1 July 10, 2009 Environmental Business Council 4th Annual Ocean Management Conference Progress...

1July 10, 2009

Environmental Business Council

4th Annual Ocean Management Conference

Progress Update: Massachusetts Ocean Management Plan

July 10, 2009 Bay Colony Corporate Center

Carlton D. Hunt, Ph.D.

Battelle

Geospatial Information Layers in Ocean Use Planning:

A Case study from an Ocean Disposal Site Designation

2

Acknowledgements

The work discussed here was funded by the– U.S. Army New England District Corp of Engineers

– U.S. EPA Region 1

July 10, 2009

3July 10, 2009

Objectives

• Demonstrate the use of geospatial data in ocean planning using the 2004 Rhode Island Region (RIR) Long Term-Dredged Material Disposal Site EIS Designation Process

• Convey some lessons applicable to ocean plan development

4July 10, 2009

History• Providence River was not dredged for many years

• Commerce was severely inhibited

• Short term solution was a MPRSA 102 Dredged Material Disposal Site designation – US Army Corps of Engineers and EPA completed the 102

designation to address immediate need in early 2000

– Allows dredged material disposal from the PR only for two five-year periods

• Need for a long-term disposal site was clear – To ensure the region’s dredging needs could be

accommodated for the next twenty years

– Long-term cost containment - Designations are expensive

– Politically supported (state and Federal)

5July 10, 2009

Laws and Regulations Governing Ocean Disposal

• Ports and Harbors Act of 1899

• Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (MPRSA) and subsequent changes– Addresses disposal of materials in ocean waters; requires

characterization of material to reduce the potential for adverse environmental effects

– Authorizes EPA to designate sites and time periods for disposal

– Requires a Site Monitoring and Management Plan (SMMP) to be developed for each designated disposal site

• Ocean Dumping Act of 1988 bans disposal of all materials in the ocean except for dredged material– Dredged material disposed in the ocean must meet stringent test

requirements defined by the “Green Book”

• Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (WRDA92)

• Clean Water Act of 1972 (regulates disposal in state waters)

6July 10, 2009

Purpose of the RIR Disposal Site EIS

• To evaluate one or more ocean sites for potential designation as a long-term disposal site for dredged material from the Rhode Island Region.– Initiated based on request

by Governor Almond

– Supported by Senator Reid

• Action taken following designation of the Providence River Dredged Material Disposal Site

7July 10, 2009

How did we get from the purpose to a designated site?

• Define the need

• Define a Zone of Siting Feasibility (ZSF)

• Define candidate site locations within ZSF– Screen ZSF using factors and criteria that clearly rule out areas not

acceptable for an open water disposal site

• Define and evaluate alternatives– Use remaining factors and criteria to define location and boundaries of

alternative sites for evaluation in the EIS

• Evaluate alternatives including taking no action – Describe in detail the affected environments

– Evaluate environmental consequences of disposal at each alternative

– Select preferred alternative

• These steps, in one form or another, are common to any ocean-use evaluation or ocean plan development

8July 10, 2009

Dredging Needs in the RIR Identified the universe of navigation dependent facilities Survey non Federal navigation dependent facilities to determine dredging needs

and 20 year projected volumes Estimate volumes for future Federal dredging projects Mapped expected uses for the Block Island region over the next 20-50 years

• Defining the needs and potential uses is a key step for multiple-use ocean assessment and planning

9July 10, 2009

Zone of Siting Feasibility

• Determination of the ZSF boundaries:– Evaluation of five criteria

- Political boundaries

- Navigation restrictions

- Type of disposal equipment

- Cost of transporting dredged material

- Distance to Continental Shelf

– Consideration of safe and practical factors of transporting dredged material to an open water site

– Incorporation of the Dredging Needs information (where, volumes, type of material)

10July 10, 2009

Zone of Siting Feasibility

#S#S

#S#

#S

#S

#S

#S #S

#S

##S#S

#S

#S#S

#

#S

##S

##S

##S

#S

#S #S#S

#S

# #

#S

#S

#S

#S ##S #S #S

#S#S

#S

#S

#S

##S

#S

#S

#S#S

#S

#

#

#

#

MassachusettsRhodeIsland

Connecticut

NarragansettBay

BuzzardsBay

NewYork

10 0 10 20 Miles

Dredging Centers

Buzzards Bay Dredging CenterNarragansett Bay Dredging CenterSouthern Cape Cod and the Islands Dredging CenterSouthern Rhode Island and Block Island Dredging Center

20 miles from Territorial Limit

3-mile Territorial Limit

Source: MassGIS/Maguire Group

20 Miles from estimated centerof Dredging Center

Dredging Center estimated center

20 miles from Dredging Locations

#

1000000 - 2000000#500000 - 999999#200000 - 499999#100000 - 199999#S50000 - 99999#S

0-49999#S

Dredging Locations Volumes (municipalit ies) in cubic yards

N

Political boundaries (State vs. Federal jurisdictions)

Navigation restrictions (Approach lanes, etc.)

Type of disposal equipment (barges)

Cost of transporting dredged material

BuzzardsBay

NarragansettBay

Connecticut

RhodeIsland

Massachusetts

NewYork 10 0 10 20 Miles

Source: MassGIS/Maguire Group

N

11July 10, 2009

Site Screening within the ZSF

• Identify areas within the ZSF acceptable for locating a long-term ocean disposal site designated under the MPRSA Ocean Dumping Regulations

• Identify specific alternative site(s) within the acceptable area(s) for further evaluation in the EIS

• Identification of areas and sites focused on 5 general (40 CFR 228.5) and 11 specific criteria (40 CFR 228.6) for ocean dredged material site designation

Having these criteria were critical for organizing the approach and data requirements

12July 10, 2009

Site Screening within the ZSF

• Defined evaluation factors and data requirements for screening (with RIR workgroup)– Sediment characteristics and sediment quality

– Water quality

– Biological resources including plankton, benthic invertebrates, finfish, shellfish, lobster, marine mammals and marine and coastal birds

– Rare, threatened and endangered species

– Contaminant bioaccumulation potential

– Socioeconomic impacts

– Air quality and noise

– Geological setting and physical oceanography including sediment transport and erosion potential

13July 10, 2009

Site Screening within the ZSF• Performed literature search for relevant documents and data

• Obtained the documentation

• Used the information to develop GIS layers showing locations/spatial distribution of evaluation factors

• Prioritized the screening layers and assigned quantitative screening values, where feasible – Tier 1 excluded areas from further consideration

– Tier 2 evaluated areas using the evaluation levels developed in conjunction with the Working Group

- Level 1 (exclusionary)

- Level 2 (discussion required)

- Level 3 (acceptable)

Early development of consensus, quantitative criteria to rule areas in or out of consideration expedited the assessment.

14July 10, 2009

Basis for Tier 1 Areas Ruled Out• ZSF ruled out areas beyond continental shelf and areas

seaward of ~ 10 nmi south of Block Island, RI - 228.5(e)

• Areas of high dispersion (erosion) potential [228.6(a)(6)]

• Areas with conflicting uses – 228.6(a)(8)– Anchorages - 228.5(a); 228.6(a)(3)

– Reserves and Science areas – 228.5(b)

– Beaches and amenities – 228.5(b); 228.6(a)(3)

– Conservation areas (sanctuaries, wildlife refuges, national seashores, parks, fish havens, artificial reefs) - 228.5(b); 228.6(a)(3)

– Active ordnance/Military use – 228.6(a)(8)

– Active utilities (pipelines, cable areas, etc.) – 228.6(a)(8)

– Historic or culturally important areas (e.g. shipwrecks) – 228.6(a)(11)

• Threatened and Endangered Species Critical Habitat (none in the ZSF)

15July 10, 2009

Tier I Layer - Bathymetry & erosion depth

16July 10, 2009

Tier I Layer - Shipwrecks

17July 10, 2009

Tier I Layer - Military Use and Cables

18July 10, 2009

Tier I Excluded Area

19July 10, 2009

Tier 2: Acceptable areas and specific alternative site locations

• Minimizing impact to – Fish habitats, fish concentrations – 228.5(a); 228.6(a)(2); 228.6(a)

(9); 228.6(a)(8)

– Shellfisheries/fisheries resource areas – 228.5(a)

– Living resources (breeding, spawning, nursery, feeding, passage) – 228.6(a)(3)

– Navigation (shipping lanes, ferry routes, lightering areas) – 228.5(a); 228.6(a)(8)

– Diving areas – 228.6(a)(8); 228.6(a)(11)

• Address – UXO – 228.6(a)(12)– Use of Historical Dump Sites – 228.5(e) – Benthic habitat types – 228.6(a)(2)– Cultural Resources – 228.6(a)(11)

20July 10, 2009

Tier 2 screening layer – Fishing Areas

21July 10, 2009

Tier 2 screening layer – Ocean Quahog Densities

22July 10, 2009

Tier 2 screening layer – Transportation Routes

23July 10, 2009

Tier 2 Excluded Area

24July 10, 2009

Tier I and Tier 2 Excluded Areas

25July 10, 2009

Alternative Areas Evaluated

26July 10, 2009

Additional Field Data were needed to Evaluate Alternative Disposal Areas

Parameter Purpose Area W Area E

Number of Samples

Detailed Bathymetry Depth Available 4 nmi2

Side Scan Cultural resources/bottom type

1 nmi2 4 nmi2

Magnetometer Cultural resources 1 nmi2 4 nmi2

Currents/Tides Erosion Available WHOI

Sediment Profile Imaging (SPI)

Bottom type/benthic resources

15 – 20 60

Sediment Chemistry

Grain Size/TOC Grabs Sediment type 24 24

Selected metals Sediment quality 24 24

Benthic Infauna Grabs Benthic resources 12 12

Finfish/Lobster Trawls Fish and lobster resources 3 8

Lobster Pots Lobster resources 30 90

Quahog Tows Shellfish resources 4 12

Data Collection at Alternative Areas E and W to fill data gaps.

27July 10, 2009

Disposal Site Alternatives Carried Forward for Evaluation in the DEIS

28July 10, 2009

The EIS also Evaluated Environmental and Socioeconomic Impacts

• Alternatives Evaluated– Site W

– Site E

– No Action

• Assess potential impacts from each alternative– Impact

– No Impact

– Minimal Impact - defined as an impact that is short or mitigable or both

29July 10, 2009

Summary of Impacts of Alternatives

Evaluation Criteria(Reference to MPRSA Criteria, 40 CFR)

Alternatives

Site E Site W No Action

Depth (ft)(§ 228.6(a)(1)) No Impact Minor Impact

No Impact

Sedimentation and Erosion (§ 228.6(a)(7))

Impact1 Impact1 No Impact

Water Column (Transport) (§ 228.6(a)(6)) and Water Quality (§ 228.5(b))

Impact No Impact2 No Impact

Sediment Quality (§ 228.6(a)(4))

No Impact No Impact No Impact

Plankton and Larval Forms(§ 228.6(a)(2)), (§ 228.6(a)(9)), (§ 228.6(a)(10))


Benthos(§ 228.6(a)(2)), (§ 228.6(a)(9)), (§ 228.6(a)(10))

Minor Impact3 Minor Impact3 No Impact

Fish, Lobster, and Other Invertebrates(§ 228.6(a)(2)), (§ 228.6(a)(9)), (§ 228.6(a)(10))


Birds, Mammals, Reptiles(§ 228.6(a)(2))


Endangered Species No Impact No Impact No Impact

Bioaccumulation Potential(§ 228.6(a)(9))


1There is the potential for water quality violations outside the site. However, site management practices could reduce and mitigate the potential for exceedances, so no impacts would be expected.2Monitoring has documented that benthic disturbances at dredged material disposal sites are short-term and that sites recover within a few years.3This impact is defined as increasing the total area of seafloor subject to disruption if this alternative were selected.

30July 10, 2009

Summary of Impacts of Alternatives (Con’t)

Evaluation Criteria(Reference to MPRSA Criteria, 40 CFR)

Alternatives

Site E Site W No Action

Fishing Activities (§ 228.5(a) and §228.6(a)(8))


Shipping, Navigation (§ 228.5(a) and §228.6(a)(8))

No Impact No Impact Impact

Beaches and Swimming (§ 228.5(b) and §228.6(a)(3))


Parks / Natural Areas / Sanctuaries and Research Preserves (§ 228.5(b) and §228.6(a)(8))


Historic / Archaeological Resources (§ 228.6(a)(11))


Other Human Uses (§ 228.5(a) and §228.6(a)(8))


Use of previous disposal sites(§ 228.6(a)(7))

Impact3 No Impact4 No Impact4

Air Quality/Noise(NEPA Requirement)

No Impact No Impact Impact

Economic Impacts 5

(§ 228.5(a) and §228.6(a)(8))No Impact No Impact Minor Impact

Cumulative Impacts (§ 228.6(a)(7))

Impact6 No Impact7 Impact8

3This impact is defined as increasing the total area of seafloor subject to disruption if this alternative were selected.4This impact characterization is defined as restricting the area of potential disruption due to previous, recent use of the site for disposal of dredged material found acceptable for ocean disposal.5The difference in cost of hauling dredged material from the region to either Site E or Site W would be less than 1 percent.6This impact is defined as increasing the total area of seafloor subject to disruption if this alternative were selected.7This impact characterization is defined as restricting the area of potential disruption due to previous, recent use of the site for disposal of dredged material found acceptable for ocean disposal.8This impact is defined as potential casualty and associated environmental impacts and the potential for compounded onshore economic impacts.

31July 10, 2009

Preferred Alternative - Site W

• Lower likelihood of sediment transport

• Greater likelihood of meeting water quality criteria

• Reduces regional economic impacts

• Active disposal site

32July 10, 2009

Cumulative Impacts

• Cumulative impact evaluation is a required element of NEPA but one of the hardest concepts to address– Is cumulative the net impact at one location over time?

– Is cumulative the net impact of all known uses?

– Is cumulative the net impact of future uses?

– How do we handle unknown future uses?

– How do you quantitatively compare different uses?- fishing to dredged material disposal, wind farms, etc?

– How do you define and compare beneficial versus adverse impact across the potential uses?

• Any ocean use plan must deal with the competing needs and different types of impact within a consistent framework and evaluation criteria

33July 10, 2009

Lessons for the Ocean Use Planning • List all known and potential uses (think outside the box to define

potential uses and vet these through a public process)

• List and characterize needs with much detail as possible; use consistent terminology and make metrics as comparable as possible (think future and present)

• Develop standard screening tools to ensure each use is evaluated comprehensively and consistently

• Develop evaluation tools that enable comprehensive, consistent cumulative impact comparisons (wouldn’t it be nice to have a standard look up table)

• Ensure the affected environment is characterized fully (physical, chemical, biological, natural resources, socioeconomic, etc.)

• A good database and GIS layers provide a good starting point for ocean planning (spatial resolution of data is frequently inadequate)

• Information on many biological, natural resource, physical/ geophysical characteristics and potential uses are frequently incomplete– Expect to fund research, assessment and monitoring studies to fill data gaps!

34July 10, 2009

An ongoing application

The Rhode Island Ocean SAMP: Creating Use Zones through Research and Public Input– The Rhode Island Ocean Special Area Management Plan, is working

to define use zones for Rhode Island’s ocean waters through a research and planning process that integrates the best available science with open public input and involvement. These use zones are intended to protect or enhance current uses, including habitat and commercial and recreational uses, while providing for future uses, such as renewable energy development. http://seagrant.gso.uri.edu/oceansamp/

- Research to fill holes and data gaps, better understand the system, and provide the essential scientific basis for Ocean SAMP policy development.

- Extensive public outreach and involvement to share information about current uses of the SAMP area and to incorporate the information and concerns of the public into the policy.

35July 10, 2009

36July 10, 2009

Ocean Quahog Sampling

37July 10, 2009

Sediment Profile Imaging at Area E

38July 10, 2009

Alternative Site E

39July 10, 2009

Alternative Site W

1 July 10, 2009 Environmental Business Council 4th Annual Ocean Management Conference Progress...

Documents

Transcript of 1 July 10, 2009 Environmental Business Council 4th Annual Ocean Management Conference Progress...