National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: 4 Key Findings and Recommendations
Page 38
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2002. A Process for Setting, Managing, and Monitoring Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects: Special Report 262. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11367.
×

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.”

Page 39
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2002. A Process for Setting, Managing, and Monitoring Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects: Special Report 262. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11367.
×

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.

Page 40
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2002. A Process for Setting, Managing, and Monitoring Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects: Special Report 262. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11367.
×

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

Page 41
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2002. A Process for Setting, Managing, and Monitoring Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects: Special Report 262. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11367.
×

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?

Page 42
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2002. A Process for Setting, Managing, and Monitoring Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects: Special Report 262. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11367.
×
  • 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.

Page 43
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2002. A Process for Setting, Managing, and Monitoring Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects: Special Report 262. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11367.
×

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-

Page 44
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2002. A Process for Setting, Managing, and Monitoring Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects: Special Report 262. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11367.
×

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?

Page 45
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2002. A Process for Setting, Managing, and Monitoring Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects: Special Report 262. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11367.
×

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-

Page 46
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2002. A Process for Setting, Managing, and Monitoring Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects: Special Report 262. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11367.
×

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.

Page 47
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2002. A Process for Setting, Managing, and Monitoring Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects: Special Report 262. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11367.
×
  • 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.

Page 48
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2002. A Process for Setting, Managing, and Monitoring Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects: Special Report 262. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11367.
×

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

Page 49
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2002. A Process for Setting, Managing, and Monitoring Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects: Special Report 262. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11367.
×

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 new information is generated.

Finally, additional factors were identified that should be considered when establishing 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 waterways and berths more effectively using advances in technology and controls, while minimizing impacts on living resources and thereby maximizing the duration of environmental windows?” The goal was to find ways of improving existing dredging techniques and technologies to result in fewer and smaller impacts on the marine environment and its living resources. Several dredge manufacturers (both in the United States and abroad) have invented new or modified existing technologies to make dredging more environmentally acceptable. This session focused on identifying technology advances that could be used in navigational 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 technologies? (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 cannot completely eliminate the impacts of concern, but that selection of appropriate 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 sediment losses is to use flocculants in barges or to minimize or even eliminate the

Page 50
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2002. A Process for Setting, Managing, and Monitoring Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects: Special Report 262. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11367.
×

barge overflow. Physical barriers (such as silt screens and curtains) are effective only in quiescent waters.

The second panelist, Daniel Averett, Chief, Environmental Engineering Branch, Environmental Laboratory, USACE Research and Development Center, noted that there have been several improvements in dredging equipment. Examples include modified buckets (e.g., enclosed bucket, cable arm), cutterhead shrouds, improved dredge designs (e.g., horizontal auger, matchbox, deflectors), higher solids dredging (e.g., Eddy pump), and improved instrumentation for positioning and monitoring. Newer dredges have been used on a small scale for highly contaminated (Superfund) sediment projects in the United States and abroad. However, issues remain concerning their performance as compared with traditional equipment on large-scale projects, as well as their availability in this country.

The third panelist, Robert Randall, Professor and Director, Center for Dredging Studies, Texas A&M University, suggested that environmental impacts of placement can be minimized by proper choice of site (e.g., subaqueous pits, underwater berms), better control of placement using instrumentation (e.g., differential Global Positioning System), improved placement techniques (e.g., thin layer placement, underwater pipes), and better site management (dewatering, segregation, improved aesthetics).

The following major points were made in the open floor discussion:

  • Technologies for managing impacts should be defined clearly. The following aspects should be considered: equipment selection, management controls, and operational procedures.

  • Innovative dredging technologies often are applied on small-scale pilot remediation projects in the United States and abroad. Such equipment does not usually see high production and can be expensive to deploy. It was suggested that there are not enough data on full-scale, side-by-side field comparisons of promising innovative and standard technologies to assess their relative advantages.

  • Operational controls are generally expensive to implement. One way to implement such controls would be to require that dredgers self-monitor and report to USACE, and that standards of operation be verified through periodic unannounced inspections by USACE personnel.

  • In setting operational or physical controls, the target must first be defined [e.g., totally suspended solids (TSS) level, plume extent]. For this step to succeed, the potential impacts must be identified specifically and quantitatively.

  • Both the scope and goals of monitoring should be clearly defined. Otherwise, the monitoring performed may be complicated, expensive, and of little value. It

Page 51
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2002. A Process for Setting, Managing, and Monitoring Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects: Special Report 262. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11367.
×

was suggested that the technological limits on monitoring should be acknowledged (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 prevent impacts; it only can aid in minimizing or mitigating 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 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.

  • 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 regional 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 appropriate 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. Depending on the recommended technology or technologies, one or more alternative sets of environmental windows may evolve, offering a range of potential strategies useful to port and resource managers.

Page 52
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2002. A Process for Setting, Managing, and Monitoring Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects: Special Report 262. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11367.
×

APPENDIX B
Glossary

401 certification Section 401 of the Clean Water Act requires that an applicant for a federal license or permit provide a certification that any discharges from the facility will comply with the act, including water quality standard requirements. 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 regulating discharges of pollutants to waters of the United States. See 401 certification.

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, insure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by such agency (here-

Page 53
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2002. A Process for Setting, Managing, and Monitoring Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects: Special Report 262. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11367.
×

inafter in this section referred to as an ‘agency action’) is not likely to jeopardize 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 affected States, 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 scientific 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 geographical 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 biological features (I) essential to the conservation of the species and (II) 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 determination 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 constitute a pest whose protection under the provisions of this Act would present an overwhelming and overriding risk to man.”

Page 54
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2002. A Process for Setting, Managing, and Monitoring Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects: Special Report 262. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11367.
×

Endangered Species Act According to the act, its purposes are “to provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered species and threatened species depend may be conserved, to provide a program for the conservation of such endangered species and threatened species, and to take such steps 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 Conservation and Management Act (Public Law 94-265), those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity.

Hopper dredge A self-contained and self-propelled suction dredge that, 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.

Page 55
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2002. A Process for Setting, Managing, and Monitoring Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects: Special Report 262. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11367.
×

Mechanical dredge A dredge that moves sediment by lifting it with a bucket-like mechanism.

Monitoring The process of observing particular biological, physical, and/or chemical parameters during and after dredging activities.

National Environmental Policy Act Federal law (42 U.S.C. 4321–4347) designed to help public officials make decisions based on an understanding of environmental 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 environmental review process early in the planning for proposed actions.

NOAA National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration in the U.S. Department of Commerce

Population 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 other environmental costs and benefits of decision options.

Risk averse Given outcomes of unknown probability, an approach that involves 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.

Page 56
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2002. A Process for Setting, Managing, and Monitoring Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects: Special Report 262. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11367.
×

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 annoyance that has the potential to: Injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A); or Disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal 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 representative 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 suspended or dissolved in water.

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Page 57
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2002. A Process for Setting, Managing, and Monitoring Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects: Special Report 262. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11367.
×

APPENDIX C
Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects Workshop

March 19–20, 2001 National Academy of Sciences Washington, D.C.

Agenda

Monday, March 19

0800–0915

Opening Plenary Session

0800–0830

Introductions, Purpose of Workshop, Origin of the Project

Jerry Schubel

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)

Page 58
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2002. A Process for Setting, Managing, and Monitoring Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects: Special Report 262. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11367.
×

 

have invented new or modified existing techniques to make dredging more environmentally sensitive. This session focused on the engineering aspects of dredging and explored alternatives and complements to windows as the tool for protecting resources.

Facilitator: Ram K. Mohan

 

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 variability of resources. Issues such as life histories, key assumptions, end points, and parameters for variability were discussed.

Facilitator: Michael P. Weinstein

1200–1300

Lunch

1300–1400

Plenary Session

Reports were presented from the two morning breakouts. Following 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 involvement in the process of establishing environmental windows. Panelists from the National Marine Fisheries Service, USACE, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, and the ports presented tools that have been used to coordinate agency involvement in setting dredging windows. All participants were asked to critique the tools and provide recommendations for improving the process. Discussion topics included timing of agency input, use of programmatic approaches, and means of resolving disputes over science or interpretation.

Facilitators: 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 confidence level with regard to the certainty and uncertainty of impacts on living resources resulting from dredging. The focus was on both the species and essential habitat that supports the

Page 59
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2002. A Process for Setting, Managing, and Monitoring Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects: Special Report 262. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11367.
×

 

species. Data and research needed for evaluating dredging windows 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 versus other strategies for protecting resources. The session culminated 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 USACE, 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. Bokuniewicz

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 framework were heard. Following the reports, a panel comprised of representatives from USACE, EPA, NOAA, and a state environmental agency were asked to comment on the results.

Page 60
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2002. A Process for Setting, Managing, and Monitoring Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects: Special Report 262. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11367.
×
Page 61
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2002. A Process for Setting, Managing, and Monitoring Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects: Special Report 262. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11367.
×

Neville Burt

HR Wallingford

Howberry Park

Wallingford, Oxfordshire 0X10 8BA

England

01491 822348

01491 832233 (fax)

nev@hrwallingford.co.uk


Joedy Cambridge

Senior Program Officer

Technical Activities Division

Transportation Research Board

2101 Constitution Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20418

202/334-2167

202/334-2030 (fax)

jcambrid@nas.edu


Neil Christerson

National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration

NOS HQTR Route N/ORM3

1315 East-West Highway

Silver Spring, MD 20910-3282

301/713-3113

neil.christerson@noaa.gov


Karen Chytalo

Section Chief of Marine Habitat Protection

NYSDEC

205 Belle Meade Road, Suite 1

East Setauket, NY 11733

631/444-0430

Doug Clarke

Wetlands & Coastal Ecology Branch (EE-W)

U.S. Army Engineer Research & Development Center

3909 Halls Ferry Road

Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199

601/634-3770

clarked@wes.army.mil


Therese Conant

National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration

NMFS HQTR Route: F/PR3

1315 East-West Highway

Silver Spring, MD 20910-3282

301/713-1401

therese.conant@noaa.gov


James H. Cowan, Jr.

Dauphin Island Sea Laboratory

101 Bienville Blvd.

Dauphin Island, AL 36528

334/861-7535

334/861-7540 (fax)

jcowan@jaguarl.usouthal.edu


Deborah Cunningham

Environmental Protection Specialist

DOT/Maritime Administration

400 7th Street, SW, Room 7204

Washington, DC 20590

202/366-5475

202/366-6988 (fax)

debbie.cunningham@marad.dot.gov

Page 62
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2002. A Process for Setting, Managing, and Monitoring Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects: Special Report 262. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11367.
×

Robert J. Diaz

Professor of Marine Science

Virginia Institute of Marine Science

College of William and Mary

P.O. Box 1346

Gloucester Point, VA 23062

804/684-7364

804/684-7399 (fax)

diaz@vims.edu


David Dwinell

San Francisco District

USACE

333 Market Street

San Francisco, CA 94105

415/977-8471

415/977-8495 (fax)

ddwinell@spd.usace.army.mil


Charles H. Ellis III

Environmental Review Coordinator

Virginia Dept. of Environmental Quality

629 East Main Street

Richmond, VA 23219

804/698-4488

804/698-4319 (fax)

chellis@deq.state.va.us


Charles E. Epifanio

College of Marine Studies

University of Delaware

700 Pilottown Road

Lewes, DE 19958

302/645-4272

302/645-4007 (fax)

epi@udel.edu


Ellen Fisher

Wisconsin Dept. of Transportation

4802 Sheboygan Avenue, P.O. Box 7910

Madison, WI 53707-7910


Thomas Fredette

U.S. Army Engineer District, New England

CENAE-CO-R-PT

696 Virginia Road

Concord, MA 01742-2751

978/318-8291

thomas.j.fredette@nae02.usace.army.mil


Marcelo H. Garcia

Professor

Dept. of Civil & Environmental Engineering

University of Illinois at Urbana—Champaign

205 North Mathews Avenue

Urbana, IL 61801

217/244-4484

217/333-0687 (fax)

mhgarcia@uiuc.edu


Cynthia Gillis

Land & Sea Environmental Consultants Ltd.

620-33 Alderney Drive

Dartmouth, Nova Scotia B2Y 2N4

Canada

902/463-0114

902/466-5743 (fax)

Page 63
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2002. A Process for Setting, Managing, and Monitoring Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects: Special Report 262. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11367.
×

Richard J. Gimello

Executive Director

New Jersey Dept. of Transportation

New Jersey Maritime Resources

28 West State St., 8th Floor

P.O. Box 837

Trenton, NJ 08625-0837

tp1gime@dot.state.nj.us


Bob Greenlee

District Fisheries Biologist

Virginia Dept. of Game and Inland Fisheries

5806 Mooretown Road

Williamsburg, VA 23188

757/253-4170

rgreenlee@dgif.state.va.us


Thomas A. Grigalunas

Dept. of Environmental and Natural Resources

University of Rhode Island

319 Lippitt Hall

Kingston, RI 02881-0814

401/874-4572

401/782-4766 (fax)

grig@uri.edu


Tom Gulbransen

Regional Manager

Battelle

3500 Sunrise Highway

Great River, NY 11739

631/277-6300

631/277-6333 (fax)

gulbran@battelle.org


Lyndell Hales

Coastal/Hydraulics Lab

USACE, Research/ Development Center

ATTN: CEERD-HV-T

3909 Halls Ferry Road

Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199

601/634-3207

601/634-4253 (fax)

halesl@wes.army.mil


Frank L. Hamons

Manager, Harbors Dept.

Maryland Port Administration

Maritime Center II at Point Breeze

2310 Broening Highway

Baltimore, MD 21224-6621

410/631-1102

fhamons@mdot.state.dot.us


George A. Hart

Environmental Coordinator Navigation

Seattle District

Army Corps of Engineers

P.O. Box 3755

Seattle, WA 98124-3755

206/764-3641

206/764-4470 (fax)

george.a.hart@acse.army.mil


Donald Hayes

Associate Professor

Civil and Environmental Engineering

122 South Central Campus Drive, Suite 104

Salt Lake City, UT 84112

801/581-7110

801/585-5477 (fax)

hayes@eng.utah.edu

Page 64
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2002. A Process for Setting, Managing, and Monitoring Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects: Special Report 262. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11367.
×

Robert D. Henry

Environmental Program Administrator

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)

rhenry@state.de.us


Kurt Hess

Science and Operations Officer

National Ocean Service, NOAA

1315 East-West Highway

Silver Spring, MD 20910

301/713-2801

kurt.hess@noaa.gov


Kris Hoellen

Study Director

Studies and Information Services

Transportation Research Board

2101 Constitution Avenue, NW, GR346I

Washington, DC 20418

202/334-3385

202/334-2527 (fax)

khoellen@nas.edu


Frances E. Holland

Project Assistant

Studies and Information Services

Transportation Research Board

2101 Constitution Avenue, NW, GR322D

Washington, DC 20418

202/334-2332

202/334-2527 (fax)

fholland@nas.edu


Edward D. Houde

Center of Environmental Science

Chesapeake Biological Laboratory

University of Maryland

Solomons, MD 20688

410/326-7224

410/326-7318 (fax)

ehoude@cbl.umces.edu


Ellie Irons

EIR Program Manager

Dept. of Environmental Quality

629 East Main Street, Room 631

Richmond, VA 23219

804/698-4325

804/698-4319 (fax)

elirons@deq.state.va.us


Ellen Joslin Johnck

Executive Director

Bay Planning Coalition

10 Lombard Street, Suite 408

San Francisco, CA 94111

415/397-2293

415/986-0694 (fax)

staff@bayplanningcoalition.org

Page 65
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2002. A Process for Setting, Managing, and Monitoring Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects: Special Report 262. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11367.
×

Mark Johnson

DEP Fisheries Division

333 Ferry Road

P.O. Box 719

Old Lyme, CT 06371

860/434-6043

mark.johnson@po.state.ct.us


William Kirby-Smith

Nicholas School of the Environment

Duke Marine Laboratory

135 Duke Lab Road

Beaufort, NC 28516

252/504-7577

252/504-7648 (fax)

wwks@duke.edu


Walter Lee

Bean Stuyvesant, LLC

1055 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 520

New Orleans, LA 70130

504/587-8701

504/587-8717 (fax)

wlee@cfbean.com


Ken Lindeman

Senior Scientist

Environmental Defense

14630 SW 144th Terrace

Miami, FL 33186

305/256-9508

305/256-4488 (fax)

klinderman@environmentaldefense.org


Mark Ludwig

NOAA/NMFS

212 Rogers Avenue

Milford, CT 06460-6499

203/783-4228


Tony MacDonald

Coastal States Organization

444 North Capitol Street, NW, Suite 322

Washington, DC 20001

202/508-3860


Scott MacKnight

Land & Sea Environmental Consultants Ltd.

620-33 Alderney Drive

Dartmouth, Nova Scotia B2Y 2N4

Canada

902/463-0114

902/466-5743 (fax)


Ram K. Mohan

Vice President & Director of Coastal Engineering

Gahagan & Bryant Associates

9008-0 Yellow Brick Road

Baltimore, MD 21237

410/682-5595

410/682-2175 (fax)

rkmohan@gba-inc.com


William P. Muellenhoff

Regional Manager, Water Resources

Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation

133 Federal Street, 6th Floor

Boston, MA 02110

617/457-8239

617/457-8498 (fax)

wmuellenhoff@fwenc.com

Page 66
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2002. A Process for Setting, Managing, and Monitoring Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects: Special Report 262. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11367.
×

Jon Nieman

Vice President

Weeks Marine

455 Devon Drive

Mandeville, LA 70448

504/461-9200

jgnieman@weeksmarine.com


Thomas P. O’Connor

National Status and Trends

NOAA, N/SC11

1315 East-West Highway

Silver Spring, MD 20910

301/713-3028

tom.oconnor@noaa.gov


Edward O’Donnell

U.S. Army Engineer District, New England

CENAE-PP-M

696 Virginia Road

Concord, MA 01742-2751

978/318-8375

edward.g.o’donnel@nae02.usace.army.mil


John Odenkirk

Fisheries Biologist

Virginia Fish & Game

1320 Belman Road

Fredericksburg, VA 22401

540/899-4169

540/899-4381 (fax)

jodenkirk@dgif.state.va.us


James J. Opaluch

Dept. of Environmental and Natural Resources

University of Rhode Island

319 Lippitt Hall

Kingston, RI 02881-0814

401/874-4572

401/782-4766 (fax)

jimo@uri.edu


Brian Pawlak

Marine Habitat Specialist

NOAA Fisheries

1315 East-West Highway, SSMC 3

Silver Spring, MD 20910

301/713-2325

301/713-1043 (fax)

brian.t.pawlak@noaa.gov


Richard K. Peddicord

Dick Peddicord & Co., Inc.

P.O. Box 300

Weems, VA 22576

804/438-5658

dp@rivnet.net


Joseph Porrovecchio

Principal

Hart Crowser

75 Montgomery Street, 5th Floor

Jersey City, NJ 70302

201/985-8100

201/985-8182 (fax)

prv@hartcrowser.com

Page 67
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2002. A Process for Setting, Managing, and Monitoring Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects: Special Report 262. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11367.
×

Christopher J. Powell

Senior Fisheries Biologist

Rhode Island Division of Fish and Wildlife

235 Promenade Street

Providence, RI 02908-5767

401/294-4524


Robert Randall

Professor & Director

Center for Dredging Studies

Wisenbaker Engineering Research Center

Room 235

Ocean Engineering Program

Civil Engineering Department

Texas A&M University

College Station, TX 77843-3136

979/845-4568

979/862-8162 (fax)

r-randall@tamu.edu


Denise J. Reed

Associate Professor

Dept. of Geology and Geophysics

University of New Orleans

New Orleans, LA 70148

504/280-7395

504/280-7396 (fax)

djreed@uno.edu


Susan Roberts

Program Officer

Ocean Studies Board

National Research Council

2101 Constitution Avenue, NW, HA470

Washington, DC 20418

202/334-1729

202/334-2885 (fax)

sroberts@nas.edu


Jackie Savitz

Coastal Alliance

215 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20003

202/546-9554


Jerry R. Schubel

President and Chief Executive Officer

New England Aquarium

Central Wharf

Boston, MA 02110-3399

617/973-5220

617/973-0276 (fax)

jschubel@neaq.org


Jack P. Schwartz

Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries

Annisquam River Marine Fisheries Station

30 Emerson Avenue

Gloucester, MA 01930

978/282-0308

617/727-3337 (fax)

jack.schwartz@state.ma.us


Suzanne Schwartz

U.S. EPA

401 M Street, SW

Mail Code 4504F

Washington, DC 20460

202/260-1952


Carrie Selberg

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission

1444 Eye Street, NW, 6th Floor

Washington, DC 20005

202/289-6400

Page 68
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2002. A Process for Setting, Managing, and Monitoring Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects: Special Report 262. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11367.
×

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

Page 69
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2002. A Process for Setting, Managing, and Monitoring Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects: Special Report 262. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11367.
×

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

Page 70
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2002. A Process for Setting, Managing, and Monitoring Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects: Special Report 262. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11367.
×

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

Page 71
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2002. A Process for Setting, Managing, and Monitoring Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects: Special Report 262. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11367.
×

APPENDIX D
Environmental Windows Workshop Dredging Project Case Study Data Form

Page 72
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2002. A Process for Setting, Managing, and Monitoring Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects: Special Report 262. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11367.
×
Page 73
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2002. A Process for Setting, Managing, and Monitoring Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects: Special Report 262. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11367.
×
Page 74
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2002. A Process for Setting, Managing, and Monitoring Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects: Special Report 262. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11367.
×

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!

Page 75
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2002. A Process for Setting, Managing, and Monitoring Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects: Special Report 262. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11367.
×
Page 76
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2002. A Process for Setting, Managing, and Monitoring Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects: Special Report 262. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11367.
×

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!

Page 77
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2002. A Process for Setting, Managing, and Monitoring Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects: Special Report 262. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11367.
×

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!

Page 78
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2002. A Process for Setting, Managing, and Monitoring Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects: Special Report 262. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11367.
×

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!

Page 38
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2002. A Process for Setting, Managing, and Monitoring Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects: Special Report 262. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11367.
×
Page 38
Page 39
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2002. A Process for Setting, Managing, and Monitoring Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects: Special Report 262. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11367.
×
Page 39
Page 40
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2002. A Process for Setting, Managing, and Monitoring Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects: Special Report 262. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11367.
×
Page 40
Page 41
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2002. A Process for Setting, Managing, and Monitoring Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects: Special Report 262. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11367.
×
Page 41
Page 42
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2002. A Process for Setting, Managing, and Monitoring Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects: Special Report 262. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11367.
×
Page 42
Page 43
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2002. A Process for Setting, Managing, and Monitoring Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects: Special Report 262. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11367.
×
Page 43
Page 44
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2002. A Process for Setting, Managing, and Monitoring Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects: Special Report 262. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11367.
×
Page 44
Page 45
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2002. A Process for Setting, Managing, and Monitoring Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects: Special Report 262. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11367.
×
Page 45
Page 46
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2002. A Process for Setting, Managing, and Monitoring Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects: Special Report 262. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11367.
×
Page 46
Page 47
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2002. A Process for Setting, Managing, and Monitoring Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects: Special Report 262. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11367.
×
Page 47
Page 48
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2002. A Process for Setting, Managing, and Monitoring Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects: Special Report 262. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11367.
×
Page 48
Page 49
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2002. A Process for Setting, Managing, and Monitoring Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects: Special Report 262. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11367.
×
Page 49
Page 50
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2002. A Process for Setting, Managing, and Monitoring Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects: Special Report 262. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11367.
×
Page 50
Page 51
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2002. A Process for Setting, Managing, and Monitoring Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects: Special Report 262. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11367.
×
Page 51
Page 52
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2002. A Process for Setting, Managing, and Monitoring Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects: Special Report 262. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11367.
×
Page 52
Page 53
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2002. A Process for Setting, Managing, and Monitoring Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects: Special Report 262. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11367.
×
Page 53
Page 54
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2002. A Process for Setting, Managing, and Monitoring Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects: Special Report 262. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11367.
×
Page 54
Page 55
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2002. A Process for Setting, Managing, and Monitoring Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects: Special Report 262. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11367.
×
Page 55
Page 56
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2002. A Process for Setting, Managing, and Monitoring Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects: Special Report 262. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11367.
×
Page 56
Page 57
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2002. A Process for Setting, Managing, and Monitoring Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects: Special Report 262. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11367.
×
Page 57
Page 58
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2002. A Process for Setting, Managing, and Monitoring Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects: Special Report 262. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11367.
×
Page 58
Page 59
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2002. A Process for Setting, Managing, and Monitoring Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects: Special Report 262. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11367.
×
Page 59
Page 60
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2002. A Process for Setting, Managing, and Monitoring Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects: Special Report 262. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11367.
×
Page 60
Page 61
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2002. A Process for Setting, Managing, and Monitoring Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects: Special Report 262. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11367.
×
Page 61
Page 62
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2002. A Process for Setting, Managing, and Monitoring Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects: Special Report 262. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11367.
×
Page 62
Page 63
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2002. A Process for Setting, Managing, and Monitoring Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects: Special Report 262. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11367.
×
Page 63
Page 64
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2002. A Process for Setting, Managing, and Monitoring Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects: Special Report 262. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11367.
×
Page 64
Page 65
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2002. A Process for Setting, Managing, and Monitoring Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects: Special Report 262. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11367.
×
Page 65
Page 66
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2002. A Process for Setting, Managing, and Monitoring Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects: Special Report 262. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11367.
×
Page 66
Page 67
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2002. A Process for Setting, Managing, and Monitoring Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects: Special Report 262. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11367.
×
Page 67
Page 68
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2002. A Process for Setting, Managing, and Monitoring Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects: Special Report 262. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11367.
×
Page 68
Page 69
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2002. A Process for Setting, Managing, and Monitoring Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects: Special Report 262. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11367.
×
Page 69
Page 70
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2002. A Process for Setting, Managing, and Monitoring Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects: Special Report 262. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11367.
×
Page 70
Page 71
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2002. A Process for Setting, Managing, and Monitoring Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects: Special Report 262. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11367.
×
Page 71
Page 72
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2002. A Process for Setting, Managing, and Monitoring Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects: Special Report 262. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11367.
×
Page 72
Page 73
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2002. A Process for Setting, Managing, and Monitoring Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects: Special Report 262. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11367.
×
Page 73
Page 74
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2002. A Process for Setting, Managing, and Monitoring Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects: Special Report 262. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11367.
×
Page 74
Page 75
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2002. A Process for Setting, Managing, and Monitoring Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects: Special Report 262. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11367.
×
Page 75
Page 76
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2002. A Process for Setting, Managing, and Monitoring Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects: Special Report 262. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11367.
×
Page 76
Page 77
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2002. A Process for Setting, Managing, and Monitoring Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects: Special Report 262. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11367.
×
Page 77
Page 78
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." Transportation Research Board. 2002. A Process for Setting, Managing, and Monitoring Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects: Special Report 262. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11367.
×
Page 78
Next: Study Committee Biographical Information »
A Process for Setting, Managing, and Monitoring Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects: Special Report 262 Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!

TRB Special Report 262: A Process for Setting, Managing, and Monitoring Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects concludes that scientific information about risks to resources and technical options for reducing those risks was not being systematically incorporated into the dredging process. The process itself is complex and time-consuming because of the numerous federal and state agencies and interest groups involved. The committee recommended use of a broad-based decisionmaking process designed to engage stakeholders more effectively and to improve the scientific and technical basis for the decisions made.

Environmental windows are periods in which regulators have determined that the adverse impacts associated with dredging of waterways and disposal of the dredged materials 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 of 1969, resource agencies have requested environmental restrictions on dredging with increasing frequency. Today, more than 80 percent of federal contract dredging is subject to some type of restriction. At the request of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, TRB and the National Academies' Ocean Studies Board convened a committee to address concerns about the decision-making process for setting environmental windows.

Windows are intuitively simple means of reducing risk to biological resources from stressors generated during dredging and disposal activities, including entrainment of fish eggs and larvae, resuspension of contaminated sediments, habitat loss, and collisions with marine animals. The use of windows as a management tool, however, can have significant cost implications for both the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the local sponsors of dredging projects, delay project deadlines, and increase risk to dredging personnel by shifting projects to periods of potentially inclement weather and sea states.Special Report 262 Summary

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!