tons
(National Academy of Sciences, 1989) to 180 million wet metric tons (U.S. Congress, 1987). The
annual volume of dredged material is estimated at 250 to 450 million cubic yards (Engler, 1989;
Department of the Army, 1988).
Although the quantity of dredged material for ocean disposal generally declined during
recent years (U.S. Congress, 1987) (Fig. 1-2), it is likely to increase greatly in the future as existing
ports are being deepened and new ports are being developed, for example, through the U.S. Navy
homeport initiative to accommodate military vessels (National Research Council, 1985). These
harbor modiGcations will generate a large initial volume of dredged material that will at least in
part be subject to open-water disposal. Subsequently, the maintenance of these additional ports
combined with existing operations and maintenance work may result in a substantially greater
annual volume of dredged material for open-water disposal than is currently present
-------
W
O
.0
o
c
o
130
120-
110-
100-
90-
80-
70-
!§ 60-
50-
4.0-
30-
20-
10-
0
1974. 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984.
Total H Amount excluding
New Orleans
Year
Figure 1-2. Amounts of Dredged Material from U.S. Army Corpc of Engineer*' Projects
Disposed in Coastal Waters and the Open Ocean, 1974 to 1984 (modified after U.S.
Congress, 1987).
10
-------
2. Available Disposal Sites
Currently there are over 150 marine disposal sites, mostly for dredged material, in the
United States operating or being designated under consent or non-consent agreements. These sites
are distributed evenly throughout the coastal regions of the continental United States, primarily in
shallow water of less than 20 m depth (Table 1-3, Fig. 1-3). However, approximately 95 percent
of all disposal operations are concentrated at only about two dozen of these sites (U.S. Congress.
1987), and only 50 percent of the sites are used more or less continuously. In the Gulf of Mexico
and off California, these frequently used sites are mostly estuarine, whereas in the southern
Atlantic region these sites are predominantly more than 3 miles away from shore (U.S. Congress.
1987).
Table 1-3. Geographical Distribution of Dredged Material Disposal Sites (from U.S. EPA,
198S). Status of Designation as of 31 December 1986.
Coastal Region
Status of Designation Atlantic Gulf Pacific
Action Pending 39 39 29
(De-)Designation
Rule Proposed 460
(De-)Designation
Rule Final 2 2 14
TOTAL 45 47 43
11
-------
ALASKA DISTRICT - OPEN WATER •
O.Z HILLIW CU YO
PACIFIC OCEAN DWSIW - OPEN WATER •
0.3 HILLICN CU YO
•VALUES INDICATE ACTUAL
QUANTITIES IN MILLIONS
OF CU TO
TOTAL QUANTITIES
(ALL DISTRICTS)
UNOIFFiSENTIATED CONFINED
OPEN WATER
TOTAL IHUDCINC
BY C E DISiTULT(CJ YO)
Ml LUON 7s>v\
0 to 2S4/ A
MILLION U jl
83
CONFINED
UNCCNFINED
OPEN WATER
UNOIFFEREN
TIATED
TOTAL 220.4
MILLION CU YO
•41
•Of
Figure 1-3. Relative Amounts of Material Dredged from Shipping Channels in the United
States and the Principal Method of Disposal (1 yd5 = 0.765 m5) (from Pequegnat,
1983).
3. Methods
a. dean Dredged Material
Clean dredged material can be disposed of on dry land in fill projects such as beach
renourishment, and at aquatic disposal sites. In the past, several of the landfill projects were so
substantial that they changed local shore lines. For example, a large part of Boston is built on
12
-------
marshes and mud flats filled with dredged material (Fig. 1-4); an area of 61 km2 of New York
City consists of dredged material landfills. The aquatic sites are typically located in erosional areas
with high kinetic energy to ensure fast dispersal of the material and thus avoid the formation of
navigational hazards. Dispersal sites do not require special monitoring except for bathymetric
surveys (see Case Study 1).
BOSTON LAND FILLS
(SINCE 1773)1—1
Figure 1-4. Shoreline Modification of Boston During the Past 210 Years. The Landfill
Substances Were Obtained in Part from the Boston Harbor Dredging Operations
(from Kester et aL, 1983).
13
-------
CASE STUDY 1: GULF PORT - MONITORING OF DISPERSAL SITE (SAIO, 1988a)
In December 1986, The Mobile District of the U.S. COE disposed approximately 33,000 m5
of dredged material at an open-water disposal site in the Mississippi Sound The sediment had
been dredged to enlarge the Gulfport harbor anchorage basin and was disposed in a 2-cm layer.
The sfte was monitored before disposal and two. so, 20, and 52 weeks after disposal. A station
grid was placed over the disposal site, and REMOTS* images were taken at each station. Among
the parameters measured with the camera system were:
(1) Color and texture (grain size) of the sediment, often good indicators to
distinguish dredged material from ambient natural sediments.
(2) Prism penetration depth to characterize the sediment compaction, which is
usually different for dredged and natural sediments.
(3) Surface relief to identify characteristic features often associated with dredged
material, such as structures created by cohesive clumps.
(4) Depth of the apparent RPD (Redox Potential Discontinuity) layer, i.e., the
boundary between oxidized sediments on the surface and reduced sediments
at greater depth. The depth of this boundary depends largely on bioturbation
and therefore indicates the degree of infaunal colonization
(5) Biogenic surface and subsurface structures such as tubes, burrows, and
feeding voids. These features are created by benthic macroinfauna and
change in appearance during successkxial recolonization of a dredged
material deposit.
The image analysis indicated that most of the dredged material dispersed between six and
20 weeks after disposal. For example, at one of the stations a dredged material layer of more
than 15 cm thickness was found two weeks after disposal; after six weeks, the layer was 4 cm
thick, and after 20 weeks it was no longer detectable. Repoputation of the site by benthic
invertebrates was initiated in the spring by a pioneering community of Stage I colonizers. After
one year, the successkmal stage of infaunal colonization at the disposal site was similar to that of
the ambient seafloor (late Stage ll/ early Stage III).
14
-------
b. Contaminated Dredged Material
Disposal of sediments that are considered to be contaminated (see Section B J) must occur
in a way that allows for continuous management and monitoring to prevent leakage of contaminants
into the environment. Three options are currently in use: (1) open water aquatic capping, (2)
containment islands, and (3) upland disposal.
Capping is a process used at marine disposal sites in depositional, low-energy areas having
low current flows. The contaminated material is covered with a layer of clean sediment, usually
sand, to isolate the contaminants from the surrounding water. The capping material is either
obtained from a specific area known to be clean, or it is simply formed by design of a dredging
project; the dredging, for example, of a harbor progresses such that fine-grained, contaminant-
laden sediments from the inner harbor are deposited first, followed by increasingly coarse and clean
sediments from the outer parts of the harbor. Capping is a relatively inexpensive containment
f
method and has the advantage of keeping the contaminants in a largely anoxic, reduced form
preventing the release of metals into the water. Control of cap placement and cap stability has
proven to be rather successful at disposal sites in shallow water up to 20 m depth (see Case Study
2). However, caps may be affected by storms, or the cap may sink into the contaminated sediment
and allow contaminants to escape into the surrounding environment At water depths exceeding
30 m, disposal mounds may spread over an area too large to control cap efficiency. A higher
degree of containment can be maintained if dredged material is deposited into natural depressions
or sand mining pits.
Containment islands are artificial structures in close proximity to a port or channel,
consisting of a ring to be gradually filled with contaminated sediment that will eventually be capped.
The advantages of this technique are essentially the same as for the capping method; the release
of pollutants into the water column is very unlikely because the contaminated sediments remain
wet and anoxic. In addition, the artificial ring structure prevents the disposal mound from
spreading. A disadvantage of the disposal of dredged material by capping or in containment islands
is the potential for creating navigational hazards and the possibility of shoreline erosion by
hurricanes.
Upland disposal of contaminated sediments occurs in containment areas on dry land rather
than under water. This method is the most controversial because both the advantages and
15
-------
CASE STUDY 2: LONG ISLAND SOUND - EVALUATION OF THE CAPPING METHOD (Morton.
1983)
As part of the DAMOS program, the disposal and subsequent capping of contaminated
sediments in Long Island Sound was monitored by means of precision bathymetry, visual
observations of the disposal mound surface and margins, chemicai comparisons of dredged and
ambient natural sediment, and sampling of bentfuc populations for recolonization and
bioaccumulation. The location was chosen to test the capping method for viability because open-
water disposal was the only economically feasible option for disposal of the large amounts of
dredged material in the Sound, while at the same time the high amounts of pollutants recently
discovered in the continuously dredged harbors caused considerable public concerns. The study
was conducted at the Central Long Island Sound Disposal Site (CUS); the contaminated sediments
were dredged at Stamford, Connecticut; and the capping material was from the inner and outer New
Haven Harbor.
The main question to be answered by the monitoring study was whether or not a layer of
clean sediments on top of contaminated material was stable enough to guarantee isolation of the
contaminants from the water column and the benthic infauna Furthermore, differences in the
behavior of a cap were studied in relation to the grain size of the capping sediment (silt vs. sand).
After six months, it was apparent that:
(1) deposition of both silt and sand on a disposal mound resulted in a thick
layer of material (2 to 4 m on the top; thinner on the flanks) completely
covering the contaminated sediments and confined to the disposal site;
(2) both silt and sand caps were stable enough to withstand erosion even under
extreme conditions, such as tne passage of Hurricane David;
(3) the silt cap, however, lost 12 percent of the total vokjme, mostly due to the
hurricane, and was thus less efficient than the sand cap;
(4) smooth sand cap surfaces are more resistent to erosion than the rough
surfaces associated with deposits of cohesive material commonly present in
the New England area
Precision bathymetry and REMOTS • imaging proved to be an adequate method for
monitoring cap stability. Several measures were proposed to increase the smoothness of the
disposal mound surface because this property seemed to be the predominant factor influencing
resuspension and transport of capping material, overriding the influence of water depth, current
velocity, and cohesiveness of the material.
16
-------
disadvantages arc greater than for the aquatic disposal methods. Disposal on diy land allows for
easier management of the site and fast responses to problems that may occur. However, the
chemical stability of the contaminated sediments is much lower on dry land than under water
because the unoxidized conditions change to oxidizing conditions while the sediments dry out.
Sulfjdes oxidize while the drying sofl is aerated, and the resulting sulfuric acid lowers the pH: the
subsequent solution of bound metals may then contaminate the groundwater. Moreover, the costs
of disposal at an upland site may be very high due to the increasing price of coastal land and
potentially required extensive management efforts, such as monitoring of test wells.
D. FATE <">F DPFDftFn MATERIAL AFTER DISPOSAL
1. Disposal in Marine Environments
The fate of dredged material immediately after disposal depends on the composition of-the
material and on the water depth at the disposal site. If, for example, material is deposited in water
depths of less than 60 m, 95 to 99 percent of the material descends quickly through the water
column at a rate of several meters per second. Once the material reaches the bottom, the largest
particles (e.g., gravel, sand or large cohesive mud clasts) settle in a narrowly defined central mound,
while finer components, such as silt, spread a few hundred meters around the impact area, forming
a layer of fluid mud of a few millimeters to about a meter thickness. These thin flank deposits can
account for half of the disposed volume and about 90 percent of the "footprint" or area covered
by dredged material (Germane and Rhoads, 1984). Approximately 1 to 5 percent of the dumped
material form a slowly descending plume in the water.
Continuous disposal at a site can lead to the formation of a discrete mound on the bottom
because most of the material remains at the site; for example, several 10 to 15 meters-high mounds
have formed close to the Mud Dump Site in New York Bight during about 100 years of continuous
disposal (U.S. Congress, 1987); at the dredged material disposal site in Central Long Island Sound,
several mounds 1 to 3 m in height and with a radius of up to 400 m are present The formation
of such mounds depends on close navigational control of the barge or scow during disposal at a
taut-wire buoy. Disposal in estuarine areas will usually result in low-gradient mounds of fluid mud.
17
-------
If material is dumped at great depths, the quickly descending mass will stay in the "water
column long enough to entrain water and disintegrate. It will subsequently form a large, slowly
descending plume; on the bottom the material will settle in a thin, widespread layer without
forming any defined structures such as mounds.
The long-term fate of disposed dredged material depends on a wide variety of factors,
including water currents and bottom topography. Disposal mounds will decrease in height within
the first weeks following disposal because of compaction of the deposit The topographic relief
of the mound is typically modified by currents diverging and accelerating over its apex and, upon
beginning of recolonization, by bioturbation and bioerosion (SAIC, in prep.). The mound top may
experience some initial erosion related to scouring by the slightly faster currents; fine-grained
particles will be washed away, leaving a coarse sand and shell residuum. The accumulation of this
residuum will ultimately armor the apex of the mound and prevent further erosion once the grain
size reaches an equilibrium with the current velocity. In some cases the physical properties of fine-
grained deposits and the current regime are such that erosion does not take place (Kester et-al.,
1983).
If the disposal site is located in a depositional area, fine sediments will settle over time on
the cap and mix with the capping material due to bioturbation and resuspension, except for the
apex which is subject to scouring as mentioned above.
2. Disposal in Intertidal Environments
Intertidally disposed material is usually pumped into an enclosed area behind a berm or
dike, and the water is drained off while the material settles. A dry crust will form on the surface,
while the underlying material will stabilize at a water content of 60 to 70 percent (U.S. Congress,
1987). Consolidation and desalinization to produce a productive soil usually takes several years.
18
-------
1. Effects on Water Quality and Pelagic Organisms
Water quality is potentially affected by dredged material disposal in its physical properties.
such as turbidity, and chemical characteristics, such as concentrations of pollutants. Impacts may
occur (1) initially during the actual dumping process and (2) over time through resuspension of the
settled material. The depletion of certain water quality parameters can have adverse effects on
pelagic organisms.
The turbidity of the water column may increase during the disposal of sediments, but levels
of suspended solids are usually low enough to cause few, if any, detectable physical impacts on
pelagic organisms. The plume of fine particles forming during disposal is very transient For
example, in a plume tracked at the Rockland Disposal Area a 99-percent decrease of the initial
turbidity was observed within two hours (SAIC, 1988b). Shallow-water areas with aquatic
vegetation depending on sunlight may be affected more strongly than deeper offshore areas, but
the plume is usually dispersed quickly by wave action. Effects may also vary temporally in a given
area; during spawning seasons, the number of organisms potentially impacted by disposal operations
increases due to the abundance of pelagic larvae. It is possiole that increased tumidity impairs
feeding behavior of visually oriented larvae, but test results are few and inconclusive (Lunz, 1987).
The impact of turbidity changes induced by disposal operations will largely depend on the tolerance
of pelagic organisms to naturally occurring fluctuations and may therefore be highly site specific.
. As dredged material descends through the water column, some pollutants (e.g., hydrogen
sulfide, manganese, iron, ammonia, and phosphorus) may be released and their concentration in
the water column may temporarily increase. At dispersive sites these chemicals are usually diluted
rapidly. In small estuaries and sheltered coastal waters, however, pelagic organisms are potentially
exposed to metals and organic chemicals released from contaminated dredged material. It is
furthermore possible that these pollutants are ingested by pelagic organisms and subsequently
bioaccumulated and biomagnified in the marine food web. Such incidents are rarely reported, but
this may be partly due to the difficulties associated with detecting the impacts and attributing them
to a particular waste type.
19
-------
In general, the release of contaminants from descending dredged material is not considered
threatening to the environment Both metals and organic compounds are usually particle-bound
and thus not available to pelagic organisms unless the concentrations of suspended solids are very
high. In particular, the presence of iron prevents pollutants from going into solution by forming
complexes that causes them to remain bound with the sediments (Lunz, 1987). The same is true
for the potential release of pollutants through resuspension. For example, deployments of caged
mussels during the DAMOS program showed detectable uptake of contaminants from dredged
material only during the first month after cessation of the disposal (Feng, 1984,1985). The release
of metals from resuspended sediments depends mostly on the pH and Eh (redox potential)
conditions of the water and sediment suspension (Kester et al., 1983).
Decreases of dissolved oxygen (DC) content of the water during dredged material disposal
are minimal and short-lived, on the order of hours (Lunz, 1987); any impacts on pelagic organisms
related to this effect can therefore be considered reversible. Depression of the DO depends on
suspended sediment concentration and benthic oxygen demand, which in turn is related to
temperature, sediment oxygen demand, and degree of resuspension.
2. Effects on Benthic Organisms
In the nearfield, dredged material disposal affects mostly the benthos. Nektonic organisms,
such as finCsh, are usually motile enough to avoid areas of continuous disposal. Plankton may be
affected during the relatively short time of the actual dumping, but the impacts are generally
negligible (see above).
The original benthic infauna of a shallow-water disposal site will be buried if disposal occurs
repeatedly, and the animals will die of suffocation unless they are able to migrate vertically to the
new surface. However, faunal recolonization will usually start very shortly after the disposal of
sediments terminates. Recolonization includes larval recruitment, reemergence of buried sessile
organisms at the flank edges of a mound, and immigration of motile demersal and pelagic species
from ambient areas. Although initial recolonization will mainly occur by larval recruitment, the
ability of some larger buried organisms to burrow through the deposited flank material is
considerable, and recolonization through this mechanism seems to be an important factor (Maurer
et aL, 1981a, b; 1982). The bivalve Nuada proximo is known to survive anastrophic burial under
20
-------
40-50 cm of sediments; most macroinfaunal organisms are able to resurface through 10 to 20 cm
of sediment
According to numerous observations by Rhoads and Gennano (1982, 1986), the
recolonization of a disposal mound follows a pattern of three successional stages (Fig. 1-5). The
first organisms to colonize a disposal site in considerable numbers (Phase I) are usually small
opportunistic polychaetes of the families Spionidae and Capitellidae. Densities of these species are
significantly higher than densities in surrounding communities; disposal sites can reach at least six
times the secondary productivity measured on the ambient sea floor (Rhoads et al., 1978).
Foraging Gnfish and crustaceans are attracted to newly colonized disposal mounds because the
pioneering species represent a rich source of food. The irregular topography of the mounds
provides refugia for large organisms such as lobsters.
As colonization progresses, tubiculous amphipods and surface deposit feeding or filter
feeding mollusks (Phase II) and subsequently deep infaunal head-down deposit feeders of larger
body size occur (Phase HI). Under normal circumstances, taxonomic and biomass convergence with
the ambient benthic fauna may require several years; the fauna colonizing the mound apex will
often remain different from the fauna at the flanks and the ambient sea floor because the sediment
grain size differs due to current scour on the apex. In addition, currents may be such that fine-
grained material deposited in a sandy area does not erode for a long time, and the fauna of the
disposal mound will consequently differ from that of the ambient seafloor (Kester et al., 1983).
Contaminants may influence the benthic community, even if the deposit is capped, through
pore water being expelled during the compaction of the sediments, or through exposure of
contaminated sediments underneath the cap by burrowing shrimp, lobsters and other large decapods
or by burrows of large infaunal organisms reaching through the cap. Contaminants may be ingested
directly by these large animals, or they may reach the mound's surface by bioturbation and be
subject to uptake by smaller animals. However, no data are available documenting the efficacy of
capping relative to the isolation of colonizing organisms from buried participate waste or upward
percolation of soluble contaminants. Studies assessing cap stability typically address parameters such
as loss of capping material especially during storms (see Case Study 2), but do not investigate
subsequent changes in chemical stability, based on the assumption that the loss of material is too
small to affect more than the surface layer of the cap.
21
-------
Stag* 2
Sfogt 3
Rgure 1-5. (A) Development of Organism-Sediment Relationships over Time Following Physical
Disturbance in Long Island Sound. (B) Organism-Sediment Relationships Associated
With a Pollution Gradient of a Pulp-mill Effluent (from Rhoads and Gennano,
1986).
22
-------
Far-field effects of dredged material disposal are related to transport of contaminants from
disposal sites into biological communities not directly associated with the site. These effects are
difficult to detect and unlikely to occur, and very few data are available. Long-term surveys of
disposal sites in Long Island Sound performed for the DAMOS program showed that even under
the influence of Hurricane "Gloria" in 1985 only a small amount of sediment was removed from
the disposal mounds. Furthermore, the removal of sediments affected only the near-surface layer
(upper 2 cm) consisting of intensively bioturbated sediments mixed with ambient resuspended
material (SAIC, in prep.). The transfer of contaminants beyond the disposal area by sediment
dispersal and consequently the introduction of pollutants into biological communities away from the
disposal area may therefore be negligible, although the development of more adequate methods
to assess such far-field effects may modify our current views (see Section LF.2).
Generally, :he contribution of dredged material disposal to the pollution of benthic
environments is considered to be minimal because the bulk of anthropogenic pollutants in the
ocean originates from municipal and industrial discharges (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1988).
However, with increasing restrictions on point source discharges under NDPES, the scenario may
change in the near future, and dredged material may become a more important and visible source
of ocean pollution.
F. PREDICTING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL
1. Physical Impact
Short-term physical impacts occur during and immediately after a disposal event They are
generally well understood and predictable. Important parameters for predicting these impacts
include (1) grain size and cohesiveness of the sediments, (2) the initial speed at which the material
descends through the water, (3) the depth at which descending sediments have entrained enough
water to reach neutral buoyancy, (4) water depth at the disposal site, and (5) presence and depth
of a thermocline. Based on these parameters, calculations can be made to describe the expected
behavior of the deposit
Sediment grain size and cohesiveness are specifk to the dredging site and also dependent
on the dredging method (see above). The rate at which a deposit initially descends is
23
-------
approximately 1 m/sec (Bokuniewicz et aL, 1978) except for the 3 to 5 percent of a deposit that
form a plume of fine silt; this plume descends at about 0.7 cm/sec (Stoddard et aL, 1985).
The depth of neutral buoyancy marks the point where the speed of the sediment particles
is so diminished that the vertical motion ceases, and passive dispersion of the material occurs. This
parameter depends largely on the volume of the deposit; according to Stoddard et al. (1985), the
neutral buoyancy depth for a 4,000-mJ deposit is more than 300 m. Comparison of the buoyancy
depth and the water depth at the disposal site allows one to describe the way the deposit impacts
the seaQoor, i.e., if it will form a distinct mound or a thin, widespread layer. The thermocline may
influence this impact if it is close enough to the buoyancy depth. If the sediment is descending
at high speed, however, the influence of the density gradient in the thermocline will be negligible.
Long-term predictions of physical impacts are generally concerned with transport of disposed
material away from the site. These predictions are more difficult because the influencing factors
are complex and long-term data on currents and other hydrographic data are often incomplete or
unavailable. Important parameters include (1) sediment grain size and cohesiveness, (2) velocity
of tidal and nontidal currents at the disposal site, (3) average wave heights and wave periods, and
(4) frequency and strength of winds and storms.
Physical sediment properties affect the resuspension of deposited material in that the
current velocity necessary to suspend the sediment generally increases with grain size and with
cohesiveness. Hjulstrom (1935) described this relationship (Fig. 1-6) and provided the following
figures:
• fine sand erodes most easily, the required current speed being 15 cm/sec;
• coarse sand is resuspended if current speed exceeds 30 cm/sec;
• cohesive Gne clay requires current speeds greater than 50 cm/sec;
• currents of 15 cm/sec are sufficient to keep all sediments from clay to sand
in suspension once erosion is initiated.
Generally a rough surface topography enhances erosion by causing turbulence, whereas smooth
surfaces are more resistant to erosion. Sediments deposited in the form of large cohesive clumps
may therefore erode more easily than the above figures suggest In addition, the critical velocity
for Gne sediments is lowered significantly by bioturbation (Rhoads and Boyer, 1982).
24
-------
Transportation
Size of particles in mm
Figure 1-6. Potential for Sediment Erosion, Transport and Deposition as a Function of Grain
Size and Bottom Current Velocity (from Hjubtrom, 1935).
Table 1-4. Minimum Wave Parameters Required to Cause Reyuspension of Typical Dredged
1987)
Wave Period
(sec)
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
. U^ Bottom Velocity; d:
U^-d)3"
H
0.15
035
0.45
0.75
0.90
1.10
1.60
Water Depth; T: Wave Period; H: Wave Height
H
(m)
23.0
11.0
9.0
6.0
5.4
4.7
3.5
25
-------
The influence of waves on sediments is defined by the water depth, the wave height, and
the wave period; if these parameters are known, it can be predicted whether or not wave action
at a disposal site will be sufficient to cause resuspension of the deposited material (Table 1-4). For
example, if the necessary speed is estimated at 35 cm/sec, a deposit in 85 m depth would require
waves between 3.S m height and a 16-sec. period and 23 m height and a 10-sec. period for
resuspension (SAIC, 1987). If long-term data on the frequency of storms are available, the
likelihood of such waves can be estimated Wave height and period depend not only on wind
velocity and direction (e.g., offshore or onshore), but also on the duration of a storm. For
•
example, although Hurricane "Gloria" passed directly over a disposal site in Central Long Island
Sound, it caused relatively little transport of disposed material because it lasted only a few hours
(National Climatic Data Center, 1986).
2. Chemical Impact
In general, the prediction of adverse effects of a certain contaminant, or a combination of
several contaminants, on organisms is very difficult. Cause and effect relationships are difficult to
establish because impacts of pollutants on living organisms depend on complex interactions of
chemical and biological factors, such as concentration, bioavailability, length of exposure, and stage
of the organism's life cycle. Moreover, changes in a community may be the result of not only
disposal of contaminated sediments, but other human activities, and natural fluctuations. One way
to assess chemical impacts of dredged material disposal is the development of laboratory tests
consisting of the exposure of certain sensitive organisms to contaminated sediment under well-
defined conditions.
It has to be noted here that to date all test organisms used in toxicity and other chemical
impact tests are Stage n or HI species, i.e., species that are not participating in the initial
recolonization of a disposal mound until late in the process. The pioneering Stage I species have
never been employed as test organisms, mostly because of problems in obtaining enough biomass
from these small animals. It is therefore not known to what extent chemical impacts observed in
late colonizers resemble those actually occurring in the pioneering community immediately after the
termination of disposal activities.
26
-------
To predict impacts of dredged material on the biota of a disposal site, tests have to be
applied that are (1) reproducible in the laboratory and (2) verifiable in the field. A number of
available test methods were evaluated during the Field Verification Program (Peddicord, 1988).
Tenacity tests proved to be a reliable tool for initial screening of dredged material.
Laboratory test results and field data showed good correspondence. The amphipod Ampelisca
abdtia showed mortality rates directly related to the exposure to contaminated sediments. Growth,
reproduction, and intrinsic population growth were measured in the mysid Mysidopsis bahia
(Gentile et al., 1987) and Ampelisca abdita (Scott and Redmond, 1989); the responses were very
sensitive and highly predictable for both species.
Measurements of available energy for growth and reproduction (Scope For Growth index)
and bioenergetics (e.g., respiration and excretion) also showed good correspondence of laboratory
and field results. Scope For Growth (SFG) was measured in the mussel Mytilus edulis and proved
to relate directly to the exposure to contaminated sediments. Respiration and excretion were
measured with the porychaete Nephtys incisa in the laboratory and in the field; both values were
correlated with exposure to contaminants. SFG and bioenergetics are considered to be useful
techniques for both pre- and postdisposal evaluations of dredged material. The SFG index is
preferable because only two of numerous bioenergetics parameters have yet been verified in the
Held.
Bioaccumulation of PCBs and PAHs was measured in Mytilus edulis and Nephtys incisa.
Laboratory and field results showed good correspondence if exposure conditions in the laboratory
were controlled carefully to simulate field conditions. A steady state of tissue concentrations was
reached after a certain time that depended on the compound and on the species.
Other methods, such as ademlate energy charge (AEC), histopathological tests, and sister
chromatid exchange (SCE), proved to be inappropriate because responses were low and
inconsistent both in the laboratory and the field.
An evaluation of biological test methods for NOAA's National Status and Trends Program
(Long and Buchman, 1989) shows that no single method is sufficient to properly assess effects of
pollutants on organisms because the chemistry of contaminated sediments is very complex, causing
equally complex responses by the affected biota. A combination of tests is therefore
recommended, with the methods adjusted to the suite of contaminants found in the sediments.
27
-------
3. Impacts on the Benthic Community
Biological impacts of dredged material disposal are quite predictable on the'benthic
community level due to a good understanding of interactions between organisms and sediment.
Generally, biological impacts comprise an initial defaunization of the disposal site during the
dumping and subsequent infaunal recolonization. Secondary production is characteristically
enhanced, but species diversity is at the same time depressed (Fig. 1-7).
Although species composition may vary with geographical position of the site and grain size
of the disposed material, a common successional pattern following major perturbation has been
observed during numerous studies (Pearson and Rosenberg, 1978; Germane, 1983; Rhoads and
Germano, 1982). Rhoads and Germane developed a pattern of three successional stages in
deposition mounds from observations with a sediment imaging camera system (REMOTS*). A
description of these stages is presented above in section I.E.2. General grain-size related
differences in the species composition are apparent in the dominance of communities in fine-
grained substrates by deposit feeders, whereas communities in coarser sediments (sands) are
dominated by surface deposit feeders and suspension feeders.
4. Impacts on Fisheries
Fisheries may be impacted by dredged material disposal if commercially important species
feed on benthic infauna. The disturbance of the benthic infaunal communities as described above
will change the available food and impact the size and abundance of fish either in a beneficial way
or adversely. To assess the food value of benthic communities, a technique called the Benthic
Resources Assessment Technique (BRAT) has been developed. This technique compares the
available potential prey at disposal and reference sites with gut contents of Gsh feeding at these
sites by measuring parameters such as distribution of biomass and size classes. BRAT also takes
into consideration the feeding habits of different fish species, e.g., preference of a certain size
class or burrowing depth, and feeding efficiency, Le., the degree to which the stomachs of different
fish species are filled. In 1987, SAIC published the results of investigations at the Foul Area
28
-------
G
R
A
M
100.00
60.00
60.00
40.00
20.00
0.00
BR-1 BR-2
E^ : Mtrtnct E3 : Nt»r DN
BR-3
22: Mi thin OH
0 - 2
§58
1
•
^_
sS>^T?
I
^v
St'J-SSS
m
-------
• regardless of prey size, feeding efficiency was higher at the disposal site than
at the control sites;
• demersal fish species are distributed according to the availability of their prey
items.
Samples for this test were taken only once shortly after a disposal activity when Stage I organisms
were recolonizing the disposal mound. The results confirm that Stage I assemblages are more
productive and important in demersal food chains than high-order successional stages (Rhoads et
al., 1978). The FADS report also indicates that the overall effect of dredged material disposal on
fisheries is beneficial, at least in the short term.
G. RESEARCH PROGRAMS RELATED TO DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL
1. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE)
a. Dredged Material Research Program (DMRP)
The Dredged Material Research Program was a broad, multifaceted investigation of the
environmental impacts of dredged material disposal, including the development of new or improved
alternatives. In the early stages of the DMRP, it became apparent that an understanding of the
actual pollution potential of dredging and discharging sediments required substantial state-of-the-
art improvement in a number of fundamental biochemical areas. Particularly critical were
assessments of the long-term leaching of chemical contaminants from the deposited dredged
material to the overlying water column. While a standard test method was available to predict
these impacts (standard elutriate test), it appeared necessary to evaluate whether this test
addressed in a meaningful way the mobility and bioavailability of sediment contaminants.
Results from research conducted for this multi-year program indicated that existing and
proposed regulatory guidelines and criteria for dredged material discharges did not include
techniques that adequately reflected an effective and implementable procedure for assessing
potential environmental impacts. DMRP therefore initiated research to develop biological as well
as chemical procedures to assess the bioavailability and mobility of constituents from contaminated
30
-------
dredged material The effects of pollutants on the ecosystem were projected, with emphasis on
long-term effects.
b. Disposal Area Monitoring System (DAMQS^
The DAMOS (Disposal Area Monitoring System) has evolved since 1977 within the
Dredged Material Management Section of the New England Division (NED) Corps of Engineers
in an effort to provide a reasonably comprehensive and standard monitoring protocol throughout
the New England region. The program focuses on monitoring of the benthos; methods typically
used include caged mussel deployments, photographic imaging of the sediment-water interface by
means of a sediment-profile camera system (REMOTS*), and ground-truth benthic sampling.
Recently, the possibility of utilizing BRAT has been tested at disposal sites in New England (Lunz
et aL, 1987). This approach addiesses questions about the effects of disposal operations on the
ultimate food value of the impacted seafloor and potential contaminant vectors in the food web.
The DAMOS program is based on a tiered approach (Fredette et al., 1986). Each level
is designated such that, if a specified null hypothesis is satisfied, no further monitoring may be
required at the next level The protocol allows for immediate feedback from technical data
provided by the monitoring efforts to the manager. As a result of funding priorities and federal
agency responsibility, the monitoring is focused on the near-field in and directly adjacent to the
disposal mounds. The sites were originally surveyed twice each year, but are currently monitored
only during the summer unless an unusual storm or hurricane occurs. Post-storm surveys are
particularly important in the case of capped sites to detect any cap displacement that could result
in the exposure of contaminated sediments.
c. Dredging Research Program fDRP)
The Dredging Research Program is a 6-year, multi-mflliou dollar program initiated in
December 1987, directed at providing improved technologies to reduce costs of dredging operation.
The program focuses on problem areas related to the physical aspects of dredging or dredging
projects and is complementary to the broad scale Environmental Effects of Dredging Program
31
-------
(EEDP) of the COE which addresses potential adverse environmental effects of dredging. The
activities of the DRP are assigned to Gve pioblem areas described in detail in the following.
1. Analysis of dredged material disposed in open waters
• better calculation of boundary layer properties for the analysis of the behavior
of open-water disposal areas;
• acquisition of field data sets for input improving the calculation of boundary
layer properties;
• improvement of computational techniques to predict the sbort-and long-term
fate of dredged material;
• collection of data for input to improved simulation methods and development
of improved site-monitoring techniques.
2. Material properties related to navigation and dredging
• development of instrumentation and operating pro;.ci.-res for rap:'j surveys of
fluid mud properties;
• definition of navigable depth in One-grain sedimci-i:
• development of instrumentation to analyze properties of consolidated
sediments;
• establishment of dredging-related soil ancJ :ock dr. -;ip:ors.
3. Dredge plant equipment and system processes
• improved draghead design for various conditions;
• improved educators for sand bypassing;
• increased dredge payload for fine-grain sediments;
• preparation of dredging manuals incorporating state-of-the-art technology,
• design for portable single-point mooring buoy for hopper dredge direct pump
out
32
-------
4. Vessel positioning, survey controls, and dredge monitoring systems
• development of a real-time system for measuring project site tide and wave
conditions in offshore open waters;
• development of a three-dimensional positioning system for dredging and
hydrographic surveying operations using the GPS satellite constellation;
• evaluation of production meters used in various dredging situations;
• assembling of new systems for real-time monitoring of draft and sediment
densities in hopper loads and dump scows;
• development of unmanned inspection monitoring system for use on any type
of dredge.
S. Management of dredging projects
• comprehensive model of dredging project activities that can evaluate the
effects of decisions and project changes;
• guidance for optimizing use of open-water disposal sites;
• analysis cf dredging cost-estimating techniques.
d. Field Verification Program fFVPI
The Interagency Field Verification of Testing and Predictive Methodologies for Dredged
Material Disposal Alternatives, referred to as the Field Verification Program (FVP), was initiated
in 1982 as a joint effort by the COE and the EPA. The 6-year program was designed to provide
both agencies with information on (1) the effects of placement of contaminated dredged material
in upland, wetland, and aquatic environments and (2) the accuracy of test methods in the
laboratory and the ability of these methods to predict effects in the field (Scott et al., 1987;
Gentile et aL, 1988; Peddicord, 1988). Details of some results are presented in Section I.F.2.
33
-------
2. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
a. National Status and Trends Program (NSAT)
The National Status and Trends Program is an on-going project started in 1984 as a
follow-up to the Northeast Monitoring Program (NEMP). The objective is the establishment and
maintenance of a reliable database providing information on spatial and temporal variations of
environmental conditions in U.S. coastal waters. Temporal variations are considered especially
important with regard to the improvement or deterioration of environmental quality in a certain
area over time. The program is divided into two major parts, the Benthic Surveillance Project
(BSP), initiated in 1984, and the Mussel Watch Project (MWP), initiated in 1986. The BSP
focuses on monitoring the concentrations of certain contaminants including 14 metals, PAHs, PCBs,
and chlorinated pesticides in sediments and demersal Gsh from the same area Likewise, the MWP
was designed to monitor concentrations of 16 elements, PAHs, PCBs, and chlorinated pesticides
in sediments and mussels and other bivalves.
Stations are located in nearshore waters on the Atlantic, Gulf, and Pacific coasts of the
U.S. and are sampled once a year. Both the resulting database and a voucher collection of
sediments, fish tissues, and bivalves ("Specimen bank') are available to the public upon request
(Waste Management Institute, SUNY, undated).
3. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection (OMEP)
The Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection (OMEP) was established by EPA in 1984
to provide national leadership in the protection of coastal and offshore resources. OMEP's
activities are based on the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA), the Clean
Water Act (CWA), and other legislation. Under the authorities granted through these Acts,
OMEP manages programs to protect human health and the environment, to reduce risk to human
and aquatic life from pollutants, and to restore environmental benefits and uses. The Office
consists of two Divisions, Marine Operations and Technical Support, each with different mandates
and responsibilities.
34
-------
The Marine Operations Division (MOD) focuses on issues related to ocean disposal
under MPRSA including the 106-Mile Site Program, the 301(h) permitting program, oversight of
EPA Regional offices' monitoring and permitting activities for dredged material disposal, and the
rapidly developing issue of plastic pollution. MOD is also responsible for the operation of EPA's
survey vessel, the OSV Peter W. Anderson.
The Technical Support Division (TSD) manages activities directed toward the nearshore
marine and estuarine environment under CWA, including the National Estuary Program (NEP),
the Near Coastal Waters Strategy (NCW) and major parts of the Gulf of Mexico initiative.
The focal points of OMEP's activities are demonstrated in five major programs described
in the following paragraphs.
a. Point Source Discharges to Coastal Waters
Managed by MOD, this major OMEP program concerns controls on point source
discharges to coastal waters under Sections 301 and 403 of the Clean Water ACL Section 301 (h)
provides for an exemption to municipalities from the upgrade to secondary treatment. The
emphasis of this program is shifting from application review and permitting to evaluation of the
results of monitoring and pretreatment programs. Section 403 requires that all NPDES-permitted
discharges to coastal waters be sufficiently protective of the marine environment. Originally
focused on oil and gas facilities, the program is now addressing all types of sources, mainly from
estuarine discharges.
b. Oce*" Dumping Program
Managed by MOD and authorized under MPRSA, the Ocean Dumping Program includes
a variety of activities of both national and international importance. Included in this program are
the revision of the ocean dumping regulations and support to EPA Region n in operation of the
106-Mile Site off New York. In 1987, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was negotiated
with the COE to define responsibilities of the parties in the designation and management of sites
for dredged material disposal Most recently, the implementation of the marine provisions of the
Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act was included into the program.
35
-------
The fifth major OMEP program is managed by TSD and provides oversight and assistance
to EPA Regions V and m in the implementation of the Chesapeake Bay agreement.
1. Extent of Dredged Material Disposal
Data on worldwide dredging activities are available from some of the signatories of the
London Dumping Convention since the LDC (see Section H.2 below) was issued in 1972 (Fig. I-
8). A major limitation of this data set is that it represents amounts that have been authorized by
the reporting nations, but not necessarily the actual amounts dumped into the ocean (Kester et,aL,
1983). Countries that are not members of the LDC provide virtually no data.
In 1980, the International Association of Ports and Harbors conducted a survey of
dredging activities at 108 ports in 37 countries (IAPH, 1981). According to this survey, about 1.3
billion metric tons of sediment are dredged each year worldwide, with 35 percent of this material
being dredged in the United States. Nearly 85 percent of the material dredged worldwide is
disposed in or near the marine environment Roughly one-third of the disposal occurs in
nearshore and intertidal sites, cne-third in wetlands or estuaries, and about one-fourth in open
ocean waters. The remainder of the dredged material is disposed of in upland areas and other
environments. About 25 percent of this material was from maintenance dredging and 75 percent
from new projects (Pequegnat, 1986).
36
-------
IU.JU
1000
sr 900
| 850-
±> 800-
£ 750-
2 700-
« 650-
® 600-
E 550,
o 500-
f 450-
= 400-
•£ 350-
•1" 300-
§ 250^
<3 200-
150,
100 J
50 -I
m i
xa Z& &
1976 1977 1978
I
^fA
1979
Year
1
m
1980
P
19
1
^
81
1
i
p
1
932
'
Sewage Sludge S Industrial Waste g Dredged Material
Figure 1-8. Annual Worldwide Quantities of Waste Disposed in the Ocean, 1976 to 1982 (from
U.S. Congress, 1987).
2. General Regulatory Environment
The most significant international convention on ocean dumping is the Convention on the
Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter, commonly known as the
37
-------
London Dumping Convention (LDC) of 1972. The LDC has been ratified by 63 nations, including
the United States, and is administered by the International Maritime Organization. It deals with
marine waste disposal in all waters seaward of the baseline used to determine the territorial sea.
The Annex I of the LDC contains black-list substances prohibited for ocean dumping. Annex II
contains a grey list of substances that may be disposed of in the ocean only with a special permit.
Ocean disposal of substances that are not in either list requires a general permit from either the
flag state or the loading state. Substances included in the black list are organohalogens, mercury
and cadmium and compounds containing these metals, persistent plastic oils and oily mixtures.
radioactive materials, and agents of chemical and biological warfare.
The first international agreement to regulate ocean dumping for most European nations
was the 1974 Oslo Convention called "Convention for the Prevention of Marine Pollution by
Dumping from Ships and Aircraft". The jurisdiction includes part of the Arctic Ocean, the
northeastern Atlantic Ocean, and the North Sea. Black acd grey lists similar to those of the LDC
were established, with minor differences to the LDC lists. The most significant difference to the
LDC is the establishment of stricter limits for the incineration at sea.
The Helsinki Convention, titled The Convention on the Protection of the Marine
Environment of the Baltic Sea Area" was adopted in 1974 by the seven Baltic Sea states and came
into force in 1980. It is the first international marine protection convention that encompasses all
pollution sources, including nonpoint agricultural runoff, and it has resulted in some reduction of
ocean dumping.
The Barcelona Convention for the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea Against Pollution
was developed in 1978 as part of the Regional Seas Programme of the United Nations
Environment Programme. It addresses dumping from aircraft, ships, platforms, and land-based
sources.
3. Contrast to U.S. Programs
A typical feature of European and Japanese water management programs is a system of
user fees to be paid for both water extraction and waste discharge. France was the first country
to adopt a fee system on a nationwide basis in 1964. The purpose of the system is to provide an
integrated approach to water management, by complementing the existing system of permits and
38
-------
regulations. The system consists of independent river basin agencies that develop plans under
national supervision.
Different fees are applied to domestic and industrial dischargers; for the latter, fees are
levied on suspended matter, oxidizable matter, dissolved salts, and toxic matter. The fee system
makes the river basin agencies self-financing, and any surplus money generated by the charges is
used for water management projects.
A similar system exists in West Germany, it was established in 1976 after the enactment
of the Federal Water Act and the Effluent Charge Law. The two-part system consists of
limitations for particular discharges and charges on the amount of discharge to be expected during
the permit period Charges are based on characteristics such as settleable solids, chemical oxygen
demand, fish toxicity, and cadmium and mercury concentrations. The system allows flexibility in
achieving compliance with discharge standards and promoting waste reduction efforts.
SECTION H. VS. REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
A. HISTORICAL OVERVIEW AND EARLY REGULATORY ACTS
The earliest legislation that concerned dredging and disposal activities was The General
Survey Act of 1824. This act directed the COE to develop and improve navigation in rivers.
harbors, and coastal waters of the United States and established the authority for the COE in
managing dredging and disposal operations in rivers and harbors. The Rivers and Harbors Act of
1899 provided the COE with authority to regulate any activity in rivers and coastal waters that
could directly interfere with their navigability. The COE still uses this authority, to regulate
dredge and Gil activities beyond the 3-mile limit, although much of the law has been superceded
by the Clean Water Act and other laws.
Following publication of a report on ocean disposal of paniculate wastes by the Council
of Environmental Quality (CEQ) in 1970, the United States developed and enacted legislation that
provided federal policy guidelines on ocean disposal In the sections that follow, the content and
authority of these actions are reviewed along with ancillary legislation that bears specifically on the
disposal of dredged material in the ocean.
39
-------
IARTFS ACT
(MPRSA^ OF 1972
1. Introduction
The principal legislation dealing with ocean disposal is the Marine Protection, Research,
and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA) of 1972. This legislation, also known as the Ocean Dumping Act,
was designed to protect the ocean from unregulated dumping of material that would endanger
human health and welfare, the marine ecosystems, and economic potential The MPRSA regulates
the dumping of materials into the ocean, including dredged material, sewage sludge, and industrial
wastes. Titles I and n of the MPRSA establish clear lines of responsibility for certain federal
agencies involved in ocean disposal of wastes (Table II-1).
Title I prohibits the disposal of certain materials including high-level radioactive wastes
and chemical and biological warfare agents and provides for a permit system that is administered
by EPA for all materials except dredged material. The latter is regulated by the COE to meet the
environmental criteria established by EPA. In case of a disagreement between the COE and EPA
as to compliance with the dredged material criteria, the determination of the EPA Administrator
prevails. A permit may not be issued by the COE for ocean Jumping of noncouforming dredged
material unless a waiver is granted by EPA. In order to receive a waiver, the COE must certify
that (1) no other feasible disposal site or method is available, and (2) certain unacceptable adverse
impacts are absent
Title n of MPRSA regulates ocean disposal and monitoring by the EPA, by the
Department of Commerce, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and
the Department of Transportation, through the Coast Guard (USCG). Tide n requires EPA and
NOAA to conduct research and monitoring on ocean dumping and to study alternative disposal
methods. The Coast Guard is charged with maintaining surveillance of ocean dumping. As a
direct result of MPRSA, NOAA initiated a scientific research program in 197S to investigate ocean
disposal and the COE conducted its Dredged Material Research Program (DMRP) from 1973 to
1978.
40
-------
Table n-1. Federal Agencies Responsible for Management of Particulate Wastes Discharged
and Dumped in the Ocean7
Activity EPA NOAA COE USCG
Development and promulgation (EPA) + +
of regulations and criteria to guide
evaluation of permit application
Implementation of the permit + +
program
Surveillance (USCG) and enforcement + +
(EPA) of permit requirements
Monitoring of the disposal sites + + +
and adjacent areas
Research to support the regulatory + + +
program requirements
Selection and designation of + +
disposal sites
;Dredged material, barged sewage sludge, industrial waste, and future wastes are regulated by the
Ocean Dumping Act Drilling fluids fall under the Clean Water Act (NPDES) and the Outer
Continental Shelf Lands Act Section 103 of the Ocean Dumping Act covers site designation by
the COR
Title m of MPRSA gives the Secretary of Commerce authority to establish marine
sanctuaries. Through the National Marine Sanctuary Program, marine areas as far seaward as the
outer edge of the continental shelf, as well as inland waters, can be designated if this is determined
necessary to preserve or restore an area for conservation, recreational, ecological, or aesthetic
purposes. The designation of certain sanctuary sites has created controversy when it entailed
prohibiting oil and gas development activities or conflicted with other economic interests. Dredged
material disposal is banned from sanctuaries by definition.
41
-------
The Ocean Dumping Act was amended in 1977 to plan for the phasing out of ocean disposal
of sewage sludge after December 31, 1981. Dredged material disposal is not affected by this
amendment
2. Permitting
Section 102 of MPRSA authorizes the EPA Administrator to issue permits, following notice
and opportunity for public hearings, for the transportation and dumping of non-dredged material
in ocean waters provided that it:
will not unreasonably degrade or endanger human health, welfare, or amenities, or the
marine environment, ecological systems, or economic potentialities.
Ocean Dumping Criteria are administered in MPRSA Section 102(a); they apply for both
non-dredged and dredged material and include the following factors to be considered in the
issuance of a permit7:
• Effect of dumping on human health and welfare, including economic, aesthetic,
and recreational values.
• Effect of dumping on fisheries resources, plankton, fish, shellfish, wildlife,
shorelines, and beaches.
• Effect of dumping on marine ecosystems, particularly with respect to the
transfer, concentration, and dispersion of such material and its byproducts
through biological, physical, and chemical processes; potential changes in marine
ecosystem diversity1, productivity, and stability, and species and community
population dynamics.
• Persistence and permanence of the effects of the dumping.
• Effect of dumping particular volumes and concentrations of such materials.
• Appropriate locations and methods of disposal or recycling, including land-
based alternatives and the probable impact of requiring use of such alternate
locations or methods upon considerations affecting the public interest.
• Effect on alternate uses of the oceans, such as scientific study, fishing, and
other living resource exploitation, and non-living resource exploitation.
1Sources: 40 Code of Federal Regulations, Sections 125 and 227.
42
-------
• Need for the proposed dumping.
• In designing recommended sites, the Administrator shall use, wherever feasible,
locations beyond the edge of the continental shelf.
Section 103 authorizes the COE to issue permits for dumping dredged material, applying
EPA's environmental impact criteria (see above, Section 102). EPA has the authority to review
the application before the COE issues a permit and EPA also has the authority to deny or
approve site designation.
Section KM specifies permit conditions issued by EPA or the Coast Guard for waste
transported for dumping or to be dumped.
Section 107 authorizes EPA and COE to use the resources of other agencies, and instructs
the Coast Guard to conduct surveillance and other appropriate enforcement activities as necessary
to prevent unlawful transportation of material for dumping or unlawful dumping.
C. THE CLEAN WATER ACT fFEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT!
The Clean Water Act (CWA) of 1972 was the most comprehensive and expensive
environmental legislation ever enacted (U.S. Congress, 1987). The Act provides the Federal
Government with jurisdiction over all U.S. waters, establishes standards for industries and
municipalities, and contributes billions of dollars to the construction of municipal waste treatment
plants. Over the years, the CWA has been amended, for example, by the Water Quality Act of
1987, but its primary purpose is still to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological
integrity of U.S. water resources.
To accomplish its objectives, Congress established a combined Federal and State system to
implement water programs. The CWA consists of two major parts: the Federal grant program
designed to help municipalities build sewage treatment plants (Title El); and the pollution control
programs, which consist of regulatory requirements that apply to industrial and municipal
dischargers.
43
-------
1. The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program -
Sections 402 and 301, 302, 306, and 307
Under Section 402, all facilities - industrial and municipal - discharging directly into the
navigable waters of the United States are required to obtain an NPDES permit. Dischargers
operating under an NPDES permit must:
• comply with applicable effluent limitations;
• not result in violation of applicable water quality standards; and
• for marine discharges, comply with Ocean Discharge Criteria (Sec. 403).
The NPDES program governs discharge of suspended solids such as are found in sewage
discharges as well as toxic substances discharged from ships or other types of non-conventional
••
sources such as stationary drilling platforms. Under the CWA, EPA and the affected states
establish the standards that are applied to discharges. Sections 301 and 302 address the
establishment and periodic revision of water quality standards for navigable wateis; Section 301
contains technology-based limitation standards, while Section 302 contains water quality-based
standards. Sections 306 and 307 set performance standards for a list of sources and require EPA
to issue categorical pretreatment standards for new and existing indirect sources, i.e. industrial
discharges into municipal sewers. These sections feed into Sections 402 and 403.
2. The Ocean Discharge Criteria - Section 403
Section 403 is applied to all NPDES dischargers outside of the baseline used to delineate the
territorial sea to ensure that they do not "unreasonably degrade the marine environment' This
statute does not apply to estuarine and coastal waters such as the Chesapeake Bay that are
shoreward of the baseline.
44
-------
3. Dredged Material Disposal - Section 404
Section 404 directs the Secretary of the Army to issue permits for dredged or fill material;
EPA must establish criteria comparable to Section 403(c) criteria for dredged and fill material
discharges into navigable waters at specified disposal sites in estuaries and rivers.
There is a clear overlap in the COE's jurisdiction under Section 103 of MPRSA and Section
404 of CWA in U.S. territorial waters, although Section 404 (CWA) regulations defer to Section
103 (MPRSA) regulations for the disposal of dredged material in the territorial sea. At present,
the COE evaluates permit applications using guidelines developed jointly with EPA and receives
review comments by EPA, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the States. EPA has veto power over
any sites proposed for dredge and GIL
4. Comprehensive Waste Management in Estuaries and Coastal Waters
The final aspect of the CWA involves a number of provisions that potentially bear on the
management of estuaries and coastal waters, and consequently on 'he disposal Several provisions
address long-term planning and management efforts:
• Estuarine Programs (Section 104),
• Estuarine Management Conferences, and
• Area-wide planning (Sections 208 and 303).
a. The National Estuary Program (NEP) — Section 104
Section 104 of the CWA directs EPA to conduct comprehensive studies on the effects of
pollution on estuaries and estuarine zones. EPA manages these efforts through their Office of
Marine and Estuarine Protection (OMEP). States with estuaries in the program are funded to
develop a Comprehensive Management Plan that will address the control of point and nonpoint
sources of pollution, implementation of environmentally sound land-use practices, control of
freshwater input and removal, the protection of living resources and pristine areas, implementation
of monitoring programs, and delineate public participation programs.
45
-------
b. Estuarine Management Conferences
The Water Quality Act of 1987 authorized EPA to convene management conferences to
solve pollution problems in estuaries. The conferences would be authorized to:
• collect data on toxics and other pollutants within an estuary,
• develop comprehensive conservation and management plans that recommend
priority corrective actions and compliance schedules to control point and
nonpoint sources of pollution, and
• develop plans for intergovernmental coordination for implementation.
c. Area wide Planning — Sections 208 and 303
r
These sections provide funds for states to establish regional planning groups. While the
emphasis is frequently on nonpoint sources, other water quality problems may be addressed.
D. ADDITIONAL FEDERAL LAWS A>hHLTING MARINE WASTE DISPOSAL
1. The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) of 1972
This act provides Federal grants to States to develop Coastal Zone Management Plans that
balance the pressure for economic development and the need for environmental protection. EPA
cannot issue a permit for an activity affecting land or water use in coastal zone until it has
certified that the activity does not violate a State's Federally-approved management plan.
Amendments to CZMA in 1980 state that management policies should protect coastal natural
resources (including estuaries, beaches, and fish and wildlife and their habitats) and encourage area
management plans for estuaries, bays, and harbors. Frequently, the State's estuary programs are
nominated for the National Estuary Program administered by EPA, thus expanding the scope of
estuarine planning.
46
-------
The CZMA differs from state to state in how its authority is applied. In Massachusetts, for
example, CZM has managed environmental impact reports (EIRs) for the designation of dredged
material disposal sites as part of state requirements above and beyond those of EPA and the COE
The Massachusetts CZM has also funded long-term planning studies aimed at developing
management plans for dredged materials in nearshore waters. In other states, the CZM is more
in the background.
2. The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980
CERCLA is better known as Superfund, and represents an emergency response and cleanup
program for chemical spills and releases resulting from poorly planned hazardous waste disposal.
storage, and treatment The primary impact on marine waste disposal issues involves:
• the identification of large numbers of hazardous waste sites in the coastal zone.
with potential for movement of waste pollutants into marine waters;
• the suggestion that some wastes generated by remedial action at Superfund sites
possibly be disposed in the ocean; and
• provisions regarding the liability of ocean incineration vessels.
CERCLA regulates disposal of dredged material if the sediments are considered to be
hazardous (U:S. Congress, 1987).
3. The Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973
This act requires all Federal agencies and their permittees and licensees to ensure that their
actions are not likely to jeopardize the existence of an endangered or threatened species or result
in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitats of such species. If an activity might
affect an endangered or threatened species, the Federal agency must obtain an opinion from the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service of the National Marine Fisheries Service about the potential
47
-------
biological impacts. These opinions can be an integral part, for example, of the site designation
process for marine dumping activities.
4. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1970
This act requires that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) be prepared for all
proposed legislation and all major Federal actions that could significantly affect the quality of the
human environment. Under NEPA, EPA is exempted from this provision, but it voluntarily
prepares EISs for site designations and major revisions of ocean dumping regulations.
5. The National Ocean Pollution Planning Act (NOPPA) of 1978
This act directs NOAA to coordinate the ocean pollution research and monitoring that is
conducted by various Federal agencies and to establish Federal priorities in marine research.
6. The Wetlands Act of 1986
The Emergency Wetlands Resources Act became law on 10 November 1986. Title I of the
law amends the Wetlands Loan Act to extend availability of funds under it through fiscal year
(FY) 1988 and to delete the repayment provisions. The Wetlands Loan Act allows the federal
government to borrow $200 million against future revenues obtained from the sale of duck stamps
to acquire migratory waterfowl habitat. Several measures designed to increase the flow of money
into the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund (MBCF) are included in Title II. To clarify and
emphasize the importance of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (LWCF Act) in the
protection of wetlands, Title HI amends the Act to specifically authorize (subject to appropriations)
federal acquisition of migratory waterfowl areas by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). The
LCWF Act is also amended to:
• require that, in FY 1988 and thereafter, state comprehensive outdoor recreation
plans include a wetlands acquisition component;
• add the acquisition of wetland areas as a specifically authorized project purpose
under the state grant program;
48
-------
provide the wetland areas proposed to be acquired as replacements for LWCF
lands slated for conversion to other uses be considered to be of reasonably
equivalent usefulness and location with the recreation property proposed for
conversion.
Furthermore, Title in directs the Secretary of the Interior to develop, in consultation with other
federal and state agencies, a national wetlands priority conservation plan identifying the types of
wetlands and wetland interests that should be given priority in federal and state acquisition efforts.
Federal acquisition of wetlands with funds appropriated under the LWCF Act must be consistent
with the wetlands priority plan.
Title IV establishes a schedule for continuation of the National Wetlands Inventory program,
under which FWS is required to assemble maps of the nation's wetland areas. Also, the Secretary
of the Interior is required to prepare a report that analyzes the extent to which federal statutory
and regulatory mechanisms either induce wetlands destruction and degradation or protect'or
enhance wetland resources, and recommends proposed changes to federal wetlands policy.
A related piece of legislation. The Water Resources Development Act of 1986 encourages
the COE to examine their actions more closely and to act on their own to monitor on-going
activities. This recommendation would apply to dredging and disposal activities in wetlands. To
date, however, this item has not been widely addressed
E. EPA's WETLAND POLICY
In recent years the nation's wetlands have been recognized as one of the most valuable
resources, but also one of the most vulnerable and most threatened environments of the U.S. At
present, the Nation's annual loss of wetlands is estimated at 300,000 to 400,000 acres, and
additional wetlands have been degraded by pollution and by hydrological and physical changes
(EPA, 1989). As a consequence, many efforts have been made by Federal agencies to establish
policies for wetland protection. EPA plays an important role in this process and has, over the
years, developed a strong position in the coordination of wetland protection measures. Protection
of wetlands has become a top priority of EPA in recent years.
49
-------
In January 1986, EPA adopted a Wetlands Research Plan which describes the research
necessary to assist the Agency implementing its responsibilities relative to wetlands, including §404
of the Gean Water Act. Three research needs were identified:
• assessment of water quality functions of wetlands
• development of methods to predict the cumulative impact(s) associated with
wetland loss
• improvement of the formulation and evaluation of mitigation projects.
An emphasis on fresh water systems was recommended. In addition, technical information transfer
was encouraged'to provide visible, authoritative, and scientifically credible information on major
wetland issues of concern to EPA.
In October 1986, the formation of a new Office of Wetlands Protection (OWP) within the
Office of Water was announced by EPA in recognition of the importance of protecting the nation's
endangered wetland resources. A National Wetlands Policy Forum, partly funded by EPA, was
established in the spring of 1987. This forum operated independent of existing institutions and
ongoing policy debates. On IS November 1988, the Forum issued a report titled "Protecting
America's Wetlands: An Action Agenda", containing more than 100 speciGc actions for governmental
and industrial institutions. As a result of the Forum's activities, EPA adopted the goal "to achieve
no'overall net loss of the nation's remaining wetland base as defined by acreage and function; and
to restore and create wetlands, where feasible, to increase the quality and quantity of the nation's
wetlands resource base." In cooperation with State and Federal agencies and with Congress, EPA
will examine legislative changes including reauthorization of the Farm BQl and expansion of the
Clean Water Act, Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA), and Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA). Seven objectives have been established to implement the goal to protect
the nation's wetlands:
• Wetlands planning initiative: EPA will provide technical support and participate in the
application of planning approaches to protect wetland resources including the
preparation of State Wetlands Conservation Plans.
• Mechanisms to increase State/local role in wetlands protection: EPA will provide
guidance, technical assistance and support to enhance the role of state and local
governments in both regulatory and nonregulatory wetlands protection efforts. These
50
-------
V
efforts include guidance in the development of water quality criteria appropriate for
wetlands.
Section 404 regulatory "fixes": EPA will increase enforcement through the application
of administrative and judicial penalty authorities. As pan of these activities, the OWP
will complete a Memorandum of Understanding with the COE to clarify enforcement
roles and the implementation of the new administrative penalty authority. In
cooperation with the COE, Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). and Soil Conservation
Service, EPA will establish and implement a single delineation methodology for
jurisdictional wetlands.
Mitigation policy: EPA actions will reflect a policy that unavoidable wetland impacts
should be fully offset by wetlands restoration or creation. An important feature of
this policy will be that there are certain circumstances where the impacts of a project
are so significant that even if alternatives are not available, the discharge may not be
permitted.
Information and education: EPA will work to increase public awareness of wetland
functions and values, of the Clean Water Act regulatory programs affecting wetlands,
and of nonregulatory approaches for protecting wetlands. Special targeting groups will
be farmers, the development community, and local zoning authorities. The year 1991
will be proclaimed "Year of the Wetlands."
Cumulative impacts: EPA will develop test methods to assess cumulative effects of
wetland loss and degradation. EPA will work to incorporate these assessment
approaches into comprehensive planning and permit decisions for wetlands.
Wetlands restoration: EPA will identity opportunities and initiate projects to restore
and create wetlands to increase the quality and quantity of wetlands and to meet other
national environmental goals including those of the Qean Water Act. As part of
.hese activities, the OWP is conducting a pilot project to identify Superfund sites that
impact wetlands or are located in wetlands.
SECTION m. MANAGEMENT AND REGULATORY ISSUES
A. SITE SFT.FCTnnN PROCESS
The selection and designation of sites for ocean disposal of dredged material is the
responsibility of both the EPA and COE under the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries
Act (MPRSA). Since the enactment of MPRSA, many dumpsites have been designated on an
51
-------
interim basis until required procedures for final designation are completed. The site selection is
conducted under consideration of general and specific criteria, established by EPA as Part 228 of
the Ocean Dumping Regulations (SAIC/Battelle, 1986).
The general criteria state that sites will be chosen "... to minimize the interference of
disposal activities with other activities in the marine environment . . ." and so chosen that ". . .
temporary perturbations in water quality or other environmental conditions during initial mixing
. . . can be expected to be reduced to normal ambient seawater levels or to undetectable
contaminant concentrations or effects before reaching any beach, shorelines, marine sanctuary, or
known geographically limited fishery or sheUfishery." The size of ocean disposal sites ". .. will be
limited in order to localize for identification and control any immediate adverse impacts and permit
the implementation of effective monitoring and surveillance programs to prevent adverse long-
range impacts." Finally, whenever feasible, EPA will ". . . designate ocean dumping sites beyond
the edge of the continental shelf and other such sites that have been historically used."
The specific criteria are applied once several alternate sites were chosen in compliance with
the general criteria. One or more sites are then proposed as disposal sites. The criteria comprise
the following:
(1) Geographical position, depth of water bottom, topography and distance from
coast.
(2) Location in relation to breeding, spawning, nursery, feeding, or passage areas
of living resources in adult or juvenile phases.
(3) Location in relation to beaches and other amenity areas.
(4) Types and quantities of wastes proposed to be disposed of. and proposed
methods of release, including methods of packing the waste, if any.
(5) Feasibility of surveillance and monitoring.
(6) Dispersal, horizontal transport and vertical mixing characteristics of the area,
including prevailing current direction and velocity, if any.
(7) Existence and effects of current and previous discharges and dumping in the
area (including cumulative effects).
52
-------
(8) Interference with shipping, Gshing, recreation, mineral extraction, desalination,
fish and shellfish culture, areas of special scientific importance and other
legitimate uses of the ocean.
(9) The existing water quality and ecology of the site as determined by available
data or by trend assessment or baseline survey's.
(10) Potential for the development or recruitment of nuisance species in the disposal
site.
(11) Existence at or in close proximity to the site of any significant natural or
cultural features of historical importance.
Generally, the selection of a site for open water disposal influences the long-term fate of
dredged material. Important characteristics include water depth with regard to the exposure of the
deposit to winds and storms, and bathymetry, which may affect lone-term migration of the deposit
if the bottom is not level (Cullinane et al., 1986).
For upland disposal, careful site selection is probably the most important factor to minimize
the potentially high management costs. Characteristics such as topography and stratigraphy,
groundwater levels and groundwater flow, soil properties, and meteorological features including
wind velocity, temperature, and precipitation have to be considered as well as socioeconomic
characteristics such as easy access for transport of the material from the dredging site and
potentially exposed human populations (Cullinane et aL, 1986).
B. SHORTAGE OF DISPOSAL SITES
A potential shortage of disposal sites for dredged material as a result of increasingly
restrictive regulations has become an issue essentially since CEQ's report on paniculate waste
disposal and the subsequent establishment of a regulatory framework. Prior to that time, there
were only minimal restrictions that primarily addressed navigational hazards associated with dredged
material disposal Although efforts by the COE and several offices of the EPA are underway to
harmonize regulations affecting the disposal of dredged material (e.g^ the CWA and the MPRSA),
the regulations are still in a transitional phase with regard to different environments (marine,
freshwater, wetland, etc.) and with regard to responsibilities of involved agencies and institutions
53
-------
(see Section H). As a result, the tightness of restrictions does not necessarily reflect the sensitivity
of the environment to dumping activities, but rather the status of the lawmaking process.
To date, the most comprehensive regulations and statutes exist for coastal and open ocean
waters, due to both the environmental importance and political pressure generated by public
awareness. The increasing knowledge of the amounts and environmental impacts of contaminants
in dredged material has made it more difficult to obtain permits for disposal in coastal and open
ocean water.
For a number of reasons the greatest percentage of all dredged material disposal occurs in
estuarine areas. First, most of the dredging takes place in estuaries; for example, large amounts
of material are continuously dredged in the Mississippi estuary, representing the bulk of material
deposited in U.S. waters. Second, the costs of disposal in estuarine areas are generally lower than
in open ocean or in upland sites on dry land. Third, the compliance with the more technically
oriented CWA regulating disposal in estuaries appears to be easier than with the more conservative
MPRSA, that regulates open water and coastal disposal. The extensive use of estuarine waters for
dredged material disposal is therefore likely to continue in the near future, even though estuaries
are among the most heavily contaminated aquatic environments. However, if in the long term
future political pressure results in greater protection of estuaries, dredged material disposal may
become more costly and difficult to manage.
C ESTUARINE VS. OCEAN DISPOSAL
Generally the impact of disposal activities on the marine environment is considerably greater
in estuarine and coastal areas than in open ocean waters. There are several reasons: (1) much
more material is disposed in nearshore waters than offshore; (2) many marine organisms, including
important commercial and recreational finCsh and shellfish species, use these areas during critical
stages of their life cycles, e.g., for spawning and nursery grounds; and (3) shallow-water sites are
often designed as containment sites, and the bottom topography is changed by the presence of
disposal mounds.
In open ocean waters, the impacts of dredged material disposal are reduced in comparison
because (1) only a small amount of dredged material is dumped into offshore waters (more than
3 miles away from shore), (2) disposal can be confined to certain areas with very low densities of
54
-------
marine organisms, and (3) disposal sites in offshore waters are usually dispersal sites rather rhan
containment sites, and the material forms a thin, widespread layer without significantly changing
bottom topography or does not accumulate on the sea Door at all due to dispersal in the water
column. However, impacts may be greater than presently known because they are difficult to
assess.
From an ecological point of view, open ocean disposal may be preferable to coastal and
estuarine disposal, but in most cases disposal sites are established in nearshore waters for
economical reasons because the costs of disposal increase considerably with distance of the disposal
site from shore. Moreover, efforts have been made to minimize adverse effects on shallow-water
communities: for example, dredging and disposal activities in Long Island Sound are restricted to
the time between December and May or mid-June in order to avoid the spawning and breeding
season (SAIC, in prep.).
D RFT.FVANCE OF OBSERVED EhHJCTS TO HUMAN. RESOURCE
AND ECOSYSTEM HEALTH
The effects of ocean dumping on the health of marine ecosystems and consequently the
health of marine resources, such as commercially fished organisms, and human health have become
a public issue of increasing importance since the publication of CEQ's report on waste disposal
in .the ocean. As a result, monitoring procedures have been developed to assess these effects.
However, very few studies have shown clearly defined effects of disposal activities on the
ecosystem, due to three major problems: (1) little understanding of the linkage between
environmental quality and the health of marine organisms (National Academy of Sciences, 1989);
(2) the lack of well-established biological parameters to measure adverse impacts (see Section F):
and (3) problems in separating impacts related to dumping from effects related to non-point source
pollution in the field and natural processes. Far too little is known about biological pathways of
the numerous pollutants likely to be found in contaminated sediments within a single organism and
within a community. In addition, many impacts on the health of an ecosystem may be subtle and
gradual and show measurable effects only during long-term evaluations. The same is true for
impacts on human health; while acute diseases are rare (e.g., the Minamata disease in Japan),
55
-------
chronic lethal and sublethal effects have been suspected in many cases, but are almost impossible
to prove.
The pollutants that potentially cause effects on human health can be separated into three
categories:
• toxic metals,
• synthetic organic chemicals,
• human pathogens.
While human pathogens (e.g., bacteria and viruses) are not commonly found in dredged material,
both toxic metals and organics are usually present. Humans will be exposed to these pollutants
indirectly, Le. through the consumption of seafood which in turn may have been exposed to
sediment contaminants directly (e.g., by uptake through the integument) or indirectly through
feeding en contaminated plants or animals.
Metals are generally particle bound and possess low bioavailability; however, microbial
transformations, such as methylation of mercury, and chemical changes, such as oxidation of
sediment through bknurbation, or changes associated with varying salinity in intertidal areas may
cause release of metals from the sediment and increase their bioavailability significantly. Metals
of known toxicity to humans include arsenic, mercury, lead, and cadmium. With the exception of
mercury, bioaccumulation and biomagnification in marine food chains has not been observed, but
seafood may nevertheless contain high amounts of metals concentrated in gills and intestines
without being incorporated into the body tissues. Therefore, organisms that are eaten whole (e.g.,
mussels and clams) represent an important vector of metals to humans (U.S. Congress, 1987).
The situation of synthetic organic chemicals is far more confusing due to the great number
of chemicals in use (65,000 worldwide) and a yearly production of about 1,000 new chemicals.
Unlike metals, which are chemical elements that cannot be broken down, organic compounds can
be complex molecules that may undergo many different changes depending on a great number of
physicochemical and biological parameters. Only a very small fraction of the synthetic organic
chemicals have been tested for behavior in the marine environment, bioaccumulation and
biomagnification in the marine food web, or human toxicity. Biomagnification of organic
56
-------
compounds can be predicted based on n-octanol with purification coefficients. Little is known
about cumulative effects, although these effects are very important because contaminants usually
occur as a mixture of many different substances rather than single chemicals.
As for metals, human exposure is indirect through the consumption of seafood. Although
clearly demonstrated impacts of any organic compounds from the marine environment are rare, the
potential ecological and health hazards of some substances are well known. Chlorinated pesticides.
such as DDT, PCBs, and PAHs are known to biomagnify in the marine food web and may be
found in seafood in concentrations exceeding safe levels established by the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA). DDT is known to be the causative agent of eggshell thinning in birds and
may have as yet unidentified mammalian effects. As a result of studies demonstrating these health
hazards, the production of DDT and PCBs has been prohibited in the U.S. for more than a
decade. However, these chemicals are very persistent and undergo slow degradation and while the
input of these substances has decreased, low level concentrations of DDT and PCBs are still
present in industrial and municipal effluents. Thus, a decrease of the concentrations of these
contaminants is likely to require a very long time because they are still being added to the
ecosystem. Moreover, due to the persistence of many organic pollutants, threats to human health
have to be viewed on a worldwide scale rather than locally. For example, in the case of DDT. the
input has not stopped worldwide, but has merely switched from major industrial nations to third-
world countries where it is still applied against major insect pests.
E. NEED FOR CONSISTENT. fcr-r-'HCTlVE MONITORING
The need for monitoring of waste disposal in the ocean is obvious. Above all, monitoring
will ensure compliance with dumping regulations to prevent unacceptable degradation of the
environment, and it will help to address public concerns in terms of human health and the
protection of recreational areas and activities.
Consistent and effective monitoring does not necessarily mean that a once established
protocol be followed for any length of time, but rather that a program is flexible enough to allow
for weighing the continuity of sampling procedures and data bases against the amount of useful
information emerging from these data over time (D'Elia et aL, 1989). The consistency of a
monitoring program should lie in its ability to assess the environmentally significant impacts with
57
-------
appropriate techniques based as much as possible on recent findings from the scientific community.
Such findings may address the development of unproved measuring protocols as well as a better
understanding of long-term fates and effects of contaminants. Many programs, however, have a
tendency to remain static (National Academy of Sciences, 1989). Part of the problem may lie in
the lack of communication between field sampling staff and decision makers on one hand and
decision makers and writers of regulations on the other hand As a result, data are often shelved,
and regulations are impractical because they are based on too little and sometimes obsolete
information.
In terms of dredged material, monitoring is necessary to determine: (1) the fate of
contaminated sediments, and (2) contaminant levels in seafood that may potentially have been
derived from pollutants from dredged material.
Dredged material disposal sites have been monitored extensively by COE for more than a
decade, and the processes at the site are relatively well understood. However, with the exception
of the DAMOS program, long-term, far-field effects have not been assessed (see below, Section
m.F). Both in the near field and in the far field, there is a great need for techniques to separate
impacts of dredged material disposal from natural fluctuations.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has authority to establish allowable pollutant
levels considered to be safe for human consumption. For seafood such levels exist for PCBs, a
few pesticide compounds, and methyl mercury, but not for PAHs and any other metals of concern
to human health (Table ffl-l). Although some research is conducted by the FDA and by NOAA's
58
-------
Table ffl-1. .FDA's Criteria for Initiating Enforcement Against Seafood (from U.S. Congress,
1987).
Substance
Methyl mercury
PCBs"
Aldrin
Chlordane
Dieldrin
DDT, DDE TDE6
Endrin
Heptachlor and
heptachlor epoxide
Kepone
Mirex
Toxaphene
Action
(ppm)
1.0
10
03
03
03
5.0
03
03
03
0.4
0.1
5.0
Level Type of Food
(Edible Parts Only)
Fish, shellfish,
other aquatic animals
Fish and shellfish
Fish and shellfish
Fish
Fish and shellfish
Fish
Fish and shellfish
Fish and shellfish
Fish and shellfish
Crab meat
Fish
Fish
The value for PCBs is a tolerance for unavoidable poisonous or deleterious substances.
*DDE and TDE are toxic metabolic products of DDT.
59
-------
National Marine Fisheries Service, the need for coordinated monitoring of contaminants in seafood
is great. At present there is no on-going program to evaluate the human health risks associated
with long-term consumption of contaminated seafood.
F. SHORT-TERM. NEAR-praTD VS LONG-TERM. FAR-FTTrTT)
IMPACT ASSESSMENTS
To date, monitoring of dredged material disposal focuses on the assessment of short-term.
near-field impacts. Long-term, far-field impacts are generally not assessed, partly because of poorly
defined responsibilities of participating agencies (e.g., NOAA and COE) (National Academy of
Sciences, 1989). For example, Title H of the MPRSA authorizes NOAA to monitor the ocean,
but there is no explicit mandate for long-term programs assessing subtle impacts or cumulative
effects. Without reasonably accurate information on such effects, however, good decisions on
permitting, mitigation, or management of fisheries and wildlife will be difficult (U.S. Department
of Commerce, 1988). An example of a long-term monitoring program is presented below in Case
Study 3.
G. THE TIERED MONITORING APPROACH
The tiered monitoring approach was developed by Zeller and Wastler (1986) for marine
waste disposal, and for dredged material in particular by Fredette et ai (1986), to provide a tool
to organize monitoring programs in a logical fashion and at the same time ensure high cost
efficiency and allow for quick feedback to decision makers. Monitoring programs with a tiered
approach are structured temporally and spatially, leading from short-term, near-field to long-term,
far-field monitoring to assessing relations between ocean dumping to large-scale processes in the
ocean in general (FigUM). Each tier is associated with a specific objective and a null-hypothesis;
as long as the null-hypothesis remains valid, the protection of the environment on that particular
level is regarded as sufficient to protect the entire environment on a large scale as well. Non-
compliance of any test results with a null-hypothesis will allow for immediate managerial response
at the earliest possible point in time.
60
-------
CASE STUDY 3: RHODE ISLAND SOUND - LONG-TERM MONITORING
As part of field operations in support of a disposal site designation in Rhode Island Sound,
two historical disposal sites were studied in 1987 that had last been used in 1966 (Prudence.
Narragansett Bay) and 1971, respectively (B/enton Reef. Rhode Island Sound). The main objectives
were to determine the persistence of disposal mounds over One and to characterize the benthic
infaunal colonization of the disposal site in comparison to the ambient seafloor. Methods employed
included precision bathymetry, side scan sonar and sub-bottom profifing, sediment profile
photography, grab samples for sediment grain size and sediment chemistry, and quantitative benthic
samples.
The historic disposal mound at Brenton Reef occurred as a well-defined circular feature with
a diameter of about 1600 m and a height of approximately 7 m. A comparison with survey data
obtained in 1978 revealed that no significant change in the mound's shape had occurred. The
REMOTS* images indicated that some dredged material had spread beyond the western boundary
of the disposal site in a 3 to 12-cm layer covering an area of 1,300 by 2,000 m. Sediment grain
size analyses showed that fine-grained material had eroded from the mound's apex, leaving a layer
composed of cobbles, coarse sand, and shells. The surrounding sediments consisted of fine sand,
silt, and day. The results from the 1987 survey were similar to those obtained in 1978. Surface
boundary roughness proved to be similar at the disposal mound and in the area surrounding the
mound. The benthic community analysis revealed that the apex of the disposal mound was
colonized by a pioneering sand community, whereas the flanks and the ambient seafloor were
colonized by stage II or III organisms typical for muddy bottoms. The general pattern of fauna!
distribution found in 1987 had been present since 1974, Le., four years after cessation of disposal
activities. The densities of several species increased between 1974 and 1987 on the dredged
material, most likely controlled by sediment grain size and organic matter content of the sediment.
At the Prudence disposal site, side-scan data revealed the presence of small mound-like features
less than 2 m high and about 10 to 20 m in diameter.
Generally it was felt that the major difficulty of this long-term monitoring effort was the fimited
comparability of data from the different surveys. Especially the biological characterization of the
disposal site suffered from inconsistencies in sampling techniques, such as the use of different
mesh-size sieves, and lack of taxonomfc experience.
61
-------
Space
/ (1) Source \
/ Characteriution\
\
12) Short-Tens (Nearfield)
Monitoring
(3) Long-Tea (Fartield)
Monitoring
(4) Biological Ef£ecu and/or
Marine Resources Hanitoring
(5) Ocean Process Monitoring
t
Figure m-1. Tiered Approach to Monitoring (from ZeDer and Wastler, 1986).
The success of tiered monitoring programs, however, depends largely on a profound
knowledge of the processes influencing the fate of dredged material after deposition. These
processes include physical transport of disposed material through bottom currents, changing wave
activity, and storms; chemical transformation of contaminants; and biological factors such as uptake
of contaminants by motile organisms, e.g., migratory fish, and subsequent transport of these
contaminants into food chains not directly related to the disposal site. The way in which these
processes are related is extremely complex, and far-field effects may not necessarily occur only after
near-field effects have been detected, but may be present at the same time although they may
62
-------
progress more slowly and subtly than near-Geld effects. In this case, a temporally tiered monitoring
approach may be insufficient, and monitoring may have to take place on all tiers at the same time.
H. NFFT> FOR MANAGEMENT AND ANALYSIS OF DATA
ON nPFDflFD MATERIAL DISPOSAL
Fast and efficient data management and analysis is instrumental for the successful integration
of the results of monitoring programs into the decision making process. However, according to a
recently published report by the Panel on Paniculate Waste in the Ocean (National Academy of
Sciences, 1989), the management and analysis of data collected by participating agencies and
institutions during monitoring programs is one of the largest gaps in the management of ocean
disposal. Although large amounts of data have been collected, data management and analysis are
generally poor. The reasons for this condition include the lack of familiarity with the system being
studied, the lack of sophisticated software, and insufficient funding (National Academy of Sciences,
1989). Data analysis also suffers from a lack of communication between institutions carrying out
monitoring studies and those conducting research; as a result, useful information contained in a
data set may remain undetected.
L NEEH FOR RKJTHR LINKAGE BETWLbN MONITORING
AND DECISION MAKING
Partly due to the above mentioned problems associated with data management and analysis,
the linkage between monitoring and decision making is limited. Data from monitoring programs
may be difficult for decision makers to interpret if not presented in a condensed form allowing for
answers to specific questions. The data analysis may take too long for the results to be considered
during the decision making process, in particular if institutional constraints exist concerning data
release. As a result, responses to changing needs of decision makers are slow and inefficient. The
political motivation of decision makers may also have a substantial influence and overrun the
impact of monitoring studies. However, if management decisions such as site designations and the
issuance of permits are to be environmentally sound, data from monitoring studies provide crucial
and indispensible background information.
63
-------
Additional reasons for the insufficient linkage between monitoring and decision malrirrg lie
in the nature of the monitoring studies themselves. As research is generally excluded per
definition, the programs tend to be inflexible once a protocol is established, and newty published
scientific results as well as technical innovations are slow to be incorporated. Moreover, political
pressure for increasing control of waste disposal tends to turn monitoring into a goal in itself
(D'Elia et al., 1989), and the actual content of information becomes less important than the mere
fact that often very costly activities are taking place.
One method to organize monitoring programs in a way that allows a timely and continuous
participation of decision makers is the tiered approach (see Section m.G). This design has been
applied nationally by EPA and the COE and has proven to be successful in large programs such
as DAMOS. By using the tiered approach, a monitoring program becomes a dynamic tool for
decision making for managers and regulators rather than a static, routine operation that must
await yearly final reports before management can evaluate the progress.
J. INTERAGENCY RESPONSmnrnES/COMNUJNICATIONS
The successful management of waste disposal in the ocean depends largely on open
communication among involved agencies, especially with regard to dredged material due to
numerous overlapping regulations (see Section U). Although nationwide regulations and acts have
been in place for more than IS years, responsibilities of local. State, and Federal agencies are still
not clear cut (Table EM); for disposal sites that are subject to the authority of more than one
state, conflicts may arise because of different focuses of the involved states' regulations. The
involvement cf numerous agencies often results in competition for funding, while each of these
agencies may only cover a few aspects of the usually very complex management problems.
The integration of all projects conducted in a given area will ensure financially efficient data
collection and interpretation by avoiding duplication of efforts. In addition, an integrated approach
is more likely to consider interests and concerns of all social groups affected by the regulations and
may result in greater public trust in the agencies' competence. Consequently, interagency
communication is likely to promote better compliance with regulations and to facilitate
management efforts by preventing conflicts.
64
-------
K. PUBLIC P/\RTIQPATION/EXPECTATIONS
Public perceptions of the pu, oses and limitations of monitoring programs are often
unrealistic and based on political opinions rather than technical facts. Monitoring is not only
expected to assess impacts of a specific activity on a narrowly defined ecosystem, but also to
provide data on long-term effects of a combination of human activities on the health of the marine
environment on a large scale. Monitoring programs cannot meet all of these expectations for a
number of practical reasons, the most obvious being limited funding. Technical limitations are set
by a still very incomplete understanding of the physicochemical and biological behavior of the
enormous number of chemicals introduced into the marine environment by man. In order to
provide the public with more information, the Panel on Particulate Waste in the Oceans (National
Academy of Sciences, 1989) recommends that concerned citizens be involved in the design of
•
monitoring programs at a very early stage instead of after the fact. Open and frequent
communication may contribute to a better understanding and a sense of partnership to overcome
increasing public distrust in the activities of federal agencies.
Since EPA made 2 commitment to issue Environmental Impact Statements for the selection
of ocean dumpsites, the public has had the opportunity to participate in a number of decisions
concerning the establishment of new sites.
An example for the direct influence of public pressure on the development of monitoring
programs is a lawsuit by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) against the U.S. Navy
concerning a dredge project in the Thames River (Connecticut). The resulting court order led to
the development of a monitoring program that evolved into the DAMOS program (National
Academy of Sciences, 1989).
L. COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH DREDGING
1. Cost of Dredged Material Disposal
Dredging and disposal costs vary significantly from one project to another. In 1986,
uncontaminated material averaged about $1.50 per cubic yard for disposal For marine disposal,
the costs of operations using pipeline dredges ranged from about $0.50 to $2.00 per cubic yard,
65
-------
while costs for ocean disposal using a hopper dredge or dumping barge were usually higher .due
to additional costs for the transport to the disposal sites (U.S. Congress, 1987). Generally the use
of upland containment areas is considerably more expensive than disposal in marine environments.
Costs for disposing highly contaminated dredged material may be 2 to 10 times higher than
ordinary disposal costs (U.S. Congress, 1987).
2. Cost of Too Few Disposal Sites
It is impossible to estimate costs associated with a shortage of disposal sites in general
because too many variables are involved. A lack of disposal sites, caused for example by
increasingly strict regulations, would eventually result in the cessation of dredging operations and
subsequently in severe limitations in the use of navigational waterways. As demonstrated above
(Section LA), the economy of the United States relies heavily on a functioning commercial fleet.
and the nation's defense has been focusing on the improvement and maintenance of the U.S. Navy
for the last decades. Tne overall trend in ship building is towards increased size and draft for
more cost efficiency, and shoaling of harbors and channels would result in a rapid decrease of
accommodations for large vessels. As the major concern in designating disposal sites is related to
sediment contaminants, long-term trends in ocean disposal are likely to focus on waste reduction
to make dredging more acceptable.
3. Cost of Lost Resources
The marine resources potentially affected by dredged material disposal include commercial
and recreational fisheries and other recreational activities, such as beach-going and boating. To
estimate costs of lost resources in relation to dredged material disposal, it is necessary to (1)
identify the impacts of disposal activities and to (2) quantify these impacts. The identification of
impacts related to dredged material disposal may be very difficult if other human activities occur
in the same area as the disposal, e.g., disposal of other wastes, or the recreational use of the
potentially affected area itself (e.g., noise pollution).
The quantification can only be a rough estimate and requires consideration of numerous
parameters. For potential commercial losses, these parameters include the number of people
66
-------
employed as fishermen; amount and retail value of fish and shellfish caught by commercial
fishermen in the potentially affected area; and the value of support services to commercial
fisheries, such as fish processing and shipbuilding. Table III-2 presents annual commercial fish
landings in the U.S. for a reference; for an evaluation of a specific site, local data on the amounts
would be needed as well as exact data on the origin of these landings. The latter is almost
impossible to obtain because positions of fishing grounds are usually not revealed by fishermen.
Table ffl-2. Commercial Fish Tending? m the United States, 1985 (From U.S. Congress, 1987).
Coastal Region
Northern Pacific
California and Hawaii
Gulf of Mexico
Southern Atlantic
Northern Atlantic
Maryland, Virginia
Delaware, New Jersey
New York
New England States
Total
Million
pounds
1,454
380
2,412
311
1,556
(815)
(151)
(590)
6,113
Million
dollars
730
155
597
156
644
(124)
(101)
(419)
2^82
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Fisheries of the United States, 1985, Current Fishery Statistics No. 8380 (Washington, D.C: April,
1986).
67
-------
Estimates on recreational losses have to be based on the amount and value of recreational
i.'
fisheries, but also the social value of the potentially affected area, including industries related to
tourism and the value of waterfront residences. The only relatively direct impact of dredged
material disposal is a potential adverse effect on fisheries if, for example, larval recruitment is
disturbed by the dumping activities (see Section LF.4), or if colonization by benthic organisms such
as oysters is impaired because the deposit differs significantly from the ambient seafloor. No data
are available in the current literature on losses directly related to dredged material disposal:
however, it seems reasonable to consider such losses to be minimal. For example, according to
several BRAT studies (see above), the effect of dredged material disposal is more likely to be
beneficial than adverse, at least for demersal fish. Severe losses to fisheries are caused by
contamination of seafood, and currently dredged material is by far the smallest source for
pollutants such as heavy metals, PCBs, and PAHs.
The impact of dredged material disposal on the social value of the potentially affected area
is very site specific and depends greatly on the public acceptance of dredging and disposing
activities. Upland disposal sites are most visible and generally contain contaminated sediments:
they are therefore most likely to cause a measurable and directly related depletion in the
recreational value of a .coastal area. The only direct impact of aquatic disposal sites is the
potential creation of navigational hazards for recreational boating. Pollution of the water to make'
it unsuitable for swimming has never been reported and is not expected in the future because of
the low amounts of pollutants, if any, released.from disposal mounds.
4. Cost of Regulation and Monitoring
The costs associated with regulation and monitoring of dredged material disposal cannot be
estimated in genera] because many of the items to be considered are site and project specific. A
framework to help categorizing and determining those costs and a rough estimate of actual dollar
values made under certain assumptions are presented in the following.
Regulation costs comprise costs for engineering design, permits, site selection, and
Environmental Impact Statements. Monitoring costs include costs for baseline (pre-depositional)
monitoring, short-term monitoring conducted during the disposal activities, and long-term (post-
-------
depositional) monitoring. Assuming that 165,000 ra2 of fine-grained contaminated material are to
be disposed during one year of dredging operations, site design and permitting costs are
approximately $ 810,000 for confined aquatic disposal (dredging and disposal combined) and $1.5
million to $1.7 million (disposal only) for upland disposal Monitoring costs amount to $500,000
for confined aquatic disposal sites and $177,000 to $244,500 for upland disposal sites
(groundwater/15 years) (SAIC, in prep.).
These costs may increase significantly in the future if the recently initiated efforts for the
protection of wetlands, estuaries, and other nearshore areas are pursued, because most dredged
i
material is currently disposed in these areas. If sites are no longer available in nearshore areas
because of restrictions, the nation's dredging program will undergo substantial changes because new
disposal sites will then have to be established either further inland or in deep water. In the long
term, all< costs associated with dredging and disposal will decrease only if the contaminant input
into U.S. waters decreases significantly. The sediments would then, over time, become less
polluted, and the dredging, transport, disposal, and monitoring of dredged material would be less
complicated and consequently less expensive.
69
-------
LITERATURE CITED
Bokuniewicz, HJ., J. Gebert, R.B. Gordon, J.L Higgins. P. Kaminski, CC PObeam, M. Reed, and
C. Tuttle. 1978. Field study of the mechanics of the placement of dredged material at open
water disposal sites. Tech. Rept D-78-7, U.S. Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment
Station, Vicksburg, MI.
Counci] on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 1970. Ocean Dumping: A National Policy. A report
to the President Washington, D.C: U.S. Government Printing Office. 45 pp.
Cullinane, MJ., D.E. Averett, R.A Shafer, J.W. Male, CL. Truitt, and M.R. Bradbury. 1986.
Guidelines for selecting control and treatment options for contaminated dredged material
requiring restrictions. U.S. Corps of Engineers Waterways Experimental Station, Vicksburg,
MI. xxri + 465 pp + 6 Appendices.
D'Elia, C.E, J.G. Sanders, and D.G. Capone. 1989. Analytical chemistry for environmental
sciences. A question of confidence. Environ. Sci Technol. 23(7): 768-774.
Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers (COE). 1988. The Dredging Research Program.
Dredging Research DRP-88-M-7.
Engler, R. 1989. Complete statement before the Subcommittee on Water Resources. Committee
on Public Works and Transportation, U.S. House of Representatives. Department of the
Army, Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works). 7 pp.
Feng, S.Y. 1984. DAMOS - Mussel Watch. Central Long Island Sound Disposal Site and
Western Long Island Sound Disposal Site Monitoring Project 1983 (February 1 - September
30, 1983). Report Submitted to Science Applications International Corporation. Newport,
RI. 78 pp.
Feng, S.Y. 1985. DAMOS - Mussel Watch. Central Long bland Sound Disposal Site and
Western Long Island Sound Disposal Site Monitoring Project 1983-1984 (October 1, 1983
- September 30, 1984). Report Submitted to Science Applications International
Corporation, Newport, RI. 87 pp.
Fredette, TJ., G. Anderson, B.S. Payne, and J.D. Lunz. 1986. Biological monitoring of open-
water dredged material disposal sites. Proc. Oceans '86. Marine Technology Society,
Washington, D.C pp. 764-769.
Gentile, J.H. and K_J. Scott 1987. The application of a hazard assessment strategy to sediment
testing: Issues and case study. In: Dickson, K.L, AW. Maki, and W.A. Brungs (eds.): Fate
and Effects of Sediment Bound Chemicals in Aquatic Systems. Pergamon Press, N.Y., pp.
167-182.
70
-------
Gentile, J.H., et al. 1987. The assessment of Black Rock Harbor dredged material impacts on
laboratory population responses. Tech. RepL D-87-3, prepared for U.S. Army Engineer
Waterways Experimental Station, Vicksburg, MS.
. 1988.. Applicability and field verification of predictive methodologies for aquatic dredged
material disposal Tech. Rept. D-88-5, prepared for U.S. Army Engineer Waterways
Experimental Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Germano, J.D. 1983. Infaunal succession in Long Island Sound: animal-sediment interactions and
the effects of picdation. Ph.D. Diss., Yale Univ., New Haven, Conn.
Germano, J.D. and D.C Rhoads. 1984. REMOTS sediment profiling at the Field Verification
Program (FVP) disposal site. In: Montgomery, R.L. and J.W. Leach (eds.): Dredging and
Dredged Material Disposal. American Society of Civfl Engineers, N.Y. pp. 536-544.
Hjulstrom, F. 1935. Studies on the morphological activity of rivers as illustrated by the River
Fyris. Uppsala Univ. Geol. InsL Bull. 25: 221-527.
International Association of Ports and Harbors (IAPH). 1981. A survey of world port practices
in the ocean disposal of dredged material as related to the London Dumping Convention.
Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, N.Y. 38 pp.
Kamlet, K.S. 19S3. Dredged-material ocean dumping: perspectives on legal and environmental
impacts. In: Duedall, I.W., D.R. Kester, B.H. Ketchum, and P.K. Park (eds.): Wastes in the
Ocean. VoL 2. Dredged-Material Disposal in the Ocean. John Wiley & Sons, New York, pp.
29-70.
Kester, D.R., B.H. Ketchum, I.W. Duedall, and P.K. Park. 1983. The problem of dredged-
material disposal In: DuedalL I.W., D.R. Kester, B.H. Ketchum, and P.K. Park (eds.):
Wastes in die Ocean. Vol 2. Dredged-Material Disposal in the Ocean. John Wiley & Sons.
New York. pp. 3-27.
Long, E.R. and M.F. Euchman. 1989. An evaluation of candidate measures of biological effects
for National Status and Trends Program. NOAA Tech. Memo. NOS OMA 45. vii + 106
pp. + 5 Appendices.
Lunz, J.D. 19S7. Environmental considerations during dredging operations. In: Sedimental
Control to Reduce Maintenance Dredging of Navigational Facilities in Estuaries. Report and
Symposium Proceedings. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C, pp. 198-220.
Lunz, J:D., D-A. : - elson, D.G. Clarke, and EJ. Pullen. 1987. Evaluating seafloor impacts using
the Benthic Resource Assesment Technique (BRAT). In: Landin, M.C. (ed.): The Beneficial
Uses of Dredged Material: Proceedings of the North Atlantic Regional Conference, 12-14 May,
1987, Baltimore, Maryland, pp. 208-216.
71
-------
Maurer, D., et al. 1981a. Vertical migration and mortality of benthos in dredged material - Part
I: Mollusca. Mar. Environ. Res. 4: 299-319.
. 1981 b. Vertical migration and mortality of benthos in dredged material - Part II:
Crustacea. Mar. Environ. Res. 5: 301-317.
. 1982. Vertical migration and mortality of benthos in dredged material - Part HI:
Polychaeta. Mar. Environ. Res. 6: 49-68.
Morton, R.W. 1983. Precision bathymetric study of dredged material capping experiment in Long
Island Sound. In: Duedall, I.W., D.R. Kester, B.H. Ketchum, and P.K. Park (eds.): Wastes
in the Ocean. VoL 2. Dredged-Material Disposal in the Ocean. John Wiley & Sons, New
York, pp. 99-121.
National Academy of Sciences, Panel on Paniculate Wastes in the Ocean. 1989. Monitoring
paniculate wastes in the oceans. Washington, D.C. xh* + 112 pp.
National Climatic Data Center. 1986. Local climatological data: Portland ME, 1985 annual
summary with comparative data. U.S. Dept of Commerce, Asheville. 7 pp.
National Research Council. 1985. Dredging coastal ports: an assessment of the issues. National
Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
Pearson, T. and R. Rosenberg. 1978. Macrobenthic succession in relation to organic enrichment
and pollution in the marine environment Oceanogr. Mar. Biol. Ann. Rev. 16: 229-311.
Peddicord, R.K. 1988. Summary of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers/U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Field Verification Program. Tech. Rept. D-88-6, U.S. Army Engineer
Waterways Station, Vicksburg, MS. 45 pp + 1 Appendix.
Pequegnat, W.E. 1983. Some aspects of deep ocean disposal of dredged material In: Duedall.
I.W., D.R. Kester, B.H. Ketchum, and P.K. Park (eds.): Wastes in the Ocean. VoL 2.
Dredged-Material Disposal in the Ocean. John Wiley & Sons, New York, pp. 229-252.
. 1986. An overview of the scientific and technical aspects of dredged material disposal in
the marine environment Rept prepared for U.S. Congress, Office of Technology
Assessment
Rhoads, D.C. and L.F. Boyer. 1982. The effects of marine benthos on physical properties of
sediments: a successional perspective. In: McCall, P.L. and MJ. Tevesz (eds.): Animal-
Sediment Relations. Plenum Press, N.Y.
Rhoads, D.C and J.D. Germano. 1982. Characterization of organism-sediment relation using
sediment profile imaging: an efficient method of remote ecological monitoring of the sea
floor (REMOTS system). Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 8: 115-128.
72
-------
Rhoads, D.C and J.D. Germane. 1986. Interpreting long-term changes in benthic community
structure: a new protocol. Hydrobiologia 142291-308.
Rhoads, D.C, P.L. McCaL, and J.Y. Yingst. 1978. Disturbance and production on the estuarine
seafloor. Am. Sci. 66: 577-586.
Roger-son. P.P., S.C. Schimmel, and G. Hoffman. 1985. Chemical and biological characterization
of Black Rock Harbor dredged material. Tech.RepL D-85-9, Environmental Research
Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Narragansett, RI, prepared for the
Environmental Laboratory, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,
MS. NTIS No. AD A164 065.
SAIC. 1987. Environmental information in support of site designation documents for the Foul
Area Disposal Site. Physical Oceanography. Report submitted to New England Division, U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers. 120 pp. + 1 Appendix.
. 1988a. Sediment profile camera survey of the Gulfport, Mississippi Open-Water Thin Layer
Disposal Area. 52-week post-disposal survey, Cruise 5. Report for the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, submitted to TAI Environmental Sciences Inc., Mobile,. Alabama. 15 pp. + 1
Appendix.
. !988b. Contribution of dredged material at the Rockland Disposal Site May 1985.
DAMOS Contribution 50, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. NED, Waltham, MA 14 pp.
. In prep. Comparison of dredged material disposal effects with background sedimentation
processes: New England area.
Scott, KJ. and M.S. Redmond. 1989. The effects of a contaminated dredged material on
laboratory populations of the tubiculous amphipod Atnpelisca abdua. In: CogwilL U.M. and
- LR. Williams (eds.): Aquatic Toxicology and Hazard Assessment: 12th Volume. ASTM STP
1027.
Scott, J., D. Rhoads, J. Rosen, S. Pratt, and J. Gentile. 1987. Impact of open-water disposal of
Black Rock Harbor dredged material on benthic recolonization at the FVP site. Tech. Rept.
D-87-4, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MI. 65 pp. + 2
App.
Squires, D.F. 1983. The Ocean Dumping Quandary. Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York
Press. 226 pp.
Stoddard, A., R. Wells, and K. Devonald. 1985. Development and application of a deepwater
ocean waste disposal model for dredged material: Yabucoa Harbor, Puerto Rico. MTS Jour.
19: 26-39.
73
-------
Swartz, R.C..WA. DeBen, J.K. Jones, J.O. Laberson, and F.A. Cole. 1985. Phoxocephalid
amphipod bioassay for marine sediment toricity. In: Cardwell, R.D.. R. Purdy and R.C.
Banner (eds.): Aquatic Toxicology and Hazard Assessment: Seventh Symposium. ASTM STP
854, pp. 284-307.
U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment 1987. Wastes in Marine Environments. OTA-
O-334. vi + 312 pp.
U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
1988. National Marine Pollution Program. Federal Plan for Ocean Pollution Research,
Development, and Monitoring: Fiscal Yean 1988-1992. Washington, D.C xxvii + 205 pp.
+ 2 Appendices.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1986. Ocean Dumping Site Designation Delegation
Handbook for Dredged Material. Office of Marine and Estuarice Protection, Washington,
DC. 199 pp.
—. 1988. Report to Congress on Administration of the Marine Protection, Research, and
Sanctuaries Act of 1972, as Amended (P.L. 92-532). EPA-503/8-88/002, iii + 35 pp.
Waste Management Institute, State University of New York. Monitoring activities in the New
York Bight Report prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New York District.
83 pp.
Zeller, R.W. and T.A. Wastler. 1986. Tiered ocean disposal monitoring will minimize data
requirements. Proc. Oceans '86. Marine Technology1 Society, Washington, D.C. pp. 1004-
1009.
74
------- |