777/s document is the full document for The Dredging Process in the
United States: An Action Plan for Improvement, by the Interagency
Working Group on the Dredging Process, a report to the Secretary of
Transportation - December 1994.
The Interagency Working Group on the Dredging Process
The Dredging Process in the United
States: An Action Plan for Improvement
A REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION - December 1994
December 1994
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION
2.0 THE DREDGING PROJECT REVIEW PROCESS: OPPORTUNITIES FOR
IMPROVEMENT
3.0 THE INTERAGENCY WORKING GROUP ON THE DREDGING PROCESS
4.0 NATIONAL DREDGING POLICY
5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS TO IMPROVE THE DREDGING PROCESS: AN
ACTION PLAN
5.1 Strengthening Mechanisms for Dredging and Dredged Material
Management Planning
5.2 Enhancing Coordination and Communication in the Dredging Project
Review Process
5.3 Addressing Scientific Uncertainties About Dredged Material
5.4 Funding Dredging Projects Consistently and Efficiently
6.0 CONCLUSION
Exhibit 1: Summary List of Recommendations
Appendix A: Primary Federal Statutes Governing Dredging
Appendix B: Methodology
Appendix C: Executive Summary of May 1994 Options Paper
Appendix D: List of Acronyms
-------
Legal Notice
This report was prepared as an account of government sponsored work. Neither
the United States, nor the Maritime Administration, nor any person acting on the
behalf of the Maritime Administration, (a) makes any warranty or representation,
expressed or implied, with respect to the accuracy, completeness or usefulness
of the information contained in this report, or that the use of any information,
apparatus, method or process disclosed in this report may not infringe privately
owned rights; or (b) assumes any liabilities with respect to the use of or for
damages resulting from the use of any information, apparatus, method or
process disclosed in this report. As used in the above, "persons acting on behalf
of the Maritime Administration" includes any employee or contractor of the
Maritime Administration to the extent that such employee or contractor prepares,
handles, or distributes, or provides access to any information pursuant to his
employment or contract with the Maritime Administration.
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Dredging Process in the United States:
Ports play an essential role in the United States' economy, defense, and
environment. The ports of the United States meet the demand for water
transportation services, which is driven by the consumers and producers of
waterborne cargo. This demand for waterborne cargo initiates a chain of
economic activity which contributes to the overall national economy. The
economic impact of the nation's port industry, port users, and public port capital
expenditures is significant. In 1992, U.S. ports handled approximately 2.9 billion
metric tons of cargo and supported over 15 million jobs. - In addition,
approximately 95 percent of all U.S. exports and imports pass through U.S. ports.
Foreign trade is an increasingly important element of the U.S. economy, currently
accounting for over 20 percent of our Gross Domestic Product (GDP). This
percentage is expected to grow in the future.
Besides being the gateways for domestic and international trade, ports also play
an important role in our national security by handling essential cargoes for military
operations. Channels to ports and berths must remain navigable and safe to
ensure efficient and effective response to national and international emergencies.
Likewise, many ports are located in or near some of the Nation's most
environmentally sensitive areas such as valuable wetlands, estuaries and
associated fisheries. These eco-systems have economic, recreational and
aesthetic value. They are critical to the vitality offish, birds, and other wildlife, and
many support profitable commercial fisheries. In 1988, the commercial fishing
industry generated over 350,000 jobs. Also, about 94 million people annually
participate in recreational boating and fishing. - Port development necessarily
results in impacts of varying degrees to wetlands, fish habitats, and other aspects
of the environment, such as recreational areas, while improper disposal of
contaminated dredged material can present costly environmental and human
health risks.
Historically, many regulatory programs which govern dredging have attempted to
balance economic growth and national security with the economic and
environmental value of coastal resources. This is generally done on a case-by-
case basis. It has become clear that these objectives are not mutually exclusive.
Early planning for environmental protection ensures that economic development
will cost less and reap more benefits. Acknowledging the value of a port and/or
region's environmental resources early in the planning process for dredging
projects can substantially reduce conflicts which arise during dredging and
dredged material disposal, resulting in economic growth and environmental
protection.
-------
U.S. ports and their surrounding environments are facing increased difficulties.
Over the past two decades, a number of factors have complicated the
development, operation, and maintenance of the nation's harbors, particularly in
the area of dredged material management. These factors include increases in the
demands of commerce, rapid evolution of shipping practices (containerization and
intermodalism), increasing environmental awareness and mounting
environmental problems affecting coastal areas and ocean waters, heavy
population shifts to coastal areas, and a general increase in non-Federal
responsibilities in the development and management of navigation projects. As a
result, dredged material management has often become a contentious problem at
all stages of harbor development and operation, from planning new projects to
maintaining existing ones. Left unattended, these problems could cause a crisis.
This action plan presents specific ways to improve the dredging process to
ensure that the Nation can maintain and develop needed coastal port capacity
while protecting and conserving our important environmental resources.
Furthermore, the recommendations support the goals of the National
Performance Review's "Reinventing Government" effort, since government will
improve the way it does business regarding dredging issues through interagency
coordination and cooperation.
NOTES:
1 Public Port Financing in the United States, MARAD, July 1994.2 1992-1993
Biennial Report to Congress on the Administration of the Coastal Zone
Management Act, OCRM, 1994.
-------
2.0 The Dredging Project Review Process:
Opportunities for Improvement
The Dredging Process in the United States:
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) dredges and disposes of about 300
million cubic yards of dredged material annually from Congressionally-authorized
navigation improvement and maintenance projects. In addition, permit applicants
(e.g., port authorities, terminal owners, industries, and private individuals) dredge
an additional 100 million cubic yards annually from navigation projects (i.e., ports,
berths, and marinas). The Corps reviews projects and issues permits for dredging
and dredged material disposal in accordance with the Rivers and Harbors Act
(RHA), the Clean Water Act (CWA), and the Marine Protection, Research and
Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA); Congressionally-authorized projects conducted by the
Corps do not receive permits but must comply with the same substantive
permitting procedures and requirements. Under the CWA and MPRSA, the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible for developing the
environmental criteria used by the Corps to evaluate proposed discharges of
dredged material and for environmental oversight. Several other project
development and environmental compliance statutes, regulations and policies at
the Federal (see Appendix A), state and local level can apply to typical dredging
projects.
Ideally, dredging permit applicants submit complete and technically adequate
project applications to the Corps and other review agencies for prompt review and
decision; dredged material testing results provide enough information to assess
the environmental impacts of dredged material disposal at the proposed disposal
site, and to evaluate the risks and uncertainties associated with the proposed
project; information is then shared readily among all relevant stakeholders, from
Federal and state agencies to the general public; and Congress expeditiously
reviews, authorizes, and funds essential new Federal navigation projects.
Unfortunately, the ideal is not always achieved.
For a broad range of reasons, dredging projects can become stalled in the review
process. The project review process has improved since passage of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986 (WRDA '86). Nonetheless, the process is
not perfect, and in some cases, projects have experienced significant delays.
During the Group's review of the dredging process, the following problems were
identified:
• Lack of a unifying national dredging policy to serve as a focus for individual
Agency programs;
• Unresolved interagency conflicts can result in significant delays in the
dredging process;
-------
• Inadequate planning by Federal, state, and local entities, especially with
regard to dredged material management, can result in conflicts among
stakeholders and long project delays;
• Insufficient information exchange and coordination among all involved
stakeholders, can result in poor dredged material management planning,
incomplete and/or technically inadequate permit applications, stakeholder
dissension, and project delays;
• Unclear expectations of the relevant Federal, state, and local agencies,
can result in the need to generate additional information late in the
process, and project delays;
• Uncertainties regarding the scientific ability to evaluate risks to the
environment associated with contamination and the disposal alternatives
(e.g., open ocean disposal, confined disposal facilities, and beneficial use)
can cloud disposal decisions;
• Inconsistent funding policies regarding open water, upland, and confined
disposal, as well as beneficial use of dredged material, can skew disposal
decisions and result in inefficient use of Federal and non-Federal funds;
and
• Insufficient financial and staff resources at many Federal, state, and local
resource agencies constrain the ability of the agencies to conduct
adequate advanced dredged material management planning, dredging
project reviews or disposal site management.
The problems which slow down the dredging process can be categorized into the
following areas: planning, the project review process, scientific uncertainties, and
inconsistent funding allocations. This action plan addresses each of these
problem areas with specific recommendations which, when implemented, will
make the dredging process more timely, efficient, and predictable.
NOTES:
3 Appendix B presents a brief methodology used by the Group and Appendix C
provides a copy of the Executive Summary of the Options Paper.
-------
3.0 THE INTERAGENCY WORKING
GROUP ON THE DREDGING
PROCESS
The Dredging Process in the United
States:
The Interagency Working Group on the Dredging Process (Group) was convened
by Federico Pena, the Secretary of Transportation, in October 1993 to investigate
and recommend methods to improve the dredging project review process. The
Group had two major objectives:
• Promote greater certainty and predictability in the dredging project review
process and dredged material management, and
• Facilitate effective long-term management strategies for addressing
dredging and disposal needs at both the National and local levels.
The Group is comprised of members from the Department of the Army, United
States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps); the Department of Commerce, National
Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS), and Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource
Management (OCRM); the Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
(FWS); the Department of Transportation (DOT), Maritime Administration
(MARAD); and, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Liaisons from the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB); the Office of the Secretary of
Transportation; the U.S. Navy; the U.S. Coast Guard; and, the White House
Office on Environmental Policy also participated.
To meet its objectives, the Group reviewed the current processes for authorizing
Federal and non-Federal dredging projects; for identifying, planning for, and
selecting dredged material disposal alternatives; and for funding Federal dredging
projects. This review included analyzing the aforementioned processes and
identifying ways to improve them, including coordination, information gathering,
environmental compliance, overall sequencing of approvals, and use of long-term
dredged material management planning.
As part of this review, the Group solicited information from the stakeholders
involved in dredging and dredged material management. The range of
stakeholders included Federal, state, and local governments; port and shipping
interests; environmental groups; commercial fishermen; recreational boaters;
maritime labor unions; local businesses; and the general public. The Group held a
-------
series of public outreach sessions to meet with stakeholders in January and
February 1994. Following the first outreach sessions, the Group issued the May
1994 Options Paper, which identified the problems raised and proposed a series
of alternatives for improving the dredging process. A second round of outreach
sessions was held in May and June 1994 to collect stakeholder comments on the
Options Paper. Using the results of the stakeholder feedback, the Group
evaluated all options and developed the set of final recommendations contained
in this paper to improve the dredging process. -
-------
4.0 National Dredging Policy
The Dredging Process in the United
States:
The Group identified the need for a unified national dredging policy to guide in the
development of recommendations and to focus Federal agency commitments.
The Group recommends that the Administration adopt the following Findings and
Principles as a statement of National Dredging Policy. The findings are:
• A network of ports and harbors is essential to the United States' economy,
affecting its competitiveness in world trade and national security. Port
facilities serve as a key link in the intermodal transportation chain and can
realize their full potential as magnets for shipping and commerce only if
dredging occurs in a timely and cost-effective manner.
• The nation's coastal, ocean, and freshwater resources are critical assets
which must be protected, conserved, and restored. These resources are
equally important to the United States by providing numerous economic
and environmental benefits.
• Consistent and integrated application of existing environmental statutes
can protect the environment and can allow for sustainable economic
growth.
• Close coordination and planning at all governmental levels, and with all
aspects of the private sector, are essential to developing and maintaining
the nation's ports and harbors in a manner that will increase economic
growth and protect, conserve, and restore coastal resources.
• Planning for the development and maintenance of the nation's ports and
harbors should occur in the context of broad transportation and
environmental planning efforts such as the National Transportation System
and the ecosystem/watershed management approach.
The principles are:
• The regulatory process must be timely, efficient, and predictable, to the
maximum extent practicable.
• Advanced dredged material management planning must be conducted on
a port or regional scale by a partnership that includes the Federal
government, the port authorities, state and local governments, natural
resource agencies, public interest groups, the maritime industry, and
private citizens. To be effective, this planning must be done prior to
individual Federal or non-Federal dredging project proponents seeking
individual project approval.
-------
• Dredged material managers must become more involved in watershed
planning to emphasize the importance of point and non-point source
pollution controls to reduce harbor sediment contamination.
• Dredged material is a resource, and environmentally-sound beneficial use
of dredged material for such projects as wetland creation, beach
nourishment, and development projects must be encouraged.
The findings and principles are embraced by all of the Group's participating
agencies. The Federal agencies commit themselves to the fulfillment of these
principles, and to complete and timely implementation of the following
recommendations.
-------
5.0 Recommendations to Improve The
Dredging Process: An Action Plan
The Dredging Process in the United
States:
The Group has developed a series of 18 recommendations to improve and
expedite the existing dredging project review process. These recommendations
require up-front, comprehensive planning with increased public participation,
effective interagency communication and cooperation, and better tools to ensure
timely and informed project review and decision making. The recommendations
represent an approach to the dredging process which recognizes the economic
benefits of improving and maintaining our ports and channels and addresses
environmental concerns associated with dredging and dredged material disposal.
Specific recommendations for improvement are presented in four areas: dredging
and dredged material management planning mechanisms, the project review
process, scientific understanding of dredging activities, and funding methods.
Each recommendation is numbered for the reader's convenience, though this is
not intended to convey any priority or ranking. These final recommendations will
be implemented by the headquarters of the relevant Federal agencies, except
where specifically noted.
Most of the recommendations can be initiated immediately, while others will
require legislative and regulatory modification. These recommendations pertain to
the dredging of deep-draft channels and berths and do not specifically address
inland waterway dredging. However, many elements of the recommendations can
be applied to similar issues in the dredging of inland waterways.
5.1 Strengthening Planning Mechanisms for Dredging and Dredged Material
Management
Problem Statement. Inadequate early planning for dredging and dredged
material management at the local, regional, and national levels impacts most
aspects of the dredging project review process:
• Federal and state regulatory agencies often do not adequately coordinate
or communicate their concerns about dredging projects early in the
permitting process. This contributes to delays in the decision making
process and the approvals required by Federal and state law;
-------
• Stakeholders frequently do not effectively participate in planning efforts.
Concerns and issues may be raised late in the review process, resulting in
conflicts and project delays;
• Planning decisions for dredging projects are often based on an incomplete
analysis of the comparative values and/or cumulative effects of the entire
plan;
• Planning decisions about dredged material management, including
disposal alternatives, site monitoring, and determining the suitability of
dredged materials for beneficial use, are not always realistically
incorporated into port dredging plans. Thus, disposal alternatives may be
unavailable when they are needed and dredging projects are delayed;
• Long-term port planning has not been linked to broader watershed
management. Specifically, despite increased control over upstream
pollution, downstream sediment quality continues to suffer due to historic
sources and continued inputs, such as non-point sources of pollution;
• Decision-making criteria for the selection and funding of Federal dredging
projects have not always maximized beneficial uses of dredged material.
When resource agencies or the public believe that opportunities for
beneficial uses have not been adequately formulated, project delays may
result; and,
• The need for port dredging and dredged material management is not
always integrated with planning for landside transportation systems.
In addition to these problems, changes over the last two decades in the economy
and in technology have created new challenges to be addressed by the planning
process. These changes include: increased international/waterborne commerce;
rapid evolution of shipping practices to include containerization and
intermodalism; increased environmental awareness and understanding,
particularly regarding the impacts of contaminated sediments, as well as the
ecological value of wetlands and coastal resources; population growth in coastal
areas; and increased cost sharing and management responsibilities for local
partners in dredging projects.
Recommendations. The planning process for dredging projects and dredged
material management must be improved. Individual port development, regional
and national economic development, and appropriate management of the
environmental effects of dredging and dredged material disposal must be
considered during the planning process. Progressive dredged material planning
also must be coordinated with broader watershed and transportation planning
efforts. Properly executed, dredged material management planning provides a
framework for all Federal, state and local agencies to commit to a specific,
integrated approach to implementing dredged material management.
Encouraging all concerned parties to participate early in the dredging planning
process will promote proactive, rather than reactive, decision making. Further,
advanced planning will provide an open forum for the affected parties to voice
-------
their concerns, thus providing an opportunity to resolve issues before they
become adversarial. The following are key concepts to consider during the
planning process for dredging projects:
• The planning process must reflect the unique mix of environmental,
political, and economic circumstances in the individual port and the region;
• Planning strategies must be flexible enough to consider advances in
technology, new scientific data, and changes in economic circumstances,
and to efficiently integrate these new factors into the decision making
process;
• Regional and local planning interests must develop direct mechanisms for
early coordination and advanced planning for dredging activities, and
selection and management of dredged material disposal sites;
• Public participation must be broadened to include all stakeholders so that
there is widespread understanding of: the role of the local port in the
regional economy, the availability of dredged material management
options, the environmental considerations of dredging, and the roles and
responsibilities of the involved agencies;
• Local dredged material planning efforts must be consistent with, or at least
must not conflict with, regional or national dredging policies; and
• All agencies must be committed to developing, as well as implementing,
the plans.
The project review process currently uses an ad hoc planning process, resulting
in a piecemeal rather than an integrated planning approach. The
recommendations listed below are intended to enhance the planning process to
facilitate/emphasize long-term planning for dredged material disposal and broader
state-led regional, watershed, and transportation planning efforts.
QRecommendation 1: Create and/or augment regional/local dredged
material planning groups to aid in the development of regional dredged
material management plans.
In March 1993, the Corps issued a new policy which requires a dredged material
management plan for every Federal project. In many areas of the country, Corps-
led efforts have generated comprehensive regional dredged material
management planning efforts. Regional/local planning groups may use other
cooperative efforts to broaden the scope of their activities and integrate dredged
material management planning into broader watershed efforts. Examples of
Federal efforts include the EPA's National Estuary Program (NEP) and the
NOAA's work under the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) to assist states
with developing Special Area Management Plans (SAMPs). Other examples of
cooperative dredged material planning efforts include the Puget Sound Dredged
Disposal Analysis plan and the San Francisco/Oakland Long-Term Management
Strategy plan.
-------
The planning groups proposed by this recommendation will consist of Federal
and state agencies and other affected stakeholders. The groups will ensure that
dredged material management plans identify short-term and long-term disposal
alternatives, consider methods to reduce dredging, and maximize beneficial use
of dredged materials. Some of the responsibilities of the groups will include:
• Identifying incentives for agencies and the public to participate in dredged
material management planning and informing both agencies and the public
about the benefits of such a program;
• Promoting watershed planning efforts and providing public forums to
educate the various stakeholders, in conjunction with comprehensive
dredged material disposal planning efforts; and,
• Identifying funding sources for developing dredging plans. The plans will
be cost-shared by the participating agencies both through direct funding
and in-kind services.
QRecommendation 2: Identify the characteristics of successful
Federal/state/local partnerships for use in developing dredged material
management planning efforts.
The EPA, the Corps, the NOAA, and the MARAD will develop a guide to assist
with establishing dredged material management planning efforts. The information
will be in the form of a program guide and include a series of case studies. The
information will assist regional efforts recognizing that each port area is unique
and, therefore, must develop a management plan tailored to meet its own needs.
The guide will cover the following subjects:
• Early public involvement;
• Federal/state/local cost-sharing and coordination;
• Facilitation of multi-jurisdiction coordination;
• Coordination of regional planning efforts with ecosystem/watershed
planning;
• Comprehensive site management,
- selection of environmentally-sound sites,
- baseline data collection,
- permit compliance monitoring,
- environmental monitoring,
- feedback coordination;
• Funding sources/long term financial commitment,
- local assistance for cost-sharing beneficial use projects,
- user fees as adopted by law,
- government funding options,
- identification of cost savings; and
-------
• Technical and policy issues related to dredged material management.
QRecommendation 3: Develop public outreach and education programs to
facilitate stakeholder involvement.
All agencies will immediately review their existing public participation programs.
Each agency will develop education and outreach programs designed to
encourage and facilitate public participation by:
• Building awareness of existing mechanisms for public involvement through
basic education and outreach programs/materials that are created for
different target groups (e.g., fishermen, conservation organizations, port
interests).
• Communicating issues of human and environmental risk from
contaminated sediments to non-technical audiences. The program will
increase the public's understanding of the comprehensive testing to
measure contamination and the implications of the test results, which drive
many disposal decisions.
• Educating the public about the dredged material planning and evaluation
process, and the impacts associated with dredged material
disposal/beneficial use alternatives.
QRecommendation 4: Provide guidance to relevant Agency field offices,
state and local agencies, and the general public on opportunities for
beneficial use of dredged material.
The Corps will review existing regulations and guidance and, as necessary,
provide additional guidance to the field that requires considering beneficial use of
dredged material at an early point in the planning process of both new navigation
projects and operations and maintenance activities. Other agencies such as the
EPA, the FWS, and the NMFS, will participate in the development of this
guidance to ensure that appropriate agency roles and functions are designated
for beneficial-use options such as wetland or other habitat creation.
Each resource agency has a role and commitment to promote beneficial use of
dredged material. The Corps and the EPA will develop technical explanatory
guidance for use by field personnel and the public on cost-sharing provisions
affecting beneficial uses and potential sources and strategies for funding the
incremental costs of beneficial uses. The FWS, NMFS, OCRM, and DOT will
support and promote beneficial use of dredged material and will work with state
and local constituency groups to identify potential non-Federal partners for
beneficial-use projects.
QRecommendation 5: Update guidance on disposal site monitoring
requirements and procedures.
-------
The EPA and the Corps will complete technical guidance to be used by their field
offices in developing and implementing site management and monitoring plans.
This guidance will improve the ability of the field offices to identify potential
impacts of greatest concern, provide technical guidance and advice on monitoring
tools and techniques, direct available resources for monitoring to issues of
environmental significance, work to assure compliance with permit conditions,
and promote consistency between sites and regions.
The guidance will encourage use of common data collection protocols and
procedures to assure that site-specific monitoring plans are coordinated, and that
data is transferred among Federal, state, and local agencies, and the public. This
will minimize duplication of monitoring efforts and assure that relevant resource
agencies and the public are kept informed about potential disposal impacts or
lack thereof.
QRecommendation 6: Ensure that dredged material management planners
work with pollution control agencies to identify point and nonpoint sources
of sediment and sediment pollution, and to implement watershed planning.
The EPA, the Corps, and other dredged material managers must work with
watershed planners to ensure that upstream sources of sediment and sediment
pollution are controlled. Over the long term, controlling both upstream pollution
and erosion will reduce problems associated with contaminated sediments,
dredging, and disposal. Dredged material managers must become more involved
in watershed planning to emphasize the importance of point and non-point source
pollution controls to reduce harbor and channel sediment contamination.
In a number of areas in the United States, pollution control planning is done on an
estuary-wide or watershed basis (e.g., the New York-New Jersey Harbor NEP).
Port planning activities must be coordinated with these efforts to ensure that such
regional plans consider and provide for the pollutant controls necessary to reduce
sediment contamination. Additionally, existing efforts such as the Section 6217
Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program, and revision and reauthorization of
the Clean Water Act (CWA), as proposed by the Administration, will strengthen
watershed planning efforts and further improve pollution controls.
QRecommendation 7: Review the Federal Economic and Environmental
Principles and Guidelines for Water and Related Land Resource
Implementation Studies (P&G) to determine whether changes are needed to
better integrate the economic and environmental objectives of National
Economic Development (NED) and Environmental Quality (EQ).
The existing P&G provides flexibility to incorporate environmental features into
both new work and maintenance dredging projects. The Corps has issued
guidance that provides for the formulation and implementation of projects for the
environmentally beneficial use of dredged material; the Group believes that these
-------
efforts should continue. Concurrent with these ongoing actions, the Group
supports the Administration's initiatives to examine the P&G to determine whether
changes are needed to better measure and integrate the dual objectives of NED
and EQ. The National Dredging Issues Team (described in Section 5.2) will
coordinate with these efforts to ensure that the review includes consideration of
dredging and beneficial use of dredged materials.
QRecommendation 8: Revise the Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) to ensure that the planning process outlined
in the legislation provides for linkages with plans which address dredging
issues.
The MARAD/DOT will suggest changes during the reauthorization of ISTEA in
1997 which ensure that: 1) Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) consider
waterside infrastructure requirements as well as landside needs when developing
transportation plans; 2) a balance is sought between the mobility needs of freight
and people; and, 3) local port development plans are considered in the
preparation of regional and statewide transportation planning efforts.
The MPOs are the primary planning mechanism available to coordinate
transportation needs and project prioritization within a state or region. Under the
revised legislation, the MPOs will more fully consider the importance of moving
freight/cargo and the roles that ports and water transportation routes play in doing
so. The long-term coastal and dredging planning in an area would thus be linked
to long-term intermodal transportation planning for access to ports on both the
land side and the water side. Other structures may also exist at the state level
which can be linked to the dredging process.
5.2 Enhancing Coordination and Communication in the Dredging Project
Development and Review Process
Problem Statement. While the existing dredging approval process works well for
the majority of projects, for many projects the process may take too long and can
be unpredictable. Contributing factors include inadequate communication with
permit applicants on requirements, as well as inadequate coordination with the
public regarding specific dredging/dredged material disposal projects. The project
development and review process is a multi-disciplinary and multi-agency process
involving a wide range of often competing interests and stakeholders. Open
communications and early coordination are essential in this process. When
coordination efforts fail, relationships among agencies may become adversarial,
which further impedes (and raises the costs of) the review process. Mechanisms
for resolving conflicts are imperfect and may cause disputes to fester for too long,
alienating the participants. Decisions about O&M dredging also are impacted by
these factors, specifically information sharing, inadequate communication with the
public, and inadequate planning for dredged material disposal management.
-------
Recommendations: The existing administrative procedures for developing and
reviewing projects and reaching dredged material disposal decisions is basically
sound, but aspects of that process require improvement. Most of these problems
can be solved through early and vigorous stakeholder participation, improved and
coordinated dredging policies and planning, and greatly expanded information
sharing. The following recommendations have been proposed to address these
problems in the dredging process.
QRecommendation 9: Establish a National Dredging Issues Team and
Regional Dredging Issues Teams.
The Corps and EPA will establish or use existing teams to promote national and
regional consistency on dredging issues and provide a forum for conflict
resolution and information exchange early in the process. The teams will provide
a mechanism for timely resolution of conflicts by involving all agencies, and
maximizing interagency coordination. The National and Regional Dredging Issues
Teams will not supersede the authority of any of the agencies involved in the
dredging project review process. Rather the teams are intended to provide a
forum for conflict resolution by mutual agreement. These teams will consist of
appropriate agency decision makers and technical experts.
The National Dredging Issues Team will be chaired by EPA and the Corps and
will include representatives from the DOC, the DOI, and the DOT. The national
team will have two roles: 1) to review policies and procedures associated with the
dredging process, including implementation of this action plan, and to develop
guidance for interaction with the Regional Dredging Issues Teams; and 2) to
oversee the resolution of issues elevated from the Regional Dredging Team level.
The Regional Dredging Issues Teams will include representatives from the
appropriate resource agencies. The teams will resolve local-level issues that arise
during the permitting process, dredged material disposal management and
planning, and new navigation project planning. The regional teams will review
overall regional dredging issues and specific projects as necessary to improve
coordination and resolve controversies; assure that necessary local agreements
are completed and implemented; serve as a forum for information exchange
among and provide guidance to local/regional dredged material planning groups
(identified in Section 5.1) on the development of long-term dredged material
management plans; and refer interagency policy, technical, and institutional
issues to the national team for resolution, on a timely basis. Issues and conflicts
associated with specific projects that cannot be resolved by the regional teams
also may be elevated to the national team.
QRecommendation 10: Schedule pre-application meetings among the
Corps, the applicant, the EPA, other interested Federal agencies and
relevant state agencies for dredging projects that are potentially
controversial or that may involve significant environmental issues.
-------
The Corps will schedule the meetings as necessary. Pre-application meetings
can ensure that, by the time the project is ready for public notice, the applicant
has submitted a complete and technically adequate application. This can occur
because the pre-application meetings will provide a prospective applicant with an
indication of the completeness of the project application, an indication of what
anticipated environmental and health impacts are of most concern, an
understanding of testing requirements for contaminated sediments, and mitigation
concepts that could aid planning and expedite application reviews. The pre-
application process is intended to help applicants identify the information needed
by the Agencies to complete the review process. However, even if a pre-
application meeting is held an applicant may be required to submit additional
information to complete the permit evaluation or to meet other statutory
requirements (e.g., NEPA).
In addition, if testing indicates that disposal may result in adverse impacts and/or
that the dredged material should be specially managed (e.g. capped) and the
results were not available and not provided in the original public notice for the
project, the Corps will issue a second public notice. This supplemental public
notice will improve coordination among Federal, state, and local agencies, and
the concerned public, and provide the Corps with useful data on comments that
specifically address potential contaminant-related impacts and management
strategies to address them.
QRecommendation 11: Develop and distribute a permit application
checklist which identifies the information required from the applicant.
In coordination with appropriate resource agencies, the Corps will develop the
checklist with a twofold function: to determine what information is needed to make
up a "complete" application and to highlight areas of concern. The checklist will
provide permit applicants with a means to conduct a preliminary evaluation of the
completeness of their own applications, which in turn will result in more complete
and technically adequate applications. The checklist will also facilitate the Corps'
review of applications as the applications will be more consistent and predictable.
Developing a checklist with input from multiple agencies will also provide
agencies with a common vehicle for evaluating applications and communicating
with each other. Ideally, the checklist will be used to consolidate information and,
therefore, reduce the administrative burden. This document will also provide
examples of how key information and testing results will be presented. This will
promote consistency and clearly communicate the Federal government's
expectations from private permit applicants.
QRecommendation 12: Develop or revise the procedures for coordinating
inter- agency review at the regional level to define the process by which
various Federal parties coordinate on dredging projects.
-------
Federal Agency field offices involved in the dredging project review process will
develop or revise, as appropriate, local procedures to establish clear obligations
and responsibilities, including the exchange of information, analytical standards
for evaluating dredging proposals, and obligations for timely responses. The local
procedures will also establish the roles and responsibilities of the Regional
Dredging Issues Teams and define procedures for communicating and resolving
interagency disagreements which may arise during the process. This should
include identifying agency decision makers for dredging issues to minimize the
potential for duplicative or inconsistent comments from the agencies. In addition,
the local procedures will encourage the Regional Dredging Issues Teams to
coordinate with local dredged material management planning groups. These
procedures could be completed under the umbrella of existing CWA 404(q) MOAs
or through development of MOAs specific to dredged material disposal.
QRecommendation 13: Establish a national MOA to clarify roles and
coordination mechanisms between the EPA and the Corps.
The EPA and the Corps will develop the MOA which will address dispute
resolution, disposal site monitoring responsibilities, permit review roles,
enforcement, and coordination to address sampling and testing plans in a timely
fashion. Implementation of this MOA will help the two agencies more efficiently
execute their responsibilities for dredged material management.
5.3 Addressing Scientific Uncertainties About Dredged Material
Problem Statement: Dredging results in large volumes of material that must be
disposed in an environmentally-sound manner. As emphasized earlier, decisions
about dredged material management must be made early in the planning process
as uncertainty and controversy over dredged material disposal can result in
delays and inefficiencies in developing and maintaining the nation's ports.
While the existing testing regime takes the complexities of sediment chemistry
and the environmental conditions specific to each disposal site into account, and
provides much information about the effects of dredged material disposal on the
environment, uncertainties in scientific evaluations will always exist. The goal is
not only to minimize the uncertainties associated with assessment tools but also
to understand those uncertainties so they can be considered when making risk-
management decisions. The dredging process is not alone in its effort to
determine how to address scientific uncertainty and use it in risk management; it
is an area being addressed by every regulatory program.
Some ecological and human-health effects are relatively easy to measure and
evaluate (e.g., observed mortality of laboratory test animals); other effects are
more difficult to evaluate (e.g., bioaccumulation of contaminants in test animal
tissues). Risk managers must accurately assess a wide range of acute, sublethal,
and chronic effects data to make the most practicable decisions that adequately
-------
protect ecosystems and human health. This work is complicated by testing
endpoints which range from reproductive and growth inhibition to endocrine
disruption and genotoxicity, and by the understanding that bioaccumulative
compounds might not necessarily have "safe" levels.
Regulatory authorities such as the EPA are now combining assessment tools to
make risk-based evaluations and management decisions. However, the risk
assessment process itself is more complicated and less intuitive to many in the
regulated community who are accustomed to using single-number criteria for
decision making. Risk assessment tools require calculations, data, and
assumptions that are used in an iterative manner.
Risk assessment methods and risk management guidance for protecting human
health and the environment, and for making regulatory determinations, are being
developed by EPA under the Risk Assessment Framework. As the guidance
develops, dredged material managers should continue to base their site-specific
decisions on information gathered from the variety of assessment tools available
to them.
Recommendations. Risk assessment and risk management methodologies can
provide a comprehensive approach to evaluating dredged material and available
disposal options. EPA and the Corps should work with the Risk Assessment
Framework and risk management guidance to determine how they are best
applied to the dredging program.
The following three recommendations will improve our understanding of the
scientific uncertainties surrounding dredged material management planning and
allow us to incorporate uncertainty analysis into these decisions.
QRecommendation 14: Clarify and improve the guidance used to evaluate
bioaccum ulation of contaminants from dredged materials.
The EPA and the Corps will evaluate the dredging program under the Risk
Assessment Framework and other risk management guidance to develop a
technical framework for the dredging program to assess potential human health
and ecological risks associated with bioaccumulation. The EPA and the Corps will
gather and organize available information and research so that decision makers
can access and use the material when developing dredged material management
plans. The emphasis will be on providing permit reviewers with practical and
useable field guidance that can be used to interpret the environmental
significance of laboratory bioaccumulation data.
QRecommendation 15: Identify the practical barriers to managing
contaminated sediments and ways to overcome the barriers.
-------
The Corps and the EPA will publish guidance identifying technical, operational,
institutional, and regulatory barriers to managing contaminated sediments and
proposing environmentally appropriate "best practices" to overcome those
barriers, including use of confined disposal facilities, subaqueous isolation (i.e.,
capping) and decontamination and other state-of-the-art technologies. The Corps
and the EPA will capitalize on a number of existing Federal efforts to manage
contaminated sediments (e.g., ARCS, SITES, NY/NJ Harbor demonstration
projects, and the National Academy of Sciences Study, Management and
Remediation of Contaminated Marine Sediment).
QRecommendation 16: Identify means to reduce the volume of material
which must be dredged.
The Corps and the EPA will continue to coordinate with other Federal agencies,
particularly the U.S. Coast Guard, MARAD, and the private sector on reducing the
need for dredging. For example, at a predominantly export port, inbound channel
lanes can be shallower than outbound lanes, and at multi-channel ports,
improved vessel-traffic control might be used to restrict, or prioritize, deep
channel use to deep-draft vessels during certain tidal periods. State-of-the-art
marine engineering technologies (such as use of ship simulators to assist in
channel design and NOAA's real-time reporting of water-level measurements to
maximize use of existing channel depths) can also be used to reduce dredging
needs. The Corps and EPA will follow-up with appropriate technical guidance for
use by their field offices and ports.
5.4 Funding Federal Dredged Material Disposal Projects Consistently and
Efficiently
Problem Statement. There is no consistent policy on requiring cost-sharing for
the use of open- water, upland, and confined disposal facilities. Federal and non-
Federal cost-sharing responsibilities for dredged material disposal vary from
project to project, region to region, and port to port depending on when the
project was authorized. For example:
• The RHA of 1970 authorized the Corps to construct, operate, and maintain
confined disposal facilities in the Great Lakes and their connecting
channels, with local interests generally bearing no costs. In contrast,
navigation projects authorized since 1986 require the non-Federal sponsor
to provide upland and confined disposal facilities.
• As a general rule, open-water disposal costs are either cost shared (new
projects) or borne by the Federal government (maintenance) while land
and diking costs for upland and confined disposal costs are largely non-
Federal burdens. This inconsistency creates a strong economic incentive
for a non-Federal sponsor to urge use of open water disposal sites (which
are "free" to the non-Federal sponsor) instead of upland and nearshore
sites which must be paid for by the sponsor.
-------
In addition to these complications, some of the Federal resource agencies which
implement dredging and dredged material management programs and policies
are facing significant staff and financial resource constraints. These agencies
need to access a reliable, available funding base to implement dredging
programs and policies. A particular problem is resources for managing ocean
disposal sites. Some believe that the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund (HMTF),
which provides funds to maintain deep-draft Federal channels and harbors,
provides such a resource base.
While the Corps does use the fund for this purpose, it can only do so within
budgetary ceilings. Although the HMTF shows a "surplus" of about $300 million
(in part due to the absence of authorizing legislation for NOAA to receive $45.5
million per year from the Trust Fund), this surplus is currently factored into the
calculation of the Federal budget deficit and, under the strict requirements of the
Administration's and the Congress' expenditure limits, expenditures of HMTF
monies are limited by mandatory budget ceilings. Therefore, any additional
expenditures from the HMTF must be offset by spending cuts in other programs.
Recommendations: Consistent funding and development of dredging projects
will result in: increased efficiency and increased predictability of the dredging
project review process; and, increased beneficial use of dredged material. The
following recommendations are proposed.
QRecommendation 17: Revise WRDA to establish consistent Federal-local
sponsor cost sharing, across all dredged material disposal methods.
The Corps will recommend to the Administration changes to the appropriate
legislation. Current cost sharing formulas for both new navigation projects and
maintenance dredging provide for Federal cost sharing (new projects) and
Federal funding (maintenance) when open-water disposal is used, but generally
require local sponsors to pay all costs for land and diking when upland and
confined disposal facilities are used. This inconsistency creates an incentive for
open-water disposal and discourages more costly projects where beneficial uses
of dredged materials produce environmental benefits. This recommendation
would reduce inconsistencies. A more coherent policy will provide for more
uniform Federal participation in all disposal alternatives.
QRecommendation 18: Study the feasibility of a fee for open-water disposal
for non- Federal dredging projects.
The EPA will study the need for and feasibility of imposing a user fee on the
open-water disposal of dredged material to cover the cost of disposal site
management. At a minimum, such a fee should cover the cost of ocean disposal
site management. The WRDA 92 mandated that management plans be
developed for each disposal site; however, to date no appropriations have been
made to develop or implement such plans. These plans are to include, among
-------
other things, a baseline study; a monitoring program; consideration of anticipated
site use and closure data (if applicable), and the need for post-closure site
management; and, a schedule for review and revision of the plan.
Because dredged material management should be consistent between ocean
and inland waters, the study will look at the need for and feasibility of a user fee
applying to all aquatic disposal sites, not just ocean sites. In addition, those
entities most impacted by the fee, and the size of the fee will be examined. The
feasibility of using fees only at the site where they were collected will be
evaluated as part of this process.
The 18 recommendations listed above represent practical and productive
improvements to the dredging process. Exhibit 1 presents a summary table listing
each recommendation. Each of the recommendations will be implemented by the
Federal agencies which participated in the Group.
-------
6.0 Conclusion
The Dredging Process in the United
States:
The recommendations presented in this Action Plan will demonstrably improve
the regulations and planning procedures which currently govern dredging and
dredged material disposal projects in the United States. Existing regulatory,
procedural, and philosophical obstructions to the dredging process can be
overcome with methodical identification and resolution of specific problem
elements. The recommendations will result in improvements in agency
communication, gains in scientific research, equitable project funding, and new
outreach activities for non-agency groups and individuals. This will measurably
change how essential dredging projects are planned and conducted.
Changes to the organization and prioritization of national and regional dredging
policies and practices may be ultimately required to resolve some of the more
problematic dredging sites and controversies. However, codifying new legislation
and realigning agency missions and resources are certain to be difficult and time
consuming. It is far more timely and efficient to address key impediments within
the existing regulations and agency framework.
The Federal Agencies which participated in the Group that developed this paper
are committed to implementing each of the above recommendations and
operating a dredging process that is efficient and predictable, and fosters both
economic growth and environmental protection for the Nation.
-------
Summary List of Recommendations
Exhibit 1: Summary Listing of Recommendations
Rec.
No.
Recommendation
Lead
Agency
Time
Frame
Page
No.
Strengthening Planning Mechanisms for Dredging and Dredged Material
Management
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Create and/or augment regional/local
dredged material planning groups to aid in
the development of regional dredged material
management plans.
Identify the characteristics of successful
Federal/state/local partnerships for use in
developing dredged material management
planning efforts.
Develop public outreach and education
programs to facilitate stakeholder
involvement.
Provide guidance to relevant Agency field
offices, state and local agencies, and the
general public on opportunities for beneficial
use of dredged material.
Update guidance on disposal site monitoring
requirements and procedures.
Ensure that dredged material management
planners work with pollution control agencies
to identify point and nonpoint sources of
sediment and sediment pollution and to
implement watershed planning.
Review the Federal Economic and
Environmental Principles and Guidelines for
Water and Related Land Resource
Implementation Studies (P&G) to determine
whether changes are needed to better
integrate the economic and environm ental
objectives of National Economic
Development (NED) and Environmental
Quality (EQ)
Revise the Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) to ensure that
the planning process outlined in the
legislation provides for linkages with plans
which address dredging issues.
Corps
Corps,
EPA,
NOAA
MARAD
All
Agencies
Corps,
EPA
EPA,
Corps
EPA,
Corps
Corps
MARAD
Short
Term
Short
Term
Short
Term
Short
Term
Short
Term
Short
Term
Long
Term
Long
Term
8
9
9
10
10
10
11
11
-------
Enhancing Coordination and Communication in the Dredging Project
Approval Process
9
10
11
12
13
Establish a National Dredging Issues Team
and Regional Dredging Issues Teams.
Schedule pre-application meetings among
the Corps, the applicant, the EPA, other
interested Federal agencies and relevant
state agencies for dredging projects that are
potentially controversial or that may involve
significant environmental issues.
Develop and distribute a permit application
checklist which identifies the information
required from the applicant.
Develop or revise the procedures for
coordinating interagency review at the
regional level to define the process by which
various Federal parties coordinate on
dredging projects.
Establish a national MOA to clarify roles and
coordination mechanisms between the EPA
and the Corps.
Corps,
EPA
Corps
Corps
Corps,
EPA, FWS
NOAA
EPA,
Corps
Short
Term
Short
Term
Short
Term
Short
Term
Short
Term
12
13
13
14
14
Addressing Scientific Uncertainties About Dredged Material
14
15
16
Clarify and improve the guidance used to
evaluate bioaccumulation of contaminants
from dredged materials.
Identify the practical barriers to managing
contaminated sediments and ways to
overcome the barriers.
Identify means to reduce the volume of
material which must be dredged.
EPA,
Corps
Corps,
EPA
Corps,
EPA
Short
Term
Short
Term
Short
Term
15
16
16
Funding Dredging Projects Consistently and Efficiently
17
18
Revise WRDA to establish consistent
Federal-local sponsor cost sharing, across all
dredged material disposal methods.
Study the feasibility of a fee for open-water
disposal for non-Federal dredging projects.
Corps
EPA
LongTerm
Long
Term
17
17
Short Term:
Immediately implementable under existing regulations.
Long Term:
Requires regulatory or legislative change.
-------
Appendix A
The Dredging Process in the United
States:
Primary Federal Statutes Governing Dredging
Clean Water Act (CWA)
The purpose of the CWA is to "restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and
biological integrity of the Nation's waters." Under Section 404 of the CWA the
Corps authorizes discharges of dredged or fill material in waters of the U.S.
through a permit program. (The Corps also conducts discharge activities in
conjunction with its civil works program.) The Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines are
the substantive criteria by which proposed dredged material discharge actions
are evaluated . EPA also maintains general environmental oversight, including
Section 404(c) permit veto authority if there will be an "unacceptable adverse
effect." Under Section 401, proposed discharges of dredged or fill material must
comply with applicable State water quality standards.
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)
The CZMA establishes a Federal-state partnership to provide for the
comprehensive management of coastal resources. States develop management
programs based on enforceable policies and mechanisms to balance resource
protection and coastal development needs. The Federal consistency provisions
require that all Federal activities (including direct Federal actions, private
activities requiring Federal licenses or permits, and Federal financial assistance
to state and local governments) be consistent with the enforceable policies of a
state's Federally-approved coastal management program. At the Federal level,
the CZMA is administered by the OCRM within NOAA's National Ocean Service.
Endangered Species Act (ESA)
The ESA states that all Federal departments and agencies shall seek to
conserve threatened and endangered species and shall use their authorities to
further the purposes of the ESA. In addition, all Federal departments and
agencies must ensure that activities they fund, authorize, or carry out do not
jeopardize the continued existence of threatened or endangered species or
adversely modify or destroy designated critical habitat. The act is administered
by the FWS and the NMFS and requires the agencies to formally evaluate
proposals for Federal actions, including the issuance of permits for port dredging
and dredged material disposal, that may affect species listed as threatened or
endangered.
-------
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA)
The purpose of the FWCA is to recognize the "vital contribution of our wildlife
resources to the Nation." Under this act, Federal agencies proposing actions,
including issuance of permits, which will affect any body of water, must consult
with the FWS, the NMFS, and the affected state's fish and wildlife management
agency. Review agencies determine the possible damage to fish and wildlife
resources by the proposed activity, and develop means and measures that
should be adopted to prevent the loss or damage to fish and wildlife resources.
The Corps is required to give full consideration to the review agencies' viewpoints
(including those of the public) before making permit decisions.
Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA)
Under Title I of the MPRSA (also known as the Ocean Dumping Act), ocean
dumping permits may be issued if the proposed dumping will not "unreasonably
degrade or endanger human health, welfare, or amenities, or the marine
environment, ecological systems, or economic potentialities. Under Title I, the
Corps is the permit issuing authority for authorizing the transportation of dredged
material for the purpose of ocean dumping and is directed to use EPA-developed
environmental impact criteria in its permit decisions. Title I further provides that
the Corps determinations to issue a permit are subject to EPA review and
concurrence, and that the Corps is to utilize, to the maximum extent feasible,
disposal sites which have been designated by the EPA rather than designating
them on a case-by-case basis. A separate title of the MPRSA (Title III)
establishes the national marine sanctuaries program, which is implemented by
NOAA.
Merchant Marine Act of 1920
This law empowers MARAD to investigate causes of congestion at ports; to
investigate the practicability and advantage of harbor, river, and port
improvements in connection with foreign and coastwise trade; and to investigate
any other matter which may tend to promote use by vessels of ports. If MARAD's
recommendations concern areas within the purview of the Interstate Commerce
Commission (ICC), the Secretary of Transportation may submit such findings to
the ICC.
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
NEPA is the national charter for protection of the environment which requires a
full consideration of the environmental consequences of major Federal actions.
This is accomplished through the use of either an environmental impact
statement or an environmental assessment. These documents provide a vehicle
for the government to assess before the fact the effects of a potential action and
provides an avenue for the public to review and comment on Federal agency
projects and their potential expected environmental impacts.
Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) of 1899
The original purpose of the RHA was to establish the Federal interest in
-------
interstate navigation. Section 10 of the Act requires approval from the Corps prior
to placing obstructions, or excavating and/or depositing materials in navigable
waters.
Water Resources Development Acts (WRDA)
Dredging projects are authorized by Congress through the WRDAs, which are
reauthorized biennially. WRDA 86 introduced cost sharing for construction
projects whereby the local sponsor pays between 20 and 60 percent of the
construction cost based on the depth of the navigation channel. For projects over
45 feet in depth, the local sponsor must also pay 50 percent of the incremental
cost of maintenance. Maintenance dredging of channels is Federally funded, with
Corps' expenditures reimbursable through the Harbor Maintenance Tax. Cost-
sharing in these situations generally takes the form of the non-Federal sponsor
providing lands, easements, right-of-way and disposal areas (other than open
water) for the maintenance dredging. WRDAs also contain provisions for
beneficial use of dredged material such as beach nourishment (WRDA 86) and
the protection, restoration and creation of aquatic habitat (WRDA 92) and for
environmental dredging to remove, as part of operation and maintenance of a
navigation project, contaminated sediments outside the boundaries of and
adjacent to the navigation channel (WRDA 90).
-------
Appendix B
Methodology
The recommendations presented in this report are the culmination of a year long
process conducted and managed by the Interagency Working Group on the
Dredging Process. This section provides a more detailed description of that
process.
The bulk of the analysis was conducted by a Working Committee composed of a
multi-disciplinary team of senior staff from the participating agencies. First, the
Group collected information on the existing dredging process. To gather input
from the public, the Group held a series of public outreach meetings in the
beginning of 1994. Over 500 participants attended the regional outreach
sessions in ten important port cities (Boston, MA; Chicago, IL; Hoboken, NJ;
Houston, TX; Los Angeles, CA; New Orleans, LA; Oakland, CA; Portland, OR;
Savannah, GA; and St. Louis, MO) and Washington, DC. The participants
included representatives of ports, environmental interests, recreational boaters,
fishing groups, maritime unions, and business. Following the outreach meetings,
the Group identified options for improving the dredging process.
A written report, the May 1994 Options Paper, describing these options was
circulated. The Executive Summary of this report can be found in Appendix C. A
second round of outreach meetings was held to collect reactions and comments
on the options in the beginning of the summer of 1994. Simultaneously, the
Group consulted with experts in the dredging process to build the Group's
understanding of the problems within the process as well as successful regional
models that are being used around the nation.
The feedback provided by the public detailed their existing problems with the
dredging process as well as the methods that could be used to improve the
dredging process. Specifically, the problems identified contributed to the
development of the problem statements discussed in Section 5.0. And, the
methods to improve the dredging process, including examples of successes
within the dredging process, contributed to the development of the
recommendations.
Using the development guidelines listed below, the Group eliminated redundant
or unworkable options and refined others, before developing recommendations.
Then, in consideration of the findings and principles discussed in Section 4.0, the
Group developed recommendations. For some options several recommendations
were developed. For other options only one recommendation was developed.
-------
• Each recommendation must have a realistic time frame for
implementation.
• Recommendations must be developed with input from all relevant
constituencies.
• Recommendations must not interfere with the mission and/or mandate of
any Federal Agency.
• Recommendations must be focused, doable, and practical. Responsibility
for each recommendation should be assigned to specific agencies or
groups where possible.
• Recommendations should emphasize prevention to avoid the cost of the
cure.
• Recommendations must acknowledge the staffing and budget constraints
facing the agencies.*
For the final report, the recommendations were organized into four areas:
planning, project review process, scientific uncertainties, and funding. Each of
these areas as well as the recommendations that address them are discussed in
detail in Section 5.0.
Table B.2 shows the continuity between the options in the May 1994 Options
Paper and the recommendations presented in the Action Plan. The table relates
the originally proposed option to the final recommendation. Each option did not
result in a specific recommendation. Rather, the concepts proposed in most of
the options were captured in the final recommendations. Finally, those options
which did not meet the guidelines described earlier were considered redundant
or unworkable by the Group and were not incorporated into the final
recommendations.
-------
Table B.2: Relationship between options and recommendations
May 1994
Option
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
5.7
5.8
Rel<
Recorrm
9,10,11,12
'[2
J1
[3
J10
'[9
J1
[2
J1
'h
'h
J14
[4
6,15
Is
J3
[statement of National Policy
[NO Recommendation
'[9
J9
[NO Recommendation
[NO Recommendation
[NO Recommendation
'|17
J7
[7
17,18
[1,2
[NO Recommendation
*Agency budget caps are dictated by the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 and
reaffirmed by the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993. These financial
constraints prevent use of the "surplus" in the HMTF, independent of
-------
Congressional budgetary approval. Further, Executive Order 12837 of February
10, 1993, mandates real reductions in Federal agencies' administrative costs - a
14% reduction in administrative expenses is required by Fiscal Year 1997. In
addition, Executive Order 12839 of February 10, 1993, Reduction of 100,000
Federal Positions makes it clear that agencies must meet their regulatory
obligations with reduced staff.
-------
Appendix C
Executive Summary of May 1994
Options Paper
Ports are a vital link to domestic and international trade in peace time and of
strategic importance during a national defense emergency. In order for the port
system and vessel operations to function in a safe and efficient manner, timely
and effective dredging and dredged material disposal are necessary. It has
become increasingly difficult for the Federal Government and for deep-draft port
facility owners to proceed with these essential dredging operations in a timely
and cost-effective way, consistent with administrative and environmental
requirements for a number of reasons.
The Clinton Administration is working to improve the dredging and disposal
process. In the fall of 1993, the Interagency Working Group on the Dredging
Process (Group) was founded to examine the current dredging and disposal
process and identify mechanisms for improvement. As part of their efforts, the
Group conducted a series of public outreach meetings to gather information
about the problems and potential solutions with the dredging process. The first
round of outreach meetings, held in January and February 1994, resulted in the
identification of issues, problems, and potential solutions associated with the
dredging process. These concerns were expressed on both a national and a
region-specific level.
Based on the results of the public outreach meetings, the Group identified five
issue areas and special considerations which could be used to resolve some of
the problems associated with port development and the dredging process. A
spectrum of resolution options formulated by the Group have been categorized
into these five issue areas:
| Issue Area | Special Considerations
|1. Federal Interagency and External [HOW can Federal, State and local
[Coordination agencies, and non-governmental
| interests, including the public, improve
| their overall working relationships
| regarding the review of dredging
| proposals (defined as a Federal permit
| or civil works navigation dredging
| (proposal)?
|2. Proactive Local Planning and Can effective advanced planning
(Coordination mechanisms be developed to
I adequately address dredging and
-------
dredged material disposal projects and
greater State, local, and public
I (participation?
3. Dredged Material Disposal What mechanisms are needed and how
can responsible parties better plan for
and more effectively manage dredged
\ (material disposal decisions?
J4. Dredging Policy |What is an appropriate national policy
| with respect to dredging? At what level
of government should these decisions
be made and what mechanisms need to
be developed to implement and
I (coordinate these decisions?
5. Funding and Project Development Should policy and procedural changes
be adopted for funding the
development, improvement, and
maintenance of deep draft navigation
channels and harbors, including the
disposal of dredged material? What is
the national interest in federally funding
dredging projects? What criteria should
[ [be used for funding port activities?
The second round of outreach sessions will focus on these options to elicit
comments from interested parties. The second round of meetings will provide a
forum to discuss these options and to identify any other options or issues which
may have been missed. The results of the second round of meetings will help the
Group select a combination of possible options which can provide for more
uniform guidance while allowing flexibility for local problems. The rest of this
executive summary provides the list of resolution options.
A listing of each of the 28 resolution options follows. A more complete discussion
of the Group and its mission, important background information and the
resolution options can be found in the Group's options paper.
Problem Resolution Options
I Federal Agency and External Coordination
H.1 Make Better Use of Existing Coordination Mechanisms within the
(Regulatory Process
1.2 Define Characteristics of a Successful Interdisciplinary, Public/Private
(Task Force on Dredging to Guide the Formation of Such Groups at a Local Level
|1.3 Create National and Regional Dredging Process Review Teams
H .4 Develop an Educational Program to Build Awareness of Existing
Mechanisms for Public Involvement
-------
|1.5 Conduct Internal Reviews of Agency Guidance
| Proactive Local Planning and Coordination
J2.1 Enhance Federally-led Efforts to Ensure the Development of Long-Term
[Management Strategies
[2.2 Support State Efforts to Develop Long-Term Port Management Plans
2.3 Establish Advisory Working Groups for Each Major Port Area to
[Participate in Dredged Material Management Planning
J2.4 Use Watershed Planning Provisions Under 1994 CWA Amendments to
[Develop Watershed-based Dredging Plans
[2.6 Use the Planning Process of the Intermodal Surface Transportation
[Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991 to Assure Linkages with Plans Which Address
[Dredging Issues
| Dredged Material Disposal
[3.1 Enhance Research and Monitoring Activities to Improve Dredged Material
[Disposal Decision Making
[3.2 Seek Alternatives to Open-Water Disposal for Contaminated Sediments
[3.3 Increase Efforts to Identify and Control Sources of Pollution
[3.4 Enhance Research and Demonstration of Decontamination Technologies
3.5 Provide for More Effective Education and Communication with the Public
[on the Risks and Impacts Associated with Disposal of Dredged Material
i Dredging Policy
[4.1 Develop Principles to Guide the Federal Decision Making Process
[4.2 Support a Federally-driven Decision Making Process Which Determines
[Priority Ports According to Defense, Commerce, and Environmental Criteria
4.3 Integrate Federal/State/Local Interests Under a Regional Governance
[System with Decision Making Authority
4.4 Support a Federal Program with Locally-driven Decision Making
[Mechanisms 4.5 Allow Market Driven Decision Making for Ports to Determine
[Needs for Dredging
| Funding and Project Development
5.1 Transfer the lead responsibility for project implementation from the
Federal government to non-Federal sponsors and establish a dedicated source
of funding for navigation projects which distributes Federal funds to navigation
[project sponsors as grants
5.2 Authorize the Corps to Approve and Fund Projects with Only
[Programmatic Congressional Approval and Appropriations
5.3 Establish Non-Federal, Local Sponsor Cost Sharing Requirements for
[Maintenance Dredging
[5.4 Revise the Federal Principles and Guidelines for Decision Making to
[Reflect the Dual Objectives of National Economic Development and
-------
Environmental Quality
5.5 Establish a Decision Making Framework for Determining Which Projects
to Fund and How to Dispose of Dredged Material
5.6 Establish Consistent Cost Sharing Requirements for all Disposal Options
Including Open Water, Upland, and Confined Disposal
5.7 Direct an Interagency Working Group to Look at What the Appropriate
Cost-Sharing Should Be when Federally-Approved State Requirements are
(Imposed and Whether Legislative Changes are Needed
J5.8 Use the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund to Support Activities such as
Regional Management Studies, Beneficial Uses of Dredged Materials, Confined
Disposal Facilities, and Remediation and Disposal Technologies
-------
Appendix D
Acronyms
AAPA American Association of Port Authorities
Corps Army Corps of Engineers, DOD
CWA Clean Water Act
CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act
DOC U.S. Department of Commerce
DOI U.S. Department of the Interior
DOT U.S. Department of Transportation
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
EQ Environmental Quality
FWS Fish and Wildlife Service
Group The Interagency Working Group on the Dredging Process (For a
description of the Group, please see Section 1.0 of this report.)
HMTF Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund
ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act
LTMS Long Term Management Strategies
MARAD Maritime Administration, DOT
MOA Memorandum of Agreement
MPRSA Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act
NED National Economic Development Plan
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NGOs Non-Government Organizations
-------
NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service, DOC
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, DOC
NOS National Ocean Service, NOAA
OCRM Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, NOS, NOAA
P&G Economic and Environmental Principles and Guidelines for Water and
Related Land Resources Implementation Studies
RHA Rivers and Harbors Act
SQC Sediment Quality Criteria
WRDA Water Resources Development Act
------- |