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
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.
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
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?
-
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.
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-
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?
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-
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.
-
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.
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
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
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
-
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.
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-
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.”
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.
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.
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
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) |
|
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 |
|
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. |
Neville Burt
HR Wallingford
Howberry Park
Wallingford, Oxfordshire 0X10 8BA
England
01491 822348
01491 832233 (fax)
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)
Neil Christerson
National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration
NOS HQTR Route N/ORM3
1315 East-West Highway
Silver Spring, MD 20910-3282
301/713-3113
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
Therese Conant
National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration
NMFS HQTR Route: F/PR3
1315 East-West Highway
Silver Spring, MD 20910-3282
301/713-1401
James H. Cowan, Jr.
Dauphin Island Sea Laboratory
101 Bienville Blvd.
Dauphin Island, AL 36528
334/861-7535
334/861-7540 (fax)
Deborah Cunningham
Environmental Protection Specialist
DOT/Maritime Administration
400 7th Street, SW, Room 7204
Washington, DC 20590
202/366-5475
202/366-6988 (fax)
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)
David Dwinell
San Francisco District
USACE
333 Market Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
415/977-8471
415/977-8495 (fax)
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)
Charles E. Epifanio
College of Marine Studies
University of Delaware
700 Pilottown Road
Lewes, DE 19958
302/645-4272
302/645-4007 (fax)
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)
Cynthia Gillis
Land & Sea Environmental Consultants Ltd.
620-33 Alderney Drive
Dartmouth, Nova Scotia B2Y 2N4
Canada
902/463-0114
902/466-5743 (fax)
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
Bob Greenlee
District Fisheries Biologist
Virginia Dept. of Game and Inland Fisheries
5806 Mooretown Road
Williamsburg, VA 23188
757/253-4170
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)
Tom Gulbransen
Regional Manager
Battelle
3500 Sunrise Highway
Great River, NY 11739
631/277-6300
631/277-6333 (fax)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
Kurt Hess
Science and Operations Officer
National Ocean Service, NOAA
1315 East-West Highway
Silver Spring, MD 20910
301/713-2801
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)
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)
Edward D. Houde
Center of Environmental Science
Chesapeake Biological Laboratory
University of Maryland
Solomons, MD 20688
410/326-7224
410/326-7318 (fax)
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)
Ellen Joslin Johnck
Executive Director
Bay Planning Coalition
10 Lombard Street, Suite 408
San Francisco, CA 94111
415/397-2293
415/986-0694 (fax)
Mark Johnson
DEP Fisheries Division
333 Ferry Road
P.O. Box 719
Old Lyme, CT 06371
860/434-6043
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)
Walter Lee
Bean Stuyvesant, LLC
1055 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 520
New Orleans, LA 70130
504/587-8701
504/587-8717 (fax)
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)
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)
Jon Nieman
Vice President
Weeks Marine
455 Devon Drive
Mandeville, LA 70448
504/461-9200
Thomas P. O’Connor
National Status and Trends
NOAA, N/SC11
1315 East-West Highway
Silver Spring, MD 20910
301/713-3028
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)
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)
Brian Pawlak
Marine Habitat Specialist
NOAA Fisheries
1315 East-West Highway, SSMC 3
Silver Spring, MD 20910
301/713-2325
301/713-1043 (fax)
Richard K. Peddicord
Dick Peddicord & Co., Inc.
P.O. Box 300
Weems, VA 22576
804/438-5658
Joseph Porrovecchio
Principal
Hart Crowser
75 Montgomery Street, 5th Floor
Jersey City, NJ 70302
201/985-8100
201/985-8182 (fax)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
Nils E. Stolpe
Director of Communications
Garden State Seafood Association
3840 Terwood Drive
Doylestown, PA 18901
215/345-4790
215/345-4869 (fax)
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)
Steve Thorp
Program Manager
Great Lakes Commission
400 4th Street
Ann Arbor, MI 48103
734/665-9135
734/665-4370 (fax)
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)
Dennis Urso
Vice President
Gahagan and Bryant & Associates
9008 Yellow Brick Road, Unit 0
Baltimore, MD 21237
410/682-5595
410/682-2175 (fax)
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)
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)
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)
Katharine F. Wellman
Battelle Seattle Research Center
4500 San Point Way, NE
Seattle, WA 98105
206/284-2413
206/528-3552 (fax)
Sandra T. Whitehouse
Environmental Consultant to the House of Representatives
32 Elmgrove Avenue
Providence, RI 02906
401/751-7229
401/421-3376 (fax)
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)
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)
John Wolflin
Field Supervisor
Chesapeake Bay Field Office
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
177 Cochrane Drive
Annapolis, MD 21401
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!
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!
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!
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!