The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 03122002 - C20 Contra TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Costa FROM: Transportation Water & Infrastructure Committee County Supervisor Donna Gerber, Chair Supervisor Federal Glover DATE:;, March 12, 20012 SUBJECT: Report on Process for Setting, Managing and Monitoring Environmental Windows for Dreog!ng,Projacts SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)'OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS Authorize Chair to sign letters to the Long Term Management Strategy (LTMS)agencies requesting their participation in a collaborative 'process to identify methods to protect species while'allowing necessary dredging and disposal to occur. Endorse the Report "Process for Setting, Managing and Monitoring Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects" by the Marine Transportation Research Board and the National Research Council, and request agency involvement in this process. FISCAL:.IMPACT There is no fiscal impact to the County from this action. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT`: YES SIGNATURE RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER f SIGNATURES ervisor na Gerber, Chair S rvis+e Federal Glover ACTION OF BOARD ON March 12. 2002 APPROVED As RECOMMENDED x OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE x UNANIMOUS (ABSENT None AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN' AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. Contact: Roberta Goulart (925/335-1226) ATTESTED March 12, 2002 cc: Community Development Department (CDD) JOHN SWEETEN, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR BY _, DEPUTY D:Shell for Board Order Report on Process for Setting, Managing and Monitoring Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects March 12, 2002 Page 2 of 2 BA KGROUNDIREASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS The attached report contains a process template which would allow all parties to work through problems associated with dredging, disposal and the environment, including the identification of necessary science and additional study to quantify impacts where possible. In October, 1998 the EISIEI R Long Term Management Strategy(LTMS)for the placement of Dredged Material in the San Francisco Bay Region was completed. In Jove, 2000 and again in winter of 2001, Management Plans for LTMS were released. The intent of the LTMS effort is to guide disposal of dredged sediments over the next 50 years, with the intent of decreasing in-bay disposal volumes in favor of upland disposal(as well as ocean disposal) over time. Very late in the process, Biological Opinions for fish species were included in these documents,:,but were not subject to the lamer environmental, or public review processes."` The Opinions, have resulted in Fish Windows (blacked out periods of time when dredging or disposal cannot occur). The Windows have cut the ability to dredge and dispose of sediment to 4 to 6 months out of the year, and have created a great many problems in the ability for dredging and disposal to occur. To complicate this issue further, the agencies admit that the Opinions, and subsequently the Windows, are based on best- guesses, in the absence of scientific fact, and that conservative estimates of times when fish might be present were used as a result. Most of the relevant parties agree that additional (irreproachable) science would significantly aid determination of appropriate windows to protect species and determine when dredging can occur. LTMS agencies include Department of Fish and Game, Bay Conservation and Development Commission, San Francisco Regional'Water Quality Control Board, Environmental Protection Agency, US Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service, This past year found all of the dredging community fighting over the use of equipment and: manpower over the same, reduced period. Several projects were unable to be completed and dredging equipment is not utilized over a number of months,so dredgers are moving out of the area. We were fortunate that bath Suisun Bay Channel and Pinole Shoal were (emergency)dredged by the Corps vessel ESSAYONS, this last summer. While the preservation(and indeed the strengthening)of fish populations is critical,so is the continuance of our economic base in the region. In addition, our inability to keep, channels dredged:in our area can have very serious environmental consequences,should n oil tanker grounding (and the subsequent possibility of an oil spill), occur. The Boars to upervisors Contra John Soars Clark a##he the Board Costa and County Administration Building" County Administrator 65'1 Pine Street,Room 106 County ^� i925j 335-190U Martinez,California 94553-1293 f -o n �{ John'Gioia, st District `�f Gayle S.Uitkerna,2nd District • a� Donna Gerber,3rd District Mark DeSautnter,4th District Federal D.Glover,5th"District' �.s Brigadier General Robert L. Davis Division Engineer U.S. Army Corps.of Engineers, SPD 333 Market Street, 8th Floor March 1-2, 2002 San Francisco,CA 94105 Dear General Davis. On March12, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors authorized this letter in order to request that additional work on environmental windows occur to allow for preservation of fish(and other species)populations while allowing dredging and disposal to be completed in an efficient manner. Specifically, the Board requests the agencies overseeing the Long Tenn Management Strategy(LTMS)for dredging and disposal, the environmental regulatory agencies,the dredging community and other interested parties participate in a collaborative process,using the Report"Process for Setting,Managing, and Monitoring Environmental Winnows for Dredging Projects"by the Marine Transportation Research Board, the National Research Council and the Ocean Studies Board. This collaborative process, coupled with the identification of additional (irreproachable) science will provide necessary basis to establish meaningful environmental windows and efficient dredging timeframes that do not have significant economic or environmental impacts. Contra Costa County is home to four oil refineries, related oil terminals,and a myriad of industries,which utilize federal navigation channels as:a fundamental transportation link. The Ports of Stockton and Sacramento also traverse these channels in transporting bulk product and other commodities, all basing operations on the federally authorized depth of —35 feet. The County became local sponsor for sections of the San Francisco-to-Stockton ship channel to provide support and cost-sharing components to enable continued federal' construction and maintenance of these important'channels. From the County's' perspective, the oil industry's heavy channel usage provides apowerful incentive for annual dredging and disposal to occur. As you may surmise,when a grounding of an oil tanker occurs, so does the possibility of an oil spill. We have had two groundings in recent years;most recently, in the year 2000,the LAND-ANGEL grounded east of the Martinez-Benicia Bridge while carrying 63,000 tans of crude(the channel was not dredged that year). In some channel sections, severe shoaling can occur with certain flow events, making annual dredging critical to continued safe vessel transport: hi addition to the safety implications, there are economic implications as well. In light- loading an oil tanker, for every foot of tankage not utilized, a lass of approximately $300,000 is incurred. Over the past year a number of the Ports in the area were competing for the same limited equipment, over the same reduced time frame, and several projects either did not get dredged or dredging was not completed, due to weather related delay and the compounding of the problem when the next project to be dredged was affected. We understandthat many of the smaller clamshell and hopper dredges we need to accomplish upland disposal in shallower areas have left the area. At least one of the larger dredging companies has indicated that they cannot keep expensive equipment idle for much of the year,will be exiting the area,with no guarantees of when they will return. Dredgers continuing to operate here have indicated escalating costs with 24-hour all'-weather dredging,not to mention mobilization and demobilization costs associated with the inability to finish and the need to return, and with exiting the area when dredging cannot occur. Fortunately,both the Pinole Shoal and the Suisun.Bay Channel were `emergency' dredged by the Corps vessel ES AYONS this past year. However,we are quite concerned about our ability to complete dredging this year, and in the future. While the preservation(and indeed the strengthening)of fish populations is critical, so i the continuance of our economic base in the region. Economic considerations aside, our inability to keep channels dredged in our area can have very serious environmental consequences, should an oil tanker grounding and the subsequent possibility of an oil spill occur. The `Process for Setting,Managing and Monitoring Environmental Windows' document is a consensus based process that will allow for much needed in-depth review of existing windows and existing dredging practices,will provide education of all parties as to the environmental and economic needs of the region,and will provide a basis to determine' exactly what is necessary in terms of additional science to enable the agencies and others involved some measure of certainty in species preservation efforts. The process envisioned can indeed become a`win-win situation for all involved. If you have questions, or desire additional information,please contact Roberta Goulart'at (925) 335-1226: Sincerely,3X__ ohn Gioia Chair, Board of Supervisors John weeten The Board of supervisors Contra Clerk of he Board and County Administration BuildingCounty Administrator 651 Pine Street',Room 106 Costa (925)335-1900 X. Martinez,California 94553-1293 Cour TY John Gioia,1st District Gayle B.Uiikerna,2nd District c o [forma Gerber,3rd District Mark DeSaulnier,4th District Federal D.Glover,5th District rA F'uzx LTC'Timothy S. O'Rourke District Engineer, San Francisco District U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 333 Market Street, 8I Floor March 12, 2002 San Francisco, CA 941€5 Dear Colonel O'Rourke: On March 12,the Centra Costa County Board of Supervisors authorized this letter in order to request that additional work on environmental windows occur to allow for preservation of fish(and other species)populations while allowing dredging and disposal to be completed in an efficient manner. Specifically, the Board requests the agencies overseeing the Long Term Management Strategy'(LTMS) for dredging and:disposal,the environmental regulatory agencies,the dredging community and other interested parties participate in a collaborative process,using the Report"Process for Setting, Managing, and Monitoring Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects"by the Marine Transportation Research Board,the National Research Council and the Ocean Studies Board. This collaborative process, coupled with the identification of additional (irreproachable) science will provide necessary basis to establish meaningful environmental windows and efficient dredging timeframes that do not have significant economic or environmental impacts. Contra Costa County is home to four oil refineries, related oil terminals, and a myriad of industries, which utilize federal navigation channels as a fundamental transportation link. The Ports of Stockton and Sacramento also traverse these channels in transporting bulk product and other commodities, all basing operations on the federally authorized depth of —35 feet. The County became local sponsor for sections of the San Francisco-to-Stockton ship channel to provide support and cost-sharing components to enable continued"federal construction and maintenance of these important channels. From the County's perspective,the oil industry's'heavy channel usage provides a powerful incentive for annual dredging and disposal to occur. As you may surmise,when a'-grounding of an oil tanker occurs, so does the possibility;of an oil spill. We have had two groundings in recent years;most recently,in the year 2000,the LAND ANGEL grounded east of the Martinez-Benicia Bridge while carrying 63,000 tons of crude(the channel was not dredged that year). In some channel sections, severe shoaling can occur with certain flovcr events, making annual dredging critical to continued safe vessel transport.' In addition to the safety implications,there are economic implications as well. In light; loading an oil tanker, for every foot of tankage not utilized, a lass of approximately $300,000 is incurred. Over the past year a number of the Ports in the area were competing for the same limited equipment,;over the same reduced time frame, and several projects either did not get dredged or dredging was not completed, due to weather related delay and the compounding of the problem when the next project to be dredged was affected. We understandthat many of the smaller'clamshell and hopper dredges we need to accomplish upland disposal in shallower areas have left the area. At least one of the larger dredging companies has indicated that they cannot beep expensive equipment idle for much of the year, will be exiting the area,with no guarantees of when they will return. Dredgers continuing to operate here have indicated escalating costs with 24-hour all-weather dredging,not to mention mobilization and demobilization costs associated with the inability to finish and the need to return, and with exiting the area when dredging cannot occur. Fortunately,both the Pinole Shoal and the Suisun Bay Channel were `emergency' dredged by the Corps vessel ESSAYC?NS this past year. However,we are quite concerned about our ability to complete dredging this year, and in the future. While the preservation(and indeed the strengthening)of fish populations is critical, so is the continuance of our economic base in the region. Economic considerations aside, our inability to keep channels dredged in our area can have very serious environmental consequences, should an oil tanker grounding and the subsequent possibility of an oil spill'occur. The `Process for Setting, Managing and Monitoring Environmental Windows' document is a consensus based process that will allow for much needed in-depth review of existing windows and existing dredging practices,will provide education of all parties as to the environmental and economic needs of the region, and will provide a basis to determine: exactly what is necessary in terms of additional science to enable the,agencies and others involved some measure of certainty in species preservation efforts. The process envisioned can indeed become'a `win-win situation for all involved'. If you have questions,or desire additional information,please contact Roberta Goulart at (925) 335-1226. Sincerely, ohn:Gioia hair, Board of Supervisors 3 John Sweeten The Board of Supervisors Contra Clerk of the Board and C Std County Administration Building CountyAdminis#ratcrr 651 Pine Street,Room 106 (925)335-1900 Martinez,California 94553-1293 County John Glole,1'st District 1.tl '� Gayle S.tiriket»a,2nd District ,o Donna Gerber,3rd District Mark DeSaulnler,4th District Federal D.Glover,5th District 1 Mr. WayneNastrl Regional Administrator` U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 9 75 Hawthorne Street March 1,2,2002 San Francisca, CA 94105 Dear Mr. Nastri: On March 12,the Contra Costa County Beard of Supervisors authorized this letter in order to request that additional work on environmental windows occur to allow for preservation of fish(and other species)populations while allowing dredging and disposal to be completed in an efficient manner. Specifically,the Board requests the agencies overseeing the Long Term Management Strategy(LTMS) for dredging and disposal,the environmental regulatory agencies,the dredging community and other interested parties participate in a collaborative process,using the Report"Process for Setting,Managing, and Monitoring Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects"by the Marine Transportation Research Beard,the rational Research Council and the Ocean Studies Board. This collaborative process, coupled with the identification of additional (irreproachable) science will provide necessary basis to establish meaningful environmental windows and efficient dredging timeframes that do not have significant economic or environmental impacts. Contra Costa County is'home'to four oil refineries,related oil terminals, and a myriad of industries,which utilize federal navigation channels as a fundamental transportation link. The Ports of Stockton and Sacramento also traverse these channels in transporting bulk product and other commodities, all basing operations on the federally authorized depth of —35 feet. The County became local sponsor for sections of the San Francisco-to-Stockton ship channel to provide support and cost-sharing components to enable continued federal construction and maintenance of these important channels. From the County's perspective,the oil industry's heavy channel usage provides a powerful incentive:for annual dredging and disposal to occur. As you may surmise,when a grounding of an oil tanker occurs, so does the possibility of an oil spill. We have had two groundings in recent years;most recently, in the year 2000,the LAND ANGEL grounded°east of the Martinez-Benicia Bridge while carrying 63;000 tarns of crude(the channel was not dredged that year). In some channel`.sections, severe shoaling can occur with certain flow events, malting annual dredging critical to continued safe vessel transport. In addition to the safety implications,there are economic implications as well. In light- loading an oil tamer, for every foot of tankage not utilized, a loss of approximately 5300,000 is incurred. Over the past year a number of the Ports in the area were competing,for the same limited equipment,over the same reduced time frame, and several projects either did not get dredged or dredging was not completed, due to weatherrelated delay and the compounding of the problem when the next project to be dredged was affected. We understand that many of the smaller clamshell and hopper dredges we need to accomplish upland disposal in shallower areas have left the area. At least one of the larger dredging' companies has indicated that they cannot beep expensive equipment idle for mach of the year, will be exiting the area,with no guarantees of when they will return. Dredgers continuing to operate here have indicated escalating costs with 24-hour all-weather dredging,not to mention mobilization and demobilization costs associated with the inability to finish and the need to return, and with exiting the area when dredging cannot occur. Fortunately, both the Pinole Shoal and the Suisun Bay Channel were `emergency' dredged by the Carps vessel ESSAYONS this past year. However,we are quite concerned about our ability to complete dredging this year, and in the future. While the preservation(and indeed the strengthening)of fish populations is critical, so is the continuance of our economic base in the region. Economic considerations aside, our inability to keep channels dredged in our area can have very serious environmental consequences, should an oil tanker grounding and the subsequent possibility of an oil spill occur., The `Process for Setting, Managing and Monitoring Environmental Windows' document is a consensus based process that will allow for much needed in-depth review of existing windows and existing dredging,practices,will provide education of all parties as to the environmental and economic needs of the region,and will provide a basis to determine` exactly what is necessary in terms of additional science to enable the agencies and others involved some measure of certainty in species preservation efforts. The process envisioned can indeed become a 'win-win situation for all involved. If you have questions, or desire additional information, please contact Roberta Goulart at (925) 335-1226. Si rely, ohn Gioia Chair, Board of Supervisors cc: Ms. Alexis Strauss,Director, Water Division, EPA �y John Sweeten The Board of Supervisors Contra Clerk of the Board Costa and County Administration Building CountyAdministrator Pirie Street,Room 106 County {925)335-1900 Martinez,California 94553-1293' € o�...1 n� John Gioia, 1st District �•/ Gayle 5.Uiikerna,2nd District` .. � Donna Gertner,3rd District Mark DeSautnier,4th District Federal D.Glover,5th District Mr. John Muller,Chair SF Bay Regional Water'Quality Control Board' 1515 Clay Street,Suite 1400 March 12,2002 Oakland, CA 94612 Dear Mr. Muller: On March,12,the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors authorized this letter in order to request that additional work on environmental windows occur to allow for preservation of fish(and other:species)populations while allowing dredging and disposal to be completed in an efficient manner. Specifically,the Board requests the agencies overseeing the Long Terni Management Strategy(LTMS) for dredging and disposal,the environmental regulatory agencies,the dredging community and other interested parties participate in a collaborative process,using,the Report"Process for Setting,Managing, and Monitoring Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects"by the Marine Transportation Research Board,the National Research Council and the Ocean Studies Board. This collaborative process,,coupled with the identification of additional (irreproachable)science will provide necessary basis to establish meaningful environmental windows and efficient dredging timeframes that do not have significant economic or environmental impacts. Contra Costa County is home to four oil refineries,related oil terminals, and a myriad of industries, which utilize federal navigation channels as a fundamental transportation link. The Ports of Stockton and Sacramento also traverse these channels in transporting bulk product and ether commodities, all basing operations on the federally authorized depth of —35 feet. The County became local sponsor for sections of the San Francisco-to-Stockton ship channel to provide support and cost-sharing components to enable continued-::federal construction and maintenance of these important channels. From the County's perspective,the oil industry's heavy channel usage provides a powerful incentive for annual dredging and disposal to occur. As you may surmise,when a;grounding of an oil tanker occurs, so does the passibility of an oil spill. We have had two groundings in recent years;most recently, in the year 2000,the LANDANGEL grounded'east of the Martinez-Benicia Bridge while carrying 63,000 tuns of crude(the channel was not dredged that year). In some channel sections, severe shoaling can occur with certain flow events,roaring annual dredging critical to continued safe vessel transport.. In addition to the safety implications, there are economic implications as well. In light.- loading an oil tanker, for every foot of tankage not utilized, a loss of approximately $300,000 is incurred. Over the past year a number of the Ports in the area were competing for the same limited equipment,,over the same reduced time frame, and several projects either slid not get' dredged or dredging was not completed., due to weather related delay and the compounding of the problem when the next project to be dredged was affected. We understand that many of the smaller clamshell and hopper dredges we need to accomplish upland disposal in shallower areas have left the area. At least one of the larger dredging companies has indicated that they cannot keep expensive equipment idle for much of the year,;will be exiting the area,with no guarantees of when they will return. Dredgers continuing to operate here have indicated escalating costs with 24-hour all-weather dredging, not to mention mobilization and demobilization casts associated with the inability to finish and the need to return, and with exiting the area when dredging cannot occur. Fortunately,both the Pinole Shoal and the Suisun Bay Channel were `emergency' dredged by the Carps vessel ESSAYONS this past year. However,we are quite concerned about our ability to complete dredging this year, and in the future. While the preservation(and indeed the strengthening)of fish populations is critical, so is the continuance of our economic base in the region.. Economic considerations aside, our inability to keep channels dredged in our area can have very serious environmental consequences, should an oil tanker grounding and the subsequent possibility of an oil spill occur." The`Process for Setting,Managing and Monitoring Environmental Windows' document'' is a consensus based process that will allow for much needed in-depth review of existing windows and existing dredging practices,will provide education of all parties as to the environmental and economic needs of the region., and will provide a basis to determine exactly what is necessary in terns of additional science to enable the agencies and others involved some measure of certainty in species preservation efforts. The process envisioned can indeedd become a`win-win situation for all involved. If you have questions, or desire additional information,please contact Roberta Goulart at (925) 335-1226. Sincerely, ohn Gioia Chair, Board of Supervisors cc: Ms. Loretta Barsamian,Executive Officer, SFRWQCB Board Sweeten T1(,, Ba oard oupervias"Jiors Contra Clerk otthe Board Costa end County Administration Building County Administrator 651 Pine Street,Room 106 (925)335-1900 Martinez,California 94553-1295 County L1t John Gloia,1st District' Gayle B.Utlkema,2nd District Donna Gerber,3rd District Mark DeSautnier,4th District ' Federal D.Glover,5th District Ms. Barbara Kaufman, Chair; San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission 50 California Street, Suite 2640 March 12, 2002 San Francisco, CA 94111 Dear Ms. Kaufman: On March 12, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors authorized this letter in order to request that additional work on environmental windows or-cur to allow for preservation of fish(and other species)populations while allowing dredging and disposal to be completed in an efficient manner. Specifically,the Board requests the agencies overseeing the Long Term Management Strategy(LTMS) for dredging and disposal, the environmental regulatory agencies,the dredging community and other interested parties participate in a collaborative process,using the Report"Process for Setting,Managing;. and Monitoring Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects"by the Marine Transportation Research Board,the National Research Council and the Ocean Studies Board. This collaborative process,coupled with the identification of additional (irreproachable)science will provide necessary basis to establish meaningful environmental windows and efficient dredging timeframes that do not have significant economic or environmental impacts. Contra Costa County is home to four oil refineries,related oil terminals, and a myriad of industries,which utilize federal navigation channels as a fundamental transportation link.. The Ports of Stockton and Sacramento also traverse these channels in transporting bull product and other commodities, all basing operations on the federally authorized depth of —35 feet. The County became local sponsor for sections of the San Francisco-to-Stockton ship channel to providesupport and cost-sharing components to enable continued federal construction and maintenance'of these important channels. From.the County's perspective,the oil industry's heavy channel usage provides a powerful incentive for annual dredging and disposal to occur. As you may surmise,when a grounding of an oil tanker occurs, so does the possibility of an oil spill. We have had two groundings in recent years, most recently,in the year 2400,the LAND ANGEL grounded east of the Martinez-Benicia Bridge while carrying 63,000 tans of crude(the channel was not dredged that year). In some channel sections, severe shoaling can occur with certain flow` events, making annual dredging critical to continued safe vessel transport. In addition to the safety implications,there are economic implications as well. In light- loading an oil tanker, for every foot of tankage not utilized, a loss of approximately $300,000 is incurred. Over the past year a number of the Ports in the area were competing for the same limited equipment,over the same reduced time frame, and several protects either did not get dredged or dredging was not completed, due to weather related delay and the compounding of the problem when the next project to be dredged was affected. We understand that many of the smaller clamshell and hopper dredges we need to accomplish upland disposal in shallower areas have left'the area. At least one of the larger dredging' companies has indicated that they cannot keep expensive equipment idle for:much of the year,will be exiting the area, with no guarantees of when they will return. Dredgers continuing to operate Dere have indicated escalating costs with 24-hour all-weather dredging,not to mention mobilization and demobilization costs associated with the inability to finish and the need to return, and with exiting the area when dredging cannot occur. Fortunately,both the Pinole Shoal and the Suisun Bay Channel were `emergency' dredged by the Corps vessel ESSAYONS this past year. However,we are quite concerned about our ability to complete dredging this year, and in the future. While the preservation(and indeed the strengthening)of fish populations is critical, so is the continuance of our economic base in the region. Economic considerations aside, our inability to keep channels dredged in our area can have very serious environmental consequences, should an oil tamer grounding and the subsequent passibility of an oil spill occur. The `Process for Setting,Managing and Monitoring Environmental Windows' document is a consensus based process that will allow for much needed in-depth review of existing windows and existing dredging practices,will provide education of all parties as to the environmental and economic needs of the region, and will provide a basis to determine exactly what is necessary in terms of additional science to enable the agencies and others involved some measure of certainty in species preservation efforts. The process envisioned can indeed become a `win.-win situation for all involved. If you have questions,or desire additional information,please contact Roberta Goulart at (925)335-2226. Sincerely, 4Ti0i Ga , Board of Supervisors cc. Mr. Will Travis, Executive Director, BCDC a John Sweeten The he Boar of Supervi ors Cont Clerk otthe Board and County Administration BuildingCosta county Administrator 651 Pine Street,Room 106 (925)335-1900 Martinez,California 94553-1293County o t1'""t John Glola,1st District V LII I Gayle B.Utikerna 2nd District Donna Gerber;3rd District Mark DeSautnier,4th District Federal D.Glover,5th District r r' Ms. Celeste Cantu., Executive Director State Nater Resources Control Beard P.O. Box 100 March 12, 2002 Sacramento,CA'95812-0104'' Dear Ms Cantu:' On March 12, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors authorized this letter in order to request that additional work on environmental windows occur to allow for preservation of fish(and other species)populations while allowing dredging and disposal to be completed in an efficient manner. Specifically,the Beard requests the agencies overseeing'the Long'Perm Management Strategy',(LTMS) for dredging and disposal,the environmental regulatory agencies,the dredging community and other interested parties participate in a collaborative process,using the Report"Process for Setting,Managing, and Monitoring Environmental Windows for Dredging.Projects" by the Marine Transportation Research Board,the National Research Council and the Ocean Studies Board. This collaborative process,''coupled with the identification of additional' (irreproachable) sciencewillprovide necessary basis to establish meaningful environmental windows and efficient dredging timeframes that do not have significant: economic or environmental impacts Contra Costa County is home to four oil refineries, related oil terminals, and a myriad of industries,which utilize federal navigation channels as a fundamental transportation link. The Ports of Stockton and Sacramento also traverse these channels in transporting bulk' product and other commodities, all basing;operations on the federally authorized'depth of —35 feet. The County became local sponsor for sections of the San Francisco-to-Stockton ship channel to provide support and cost-sharing'components to enable continued federal construction and maintenance of these important'channels. From the County's perspective,the ail industry's heavy channel usage provides a powerful incentive for annual dredging and disposal to occur. As you may surmise,when a grounding of an oil tanker occurs, so-,does the possibility of an oil spill. We have had two groundings in recent years;most recently, in the year 2000, the LAND ANGEL grounded east of the Martinez-Benicia Bridge while carrying 63,000 tans of crude(the channel was not dredged that year). In some channel sections, severe shoaling'can occur with certain flaw events,making annual dredging critical to continued safe vessel transport. In addition to the safety implications,there are economic implications as well. In light leading an oil tanker, for every feat of tankage not utilized, a loss of approximately $300,000 is incurred. Over the past year a number of the Ports in the area were competing for the same limited equipment,over the same reduced time frame, and several projects either did not get dredged or dredging was not completed, due to weather related delay and the compounding of the problem when the next project to be dredged was affected. We understand that many of the smaller clamshell and hopper dredges we need to accomplish upland disposal in shallower areas have left the area. At least one of the larger dredging companies has indicated that they cannot keep expensive equipment idle for much of the year,will be exiting the area,with no guarantees of when they will return. Dredgers continuing to operate here have indicated escalating costs with 24-hour all=-weather dredging,not to mention mobilization and demobilization casts associated with the inability to finish and the need to return, and with exiting the area when dredging cannot occur. Fortunately,both the Pinole Shoal and the Suisun Bay Channel were `emergency' dredged by the Corps vessel ESSAYONS this past year. However, we are quite concerned about our ability to complete dredging this year, and in the future. While the preservation(and indeed the strengthening) of fish populations is critical, so is the continuance of our economic base in the region. Economic considerations aside,our inability to keep channels dredged in our area can have very serious environmental consequences, should an oil tanker grounding and the subsequent possibility of an ail spill occur. The `Process for Setting,Managing and Monitoring Environmental Windows' document is a consensus based process that will allow for much needed in-depth review of existing windows and existing dredging practices,will provide education of all parties as to the environmental and economic needs of the region, and will provide a basis to determine exactly what is necessary in terms of additional science to enable the agencies and others involved some measure of certainty in species preservation efforts. The process envisioned can indeed become a`win.-win situation for all involved. If you have:questions, or desire additional information, please contact Roberta Coulart at (925) 335-1226. Sincerely, John'Gioia Chair, Beard of Supervisors SPECIAL REPORT 262' A Process for Setting �3 Managing, and Monitoring Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects Committee for Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects Marine Board' Transportation Research Board Ocean Studies Board Division on Earth and Life Studies National Research Council' National Academy Press Washington,D.C. 2001 Transportation Research Board Special Report 262 Subscriber Category I planning, administration, and environment IX marine transportation Transportation Research Board publications are available by orderingindividual publications directly from the TRB Business Office, through the Internet at national-academies.org/trb, or by annual subscription through organizational or individual affiliation with TRB.Affiliates and library subscribers are eligible for substantial discounts. For further information,contact the Transportation Research Board Business Office, National Research Council, 2101 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20418 (telephone 202/334-3213;fax: 202/334-2519; or email " TRBsales@nas.edu). Copyright 20€ 2 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing, Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences,the National .Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competencies and with regard for appropriate balance. This report has been reviewed by a group other than the authors according to the procedures approved by a Report Review Committee consisting of members of the National.Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. This study was sponsored by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A process for setting, managing, and monitoring environmental windows for dredging projects/ Committee for Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects. p.cm.—(Transportation Research Board Special report ; 262) ISBN 0-3-9-07244-1 1.Dredging':Environmental aspects.2.Dredging spoil—Management. I.National Research Council(U.S.).Committee for Environmental Windows for Dredging.Projects. II. National Research Council(U.S.).Transportation Research Board. 111.Special report (National,Research Council (U.S.).Transportation Research Board) ; 262. TC187 .P767'2002 2001059687 627'.73--dc21 A(,A DE-1\AIES' Advisers to the Nation on Science,Engineering,and Medicine National Academy of Sciences National Academy of Engineering institute of Medicine National Research Council The National Academy of Sciences is a private,nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. On the authority,of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863,the Academy has a man- date that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical mat- ters. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964,under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization'of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering pro- grams aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr.William A. Wulf is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congres- sional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Kenneth 1. Shine is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy's purposes of furthering:,knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy,the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of engineering in providing services to the government,the public, and the scientific and engineering communities.The Council is administered jointly by both the Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Bruce M.Alberts and Dr. William A. Wulf are chairman and vice chairman,respectively, of the National Research Council'.' The Transportation Research Board is a unit of the National Research Council, which serves the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering. The Board's mission is to promote'innovation and progress in transportation by stimulating and conducting research, facilitating the dissemination of information,'and encouraging the implementation of research results. The Board's varied activities annually engage more than 4,000 engineers;scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from the public and private sectors and academia, all of whom contribute their expertise in the public:interest. The program is supported by state transportation departments,federal agencies including the compo- nent administrations of the U.S.Department of Transportation,and other organizations' and individuals interested in the development of transportation. Committee for Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects Committee JERRY SCHUBEL, Chair, New England Aquarium, Boston, Massachusetts HENRY J. BOKUNIEWICZ, State University of New York at Stony Brook PETER F. BONTADELLI, JR., PFB Associates, Sacramento, California ROBERT J. DIAz, Virginia Institute of Marine'Science, Gloucester Point MARCELO H. GARCIA, University of Illinois at Urbana—Champaign RAM K. MOHAN, Blasland, Bouck, & Lee, Inc., Annapolis, Maryland DENISE J. REEL}, University of New Orleans,:New Orleans, Louisiana SUSAN-MARIE STEDMAN, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland NILS E. STOLPE, Garden State Seafood Association, Doylestown, Pennsylvania JOHN B. TORGAN, Save the Bay, Providence, Rhode Island THOMAS H. WAKEMAN III, Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, New York MICHAEL P. WEINSTEIN, New Jersey Marine Sciences Consortium, Fort Hancock Staff KRIS A. HOELLEN, Study Director, Transportation Research Board SUSAN ROBERTS, Senior Program Officer, Ocean Studies Board Preface Environmental windows are those periods of the year when dredging and dis- posal activities may be carried out because regulators have determined that the adverse impacts associated with dredging and disposal can be reduced"below critical thresholds during these periods. Environmental windows,therefore,are used as a management tool for reducing the potentially harmful:impacts of dredging activities on aquatic resources. The first environmental windows were established more than 30 years ago and, according to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE), are applied today to more than 80 percent of all federal dredging projects. Given the cumulative restrictions an dredging operations re- sulting from the application of environmental windows, USACE requested that the National Research Council's Transportation Research Board (TRB)- Marine Board conduct a workshop to explore the decision-making process used to establish environmental windows, as well as the consistency of the win- dows-setting;,process. The statement of task for the workshop is included in Chapter 1.< The National Research Council established the Committee for the Workshop on Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects to design, oversee, and inter- pret the results of the workshop. Formed in June 2000, the committee com- prised 12 members representing ports,dredging contractors,benthic and wetland ecologists, commercial fisheries experts, sedimentologists,,ichthyologists, en- vironmentalists, and state and federal regulatory agencies. During the course of a 1-year period,the committee met three times—the first to plan the workshop, the second to review the workshop results, and the third to prepare the com- mittee's findings and recommendations presented in this report. Members of the committee also participated in the Sea Grant Conference on Dredged Material Management: Options and Environmental Considerations and orga- nized and participated in;a half-day session at the 2001 National Dredging Team Conference. The committee used information obtained through case studies and outreach efforts conducted in preparation for the workshop to develop a draft template for a process for setting, managing, and monitoring environmental windows. This vii viii A Process for Setting, Managing,and Monitoring Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects draft template was presented during the workshop, held March 19-20, 2001. Participants at the workshop represented a cross-section of stakeholders involved in the windows-setting process,including federal and state government officials, port officials,representatives from environmental interest groups, dredging con- tractors, and academic experts from a variety of relevant fields. A listing of the workshop participants is provided in Appendix C. The draft template was re- viewed and refined throughout the course of the workshop, and a summary of the workshop proceedings including the refined template was distributed to participants expressing a willingness to review and comment on its accuracy. The committee wishes to acknowledge the contributions of many individuals and organizations to the development of this report. Kris A. Hoellen managed the study and drafted the report under the guidance of the committee and the supervision of Stephen R. Godwin, Director of TRB's Studies''and Information Services Division. Susan Roberts provided liaison support from the Ocean Studies Board, Thomas Bigford served as liaison from the National Oceanic and Atmo- spheric Administration (NOAA), and Douglas Clarke served as liaison and'proj- ect sponsor from U'SACE all three provided background materials and valuable insights to the committee. The committee also wishes to thank the organizers of the National Dredging Team Conference and the Sea Grant Conference on Dredged Material Man- agement: Options and Environmental Considerations for allocating space and time for the committee's outreach efforts. In addition, the committee would like to acknowledge personnel from USAGE and NOAA who developed case studies that documented their experiences with environmental windows. The workshop benefited greatly from the contributions of a reaction panel whose members provided much-needed advice and guidance during critical points in the proceedings. Panel members were Suzanne Schwartz (U.S.'En- vironmental Protection Agency), Thomas Bigford (NOAA), Joseph Wilson (USAGE), and Robert Van Dolah (South Carolina Department of Natural Re- sources). Finally, the committee is indebted to all those who participated'in the workshop for both their time and continued interest: This report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures ap- proved by the National Research Council's'Report Review Committee. The pur- pose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the institution in making the published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manu- script remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. Preface ix The committee thanks the following individuals for their review of this report: Steven Goldbeck, San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Com- mission;H.Thomas Kornegay,_Port of Houston Authority; Charles A.Simenstad, University of Washington; and Ancil Taylor, Bean Stuyvesant LLC. Although these reviewers provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the findings and conclusions, nor did they see the final draft before its release. The review of this report was overseen by Lester A. Hoel, University of Virginia.Appointed by the National Research Council, he was responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with institutional procedures and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the authoring committee and the institution. Suzanne Schneider,Assistant Executive Director of TRB,managed the report review process. The report was edited and prepared for publication under the supervision of Nancy Ackerman, Director of Reports and Editorial Services. Rona Briere edited the report. Special thanks go to Frances Holland for-assis- tance with meeting arrangements and to'Alisa Decatur for production of the final report. Contents Executive Summary 1 1 Introduction 9 Background, 9 Purpose, 11 Organization of This Report, 11 2 Workshop Preparations, Design,and Major Points of Discussion 13 Workshop Preparations, 13 Workshop Design, 15 Major Points of Discussion, 16 3 Processfor Setting, Managing, and Monitoring Environmental Windows 19 Step 1, 22 Step 2, 24 Step 3, 26 Step 4, 32 Step 5, 32 Step 6, 33 Role of Adaptive Management, 33 4 Key Findings and Recommendations 34 Broad-Based Management Strategies, 34 Management Tools, 34 Proposed Process for Setting, Managing, and Monitoring Environmental Windows, 35 Scientific Data and Information, 35 Opportunities for Cross-Training, 35 Structured Decision-Making Tools, 36 Funding, 36 Adaptive Management, 37 Appendixes 38 A Summary of Workshop Sessions, 38 B Glossary, 52 C Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects Workshop, 57 D Environmental Windows Workshop Dredging Project Case Study Data Form, 71 E Environmental Windows: Farms Used to Solicit Suggestions for improvements, 74 Study Committee Biographical Information 79 Executive Summary Environmental windows are periods in which regulators have determined:that the adverse impacts associated with dredging and disposal can be reduced below critical thresholds, and dredging is therefore permitted Conversely, seasonal restrictions are applied—dredging and disposal activities are prohibited--when the perceived increase in potential harm to aquatic resources is above critical thresholds. Since passage of the National Environmental Policy Act in 1969, resource agencies have requested environmental restrictions on dredging and dis- posal activities with increasing frequency. More than 80 percent of the federal contract dredging program is now subject to some type of restriction. Windows are an intuitively simple'means of reducing risk to biological re- sources from stressors generated during dredging and disposal activities,includ- ing entrainment of fish eggs and larvae, resuspension of buried contaminated sediments, habitat loss, and collisions with marine mammals. The use of win- dows as a management tool, however,'can have significant cost implications for both the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers`(USACE) and the local sponsors of dredg- ing projects.For example,windows can prolong completion of dredging protects, delay project deadlines, and increase risk to dredging personnel by shifting dredg- ing to periods of potentially inclement weather and sea states. Because both rec- ommendations to impose environmental windows and the cumulative economic impact of their application are increasing, USAGE requested that the National Research Council's Transportation Research Board--panne Board form a'com- mittee of experts to conduct a workshop to explore the decision-making process 2 A'Process for Setting, Managing,and Monitoring Environmental windows for Dredging Projects for establishing environmental windows and provide suggestions for improving the process. A committee with expertise in port operations, dredging, benthic and wetland ecology, commercial fishing, sedimentology, ichthyology, environmental pro- tection, and federal and state environmental regulation was formed to conduct the project. The committee gathered information from other experts, con- ducted case studies, and planned and carried out the workshop. The workshop was designed to solicit the views of the differentparties involved in and affected by the process of setting windows. Participants represented ports, 'federal and state environmental regulatory agencies, environmental interest groups, dredg- ing operations, and relevant academic fields. Breakout sessions were devoted to such topics as how toevaluatetrade-offs between environmental benefits and operational costs, the strengths and weaknesses of current decision-making processes, the scientific and technical justifications used in establishing win- dows, and dredging technologies designed to minimize environmental impact. Through examination of case studies and discussions with workshop partic- ipants,the committee found that the scientific evidence used in setting windows varies greatly. Some decisions appear to be based on outdated data and infor- mation, others on the authority of the resource agency, and only a few on scien- tific observation. Economic and project considerations appear to have been given minimal consideration in the majority of the cases reviewed. The overall im- pression that emerged from the case studies examined was a discernible lack of consistency in the current windows-setting process. Proposed Process for Setting, Managing, and Monitoring Environmental Windows Prior to the workshop,the,committee developed a draft template for a,systematic processforachieving greater consistency, predictability, and reliability in deci- sion making related to setting, managing, and monitoring environmental 'win- dows. The draft template was then refined to reflect input obtained during the workshop (see Box ES-1). The template embodies an ongoing process that in- volves all stakeholders and is based on principles of adaptive management. The adaptive nature of the process should make it possible to achieve the consistency, predictability,:,and reliability lacking today without sacrificing needed flexibility, The proposed methodology is not dependent on the conduct of new scien- tific or technical research in the first instance, and can be incorporatedinto other, ongoing stakeholder processes. Although it is capable of standing on its own, its implementation would be most useful if the process were piloted in a few districts; the pilot program would include training sessions and workshops Executive Summary 3 BOX ES-1 Template for a Process for Setting, Managing, and Monitoring Environmental Windows Step 1 All stakeholders are identified, and commitments to the integrity and completion of the process are secured from all agencies with advisory and decision-making roles. Step,2 The stakeholders are convened.The following tasks should be completed during the first meeting or shortlythereafter:' Step 2A. Agree on the time period'for the evaluation. Step 2B. Define the specific geographic area(s) of interest or concern within a region. Step 2C. Identify and rank the resources of concern. Step 2D. Conduct a systematic evaluation of proposed dredging projects, as well as existing and proposed window applications, and rank the projects in terms of such factors as economic importance and sensi- tivity to timing. Step 2E. Form a Science Team whose expertise will make,it possible to identify and evaluate the threats to the resources of concern. Select or elect a chairperson. Prepare a charge to the team outlining its as- signment, deliverables, and timetable. Step 2F. Form an Engineering Team, including contractors and USACE personnel whose expertise will allow them to identify the most ap- propriate technological options (i.e., equipment, management con- trols, or operational procedures) for conducting dredging and disposal activities to meet the resourcegoals'specified by the Science Team and to assessthe costs associated with the options identified. Select or elect a chairperson. Prepare a charge to the team outlining its as- signment, deliverables, and timetable. continued 4 A Process for Setting,Managing,and'Monitoring Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects BOX ES-1 (continued) Template for a Process for Setting,,Managing,and Monitoring Enuironrnental Windows Step 3 The Science and Engineering Teams conduct biological and engineering evaluations of the proposed dredging projects. All potential adverse impacts, along with the biological resources of concern, should be iden- tified. Close coordination between the two teams should be sought, and overlap should be createdby having the chairperson of each team serve as an adviser to the other team. Step 3A. The Science Team identifies biological resources predicted to be adversely affected by each dredging project and provides this infor- mation to the Engineering Team. Step 3B. The Science Team documents the temporal variability of the species and the vulnerable habitats.The Science Team also identifies the acceptable levels of impact (e.g., "takes") and the"specific stres- sors responsible for the impacts and provides this information to the Engineering Team. Step 3C. The Engineering 'Team, using information from the Science Team on the stressors involved, recommends strategies for reducing the stressors to acceptable levels (e.g., technology, contracting, oper- ational methods, equipment selection). The Engineering Team pro- vides cost estimates for these strategies. The results of the Engineering Team review are provided to the Science Team. Step 3D. The Science Team reviews the information developed by the Engineering Team and notes any resulting changes in the expected impacts: Step 3E. The Science Team recommends acceptable dredging periods, that is, environmental windows. Step 3F. A formal consultation under Section 7 of the; Endangered Species:Act is conducted if listed species may be adversely affected.' Step 3G. The Science Team prioritizes the recommendations for windows and provides this information to the Stakeholder Group in areas where multiple windows for varying species are recommended. continued Executive Summary 5 Step The Stakeholder Group reviews the alternative strategies—including windows-identified by the Science and Engineering Teams and endorses a plan of action. Step 5 The recommended plan is implemented. Step G The Stakeholder Group reviews the season's dredging activities to eval- uate monitoring data and to identify changes that can be incorporated to refine future dredging and disposal activities. demonstrating how the proposed methodology could be integrated into exist- ing processes. The key to successful implementation of the proposed process is twofold. First, each stakeholder must commit to the integrity and completion of the pro- cess (see Step 1). Without a commitment from each government agency in- volved (both advisory and decision making) to dedicate the necessary financial and staff resources to the process,the methodology will not succeed and should not be attempted. It should also be noted that this process was designed to be implemented in cases in which dredging projects have been congressionally mandated or approved. The starting point for the process is not whether to dredge but how and when to dredge. Second, a factor that distinguishes this from other windows-setting processes is the interaction between the Science and Engineering Teams specified in Steps 2 and 3. In many instances, experts in dredging,technology are working in a vacuum—attempting to develop'technologies for reducing the biological impacts of dredging'activities without the benefit of clearly specified,goals. Inter- action among biologists, environmental scientists, dredging technology experts, and those responsible for safe ship operations is critical to the proposed process. Specifically,the methodology calls for the formation of a Science Team charged with identifying those biological resources most likely to be adversely impacted by dredging activities. In addition, the Science Team is to identify the accept- able levels of impact for those species identified as most vulnerable. On the basis of the information provided by,the Science Team, the Engineering Team will recommend strategies (e.g., technology,contracting, operational methods, equipment selection) for meeting the target levels of acceptable stress.Using 6 A'Process for Setting, Managing,and Monitoring Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects the strategy recommended by the engineers, the scientists will reassess potential biological impacts and recommend windows accordingly. The committee is confident that by integrating the knowledge provided by both scientists and engineers, the proposed process will lead to the establishment of windows that are predicated on a higher degree of scientific certainty than is presently the case. Key Findings and Recommendations The committee's key findings and recommendations are presented below. Broad-Based Management Strategies Dredging and disposal operations are only one of a number of human activities that affect the nation's waterways. They need to be evaluated not only in the absolute sense so that management strategies for reducing environmental im- pacts to acceptable levels can be developed but also in the context of other ac- tivities that affect the uses and value of water bodies important to society. Recommendation 1. The decision-making process for managing dredging and disposal operations to achieve sustainable water- ways and to protect natural resources, both living and nonliving,' should be broadly based.'' Management Tools Environmental windows are one of a number of management and technologi- cal tools that can—when properly selected and applied-not only reduce the en- vironmental impacts of dredging and disposal operations but also increase the efficiency and effectiveness of those operations. Recommendation z. All tools, including windows, should be con- sidered.in designing a management pian for carrying out dredging' and disposal operations. Proposed Process for Setting, Managing, and Monitoring Environmental Windows Existing processes for setting, managing, and monitoring environmental win- dows vary widely from region to region. The variations reflect differences among natural environments and->their'living resources; sociopolitical contexts; and ex- perience with involving stakeholders in resolving complex, multidimensional Executive Summary 7 issues. It is only through testing and refinement of the proposed process in a variety of settings that the methodology can be refined, endorsed, and incor- porated into existing decision-making processes to provide greater consistency. Recommendation 3. The proposed process for assessing the need for windows and for managing and monitoring windows when se- lected should be pilot tested in a small number of districts. Scientific Data and Information A series of technical syntheses encompassing field and laboratory studies of envi- ronmental stressors,biological resources,and specific life-history stages affected by dredging and disposal operations needs to be undertaken and regularly up- dated. These syntheses should focus on integrating and interpreting local and regional data and information and placing them in a larger context.Through this process, gaps in scientific information will become apparent and can serve as the focus of future research. These syntheses should be undertaken as an inte- gral part of the recommended pilot studies. Recommendation 4. All existing scientific data and "information should be exploited in evaluating and setting windows as part of an overall management strategy for dredging and disposal operations. Opportunities for Cross-Training The current divide between those responsible for engineering dredging projects and those responsible for protecting biological resources needs to be narrowed. Each discipline must become better educated about and sensitive to the Pres- sures faced by the other if management tools that satisfy the needs of both par- ties are to be developed. Recommendation 5. Cross-training opportunitiesshould be created for resource managers and dredging operators. For example, re- source managers should be encouraged to observe the operations of a wide array of'dredges in various weather and sea states. Opportunities should also be created for dredge owners and oper- ators to observe, and perhaps even take part in, the public partici- pation processes undertaken by resource managers and to learn about the biological constraints, natural history, habitat types, and issues related to dredging and its consequences for the natural environment. 8 A Process for Setting,Managing,and Monitoring Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects Structured Decision Making Toots Although the process outlined above for setting, managing, and monitoring environmental windows is intuitively simple, its implementation will be challenging because it calls for a balancing of priorities.;,The most difficult step is Step 4, the balancing of scientific conclusions against economic and societal considerations. Structured decision-making tools can be helpful in addressing these issues. Recommendation G. A special effort should be made to identify existing tools for structured decision making in complex socio- political situations and to evaluate their applicability to the process> of setting, managing, and monitoring environmental windows for dredging.One or two of the most promising tools should be selected>> for additional testing,research,and refinement aimed at enhancing their acceptability and use in the windows-setting process. Funding If resource agency staff are expected to fulfill their mandates under the law and participate in the windows-setting process in a timely manner,the agencies will need additional funding. Recommendation 7. Additional'funding should be allocated to re- source agencies to ensure full, thorough, and active participation in the windows-setting process. Adaptive Management The justification for windows needs to be reviewed periodically. All windows ought to be viewed as subject to change on the basis of new data and informa- tion that should be incorporated routinely into the windows-setting process. Recommendation 8. The windows-setting process should reflect the principle of adaptive management. That is, as new data and infor- mation are acquired and experience is gained, they should be fed back into the process. Introduction Environmental windows are those periods of the year when dredging and dis- posal activities may be carried out because regulators have determined that the adverse impacts associated with dredging and disposal can be reduced below critical thresholds at these times. Conversely, seasonal restrictions are applied during periods of the year when dredging and disposal activities are prohibited because of the increased potential for harm to aquatic resources. Environmental windows are one of a number of management and technological tools that can be used individually or in combination to reduce the environmental impacts of dredging and disposal operations on living resources, aesthetics, and recreation and tourism. This report presents the findings and recommendations of a com- mittee of experts formed to examine the decision-making process for estab- lishing environmental windows and provide recommendations for improving the process. These recommendations are based largely on the results of a work- shop held to (a) explore the decision-making process for establishing environ- mental'windows and (b) examine options for introducing greater consistency, reliability, and predictability into the-process. Background Environmental windows are most frequently designed to provide an opportu- nity for dredging while protecting against the following primary stressors gen- erased during dredging and disposal operations: 10 A Process for Setting,Managing,and Monitoring Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects + Entrainment of fish eggs and larvae, juvenile fishes, sea turtles, and other threatened or endangered species; • Suspended sediments and turbidity, which may affect fish and shellfish spawning, disrupt anadromous fish migrations,reduce water quality, and cause aesthetic degradation; Resuspension of buried contaminated sediments, which may release toxins and nutrients that can have acute and chronic effects on living resources, • Sedimentation (burial of plants and animals and economic resources); • Habitat loss by burial, removal, or degradation; and + Collisions with marine mammals (e.g., whales). For each dredging project, the goal of resource agencies and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) isto achieve cost-effective dredging and disposal while maintaining and protecting aquatic resources—living resources, aesthetic resources, and recreational and tourism activities. Accomplishing this goal is fre- quently a challenging balancing act. In conducting dredging projects, USACE must be cognizant not only of the need to protect natural resources but also of project timelines, the availability of equipment, and the safety risks posed to dredging personnel by operating in potentially inclement weather and sea states. Ports must also weigh the risks to ships and their crews and the economic losses associated with project delays. Resource managers, on the other hand, must consider potential damage to the life histories of multiple species (particularly those that are threatened or endangered)that reside in or migrate through dredg- ing and disposal areas, along with critical habitat'concerns, when making rec- ommendations for restricted periods and environmental windows. Yet biologists and regulatory agencies are frequently';hampered in their'mission to protect crit- ical resources'by a'lack of definitive scientific information on either the sus- ceptibility of the resources to dredging stressors or the actual biological impacts. In these cases, the agencies that are charged with protecting public resources have historically adopted'a conservative or risk-averse approach, resulting in recommendations for narrow dredging windows. The establishment of envi- ronmental windowsalso fiequently involves multiple state and federal agencies that may follow different procedures in recommending windows.' Since the passage of the national Environmental Policy Actin 1969, resource agencies have requested environmental restrictions with increasing frequency. 'The committee acknowledges that both the resource agencies and USACE are bound by several governing laws and considerations when recommending windows (e.g., the National Environ- mental Policy Act;Clean Water Act;Marine Protection,Research,and Sanctuaries Act;Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958, Marine Mammal Protection Act;Endangered Species Act;and Magnuson—Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act).However,the overall process for factoring the various considerations into the windows'-setting'process and the level of documen- tation for the windows provided to USACE vary from agency to agency. Introduction 11 According to USACE, environmental windows today are applied to,more.than 80 percent of all federal dredging projects. Because of the frequency of recom- mendations to impose environmental windows and the cumulative economic impact of their application for more than 30 years,' USACE recently challenged the efficacy of the windows-setting process. Moreover,USACE questioned the scientific validity of establishing windows in the absence of definitive scientific information, and called for greater consistency, predictability, and reliability in the process. Purpose Given the above concerns,USACE asked the National Research Council's Trans- portation Research Board.-Marine Board to undertake an examination of the ap- plication of environmental dredging windows in federal navigation projects, this effort was conducted in collaboration with the Ocean Studies Board. USACE requested a workshop to explore the decision-making process for estab- lishing environmental windows and to solicit suggestions for improving the process. The statement of task for the;project is shown in Box 1-1 To carry out this:charge, a committee was appointed with:expertise in port operations, dredging, benthic and wetland ecology, commercial fishing, sedi- mentology, ichthyology, environmental protection, and federal andstate regu- lation. The committee chose to place particular emphasis on the last portion of its statement of task-the development of a pilot process for setting,:managing, and monitoring environmental windows. The workshop was designed to solicit the views of a wide range of experts and interested parties;involved in and affected by the establishment of environmental windows. The workshop discus- sions on the regulatory, scientific, and economic issues associated with windows and participants'reactions to a proposed pilot process presented at the workshop assisted the committee in developing a pilot process that could be used to improve the technical and scientific bases used for establishing windows. Organization of This Report Chapter'2 details the research and outreach`efforts conducted in preparation for the workshop, the workshop structure and rationale, and the major points made during the proceedings. 'Chapter 3 presents a template for a proposed a Cumulatively, windows can create very tight requirements for contracting, mobilization, and conduct of dredging projects,with little flexibility for unanticipated shutdowns for repairs or severe weather conditions.' 12 A Process for Setting, Managing,and Monitoring Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects BOX 1-1 Statement of Task This workshop will be used to identify issues and discuss options that could lead to greater consistency in the procedures used by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in setting environmental windows. It is anticipated that the workshop will have several panels covering topics such as: the wide range of laws and regulations establishing bases for various pro- tection measures; knowns and unknowns about the biological conse- quences of alternate dredging methodologies; new developments in dredging techniques;better (and worse) examples of decision making for windows in different regions; models of collaborativedecision making in other environmental and transportation areas; and tools (processes, ana- lytical models, etc.) for improving`:decision making. Workshop participants will be invited to represent a cross-section of groups involved in setting windows, including federal and state resource agency staff, experts in dredging,°port officials, environmental groups, and academic experts from the variety of relevant fields. The workshop will be designed to ensure opportunities for dialogue and information ex- change. xchange. The summary'will provide an identification of the issues raised and the opinions expressed both pro and con on these issues. The prof ect committee will also provide ideas and suggestions for appropriate follow-up activities, such as additional research, workshops, or a pilot process for setting, managing, and monitoring environmental windows. process for setting, managing, and monitoring environmental windows, level- oped in draft form by the committee prior to the workshop and refined in accor- dance with the workshop discussions. Chapter 4 provides recommendations formulated by the committee, largely on the basis'of information that emerged from the workshop. Appendix A contains summaries of the workshop sessions, Appendix B is a glossary of terms relevant to this report, Appendix C provides the workshop agenda and a listing of the participants, and Appendixes D and E contain copies of the forms used to solicit information and feedbag from var- ious stakeholders.. A final section presents biographical information on the com- mittee members: Workshop Preparations, Design, and Major Points of Discussion Workshop Preparations During its first meeting, the committee was briefed by representatives of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) on the current.'status of the windows-setting pro- cess. On the basis of these briefings, the committee decided to conduct case studies of dredging projects to expand its knowledge base. Additional outreach and information-gathering opportunities were also identified. All of these activ- ities were completed prior to the workshop and provided important input to its design and execution, as well as to the draft template described in Chapter 3. These preparatory activities are described below. Case Studies Information for each case study was solicited from both USACE and NOAA. The committee developed forms to be used for providing the requested information (see Appendix D). These forms were sent to USAGE Headquarters and sub- sequently distributed to all USAGE districts. NOAA was asked to provide'infor- mation on the case studies submitted by the'USACE districts. The following USAGE districts responded to the original request: Mobile, Galveston, Norfolk,Baltimore, Detroit, New England, New York,San Francisco, New Orleans, and Rock Island. The districts provided basic information on 14 A Process for Setting, Managing,and Monitoring Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects project specifics, involvement of state resource agencies, resources of concern, perceived impact, habitat type, life-history stages, technical evidence, and pro- cedures used in setting environmental windows.In some cases, examples of the resource agencies' decisions were included, and for some studies, committee members obtained additional information through discussions with USACE per- sonnel, state resource agencies, and others familiar with particularprojects. In one case, a committee member participated'in an actual windows-setting meet- ing involving the state and federal resource agencies and USACE. The case studies also formed a basis for discussion at the National Dredging Team Con- ference held in Jacksonville, Florida, in January 2001. The overall findings from the case studies supported USACE's original as- sertions to the committee regarding the efficacy of windows-setting process. Districts reported substantial variation in the number of projects that have win- dows, the effort spent in developing the windows, the extent of interagency co- ordination and cooperation,the level of regulatory restrictions, and other factors. Although some districts have better-developed processes than others, one of the impressions resulting from this exercise was the lack of consistency in the windows-setting process. The case studies also revealed large differences in the scientific evidence used for setting windows. In some instances, no such evidence was provided. Some decisions were based on outdated data and information; some were based on the authority or opinion of the resource agency; while a few were based on specific scientific Observations. The proposed windows were generally accepted by USACE as unavoidable restrictions on the projects. As a result, 'formal ob- jections were rarely raised, as there appeared to be no reliable process for dis- pute resolution. Economic considerations were generally not-factored into the windows-setting process.=.Disputes appeared to be more common among agen- cies in the interpretation of existing data,and there was apparently little attempt to include a broad range of stakeholders in the process Although some windows were set on the basis of environmental'conditions (e.g., temperature) that could be monitored, relatively little monitoring was generally done to verify biological impacts, although in some cases the resource concerns (and the windows) changed over time, indicating that the;.conditions were actively reviewed as the project progressed. The lack of participation by certain resource agencies in the windows-setting process was cited as a short- coming, which is a problem that all parties recognize. Some of these agencies did not send representatives to attend meetings or entered the process fairly late, causing significant delays and disruptions. Many resource agency repre- sentatives have commented that they do not have readily available the staff or the fiscal resources to participate fully in the process, especially on a project- Workshop Preparations,design,and Major Points of Discussion 15 by'-project basis. Other shortcomings in coordination and communication among agencieswere also noted. Outreach Efforts The committee sought opinions and comments from a wide range of key stake- holders. as input to the workshop. The committee was fortunate to have the opportunity to participate in the Sea Grant Conference on Dredged Material Man- agement: Options and Environmental Considerations, held in December 2000at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and to plan and host a full-day ses- sion at the National Dredging Team Conference,held in January 2001 in Jackson- ville, Florida. During both meetings, the committee members apprised the audience of the upcoming environmental windows workshop; invited their par- ticipation; and actively solicited feedback, particularly on the information provided in the case studies. A copy of the questionnaires distributed by the committee for this purpose at the meetings is contained in Appendix E. Workshop Design The workshop was structured to enable the committee to produce three primary outputs: • An analysis of environmental dredging windows as a management tool, with an emphasis on (a) their effectiveness in protecting natural resources, (b) the processes by which they are developed, applied, and managed; and (c) other management and technological tools available that could be used in conjunction with or instead of environmental windows to provide the appro- priate level of protection of aquatic resources. * A set of recommendations for improving the process by which environ- mental windows are developed, enhancing the efficacy of windows as one of a number of tools available to protect natural resources,and promoting greater con- sistency in their development and application across regions. • A process template outlining specific steps designed to ensure the involve- ment of all stakeholders and effectively integrate scientific and engineering data. The goal of this template is to introduce greater consistency, reliability; and predictability into the windows-setting process and to establish a firm scientific foundation for windows-setting;decisions. The committee designed the workshop to facilitate information exchange; maximize dialogue and participation by attendees;identify the major categories 16 A'Process:for Setting,Managing,and Monitoring Environmental Windows for dredging[projects;, of unresolved research questions; and produce the raw materials needed to de- velop a process for setting, managing, and monitoring environmental windows for federal dredging projects. After reviewing the case studies and consulting with a number of agencies, the committee prepared a draft process template be- fore the workshop to stimulate discussion. This draft template was presented during the opening!plenary session of the workshop. Participants were chal- lenged to focus on reviewing, revising, and refining the draft.:.template, or de- veloping an entirely different alternative by the end of the workshop. Throughout the workshop, results of each session were summarized and incorporated into the draft template. As the template was revised and refined during the course of the workshop, it was presented periodically to the partic ipants and to:a commentary panel comprising senior-level.;executives from USACE NOAA, the Environmental Protection Agency, and a state resource agency.;After each presentation, the committee met and revised the template, as appropriate. Major Points of Discussion The majority of time at the workshop was devoted to working group sessions fo- cased on such issues as the current state of the science concerning the biological ecological impacts of alternative dredging technologies, new developments in dredging techniques and technologies, analytical methods for assessing costs and benefits, and the administrative process currently followed for establishing win- dows invarious districts. In addition,participants in breakout sessions were chal- lenged to focus the discussion of each issue on environmental windows and to make specific recommendations for improving the draft template. Major points of discussion that emerged fromthesessions included the following: • Although there have been some examples of effective and successful en- vironmental windows for;dredging projects, many participants noted that it is impossible to demonstrate direct causation between a specific dredging,and disposal operation and the long-term health of a particular species or natural system. • Participants also noted that;environmental windows have been used histor- ically as a tool for protecting juvenile fish,shellfish, and other marine life,as well as critical habitats for spawning; nursery, and foraging-particularly during the early life stages. Windows are used as well in certain circumstances (e.g., threat- ened or endangered species)to protect species at the individual level.Additionally, there are species that, while not formally listed, may warrant special,considera- tion because of population status. Therefore, it becomes exceedingly difficult to Workshop°'Preparations,Design,and Major Points of Discussion " 17 separate spatial and temporal considerations within an estuary when setting environmental windows for dredging projects. In general,the scale of threat to a species should be the key consideration when selecting the most appropriate management tool. Environmental windows should be targeted toward the most sensitive life stages of selected species of concern. Participants also observed that in the absence of complete scientific information regarding the potential impact of.;a dredging project on a given species, resource managers should adopt a pre- cautionary, risk-averse approach when interpreting existing regulations. Although there has been significant research and experience regarding the risks of dredging to species at the individual level, little work has been done on the risks of dredging at the population level. Population-level effects are there- fore poorly understood, and in the context of windows have been used incon- sistently to protect resources at this level. Nevertheless,participants stated that individual-, population-, and ecosystem-level effects should be important man- agement considerations for any given dredging project. * Many participants noted that appropriate monitoring—before, during, and after dredging'-operations—should be designed specifically to measure the'effec- tiveness of windows in protecting species of concern. A feedback mechanism should be established to incorporate the best information on existing tools, lessonslearned, and related research to ensure that the process is managed adap- tively in the future as new information is generated. If targets are defined prop- erly, monitoring can be used to set or refine windows. • Additional factors were identified that should be considered when estab- lishing environmental windows. These factors include the following: human health and safety, cumulative impacts of dredging, and availability of agency staff and resources. • In setting operational or physical controls, the target must first be defined (e.g., total suspended solids level, plume extent). For this step to succeed:, the potential impacts must be identified specifically and quantitatively. • Several participants suggested that problems involving the impacts of well- designed and-executed dredging and disposal operations often are mainly a mat- ter of public perception. Windows should be accompanied by clear and explicit identification of what is being protected and how. Then the various aspects should be prioritized. The goal should be to strike a balance between the costs of resource protection and the costs of delay, and even of the no-dredging scenario. Finally, several participants commented that USACE and an independent group of engineering and industry (contractor) experts, with input from scien- tists, should recommend the most appropriate technologies for effectively man- aging the environmental impacts of dredging projects. For greatest efficiency,this should be done on a regional or local basis rather than on a project-specific basis. 18 A"Process for Setting, Managing,and Monitoring Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects Complete summaries of the workshop sessions are contained in Appendix A; the workshop agenda is provided in Appendix C. Throughout much of the workshop, the committee heard engineers express the desire for a clearly articulated target level of acceptable impact. Resource pro- fessionals also articulated a strong desire to interact with and provide input to the dredging engineers in an effort to foster a greater understanding of the biological resources potentially at risk. This expressed desire for cross-communication served as an impetus for the committee's decision to recommend the process tem- plate contained in this report. The committee is confident that by integrating the knowledge provided by both scientists and engineers, the proposed process will lead to the establishment of windows that are predicated on a:higher degree of scientific certainty than is currently the case. Process for Setting, Managing, and Monitoring Environmental Windows The template for a process for setting, managing, and monitoring environmental windows shown in Box 3-1 was developed through focused discussions that oc- curred before,;during, and aftertheworkshop (see,Figure 3-1 for a graphical de- piction of the process). The process itself is simple, but its successful execution is more difficult, demanding sustained commitment by all parties concerned. Although any decision to dredge should be based on clearly established need,the proposed process is designed to pertain only to those federal projects that have been preapproved and for which funds have been appropriated. The starting point for this process is not whether to dredge but how and when to dredge. The proposed methodology works most effectively if it is recognized by all participants as an iterative process allowing for the resolution of environ- mental windows and related issues that require:decisions based on the best available scientific and technological information. It is not the aim of the pro- posed process to modify the legal basis by which the various agencies (both lead and trustee) participate in shaping dredging projects. Nor does the'com- mittee intend to force all projects into a "one-size-fits-all" approach. For ex- ample, when:threatened and endangered:species are involved, the process may need to be applied to a larger area than is typically associated with a sin- gle dredging project to avoid cumulative impacts. The committee also be- lieves the proposed process can be applied (after being appropriately adapted to local'circumstances) to all major federal dredging projects. Details on each step in the process are provided below. The committee recommends that all 20 A Process for Setting,Managing,and Monitoring Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects BOX 3-1 Template for a Process for Setting, Managing, and Monitoring Environmental Windows Step 1 All stakeholders are identified, and commitments to the integrity and completion of the process are secured from all agencies with advisory and decision-making roles. Step 2 The stakeholders are convened. The following tasks should be com- pleted during the first meeting or shortly thereafter: Step 2A. Agree on the time period for the evaluation. Step 2B. Define the specific geographic area(s) of interest or concern within a region. Step 2C. Identify and rank the resources of concern., Step 2D. Conduct a systematic evaluation of;proposed dredging proj- ects, as well as existing and proposed window applications, and rank the projects in terms of such factors as economic importance and sen- sitivity to timing. Step,2E. Form a.Science Team whose expertise will make it possible to identify and evaluate the threats to the resources of concern. Select or elect a chairperson. Prepare a charge to the team outlining its:,assign- ment, deliverables,'and timetable. Step 2F. Farm an Engineering Team, including contractors and USAGE personnel whose expertise will allow them to identify the most ap- propriate technological options' (i.e., equipment,'management con- trols, or operational procedures)'for conducting dredging and disposal activities to meet the resource goals specified by the Science Team and to assess the costs associated with the options identified. Select or elect'a chairperson. Prepare a charge to the team outlining its as- signment, deliverables, and timetable. continued Process for Setting,Managing,and Monitoring Environmental Windows 21 Step,3 The Science and Engineering Teams conduct biological and engineering evaluations of the proposed dredging projects. All potential adverse im- pacts, along with the biological resources of concern, should be identi- fied. 'Close coordination between the two teams should be sought, and overlap should be created by having the chairperson:of each team serve as an adviser to the other team. Step 3A. The Science Team identifies biological resources predicted to be adversely affected by each dredging project and provides this in- formation to the Engineering Team. Step 3B. The Science Team documents the temporal variability of the species in the area or the vulnerable habitats. The Science Team also identifies the acceptable levels of impact (e.g., "takes")' and the spe- cific stressors`responsible'for the impacts and provides this informa- tion to the Engineering Team. Step 3C. The Engineering Team, using information from the Science' Team on the stressors involved, recommends strategies for reducing the stressors to acceptable levels (e.g., technology,contracting, oper- ational methods, equipment selection). The Engineering Team pro- vides cost estimates for these strategies. The results of the Engineering Team review are provided to the Science Team. Step"3D. The Science Team reviews the information developed by the Engineering Team and notes any resulting 'changes in the ex- pected impacts. Step.3E. The Science Team recommends acceptable dredging periods, that is, environmental windows. Step` 3F. A formal consultation under` Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act is conducted if listed species may be adversely affected. Step 3G. The Science'Team prioritizes the recommendations for win- dows and provides this information to the Stakeholder Group in areas where multiple windows for varying species are recommended. continued, 22 A`Process for Setting,Managing,and Monitoring Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects BOX 3-1 (continued) Template for a Process for Setting,Managing,and Monitoring Environmental Windows Step 4 The Stakeholder Group reviews the alternative strategies--including windows-identified by the Science and Engineering Teams and endorses a plan of action. Step 5 The recommended plan is implemented. Step G The Stakeholder Group reviews the season's dredging activities to eval- uate monitoring data and to identify changes that can be incorporated to refine future dredging and disposal activities. meetings of the Stakeholder Group, Science Team, and Engineering Team be professionally facilitated: Step 1 All stakeholders are identified, and commitments to the integrity and completion of the process are secured from all agencies with advisory and decision-making roles. The purpose of this step is to identify all concerned and relevant stakeholders and to obtain a commitment to the process from each such individual and agency. In the absence of an existing stakeholder group, USACE should be charged with initiating the process by convening a,small group of appropriate stakeholders who will subsequently identify appropriate additional members. All permitting and advisory agencies must be included in the discussions held during this step. Designated agency representatives should be empowered to speak on behalf of their respective agencies. Each member should be'asked'to ratify a charter stip ulating'decision-making processes to be used by the Stakeholder Group, time periods for completing work, and the like. The term "regional" was used in the workshop to signify the proper spatial area within which to select members of the Stakeholder'Group. The term could denote different geographic scales in different areas of the country, the notion co •d E , c ,t ti, CL y F C T -C U a A C C C ®1r E ifs 0ittm L= N V C iLnd', ckvb �- y O V O WV .� O a uJ'G S ca •� t ri. CLo i1 rC+ q O C t� vlo0 .- 0 d oy c . oto H c a ,! o ct�`sE'' a ato tj tn > to0� c 0 O � o p T Ci t!} ICY.IU W SSS (� i6 S' " i L3�wa fC tA. 4) QA UZn CL ate, .yam w+. ;; (% LS v r. C x- . rip + r14! wCom + 'I',, �Vy "`r.4.W! yam. LL o 24 A`Process for Setting, Managing,and Monitoring Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects of delineating a "region" must be based on locally acceptable definitions. For example, many areas have existing groups that actively assess environmental' issues, such as groups addressing watershed issues, participating on regional dredging teams, or working on a particular estuary's comprehensive conserva- tion and management plan. These existing groups should help define"regional" and facilitate the rapid identification of regional stakeholder participants. They should be encouraged to evaluate their current membership in selecting the team of core stakeholders and to expand the team as necessary to encompass all relevant groups and individuals and areas of expertise. Once the Stakeholder Group has been identified, the first action needed is to secure the commitment of all parties to the windows-setting process, including a declaration to provide staff and monetary support as necessary to complete the process on an agreed-on schedule. Senior representatives of each agency or organization must make this commitment. A public statement of policy and support from senior officials will drive the process forward; thereafter, a'per- son with decision-making authority should be obligated to abide by this com- mitment. It should be noted that participation in the process by government agencies does not imply an abrogation of responsibilities or legal rights under governing laws or regulations. Step 2 The stakeholders are convened.The following tasks should be com- pleted during om-pleted 'during the first meeting or shortly thereafter. USACE and the local project sponsor should convene the stakeholders identi- fied in Step 1 to accomplish the tasks described below. USACE and the resource agencies should assemble pertinent background material for the stakeholders' review prior to the first meeting; Step 2A Agree on the time periodfor the evaluation. A commitment to a set time period for the systematic review and resolution of salient issues is necessary'. Once the Stakeholder Group has selected a specific time period, the process that follows will be based on the best available infor- mation that can be assembled and considered within that time frame. Step 2B De fine the specific geographic area(s) of interest or concern within a region. Process for Setting,Managing,and Monitoring Environmental Windows 25 The specific geographic area or areas of interest or concern within a region should be identified and agreed on. All anticipated federal dredging projects within the region should be enumerated. Ultimately,the areas of interest or con- cern should be defined by the interests of the Stakeholder Group. Step 2C Identify and rank the resources of concern. The specific resources of concern should be identified, categorized (e.g., listed species), and prioritized according to the consensus of the Stakeholder Group. The prioritization will be subjective and dependent on the collective judgment of the stakeholders. Step 2D Conduct a systematic evaluation of proposed dredging projects, as well as existing and potential window applications, and rank the projects in terms of such factors as economic importance and sensitivity to timing. The Stakeholder Group should conduct a systematic evaluation of projects, existing,windows, and potential window applications. The group should cate- gorize the projects in terms of whether significant environmental issues are in- volved,for example,whether endangered species are migrating through the area or there is a heightened level of uncertainty associated with the project. Factors other than environmental considerations should also be evaluated and priori- tized; examples include the economic importance of the project,contractor con- straints,the on-straints,'the frequency of vessel operations, and navigational safety. This step is important because not all projects will require the group's attention; a simple sorting of the projects at the beginning of the process will help focus the group's time and energy. It should be noted that the ranking and prioritization process conducted in this step refers to the application of environmental windows'. The process should not be used to prioritize or rank=dredging projects. As noted earlier, the template is designed for federal projects that have been preapproved and for which funds have been appropriated. Step 2E Form a'Science Team whose expertise will make it possible to identify and evaluate the threats to the resources of'concern. Select or elect a chair- person.'Prepare a charge to the team outlining its assignment, deliverables, and timetable. Process for Setting,Managing,and;,Monitoring Environmental Windows 27 vulnerability to various dredging stressors, along with the cumulative impacts, should be calculated. A matrix approach might be used to summarize this initial screening and to focus subsequent efforts.This information should be provided to the Engineering Team. Step 3B The Science Team documents the temporal variability of the species in the area and the vulnerable habitats. The Science Team also identifies the ac- ceptable levelsof impact (e.g., "takes"') and the specific stressors responsible for the impacts and provides this information to the Engineering Team. The Science Team should identify all relevant studies and data that can assist in evaluating temporal variations in the vulnerability of particular species and habi- tat attributes to different stressors, and use this information to identify the'spe- cific stressors of concern. This information should be provided to the Engineering Team. Stressors should be defined by type [e.g., total suspended solids (TSS), noise], zone in the water column(e.g.,lower water column,surface),,magnitude (e.g., critical levels of TSS above which species are affected), and temporal and spatial extents of concern (e.g., how long TSS above the critical level can be tolerated, or how close the resource is to the source of stress). To the degree possible, this 'evaluation should take into account the cumulative effects of dredging-related stressors and other factors-including fishing,cooling-water in- takes, and other dredging projects that can affect the same population--on the resources of concern.' Input from the chair of the Engineering Team will be important for ascertaining the current state of knowledge;about particular param- eters, such as actual'levels of TSS around different types of equipment or antici- pated noise levels. If time and resources are available within the context of the process, new investigations or summaries might be initiated to fill and identify data gaps. It is also expected that as new information is gleaned (e.g., from mon- itoring activities), it will be incorporated routinely into the existing body of knowledge. Human activities in the coastal zone often result in the cropping of organisms, and in the alter- ation of their habitats.The capacity of populations to sustain themselves in the face of such losses, or reductions of carrying capacity in the ecosystem in which they reside is a cross-cutting issue in environmental impact assessment. Whether losses of individuals or alteration of their primary habitats constitutes an adverse impact has been addressed in relation to a plethora of human ac- tivities: mineral extraction, dredging,'beach nourishment, water withdrawal for industry and power generation, shoreline alteration (e.g., armoring), development, commercial and recre- ational fishing,and military activities,to name a few.The setting of windows for proposed dredg- ing projects should benefit from the analytical techniques and decision trees developed during the past 30 years for aquatic impact assessment,especially when:an activity is judged to be time sen- sitive to the presence of aquatic species. .......... 28 A Process for Setting,Managing,and Monitoring Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects Step 3C 77te Engineering Team, using information ftom the Science Team on the stres- sors involved, recommends strategies for reducing the stressors to acceptable levels (e.g., technology, contracting, operational methods, equipment selec- tion). The Engineering Team provides cost estimates for these strategies. The results of the Engineering Team review are provided to the Science Team. The Engineering Team, with the assistance of the Science Team chair, should review the information on dredging stressors and environmental impacts pro- vided by the Science Team, and recommend the most appropriate mitigating technologies and operational controls for dredging and placement. For this step to succeed, the potential stressors must be specified and the lev- els of concern quantified by the Science Team. Technological control methods should then be recommended for achieving the stated objectives relative to zone (e.g.,water column,pelagic,benthos) and type of stressor (e.g.,suspended solids, entrainment). It must be recognized that the range of feasible technolo- gies may be limited and that technological solutions will probably be only partial ones. The objective is to achieve the most effective dredging operation while meeting the environmental criteria provided by the Science Team. The success of the template will depend on the interaction of the Science and Engineering Teams. The process might work as follows: Scientists define the target levels for stressors (e.g.,levels of take by entrain- ment, maximum TSS). Engineers choose appropriate technology to meet the targets using a matrix 2 approach. Key components of the matrix include impact media, impact char acter, and equipment control methods. Monitoring is used to refine the matrix, as needed. Step 3D The Science Team reviews the information developed by the Engineering Team and notes any resulting changes in the expected impacts. The Engineering Team should provide to the Science Team information re- garding improvements or changes in operational approaches to the dredging One key technology.implementation issue is whether there is enough commitment to fully uti- lizing the flexibility in the USACE Federal Acquisition Regulations to specify certain dredging equipment for a particular project. Depending on the recommended technology(or technologies), one or more options for setting windows may evolve, resulting in a range of potential windows- setting strategies for a given project. Process for Setting,Managing,and Monitoring Environmental Windows 29 project that couldreduce the stressors involved below critical levels, as well s any impact these changes might have on the duration of the dredging and disposal activities. The Science Team should consider these modifications in relation to (a) the degree of certainty relative to the threshold levels for each stressor, (b) the extent to which the suggested changes reduce the spatial and temporal extent of the dredging impacts, and (c) whether the changes in ap- proach introduce any neve stressors or are likely to result in any indirect effects on the resource that were not considered in the evaluation in b. For instance, a particular technological approach may reduce the level of TSS below that believed to cause'acute stress'to the species and habitat of concern, and as a result the project may take longer to complete. This may in turn increase the time period when the TSS level exceeds that for chronic impacts as compared with the impact of the original project, or only reduce suspended sediment concentrations (SSCs) below the upper limit of the range of TSS expected to harm the resource. The technique used to minimize SSCs might also involve physical measures (e.g., silt screens) that may be thought to cause some other stress to the resource by, for instance, further limiting access of migrating species through a constrained channel. Such considerations should be used by the Science Team to weigh the poten- tial advantages of the recommended technological changes against the risk to the resource posed by the project with and without the changes. The Science Team shoulld,provide a clear evaluation of the potential risk to the resource of concern under both of the'latter scenarios. Step 3E The Science Team recommends acceptable dredging periods, that is, envi- ronmental windows. On the basis of its findings in earlier stages of the process, the Science Team should determine the temporal constraints that need to be imposed on dredging activities to protect resources of concern from likely substantial adverse impacts. The environmental windows thus identified will be those periods when dredg- ing and disposal operations can take place without unacceptable impacts on species and habitats and other resources of concern. These windows should be assessed for both technological scenarios considered in the previous step (i.e., with and without technological changes in approach:) to identify clearly the changes in window length and timing associated with the implementation of different technological approaches. In addition, the Science Team should specify the criteria to be used to set the windows. In some cases, windows will be delimited by specific dates (e.g., 30 A Process for Setting, Managing,and Monitoring Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects to avoid cropping of anadromous fish eggs and larvae). In other instances, a window may be closed (e.g., based on a documented tape of a threatened and endangered species) or triggered (opened, extended, or closed) by physical en- vironmental variables such as water temperature or determination of species activity (e.g., the presence or absence of a species of concern at certain levels of abundance). In cases in which real-time environmental or resource obser- vations are to be used to open or close windows, the Science Team will have to specify the monitoring protocols and data standards to be used to support the decision to open or close a window. If temporal constraints on dredging activities are not considered necessary to protect the species or habitats of concern, the Science Team should provide a clear recommendation for the window to remain open year round. The Science Team may provide a justification for this recommendation in the same manner used tojustify recommendations for specific windows. Should sufficient'information for assessing the effect of dredging activities on local populations or habitats be unavailable, the Science Team should use available studies and information for other systems, together with data con- cerning the oncerning<the physical environment of the local system, to assess the potential im- pact of dredging activities on species and habitats of concern (Step B). Because of the uncertainties associated with such inferences,it is unlikely that the Science Team will be able to specify potential conditions and stressors in sufficient de- tail for review by the Engineering Team.In these cases,the Science Team should recommend windows on the basis of the information for other systems, con- sidering any differences in local conditions that may limit the utility of this information, and state explicitly where the greatest areas of uncertainty lie. The rationale for such recommendations should be summarized and explained to the Stakeholder Group. Step 3F A formai consultation under Section'7 of the Endangered Species Act is con- ducted if listed species may be adversely affected. A dredging project that has the potential to affect species listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) may be the subject of an informal consultation during the earliest stages of plan ning and scientific review. During this phase of the project, the goal of the infor- mal consultation is to identify whether listed or proposed species and critical habitats are in the project area and if so to eliminate or mitigate the potential im- pact by modifying the timing, method, or scope of the project in such a manner as to avoid the need for a formal consultation. During this informal process,input Process for Setting,"Managing,and Monitoring Environmental Windows 31 from all sources (e.g.,existing data and literature, observers) can be used to pos- itively confirm species in the area,ensure that there is a complete understanding of the potential impacts to these species, and identify the best tools for eliminat- ing or reducing impacts to the maximum extent possible. Once it has been de- termined that unavoidable adverse effects are likely, a formal consultation is required to determine whether the proposed action is likely to jeopardize the con- tinued existence of the species of concern or result in destruction or adverse mod- ification of critical habitats. During this formal consultation, the information resulting from the informal consultation is useful in developing the Biological Assessment (required for major construction activities) and the Biological Opinion. The .Endangered'Species Consultation Handbook (published jointly by the National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) may be useful to participants not fully familiar with the consultation process. Step 3G The Science T'ea.m prioritizes the recommendations for windows and provides this information to the Stakeholder Group in areas where multiple windows for varying species are recommended. It is likely that more than one species' life-history"stage or habitat will be con- sidered by the Science and Engineering Teams using the above process for any given project reach. The result may be restrictions on dredging or technologi- cal approaches that effectively limit the sponsor's capability to complete the project in a cost-effective manner. Thus when the Science Team recommends for multiple resources individual windows that are not concurrent, it should provide an assessment of the relative importance of implementing those re- strictions based on the suite of affected resources within the project reach. The Science Team should consider (a) the vulnerability of the population to the ex- pected impact; (b)the degree of protection provided by restricting dredging and disposalactivities to the window; (e)'the level of uncertainty associated'with both of these factors; (d) the cumulative effect of dredging and disposal activi- ties in this reach and other factors affecting the resource of concern, including fishing, cooling-water intakes, and other dredging projects that affect the same population; and (e) the diversity of resources protected by any given window. The team should base its assessment on available data concerning the resource in the particular reach,information from other areas,and its members'best pro- fessional judgment in the absence of data. The Science Team should provide the Stakeholder Group with a prioritized list of windows, along with a?supporting rationale that reflects the:relative utility of the various'windows in protecting; resources of interest to local communities, regions, and the nation. .......................... ............. ............. .......... 32 A Process for Setting,Managing,and Monitoring Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects Step 4 The Stakeholder Group reviews the alternative strate I gies including windows—identified by the Science and Engineering Teams and endorses: a plan of action. This is the most difficult step in the process; it is also the most critical. The conclusions of the scientific and technical experts must be explained to the stake- holders and affirmed or supported by the decision makers. Briefing the Stake- holder Group will be the last formal action of the Science and Engineering Teams. Stakeholders will then have an opportunity to discuss the scientific con- clusions presented, as well as economic and societal considerations, such as the consequences of,choosing a particular environmental window for the recre- ational use of the area or the overall economics of the dredging project. The final product from the Stakeholder Group should be a consensus recommen- dation for the implementation of environmental windows. During Step I of the process, the Stakeholder Group should have selected two or three structured -making tools to evaluate; the most appropriate of these tools should decision be selected. Actual implementation of the consensus recommendations will occur through applicable regulatory and interagency review processes (e.g., National Environ mental Policy Act, Coastal Zone Management Act, 401 certification, Essential Fish Habitat consultation). Agencies involved in these processes should in -nd stakeholders into their assessment of pro- tegrate the work of the scientists a if there are, it may mean a key posed projects. There should be no surprises, player was not at the table, or his or her participation in the process was com- promised in some manner. A final task of the Stakeholder Group is to determine how each member should be informed of unexpected developments that may result should a de -on.recommendations occur. Again, there should be no parture from the agreed -consensus side agreements, as these would erode the trust surprises or post and open communication needed to make the process successful on a sus- tained basis. An ad hoc committee may be useful for resolving disputes and revising the recommendations. Step 5 The recommended plan is implemented. Dredging projects are now performed. The work should include monitoring in- tended to.(a) test the assumptions,on which the windows were based, (b) test Process for Setting,Managing,and:Monitoring Environmental Windows 33 the expected performance of the dredging option selected, and (c) provide basic information for better discussions in the future. Step 6 The Stakeholder Group reviews the season's dredging activities to evaluate monitoring data and to identify changes that can be incorporated to refine future dredging and disposal activities. It is imperative for the efficacy of the process that follow-up reviews of both the implementation of the recommendations and the specific environmental windows be conducted. The validity of key assumptions and expectations will have a bearing on how they feed into the next iteration of the process. The final step should be scheduling of the next iteration, which is essential to maintain continuity. Rale of Adaptive'Management The process that has been presented in this chapter is based on adaptive man- agement.In other words,as new information is acquired and experience is gained, it is fed back into the process. Each project should be viewed-as a tool for im- proving the process. Successful stakeholder processes place responsibility on the participants for demonstrating leadership in effecting such improvements. ............ ............ Key Findings a--n-d Recommend ations The committee's key findings and recommendations are presented below. Broad-Based Management Strategies Dredging and disposal operations are only one of a number of human activities that affect the nation's waterways. They need to be evaluated not only in the ab solute sense so that management strategies for reducing environmental impacts to acceptable levels can be developed but also in the context of other activities -tant to society. that affect the uses and value of water bodies impoi Recommendation 1. The decision-making process for managing dredging and disposal operations to achieve sustainable water nd nonliving, ways and to protect natural resources,both living a should be broadly based. Management Tools Environmental windows are one of a number of management and technologi- cal tools that can—when properly selected and applied—not only reduce the environment impacts of dredging and disposal operations but also increase the efficiency and effectiveness of those operations. Key Findings and Recommendations 35 Recommendation Z. All tools, including windows, should be con- sidered in designing a management plan for carrying out dredging and disposal operations. Proposed Process for Setting, Managing, and Monitoring Environmental Windows Existing!processes for setting, managing, and monitoring environmental win- dows vary widely from region to region. The variations reflect differences among natural environments and their living resources; sociopolitical contexts; and ex- perience with involving stakeholders in resolving complex, multidimensional issues. It is only through testing and refinement of the proposed process in-.a va- riety of settings that the methodology can be refined, endorsed, and incorporated into existing decision-making processes to provide greater consistency. Recommendation 3. The proposed process for assessing the need for windows and for managing and monitoring windows when se- lected should be pilot tested in a small number of districts. Scientific Data and Information A series of technical syntheses encompassing field and laboratory studies of en- vironmental stressors, biological resources, and specific life-history stages af- fected by dredging and disposal operations needs to be undertaken and regularly updated. These syntheses:should focus on integrating and interpreting local and regional data and information and placing them in a larger context. Through this process, gaps in scientific information will become apparent and can serve as the focus of future research. These syntheses should be undertaken as an inte- gral part of the recommended pilot studies. Recommendation '4. All existing scientific data and information should be exploited in evaluating and setting windows as part of an overall management strategy for dredging and disposal operations. Opportunities for Cross-Training The current divide between those responsible for engineering dredging projects and those responsible for protecting biological resources needs to be narrowed. Each discipline must become better educated about and sensitive to the prey 36 A'Process for setting, Mana§ing,and Monitoring Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects sures faced by the other if management tools that satisfy the needs of both par- ties are to be developed. Recommendation 5. ,Cross-training opportunities should be created for resource managers and dredging operators. For example, re- source managers should be encouraged to observe the..operations' of -a wide array of dredges in various weather and sea states. Opportunities should also be created for dredge owners and opera- tors,to observe, and perhaps even take part in, the public participa- tion processes undertaken by resource managers and to learn about' the biological constraints, natural history, habitat types, and is- sues related to dredging and its consequences for the natural environment. Structured Decision-Making Tools Although the process outlined above for setting,managing, and monitoring environmental windows is intuitively simple, its implementation will be chal- lenging because it calls for a balancing of priorities. The most difficult step is Step 4, the balancing of scientific conclusions against economic and societal considerations. Structured decision-making tools can be helpful in addressing these issues: Recommendation 6. A special effort should be made to identify existing tools for structured decision making in complex socio- political situations and to evaluate their applicability to the process: of setting, managing, and monitoring environmental windows for dredging.One or two of the most:promising tools should be selected for additional testing, research,and refinement aimed at enhanc- ing their;acceptability and use in the windows-setting process. Funding If resource agency staff are expected to fulfill their mandates under the law and participate inthe windows-setting process in a timely manner,the agencies will need additional funding. Recommendation 7. Additional funding should be allocated to resource agencies to ensure full, thorough,and active participation in the windows-setting process. Key Findings and Recommendations 37 Adaptive Management The justification for windows needs to be reviewed periodically. All windows ought to be viewed as subject to change on the basis of new data and informa- tion that should be incorporated routinely into the windows-settingprocess. Recommendation.&. The windows-setting process should reflect the principle of adaptive management.That is, as new data and infor- mation are acquired and experience is gained, they should be fed back into the process. ................. APPENDIX Summary of Workshop Sessions A summary capturing highlights and key points was prepared for each of the working group sessions. Workshop participants were given an opportunity to review and comment on the accuracy of these summaries, the final versions of which are presented below. -Offs Session Economic and Operational Trade This session addressed the question, "How should we evaluate the environ mental benefits versus the operational costs of implementing windows?"During the last several decades, there has been little or no consideration of the cost to project sponsors or the public for the application of environmental windows. The environmental benefits have been assumed to justify the windows set, in part through application of the precautionary principle,' and have generally overshadowed consideration of economic concerns. As the numbers of dredg- ing restrictions have increased, the economic consequences of multiple windows have grown.Today, dredging projects and the direct economic benefits they pro- vide may be foregone in favor of the establishment of environmental regulations The precautionary principle,as stated in Principle 15 of the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development,is as follows: "[Tjo protect the environment,the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation." Summary of Workshop Sessions 39 to protect natural resources. Typically, the explicit trade-off between the eco- nomic benefits of dredging and the benefits of environmental protection is not considered in a formal manner. This situation prompted the question posed for consideration during this session. The session''began with presentations of three papers describing processes or techniques that might be used to analyze and evaluate the establishment of en- vironmental windows and the decision-making process involved in their appli- cation.The presenters suggested how each process or technique might be relevant in assessing the above trade-offs between economic and environmental interests. The first paper, ;presented by Thomas Gulbransen, RegionalManager, Battelle ("Proposed Framework for Evaluating`Beneficial Uses of Dredged Material in the NY/NJ Harbor,"by N. Bonnevie,T. Gulbransen,J. Diamantides and J. Lodge), describes a proposed framework for evaluating and comparing various beneficial-use options for dredged material. A key point made during` the presentation of this paper was the need to identify specific measurement outcomes (e.g., job creation, operating costs, economic:value) at the outset of the evaluation process. Gulbransen discussed the systematic development of such outcomes and described a multiparameter equation for quantifying the eval- uation. This equation uses a combination of assessment categories (e.g., eco- nomic effects, environmental effects, resource management) and subcategories of the identified outcomes.. The evaluation process depends on the application of relative importance factors or weights to the outcomes. The importance factors are generated through stakeholder input. Combining these factors makes it possible to integrate varied and conflicting information and perspectives to help guide decisions on use options. The second paper ("Tradeoff Analysis for Assessing Coastal Management Actions," by K. Wellman and R. Gregory), presented by Katherine Wellman, Battelle Seattle Research Center, describes a structured decision approach that can be used to provide improved'public involvement in and input to the decision- making process on environmental windows. This approach goes beyond the goals of conventional public participation and economic analysis processes, fo- cusing.on prodding insights to decision makers about the proportions of com- munity members that would support or oppose specific'actions. Because of the broad array of stakeholders in windows-setting decisions, the decisions made are often controversial, involving the need—real and perceived—to make trade-offs between environmental integrity and economic impacts. Wellman outlined several steps in the structured decision approach, designed to present and clarify alternative strategies and consequences by defining the problem, clarifying the objectives, developing trade-off analyses, acknowledging un- certainty, and linking the decisions made. Summary of Workshop Sessions 41 in many cases has been driven by resource protection demands, particularly re- quirements for endangeredspecies.Some participants believe decisions about the establishment of windows should involve a quantified assessment of benefits and costs. They suggested that a decision-making process requiring some analysis of the trade-offs among resource protection; project schedule, operational im- pacts, and safety needs to be developed.Unfortunately,there has to date been no broadly accepted methodology for conducting an analysis of this nature. Research is therefore needed to develop methodologies acceptable to resource managers, dredging project sponsors, and stakeholder groups that would help guide regu- latory decision makers. Successful application of such methodologies generally depends on good input information. This requirement raises several'questions, such as who pays to collect the biological data,who has the burden of proof, and who pays for the development of new technologies. It was suggested that these responsibilities should be shared between the dredging community and resource managers. The session'culminated in a recommendation to apply a systematic approach (e.g., a structured decision analysis or trade-off analysis) in seeking to answer the question that served as the theme for the session. Thus, if the results obtained are to be meaningful, this approach 'should be developed with the buy-in of stakeholders and their input should be incorporated into the analyses. Administrative Process Session The purpose of this session was to focus on the various tools used for coordi- nating agency involvement in the environmental windows-setting process'. The session began with a review of the steering committee's draft template and of the questions provided to the session presenters regarding their experience of the window=s-setting process: • What are the strengths of the process? Its weaknesses?.How could it be improved? • In what circumstances does the process work best? Worst? • At what point are federal and state natural resource'agencies involved? Are all agencies or parts of the same agency involved at the same time in the process or at different times? Is this effective or inefficient? • Does the process result in multiple agency recommendations that are coordinated? Duplicative? Divergent?'Contradicting? • If divergent or contradicting, how is the difference'resolved? • How much supporting information and rationale' for the recommended windows is provided? Summary of Workshop Sessions 43 In response to the questions provided before the session,€?'Donnell stated that sometimes state and federal agencies do provide differing recommendations,and that disputes are resolved at the staff level whenever possible, but can involve a governor or congressman.. He also noted that the windows-setting process is piecemeal but suggested that a cumulative approach might not result in better windows. O'Donnell believes participants in the process need to appreciate fi- nancial and time constraints. He concluded by suggesting that the best tool for success is early discussions with the full involvement of all stakeholders. The fourth presenter, Therese Conant, Fishery Biologist, National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Protected Resources, described the process of devel- oping window to protect;threatened and endangered sea turtles in;the south- eastern United States. The major tool used was a'regional biological opinion developed through both informaland formal consultation under the Endangered Species Act. The resulting window, which is based primarily on water temper- ature, is keyed to monitoring of the number of turtles harmed by dredging. Dredging may continue as long as a certain level of take is not exceeded. The major advantages of this regional approach are that it reduces paperwork and can provide flexibility. Among the disadvantages are that emerging needs can- not be anticipated, and that take tends to be underestimated. In response to a question about interagency coordination, Conant explained that an Endangered' Species Act consultation involves the "action agency's and the responsible fed- eral agency (Fish and Wildlife Service or National Marine Fisheries Service) but that the involvement of other agencies may occur at the discretion of the action agency. Following the presentations,a process used successfully in the Seattle USACE district was discussed. Essentially, the Seattle district has adopted a two-step meeting;'process for setting windows. The first meeting is heldearlyin the year; all appropriate agencies and tribes and interested members of the public are in- vited to review the proposed dredging projects for the year. if necessary, work groups may be formed to focus on areas in which additional follow-up effort may be needed to resolve issues in dispute. The second meeting is held near the end of the dredging season (federal fiscal year) for the purpose of reviewing and recapping lessons learned and preparing for the next dredging season. This process is now 3 years old. It started with only a few participants accepting in- vitations, and now includes more than 50 people representing state and federal agencies, tribes, and other groups. In the subsequent discussion, it was noted that many good administrative processes exist for coordinating windows,but that some of these processes are missing important steps related to communicating information in a timely man- ner. One of the most common shortcomings mentioned was the lack of a process for revising windows to incorporate new information.'Participants also ident- Summary of Workshop Sessions 45 Michael Weinstein, President of the New Jersey:Marine Sciences Consortium, opened the morning session with an overview of the issues to be addressed. He then discussedthe concept of "compensatory reserve" in ecology—the notion that impacts to individual members of a species below a certain threshold can be sustained by a population. A species' ability to sustain the impacts of dredg- ing depends on the total population's ability to recover and repopulate the im- pacted area, and on the number of other stressors being experienced at the time, such as fishing'pressure, exotic species as competition or predator, food scarcity, and oxygen stress. Weinstein described the application of scientific modeling and consideration of compensatory reserve as a management tool. He then intro- duced the panelists. Panelist William Kirby Smith, Associate Professor of the Practice'of Marine Ecology, Duke University Marine Laboratory,presented on the impacts of dredg- ing operations on shellfish. He described the life cycle of various types of mol- lusks and gastropods and the potential for impacts on these species at their various life stages. In general, he noted that shellfish resources tend to be hardy and resilient,and can recover quickly from short-term or acute water quality im- pacts. During spawning and other early life stages,'however, other species (bay scallops,gastropods) can be susceptible to adverse impacts. Charles Epifanio,College of Marine Studies,University of Delaware,discussed the biology and ecology of blue crabs in the Delaware Bay estuary. He reviewed their complex life cycle and spatial and temporal distribution and migration patterns throughout the year. He noted the potential for impacts from dredging projects to interfere with the critical life stages of blue crabs. In the winter, adult crabs bury themselves in the sediments of the lower estuary and may be subject to physical impacts from dredging. In the summer, it is the disposal>of dredged sediment in structured shallow areas of the upper,estuary that poses the great- est threat to juveniles and their habitat. Edward Houde, Center of Environmental Science, University of Maryland, described the ,potential impacts of dredging operations on the spawning and nursery of anadromous fish in the Chesapeake Bay estuary. He described the concept of the"estuarine turbidity maximum,,, a zone of the upper estuary that serves to retain planktonic organisms and sediment. This is a biologically im- portant zone, as trophic interactions and biological productivity are enhanced the recruitment of larvae and juveniles is strongly linked to these'processes. Houde explained that the physical,chemical,'and biological components of habi- tat can be altered by dredged sediment disposal'. For example, he noted that deepwater thermal refugia are important in winter for fish and that disposal ac- tivities can raise the bottom, resulting in the disappearance of thermal refugia: Houde concluded by noting the difficulties and uncertainties involved in link- 46 A Process for Setting,Managing,and Monitoring Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects ing these impacts to the health of fish populations in the future and in the year the dredging occurs. James Cowan,. Dauphin Island Sea Laboratory, spoke in more detail about the concept of compensatory reserve in ecosystems and how it can be modeled and quantified. He cautioned that the concept is controversial among ecologists and noted that without sufficient data, a risk-averse approach should be taken. He also described density-dependent larval survivorship estimates as a tool in fisheries management,explaining the risks and benefits of this type of analysis and discussing its various applications Charles Simenstad,University of Washington Wetland Ecosystem Team, de- scribed the use of environmental windows as a management tool to reduce the impacts of dredging on anadromous salmonids in the Pacific Northwest. He outlined the life cycles of various species of salmon and discussed their complex life stages.Since salmonare present in the rivers of this area throughout the year, they present unique challenges to the setting and administration of windows. Further complicating these issues is the fact that some of these species are pro- tected under the Endangered Species Act, making the killing,of any salmon a violation. Simenstad noted that salmon are directly vulnerable to turbidity plumes from dredging projects. He discussed methods for improving the appli- cation of windows for salmon,including the use of real-time monitoring, system- specific data, and direct observation. Other issues that must be.considered include the potentialfor release of contaminants, blockage of migration, water quality degradation, and ecosystem changes (estuarine circulation, salinity dis- tribution, habitat decline, and changes in the food web). Major points made in the ensuing open floor discussion are,summarized below: Although participants believe there have been some examples of effective and successful environmental windows for dredging projects, many observed that it is impossible to demonstrate direct causation between a specific dredg- ing. and disposal operation and the long-term health of a particular species or natural system. • Many species of shellfish, such as the Chesapeake,Bay oyster, are in se- vere population declines. The declines are due to various stressors, including disease, overfishing, and. pollution. Sediments or other environmental changes due: to dredging activities could hinder recovery of the population or contribute to its decline. These issues should be considered when evalu- ating the potential impacts on shellfish or any other species. Impact assess- ments should also consider.the extended project,duration caused by the implementation of windows. Summary of Workshop Sessions 47 • Economic valuations should consider lost natural resource values as part of the project cost. • The questions of how agencies resolve 'scientific issues and develop tech- nical justifications related to windows and of how the determination is ulti- mately made were discussed and debated. • Statutory and scientific obligations to consider the multispecies cumula- tive impacts of various projects within an ecosystem (in both time and spatial scales) were discussed. There is a wealth of literature on the range of impacts of dredging and sediment disposal, and statutory requirements necessitate a>risk- averse approach in data-limited situations.The concept of regional and resource- specific management approaches was endorsed by many in the group. During the afternoon session, rather than using a panel of presenters, session chair Robert Diaz, Professor of Marine Science, College of William and Mary, began with an overview and summarized meta-analysis of the scientific litera- ture on windows. He discussed models that can be used as tools for evaluating various impacts of dredging projects, including,'such models as FISHFATE, SSFATE and STFATE, which can be used to estimate the impacts of suspended sediments from dredging projects on fish populations.The Newcombe-Jenssen model for predicting'effects of suspended sediments on fish was also discussed. Diaz reviewed the range of potential impacts that prompt agencies to request environmental windows': • Interference with spawning and nursery habitat of living marine resources, • Interference with migration, • Habitat lass, • Burial and turbidity, • Dissolved oxygen impacts, • Noise, • Entrainment in dredges, • Harassment of animals, . • Disturbance of overwintering animals, • Contamination>of sediments, • Interference with recreation, • Interference with feeding, and • Direct mortality. z As outlined by LaSalle;M. W.,D. G. Clarke;J. Homziak,J. D. Lunz,and T.J. Fredette 1991 A Framework for Assessing the Need for Seasonal Restrictions on Dredging and Disposal Operations. Technical Report D-91-1': USAGE,Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,Miss. 48 A Process for Setting, Managing,and Monitoring Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects A point noted by many,participants was that the literature on the biological impacts of dredging is broad and frequently encompasses a number of fields and related disciplines. Therefore, studiesdocumenting biological impacts and issues associated with, for example, coastal zone management, fisheries re- search and management, and power plant impacts are often relevant to scien- tists assessing the value of environmental windows and should be,consulted more frequently. Participants also noted that environmental windows have been used histor ica Ily as a tool for protecting juvenile fish, shellfish, and other marine life as well as critical habitats for spawning,,nursery, and foraging—particularly dur- ing the early life stages.Windows are used as well in certain circumstances (e,g., threatened or endangered species) to protect species at the individual level. Additionally,there are species that,while not formally listed,may warrant spe- cial consideration because of population status. Therefore, it becomes exceed- ingly difficult to separate spatial and temporal considerations within an estuary when setting environmental windows for dredging projects. In general,the scale of threat to a species should be the key consideration when selecting the most appropriate management tool. Environmental windows should be targeted to- ward the most sensitive life stages of selected species of concern. Participants also noted that in the absence of complete scientific information regarding the potential impact of a dredging project on a given species, resource managers should adopt a precautionary, risk-averse approach when interpreting existing regulations. Another point made in the discussion was that although there has been sig- nificant research and experience regarding the risks of dredging to species at the individual level, little work has been done on the risks of dredging at the pop - ulation level. Population-level effects are therefore poorly understood,.and in the context of windows have been used inconsistently to protect resources at this level. Nevertheless, participants believe that individual-, population-, and ecosystem-level effects should be important management considerations for any given dredging project. It was also suggested that representative species—those deemed to be most at risk or having special ecological value,sensitivity,or socioeconomic importance— be used as the target for setting environmental windows. Selection of a repre- t n sentative species may result as well in protecting other species within tree system. Moreover,resource agencies may be able to select the most ap propriate windows more efficiently. Participants stated that appropriate monitoring—before, during, andafter dredging operations—should be designed specifically to measure the effective- ness of windows in protecting species of concern. A feedback mechanism should Summary of Workshop Sessions 49 be established to incorporate the best information on existing tools, lessons learned,and related research to ensure that the process is managed adaptively in the future as neer:information is generated. Finally, additional factors were identified that should he considered when es- tablishing environmental windows. These factors include the following:human health and safety, cumulative impacts of dredging, and availability of agency staff and resources. Dredging Technology Breakout Session This breakout session addressed the question, "How can we dredge our water- ways and berths more effectively using advances in technology and controls, while minimizing impacts on living resources and thereby maximizing the dura- tion of environmental windows?"The goal was to find ways of improving exist- ing dredging techniques and technologies to result in fewer and smaller impacts on the marineenvironment and its living resources. Several dredge', manufac- turers (both in the United States and abroad) have invented new or modified ex- isting technologies to make dredging more'environmentally acceptable. This session focused on identifying technology advances that could be used in nav- igational dredging projects, as well as associated research needs. Specific questions addressed in this session included the following: (a) What expected environmental impacts of dredging are associated with different tech- nologies? (b) What 'physical controls can make dredging more effective and practical? (c) What existing operational controls are cost-effective and reduce environmental impacts? and (d) How can environmental effects of dredged material placement be minimized? There was a strong sentiment'expressed that technology developments (i.e in dredging equipment, management controls, and operational procedures) can and should be one of the tools used in setting environmental windows. It was acknowledged that technology can provide only partial solutions and`can- not completely eliminate the impacts of concern, but that selection of appro- priate technologies and best management'practices can make an important contribution. The first panelist, Donald Hayes, Associate Professor, University of Utah, stated that operational and physical controls used in dredging may be effective to a certain degree but have associated costs. For example, for a cutterhead dredge, controls include lower swing and rotation speeds and smaller cut depths. Mechanical dredging controls include lower bucket fall speeds, although this is difficult to monitor and control. A better mechanical dredging control for sed- iment losses is to use flocculants in barges or to minimize or even eliminate the Summary of Workshop Sessions 51 was suggested that the technological limits on monitoring should be acknowl- edged (e.g., level of accuracy in measuring TSS). • If targets are defined properly, monitoring can be used to set and refine windows. It is:difficult to measure the specific environmental advantages of a given technology. In Europe, there is cooperation between industry and regulators in generating quantitative data from actual dredging projects for such applications. • Technology cannot preventimpacts; it only can aid in minimizing or mit- igating them. • Problems'involving the impacts of well-designed and -executed dredging and disposal operations often are mainly a matter of public perception. It was suggested that windows should be accompanied by clear and explicit identifi- cation of what is being protected and how. Then the various aspects should be prioritized. The goal should be to strike a balance between the costs of resource protection and the casts of delay, and even of the no-dredging,scenario. • Many believe that USACE:and an independent group of engineering and industry (contractor) experts, with input from scientists, should recommend the most appropriate technologies for effectively managing the environmental impacts of dredging projects. For greatest efficiency, this could be done on a re- gional or local basis, rather than on a project-specific basis. The technology selection process needs specific input on impacts of concern from scientists'-. Scientists should first define the targets of concern (e.g., solids concentration, TSS, entrainment). Engineers can then recommend the appro- priate technology to meet those targets. A matrix'-based analysis may be best for evaluating the effects of different dredging technologies and strategies. The matrix should:include the affected media, the character of the impacts, and equipment control methods. Future monitoring would then be used to refine, the matrix, as needed. The key technology implementation question is whether'there is enough commitment to fully utilize the flexibility in the'USACE Federal Acquisition Regulations to specify certain dredging equipment for a particular project. De- pending on the recommended technology or technologies, one or more alter- native sets of environmental windows may evolve, offering a range of potential' strategies useful to port and resource managers. ............... APPENDEX Glossary 401 certification Section 401 of the Clean Water Act requires that an ap- plicant for a federal license or permit provide a certification that any discharges from the facility will comply with the act, including water quality standard re- quirements. The law gives the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the authority to set effluent standards on an industry basis (technology based) and continues the requirement to set water quality standards for all contaminants in surface waters. The act makes it unlawful for any person to discharge any pollutant from a point source into navigable waters unless a permit [National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)] is obtained under the act. Clean Water Act 33 U.S.C. s/s 1251 et seq., 1977 amendment to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, which set the basic structure for regulat- ing discharges of pollutants to waters of the United States. See 401 certiftcation. Consensus General or widespread agreement among all the members of a group. Consistency Conformance with applicable federal guidelines or regulations. Consultation (Endangered Species Act context) Sec. 7(2): "Each Federal agency shall, in consultation with and with the assistance of the Secretary, in- sure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by such agency (here- Glossary 53 inafter in this section referred to as an `agency action') is not likely:to jeopar- dize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat of such species, which is determined by the Secretary,after consultation as appropriate with af- fected Mates,to be critical,unless such agency has been granted an exemption. for such action by the Committee pursuant to subsection (h) of this section. In fulfilling the requirements of this paragraph, each agency shall use the best ssci- entific and commercial data available." Critical habitat Under the Endangered Species Act,."critical habitat" for a threatened or endangered species means "(i) the specific areas:,within the geo- graphical'area occupied by the species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the provisions of section 4 of this Act, on which are found those physical or bi- ological features (I) essential to the conservation of the species and '(11) which may require special management considerations or protection;..and (ii) specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed in accordance with the provisions of section'4 of this Act, upon.a deter- mination by the Secretary that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species.,, Cumulative effects The sum total;of accumulated impacts. Cutterhead dredge A suction dredge that uses a rotating "cage" of cutter bars to facilitate the removal of consolidated sediments.` Decision analysis A structured way of evaluating how an action taken in a particular process would lead to a specific'result: Dredge A"mechanical'device used to remove or relocate sediments and other unwanted materials from the bottom of water bodies. Dredging placement The subsequent placing of sediments removed during dredging'activities. Endangered species Under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, "any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range other than a species of the Class Insecta determined by the Secretary to consti- tute a peat whose protection under the provisions of this Act would present an overwhelming:and overriding risk to man." ............ 54 A Process for Setting, Managing,and Monitoring Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects Endangered Species Act According to the act, its purposes are "to provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered species and threat- ened species depend may be conserved,to provide a program for the conserva- tion of such endangered. ecies and threatened species, and to take such steps SP as may be appropriate to achieve the purposes of the treaties and conventions set forth in subsection (a) of this section." Entrainment Aquatic organisms carried by water currents beyond their capability to influence the direction or speed of passage. Environmental window Time periods in which regulators have determined that the adverse impacts associated with dredging and disposal can be reduced below critical thresholds and dredging is therefore permitted. Essential fish habitat As defined in the�Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Con- servation and Management Act (Public Law 94-265) those waters and sub- strate necessary to fish for spawning,breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity. -contained and self-propelled suction dredge that, Hopper dredge A self once filled with dredged materials, travels to the area where the materials are to be deposited and drops�them through trapdoors in the bottom of the hull. Impacted population A geographically distinct segment of a species that is affected by a particular activity. Indicator species A species used as an indicator of the effects of an activity or of the ecological health of a particular area. Keystone species See indicator species. Listed species A species included on the list of"threatened or endangered species" established by the Endangered Species Act. Maintenance dredging Dredging performed periodically to maintain the usability of navigation channels docks, and port areas. Marine Mammal Protection Act A 1972 act (16 U.S.C. 1361-1407) that prevents the -taking" of marine mammals in U.S. waters by any person under U.S. jurisdiction on the high seas. Glossary ;;55 Mechanical dredge A dredge that moves sediment by lifting it with a bucket like mechanism. Monitoring The process of observing particular biological,physical, and/ter chemical parameters during and after dredging activities. National Environmental Policy Act Federal law (42 U.S.C.. 4321-4347) de- signed to help public officials make decisions based on an understanding of en- vironmental consequences and take actions that protect, restore, and enhance the environment through two primary mechanisms: (a) establishing the Council for Environmental Quality to advise agencies on the environmental decision- making process and to oversee and coordinate the development:of federal environmental policy and (b) requiring that federal agencies include an environ- mental review process early in the planning for proposed actions. NQAA National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration in the U.S. Department of Commerce` Papulation A group of individuals of the same species inhabiting the same area. Region A geographically defined administrative area used by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Environmental Protection,Agency, and others. Risk analysis An approach and set of tools for systematically comparing the social, economic, human health, and ether environmental costs and benefits of decision options. Risk averse Given outcomes of unknown probability, an approach that in- volves taking an action with a minimum chance of having negative impacts. Species:(Endangered Species Act context) Defined as "any species, any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife that interbreeds when mature." Spoil displacement Removing dredged materials to another location. Spoil disposal Removing dredged materials to another location'. Spoils Sediments and other materials displaced during dredging. 56 A Process for Setting, Managing,and Monitoring Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects Stakeholder A group or individual with an interest in the outcome of a (generally governmental) process. Stressor An action that has a deleterious consequence for an organism, an ecosystem, or a population. �Superfund Refers to the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act. Take According to the Marine Mammal Protection Act to "harass, hunt, capture, or kill, or attempt to harass,hunt capture or kill any marine mammal The 1994 amendments to the act define"harass"as -any act of pursuit,torment, or annovance that has the potential to: Injure a marine mammal or marine mam- mal stock in the wild (Level A); or Disturb a marine ma mmal or marine mam- mal stock in the wild by disrupting behavioral patterns (for example, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering) (Level B). Total suspended solids (TSS) The total amount of solid matter in a repre- sentative water sample retained on a membrane filter. It includes all sediment and other constituents that are fluid suspended. Turbidity The degree to which light is blocked because of materials sus- p ded or dissolved in water. en USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers APPENDIX Environrnentai Windows for Dredging Projects Workshop March 19-20 200 National Academy of Sciences Washington, D.C'. Agenda Monday, March )9 0800-0915 Opening Plenary Session 0800-0830 Introductions, Purpose of Workshop, Origin of the Project JerrySchubet 0830-0900 Overview of the Issues Surrounding Environmental Windows Denise J. Reed 0900-0915 Strategy for the Workshop and Charge to the Participants Jerry Schubel 0915-0930 Break 0930-1200 Concurrent Sessions Session 1:;Dredging Equipment and Technology The goal of this session was to identify methods for improving existing dredging techniques and technology to result in lesser impacts to the marine environment, thereby reducing the need for seasonal restrictions. During the course of years, several dredge manufacturers'(both' in the United States and abroad) .................. .......... 58 A Process for Setting, Managing,and Monitoring Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects have invented new or modified existing techniques to make dredging more environmentally sensitive. This session focused on the engineering as pects of dredging and explored alterna- tives and complements to windows as the tool for protecting resources. Ram K. Mohan Facilitator. Session 2: Biological Drivers for Windows This session was designed to explore the impacts from dredging on communities and.populations of species,focusing on the vari- ability of resources.Issues such as life histones�key assumptions, end points, and parameters for varia bility were discussed. Michael P. Weinstein Facilitator. 1200-1300 Lunch 1300-1400 Plenary Session Reports were presented from the two morning breakouts. Fol- lowing the reports, a panel comprised of representatives from USACE, EPA, NOAA and a state environmental agency were asked to comment on the results. 1400-1630 Concurrent Sessions Session 1: Tools for a Successful Administrative Process This session focused on tools for coordinating agency involve- ment in the process of establishing environmental windows. Panelists from the National Marine Fisheries Service, USACE, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Re- sources, and the ports presented tools that have been used to co- ordinate agency involvement in setting dredging windows. All participants were asked to critique the tools and provide recom- mendations for improving the process. Discussion topics.in- cluded timing of agency input,use of programmatic approaches, and means of resolving disputes over science or interpretation. Favilitators: Peter F. Bontadelli, Jr., and Susan-Marie Stedman Session 2: Biological impacts (State of the Science) The goal of this session was to achieve a clear expression of con- fiden'ce level with regard to�the certainty and uncertainty of im- pacts on living resources resulting from dredging. The focus was on both the species and essential habitat that supports the Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects Workshop 59 species. Data and research needed for evaluating dredging win- dows were also considered. Facilitator..;Robert J. Diaz Session 3: Economic and operational Trade-Offs How should we evaluate the environmental benefits versus the operational costs of implementing windows?The session began with three technical presentations addressing uniquely different aspects of this question. These papers provided the foundation for a subsequent group search for methodologies than can be used to judge the merits of windows and their cost impacts ver- sus other strategies for protecting resources. The session cul- minated in recommendations for a systematic approach (an equation or series of steps) to answer the theme question Facilitators; Thomas H. Wakeman and Thomas P. O'Connor 1630-1730 Plenary Session Reports and committee comments.'Reports were presented from the three previous afternoon breakouts. Following the reports, a panel comprised of representatives from USAGE, EPA, NOAA, and a state environmental agency were asked to comment on the results. Tuesday, March 20 0800-0900 Plenary Session A strawman model framework for setting environmental' windows was presented. Jerry Schubel and Henry J. Bokun ewicz 0900-1100 Concurrent Sessions The model framework was reviewed and discussed. Participants examined the draft template for establishing windows. Facilitator. Henry J. Bokuniewicz 1100-1200 Closing Plenary Session Comments and recommendations for refining the model frame- work were heard. Following the reports, a panel comprised of representatives from USACE, EPA, NOAA, and a state environ- mental agency were asked to comment'on the results. ............ ..................... ............... ............... ........... 60 A Process for Setting, Managing,and Monitoring Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects List of Participants Danny E. Averett Thomas E. Bigford Chief, Environmental Engineering Habitat Conservation Branch, Environmental Laboratory NOAA Fisheries Waterways Experiment Station 1315 East-West Highway, F/HC2 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Silver Spring, MD 20910 Research and Development Center 301/713-2325 3909 Halls Ferry Road 301/713-1043 (fax) Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199 thomas.bigfordCa)noaa.gov 601/634-3959 -3833 (fax) 601/634 Henry J. Bokuniewicz Professor of Oceanography daniel.e.averett@erdc.usace.army.mil Marine Sciences, Research Center Lawrence J. Baier State University of New York at Stony Brook Chief, Office of Dredging & Sediment Stony Brook, NY 11794-5000 Technology 631/632-8674 NJ DEP, Site Remediation Program P.O. Box 028 631/632-8820 (fax) hbokuniewicz 0 notes.cc.sunysb.edu Trenton, NJ 08625 605/252-8838 Peter F. Bontadelli, Jr. 609/777-1914 (fax) President lb aier(&dep.state.nj.us PFB Associates 4141 Palm #581 Lisa Baron Sacramento, CA 95842 Technical Program Manager -6354 916/332 New Jersey Maritime bontadelli@mailcity.com Resources/NJDOT 28 West State Street, P.O. Box 837 Nathaniel K. Brown Trenton, NJ 08865-0837 Environmental Planner 609/984-8557 Harbor Development Office 609/984-1468 (fax) Maryland Port Administration lisa.baron adot.state.nj.us 2310 Broening Highway Baltimore, MD 21224 410/631-1022 -1217 (fax) 410/631 nbrown2amdot.state.md.us Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects Workshop 61 Neville Burt Doug Clarke HR Wallingford Wetlands&Coastal Ecology Howberry Park Branch (EE-W) Wallingford, Oxfordshire OX10 8BA U.S. Army Engineer Research & EnglandDevelopment Center 01491 822348 3909 Halls Ferry Road 01491 832233 (fax) Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199 nev@hrwallingford.co.uk 601/634-3770 clacked @ wes.army.mil Joedy Cambridge Senior Program Officer Therese Conant Technical Activities Division National Oceanographic and Transportation Research Board Atmospheric Administration 2101 Constitution Avenue, NW NMFS HQTR Route: F/PR3 Washington, DC 20418 1315 East-West Highway 202/334.'-2167 Silver Spring, MD 20910-3282 202/334-2030 (fax) 301/713-1401 jcambrid@nas.edu therese.conant@noaa.gov: Neil Christerson James H. Cowan, Jr. National Oceanographic and Dauphin Island Sea Laboratory Atmospheric Administration 101 Bienville Blvd. NOS HQTR Route N/ORM3 Dauphin Island, AL 36528 1315 East-West Highway 334/861-7535 Silver Spring, MD 20910-3282 334/861=7540 (fax) 301/713-3113 icowan@jaguarl.usouthal.edu neil.christerson@noaa.gov Deborah Cunningham Karen Chytalo Environmental Protection Specialist Section Chief of Marine Habitat DOT/Maritime Administration Protection 400 7th Street, SW, Room 7204 NYSDEC Washington, DC 20590 205 Belle Meade Road, Suite 1 202/366-5475 East Setauket, NY 11733 202/366-6988 (fax) 631/444-0430 debbie.cunningham@marad.dot.gov 62 A Process for Settin 'Managing,and Monitoring Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects 9 Robert J. Diaz Ellen Fisher Professor of�Marine Science Wisconsin Dept. of Transportation Virginia Institute,of�Marine Science 4802 Sheboygan Avenue, College of William and Mary P.O. Box 7910 P.O. Box 1346 -7910 Madison, WI 53707 Gloucester Point, VA 23062 804/684-7364 Thomas Fredette 804/684-7399 (fax) U.S. Army Engineer District, diaz@vims.edu New England CENAE-CO-R-PT David Dwinell 696 Virginia Road San Francisco District -2751 Concord, MA 01742 USACE -8291 978/318 3 3 3 Market�Street thomas.j.fredette@nae02.usace. San Francisco, CA 94105 army.mil 415/977-8471 415/977-8495 (fax) Marcelo H. Garcia ddwinell@spd..usace.army.mil Professor Dept. of Civil & Environmental Charles H. Ellis III Engineering Environmental Review University of Illinois at Coordinator Urbana-Champaign Virginia Dept. of Environmental 205 North Mathews Avenue Quality Urbana, IL 61801 629 East Main Street -4484 217/244 Richmond, VA 23219 -0687 (fax) 217/333 -4488 804/698 mhgarcia@uiuc.edu 804/698-431St (fax) chellis@ deq.state.va.us Cynthia Gillis Land & Sea Environmental Charles E. Epifanio Consultants Ltd. College of Marine Studies 620-33 Alderney Drive University of Delaware Dartmouth, Nova Scotia B2Y2N4 700 Pilottown Road Canada Lewes, DE 19558 902/463-0114 302/645-4272 902/466-5743 (fax) 302/645-4007 (fax) epi@udel.edu Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects Workshop 63 Richard J. G mello Lyndell Hales Executive Director Coastal/Hydraulics Lab New Jersey Dept, of Transportation USAGE, Research New Jersey.Maritime Resources Development Center 8 West State St., 8th Floor ATTN CEERD-HV-T P.O. Box 837 3909 Halls Ferry Road Trenton, NJ 08625-0837 Vicksburg, NIS 39180-6199 tpigime@dot.state.nj.us 601/634-3207 601/634-4253 (fax) Bob Greenlee halesl@wesarmy.mil District Fisheries Biologist Virginia.Dept. of Game and Frank L. Hamons Inland Fisheries Manager, Harbors Dept.' 5806 Mooretown Road Maryland Dort Administration Williamsburg, VA 23188 Maritime Center 11 at Point Breeze 757/253-4170 2310 Broening Highway rgreenlee @dgif.state.va,us Baltimore, MD 21224-6621 4110/631-1102 Thomas A. Grigalunas fhamons@mdot.state.dot.us Dept. of Environmental and Natural Resources GeorgeA. Hart University of Rhode island Environmental Coordinator 319 Lippitt Hall Navigation Kingston, RI 02881-0814 Seattle 'District 401/874-4572 Army Corps of Engineers 401/782-4766 (fax) P.O. Box 3755 griguri.edu Seattle,'WA 98124-3755 246/764-3641 Tom Gulbransen 206/764-4470 (fax) Regional Manager; george.a.hart@acse.army.mil Battelle 3500 Sunrise'Highway Donald Hayes Great River, NY 11739 Associate Professor 631/277-6300 Civil and Environmental'Engineering 631/277-6333 (fax) 122 South Central Campus Drive, gulbranObattelle.org Suite 104 Salt Lake City, UT 84112' 801/581-7110 801/585-5477 (fax)' hay es Ccs eng.Utah.edu ... ....... . 64 A Process for Setting,Managing,and Monitoring:Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects Robert D. Henry Frances E. Holland Environmental Program Project Assistant Administrator Studies and Information Services Division of Soil and Water Transportation Research Board Conservation 2101 Constitution Avenue, NW, Dept. of Natural Resources & CR322D Environmental Control Washington, DC 20418 89 Kings Highway -2332 202/334 Dover, DE 19901 202/334-2527 (fax) 302/739-4411 fholland@nas.edu -6724 (fax) 302/739 rhenry@ state.de.us Edward. D. Houde Center of Environmental Science Kurt Hess Chesapeake Biological Laboratory Science and Operations Officer University of Maryland National Ocean Service, NOAA Solomons, MD 20688 1315 East-West Highway 410/326-7224 Silver Spring, MD 20910 410/326-7318 (fax) 301/713-2801 ehoude@cbl.umces.edu kurthessonoaa.gov Ellie Irons Kris Hoellen EIR Program Manager Study Director Dept. of Environmental Quality Studies and Information Services 629 East Main Street, Room 631 Transportation Research Board Richmond, VA 23219 2101 Constitution Avenue, NW, 804/698-4325 GR3461 -4319 (fax) 804/698 Washington, DC 20418 elirons deq.state.va.us -3385 202/334 202/334-2527 (fax) Ellen Joslin Johnck khoellen(&nas.edu Executive Director Bay Planning Coalition 10 Lombard Street, Suite 408 San Francisco, CA 94111 415/397-2293 415/986-0694 (fax) staff@bayplanningcoalition.org Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects Wo&hop 65 Mark Johnson Mark Ludwig DEP Fisheries Division NOAA/NMFS 333 Ferry Road 212 Rogers Avenue P.O. Box 711 Milford, CT 06460-6419 Old Lyme, CT 06371 203/783-4228 860/434-6043 markJohnson @po.state.ct.us Tony MacDonald Coastal States Organization William Kirby-Smith 444 North Capitol Street, NW, Nicholas School of the Suite 322 Environment Washington, DC 20001 Duke Marine Laboratory= 2t32/508-386 135 Duke Lab Road Scott MacKnight Beaufort, NC 28516 Land & Sea Environmental 252/504-7577 Consultants Ltd. 252/504-7648 (fax) 620-33 Alderney Drive wwksoduke.edu Dartmouth, Nova Scotia B2Y 2N4 " Walter Lee Canada Bean Stuyvesant, LLC 902/463-0114 (12/466-5743 (fax} 1055 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 520 New Orleans, LA 70130 Ram K Mohan 504/587-8701 Vice President & Director of 504/587-8717 (fax) Coastal Engineering wleei cfbean.com Gahagan & Bryant Associates 9008-0 Yellow Brick Road Ken Lindeman Baltimore, MD 21237 Senior Scientist 410/682-5595 Environmental Defense 41.0/682-2175 (fax) 14630 SW 144th Terrace rkmohan@gba-inc.com Miami, FL 33186 305/256-9508 William P. Muellenhoff 305/256-4488 (fax) Regional Manager, Water Resources klindermana Faster Wheeler Environmental environmentaldefense.org Corporation 133 Federal Street, 6th Floor Boston,MA 02110 617/457-8239 617/457-8498 (fax); wmuellenhoff@fwenc.com .......... 66 A Process.for Settlng�Managing,and:Monitoring�Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects Jon Nieman James J. Opaluch Vice President Dept. of Environmental and We s Marine Natural Resources 455 Devon Drive University of Rhode Island Mandeville, LA 70448 319 Lippitt Hall 504/461-9200 -0814 Kingston, RI 02881 jgnieman@weeksmarine.com 401/874-4S72 401/782-4766 (fax) Thomas P. O'Connor jimo@uri.edu National Status and Trends NOAA, NISCII Brian Pawlak 1315 East-West Highway Marine Habitat Specialist Silver Spring, MD 20910 NOAA Fisheries -3028 301/713 1315 East-West Highway, S,SMC 3 tom.oconnor@noaa.gov Silver Spring, MD 20910 -2325 301/713 Edward O'Donnell -1043 (fax) 301/713 U.S. Army Engineer District, brian.t.pawlak@noaa.gov New England -PP-M CENAE Richard K. Peddicord 696 Virginia Road Dick Peddicord & Co., Inc. -2751 Concord, MA 01742 P.O. Box 300 -8375 978/318 Weems, VA 22576 -nae02.usace. edward.g.o'donnelo 804/438-5658 army.mil dp@rivnet.net John Odenkirk Joseph Porrovecchio Fisheries Biologist Principal Virginia Fish &Game Hart Crowser 1320 Belman Road 75 Montgomery Street, 5th Floor Fredericksburg, VA 22401 Jersey City, NJ 70302 540/899-4169 201/985-8100 -4381 (fax) 201/985-8182 (fax) 540/899 jodenkirkodgiLstate.va.us prv@hartcrowser.com Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects Workshop 67 Christopher J. Powell Jackie Savitz Senior Fisheries Biologist Coastal Alliance Rhode Island Division of Fish and 215 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Wildlife Washington, DC 20003 235 Promenade Street 202/546-9554 Providence, RI'02908-5767 401/294-4524 Jerry R. Schubel President and Chief Executive Officer Robert Randall New England Aquarium Professor & Director Central Wharf Center for Dredging,Studies Boston, MA 02110-3399 Wisenbaker Engineering 617/973-5220 Research Center 617/973-0276 (fax) Room 235 jschubel,@neaq.org Ocean Engineering Program Civil Engineering Department Jack P. Schwartz Texas A&M University Massachusetts Division of College Station, TX 77843-3136 Marine Fisheries 979/845-4568 Annisquam River Marine 979/862-8162 (fax) Fisheries Station r-randall@tamu.edu 30 Emerson Avenue Denise J. Reed Gloucester, MA 01930 Associate Professor 978/282-0308 Dept. of Geology and Geophysics 617/727-3337 (fax) University of New Orleans jack.schwartz@state.ma.us New Orleans, LA 70148 504/280-7395' Suzanne Schwartz 504/280-7396;'(fax) U.S. EPA djreed(auno.edu 401 M Street, SW Mail Code 4504E Susan Roberts Washington, DC 20460 Program Officer 202/260-1952 Ocean Studies Board National Research Council Carrie Selberg 2101 Constitution Avenue, NW, Atlantic States Marine Fisheries HA470 Commission Washington, DC 20418 1444 Eye Street, NW, 6th'Floor 202/334-1729' Washington, DC 20005 202/334-2885' (fax) 202/289-6400 sroberts@nas.edu .......... ........................ ................. 68 A Process for Setting,Managin oM MonitorInct Environmental INIndows for Dredging Projects Charles Simenstad Michael W. Street Fisheries Research Institute Chief University of Washington Habitat Protection Section 260 Fisheries Institute N.C. Division of Marine Fished s Seattle, WA 98195 P.O. Box 769 Morehead City, NC 28557 Philip A. Spadaro 252/726-7021 Director of Port Harbor Services 252/727-5129 (fax) Hart Crowser, Inc. mike.str�et@nemail.net 1910 Fairview Avenue.East Seattle, WA 98102 Steve Thorp 206/324-9530 Program Manager 206/328-5581 (fax) Great Lakes Commission philip.spadaroahartcrowser.com 400 4th Street Ann Arbor, MI 48103 Susan-Marie Stedman 734/665-913S Fishery Biologist and Team Leader 734/665-4370 (fax) National Marine Fisheries Service sthorpC&glc.org U.S. Department of Commerce/NOAA Jeff C. Tinsman 1315 East-West Highway, F/HC2 Fisheries Biologist Silver Spring, MD 20910 Delaware Division of Fish & Wildlife -2325 301/713 3002 Bayside Drive -1043 (fax) Little Creek, DE 19961 301/713 s an.stedman@noaa.gov 302/739-4782 us Nils E. Stolpe John B. Torgan Director of Communications Narragansett Bay Keeper Garden State Seafood Association Save the Bay, Rhode Island 3840 Terwood Drive 434 Smith Street Doylestown, PA 18901 Providence, RI 02908 215/345-4790 401/272-3540 ext. 116 215/345-4869 (fax) 401/273-7153 (fax) njsha(&voicenetcom jtorganosavethebay.org Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects Workshop 69 Dennis Ursa; Thomas H. Wakeman III Vice President Dredging Program Manager Gahagn and Bryant & .Associates Port Authority of New York& 9008 Yellow Brick Road, Unit 0 New Jersey Baltimore, MD 21237 1 World Trade Center, 34 South 410/682-5595 .New York, NY 10048-0682 410/682-2175 (fax) 212/435-6618 dcursoogra-inc.com 212/435-2234 (fax) twakeman@panynj.gov Robert 'VanDelah Assistant Director Michael P. Weinstein S.C. Dept. of Natural Resources President/CEO Marine Resources Research institute New Jersey Marine Sciences 217 Ft. Johnson Road Consortium P.O. Bax 12559 Sandy Hook Field Station,'Building 22 Charleston, SC 294-12 Fort Hancock, NJ 0:7732 843/762-5048 732/872-1300, ext. 21 843/762-51101 (fax) 732/872-9573 (fax) vandolahromrd.dnr.state.sc.us mikewenjmsc.org;; Francis M. Veraldi Katharine F. Wellman Fish Biologist Battelle Seattle Research Center Chicago District Planning Branch 4500 San Point Way, NE USACE Seattle,;,WA 98105 111 North Canal Street 206/284-2413 Chicago, IL 60606-.7206 206/528-3552 (fax) 312/353-6400 Wellman@battelle.org 312/886-2891 (fax) frank.m.veraldia@irc02.usace. Sandra T. Whitehouse army.mil' Environmental Consultant to the House of Representatives Don Wadleigh 32 Elmgrove Avenue Operations Manager Providence, RI 02906 Chicago District 401/751-7229 Army Corps of Engineers 401/421-3376 (fax) 111 Forth Canal Street, Suite 600 sandrawte@aol.corn Chicago, IL 60606 31.2/353-6400 312/353-21411 (fax); dona.ld.e.wadleigh rousace.army.rnil 70 A Process for.Setting,Managing,and Monit.or.1n, g Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects Charles E. Williams II George E. Wisker Environmental Program Manager I Environmental Analyst Divisioni of Soil and Water Office of Long Island Sound Conservation Programs Dept. of.Natural Resources & CT CEP Environmental Control 79 Elm Street 89 Kings Highway Hartford, CT 06106-5127 Dover, DE 19901 860/424-3034 302/739-4411 860/424-4054 (fax) -6724 (fax) 302/739 george.wisker@po.state.ct.us chwilli ams @state.de.us John Wolflin Joseph Wilson Field Supervisor U.S. Army Corp of Engineers Chesapeake Bay Field Office Headquarters (CECW-0D) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 441 G Street, NW 177 Cochrane Drive Washington, DC 20314 Annapolis, MD 21401 -4649 202/761 Joseph.r.wilsonobqOlusace. army.mil A 3 ENDi - D, Environmental Windows Workshop Dredging Project Case Study Data Porro Dredging Project District Office Name of District Office: Name of Contact Person(s) & Telephone #/Email Address: Dredging Project Description Name &Location of Project: Project:Authorization Date; Project Construction Dates: Project"Volume: 72 A Process for Setting, Managing,and Monitoring Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects Project Questions 1. Agencies: What state or federal agencies and organizations participated in the deter- mination of need and development of the project's environmental windows? Under what law or regulation was the action taken? 2. Resources: What biological resources (common name and genus sp 6cies) were identi- fied as the primary concerns in requesting windows as protective measures? 3. Threat: What was the nature of the detrimental effect (turbidity,burial, entrainment, chemistry, habitat loss other)? 4. What was the anticipated damage (avoidance, habitat loss, behavior, mor tality, other) 5. If habitat, what type (i.e., spawning, nursery, cover, critical)? Environmental Windows Workshop Dredging Project Case Study Data Form 73 6. If organism, what life stage (egg/lama,juvenile,adult), listing status (endan- gered, threatened,not listed), and commercial/recreational? 7. What information was used to judge that dredging activities would adversely affect the resource (i.e., unpublished, published, agency recommendation, other)? 8. How Were the beginning and end dates of the window set (expert opinion, literature review)'? Please attach copies of any interagency coordination letters containing comments relevant to the request for windows on selected projects: PLEASESUBMIT INFORMATION BY WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 2001 TO: Kris Hoellen Senior Program Officer Transportation Research Board (GR-3461)' 2101 Constitution Avenue, NW'' Washington, DC 20418 ........... APPENDIX En vironmental: Windows: Forms Used to Solicit Suggestions for Improvements National Dredging.Team Conference —25, 2001 Jacksonville, Florida, January..23 The National Research Council's Transportation Research Board and the Ocean Studies Board have been asked to organize and conduct a workshop to review the process used to set, administer and monitor environmental windows as o e option for managing impacts of federal dredging and disposal projects; n and to make recommendations on how to. improve that process. We seek Vour advice. -y Schubel or Kris Please complete this brief questionnaire,and give it to Jen Hoellen BEFORE leaving the conference. Thanks for your help! nistering, and monitor- 1. Where in the process of setting, applying and admi ing environmental dredging windows would you recommend that the NRC Study Committee focus its efforts to improve the effectiveness of dredging windows as a management tool? Environmental windows:Forms Used to Solicit Suggestions for improvements 75 2. What are the major unresolved research questions that limit the effectiveness of using "dredging windows" as a management:tool to reduce the environ- mental impacts of dredging and disposal? Please be as specific as possible: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) 3. if you couldchange two things about the dredging windows process, what wouldJ,they be? (a) (b) Optional Name Contact Information 76 A Process for setting,Managing,and N16nitorinq Environtnentai Windows for Dredging Projects Dredging 'Windows as a Management Option uggestlions for improvements If a specific dredging case study is discussed in any breakout session, we invite you to complete this brief questionnaire and return it to Jerry 5chubel at the New .England Aquarium, Central Wharf, Boston, MA 012110 (fax -0276)6171973 or leave it with your session: leader. Thanks for your help! 1. Identification of Project (Case Study): 2. Were environmental windows used? 'Yes No 3. If yes, what were the driving forces? Political Endangered species Aesthetics/Tourism Commercially important species Other.' If other, please specify 4. If biological resources were the driving force, which species? 5. What was the perceived nature of the dredging threat to living resources (for' example, turbidity, burial, blockage of migration, resuspension and release; of toxics, etc)? 6. If environmental windows were not used, were they considered? Yes No 7. if considered and rejected, why? Scientific assessment Political pressure Other. If other,please specify 8. Did the Corps and other federal agencies draw upon and use the appropri- ate scientific and technological advice in making their decision on windows? Yes No 9. In your opinion,was the interagency cooperation in setting,administering,and monitoring environmental windows_ 'Poor Fair Good Excellent? Optional Name Contact Information Environmental Windows:Farms Used to Solicit Suggestions for Improvements77 Conference on Dredged Material Management: Options and Environmental Considerations MIT, December 4--5, 2000 The National Research Council's Transportation Research Beard and the Ocean Studies'Board have been asked to organize and conduct a workshop to review the process used toilet, administer,and monitor environmental windows as one option for managing impacts of federal dredging and disposal projects; and to make recommendations on haw to improve that process. We seek your advice. Please complete this brief'questionnaire and return it to.ferry Schubel at the New England Aquarium, Central Wharf, Boston, MA 02110 (fax 6171973-0276), or leave it in the box at the back of the roam. Thanks for your help! 1. There in the process of setting, applying and administering, and monitor- ing environmental dredging windows would you recommend that the NRC_ Study Committee foots its efforts`to improve the effectiveness of dredging windows as a management tool? 2 What are the major unresolved research questions that limit the effectiveness of using "dredging windows" as a management tool to reduce the environ- mental impacts of dredging and disposal? Please be as specific as possible. (a) (b (c) (d) (e 3. If you could change two things about the dredging windows process, what would they be? (a) (b) Optional Name Contact Information 78 A Process for Setting,Managing,arta Monitoring Environmental windows for Dredging Projects Dredging Windows as aM anagement Option: Suggestions for Improvernentsz. If a specific dredging case study is discussed in any breakoutsession, we invite you to complete this brie f questiannaire and return it to.Terry Schubel at the New England Aquarium, Central Wharf, Boston, NIA 02110 (fax 617/973-1}276), or leave it with your session leader. Thanks,for your help!' 1. Identification of Project (Case Study). 2. Were environmental windows used? Yes No 3. If yes, what were the driving forces? Political Endangered species Aesthetics/Tourism Commercially important species Cather. If other, please specify 4. If biological resources were the driving force, which species? 5. What was the perceived nature of the dredging threat to living resources (for example, turbidity, burial, blockage of migration, resuspension and release of toxics, etc)? 6. If environmental windows were not used, were they considered? Yes No 7. If considered and rejected,;why? Scientific assessment . Political' pressure Other. If other, please specify 8. Did the Corps and other federal agencies draw upon and use the appropri- ate scient ppropriate'scient fic and technological advice in making their decision on windows? Yes' No 9. In your opinion,was the interagency cooperation in setting,administering,and monitoring,environmental windows __Poor Fair_ _Good Excellent? Optional Name Contact Information Study Conu ittee Biographical Information Jerry Schubel (Chair) is President and Chief Executive Officer ;of the New England Aquarium. He received a B.S. in physics and mathematics from Alma College, an M.A.T. from Harvard University,a Ph.D.in oceanography from Johns Hopkins University, and an honorary D.Sc. in 1997 from the Massachusetts Maritime Academy. He servedfor 20 years as bean and director of the State University of New.York at Stony Brook's .Marine Sciences Research Center. His primary research interests include estuarine and shallow-water sedimentation, suspended sediment transport, interactions of sediment and organisms, and ma- rine geophysics. Dr.Schubel has written numerous articles and papers exploring sedimentation and general marine science issues, He served from 1992 to 1994 as chair of the Marine Board, National Research Council. Henry J. Bokuniewicz is a Professor at the Marine Sciences Research Center of the State University of New York at Stony Brook. He received a B.A.from the; University of Illinois and an M. Phil. and a Ph.D. from Yale University. His cur- rent research focuses on the effects of resuspension on containment availabil- ity for dredged material,benthic'studies associated with containment,prediction of tidal circulation and hydrodynamics, and criteria for the selection of place- ment sites for dredged material! He has authored or coauthored numerous pa- pers on sediment transport and deposition,sediment mass balance, and effects of storm and tidal energy. 80 A Process for Setting,Managing,and Monitoring Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects Peter F. Bontadelli, Jr., is founder and President of PFB Associates, an envi- ronmental and maritime consulting firm. He graduated from the University" of California, Davis, with a B.A. in political science. From November 1987 to. January 1992, he was Director of the California Department of Fish and Game,'. where he was designated as lead for the governor in oil spill prevention and re- sponse activities for California's marine waters, prior to his responsibilities as Director, he served for 22 months as Chief'Deputy Director of the Department and was responsible for overall'department!operations.As a Special Assistant to the Fish and Game Director from June 1984 to January 1986, he was responsi- ble for legislation,'coordination ofl special task forces, and thed€partrnent's budget. Mr. Bontadelli has also served as a member of the U.S. Coast Guard's; Negotiated Rulemaking Committee and a member of the National Research Council panel that conducted an implementation review of the Oil Pollution Act' of 1990 (Section 4115). He is currently a member of the Marine Board. Robert J. Diaz is a Professor of Biological Sciences at the Schoch of Marine Science, Virginia Institute of Marine Science. He received a B.A. in biology and chemistry from La Salle College and an M.S. and a Ph.D. in marine science" from the university of Virginia. His areas of expertise include marine benthos, marsh ecology, and salt marsh benthos. Recent research projects have involved a deep-sea assessment of dredged material, a benthic:analysis of the Eastern: Shore,!and lung-term benthic monitoring study conducted on behalf of the Virginia Department of Ertvironrnental Quality Dr.Diaz has coauthored a book' titled In,Situ Measurement of Organism-Sediment Interaction. Rtes of Burrow Fonnation/Abandonm.entrand Sediment Oxidation/Reduction. He has also writ- ten numerous7 articles and papers covering various facets of benthic ecology and has served as an adviser to state agencies and the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, regarding channel dredging and'open-water disposal of dredged material. Marcelo H. 'Garcia is an Associate Professor in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the University of Illinois-Champaign and Director of the Ven Te Chow Hydrosysterns Laboratory at the University of Illinois. He re- ceived a Dipl. Ingeniero'in water resources from the I.fniversidad Nacional del Litoral, Argentina, and an M.S. and a Ph.D. in civil engineering from the University of Minnesota.IHis two primary areas of research are sediment trans- port(e.g.,particle-turbulence interaction, sediment erosion and resuspension by unsteady flows,turbidity currents,particle and pollutant transport and transfor- mation) and environmental hydrodynamics (e.g, turbulence effects on aquatic life, vegetation-flow interaction, density currents', and boundary-layer flows in= Study Committee Biographical information 81 volving turbulence-driven mass transfer at air-water and sediment-water inter- faces). Dr. Garcia recently completed a book titled Hydrodynamics and Sediment Transport and is the author of numerous articles and papers. He is a frequent lec- turer around the world and is an Associate Editor of the Journal of Water Resources Research (American Geophysical Union) and the Journal of Hydraulic' Engineering in Mexico (Mexican Institute of Water Technology). Ram K.Mohan is Vice President at Blasland,Bouck &Lee;he was Vice President for Gahagan &;Bryant Associates,Inc.,when the study commenced. He received a B.S. in naval architecture from:the Cochin University of Science and Technol- ogy, India; an M.S. in ocean (marine geotechnical) engineering from. the University of Rhode Island; a Ph.D. in ocean (coastal and dredging) engineering from Texas A&M University; and a P.E. in civil engineering from the University of Maryland. He has more than 11 years of experience in the areas of dredging' systems and dredged material disposal, river and channel hydraulics, sediment transport modeling, and environmental dredging technologies. Dr. Mohan is active in professional societies:and serves as Editor-in-Chief of the Western Dredging Association's Journal of Dredging Engineering, Editorial Review Board member' for the Journal of Marine Environmental Engineering, and Editorial Review Board member for the Journal of Hydraulic Research. He has authored' more than 80 papers in civil, coastal, hydraulic, and dredging engineering. He is also a member of the National Research Council's Ocean Studies Board. Denise J. Reed is a Professor in the Department of Geology and Geophysics at the University of New Orleans. Her research interests include coastal marsh response to sea-level rise, the contributions of fine sediments and organic material to marsh soil development; and how these are affected by human alterations to marsh hydrology. She has worked on coastal issues in north- west Europe,southern Chile and the Atlantic, and the Pacific and Gulf coasts of the United States; she has published her results in numerous papers and reports. She has been involved in restoration planning in both Louisiana and California and in the scientific evaluation of the results of marsh restoration ,projects. Dr. Reed serves on the editorial boards of the Journal of Coastal Research and Wetland Ecology and Management. She has served on numerous boards and pan- els concerning the effects of human alterations on coastal environments and the rale of science in guiding ecosystem restoration. She received her Ph.D. from the University of Cambridge, U.K., and has worked in coastal Louisiana since 1986. Susan-Marie Stedman has been a Fishery Biologist and Team Leader for the National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Habitat Conservation, since 1993. 82 A Process for Setting, Managing,and Monitoring Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects In this capacity,she leads the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) fisheries national habitat conservation efforts; her responsibilities include policy development, outreach,and review and comment on the Army' Corps of Engineers'Clean Water Act,Section 404 Program. She received a B.S. in marine science from Southampton College and an M.S. in coastal geology from the University of Delaware. Ms. Stedman assists the Fishery Management Councils in implementing the essential fish habitat (EFH) provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and was the principal author of NOAA's fisheries guid- ance on conducting EFH consultations. She is currently editing a joint publica tion with the U.S. Geological Service on the dependence of fish on wetlands and is developing a NOAA fisheries policy on conservation of submerged aquatic vegetation as fish habitat. Ails E. 'Stolpe is Director of Communications and an Interim Board Member for the Garden State SeafoodAssociation. He received a B.S. in environmental sci- ence from Rutgers University. He is also the publisher of FishNet USA, a monthly information sheet addressing fisheries-related topics distributed to more than 1500 subscribers.From 1995 to 1999 he served as Executive Director of the New Jersey Seafood Harvesters Association and from 1987 to 1993 as Executive Director of the New Jersey Commercial Fisherman's Association. John B Torgan is the Narragansett Bay Keeper with Sage the Bay in Providence, Rhode Island. He holds a B.S. in environmental studies and biology from Union;r College. He leads Save the Bay's program to protect the environmental integrity. of the hay and its tributaries through sampling, research, and education, He de- velops outreach activities and other communication programs tobring problems to the attention of the public. He has also performed research on wildlife habitats in the region and has provided testimony on ecological issues. Prior to holding' his current position, he conducted ecological research and field studies in New: York.and Michigan as well as fishery studies in rivers near hydroelectric dams. Thomas ff. Wakeman III is Dredging Program Manager for the Port Authority of New York and .New Jersey, where he is responsible for the planning, devel- opment, and management of-a 2 zillion annual operating and capital dredg- ing program. He received a B.A. in biology from. California Polytechnic State' University, San Luis Obispo,and an M.A. in marine biology from San Francisco State University,and he has completed doctoral coursework in engineering at the University of California, Berkeley-Davis. Previously he served as a Special Projects Manager for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco District. In this position, he was respt,nsible for the project management and coor Study Committee Biographical information 83 dination of a regional $17 million federal-state plan for dredging and disposal management, an annual $25 million federal maintenance dredging program,; and the $130 million John Baldwin navigation channel deepeningproject. He was recently elected Cochair of the Dredged Material Management integration Work Group, U.S. 'Environmental Protection Agency-U.S. Army Carps of Engi- neers Regional Dredging Team. He is a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers, the International Navigation Association, and the Western Dredging Association and is an individual affiliate of the Transportation Research Board; Michael P. Weinstein is President-CEO of the New Jersey Marine Sciences Consortium and Director of the New Jersey Sea Grant College Program. He also serves as a Visiting Professor for the Institute of Marine and Coastal Sciences, Rutgers University. He received a B.A. in biology from Hofstra University, an M.S. in zoology from Rutgers University, and a'Ph.D in marine and environ- mental science from Florida State University. His primary research interests include coastal ecology, early.-life history, secondary production, restoration ecology, and ecological engineering. He is the principal author of more than 200 reports and presentations to state and federal agencies and the private sec- tor and has authored or coauthored eight books pertaining to ichthyology. The Board of S upery sorsr John sweeten Clerk of the Board Count Administration Building and Y 9Costa County Administrator 651 Pine Street,Room 106 {925}335-1900 Martinez,California 94553-1293 (moi n T.V John Gloia,1st District {�,, (�, Gayle S.Ullketna,2nd District Donna Gerber,3rd District Mark Desaulnler,4th District :' r Federal D.Glover,5th District Mr. Wayne White California Field Supervisor U.S. Fish and WildlifeService 2800 Cottage Way, Suite W-2605 April 9, 2002 Sacramento, CA 95825 Dear Mr. Whiter The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors has authorized this letter in order to request that additional work on environmental windows occur to allow for preservation of fish(and other species)populations while allowing dredging and disposal to be completed in an efficient mariner. Specifically,the Board requests the agencies overseeing the Long Terre Management Strategy(LTMS) for dredging and disposal,the environmental regulatory agencies, the dredging community and other interested parties participate in a collaborative process, using the Report"Process for Setting,Managing, and Monitoring Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects"by the Marine Transportation Research Board, the National Research Council and the Ocean Studies Board. This collaborative process,coupled with the identification of additional (irreproachable) science will provide necessary basis to establish meaningful environmental windows and efficient dredging timeframes that do not have significant economic or environmental impacts. Contra Costa County is home to four oil refineries,related oil terminals,and a myriad of industries,which utilize federal navigation channels as a fundamental transportation link. The Forts of Stockton and Sacramento also traverse these channels in transporting bulk product and other commodities, all basing operations on the federally authorized depth of —35 feet. The County became local'sponsor for sections of the San Francisco-to-Stockton ship channel to provide support and cost-sharing components to enable continued federal construction and maintenance of these important channels. From the County's perspective,the oil industry's heavy channel usage provides a powerful incentive for annual dredging and disposal to occur. As you may surmise,when a grounding of an oil tanker occurs, so does the possibility of an oil spill. We have had two groundings in recent years;most recently,in the year 2000, the LAM?ANGEL grounded east of the Martinez-Benicia Bridge while carrying 63,000 tons of crude(the channel was not dredged that year). In some channel sections, severe shoaling can occur with certain flow events, making annual dredging critical to continued safe vessel transport. In addition to the safety implications, there are economic implications as well. In light- loading an oil tanker, for every foot of tankage not utilized,a loss of approximately $300,000 is incurred: Over the past year a number of the Ports in the area were competing for the same limited equipment, over the same reduced time frame, and several projects either did not get dredged or dredging was not completed, due to weather related delay and the compounding of the problem when the neat project to be dredged was affected. We understand that many of the smaller clamshell and hopper dredges we need to accomplish upland disposal in shallower areas have left the area. At least one of the larger dredging companies has indicated that they cannot keep expensive equipment idle for much of the year, will be exiting the area,with no guarantees of when they will return. Dredgers continuing to operate here have indicated escalating costs with 24-hour all-weather dredging,not to mention mobilization and demobilization costs associated with the inability to finish and the need to return, and with exiting the area when dredging cannot occur. Fortunately, both the Pinole Shoal and the Suisun Bay Channel were `emergency' dredged by the Corps vessel ESSAYONS this past year. However,we are quite concerned about our ability to complete dredging this year, and in the future. While the preservation(and indeed the strengthening)of fish populations is critical,so is the continuance of our economic base in the region. Economic considerations aside,our inability to keep channels dredged in our area can have very serious environmental consequences, should an oil tanker grounding and the subsequent passibility of an oil spill occur. The `Process for Setting, Managing and Monitoring Environmental Windows' document is'a consensus based process that will allow for much needed in-depth review of existing windows and existing dredging practices,will provide education of all parties as to the environmental and economic needs of the region,and will provide a basis to determine exactly what is necessary in terms of additional science to enable the agencies and others involved some measure'of certainty in species preservation efforts. The process envisioned can indeed become a `win-win situation for all involved. If you have questions,or desire additional information,please contact Roberta Goulart at (925) 335-1226. Si erely, , 11, John Gioia Chair, Beard of Supervisors cc: Ryan Olah,Project Manager The Board of Su ervisorsJnr John Sweeten Clerk of the Board and County Administration Building / County Administrator Costa 651 Pine Street,Room 106 Martinez,California 94553-1293 (925)335-1900 uounty John Gioia,lst District Gayle S.Uiikema,2nd District .a Donna Gerber,3rd District Mark DeSaulnier,4th District ✓ r Federal D.Glover,5th District Mr. Jim Bybee,Executive Officer National Marine Fisheries Service 777 Sonoma Avenue, Room 325 April 9,2002 Santa Rosa, CA.95404 Dear Mr. Bybee: The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors has authorized this letter in order to request that additional work on environmental windows occur to allow for preservation of fish(and other species)populations while allowing dredging and disposal to be completed in an efficient manner. Specifically,the Board requests the agencies overseeing the Lang Term Management Strategy(LTMS) for dredging and disposal,the environmental regulatory agencies,the dredging community and other interested:parties participate'in a collaborative process,using the Report"Process, for Setting, Managing, and Monitoring Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects"by the Marine Transportation Research Board,the National Research Council and the Ocean Studies Board. This collaborative process, coupled with the identification of additional (irreproachable)science will provide necessary basis to establish meaningful environmental windows and efficient dredging timeframes that do not have significant economic or environmental impacts. Contra Costa County is home to four oil refineries,related oil terminals, and a myriad of industries,,which utilize federal navigation channels as<a fundamental transportation link. The ports of Stockton and Sacramento also traverse these channels in transporting bulk product and other commodities,all basing operations on the federally authorized depth of —35 feet. The County became local sponsor for sections of the San Francisco-to-Stockton ship channel to provide support and cost-sharing components to enable continued federal construction and maintenance of these important channels. From the County's perspective, the oil industry's heavy channel usage provides a powerful incentive for annual dredging and disposal to occur. As you may surmise,when a grounding of an oil tanker occurs,so does the possibility of an oil spill. We have had two groundings in recent years;most recently, in the year 2000,the LAND ANGEL grounded east of the Martinez-Benicia Bridge while carrying 63,000 bins of crude(the channel was not dredged that year). In some channel sections,severe shoaling can occur with certain flow events, making annual dredging critical to continued safe vessel transport. In addition to the safety,implications, there are economic implications as well. In light- loading an oil tanker, for every foot of tankage not utilized, a loss of approximately $300,000 is incurred. Over the past year a number of the Ports in the area were competing for the same limited equipment,over the same reduced time frame, and several projects either did not get dredged or dredging was not completed, due to weather related delay and the compounding of the problem when the next project to be dredged was affected. We understandthat many of the smaller clamshell and hopper dredges we need to accomplish upland disposal in shallower areas have left the area. At least one of the larger dredging companies has indicated that they cannot keep expensive equipment idle for much of the year, will be exiting the area,with no guarantees of when they will'return. Dredgers continuing to operate here have indicated escalating costs with 24-hour all-weather dredging,not to mention mobilization and demobilization casts associated with the inability to finish and the need to return, and with exiting,the area when dredging cannot occur. Fortunately, both the Pinole Shoal and the Suisun Bay Channel were `emergency' dredged by the Corps vessel ESSAYONS this past year. However, we are quite concerned:about our ability to complete dredging this year,and in the future. While the preservation(and indeed the strengthening) of fish populations is critical, so is the continuance of our economic base in the region. Economic considerations aside, our inability to keep channels dredged in our;area can have very serious environmental consequences, should an oil tanker grounding and the subsequent possibility of an oil spill occur: The `Process for Setting, Managing and Monitoring Environmental Windows' document is a consensus based process that will allow for much needed in-depth review of existing windows and existing dredging practices,will provide education of all parties as to the environmental and economic needs of the region,and will provide a basis to determine exactly what is necessary in terms of additional science to enable the agencies and others involved some measure`of certainty in species preservation efforts. The process envisioned can indeed become a`win-win situation for all involved. If you have questions,or desire additional information,please contact Roberta Goulart at (925) 335-1226. Sinrely, ohn'CTioia Chair, Board of Supervisors cc. Crary Stern