APPENDIX A
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.

Economic and Operational Trade-Offs Session

This session addressed the question, “How should we evaluate the environmental 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,1 and have generally overshadowed consideration of economic concerns. As the numbers of dredging restrictions have increased, the economic consequences of multiple windows have grown. Today, dredging projects and the direct economic benefits they provide may be foregone in favor of the establishment of environmental regulations

1

The precautionary principle, as stated in Principle 15 of the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, is as follows: “[T]o 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.”



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 38
A Process for Setting, Managing, and Monitoring Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects: Special Report 262 APPENDIX A 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. Economic and Operational Trade-Offs Session This session addressed the question, “How should we evaluate the environmental 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,1 and have generally overshadowed consideration of economic concerns. As the numbers of dredging restrictions have increased, the economic consequences of multiple windows have grown. Today, dredging projects and the direct economic benefits they provide may be foregone in favor of the establishment of environmental regulations 1 The precautionary principle, as stated in Principle 15 of the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, is as follows: “[T]o 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.”

OCR for page 38
A Process for Setting, Managing, and Monitoring Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects: Special Report 262 to protect natural resources. Typically, the explicit trade-off between the economic 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 environmental windows and the decision-making process involved in their application. 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, Regional Manager, 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 evaluation. This equation uses a combination of assessment categories (e.g., economic 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, focusing on providing insights to decision makers about the proportions of community 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 uncertainty, and linking the decisions made.

OCR for page 38
A Process for Setting, Managing, and Monitoring Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects: Special Report 262 The Tillamook Bay Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan was presented as an example of how the approach works. Through the increased public involvement that characterized the development of this plan, the participants gained greater sensitivity to the issues involved. Moreover, the process improved the insights available to decision makers. The third paper (“Economic Analysis of Dredging Windows: Framework, Model, and Examples,” by T. Grigalunas, M. Luo, and J. Opaluch) proposes a framework and model for analyzing the economic aspects of a dredging project’s material placement alternatives and the impacts of establishing environmental windows. According to the presenter, Thomas Grigalunas, Department of Environmental and Natural Resources, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, the use of windows raises several issues. Windows extend the overall length of a dredging project or increase the number of dredges. Dredging equipment must be remobilized to the site once the critical period has passed, and delays in a project’s completion also delay its anticipated benefits. These economic consequences are quantifiable and sometimes significant. An evaluation of the environmental benefits in similar terms is needed to make it possible to assess the trade-offs involved and compare project alternatives. Grigalunas described a cohort model designed to assess the impact of windows on affected populations and to calculate associated changes in recreational and commercial catch. The focus is on the incremental economic values associated with changes in catch due to environmental windows. The presentation included an example of a dredging project proposed for the Port of Providence with disposal in either Narragansett Bay or Rhode Island Sound. Grigalunas noted that there are both positive and negative impacts of applying windows, but that much uncertainty exists regarding their quantification. Following the presentations, Tom O’Connor, session comoderator, made some additional observations. He suggested that dredging can be compared to fishing in that both impose resource losses. Unlike fishing, dredging generally has its effects during early life stages; at the population level, however, eggs never spawn because of this loss at early life stages. Dredging is also episodic, posing less of a population-level effect than chronic activities such as fishing. If the proportion of the total population at early life stages threatened by dredging were known, population models could incorporate dredging mortality and be used to estimate the equivalent fishing mortality. O’Connor suggested that this would allow comparisons with other activities for which the economics are known and would enable assessment of the overall importance of losses associated with dredging projects. The presentations and observations summarized above served as the foundation for a subsequent group discussion about how the windows-setting process

OCR for page 38
A Process for Setting, Managing, and Monitoring Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects: Special Report 262 in many cases has been driven by resource protection demands, particularly requirements for endangered species. 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 impacts, 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 regulatory 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 coordinating 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 windows-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?

OCR for page 38
A Process for Setting, Managing, and Monitoring Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects: Special Report 262 How are disputes about scientific information or interpretation resolved? How does the process prioritize projects to deal with staff shortages? Does the process encourage consideration of cumulative effects, or does “piecemealing” tend to occur? Each presenter was asked, based on his or her experience, to provide insights into the process used in setting windows, placing an emphasis on both the strong and weak points. The first presenter, Michael Street, Chief, Habitat Protection Section, North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries, described the windows set by the state of North Carolina in the 1980s, based on state and federal sampling data. The goal of the state was to use spatial and temporal windows to minimize impacts; cumulative effects were not addressed under the process. As the state’s geographic information system was developed, areas were designated for special protection, such as primary nursery areas, anadromous fish-spawning areas, seagrass beds, and critical habitats for threatened and endangered species. In 1994 an interagency group chaired by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) was organized to conduct an update and review of the existing windows. However, the review was not completed because of a change in personnel and an overall lack of commitment on the part of the agencies. Therefore, the original windows remain in effect, and in fact have been adopted by the state as regulations. The second presenter, Frank Hamons, Manager, Harbors Department, Maryland Port Authority, described a case in the state of Maryland in which the windows-setting process failed in terms of involving all the pertinent parties in the process. In this case, preexisting windows for anadromous fishes that had been set on the basis of water temperature and had originally been recommended by the Maryland Department of Natural Resources were narrowed last year without the involvement of the local sponsor. In fact, the local sponsor was never consulted. The Port Authority contends that if a monitoring program for temperature had been undertaken, the window might have been lengthened instead of narrowed. The third presenter, Edward O’Donnell, USACE, New England District, described the windows-setting process currently used in the five-state New England area. Windows were originally set 30 to 40 years ago and tended to be generic, partly because of limited staff and a lack of scientific information. Interagency coordination on windows occurred through the National Environmental Policy Act process, the permit coordination process, Coastal Zone Management Act consistency determinations, and water quality certification under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. More recently, USACE initiated annual interagency meetings at which projects are discussed 2–3 years before dredging is scheduled. Stakeholder groups help prioritize projects.

OCR for page 38
A Process for Setting, Managing, and Monitoring Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects: Special Report 262 In response to the questions provided before the session, O’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 financial 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 developing windows to protect threatened and endangered sea turtles in the southeastern United States. The major tool used was a regional biological opinion developed through both informal and formal consultation under the Endangered Species Act. The resulting window, which is based primarily on water temperature, 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 cannot 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” and the responsible federal 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 held early in the year; all appropriate agencies and tribes and interested members of the public are invited 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 invitations, 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 manner. One of the most common shortcomings mentioned was the lack of a process for revising windows to incorporate new information. Participants also identi-

OCR for page 38
A Process for Setting, Managing, and Monitoring Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects: Special Report 262 fied competition between windows for one species (salmon) and another (clapper rail) as a major challenge that will become increasingly common as more species become imperiled. Scientific information will be needed to support prioritization of natural resource concerns when such competing interests are involved. In addition, citizen involvement was identified as a necessary but unpredictable element of the administrative process for setting windows. Many participants expressed frustration at the perceived use of windows as a surrogate for antidredging sentiment by citizen groups. Participants also discussed project-specific windows as opposed to statute-driven or statewide windows. Although some participants expressed a preference for the former, others believe that a programmatic approach is the only way to make effective use of limited agency staff and other resources. Concern was also expressed about having consistent regulatory policies for both USACE-funded and privately funded dredging projects. Finally, the group discussion focused on the draft template prepared by the steering committee. Participants offered the following suggestions for improving this draft: There should be early buy-in to the process up front by all relevant agencies and stakeholders (especially the federal and state permitting agencies). This buy-in should include a commitment of the personnel and fiscal resources necessary to accomplish the task from senior-level agency decision makers. There should be some overlap between the biological and engineering expert teams to ensure communication and cross-fertilization. A feedback loop should be added to the process, for use in assessing its success and identifying needed improvements. Biological Sessions Two of the workshop sessions were devoted to biological issues. Both sessions explored the scientific and technical justifications for environmental windows and examined aspects of the potential impacts of dredging operations on biological resources. As these two sessions were interrelated, they are treated here in a single summary. The sessions were designed to address the following questions: What are the potential effects of dredging operations on biologically sensitive resources at the individual species, population, and ecosystem levels? To what degree of certainty can existing science predict these effects? How can the benefits of environmental windows as an effective management tool be maximized?

OCR for page 38
A Process for Setting, Managing, and Monitoring Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects: Special Report 262 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 discussed the 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 dredging depends on the total population’s ability to recover and repopulate the impacted 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 introduced the panelists. Panelist William Kirby Smith, Associate Professor of the Practice of Marine Ecology, Duke University Marine Laboratory, presented on the impacts of dredging operations on shellfish. He described the life cycle of various types of mollusks 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 impacts. 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 greatest 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 important 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 habitat can be altered by dredged sediment disposal. For example, he noted that deepwater thermal refugia are important in winter for fish and that disposal activities can raise the bottom, resulting in the disappearance of thermal refugia. Houde concluded by noting the difficulties and uncertainties involved in link-

OCR for page 38
A Process for Setting, Managing, and Monitoring Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects: Special Report 262 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, described 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 salmon are 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 protected 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 application 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 potential for release of contaminants, blockage of migration, water quality degradation, and ecosystem changes (estuarine circulation, salinity distribution, 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 dredging 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 severe 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 evaluating the potential impacts on shellfish or any other species. Impact assessments should also consider the extended project duration caused by the implementation of windows.

OCR for page 38
A Process for Setting, Managing, and Monitoring Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects: Special Report 262 Economic valuations should consider lost natural resource values as part of the project cost. The questions of how agencies resolve scientific issues and develop technical justifications related to windows and of how the determination is ultimately made were discussed and debated. Statutory and scientific obligations to consider the multispecies cumulative 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 literature 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 windows2: Interference with spawning and nursery habitat of living marine resources, Interference with migration, Habitat loss, 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. 2 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. USACE, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss.

OCR for page 38
A Process for Setting, Managing, and Monitoring Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects: Special Report 262 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, studies documenting biological impacts and issues associated with, for example, coastal zone management, fisheries research and management, and power plant impacts are often relevant to scientists assessing the value of environmental windows and should be consulted more frequently. Participants also noted that environmental windows have been used historically 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., threatened or endangered species) to protect species at the individual level. Additionally, there are species that, while not formally listed, may warrant special consideration because of population status. Therefore, it becomes exceedingly 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 toward 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 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 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 representative species may result as well in protecting other species within the system. Moreover, resource agencies may be able to select the most appropriate windows more efficiently. Participants stated that appropriate monitoring—before, during, and after dredging operations—should be designed specifically to measure the effectiveness of windows in protecting species of concern. A feedback mechanism should

OCR for page 38
A Process for Setting, Managing, and Monitoring Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects: Special Report 262 Charles Simenstad Fisheries Research Institute University of Washington 260 Fisheries Institute Seattle, WA 98195 Philip A. Spadaro Director of Port & Harbor Services Hart Crowser, Inc. 1910 Fairview Avenue East Seattle, WA 98102 206/324-9530 206/328-5581 (fax) philip.spadaro@hartcrowser.com Susan-Marie Stedman Fishery Biologist and Team Leader National Marine Fisheries Service U.S. Department of Commerce/NOAA 1315 East-West Highway, F/HC2 Silver Spring, MD 20910 301/713-2325 301/713-1043 (fax) susan.stedman@noaa.gov Nils E. Stolpe Director of Communications Garden State Seafood Association 3840 Terwood Drive Doylestown, PA 18901 215/345-4790 215/345-4869 (fax) njsha@voicenet.com Michael W. Street Chief Habitat Protection Section N.C. Division of Marine Fisheries P.O. Box 769 Morehead City, NC 28557 252/726-7021 252/727-5129 (fax) mike.street@nemail.net Steve Thorp Program Manager Great Lakes Commission 400 4th Street Ann Arbor, MI 48103 734/665-9135 734/665-4370 (fax) sthorp@glc.org Jeff C. Tinsman Fisheries Biologist Delaware Division of Fish & Wildlife 3002 Bayside Drive Little Creek, DE 19961 302/739-4782 John B. Torgan Narragansett Bay Keeper Save the Bay, Rhode Island 434 Smith Street Providence, RI 02908 401/272-3540 ext. 116 401/273-7153 (fax) jtorgan@savethebay.org

OCR for page 38
A Process for Setting, Managing, and Monitoring Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects: Special Report 262 Dennis Urso Vice President Gahagan and Bryant & Associates 9008 Yellow Brick Road, Unit 0 Baltimore, MD 21237 410/682-5595 410/682-2175 (fax) dcurso@gra-inc.com Robert VanDolah Assistant Director S.C. Dept. of Natural Resources Marine Resources Research Institute 217 Ft. Johnson Road P.O. Box 12559 Charleston, SC 29412 843/762-5048 843/762-5110 (fax) vandolahr@mrd.dnr.state.sc.us Francis M. Veraldi Fish Biologist Chicago District Planning Branch USACE 111 North Canal Street Chicago, IL 60606-7206 312/353-6400 312/886-2891 (fax) frank.m.veraldi@irc02.usace.army.mil Don Wadleigh Operations Manager Chicago District Army Corps of Engineers 111 North Canal Street, Suite 600 Chicago, IL 60606 312/353-6400 312/353-2141 (fax) donald.e.wadleigh@usace.army.mil Thomas H. Wakeman III Dredging Program Manager Port Authority of New York & New Jersey 1 World Trade Center, 34 South New York, NY 10048-0682 212/435-6618 212/435-2234 (fax) twakeman@panynj.gov Michael P. Weinstein President/CEO New Jersey Marine Sciences Consortium Sandy Hook Field Station, Building 22 Fort Hancock, NJ 07732 732/872-1300, ext. 21 732/872-9573 (fax) mikew@njmsc.org Katharine F. Wellman Battelle Seattle Research Center 4500 San Point Way, NE Seattle, WA 98105 206/284-2413 206/528-3552 (fax) wellman@battelle.org Sandra T. Whitehouse Environmental Consultant to the House of Representatives 32 Elmgrove Avenue Providence, RI 02906 401/751-7229 401/421-3376 (fax) sandrawte@aol.com

OCR for page 38
A Process for Setting, Managing, and Monitoring Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects: Special Report 262 Charles E. Williams II Environmental Program Manager I Division of Soil and Water Conservation Dept. of Natural Resources & Environmental Control 89 Kings Highway Dover, DE 19901 302/739-4411 302/739-6724 (fax) chwilliams@state.de.us Joseph Wilson U.S. Army Corp of Engineers Headquarters (CECW-OD) 441 G Street, NW Washington, DC 20314 202/761-4649 joseph.r.wilson@hq02.usace.army.mil George E. Wisker Environmental Analyst Office of Long Island Sound Programs CT CEP 79 Elm Street Hartford, CT 06106-5127 860/424-3034 860/424-4054 (fax) george.wisker@po.state.ct.us John Wolflin Field Supervisor Chesapeake Bay Field Office U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 177 Cochrane Drive Annapolis, MD 21401

OCR for page 38
A Process for Setting, Managing, and Monitoring Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects: Special Report 262 APPENDIX D Environmental Windows Workshop Dredging Project Case Study Data Form

OCR for page 38
A Process for Setting, Managing, and Monitoring Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects: Special Report 262

OCR for page 38
A Process for Setting, Managing, and Monitoring Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects: Special Report 262

OCR for page 38
A Process for Setting, Managing, and Monitoring Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects: Special Report 262 APPENDIX E Environmental Windows: Forms Used to Solicit Suggestions for Improvements National Dredging Team Conference Jacksonville, Florida, January 23–25, 2001 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 one option for managing impacts of federal dredging and disposal projects; and to make recommendations on how to improve that process. We seek your advice. Please complete this brief questionnaire and give it to Jerry Schubel or Kris Hoellen BEFORE leaving the conference. Thanks for your help!

OCR for page 38
A Process for Setting, Managing, and Monitoring Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects: Special Report 262

OCR for page 38
A Process for Setting, Managing, and Monitoring Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects: Special Report 262 Dredging Windows as a Management Option: Suggestions 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 Schubel at the New England Aquarium, Central Wharf, Boston, MA 02110 (fax 617/973-0276), or leave it with your session leader. Thanks for your help!

OCR for page 38
A Process for Setting, Managing, and Monitoring Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects: Special Report 262 Conference on Dredged Material Management: Options and Environmental Considerations MIT, December 4–5, 2000 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 one option for managing impacts of federal dredging and disposal projects; and to make recommendations on how to improve that process. We seek your advice. Please complete this brief questionnaire and return it to Jerry Schubel at the New England Aquarium, Central Wharf, Boston, MA 02110 (fax 617/973-0276), or leave it in the box at the back of the room. Thanks for your help!

OCR for page 38
A Process for Setting, Managing, and Monitoring Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects: Special Report 262 Dredging Windows as a Management Option: Suggestions 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 Schubel at the New England Aquarium, Central Wharf, Boston, MA 02110 (fax 617/973-0276), or leave it with your session leader. Thanks for your help!