1

 OCS STUDY

MMS 2001-090

FINAL REPORT

EXAMINATION OF REGIONAL MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES FOR

FEDERAL OFFSHORE BORROW AREAS ALONG THE UNITED STATES

EAST AND GULF OF MEXICO COASTS

PREPARED FOR:

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

MINERALS MANAGEMENT SERVICE

International Activities and Marine Minerals Division

Under Contract Number 14-35-0001-31051

 October 2001
2

OCS Study

MMS 2001-090

EXAMINATION OF REGIONAL MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES FOR 

FEDERAL OFFSHORE BORROW AREAS 

ALONG THE UNITED STATES EAST AND GULF OF MEXICO COASTS

Prepared for:

International Activities and Marine Minerals Division

Minerals Management Service

U.S. Department of Interior

Herndon, Virginia

Prepared by:

Research Planning, Inc.

Columbia, South Carolina

W.F. Baird & Associates Ltd.

Madison, Wisconsin

Applied Marine Sciences, Inc.

Livermore, California

October 2001
i

DISCLAIMER

This report has been reviewed by the Minerals Management Service and approved for

publication. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the views and policies

of the Service, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement

or recommendation for use.
ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This report was prepared under contract to the Minerals Management Service, Contract

No. 14-35-0001-31051. Barry Drucker was the MMS Project Manager and contributed

significantly to the project objectives. Carol Hartgen is also acknowledged for her contribution

and interest in promoting a management strategy for OCS sand resources. 

Jacqueline Michel of Research Planning, Inc. (RPI) was the overall Project Manager and

author of the report. Rob Nairn of W.F. Baird & Associates Ltd. and Jay Johnson of Applied

Marine Sciences, Inc. provided technical review and comments.

All of the participants at the workshops held in Texas and New Jersey are acknowledged

for their time and valuable input. This project greatly benefited from their insights and

contributions.
iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................1

2.0 REGIONAL MANAGEMENT STRATEGY WORKSHOPS ..........................................4

2.1 Texas Workshop ......................................................................................................4

2.2 New Jersey Workshop .............................................................................................6

2.3 The USACE Regional Sediment Management Program.........................................8

3.0 A FRAMEWORK FOR MANAGING OCS SAND RESOURCES .................................9

3.1 Introduction..............................................................................................................9

3.2 Elements, Goals, and Activities.............................................................................10

3.3 Institutional Issues .................................................................................................11

3.4 Specific Recommendations for OCS Sand Management ......................................12

3.5 An Implementation Plan ........................................................................................16

4.0 REFERENCES CITED ....................................................................................................19

APPENDICIES

APPENDIX A MMS Presentation at the Regional Sand Management Workshop

APPENDIX B Participants in the MMS OCS Sand Management Planning Workshop:

Houston, Texas, 1 May 2000

APPENDIX C Oil & Gas Infrastructure Issues: Presentation at the Houston Regional

Sand Management Workshop:

APPDNDIX D Participants in the MMS OCS Sand Management Planning Workshop:

Trenton, New Jersey, 30 May 2000
iv

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 1 Environmental studies on OCS sand resource issues funded

or supported by MMS. .......................................................................................2
1

EXAMINATION OF REGIONAL MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES FOR 

FEDERAL OFFSHORE BORROW AREAS 

ALONG THE UNITED STATES EAST AND GULF OF MEXICO COASTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The Minerals Management Service (MMS) International Activities and Marine Minerals

Division (INTERMAR) is charged with environmentally responsible management of Federal

Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) sand and gravel resources. These resources lie seaward of the

State/Federal boundary. Public Law 102-426 (43 U.S.C. 1337(k)(2)), enacted 31 October 1994,

gave MMS the authority to negotiate, on a noncompetitive basis, the rights to OCS sand, gravel,

and shell resources for shore protection, beach or wetlands restoration projects, or for use in

construction projects funded in whole or part by or authorized by the Federal government. In

1999, that law was amended to prohibit charging State and local governments a fee for using

OCS sand resources, although competitive leasing and fees remain for other uses, including

commercial recovery of offshore sand and gravel for use as construction aggregate. 

As the demand for sand for shoreline protection increases, OCS sand and gravel will

become an increasingly important resource. Between 1995 and September 2001, MMS conveyed

over 14,600,000 cubic yards of OCS sand for ten projects. It should be noted that projects are

initiated by the beneficiaries of the resource; MMS does not propose leases for OCS sand

resources. MMS’s mission is to make timely, streamlined, and environmentally sound and

fiscally responsible decisions to access OCS sand resources. To support their mission, they have

formed cooperative agreements with ten States to identify and evaluate OCS sand resources as

potential sources for future beach nourishment projects. As of 2001, MMS has provided $4.6

million in funding to support geological and geophysical studies to identify and quantify OCS

sand sources. The status of these inventory studies and copies of available reports for the nine

States (Alabama, Delaware, Florida, Louisiana, Maryland, New Jersey, North Carolina, South

Carolina, Texas, and Virginia) are posted on the INTERMAR web site

(www.mms.gov/intermar/marineac.htm).

MMS expects that some OCS sand resources will be long-term sources of sand borrow

material for coastal erosion management because of:

• The general diminishing supply of onshore and nearshore sand;

• The renourishment cycles for beaches or coastal areas requiring quantities of sand not

currently available from State sources; and

• The need for access to large sand inventories for immediate/emergency repair of beaches

and coastal damage from severe coastal storms.

MMS has developed guidelines for those interested in obtaining leases to develop OCS sand

resources (Giordano et al., 1999; available at (http://www.mms.gov/intermar/marineac.htm). As

steward for these resources, MMS must ensure that any use of OCS sand resources will not

adversely affect the marine, coastal, and human environments. Under the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), an environmental assessment or environmental impact
2

statement (prepared by either MMS or another Federal Agency) is used to evaluate whether or

not to issue a lease. MMS has taken an active role in identifying the potential environmental

impacts of dredging OCS sand by conducting baseline studies of selected OCS regions and

funding research on specific areas of concern. Table 1 lists the studies funded by MMS under

this program; the studies are available at www.mms.gov/intermar/environmentalstudiespage.htm.

Table 1.Environmental studies on OCS sand resource issues funded or supported by MMS.

Site-Specific Environmental Baseline Studies

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New

York and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration. Draft

report Spring 2003. Final Report Winter 2003

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas on the East Florida Shelf and the Environmental

Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration. Final Report May 2002

Collection of Environmental Data within Sand Resource Areas Offshore North Carolina and the

Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration. Final Report Winter

2001

Surveys of Sand Resource Areas Offshore Maryland/Delaware and the Environmental Implications of

Sand Removal for Beach Restoration Projects. OCS Study MMS 2000-055 

Environmental Surveys of OCS Sand Resources Offshore New Jersey. OCS Study MMS 2000-052

Environmental Survey of Identified Sand Resource Areas Offshore Alabama. OCS Study MMS 99-

0052

Use of Federal Sand Resources for Beach and Coastal Restoration in New Jersey, Maryland, Delaware

and Virginia. OCS Study MMS 99-0036

Environmental Studies Relative to Potential Sand Mining in the Vicinity of the City of Virginia Beach,

Virginia. OCS Study MMS 97-0025

Wave Modeling/Shoreline Erosion

A Numerical Modeling Examination of the Cumulative Physical Effects of Offshore Sand Dredging for

Beach Nourishment – New Jersey, Virginia, North Carolina, Florida. Final Report Winter 2001

Wave Climate and Bottom Boundary Layer Dynamics with Implications for Offshore Sand Mining and

Barrier Island Replenishment, South-Central Louisiana. OCS Study MMS 2000-053

Wave Climate Modeling and Evaluation Relative to Sand Mining on Ship Shoal, Offshore LA, for

Coastal and Barrier Islands Restoration. OCS Study MMS 96-0059

A Methodology and Criteria to Assess the Impact of Sand Volume Removed in Federal Waters on the

Offshore Wave Climate. OCS Study MMS 99-0046

Generic Studies Applicable to all Offshore Marine Mineral Efforts

Model Development or Modification for Analysis of Benthic and Surface Plume Generation and Extent

During Offshore Dredging Operations. Final Report 2002

Integrated Study of the Biological and Physical Effects of Marine Aggregate Dredging. Final Report

Fall 2001

Study of the Cumulative Effects of Marine Aggregate Dredging. OCS Study MMS 99-0030

Marine Aggregate Mining Benthic and Surface Plume Study. OCS Study MMS 99-0029

Impacts and Direct Effects of Sand Dredging for Beach Renourishment on the Benthic Organisms and

Geology of the West Florida Shelf. OCS Report MMS 95-0005

Marine Mining Technologies and Mitigation Techniques. A Detailed Analysis with Respect to the

Mining of Specific Offshore Mineral Commodities. OCS Report MMS 95-0003

Synthesis and Analysis of Existing Information Regarding Environmental Effects of Marine Mining.

OCS Report MMS 93-0006
3

Most of the research to identify OCS sand resources has focused on bathymetric highs,

described as sand shoals, ridges, and banks (RPI et al., 2001). It appears that, because of their

distance from shore (3 miles for most states) and water depth (typically 30-60 feet), these

features appear to be isolated from the sediment budget of the littoral system by large distances

and muddy areas (the latter indicating the absence of a sand transport pathway), though this will

not always be the case. Their isolation from the active littoral system reduces the possibility of

interrupting a sediment supply pathway to the shoreline, but it also prevents replacement of sand

removed during dredging. Thus, OCS sand should be considered as a potentially non-renewable

resource that needs careful management so that it is used appropriately.

Now, in the early stages of resource utilization, is the time to establish the mechanisms

for long-term management of this resource. MMS identified the need to formulate options and

recommendations for including Federal, State, and local governments and other stakeholders in

an overall planning process to manage the Federal offshore borrow sites in an environmentally

responsible and cost-effective manner over the long term. MMS is assessing the feasibility of a

regional sand management approach to improve coordination among the relevant regional

parties, organizations, and agencies with interest in the use of OCS sand resources for beach and

coastal restoration. Important objectives of the MMS program are the demonstrated cost savings

and value added benefits that can be achieved through regional management. 

The key management issues are summarized below:

- There are numerous jurisdictions, authorities, consultations, etc. that must be addressed.

- Multiple entities may wish to access an OCS borrow site repeatedly over time, on a longterm, even continual basis. 

- Currently, each OCS dredging project is considered on a case-by-case, project-specific

basis.

- There are opportunities to make the process more efficient and reduce the time and costs

for permitting and planning, as well as the costs of operations and monitoring.

- Even with the ongoing environmental studies funded by the MMS and other entities,

there remain questions about the environmental impacts (especially long-term,

cumulative) that could result from dredging of OCS borrow sites.

Research Planning, Inc. (RPI) was contracted to assist MMS in determining the

feasibility of developing regional OCS sand management strategies. The project consisted of the

following steps. The first step was to identify two areas where pilot studies could be conducted

to solicit input from stakeholders on how to best achieve the above objectives. The two areas

would represent different: physical and biological settings, technical issues, environmental

concerns, interested parties, and agency policies on the issues. Key agencies and staff in each

area were identified and contacted to discuss their perspectives on what kind of management

strategies would be most appropriate. The next step was to conduct a one-day workshop in each

area and identify the key issues and concerns about use of OCS sand resources. Appendix A

contains the presentation made by MMS at the two workshops, outlining their issues and

objectives. All of the information obtained from discussions with MMS staff, agency
4

representatives, and at the workshops was formulated into a set of recommendations and a

framework for managing OCS sand resources. Once the basic framework is accepted, Year 2

project activities will include identifying geographic areas and participants that should be on a

"sand management task force", developing organizational charters and materials for each sand

management task force, and providing them with technical support during initial meetings. This

report presents the results of the two workshops and recommendations on best how to achieve

the overall objectives of OCS sand management.

2.0 REGIONAL MANAGEMENT STRATEGY WORKSHOPS

MMS selected two States in which to conduct workshops with Federal, State, and local

government representatives to assess the feasibility of a regional management approach for OCS

sand. New Jersey was selected as a State with a strong beach nourishment program and many

nourishment projects funded by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Texas was

selected as a State that was just starting a state-wide program and where, historically, beach

nourishment projects were funded mostly by local government agencies. The results of these two

workshops are summarized below. This section also includes a short description of the Regional

Sediment Management Program being developed by the USACE because of its relevance to

MMS objectives.

2.1 Texas Workshop

A workshop was held in Houston, Texas on 1 May 2001. A list of participants is included

in Appendix B. The State of Texas has recently initiated a program with funding from the

Coastal Erosion Planning and Response Act. The goals of this program are to:

- protect habitats

- resolve environmental issues

- cover long-term needs

- avoid controversial issues that delay projects

- achieve realistic results

The State needs an inventory of long-term needs and available sand sources for coastal

protection for the next 50 years. There are serious erosion problems from the Louisiana border to

San Luis Pass, including protection of the McFadden National Wildlife Refuge, re-building of

state highway 87, and nourishment of the recreational beaches in the Galveston Island area. The

Texas Bureau of Economic Geology has an active shoreline monitoring program that projects the

position of the shoreline 60 years in the future. MMS recently signed a cooperative agreement

with the Texas Bureau of Economic Geology to compile existing information on OCS sand

resources. Two offshore sand shoals (Sabine and Heald Banks) could provide significant sand

resources (estimated to be nearly 2 billion cubic meters of sand and muddy sand), however, they

are located significant distances offshore (20 miles south of Sabine Pass and 56 miles east of the

entrance to Galveston Harbor) (Morton and Gibeaut, 1993). Researchers at Rice University have

identified incised river valleys and other paleo-shorelines closer to shore that contain significant

volumes of sand (Rodriguez et al., 1999). Because of the costs of double handling sand from
5

distant borrow sites, the emphasis for now is on nearshore sites, including those that might be

covered by a muddy overburden. It was agreed that one of the highest priorities was an inventory

of suitable offshore sand resources, including banks, paleo-channels, and paleo-shorelines. 

Because Sabine Bank and other offshore sand resources straddle the Texas/Louisiana

border, the State of Louisiana has a strong interest in this offshore area. With a sand-starved and

subsiding coastline, their approach is to bring in sand by: 1) re-establishing alluvial processes

(e.g., river diversion projects by breaching of levees); and 2) dredging offshore sand. They need

to re-establish the barrier islands to protect the estuarine systems of bays and marshes and

prevent the loss of cheniers that, once gone, would result in rapid erosion of the marshes behind

them. At Holly Beach, Louisiana (close to the Texas border), feasible sand sources include

buried paleo-channels that extend 1-5 miles offshore. Relict sheet sands, paleo-channels, and

banks such as Ship Shoal are all being evaluated as sand sources. Although there are significant

differences in the erosion problems and solutions sought between the two States, it was clear that

OCS sand will be considered as part of the long-term solution to habitat protection in both States.

Louisiana Department of Natural Resources has, in fact, already contacted MMS regarding a

negotiated lease to use Sabine Bank for a planned Holly Beach nourishment project.

The USACE is starting a feasibility study, with Jefferson and Galveston Counties as local

sponsors, to identify suitable offshore areas for beach nourishment sand and develop other

potential solutions. Cost-effectiveness is an issue for the USACE because they have to justify

costs relative to benefits. If the costs were too high (because of distance offshore), their

participation would be in jeopardy. 

Oil and gas infrastructure poses serious issues with development of OCS sand. Appendix

C includes a copy of a MMS presentation on this topic. There are 50,000 km of pipelines, 4,005

active platforms (with an associated 13,110 wells), and 2,018 removed platforms (with 22,965

wells plugged and abandoned) in the Gulf of Mexico OCS. Because data on pipeline and well

location are old and imprecise, site clearance surveys and buffer zones (both for physical

avoidance and preservation of substrate stability around the feature) will be needed. If borrow

sites were identified and cleared, there is the potential that installation of new pipeline could

become a conflict in the future use of a borrow site.

Representatives from the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) pointed out that

there were likely significant fisheries associated with banks such as Sabine and Heald Banks.

These bathymetric highs are fishing hot spots. NMFS is presently conducting studies of banks in

other locations to determine if they should be considered as essential fish habitat (EFH) for

certain species of juvenile fish in the Gulf of Mexico. Fishery and marine mammals issues would

be identified as part of the EFH and Endangered Species Act consultation process during

preparation and review of the environmental assessment or environmental impact assessment.

Key points on the concept of a regional management strategy resulting from the Texas

meeting include:

- Any coordinated management effort should include both Federal OCS and State sand

resources.
6

- The State should take the lead.

- The planning timeframe should be 50 years.

- A comprehensive inventory of sand needs (including the impacts related to relative sealevel rise) and sources is essential. Without this information, there is no basis for

developing management strategies.

- Because of costs, inshore sand resources will be exhausted first.

- The plan should include an adaptive management approach that uses monitoring and

routine re-appraisal to re-direct efforts and priorities.

- The process should not become so big and cumbersome that it slows down beach

nourishment projects.

- It should not become a bureaucracy that involves a lot of time attending meetings.

- Federal/State/local cost sharing will be needed in all phases of data collection,

monitoring, and management.

2.2 New Jersey Workshop

A workshop was held in Trenton, New Jersey on 30 May 2001. A list of participants is

included in Appendix D. Through a cooperative agreement with MMS, the State has conducted

an extensive inventory of beach erosion along the entire coast of New Jersey and identified areas

where sand for future nourishment would be needed most. Their goal is to catalog all resources

with >500,000 cubic yards, identify sites other than bathymetric highs, and fill data gaps within

the next five years. They plan to identify sand sources to meet their needs for the next 50 years.

Until recently, they considered OCS sand as an emergency source only. Now, they know that

there is not enough sand inshore (particularly in the southern parts of the State), and the good

inshore sand sources are also important areas for the valuable commercial surf clam fishery.

The State takes the lead as the local sponsor for all beach nourishment projects. They

have a good funding base ($25 million per year) to conduct their own studies and set priorities.

There is very close coordination between the State and USACE through regular Joint Permit

Processing meetings. There is a Task Force that meets annually to review and evaluate the

geological studies and inventory of sand sources and needs. They are very successful at

coordinating use of equipment for dredging, coring surveys, and environmental studies. The

State takes the administrative lead for these meetings. 

The potential impact of dredging on the commercial surf clam fishery is an important

issue. The State is conducting a three-year, post-dredging study of the recruitment of surf clams

in dredged areas (to be completed in 2003). They hope to develop optimum dredging strategies

to speed the recovery of benthic communities. Most of the shoal features are prime fishing areas

and thus good fish habitat. Fisheries staff suggested a more holistic approach to the problem,

using alternative methods of erosion control and better use of dredged sand, to extend the life of

the beachfills and reduce the frequency of dredging. It was noted that the biological monitoring

studies program was not as well coordinated as the geological studies program. The State felt

that they were not getting the best value from the biological monitoring projects and needed

more coordination with data interpretation and findings. In particular, the biological monitoring

program had inadequate funding for any planning/coordination functions or data synthesis;
7

funding was only available to conduct studies and prepare study-specific reports. There is no

mechanism for bringing together of various stakeholders for data review and discussion of the

results from different perspectives. There is no plan for synthesis of all available data and open

discussion of how these data might be applied to other sites, or how new monitoring programs

should be designed to address key unanswered questions. It seems that each biological

monitoring study begins “from scratch”.

MMS has funded studies to gather benthic biological data and wave transformation

analysis to look at impacts of proposed dredging on the shoreline in each of the seven potential

sand borrow areas evaluated by the cooperative program in New Jersey (Byrnes et al., 2001).

The work included extensive and repetitive biological sampling in each of the areas and wave

modeling to determine what impacts the removal of sand would have on the surrounding areas

and adjacent parts of the coast. MMS also funded an environmental report identifying and

synthesizing all available information, environmental issues, and possible mitigation measures

for the use of sand from the Federal OCS for future beach nourishment for the mid-Atlantic

region (Louis Berger Group, 1999). A new MMS-funded study, initiated in FY2001, is looking

at the biology and physical characteristics of northern New Jersey, off Monmouth County.

The USACE New York District conducted a comprehensive study of three offshore

borrow sites, that included field surveys of benthic communities, fish populations, and trophic

transfer for three years pre- and two years post-dredging (Burlas et al., 2001). For the offshore

borrow sites, species abundance, biomass, and composition returned to undredged conditions

within 1.5 to 2.5 years. For fish in the borrow areas, there was no substantive difference in

species composition or catch-per-unit-effort among areas within any given collection period.

Analyses of stomach contents for both winter and summer flounder indicated no substantive

change in the diet of either species. The results of this study, although very important, may be

applicable only to this portion of the Atlantic coast and may not be true for other areas.

Archaeological resources, primarily shipwrecks, are an important issue in the waters off

New Jersey because of their protected status and high level of recreational use by sport divers.

Sites show up on side-scan sonar and magnetometer surveys with certain signatures that indicate

or suggest a shipwreck or other historical feature. The sites are usually protected in place by

establishing an avoidance zone. The State is developing "best practices" approaches for

identifying and protecting shipwrecks at borrow sites. The sport diver community is very active

and reports on any impacts on sites after dredging. Thus, the locational accuracy of the actual

dredging operation is very important. MMS has a proposed study for initiation in FY2002, to

examine buffer zones relative to dredging operations.

Artificial reefs are another potential concern. All fourteen artificial reef sites in New

Jersey are in Federal waters. It was recommended that MMS should review permits for

placement of artificial reefs because the designated sites could cover and limit access to sand and

gravel resources. 

Key points on the concept of a regional management strategy resulting from the New

Jersey meeting include:
8

- A strong State, with adequate funding, provides the best basis for successful planning.

- Good geological data identifying sand sources and volumes and a sand budget identifying

long-term needs are required to begin the planning process.

- Task forces or working groups are effective when members have funding to work the

project, are personally involved in the work, and know there is a long-term commitment

to the program. Therefore, the regional management effort should be formalized through

cooperative agreements.

- There is a need to integrate monitoring study results and data interpretation, so that

consensus can be reached on findings, and future monitoring requirements can be

modified to reflect the most current understanding of the types and duration of impacts.

New understanding of impacts learned from monitoring studies needs to be incorporated

into resource management decisions.

- Long-term monitoring will be required for 50-year projects because it is not possible to

predict the future impacts over that period. The types of monitoring will change over

time, reflecting information and understanding gained from on-going studies.

- Meetings are very valuable for coordination and information exchange, particularly if

they are focused.

- MMS, with its broader perspective, should be the clearinghouse for environmental impact

studies and results.

- Dredgers should be participants, to understand the issues and concerns and promote

exchange of ideas and solutions.

2.3 The USACE Regional Sediment Management Program 

In the past, the USACE has focused on managing sand at coastal projects on a project-byproject basis. This approach to sand management may not adequately consider the impact of

individual projects on down drift projects. To address this issue, the USACE initiated efforts to

assess the benefits of managing sediment resources as a regional scale resource rather than a

localized project resource. In October 1999, the Mobile District initiated the USACE Northern

Gulf of Mexico Regional Sediment Management (RSM) Demonstration Program. The goal of

the demonstration program is to change the paradigm of project specific management to focusing

on a regional approach in which the USACE as well as state and local agencies stop managing

projects and begin "managing the sand." The objectives of the demonstration program are:

- Implement Regional Sediment Management practices; 

- Improve economic performance by linking projects; 

- Development of new engineering techniques to optimize/conserve sediment; 

- Determine bureaucratic obstacles to Regional Sediment Management; and 

- Manage in concert with the environment.

The product of the RSM demonstration program is a Regional Sediment Management

Plan consisting of a calibrated regional sediment budget, a calibrated numerical regional

prediction system, and a regional data management and Geographic Information System. These

tools will assist in making management decisions and increase benefits resulting from improved

sand management throughout the region. 
9

The USACE Regional Sediment Management program is focused on 1) coordinating and

setting standards for data collection, reduction, storage, and distribution to meet the needs

multiple users, to encourage efficiency and maximum value, 2) optimizing equipment utilization

for multiple projects where feasible, and 3) keeping the sediment within the littoral system,

emphasizing beneficial uses of dredged material rather than disposal offshore. The results of the

demonstration project by the Mobile District will be used to expand the concept of regional

sediment management planning to other districts. 

The RSM program will not, however, address all of the issues of concern to MMS in its

charge of environmental management of OCS sand resources. OCS sand would be considered as

a resource that could contribute to the sand budget along a shoreline. Assuming that the RSM

program gets funded in other USACE Districts, this program could provide both funding and

administrative resources for some of the activities that apply to both USACE and MMS

objectives. In particular, increased cost effectiveness through better coordination among projects

is a major objective of the RSM program.

3.0 A FRAMEWORK FOR MANAGING OCS SAND RESOURCES

3.1 Introduction

Based on discussions with MMS, agency representatives, and other stakeholders, it is

clear that MMS needs a strategy for managing offshore sand and gravel resources in the public’s

trust. The question is, How should the resource be managed? There are multiple agencies with

overlapping jurisdictions, differing objectives, limited staff resources, and highly variable

technical skills. Decisions are not made solely on policy, technical, or economic considerations.

Rather, they are made on a combination of all of these considerations, and in light of the current

understanding of the relative importance of each and the magnitude of trade-offs among impacts

and benefits. Not all beach nourishment projects are driven by the economics of tourist

visitations or protection of private development. Sand placement on shorelines also protects

important coastal habitats, fishery resources, and wildlife. Each State faces a different

combination of issues, and resource managers strive to consider all costs and benefits. 

One successful model to follow is the organization set up under the Oil Pollution Act of

1990 (Public Law 101-380-August 18, 1990) to support oil spill contingency planning and

emergency response on the local level. Specifically, an Area Committee is established for each

area; for the coastal zone, an Area Committee is established for each of the 46 U.S. Coast Guard

Captain of the Port zones, and for the inland zones, for each of the ten U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency Regions. Members include qualified personnel of Federal, State, and local

agencies, local industries, and other interested parties such as environmental groups. The Area

Committee is responsible for preparing an Area Contingency Plan and working with Federal,

State, and local officials to develop procedures and approvals to improve the overall response to

spills in the Area. The Area Committees identify sensitive areas, develop protection priorities,

approve the use of certain types of response methods, provide procedures for obtaining expedited

decisions regarding the use of chemical countermeasures, etc. The results of these activities are
10

published in the Area Contingency Plan, and the plan is updated periodically. Area Committees

evaluate a wide range of technical information to make regulatory and policy decisions that

involve trade-offs among diverse resource concerns. They regularly review and interpret new

information (e.g., research results, spill case histories, presentations by technical experts) and

modify procedures to improve resource protection during spill emergencies. Information is

shared among Area Committees and Regional Response Teams, especially where one group has

developed a new protocol or decision-making tool that can be used as template by others.

3.2 Elements, Goals, and Activities

A planning process for offshore sand management could follow a similar organizational

framework as described above. The elements, goals, and activities of the process are outlined

below.

Elements

- It is a formalized process for planning, decisionmaking, and coordination among

stakeholders.

- It is pro-active; it identifies potential problems, collects data needed to address the

problems, then uses the results to propose and implement needed solutions.

- It requires a level of commitment, by each organization and the individuals assigned to

participate in the process, to be involved on a long-term basis.

- It promotes information sharing among stakeholders through open meetings where issues

can be raised and discussed.

- It provides a mechanism for making decisions, setting priorities and goals, and resolving

issues through discussion, data collection and interpretation, and consensus building.

- It produces results, by identifying key data gaps, developing study plans to fill those data

gaps, and reaching conclusions about results. 

Goals

- Avoid or minimize the environmental impacts to OCS sand borrow sites that may

represent long-term sources of sand for coastal communities.

- Reduce the time and costs to efficiently access OCS borrow sites.

- Promote coordination among beach nourishment/coastal restoration projects to maximize

cost-effectiveness.

- Allow for adaptive management, learning from past projects to better manage future

projects.

- Evaluate the current process for planning, implementing, and coordinating beach

nourishment projects, and identify problem areas. Set priorities for working on problems.
11

Based on discussions with local, state, and federal stakeholders involved in beach

nourishment projects, the following issues were identified as possible sand management

activities:

- Compile inventory of projected sand needs from all entities in the region of interest,

based on analysis of the sediment budget for the total system.

- Compile inventory of known sand resources available, including both nearshore and

offshore sand borrow sites.

- Identify critical data gaps (environmental/resource) and recommend actions to address

these gaps.

- Develop guidelines for sand resource allocation (volume available versus short- and longterm needs). The objective is to preclude future "sand wars", as well as define appropriate

uses of available sand resources.

- Develop and keep updated a master schedule of proposed sand dredging plans.

- Evaluate strategies for permit streamlining.

- Develop procedures for accessing sand under emergency conditions.

- Establish monitoring requirements and recovery endpoints.

- Develop techniques for dredging that maximizes use of the site and minimizes impacts,

by testing different methods (e.g., dredging in strips that leave undisturbed areas to

promote rapid recruitment; designating specific sites or types of sites as preferred

dredging zones, to concentrate impacts in more restricted areas, etc.).

- Identify time windows that are best/worst time for dredging to protect sensitive species.

3.3 Institutional Issues

Federal, State, and local government agencies have various responsibilities, authorities,

interests, and roles in coastal erosion and habitat protection associated with beach nourishment

projects. These agencies function within regulatory, institutional, and financial constraints that

greatly affect how they might participate in regional management, as outlined below.

The USACE historically has been limited in its ability to be proactive in developing

regional strategies because their funding comes from Congress as specific authorizations for

projects in specific areas. However, the USACE is a key player in beach nourishment projects.

Ideally, they should be active participants and provide funding to support the types of regional

studies needed to develop inventories of sediment sources and long-term sediment needs.
12

The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) often cannot be an active participant

because of personnel resource limitations. They prefer that their input be sought through the

established protocols of consultation through the NEPA process. However, because many of the

potential OCS borrow sites are likely to be designated as essential fish habitat, NMFS

participation in developing a regional strategy will be extremely important to the discussion of

impacts, trade-offs, and mitigation strategies. Fishery Management Councils may be able to take

on some of the responsibility for dealing with commercial fishery issues.

In the past, MMS has signed leases to use OSC sand resources one at a time. They have

not committed to or signed long-term leases, as a matter of policy so far. Yet, integral to a

regional management strategy is the identification of known and accessible sand resources.

There has to be some commitment that the OCS sand resources will be available, as long as

environmental impacts can be mitigated. MMS is currently evaluating longer-term agreements

and leases, where this option is feasible.

States vary widely in their level of funding (and thus ability to provide leadership) for

coastal erosion programs. Strong States have long-term funding and coordinated, State-level

programs with which they can support the staff and research needed to proactively develop and

implement sand management programs. In these States, MMS will have strong partners who will

take the lead. States without such resources will require a higher degree of involvement by

MMS. For other States, the beach management programs are organized at the county level,

meaning that MMS will have to deal with multiple organizations that have a more narrow focus

on local, rather than State-wide issues.

3.4 Specific Recommendations for OCS Sand Management

Considering all of the information obtained during this project, the following

recommendations are offered to guide MMS in developing a planning process for managing

OCS sand resources.

1. Regional management of sand resources is feasible and essential to the MMS

goals for managing OCS sand resources in a cost-effective and environmentally

sound manner.

Increased demand for OCS sand has triggered a need to manage the resource. Now that

there are multiple potential users for sand from a single site, resource allocation becomes an

issue. Frequent use raises concerns about the ability of the ecosystem to recover between

dredging events, as well as long-term cumulative impacts. Coordination among users could

reduce all types of costs, from mobilization to monitoring. Other Federal agencies, States, and

local governments clearly look to MMS to provide leadership and guidance on both policy and

technical issues. They also expect to be active participants in decisions about any restrictions or

costs associated with accessing the sand.
13

2. Generally, the "region" should consist of a single State. 

States differ in the types of beach erosion problems, approaches to solve them, amount of

data available, level of state involvement and commitment, etc. It would be an added level of

difficulty to try to engage more than one state in the process. The exception will be for specific

borrow sites that straddle state lines, and these sites would have to be handled on a case-by-case

basis.

3. Regional management efforts should start in those States that can provide a strong

State Lead AND have already identified a need for OCS sand resources.

MMS is limited by the small size of the INTERMAR division. They cannot take on the

administrative burdens of coordination and logistics for 9+ regions. Furthermore, it would be

more cost effective to work with agencies that have the resources and commitment to develop a

successful approach that will be a model for future efforts. For example, the success of the early

coordination efforts of the geological Task Force in New Jersey is already recognized as a model

that should be followed for biological assessments there. Another factor is the degree of interest

in accessing OCS sand resources. Because of the high costs of handling sand over long distances,

inshore sources of sand are considered to be more economically feasible. However, there other

factors that might out-weigh the cost factor, such as not interfering with the littoral transport

system (thus having to dredge offshore beyond wave base), environmental concerns about

continual dredging in the nearshore region, and changes to wave conditions resulting from

increased depths nearshore.

4. MMS should build on existing geological "Task Forces" in each State, letting them

evolve into a State/MMS Sand Management Task Force.

MMS has already established task forces or State/MMS cooperatives to collect geological

data and identify promising OCS sand resources in nine states. These established relationships

can be the basis for expanded responsibilities of a Sand Management Task Force (SMTF).

Compiling inventories of needs and sources is the first step in the process and needs to be

completed before addressing other issues. 

The relationship between the Sand Management Task Force and the USACE RSM

program will have to be addressed in each region, depending on the stage of development of

each. The RSM program currently emphasizes collection of data on sediment budgets and

focuses more on operational issues. The MMS objectives for cost effectiveness and efficiency

match closely with those of the RSM. There should be good cross-coordination between the two

groups where they are both active.

5. MMS should expand its role in sponsoring and co-sponsoring workshops and

developing synthesis documents and guidelines on technical and policy issues for

managing offshore sand resources.

MMS has already started this process with a special session at the January 2002 Gulf of

Mexico Information Transfer Meeting and the publication of the papers from the meeting in the
14

Journal of Coastal Research. It is also recommended that MMS sponsor smaller, half-day or oneday meetings on specific topics where researchers can informally discuss their results and work

toward the development of findings and conclusions. These meetings could be coordinated with

other scheduled meetings or conferences. MMS could arrange for 1-2 experts to participate in the

meetings, as appropriate for the selected topic. 

MMS has traditionally emphasized publication of study results in peer-reviewed journals

to provide scientific credibility to the study results. There should be parallel efforts to generate

and disseminate in a timely manner non-peered-reviewed technical documents that represent

current approaches, guidelines, policies, findings, etc. MMS could take the lead on developing

technical synthesis reports on the current state of knowledge on selected topics. These reports

would be 2-5 page technical summaries on topics where there is general consensus on findings.

Their production could be triggered by the completion of a major study, or the consensus reached

at one of the smaller meetings discussed above. MMS could synthesize the guidelines developed

by more advanced SMTFs and make them available on their web site as templates for use by

others. This role of providing a mechanism for sharing of experience and building on previous

efforts (rather than having to start from ground zero) is appropriate for a Federal agency with a

broader perspective and contact with multiple agencies. The small size of the INTERMAR

division limits the amount of personnel involvement they can commit to. Yet, it is clear that,

through cooperative agreements, MMS can achieve significant cost effectiveness and valueadded benefits, as demonstrated by the progress made in geological studies to identify and

quantify OCS sand resources in the priority states. 

6. MMS should become the clearinghouse for studies and findings on environmental

impacts associated with offshore dredging relative to OCS/Federal borrow areas

and use its web site to better disseminate this knowledge.

MMS should take leadership role in managing and coordinating environmental studies on

the impacts of offshore dredging of OCS borrow sites. The costs of environmental monitoring of

offshore areas are high, thus the study results need to be widely disseminated to all interested

parties in a form that is useful to them. The National Research Council report on Managing

Troubled Waters: The Role of Marine Environmental Monitoring (NRC, 1990) noted that "not

only must data be gathered, but attention must also be paid to their management, synthesis,

interpretation, and analysis" and "adequate resources are needed not only for data collection but

also for detailed analysis and evaluation over the long term." MMS has followed these guidelines

for their own studies, by producing and widely distributing reports at several technical levels

(e.g., executive summaries, technical summaries, non-technical summaries, detailed reports). Yet

there is a need for better dissemination of all environmental monitoring data for offshore areas,

and the Internet can be an effective means of accomplishing this goal.

As a first step, INTERMAR should re-design its web site to increase its functionality and

use. The site should include only information on offshore sand and gravel resource issues and be

designed around the following themes: 

I. Mission Statement, Objectives
15

II. Information for users interested in obtaining leases to develop OCS sand resources

A. Guidelines Report (excellent introduction into the process)

B. Maps and short descriptions of the currently known locations and volumes of known

sand resources (so users could find out if there are sand sources near their areas)

C. Past, current, and potential future leases (so users could see who has accessed sand in

the past, and find out about current and future plans in adjacent areas)

III. Environmental Impacts of OCS Dredging Activities

A. Biological Monitoring Study Reports

- List of relevant studies (not just limited to MMS-funded studies), with html text

for the Technical Summary, key figures from the report, and point of contact, and

a link for downloading the full report

- Summaries of technical workshops on related topics

- Protocols for conducting biological monitoring

- Other sections as needed

B. Physical Monitoring Study Reports (waves, shoreline erosion, bathymetric change)

- same as above

C. Other Related Impact Reports

- same as above

IV. Environmental Assessments/Environmental Impact Statements

Copies of previous EA/EIS, to facilitate environmental impact assessment for new leases

V. Cooperative Agreements with State and Federal Agencies

- Updated versions of the current pages for activities with each State

- Add MOAs for USACE and other Federal agencies as established

VI. Upcoming Events (meetings, conferences, etc.)

VII. Links to Related Sites

There should be a site index and the ability to search the site using key words. 

A well-designed and regularly updated web site could achieve many of the MMS

objectives, in terms of providing value-added benefits through sharing of information and

findings among states. The MMS INTERMAR web site should become the best site for getting

the most current, technical and policy information on offshore sand and gravel resources.

7. MMS should continue to play a lead role in the design and funding of long-term

monitoring studies.

Monitoring studies are extremely expensive to conduct in offshore waters. There are

never enough data to fully characterize all potential impacts. Of particular concern are potential

long-term impacts associated with repeated dredging of a site. Therefore, monitoring programs

have to be well-designed, cost-effective, and funded over long enough periods to produce

definitive results. Funding is one of the key problems because no one agency or group has
16

enough resources to fund monitoring programs. When there are multiple users of a site,

responsibility for monitoring becomes even more complicated. 

Monitoring costs need to be shared among the beneficiaries of the sand (State and local

government sponsor), the managers of the resource (MMS), and other Federal agencies with an

interest in the results of a monitoring effort. For instance, monitoring studies may provide

valuable data for identifying essential fish habitat (EFH) in the Federal OCS, thus NMFS should

be involved in funding, study design, and interpretation. One of the more important functions of

the State/MMS Sand Management Task Force will be to develop appropriate monitoring

requirements and identify funding sources to support them. Without funds to support long-term

monitoring of potential impacts, MMS will not be able to meet its responsibility to ensure that

the OCS sand use does not adversely affect the marine and human environments. This lack of

funds is a critical gap in the overall program.

MMS has already started work on improving monitoring program design. They funded a

study to design a monitoring program that can be used to evaluate the potential physical and

biological impacts resulting from the long-term use of OCS sand, and prepare protocols for the

monitoring plan elements (RPI et al., 2001). They will fund a test of these protocols in 2002. It

should be noted that the monitoring design includes post-dredging surveys at 1, 3, 5, and 7 years

after the event, so long-term monitoring will be required until impacts and recovery rates are

better defined. Funding is needed not only for data collection and analysis, but also for long-term

data management, interpretation, and synthesis, so the results can be used to support resource

management decisions. The USACE Regional Sediment Management Program recognized the

importance of long-term data management in that one of the priority products is a regional data

management and Geographic Information System. MMS should support similar data

management strategies for the wealth of environmental data being collected as part of the

monitoring programs.

3.5 An Implementation Plan

The development of a plan to manage the Federal offshore borrow sites in an

environmentally responsible and cost-effective manner over the long term will itself be a longterm process. MMS is in the position of being able to develop management strategies in the early

stages of resource utilization. However, this means that many of the management issues are

poorly understood, impacts are unknown, and the tradeoffs cannot be fully evaluated. The

process should be started now, so that it can be refined through practice. Outlined below is an

implementation plan to start the process.

1. Identify a State or area to formalize the first Sand Management Task Force.

Implementation should begin with the State that has made the most progress in terms of

offshore data collection, organization, and personnel resources, and a strong interest in OCS sand

resources. It appears that New Jersey would be the best candidate. The State should be

approached with the overall concept, and they need to agree to take on the administrative

responsibilities. A formal cooperative agreement should be signed between MMS and the State.
17

2. Write a draft charter for the Sand Management Task Force.

Prior to the first meeting, MMS and key staff from the State should prepare a draft

charter for the SMTF and send it out for review by all members. The charter should specify the

following:

- objectives of the SMTF

- membership

- roles and responsibilities of all members

- frequency of meetings

- a communications plan for exchanging information

- protocols for adopting “best management practices” and “pre-approvals” 

- a priority list of activities and products and a timeline for their completion

The SMTF composition should include private industry, such as dredgers, coastal planning

consultants, and engineering firms, as well as government agencies and non-governmental

organizations, such as commercial fishery associations and recreational user groups. A potential

list of participants in a New Jersey SMTF would include:

- NJ Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) Geological Survey

- NJ DEP Bureau of Coastal Engineering and Construction

- NJDEP Office of Coastal Planning & Program Coordination

- NJDEP Division of Fish and Wildlife

- NJDEP Historic Preservation Office

- MMS INTERMAR

- USACE New York District

- USACE Philadelphia District

- US Fish and Wildlife Service

- National Marine Fisheries Service

- Mid Atlantic Fisheries Management Council

- Dredging Industry representatives (Weeks Marine and American Dredging)

- Garden State Seafood Association

- National Fisheries Institute

- North Atlantic Clam Association

- Rutgers Cooperative Extension Service

- New Jersey Marine Fisheries Council

- Commercial Fishing Communications Association

3. Conduct the first SMTF meeting.

Discussion, revision, and adoption of the charter should be the first actions of the SMTF.

The list of products and priorities will be unique to each State, but should include a core list of

activities that will apply to all States. The SMTF should identify funding for the priority

activities and assign activities to specific agencies for completion. 
18

4. Develop a priority list of States and relevant parties in each State.

MMS should identify those States where formation of a SMTF is feasible at this time.

Feasibility criteria include: strong interest in accessing OCS sand, inventory of the future sand

needs, inventory of the possible OCS sand sources, and a State agency willing and capable of

taking the administrative lead. Potential members should be identified in each State. Each State

should be approached with the SMTF concept and invited to form cooperative agreements. The

charter of the first SMTF would be the basis for the proposed organization and functions. States

that might be conducive to a regional management approach include:

- New Jersey (possibly could expand in the future to include New York because of

the involvement of the New York District in New Jersey and the locations of

potential OCS borrow sites)

- Maryland/Delaware (Indian River Inlet borrow area straddles both states) 

- Virginia (Sandbridge Shoal obviously represents major borrow site for Virginia

Beach resort strip, Sandbridge Beach, and Dam Neck for foreseeable future – the

planned monitoring protocols field test will be done here in cooperation with

VIMS)

- North Carolina (high USACE interest in Federal borrow sites)

- Florida (high interest by State and local agencies in OCS sand)

- Texas/Louisiana (Sabine Bank will serve as borrow site for both states)

5. Conduct SMTF meetings in the priority States over the next year.

MMS should participate in all of the initial meetings and offer as much support as

possible during the initial activities of each task force. This support could include bringing

experts to make technical presentations of results of monitoring and assessment programs from

other areas, drafting of language for procedures and protocols, synthesis of previous studies into

"white papers" or technical summaries on specific issues, updating and maintenance of the MMS

web site, and draft guidelines for emergency approvals. It is estimated that technical support to

SMTFs, outside of MMS staff and travel costs, would be, at a minimum, about $100,000 per

year. MMS-INTERMAR has no money at the present time to provide technical support to

an SMTF.

6. Evaluate the process and make modifications as necessary.

At the end of the year, MMS should evaluate the effectiveness of the SMTFs,

individually and as a group, and make recommendations for how the process should be

improved. MMS should also evaluate its funding needs to provide sufficient support to SMTFs

in terms of staffing, travel, contractor support, and funding of specific studies.
19

4.0 REFENCENCES CITED

Burlas, M., G. Ray, and D. Clarke, 2001. The New York District’s Biological Monitoring

Program for the Atlantic Coast of New Jersey, Asbury Park to Manasquan Section Beach

Erosion Control Project. Engineer Research and Development Center, U. S. Army Engineer

Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.

Byrnes, M.R., R.M. Hammer, B.A. Vittor, J.S. Ramsey, D.B. Snyder, J.D. Wood, K.F. Bosma,

T.D. Thibaut, N.W. Phillips, 2000. Environmental survey of potential sand resource sites:

offshore New Jersey. U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service,

International Activities and Marine Minerals Division (INTERMAR), Herndon, VA. OCS

Report MMS 2000-052, Volume I: Main Text 380 pp. + Volume II: Appendices 291 pp.

Louis Berger Group Inc., 1999. Use of Federal offshore sand resources for beach and coastal

restoration in New Jersey, Maryland, Delaware, and Virginia. U.S. Department of the

Interior, Minerals Management Service, International Activities and Marine Minerals

Division (INTERMAR), Herndon, VA. OCS Study MMS 99-0036, 244 pp.

Morton, R.A. and J.C. Gibeaut, 1993. Physical and environmental assessment of sand resources–

Texas Continental Shelf. Final Report to U.S. Dept. of Interior, Minerals Management

Service, Office of International Activities and Marine Minerals. Prepared by Bureau of

Economic Geology, University of Texas at Austin, Texas, 66p.

National Research Council, 1990. Managing Troubled Waters: The Role of Marine

Environmental Monitoring. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 125 pp.

Research Planning, Inc. (RPI), Baird & Associates Ltd., and Applied Marine Sciences, Inc.,

2001. Monitoring protocols for environmentally sound management of Federal offshore

borrow areas along the U.S. East and Gulf of Mexico Coasts. OCS Study XXX. Dept. of

Interior, Minerals Management Service, Office of International Activities and Marine

Minerals.

Rodriguez, A.B., J.B Anderson, F.P. Siringan, and M. Taviani, 1999.Sedimentary facies and

genesis of Holocene sand banks on the east Texas inner continental shelf. SEPM Special

Publication No. 64, Isolated Shallow Marine Sand Bodies: Sequence Stratigraphic Analysis

and Sedimentological Interpretation, pp. 165-178.
A-1

Appendix A

MMS Presentation at the Regional Sand Management Workshops

Houston, Texas, 1 May 2001

Trenton, New Jersey, 30 May 2001

Regional Management Workshops

By

Barry Drucker

International Activities and Marine Minerals Division

Minerals Management Service

U.S. Department of Interior

Herndon, Virginia
A-2
A-3
A-4
A-5
A-6
A-7
A-8
A-9
B-1

Appendix B

Participants in the MMS OCS Sand Management Planning Workshop

1 May 2001, Houston, Texas

Agency Name/Title Address Phone/Email

Minerals

Management Service

Carol Hartgen,

Chief International

Activities and

Minerals Division

MMS

381 Eldon Street

Herndon, VA

20170-4817

703-787-1300

carol.hartgen@mms.gov

Barry Drucker

INTERMAR

703-787-1296

barry.drucker@mms.gov

John Rowland

INTERMAR

703-787-1297

jrowlandphd@msn.com

Alex Alvarado New Orleans, LA Alex.Alvarado@mms.gov

U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers

Rick Medina USACE Galveston

District

409-766-3065

Richard.Medina@swg02.usace.ar

my.mil

National Marine

Fisheries Service

William Jackson Galveston, Texas 409-766-3699

William.Jackson@noaa.gov

U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service

Carlos Mendoza Carlos_Mendoza@fws.gov

Andy Loranger,

Manager, 

Texas Chenier

NWR Complex

Andy_loranger@fws.gov

Texas General Land

Office

Juan Moya Austin, Texas 512-475-3735

jmoya@glo.state.tx.us

Ray Newby Austin, Texas RNEWBY@glo.state.tx.us

Tara Ellis LaPorte Field

Office, Texas

281-470-1191

Texas Bureau of

Economic Geology

Jim Gibeaut Austin, Texas 512-471-1534

jim.gibeaut@beg.utexas.edu

Louisiana Department

of Natural Resources

Bill Good Coastal Resources

Division

225-342-6028

billg@dnr.state.la.us

Jefferson County Waynon Hallmark,

Commissioner

John Johnson Office of the

County Judge

P. O. Box 4025

Beaumont, Texas

77704-4025

jjohnson@co.jefferson.tx.us

Jose Pastrana County Engineer

Texas A&M

University-Galveston

Tim Dellapenna Galveston, Texas dellapet@tamug.tamu.edu

Texas A&M

University

Billy Edge Ocean Engineering

Program

979-847-8712

b-edge@tamu.edu

Rice University Julia Smith Wellner Houston, Texas 713-348-3335

jksmith@rice.edu

Marlowe & Co. Howard Marlowe 202-775-0214

Research Planning, Jacqueline Michel Columbia, South 803-256-7322 x 329
A-2

Inc. Carolina jmichel@researchplanning.com
C-1

Appendix C

Oil & Gas Infrastructure Issues

Presentation at the Houston Regional Sand Management Workshop

Houston, Texas

1 May 2001

Regional Management of Federal

Offshore Barrow Areas Along US

East and GOM Coasts

Oil & Gas Infrastructure Issues

OCS Sand Borrow Sites

By

Alex Alvarado

MMS New Orleans
C-2
C-3
C-4
C-5
C-6
C-7
C-8
C-9

Appendix D

Participants in the MMS OCS Sand Management Planning Workshop

30 May 2001, Trenton, New Jersey

Agency Name/Title Address Phone/Email

Minerals Management

Service

Carol Hartgen,

Chief

International

Activities and

Minerals Division 

MMS

381 Eldon Street

Herndon, VA

20170-4817

703-787-1300

carol.hartgen@mms.gov

Barry Drucker

INTERMAR

703-787-1296

barry.drucker@mms.gov

Roger Amato Roger.amato@mms.gov

U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers

Lynn Bocamazo USACE New York

District

Lynn.M.Bocamazo@nan02.usace.

army.mil

Mark Burlas USACE New York

District

Mark.H.Burlas@nan02.usace.

army.mil

U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service

Kathy Urquhart 609-383-3938x45

Kathy_urquhart@fws.gov

NJ Department of

Environmental

Protection

Bernie Moore Bureau of Coastal

Engineering and

Construction

732-255-0770

bmoore3@dep.state.nj.us

George Caporale Same as above

Gene Keller Same as above

Mark Mauriello Office of Coastal

Planning

609-292-2662

mmauriel@dep.state.nj.us

Larry Schmidt Program

Coordination

Andy Didum Division of Fish

and Wildlife

Jeff Normant Bureau of

Shellfisheries

609-748-2039

jnormant@dep.state.nj.us

Karl Mussig

State Geologist

NJ Geological

Survey

Jane Uptegrove NJGS, P.O. Box

427, Trenton, NJ

08625

janeu@njgs.dep.state.nj.us

Dave Hall daveh@njgs.dep.state.nj.us

Jeff Waldner jeffw@njgs.dep.state.nj.us

Richard Dalton

Deborah Fimbal Historic

Preservation Office

501 East State St.

P.O. Box 404

Trenton, NJ

08625-0404

DFIMBEL@dep.state.nj.us

Research Planning, Inc. Jacqueline Michel Columbia, South

Carolina

803-256-7322 x 329

jmichel@researchplanning.com