Dredging and Dredged Material Management by jdywqj88863j

VIEWS: 76 PAGES: 20

									            South Shore Estuary Reserve
              Technical Report Series



Dredging and Dredged Material
        Management



                     August, 1997




 Prepared for the South Shore Estuary Reserve Council
      by the New York State Department of State
Acknowledgements

This report is one in a series of technical reports prepared by the Department of State or its consultants as baseline
information and considered by the South Shore Estuary Reserve Council during preparation of a comprehensive
management plan for the Reserve. Members of the Technical Advisory Committee and Citizens Advisory
Committee (see end of report) contributed information and insights throughout the preparation of these reports.

George E. Pataki, Governor
Randy A. Daniels, New York State Secretary of State

South Shore Estuary Reserve Council Members/Designees          New York State Department of State
                                                               Division of Coastal Resources
Randy A. Daniels, Council Chair/George R. Stafford
Robert J. Gaffney, Suffolk County Executive/George Proios      George R. Stafford, Director
Thomas S. Gulotta, Nassau County Executive/Dan C. Fucci        Rodney McNeil, Project Manager
Bruce Nyman, City Manager, City of Long Beach/Joe Fabrizio     Dennis Mildner (Water Resources)
Richard V. Guardino, Supervisor, Town of Hempstead/            Jeffrey Zappieri (Living Resources)
          Ronald Masters/Mike Foley                            Nancy Rucks (Land Use/Embayment Use/Underwater Lands)
John Venditto, Supervisor, Town of Oyster Bay/                 Peter Lauridsen (Geographic Information System)
          James M. Byrne, P.E./Nancy Kearney
Richard H. Schaffer, Jr., Supervisor, Town of Babylon/         Other Contributing Staff: Fred Anders; John Bartow; D. Peter Berical;
          Richard Groh                                         Paul R. Churchhill; Fitzroy Collins; Susan DiDonato; John Herring;
Peter McGowan, Supervisor, Town of Islip/Alan Svoboda          Jeffrey Herter; Charles McCaffrey; Nikifor Nikiforov; Laurissa Parent;
John Jay LaValle, Supervisor, Town of Brookhaven/              Kenneth Smith; Lee York; and Thomas Zyskowski
          Jeffrey Kassner
Vincent Cannuscio, Supervisor, Town of Southampton/            Other Contributors
          Marty Shea
William Glacken, Mayor, Village of Freeport                    Patrick Dooley (Technical Advisory Committee support)
Jeff Fullmer, Chair, Citizens Advisory Committee               Veronica Kemler (Citizens Advisory Committee support)
Cornelia Schlenk, Chair, Technical Advisory Committee
Robert Grover, Great South Bay Audubon Society                 SUNY Albany: Floyd Henderson and Matthew Kohberger (Geographic
Jill Ozarski, Long Island Chapter of the Nature Conservancy    Information System and Remote Sensing)
Marvin Geller, Dean, Marine Sciences Research Center,
          SUNY Stony Brook/William M. Wise                     Previous Council Members/Designees: Ken Cynar (Nassau County);
Patrick H. Augustine, New York Sportsfishing Federation        Felix J. Grucci (former Supervisor of the Town of Brookhaven);
Mitch Pally, Long Island Association/Marion Cohn               Anthony Limoli (Town of Islip); Nick Manzari (Captree Boatman's
Robert Wieboldt, Long Island Builders Institute, Inc.          Association); George Nussbaum (former Mayor of the Village of
Christopher Squeri, New York Marine Trades Association         Massapequa Park); and Adeline Quinn (City of Long Beach)
Carole Neidich-Ryder, North Shore Audubon Society
Gregory LoVece, Brookhaven Bayman's Association                Former Department of State Staff: Robert Crafa; Diane Hamilton-Bell;
                                                               Susan Dzurica; Thomas Hart; and Joseph Sicluna
Council Advisors
                                                               The South Shore Estuary Reserve Council acknowledges the
Erin M. Crotty, Commissioner, NYS Department of                dedication of former Secretary of State Alexander “Sandy” Treadwell
Environmental Conservation/Gordon Colvin/Karen Chytalo         over the last five years to bring the Plan to fruition.
Bernadette Castro, Commissioner, NYS Office of Parks,
Recreation and Historic Preservation/Gary Lawton




                                Preparation of this plan was financially aided by: the New
                                York State Environmental Protection Fund; New York State
                                legislative member initiatives; and a grant from the U.S.
                                Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
                                Administration, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource
                                Management, under the Coastal Zone Management Act of
                                1972, as amended.
Introduction

This working paper proposes to establish a partnership to develop a cooperative approach
to dredging projects and dredged material management in the South Shore Estuary
Reserve. It is based on an investigation of embayment uses conducted by the Land
Use/Embayment Use/ Underwater Lands Subcommittee and is prepared in response to
the South Shore Estuary Reserve Council’s request for specific information regarding
dredging in the estuary.

Article 46 of the Executive Law created the South Shore Estuary Reserve Council and
required it to “... prepare a comprehensive management plan and make recommendations
to preserve, protect and enhance the natural, recreational, economic and educational
resources of the reserve...” The Act directs that the plan contains the following key
elements related to dredging:

       “Identification and evaluation of existing regulatory and management
       programs, as well as all agencies having any jurisdiction within the reserve
       which affect land use and activities within the reserve;” 1

       ”An assessment of dredging and navigation needs in the South Shore
       Estuary taking into account environmental impact and public safety;” 2
and,
       “Recommendations for institutional arrangements to coordinate and improve
       management of land and water resources, to maximize efficiency such as
       coordinating review and to adopt uniform policies among agencies where
       appropriate.” 3

These requirements are reflected in the Shore Estuary Reserve Council’s Goal 1: “Achieve
integrated comprehensive and coordinated management of the estuary.” This goal
includes the following objectives:

       “Develop, implement and periodically update a comprehensive management
       plan for the South Shore Estuary;”

       “Provide direction for federal and state agencies, and local governments to
       protect, preserve and properly mange the natural, economic and cultural
       resources of the South Shore Estuary;”



       1
           Executive Law Article 46, §(f)
       2
           Executive Law Article 46, §(k)
       3
           Executive Law Article 46, §(q)

                                            1
       “Coordinate and provide a comprehensive view of activities throughout the
       South Shore Estuary;”

       “Coordinate government reviews of proposed projects and activities, and
       adopt uniform policies for management of the estuary;

       “Increase enforcement of laws and regulations pertaining to preservation and
       management of resources;

       “Develop and implement a coordinate estuary-wide research program;
and,
       “Provide for greater public participation in resolving issues affecting the
       South Shore Estuary.”

As an initial step in achieving the above goals and objectives it is recommended that a
detailed assessment of dredging issues be undertaken to fully understand the geographical
and institutional extent of dredging and dredged material management problems. To
begin, interested agencies should form a partnership to clearly identify issues, conflicts and
opportunities and research needs relative to dredging in the estuary. The primary
mechanism for developing the statement of issues should include conducting surveys and
interviews with relevant federal and State agencies; county, town and local governments;
the private sector and environmental groups. The product of this initial step would be a
report on the results of the issues investigation and a detailed work program for Phase 2
of the Comprehensive Management Plan. The time frame for this initial investigation is six
months to one year.

Background

Coastal communities must often balance economic development goals with broad
environmental concerns. Maintaining this balance can be especially difficult when the
pressure for development conflicts sharply with the desire to maintain ecosystem
productivity. The need to dredge channels and harbors is an example of an activity that
must be carefully balanced against its potential impacts on the region's environment.

Although balancing channel and harbor maintenance with ecosystem protection is an
estuary-wide issue, dredging has not been treated from a regional management
perspective. Over the years, responsibility for planning and carrying out dredging projects
has been split between a variety of agencies at the federal, State and local levels with
disparate of the study will be presented at a regional workshop for public review and
comment objectives and criteria. To advance a regional approach to dredging and dredged
material management, this paper looks at a number of the concerns that can be
considered management issues for the entire South Shore Estuary Reserve, outlines some
of the current dredging practices and offers a proposal for future action.



                                              2
Beginning in 1908, approximately thirty million cubic yards of dredge spoil was placed on
Long Beach Island. In the 1920's, the Jones Beach State Park development program
moved thirty-eight million yards of fill to reclaim and stabilize land (USACE 1995). Shoal
waters were dredged to create deep water channels. Parkways and bridges were
constructed. In Nassau and Suffolk Counties the most extensive dredging activity closely
corresponded with the development of Long Island's coastal communities in the period
after World War II. Since the 1950's, thousands of acres of wetland has been obliterated
by canal excavation, roadway construction, and channel dredging. Huge amounts of spoil
were disposed by directly filling wetlands to create fast lands, much of which was
subsequently developed. (SSER Wetlands Technical Report, 1997)

During the years 1961 to 1971, "approximately 75,000,000 cubic yards of material were
dredged from the shore zone, resulting in the filling of over 7,000 acres of shoreline”
(O'Connor, 1973). Since the 1980s, as development leveled off, both the volume and
number of dredging projects have declined reflecting the shift from channel creation to
maintenance (DGEIS,I-3).

The primary authority for regulating dredging projects is vested in the US Army Corps of
Engineers (ACOE) pursuant to the Rivers and Harbor Act of 1899, as amended. This
federal statute gave the ACOE the authority to issue permits for dredging, filling or other
activities in navigable waters. The ACOE was responsible for carrying out a number of
maintenance dredging operations, most notably at Jones and Fire Island Inlets. To support
their activities as well as other dredging projects, the ACOE constructed spoil disposal
areas, many of which were later developed for private uses.

One of the effects of the passage of the Clean Water Act (33 USC § 1251 et seq.) in 1972
was to increase the number of interests involved in decisions regarding dredging. The Act
regulates the discharge of all pollutants, including those resulting from dredging and
disposal of dredged material, into the navigable waters of the United States. Its purpose
is to protect water quality by regulating the discharge of pollutants into navigable waters,
including wetlands.

Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC § 1344) governs the discharge of dredged
or fill material in the navigable waters of the United States. This section authorizes the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator, in conjunction with the ACOE, to
develop criteria for the designation of dredged material disposal sites. The disposal of
dredged material in such waters requires a Clean Water Act section 404 permit. The
ACOE is charged with the issuance of section 404 permits for discharge of dredged
material at specified disposal sites within the state's territorial limits. The EPA may deny
or restrict the use of the disposal sites whenever it determines that the use of the sites
would result in adverse effects on water quality.

Additionally, section 401 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC § 1341) requires certification
from the state in which the dredging and/or disposal occurs that the discharges from
dredging projects will meet the state's water quality standards, prior to the issuance of an

                                             3
ACOE permit. The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) is
responsible for overseeing certification.

The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 requires the sponsor of a dredging project to
certify, as part of its ACOE permit application, that the proposed dredging and dredged
material disposal will be consistent with the approved State Coastal Management Program.
The NYS Department of State's (DOS) Coastal Management Program (CMP) makes
consistency determinations for dredging projects. If the project is found by the State to be
inconsistent with applicable policies and purposes of the CMP, the ACOE is prohibited from
issuing the permit.

In addition to federal and State interests, local communities also play a role in the
management of dredging and disposal of sediments. The September 1995, Suffolk County
Department of Public Works (SCDPW) Maintenance Dredging Projects DGEIS, lists the
ownership of underwater lands in the County and outlines some of the reports and
assessments that are required to obtain a local permit to dredge.

According to the DGEIS:

       The town(s) of...Brookhaven require(s) the long form version of the
       Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) and additional public hearings for
       each project...The Town of Southampton requires a permit...The Town of
       Islip...require(s) local permits but the permits are obtained by the SCDPW
       from the town trustees. The SCDPW is not required to obtain permits for
       [county] dredging operations in Babylon...

In addition, special use permits are required when work is done on federal lands such as
Fire Island National Seashore and Morton National Wildlife Refuge.

Unlike Suffolk County, Nassau County government has no existing role with respect to
dredging in the South Shore Estuary. Principal responsibility for dredging of navigation
channels not maintained by the ACOE or State in Nassau County rests with the towns of
Hempstead and Oyster Bay. The Town of Hempstead operates an ongoing dredging
program using Town-owned equipment. The Town of Oyster Bay, which is currently
pursuing State approvals for conducting maintenance dredging, does not own or operate
dredging equipment and will contract for needed dredging work.

In the Town of Hempstead within Hempstead Bays, there is an extensive network of
navigation channels through undeveloped salt marsh, tidal flats, dredged material disposal
islands and open water. Maintenance of navigation channels is of particular importance
because of the shallow water depths, ranging from one to three feet at mean low water in
many locations outside of the channels. For about 30 years, the Town’s Department of
Conservation and Waterways has operated a dredging program which has focused on the
removal of shoals that develop primarily at the intersection of navigation channels. Typical
projects involve dredging less than 1,000 cubic yards of material.

                                             4
In the Town of Oyster Bay within South Oyster Bay, maintenance dredging is particularly
important as the navigation channels are the primary areas of vessel activity. Water depths
outside of navigation channels are generally shallow, ranging from one to three feet at
mean low water. Six navigation channels are described in South Oyster Bay. The principal
channels are the State Boat Channel which runs along the edge of the embayment on the
bay side of Jones Island and the Shore (North) and Amity channels that outline the
perimeter of the bay. Natural changes to bay bottoms caused by tides, storms, and ice
movement have caused some channel shifting to occur throughout the bay.

The Town is responsible for maintenance dredging of the navigation channels (excepting
the State Boat Channel) and the 26 canal mouths along the mainland shoreline (for a
distance of 60 feet into each canal). Dredging in the upper reaches of the canals is the
responsibility of waterfront property owners. The last maintenance dredging projects were
undertaken in the mid-to-late 1980s.

Incorporating the views of different interests involved in dredging has been a persistent
problem for decision makers in the South Shore Estuary. In 1972, a report titled "Dredging
on Long Island," prepared for the Nassau Suffolk Regional Planning Board, found that the
basic decision of whether or not dredging ought to take place and under what conditions
was often made on the basis of a very narrow conception of the impact of dredging. (Dowd,
p.2) Two decades later, few mechanisms have been developed for incorporating all
affected interests into dredging decisions.

Part of the problem can be attributed to coordination among agencies that administer
dredging. The Suffolk County DGEIS expressed a "need for better agency cooperation and
coordination to avoid conflicts that arise from overlapping authorities." (I-85) Even at the
local level, coordination can be difficult where the ownership of underwater lands by towns
conflicts with other permit requirements for dredging projects. Coordination with respect
to structures and dredging affecting town-owned underwater lands will be necessary to
improve decisions taken among agencies that have differing perspectives and
responsibilities.

The dredging issues reflected in the regulatory process are further complicated by the
rising costs of dredging and disposal and the cost-sharing formulas that are now in use.
Under federal law, the local sponsor of a dredging project must provide the disposal site
for the material that has been removed from the channel. This can limit the alternatives that
are available and greatly increases the project costs. The present method for funding
dredging activities makes it very difficult to prioritize dredging and disposal in ways that
optimize public benefits from efficiency and environmental protection.

Since dredging is often needed for water dependent uses to exist in the embayments, it
is of great importance to the direction of future development in these areas. The problem
of documenting the benefits accruing from recreational boating and commercial fishing has
been difficult to assess in project planning for the five embayment subareas of the South
Shore Estuary Reserve. Lack of Local Waterfront Revitalization Programs, harbor

                                             5
management plans, and other local plans to establish a basis for embayment use,
management and regulation are serious drawbacks to effective planning for the
embayments.

Even where new development is not proposed, expansion of existing channels and basins
remains an important issue for embayment uses. Expansion is often advanced as a
measure to improve safety and support water dependent uses. The Suffolk County DGEIS
states that vessel access and safety are contingent on channel maintenance. (I-56) On the
other hand, the widening and deepening of channels can lead to increased boating activity
with heightened impacts on fragile aquatic resources. Increasing the depth and width of
channels has significant impact on benthic communities and greatly affects recolonization
of disturbed sites. The “...need to understand the linkages between the Estuary's
ecosystem resources and the local and regional economies," and "...recognition of the
ecological, navigation and other interrelationship that exist among the several
embayments" has been identified as a regional management issue. (Steadman 1997) A
regional analysis of the relationship between water dependent businesses and the natural
environment would help to foster improved decision making for determining the best
configuration for channels.

This analysis could also examine the natural shifting of channel locations due to influence
of tides, storms, and ice movement. At present these forces are not well understood, but
have significant effects on the need for dredging. The Suffolk County DGEIS points out that
under current conditions, the local authorities are sometimes only "informed of needed
maintenance when navigation has already become a problem." (I-9) In order to incorporate
the natural action of dynamic forces into the decision process, a better understanding of
tides, storms and other factors is needed.

The lack of data on sediment deposition rates, for example, can result in major navigational
threats. Great Gun Beach, a maintenance dredging project in Brookhaven, was scheduled
for 30 year maintenance dredging based on a calculated rate of accretion. Since actual
deposition was faster, the DGEIS states that the inlet should have been dredged "years
earlier." (I-10) Better information on natural processes would allow more effective decisions
to be made for the immediate and longer-term dredging and disposal needs of the region
and would make the scheduling and permit process more timely.

At the same time, impacts on natural habitats from human activities are not well
understood. The DOS has designated and mapped Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife
Habitats Statewide. Of the 31 designated along the south shore of Long Island, 29 are
located in the South Shore Estuary Reserve. Sufficient data on the potential impacts from
dredging and disposal projects on the plants and animals in these areas are not available.
This represents another important regional need.

A related issue concerns upland disposal of dredged material. As population density has
increased, and habitat concerns have emerged as a policy issue, upland disposal has
become less feasible. In fact, the Suffolk County DGEIS asserts that "there will be no

                                             6
upland disposal sites by the year 2000." (p.65) While the sediments dredged from waters
in Suffolk County have been considered to be relatively clean, more sensitive testing
methods could reveal toxic material that may preclude open water disposal without
remediation.

As conventional disposal options for dredged material (i.e., open water disposal, upland
placement) are becoming more limited, alternative methods of disposal must be
considered. Use of dredged material should be considered a desirable alternative to
disposal. Dredged material can be used for habitat restoration, beach nourishment,
recreational and commercial development and landfill cover. Dredged material that cannot
be put to these uses could still provide public benefits as construction material.

In recent years, there has been a great deal of interest in the use of waste materials and
by-products for construction purposes. The use of dredged material could increase space
in landfills for material that cannot be recycled; reduce the impacts from the mining and
processing of virgin material and also return positive economic and recreational benefits
to local communities from dredging projects.

Findings

Water dependent uses and the channels that serve them contribute to the local and
regional economy through tax revenue, job creation and boater expenditures. At the same
time, dredging projects to maintain marine access raise controversy due to costs, impacts
to the environment, lack of disposal sites and scheduling complications. Planning for
routine maintenance projects can turn contentious as economic and environmental
concerns clash.

Even where public support is present, authority over dredging is split between a number
of federal and State agencies, resulting in a complex regulatory environment. While
collaboration is emerging as a favored strategy to resolve conflict over environmental
policy, its application in the South Shore Estuary Reserve will require better tools for
decision making and implementation.

The need to continue maintenance dredging while minimizing adverse environmental
impacts warrants preparation of a comprehensive plan for managing dredging in the South
Estuary Reserve. A plan that will look at individual embayments, channels and upland
uses, as well as the estuary-wide implications of dredging can be a basic tool to advance
collaborative decision making for dredging projects, disposal and the beneficial use of
sediments. The South Shore Estuary Reserve Comprehensive Management Plan will
clearly benefit from a dredging and material management component.

The "Embayment Use Study" and "Summary of Management Issues and Constraints"
interim reports (Steadman, 1997) lists a number of estuary-wide issues related to
dredging.The dredging issues were prioritized and summarized by the Embayment Use


                                            7
Subcommittee as follows:

      There is an on going need for maintenance dredging to ensure navigation
      safety and the continued viability of water dependent uses especially in
      shallow areas. Dredging projects are limited by rising costs and the
      increasingly limited availability of funds.




                                         8
RECOMMENDATION

Phase 2

Dredging issues can be obstacles to the goal of achieving a balance between protecting
the estuary ecosystem and embayment use and development. In order to address
dredging issues the following next steps are recommended to be undertaken over the next
six months to one year while Phase 1 of the South Shore Estuary Reserve Comprehensive
Management Plan is under review.

Identify Issues, Conflicts and Opportunities

1.    Identify key interested parties to participate in a partnership to address South Shore
      Estuary Reserve dredging and dredged materials management issues. The
      partnership should be formed with those entities which currently participate in
      dredging decisions or activities as well as those with unresolved dredging issues
      and may include federal, State, municipal, and private interests.

2.    Solicit input from entities with an interest in dredging and dredged material
      management. This could take the form of surveys and interviews with key
      individuals as well as workshops.

3.    Based on the results of input from item two and existing information, prepare an
      issue paper describing dredging problems, conflicts and opportunities. With the
      partnership members, identify the priority issues to be the focus of the Phase 2
      Comprehensive Management Plan. Recommend solutions to problems and
      opportunities which can be implemented without additional study to improve the
      dredging management or use.

4.    Prepare a detailed work program outlining a focused study to address the highest
      priority dredging issues and research needs to be undertaken in the next phase of
      the Comprehensive Management Plan.

A proposed work program has been developed and is included in this paper for discussion
and guidance in developing a detailed dredging work program for Phase 2 of the
Comprehensive Management Plan.

Additional Information and Analysis Needs

In addition to considering the items identified in the Embayment Use Study Draft Final
Report, the following items are proposed as additional areas of study. They are based on
the research conducted by Geoff Steadman and comments received from the
Subcommittee and Technical Advisory Committee and as part of the initial review of the
South Shore Estuary Reserve Dredging and Material Management Draft Paper. They are


                                            9
included here for future reference.

!     It is important to understand the impacts (positive and negative) of increased use
      of dredged material for purposes such as beach nourishment.
!     An analysis of the impact of omitting recreational benefits from the ACOE's
      cost/benefit analysis for federal navigation projects has in the region.
!     When describing dredging regulations, it is important to understand that today’s
      dredging regulations are stronger than those cited in the 1973 and 1979 reports.
!     Although Suffolk County is effective in soliciting input from the towns, dredging
      needs in the villages may need additional investigation.
!     Since disposal of dredged material is ever changing and disposal sites are
      disappearing, disposal is a critical area for additional investigation.
!     Restored wetlands are a valuable resource for assessing the feasibility of beneficial
      use projects, since many of the wetland restorations are former dredged disposal
      sites.
!     The effectiveness of the permit process in the South Shore Estuary Reserve needs
      to be evaluated.
!     A proactive strategy to identify areas that are under development pressure to
      undertake new dredging (e.g., Terrel River) should be developed.
!     The right of access, as described in the Underwater Lands Report, needs to be
      addressed as it relates to dredging.
!     Town of Brookhaven: Track One, Task 1 should include a reevaluation of dredging
      windows. This reevaluation should focus on determining thresholds based on the
      sediment volume and sediment grain size for requiring dredging windows and
      should be done in the context of the biological resources that are likely to be
      specifically impacted by the dredging.
!     Suffolk County: Analyze dredging as an environmental modification alternative to
      achieve water quality and habitat benefits, including the following research
      questions:
      —       What factors control circulation in tidal creeks, canals and small embayments
              that are tributary to larger coastal water bodies?
      —       What methods can be employed to measure flushing rates? Identify the
              expertise required, relative cost considerations, etc. for each method.
      —       Is there any readily implementable, inexpensive methods that can be used
              to assess flushing characteristics of small water bodies? What data should
              be collected? How?
      —       Can criteria be developed to assess the extent to which dredging can
              improve flushing in a particular water body using these methods?
      —       Test selected methods and criteria by conducting a demonstration project(s)
              at a tributary(ies) with limited tidal flushing and water quality problems.
              Determine the extent that flushing actually changes as a result of dredging.
              Is water quality improved to the extent desired?
      —       If feasible, develop protocols that can be used to assess utility of dredging
              as an environmental modification alternative for enhancing water quality at
              similar locations.

                                           10
                         PROPOSAL FOR A
             DREDGING AND MATERIALS MANAGEMENT PLAN

Based on the results of the above described investigation, the Council may determine that
additional research is necessary. The following proposal suggests preliminary objectives,
project formulation and a proposed work program for preparation of a dredging and
materials management plan.

Objectives

      1.     Implement a region-wide approach for dredging and dredged material
             management in the South Shore Estuary Reserve that will maintain
             navigation safety, ensure the viability of water dependent uses, address the
             issue of increasing project costs and funding of dredging and disposal,
             identify the public benefits of dredging for recreational purposes and develop
             guidelines for maintaining environmental quality.

      2.      Develop guidance for projects to simultaneously remediate environmental
              damage and develop the local economy through specific embayment
              (demonstration) projects and create a framework for continuing and
              expanding this effort.

      3.      Identify a regional group to develop strategies for the beneficial use of
              dredged materials as an alternative to disposal. [For a description of
              beneficial uses of dredged material, see Appendix A]

      4.      Develop a data base of land use information which identifies existing
              dredged spoil sites, water dependent use areas and other land uses which
              relate to dredging issues, to support comprehensive planning and
              management for dredging, disposal, remediation and beneficial use of
              dredged material.

      5.      Develop a coordinated and streamlined approach to dredging permits.

      6.      Function as a clearinghouse for dredging related information regarding water
              quality, habitats, public benefits, etc.

      7.      Develop cost-effective methods for funding dredging and disposal projects.

      8.      Develop a management framework for dredging and beneficial use of
              dredged material.


                                           11
       9.     Maintain the partnership through:

              —      federal, State, local, and private participation
              —      consensus-based decisions
              —      incorporating local expertise
              —      broad public participation
              —      providing water dependent businesses with information on dredging
                     issues

Project Formulation

The foregoing objectives can be implemented through a two-track process. The first track
will provide a plan to maintain navigation safety and ensure the viability of water dependent
uses that require regular maintenance dredging. The second track will develop alternatives
for the beneficial use of dredged material.

The partnership will identify potential funding sources, develop a schedule for completing
plan components and oversee the dredging management components of the Dredging and
Material Management Plan. The second step will be to bring together a regional group to
oversee a study on beneficial use of dredged material along a parallel track.

Working along a parallel track, the regional group will develop alternatives to traditional
disposal and identify beneficial uses for dredged material. This may be accomplished
through the group or with assistance of a consultant.

Taken together the two tracks will formulate a comprehensive plan for dredging and
dredged material management. Throughout the process, the partners will provide ongoing
management and oversight for the two planning tracks. After completion of the plan, the
partners will be responsible for developing a strategy to implement the plan and establish
an evaluation process to measure the plan's effectiveness.




                                             12
Proposed Work Program for Dredging and Material Management Plan

                     Track 1 - Dredging Management Plan
                            [To be performed by consultant]

Track 1, Task 1     Inventory, Research and Analysis

A.    Compile and summarize data on existing physical conditions, contamination,
      navigation safety, dredged spoil sites, sediment sources, environmental resources,
      water dependent uses, channel conditions, underwater land ownership, zoning,
      proposed remediation of damaged areas, habitat protection, maintenance dredging
      projects, waterfront development projects.

B.    Develop a comprehensive description of proposed dredging projects for the
      embayment subareas, including purposes and time lines.

C.    Develop protocols for data management.

D.    Produce appropriate mapping and graphics.

E.    Produce a bibliography.

Track 1, Task 2     Identify Existing        Framework       for Dredging and Material
                    Management

A.    Describe regulatory requirements for dredging projects.

B.    Describe jurisdictional and policy concerns.

Track 1, Task 3     Analyze Data

A.    Prepare an analysis of information collected in Task 1, 2 and 3. Identify any existing
      data gaps.

B.    Develop criteria for prioritizing dredging projects. This section will examine the issue
      of the benefits of recreational projects.

C.    Using the criteria, develop dredging, disposal and remediation priorities.

D.    Using the criteria, develop environmental protection priority measures.

E.    Using the criteria, develop water dependent land use priorities.




                                            13
Track 1, Task 4      Formulate Recommendations for Dredging Management Plans

A.    Develop a South Shore Estuary Reserve Dredging Management Plan, including
      problem (embayment) areas; sediment source control; remediation and ecosystem
      protection measures.

B.    Define connections between land uses and dredging.

C.    Recommend improvements to the permitting and regulatory process.

D.    Prepare Land Use and Dredging Plans, including graphics and mapping.

E.    Develop alternatives for funding dredging projects.

Track 1, Task 5      Formulation of the South Shore Estuary Reserve Dredging and
                     Material Management Plan

A.    Based on reports developed in the two track process, identify implementation
      mechanisms to achieve a comprehensive planning and management framework.

B.    Develop an evaluation and monitoring plan.

C.    Identify additional research needs.

D.    Establish funding and cost-sharing formulas.

E.    Recommend a management framework for maintaining the partnership.

                  Track 2 - Beneficial Use of Dredged Material

The Regional Dredged Material Group may include representatives of the partnership, as
well as others that have an interest in the beneficial use of dredged sediments.

Track 2, Task 1      Determine the Appropriate Study Design

A.    The regional group will develop an appropriate study design and determine the
      need for a consultant. If the services of a consultant are warranted, the beneficial
      use group will develop a Request for Proposal and hire a consultant. If a consultant
      is not warranted, the study will be carried out by the regional group.

Track 2, Task 2      Prepare a Plan for the Beneficial Use of Dredged Material

A.    Identify alternatives for sediment disposal and use, including sources of existing
      material contained in disposal sites. [For a description of beneficial uses of dredged


                                            14
      material, see Appendix A.]

B.    Identify and address policy and permitting concerns.

C.    Develop guidance criteria for proposed beneficial use of dredged material projects.

D.    Develop conceptual designs, cost analysis, funding sources, regulatory
      requirements for upland disposal and beneficial use.

E.    Document preliminary plans.

Track 2, Task 3    Recommend Beneficial Use of Dredged Material Projects

A.    Determine most viable use or disposal alternatives.

B.    Recommend reforms in the permitting process to facilitate beneficial use projects.

C.    Document proposed projects.




                                          15
                                  Appendix A
                      Beneficial Use of Dredged Material

The following are research areas that may be appropriate to the South Shore Estuary.

! Innovative Approaches to Dredged Material Management

-     design of public recreational access facilities such as boat launches, solid-fill fishing
      piers, and other public access ways using dredged material

-     road and highway construction or realignment that employs dredged material as
      roadbed fill or as aggregate stock for surface treatment manufacture

-     design of near shore containment structures which result in the economic
      revitalization of underutilized waterfront areas

-     water-dependent economic development plans and projects which include the use
      of dredged material

-     demonstration projects for the decontamination of dredged material employing
      innovative or new technologies

! Landfill Cover and Closure

The large volume of dredge material potentially available can satisfy a growing landfill
problem by contributing to landfill management rather than consuming landfill space.
-     daily landfill cover for operating permitted landfills

-     contour fill for landfills in the capping and closure phase

-     nonhazardous landfill cap material that is structurally and qualitatively appropriate

! Siting and Infrastructure Studies

Handling large volumes of dredged material often requires a material handling, staging, or
processing facility comprising many acres. Projects which can provide a material handling
site for more than one dredging project will be given preference.




                                            A-1
Acceptable investigations of the feasibility of certain sites for the dredged material handling
may include:

-      site surveys to establish grading, containment, access, and infrastructure
       requirements for implementing a material handling facility

-      small capital construction projects which will prepare a site for short to intermediate-
       term use (5-10 years) in dewatering, drying, or handling of dredged material

-      environmental studies for the use of a site(s) for managing dredged material

! Habitat Restoration and Enhancement

Human influence has resulted in the alteration of many natural areas along the State's
waterways. Assistance can be provided for port-related, open space, and other viable
water dependent projects that require mitigation. Projects which use processed or
unprocessed dredged material for the restoration or enhancement of natural areas may
include:

-      the restoration or extension of existing wetlands

-      the design and/or construction of wetlands where they had once previously existed
       but, due to human-influenced manipulation, no longer exist

-      the creation of new natural areas using dredged material

-      stockpiling material for breach closure

-      beach nourishment projects (ocean, bay and mainland)




                                             A-2
Technical Advisory Committee                                   Citizens Advisory Committee

Cornelia Schlenk, Chair, New York Sea Grant                    Jeff Fullmer, Chair, Citizens Campaign for the Environment
Diane Abell, Fire Island National Seashore                     Allan Aronoff, Brookhaven League of Women Voters
Ken Arnold, Nassau County Department of Public Works           Forrest Clock, Islip Town Leaseholders Association
Charles Bartha, Suffolk County Department of Public Works      Hank Dam, Suffolk Alliance of Sportsmen, Inc.
Lorne Birch, Department of Planning and Economic               Ed Davis, Great South Bay Audubon Society
          Development, Town of Hempstead                       Bill Fahey, Mastic Beach Property Owners Association
Betty Borowsky, South Shore Audubon Society                    Ludwig Farr, Long Island Beach Buggy Association
Stuart Buckner, Department of Environmental Control, Town of   Joe Kayal, member at large
          Islip                                                Gil Kelley, Association of Marine Industries
Kenneth Budny, Brookhaven Bayman's Association                 Ed Kilgus, Empire State Marine Trades Association
Robert Cerrato, Marine Sciences Research Center, SUNY Stony    Alan J. Leo, Open Space Council
          Brook                                                Paul Lichtman, Uniondale Public Schools
Karen Chytalo, NYS Department of Environmental                 John Lund, Fire Island Association
          Conservation                                         Tom McCloskey, Long Island Sierra Club
Walter Dawydiak, Office of Ecology, Suffolk County             Dave Schaper, New York Seafood Council
          Department of Health Services                        Florence Sharkey, Brookhaven Bayman’s Association
Lauretta Fischer, Suffolk County Department of Planning        Ed Sheehan, South Shore Bayhouse Owners Association
Jack Foehrenbach, Great South Bay Chapter, Audubon Society     Chris Spies, Fire Island Year-Round Residents Association
Michael Foley, Department of Conservation and Waterways,       Diana Teta, South Country Alliance
          Town of Hempstead                                    Kimberly Zimmer, New York Sea Grant
Dan Fucci, Nassau County Department of Public Works
Christopher Gobler, Natural Sciences Division Southampton
          College, Long Island University
Joe Guarino, Department of Environmental Control, Town of
          Babylon
Emerson Hasbrouck, Suffolk County Marine Program, Cornell
          Cooperative Extension
Stephen Jones, Suffolk County Department of Planning
Jeffrey Kassner, Department of Planning, Environment and
          Development, Town of Brookhaven
Greg King, South Shore Estuary Alliance
Henry Levine, Audubon Society
Ed Lynch, Suffolk County Department of Public Works
Sarah Meyland, Citizens Campaign for the Environment
Vito Minei , Office of Ecology, Suffolk County Department of
          Health Services
Dan Morris, Open Space Council
Carole Neidich-Ryder, North Shore Audubon Society
Robert Nuzzi, Suffolk County Department of Health Services
Robert Nyman, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Steve Papa, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Paul Ponessa, Nassau County Planning Commission
George Proios, Suffolk County Executive’s Office
Lou Siegel, Science Department, Oceanside High School
Vincent Vario, Nassau County Planning Commission
John Waltz /James Mulligan, Department of Public Works,
          Nassau County
Robert Wenegonofsky, Department of Conservation and
          Waterways, Town of Hempstead
William Wise, Marine Sciences Research Center, SUNY Stony
          Brook
Brian Zimmerman, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Natural
          Resources Conservation Service

								
To top