G t L kGreat Lakes Policy Issues onPolicy Issues on

Dredged Material Management

Tony Friona

November 18, 2014

US Army Corps of EngineersBUILDING STRONG®

Federal Standard (regulation not policy)Federal Standard (regulation, not policy)Federal Standard established in 1988 by USACE per promulgated regulation 33 CFR 335-337 –Three requirements for dredged material management alternative selected by USACE:management alternative selected by USACE:

1. Compliance with environmental standards established by Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) Guideline process promulgated by USEPA (“environmentally acceptable”)( environmentally acceptable ) Follows formal Federal (USEPA/USACE) guidance specific to proposed

dredged material discharges Also requires compliance with applicable state water quality standards Also requires compliance with applicable state water quality standards

after consideration of dilution and dispersion2. Least-cost3. Consistent with sound engineering practices

BUILDING STRONG®

3. Consistent with sound engineering practices

2

Federal Standard is not a new conceptFederal Standard is not a new concept

• Emerged due to changes to the 1977 CWA (Section 401(c) i d d th t th F d l i h d t t t irescinded so that the Federal agencies had to start serving

as applicants for 401 WQCs)• 25 Jul 1978 HQ memo established federal standard25 Jul 1978 HQ memo established federal standard

principles and required that the field defer dredging when there are unresolved state issuesN 1978 HQ fi d d f d l l• Nov 1978 HQ memo confirmed state and federal roles

• 12 Jan 1990 HQ memo “Project proponency for Civil Works Undertakings”Undertakings

BUILDING STRONG®3

Federal Standard Consistencyy Various checkpoints:

LRD memo dated 26 Aug 2013 –preliminary conceptual determination of the Federal Standard reviewed by Corps vertical teamy p

DMMP or IDMMP w/ full Federal Standard determination reviewed by Corps vertical team

Regular coordination between Great Lakes districts

Consistency ensures Federal dredging funds are equitably distributed across the harbors and states

Physical makeup of dredged material across the Great Lakes can varyPhysical makeup of dredged material across the Great Lakes can vary significantly – In general: Upper lakes – Suitable “sandy” material more often dredged and placed in

shallow water (nearshore zone) as a widely recognized beneficial use that is ( ) y gleast-cost

Lower lakes – Suitable “muddier” material (i.e. Cleveland and Toledo) more often dredged and placed in deep water because it is least-cost; b fi i l f h t i l i l l t t d ll

BUILDING STRONG®

beneficial use of such material is rarely least-cost and usually expensive

4

Great Lakes Navigation System

BUILDING STRONG®5

Dredging Requirementsat Leading USACE GL Harbors gHarbor Tonnage

(CY2012) Annual Dredging (CY)

Duluth-Superior, MN & WI 34,672,105 110,000Two Harbor, MN 16,210,087 900Indiana Harbor, IN 13,164,061 100,000Calumet Harbor, IN 11,968,000 60,000Cleveland, OH 11,313,415 225,000Toledo OH 9 638 552 800 000Toledo, OH 9,638,552 800,000Burns Waterway Harbor, IN 8,382,871 1,500Presque Isle, MI 7,741,142 1,700St. Clair River, MI 6,752,523 13,000Ashtabula, OH 4,539,879 50,000

BUILDING STRONG®6

Current Dredged Material Placement MethodsCurrent Dredged Material Placement MethodsGreat Lakes HarborsGreat Lakes Harbors

Lake Superior

MISt. Marys River

Ontonagon

WI Alpena

F kf tK

Sturgeon BayMenominee

MI

CANADAOswego

Rochester

Harbor Beach

Saginaw

Frankfort

Manistee

Ludington

MuskegonPort Washington

Sheboygan

Manitowoc

Green BayKewaunee

CDF

Open Water/Near Shore

MI

NY

IL

Buffalo

Dunkirk

Erie

Monroe

Rouge RiverDetroit River

Lake St. Clair

St. Clair RiverHolland

Grand Haven

St. Joseph

New Buffalo

Waukegan

Kenosha

Milwaukee

CDF

Open Water

Upland

BUILDING STRONG®

PAIL

IN OH LorainHuronSandusky

Toledo

MonroeNew Buffalo

Burns Waterway HarborIndiana Harbor

Calumet

7

Confined Disposal Historic Perspective 1960s – Contamination levels in dredged material gained attention 1969 – Cuyahoga River catches fire and draws National attention (13th fire since 1868) 1970 – Great Lakes CDF System was authorized in the 1970 Rivers and Harbors Act P.L 91-611.

Congress envisioned a short-lived need (i e 10 Years)Congress envisioned a short lived need (i.e. 10 Years) 1972 – Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments (later known as Clean Water Act) 1977 – Section 404 of CWA Lays Out Authority Delegated to USACE to Regulate Discharges of

Dredged Material Into Waters of U.S. and Section 401 requires certifications from states that di h t t lit t d ddischarges meet water quality standards

1978 – Federal Standard is established 1988 – 33 CFR Parts 335-337 promulgated establishing the Federal standard for operation and

maintenance of USACE civil works projects that involve the discharge of dredged or fill materialp j g g 1992 – USEPA promulgated regulations allowing states to adopt narrative water quality

goals/standards based on numeric water quality criteria 2013 – USACE testing data verifies material in Cleveland harbor meets federal standard

guidelines for open lake placementguidelines for open lake placement 2014 – Vast majority of the 45 GL CDFs are either full or near-capacity. Great Lakes Dredging

Need is about 4M CY every year

BUILDING STRONG®8

Historical Perspective

Dredged material nearly exclusively disposed via open

45 Great Lakes CDFs constructed and/or operated by USACE at a cost of $900M

(2009 d ll )

Execute sustainable

DMM

1970 1980 1990

disposed via open water placement

1960 2000

(2009 dollars) DMM solutions

BUILDING STRONG®

Combined Capacity Trend of Five Critical Great Lakes CDFs

12,000,000

14,000,000

10,000,000

y (C

Y)

6,000,000

8,000,000

ing

Cap

acity

4,000,000

, ,

Rem

aini

2,000,000

BUILDING STRONG®10

01975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

C l ti CDF C t ti C tCumulative CDF Construction Costs vs. CDF Remaining Capacity

$600 000 000

$700,000,000

$800,000,000

$900,000,000

Spen

t

70%

80%

90%

100%

aini

ng

$300,000,000

$400,000,000

$500,000,000

$600,000,000

ulat

ive

Dol

lars

30%

40%

50%

60%

Cap

acity

Rem

a

$0

$100,000,000

$200,000,000

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Cum

0%

10%

20%

30%

CDF

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Cumulative CDF Construction Costs Remaining CDF Capacity

Deep water disposal prior to 1970’s

BUILDING STRONG®

Deep-water disposal prior to 1970 s

Current Dredged Material Placement Methods by State

BUILDING STRONG®12

Evaluation of Harbor Conditions

30

Great Lakes Harbors Maximum Concentrations of PCBs

25

mg/

kg)

15

20

ratio

n of

PC

Bs

(m

Saginaw

Green Bay

10

axim

um C

once

nt Buffalo

Cleveland

0

5

Ma

BUILDING STRONG®13

0

975

980

985

990

995

2000

2005

2010

Beneficial Use of Dredged Material(Transition from CDFs to Open Water, Nearshore, etc.)( p , , )Ongoing Duluth-Superior – Testing completed in 2012 shows majority of material suitable

for open lake; placed material in shallow embayment which creates habitat and is less expensive than open lake; port reclaims and sells coarse grain material from CDF.

Green Bay – Testing completed ~2010 – suitable for open lake; transitioned in 2014 from CDF to Cat Island a new facility built with Corps/local sponsor funds;2014 from CDF to Cat Island, a new facility built with Corps/local sponsor funds; also restores a barrier island chain and creates valuable habitat

Many GL harbors – nearshore placement or beach nourishment; protects shoreline from erosion and supplements natural littoral drift

Possible future opportunities Fill for demolished homes in Detroit and Cleveland; road construction; daily land

fill cover; brownfield restoration; mineland reclamation; shallow embayment h bit t ti f ilit t l f AOC b fi i l i i thabitat creation – can facilitate removal of AOC beneficial use impairment

Summary: USACE has been pursuing beneficial use for years with the cooperation and commitment of local sponsors. There are many

t i f t ff ti d i t ll b fi i l

BUILDING STRONG®

success stories of cost effective and environmentally beneficial uses for this material.

14

Additional slides on DMM policy issues

Policy issue slides from Jan Miller’s presentation at the annual o cy ssue s des o Ja e s p ese tat o at t e a ua2014 GLDT Meeting are found at http://greatlakesdredging.net/news-events/meetings/(scroll down to Framing the Issues: Laws, Regulations and Policies –

Jan Miller)

BUILDING STRONG®15

Discussion

BUILDING STRONG®16