Dredging Research Bulletin, Volume 5, Number 2, June 2002 - PDF by ckj14752


									   Dredging Research
  Vol 5, No. 2           Information from the Engineer Research and Development Center                            Jun. 2002

           Disposal facilities shortage generates
           innovative dredged material management
           and contaminant flux evaluation solutions
           Based on material provided by Drs. Carlos E. Ruiz, Paul R. Schroeder, Michael R. Palermo, U.S.
           Army Engineer Research and Development Center and Terry K. Gerald, Contract Support

             Faced with a lack of             solutions. ERDC staff conducted             Feasibility evaluation for contain-
           disposal facilities for            studies to develop technical infor-         ment of contaminants in the CAD
           New York/New Jersey                mation based on a feasibility-level         sites was determined by using the
           harbor’s dredged material          evaluation of disposal alternatives         Capping Analysis Program (CAP)
           unsuitable for unrestricted        and presented findings in a                 model.
           open water placement,              Dredged Material Management Plan
           the Corps’ New York                (DMMP). In this plan, constructed           Plan Summary
           District planning staff            pits for use as contained aquatic             The plan calls for a series of small
           turned to engineers and            dredged material disposal (CAD)             pits, each pit receiving one year’s
           scientists at the Engineer         sites are presented as mid- to long-        discharge of dredged material.
           Research and Develop-              term options (6 or 24 years/pits)           After one year of deposits, the pit
           ment Center (ERDC) for             within the Lower New York Bay.              will be capped to prevent loss of
                                                                                          material and to encourage coloniza-
                                                                                          tion by benthic organisms and fish.
                                                                                          The pit will be capped with material
                                                                                          excavated during construction of
                                                                                          the new pit. Surficial sediments
                                                                                          unsuitable for ocean disposal
                                                                                          would be used for capping first.
                                                                                          Then these deposits would be
                                                                                          capped with clean material from the
                                                                                          new pit. The clean sediment caps
                                                                                          would also serve to remediate the
                                                                                          unsuitable surface sediments, in
                                                                                          addition to safely containing the
                                                                                          dredged material and returning the
                                                                                          area to its previous condition with
                                                                                          no long-term loss of habitat or
                                                                                          benthic communities.
                                                                                          CAP Model
                                                                                            The Capping Analysis Program
                          Figure 1. Schematic of CAP Model Processes                      (CAP) was developed for use in the

In this issue . . .
 Upland Testing Manual ......................... 5                 DOTS — Dredging Calendar ................. 7
planning studies for New York CAD        CAD facility description                     the cap design objectives, while the
facility evaluations. CAP has been                                                    erosion potential is a function of
developed by ERDC to predict                DMMP studies have included                the depth of the unsuitable material
long-term movement of contami-           efforts related to sediment and              surface below the water surface. The
nants through caps at CAD sites.         contaminant reduction. On the                cap thickness design must account
The model is an extension of             basis of this prior research, the            for components of bioturbation,
frameworks developed by Corps            projected unsuitable material                consolidation, erosion, and opera-
research staff throughout the past       volume is assumed to decline over            tional considerations. Prior experi-
two decades. CAP incorporates a          time for the CAD pit design.                 ence with cap designs indicated
revised version of the USACE                In sizing the pits, both the depth        that the potential range of required
RECOVERY sediment-water                  and area of the pit must be estab-           cap material thickness would be
interaction model and consolida-         lished to provide the required storage       within the range of a few feet.
tion-induced advection predictions       volume. To establish the depth,              Erosion evaluations determined that
generated from results of the            restrictions on storage depth were           a pit could not be filled with
USACE Primary Consolidation,             determined. A maximum excavation             unsuitable material to an elevation
Secondary Compression, and               depth of 80 ft was assumed since             higher than -30 ft MLW (equivalent
Desiccation of Dredged Fill              excavation with readily available            to a depth of 10 ft below the lip of
(PSDDF) model. The system is             equipment becomes inefficient and            the pit for a water depth of 20 ft)
idealized as a well-mixed surface        difficult at greater depths. For an          without excessive erosion of the
water layer underlain by a verti-        ambient 20-ft water depth, the               unsuitable material due to ambient
cally stratified sediment column         maximum excavated depth was set              currents and storm waves. Storage
(Fig. 1).                                to be 60 ft below the sediment               was restricted to elevations between
  The sediment is assumed to be          surface. Pit excavations were                –30 and –80 ft MLW; therefore, the
well mixed horizontally but seg-         designed with 1V:3H side slopes              cap thickness was set to be 10 ft.
mented vertically into a well-mixed      for use in estimating geometries             Figure 2 shows a cross section for
surface layer and a deep sediment.       and volumes for excavation and               the 60-ft excavation depth. Sections
The latter, in turn, is segmented into   storage.                                     for more shallow excavation depths
layers of user-defined thickness,           Limits on the fill height within the      would be similar.
properties, and contaminant concen-      pits for unsuitable material (prior to         The pit areas and dimensions are
tration, which are underlain by an       cap placement) are a function of             a function of the required storage
uncontaminated region. The               the required cap thickness, the need         volume, the constraints on excava-
discretized sediment layer configura-    for placement of surficial material          tion depths, unsuitable material
tion is useful for capping scenarios     prior to the final cap, and the erosion      thicknesses, side slopes, and the
and sites where contamination            potential for the unsuitable material.       aspect ratio (length divided by
occurred over a long time; thus,         The cap thickness is dependent on            width). The USACE Short-Term
contamination appears layered. The
specification of a mixed surface layer
is included because an unconsoli-
dated layer is often observed at the
surface of sediments due to a
number of processes, including
bioturbation and mechanical
mixing. The contaminant is as-
sumed to follow linear, reversible,
equilibrium sorption and first-order
decay kinetics. Additional path-
ways are volatilization, burial,
resuspension, settling, advection,
and pore-water diffusion.
  The advection represents ground-
water flow through the sediment
profile or expulsion of pore water
due to consolidation of the sedi-
ment profile. The temporal and
spatial advection rates are specified
as input.                                                        Figure 2. Cross Section of CAD Facility

2                                                                                               Dredging Research, Vol 5, No. 2
                                                                                        The singly drained condition is
                                                                                        characteristic of a fine-grained
                                                                                        material at the base of the excava-
                                                                                        tion, which does not permit signifi-
                                                                                        cant drainage through the base of
                                                                                        the pit. Therefore, water is expelled
                                                                                        only upward from the consolidating
                                                                                        material. The doubly drained
                                                                                        condition is characteristic of a
                                                                                        coarse-grained material at the base
                                                                                        of the excavation, which permits
                                                                                        drainage of expelled water down-
                                                                                        ward as well as upward.
FATE (STFATE) model determined            compare the contaminant flux from               The ultimate total settlement is the
that a minimum pit width of 700 ft        the pits to that of the ambient               same for the singly and doubly
was optimal for planning the final        sediments. Water and copper were              drained condition, but the settle-
pit areas and dimensions. Based           predicted to move through the cap             ment is nearly twice as fast initially
on sizing calculations, a minimum         due to consolidation-induced                  if doubly drained. However, the
2,200-ft pit length was selected for      advection. The simulations show               initial/maximum upward fluxes of
best retention efficiency. The recom-     that fluxes from the dredged                  expelled water are similar for the
mended size of the CAD pits for an        material peak shortly after the               two conditions (about 2 ft/year), but
annual dredging requirement of            initial consolidation and decrease            the average flux in the first year is
2.25 million cubic yards is 700 by        thereafter. The ambient sediment at           about 20 percent less for the doubly
2,800 ft (approximately 44 acres)         the CAD site has an elevated                  drained condition. The total volume
with an excavated depth of 60 ft.         copper concentration, but it is only          of water expelled upward from the
A cluster of six pit cells of this size   one fifth of the copper concentra-            dredged material in a doubly drained
is needed to meet the mid-term            tion of the dredged material to be            condition is reduced by about 40 per-
requirement. The required size of         placed in the CAD facility. Long-             cent since that fraction is drained
the pits declines over time for the       term simulations for the back-                downward.
24-year long-term option. The             ground and the proposed CAD pit                 After the first year or two, the
dimensions and geometries of the          show less total flux from the pit             flux in all cases gradually decreases
pits are summarized in Table 1.           than from the background.                     from about 8 in./year to about 4 in./
                                                                                        year over a period of 25 to 30 years.
Study overview                            Results                                       After 30 years the flux slows and is
  A number of proposed CAD                  The predicted consolidation-                dependent on the design and founda-
facilities in 20 ft of water were         induced water advection results are           tion conditions. Consolidation
considered, ranging from 40 to 60         shown in Figure 3 for the 60-ft pit           would be completed in 50 to
acres in area, 40 to 60 ft of             under two different foundation                100 years if doubly drained and in
dredged material, and 3 to 10 ft of       conditions (drained and undrained).           100 to 200 years if singly drained.
capping thickness. Results of the
studies for the proposed pit caps
for NY harbor indicated that the
contaminated sediment layer would
consolidate to roughly half of its
initial thickness over a period of
decades. The NY harbor sedi-
ments contain a number of con-
taminants. Copper was determined
to be the contaminant of concern
(COC) for its potential water
quality impact based on its concen-
tration, ability to partition to the
water phase, and the magnitude of
its water quality standard. CAP
was run to predict the contaminant
fate at the CAD site and in the
surrounding ambient sediment to                           Figure 3. Water flux predictions for 60-ft deep CAD pit

Dredging Research, Vol 5, No. 2                                                                                             3
  Contaminant fluxes associated                 column from the background                  layer of highly compressible
with the advection of water result-             sediment was predicted to be about          dredged material that was unsuit-
ing from dredged material consoli-              twice as great as from the CAD              able for open water disposal due to
dation were estimated for the singly            facility. As such, the CAD facility         its contamination with copper and
drained 60-ft CAD facility. The                 is predicted to improve long-term           other contaminants of lesser concern.
singly drained CAD pit will expel               water quality.                              While consolidation induces con-
water only upward, thus having the                Predictions of the concentration          taminant transport from the dredged
potential for greater contaminant               and flux of copper for diffusion            material at a rate of as much as five
flux. Figures 4 and 5 show the                  from the clean CAD cap material             times greater than diffusion, the cap
predicted copper concentration in the           (in the absence of consolidation            materials are able to retard the
surficial sediments and the predicted           and advection of pore water) were           progress of the contaminants
total copper flux associated with the           compared with those for the singly          throughout the consolidation period.
dredged material consolidation                  drained CAD facility to provide             The “clean” CAD cap is predicted to
(water advection) and diffusion                 information on the relative impor-          be cleaner than the background
across the sediment water interface.            tance of consolidation/advection            sediments throughout the life of the
The background diffusion results in             and diffusion on the performance            facility.
these figures refer to the results of           of a cap. The flux due to consolida-          The CAP model, developed
copper diffusion from the sediment              tion/advection was about three to           specifically for this project, was
bottom (without advection) currently            five times that of diffusion over the       demonstrated to be an excellent tool
at New York’s Lower Bay.                        first 30 years when consolidation           for evaluating CAD facilities. The
  Clean cap diffusion refers to the             was pronounced and nearly steady.           model allows cap designers to assess
results of copper diffusion in the                                                          the impact of consolidation on
absence of consolidation and pore               Conclusions                                 contaminant transport, to determine
water advection through the                       The 5-ft clean cap of the CAD             optimal isolation thickness, and to
“clean” material used for capping               facility is predicted to be an effec-       select materials to manage the
the CAD facility. Some of the                   tive isolation layer for the 50-ft          contaminant containment.
copper from the lower layer of the
cap, but none from the dredged
material, was transported to the                    More information can be obtained by contacting the research staff
surface during the period of advec-                 of the Environmental Laboratory, ERCD: Carlos Ruiz, research
tion. Results show that the surficial               civil engineer, Carlos.E.Ruiz@erdc. usace.army.mil; Paul Schroeder,
copper concentration in the back-                   research civil engineer, Paul.R.Schroeder@ erdc.usace.army.mil;
ground sediments is expected to be                  Mike Palermo, Director, Center for Contaminated Sediments,
three- to four-times greater than in
                                                    Michael.R.Palermo@erdc.usace.army.mil; and Terry K. Gerald, se-
the CAD facility during the 250-
year simulation period. Similarly,                  nior researcher, ASI, Terry.K. Gerald@erdc.usace.army.mil.
the flux of copper to the water

    Figure 4. Predicted mixed layer copper concentrations                          Figure 5. Total copper flux to the water column from
                                                                                                    surficial sediments

4                                                                                                     Dredging Research, Vol 5, No. 2
Upland Testing Manual in final stages
of development — to contain tiered
evaluations for CDF contaminant pathways
by Dr. Michael R. Palermo, U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Environmental Laboratory
  The U.S. Army Corps of Engi-            contaminated sediments. Contami-                general use, while others are newly
neers conducts dredging operations        nant migration pathways are routes              developed and field verification is
for the Federal navigation program        by which contaminants or constitu-              underway or planned.
and, jointly with the EPA, regulates      ents of concern associated with
dredging activities under both the        dredged material may move from the              UTM purpose and
Marine Protection Research and            dredged material within the site into           applicability
Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA) and               the environment outside the site.                 The purpose of the UTM is to
Clean Water Act (CWA). USACE                The possible pathways from an                 provide technical guidance for
and EPA have long recognized the          upland CDF are illustrated in Figure 1:         evaluation, where appropriate, of
need for consistency in decision-         1) effluent discharges to surface               potential contaminant migration
making regarding alternatives for         water during filling operations and             pathways for proposed disposal of
dredged material management, and          subsequent settling and dewatering,             dredged material in CDFs. Proce-
the agencies jointly developed a          2) precipitation surface runoff,                dures in the UTM will
Technical Framework describing            3) leachate into groundwater,                   ! Determine potential contaminant
the approaches for identifying the        4) volatilization to the atmosphere,               releases and contaminant-related
environmental effects of dredged          5) direct uptake by animals, and                   environmental effects from
material management alternatives          6) direct uptake by plants, with                   CDFs, and
(including the potential for contami-     subsequent cycling from animals
                                                                                          ! Determine whether pathway-
nant-related impacts). A series of        and plants through food webs.
                                                                                             specific contaminant controls or
detailed guidance documents support       Pathways for nearshore or island
                                                                                             management actions are neces-
the Technical Framework. For              CDFs would be similar to upland
                                                                                             sary for the proposed CDF to
example, the Ocean Testing Manual         sites. That portion of a nearshore or
(OTM) and Inland Testing Manual           island CDF raised above the mean                   avoid unacceptable adverse
(ITM) provide detailed procedures         high-water elevation will essentially              effects outside the site.
for evaluating the suitability of         function as an upland CDF.                        The focus of the UTM differs
dredged material for disposal at open       If contaminated sediments are                 from that of the OTM or ITM, both
water sites, focusing on potential        placed in a CDF, pathways for                   of which determine the suitability
contaminant-related water column          migration of contaminants from the              of a proposed dredged material for
and benthic effects. The USACE has        site and potential contaminant                  placement at an open water site.
now developed the manual Evalua-          impacts should be evaluated. A                  The UTM is intended as a resource
tion of Dredged Material Proposed         suite of evaluation procedures and              of technical guidance for use by
for Disposal at Island, Nearshore or      laboratory test procedures has been             the USACE, Federal and State
Upland Confined Disposal Facilities       developed to evaluate CDF con-                  regulatory and resource agencies,
- Testing Manual, commonly called         taminant pathways and are presented             dredging permit applicants, and
the Upland Testing Manual, provid-        in detail in the UTM. Some of                   others (e.g., scientists and engi-
ing technical guidance for evaluation     these procedures and tests have                 neers, managers, and other in-
of potential contaminant migration        been field verified and are now in              volved or concerned individuals).
pathways from confined disposal                                                           It is intended to facilitate decision-
facilities. The UTM, like the OTM                                                         making with regard to the manage-
and ITM, is consistent with and                                                           ment of dredged material. Because
supports the Technical Framework                                                          the UTM is national in scope, the
by providing detailed procedures for                                                      guidance provided is generic and
assessment of contaminant-related                                                         may be applied within various
impacts.                                                                                  regulatory settings, but does not
                                                                                          alter the statutory and regulatory
CDF Contaminant Pathways                                                                  framework for permitting decisions
                                                                                          under any applicable laws or
  Confined disposal facilities             Figure 1. Schematic of contaminant migration
(CDFs) are one of the most widely                   pathways for upland CDFs
used options for placement of

Dredging Research, Vol. 5, No. 2                                                                                               5
                                                                                     any) for further evaluation.
                                                                                       If a decision for a given pathway
                                                                                     cannot be made at Tier I, Tier II
                                                                                     evaluations consist of determining
                                                                                     the need for management actions
                                                                                     derived from very conservative
                                                                                     techniques that use the chemical,
                                                                                     physical and biological characteris-
                                                                                     tics of the dredged material and basic
                                                                                     information about the CDF. Tier II
                                                                                     includes screening evaluations based
                                                                                     on contaminant partitioning prin-
                                                                                     ciples and screening level tests to
                                                                                     evaluate the need for management
                                                                                     actions to meet applicable water
            Figure 2. Summary of evaluation structure and procedures in UTM          quality standards, groundwater
                                             may be possible to conduct evalua-      standards, etc. These screening
Tiered structure                                                                     procedures have been programmed
                                             tions in general terms. Evaluation
  The UTM uses a four-tiered                                                         using electronic spreadsheets, and
                                             at successive tiers involves more
evaluation process for each of the                                                   the spreadsheets will be included
                                             extensive and specific information
five pathways. This approach                                                         with the UTM.
                                             about the potential need for man-
should be initiated at Tier I for                                                      The evaluations in Tier III are
                                             agement actions. Successive tiers
each pathway, and is designed to                                                     generally more complex, costly, data
                                             may involve more time-consuming
aid in generating appropriate and                                                    intensive and time-consuming than
                                             and expensive procedures, but
sufficient, but not more than                                                        those in the previous tiers. Tier III
                                             provide more extensive informa-
necessary, information to make
                                             tion allowing more detailed evalua-     includes the contaminant pathway
decisions regarding the need for
                                             tions of the need for management        laboratory tests which have been
management actions. This allows
                                             actions. Evaluation in progressively    available for some time. Figure 2
optimal use of resources by
                                             higher tiers should be conducted        provides the names of the various
! Focusing the least effort on               only if the information at a given      pathway tests incorporated in the
   projects where the potential              tier is not sufficient to make a
   need (or lack thereof) for                                                        UTM. These tests were initially
                                             decision regarding the need for         developed under the USACE Long
   management actions is clear.              management actions.
! Maximizing effort on opera-                                                        Term Effects of Dredging Operations
                                               The tiered structure for each         (LEDO) research program and other
   tions needing extensive investi-          pathway, illustrated in matrix form
   gation to determine the level of                                                  related research and project-specific
                                             in Figure 2, includes the types of      studies. Some of the procedures
   management actions.                       evaluations and specific pathway
  The tiered framework is used                                                       were field verified under the joint
                                             tests. Many of the tests and mod-
independently for each pathway                                                       USACE/EPA Field Verification
                                             els described in the UTM have
of concern. Process through the                                                      Program (FVP), and others are now
                                             been available for some time, but
tiers stops when information is              the detailed procedures for con-        and will be field verified under the
sufficient to make a decision                ducting the pathway evaluations         ongoing Dredging Operations and
about the pathway under evalua-              within the tiered framework are all     Environmental Research (DOER)
tion. For example, if the available          new.                                    program.
information is sufficient to make a            For example, Tier I uses readily        The procedures in Tiers I through
decision in Tier I about surface             available existing information. The     III are risk-based, and the data
runoff, no further evaluation of             Tier I evaluation should determine      generated directly supports either an
surface runoff is required. The              the need for evaluation of path-        exposure or effects assessment.
evaluation would then shift to the           ways (comparable to the exemp-          Tier IV in the UTM consists of case-
next pathway, which might have               tions from testing and “reason to       specific studies or formal quantita-
to be carried through Tier III to            believe” concepts in the OTM and        tive risk assessment designed to
generate sufficient information to           ITM), identify the pathways (if         answer specific, well-defined
make a decision.                             any) that should be evaluated further   questions, and should rarely be
  At the outset of a typical evalua-         and identify receptors of concern       necessary for navigation projects.
tion of a particular pathway, it             and contaminants of concern (if         This risk guidance will be especially

6                                                                                           Dredging Research, Vol. 5, No. 2
applicable for evaluation of the
plant and animal uptake pathways
for those CDFs requiring a formal-
                                       Dredging Calendar
ized risk assessment.
Management actions
                                       July 9-11 - EPA and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Dredged
  If a decision is made that man-
                                        Material Assessment and Management Seminar, Crowne Plaza Union Square,
agement actions are needed for a
                                        San Francisco, CA. POC: online, www.wes.army.mil/el/dots/training.html,
given pathway, the influence of
                                        FAX 601-634-3528, e-mail Billie.H.Skinner@erdc.usace.army.mil
the management actions on other
pathways should be considered.         May 1, but no later than August 1 - TRB call for papers on any transporta-
For example, the placement of a         tion-related subject For 82nd Annual Meeting. Papers cannot be accepted after
surface cover of clean material to      August 1, 2002, because of the time required for peer review and program
control surface runoff will also        development. The paper submission requirements are posted at http://
control plant or animal bioaccum-       www4.nas.edu/trb/annual.nsf/web/Calls_for_Papers Papers are welcome from
ulation. Consideration of such          U.S. and international authors. See meeting notes below for 2003.
influences may allow for a reduc-      September 13 - Call for papers: Inaugural National Conference on Coastal
tion in testing efforts or the need     and Estuarine Habitat Restoration, 2003, see information below. Proposals
to re-evaluate some pathways.           will be accepted for interactive workshops, facilitated discussions, panel
The full evaluation of all path-        presentations, lectures and outdoor learning opportunities of 90 minute or less.
ways may therefore be an iterative      Subjects are: Best Practices in Restoration; Community Involvement; Planning
process, depending on the project       and Priority-Setting; Science and Technology; Monitoring and Evaluation;
requirements. The UTM does not          Policy and Funding. Acceptance notice will be issued in November.
provide guidance for selecting,        September 22-27 - American Association of Port Authorities Annual Conven-
designing or implementing any           tion, Palm Beach, FL. POC: www.aapa2002.com
needed CDF controls or manage-         September 22-26 - PIANC 30th International Navigation Congress, Sydney,
ment actions. This information is       Australia. POC: http://www.pianc-aipcn.org/pi200.html,
published in various USACE              e-mail: pianc2002@tourhosts.com.au
engineer manuals and other publi-      October 16-18 - 5th International Symposium on Sediment Quality Assessment,
cations.                                2002. Hotel Allegro, Chicago, IL, USA. POC: http://www.aehms.org or write
                                        to the Conference treasurer before July 31, 2002 to: AEHMS, 365 Wildwood
Publication and updates                 Prk., Winnipeg, MB, Canada, R3T 0E7; E-mail: jchase@aehms.org
  The UTM is currently undergoing      November 16-22 - SETAC (Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemis-
review by the USACE and EPA.            try) North America 23rd Annual Meeting, Salt Lake City, UT. Achieving
Once revisions based on this review     Global Environmental Quality: Integrating Science & Management.
are incorporated, the manual will be    POC: www.setac.org/meet.html
published on the USACE Dredging
Operations Technical Support (DOTS)                                         2003
Web site at www.wes.army.mil/el/       January 12-16 - TRB 82d Annual Meeting 2003,The Marriot Wardman Park,
dots where the manual may be             Omni Shoreham, and Hilton Washington hotels in Washington, DC, host more
read on-line, downloaded or              than 450 formal sessions and 300+ committee meetings. More than 8,500
printed (no hardcopy publication         transportation professionals from the United States and abroad are expected to
is planned). Updates and revi-           attend. More information can be found at: http://www4.nas.edu/trb/annual.nsf/
sions to the UTM will be made as         web/homepage?OpenDocument
additional research is completed
                                       April 13-16 - Inaugural National Conference on Coastal and Estuarine Habitat
and field experience is gained.
                                         Restoration, Baltimore, MD, Hyatt Regency Inner Harbor. The conference
Users are encouraged to obtain
                                         is the first nationwide forum focused solely on the goals and practices of
the most recent version of the
                                         coastal and estuarine habitat restoration. POC: Rick Bates, Development
manual, which will be maintained
                                         Director at Restore America’s Estuaries, at (703) 524-0248, e-mail
on the DOTS Web site.
  Additional information is avail-
able by contacting Michael             May 26-28 - 2d International Symposium on Contaminated Sediments.
Palermo at Michael.R.Palermo@            Loews Le Concorde Hotel, Quebec City, Canada. Sponsors: ASTM, CGS,
erdc.usace.army.mil.                     CSCE, SRA-SETAC. POC and information can be found at: http://

Dredging Research, Vol 5, No. 2                                                                                            7
                                                                              Dredging Research
                                                              This bulletin is published in accordance with AR 25-30 as
                                                              an information dissemination function of the Environmen-
                                                              tal Laboratory of the U.S. Army Engineer Research and
                                                              Development Center. The publication is part of the technol-
                                                              ogy transfer mission of the Dredging Operations Technical
                                                              Support (DOTS) Program and includes information about
                                                              various dredging research areas. Special emphasis will be
Articles for Dredging Research requested:
                                                              placed on articles relating to application of research re-
Dredging Research is an information exchange bulletin         sults or technology to specific project needs. The contents
for publication of ERDC-generated dredging research           of this bulletin are not to be used for advertising, publica-
                                                              tion, or promotional purposes. Citation of trade names does
results. Included are articles about applied research
                                                              not constitute an official endorsement or the approval of
projects. The bulletin serves all audiences and is acces-     the use of such commercial products. Contributions are
sible on the World Wide Web in addition to a paper cir-       solicited from all sources and will be considered for publi-
culation of 2,800.                                            cation. Editor is Elke Briuer, APR, Elke.Briuer@erdc.
Articles from non-ERDC authors are solicited for pub-         usace.army.mil. Mail correspondence to the Environmental
                                                              Laboratory, ATTN: DOTS, Dredging Research, U.S. Army
lication, especially if the work described is tied to the     Engineer Research and Development Center, Waterways
use of ERDC-generated research results. Research ar-          Experiment Station (CEERD-EP-D), 3909 Halls Ferry Road,
ticles that complement ERDC research or cover wide            Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199, or call (601) 634-2349. Internet
field applications are also accepted for consideration.       address: www.wes.army.mil/el/dots/drieb.html.
Manuscripts should use a nontechnical writing style and
should include suggestions for visuals and an author
point of contact. Point of contact is Elke Briuer, APR, at                                James R. Houston, PhD
Elke.Briuer@ erdc.usace.army.mil.                                                         Director

                                                                           OFFICIAL BUSINESS

                                                                    VICKSBURG, MS 39180-6199
                                                       WATERWAYS EXPERIMENT STATION, 3909 HALLS FERRY ROAD
                                                          ENGINEER RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CENTER
                                                                    DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

To top