Comment submitted by Mayor Harry Simmons, President, American Shore and Beach Preservation Association (ASBPA)

August 6, 2007 Honorable Benjamin H. Grumbles Assistant Administrator for Water c/o Water Docket Environmental Protection Agency Review of National Dredging Policy Mailcode: 2822T 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., EPA West Room 3334 Washington, DC 20460 Submitted Via E-mail: OW-Docket@epa.gov, Attention Docket ID No. EPA?HQ? OW?2007?0357. RE: National Dredging Policy and the National Dredging Team?s 2003 Action Agenda for Dredged Material Management. Docket ID No. EPA?HQ?OW?2007? 0357 Dear Mr. Grumbles: The American Shore and Beach Preservation Association (ASBPA) appreciates the opportunity to submit comments to the Environmental Protection Agency regarding the National Dredging Policy (Policy) and the National Dredging Team?s 2003 Action Agenda for Dredged Material Management (Agenda). Generally, ASBPA is supportive of the conclusions drawn by the Interagency Working Group on the Dredging Process (Group), but submit the comments below to emphasize the need for further federal, state, and local commitment and coordination to improve the dredging process in the United States. Founded in 1926, the American Shore and Beach Preservation Association represents the scientific, technical and political interests along the coast in an effort to shape national research and policy concerning shore and beach management and restoration. The group strives to engage a factual debate on coastal issues and economics that will foster sound, far-sighted and economical development and preservation of our beaches; thereby aiding in placing their benefits within the reach of the largest possible number of people in accordance with the ideals of a democratic nation. As you are well aware, dredging that occurs in ports and waterways adjacent to or just upstream from coastal areas will often have both direct and indirect effects upon the nearby shoreline. Those effects can be positive, negative or sometimes both, but better managing those effects will assist coastal communities in protecting their local, regional and national economic, environmental, and public health interests. It is the view of the ASBPA that the proposed Policy and Agenda are a significant improvement over the current system of managing dredging projects and dredged material. If all or most of the recommendations in the Policy and Agenda are implemented, downstream communities will hopefully be given greater consideration during the planning and implementation of dredging projects. With so much at stake for coastal communities, home to roughly half the American population, there are several areas of the proposed recommendations that need strengthening. Sufficient Funding The Group repeatedly highlights in their identification of the problem and recommendations the need for sufficient funding. The burden for providing funding primarily lies in the hands of Congress, but significant responsibility must also fall on the President when making the annual budget requests. The most important funding source for dredging is the Operations and Maintenance account for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. It is consistently underfunded for both policy and political reasons. To place Congress in the position of exceeding budget caps to meet the dredging obligations of the federal government creates a system that will systematically under- fund dredging operations that sustain our national economy and protect our environment. The Group?s new expectations by federal agencies to better coordinate dredging efforts may streamline the approval process and ensure that the public?s interests receive greater consideration. However, unless sufficient funding is consistently requested by the President, the long-term effectiveness of the Group?s recommendations will not be realized. ASBPA commends the Group for recognizing the need for sufficient funding in their recommendations, but we add that all the other goals of the Group will be unattainable unless that recommendation is given primacy. Regional Sediment Management One of ASBPA?s foremost technical and policy priorities is expanding the use of Regional Sediment Management (RSM) practices. We see it as an effective tool to manage dredged material as well as save money, resources, and time at all levels of government. Despite the fact that ports, navigation channels, beaches, and intracoastal waterways have impacts on each other, the projects to strengthen and maintain these resources are planned and executed as free- standing projects. Federal policy generally requires sediment dredged from channels to be disposed of in the least costly manner possible. As a result, a significant amount of beach-quality sand is disposed offshore rather than on or near shorelines that are eroding and in need of such sand. Other sediment that is either too fine or too muddy for use on beaches can likewise be better used to create environmental habitat. The Conference Report to the Water Resources Development Act of 2007, which was recently approved by the House of Representatives and is awaiting Senate approval, addresses some of the previous statutory limitations the Corps and other federal agencies had faced when trying to more effectively use the RSM Demonstration Program. Congress is clearly expanding the use of RSM practices through the legislative language in WRDA 2007, and it is ASBPA?s hope that federal agencies do more to incorporate RSM into all future dredging policies and activities. Regional Effects of Dredging Beach communities and environmentally sensitive habitat have long been impacted by channel dredging. The naturally occurring littoral drift of sand is disrupted by man-made channels, either up-flow or down-flow from the beach. Not only does this have an impact upon economic and recreational attributes of beaches, but erodes the natural habitat of birds, turtles, and other marine plants and animals. The valuable sand that beaches need instead sinks to the bottom of channels where it is later dredged and often placed off-shore, outside of the coastal drift system. ASBPA strongly feels that more importance needs to be paid to resolving this problem when dredging projects are planned and executed. Currently, the burden usually falls upon the negatively impacted communities to solicit the Corps or another federal or state agency to review the regional impacts of a dredging project. And this review usually comes after the damage has been done and the community has suffered economic or environmental loss. The current process is reactive, rather then proactive. Greater attention should be paid to regional impacts during the planning phase of projects, followed by better monitoring of the impact of dredging starting with the initial construction and maintenance phases. The Group is pursuing proactive approaches to addressing dredged material management, and implementing policies and practices to monitor the regional effects of dredging will help attain this goal. Conclusion The two main objectives of the Interagency Working Group as stated in Section 3.0 of The Dredging Process in the United States: An Action Plan for Improvement are in line with ASBPA?s above stated recommendations. The objectives to ?promote greater certainty and predictability in the dredging project review process and dredged material management? and ?facilitate effective long-term management strategies for addressing dredging and disposal needs at both the National and local levels,? [emphasis added] can be attained by implementing many of the recommendations put forth by the Group, but the recommendations also put forth by ASBPA, and other groups, should be considered as the Group and federal agencies move towards implementation of changes in our national dredging policies. ASBPA and the many individual members of the association who hold elected, scientific, and bureaucratic positions with dredging interests appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Policy and Agenda, and look forward to being a partner with federal, state, and local agencies on these matters in the future. Respectfully Submitted, Mayor Harry Simmons President