Response to Public Comments on

Proposed Amendments to Designation of

Central and Western Long Island Sound

Dredged Material Disposal Sites

(81 FR 7055; February 10, 2016)

June 2016
1

On February 10, 2016, EPA published in the Federal Register (81 FR 7055) a proposed rule amending federal 

regulations that designated, and placed restrictions on the use of, the Central Long Island Sound (CLDS) and 

Western Long Island Sound (WLDS) dredged material disposal sites, located offshore from New Haven and 

Stamford, Connecticut, respectively.

Through written and oral comments submitted by mail, email, the formal rulemaking docket and at public 

hearings in Port Jefferson, NY and Stamford, CT, EPA received comments from 119 individuals, groups or 

entities on the proposed rulemaking. Each comment was assigned a unique comment number as it was received. 

This document contains the essential points of the commenters and EPA’s responses to those comments. Similar 

comments have been grouped together. The numbers at the end of each comment refer to the specific comment 

containing the point. Copies of all of the comments received are contained in a separate document.

Two tables at the end of this document associate each of the commenters with the unique comment number. 

The first is ordered by the date the comment was received, the second is ordered alphabetically by commenter. 

______________________

Comments 1-46, 48-77, 83, 87, 89, 100, 105, and 107: 

EPA received 83 nearly identical comments supporting the proposed amendments. The commenters believe that 

additional safeguards have been incorporated as recommended in the Final Long Island Sound Dredged 

Material Management Plan (DMMP) and that the amendments contained within the proposed rulemaking 

should further allay the fears of those who have expressed concern over the continued use of the sites. They 

further assert that without these relocation sites both the recreational and commercial marine industries will end, 

access to the public will be curtailed and eliminated, and the entire essence and foundations of the Federal, New 

York, and Connecticut Coastal Zone Management Programs will be significantly and unalterably crippled.

These commenters noted that dredging is necessary to ensure recreational and commercial access to Long 

Island Sound. Marinas, boatyards and boat clubs are the main access for the public to get out onto the Sound

and they need to dredge periodically to maintain sufficient depth for safe navigation. Dredging is necessary to 

ensure existence of commercial and recreational industries which generate billions of dollars and support 

thousands of jobs around the Sound. An important element of coastal zone programs – to retain, promote and 

enhance access to waterways - will be harmed if public and marine industry cannot access LIS.

The commenters argue that permitting for dredging and relocation is rigorous, thorough and costly, with 

multiple agency reviews. There are years of studies and documentation demonstrating the lack of harm and 

stability of the dredged materials placed at these sites. Scientific evidence does not support claim that toxic 

material is dumped into the Sound. The proposed rule provides adequate safeguards for open-water placement.

Without dredging the sediments remain in the relative shallows of the bays and harbors, where more fish live 

and where more people swim, fish and enjoy the water. Storms in the relative shallows of the bays and harbors 

creates more siltation, turbidity and disturbance than dredging.

Response:

EPA acknowledges the support for the proposed amendments and agrees that additional safeguards have 

been incorporated. EPA agrees that dredging to provide for safe navigation to and from Long Island 

Sound is a necessary activity and acknowledges that the marine trade industry is an important 

contributor to the economy of both states in the Long Island Sound region. EPA also notes that not only 

does environmentally-sound dredging and dredged material management help provide for safe 

navigation which benefits commercial and recreational uses of Long Island Sound, but it also 
2

contributes to national security and public safety by facilitating the navigation of military, U.S. Coast 

Guard, and other types of public safety vessels. The policy goals of the Coastal Zone Management Act 

are to “preserve, protect, develop, and where possible, to restore or enhance, the resources of the 

Nation's coastal zone.” This includes achieving wise use of the land and water resources of the coastal 

zone, giving full consideration to ecological, cultural, historic, and esthetic values as well as the needs 

for compatible economic development. EPA agrees that providing public access to the coasts for 

recreation purposes is an important goal of coastal zone management programs. EPA notes that the 

protection of natural resources, including wetlands, floodplains, estuaries, beaches, dunes, barrier 

islands, coral reefs, and fish and wildlife and their habitat, within the coastal zone is also an important 

goal. EPA, USACE and the state coastal zone management programs seek to harmonize these goals.

EPA agrees that the permitting process for dredging projects is rigorous and thorough and involves 

coordination with multiple agencies. EPA agrees that there is a substantial body of scientific evidence 

that indicates that suitable dredged material can be disposed of at the sites with minimal harm to the 

marine environment. Regular monitoring of the Central and Western sites indicates rapid recovery from 

placement events and the long term stability of the deposited material. EPA agrees that the restrictions in 

the proposed rule provide adequate safeguards for open-water placement and the Final Rule further 

strengthens those protections by including a process for setting goals for the long-term reduction of 

open-water disposal. To the extent the commenters are addressing possible concerns about exposure to 

materials that might be dredged in the future, it is possible that they are dispersed across a greater 

surface area and at depths more readily re-suspended by the natural forces of winds, waves and tides 

compared to the more compact placement at the Central and Western sites at depths much less 

influenced by winds and waves. Alternatively, these comments, without indicating that open-water 

disposal of dredged material would be harmful, appear to suggest that in some cases leaving 

contaminated dredged material in place in shallower, nearer-to-shore waters, would be more detrimental 

to the environment than dredging and placing the material at the CLDS or WLDS. EPA notes, however, 

that if the material is contaminated and found unsuitable for open-water disposal, it cannot be placed at 

one of the designated open-water sites.

Comment 47: 

The commenter believes this is a good rule that will help the Long Island area as a whole. The restrictions on 

disposal are a good plan to help reduce the impact at the dump sites. They think the DMMP will provide a clear 

understanding of what exactly is going on in these dredging operations. It will make it easier for dredging 

projects in the future by providing information on what should be done with material and how these projects 

should be managed.

Response:

EPA acknowledges the support for the proposed amendments. EPA believes that the procedures 

included in the Final Rule provide a robust management framework for achieving the goal of reducing 

or eliminating open-water disposal in the Sound. 

Comments 78, 98:

EPA received comments from the Citizens Campaign for the Environment (CCE) opposing the proposed 

amendments at the public hearings in Port Jefferson, NY, and in Stamford, CT. 

CCE first noted that they do not agree with the DMMP, view it as a dismal failure and feel it should not be the 

basis for EPA rulemaking. They view the 2005 agreement reached by the states, USACE and EPA to have 

mandated that open-water disposal be phased out over time and replaced by beneficial reuse and that cost could 

not be the overwhelming factor in the decision-making process. They are very concerned about the “least cost” 

factor because the only cost assigned is to beneficial use. They are promoting beneficial reuse because it is safer 
3

and better for the environment. CCE asserted that the DMMP was intended to actually facilitate beneficial reuse 

and to actively phase out open-water disposal, not simply to evaluate and list alternatives without actively 

working to implement them.

CCE had asked USACE to incorporate a comprehensive analysis of the nitrogen loading associated with 

disposing dredged materials in the Sound. They claim there was no such analysis and ask EPA to rectify that. 

They thanked EPA for a new nitrogen reduction strategy for Long Island Sound, but wonder how EPA can then 

condone nitrogen loading from dredging.

CCE asks that EPA take into account the comments provided by NY DOS in the June 2004 objection to the 

consistency determination. First, NY DOS wanted EPA “to assess chemical parameters such as dissolved 

oxygen which will be reduced in the water column during dumping activities; carbon acidity and pollutants such 

as heavy metals, toxic and hazardous materials which will be released in the water column and will be present 

after dumping is completed.” CCE claims “...that in the summer the areas that have been used as a dumping 

ground have higher levels of copper in lobsters, and also elevated levels of PCBs in fish.” Second, CCE said

EPA must consider and evaluate the impacts from different dredging projects. They specifically mention the 

contamination of sediments in the Thames River. CCE expresses appreciation for USACE’s monitoring and 

transparency in providing them and others with access to the DAMOS, but notes that there are questions that 

remain unanswered. They express concern about not routinely testing sediment cores for vertical or horizontal 

contamination migration, not requiring tissue sampling of recolonized invertebrates and not evaluating legacy 

contaminants at legacy sites.

CCE believes the DMMP perpetuates open-water disposal over the next 30 years. There are no benchmarks or 

goals that have been crafted in 10 or 20 or 30 years. They expected a document that would have a game plan to 

achieve a significant reduction of open-water disposal. In NY’s own analysis, they said the DMMP would at 

best achieve a two percent reduction over a 30-year time frame. CCE views this as “business as usual” and a 

completely unacceptable process. They believe it is unrealistic to expect the states to use beneficial use 

techniques when they are free to dump unrestricted.

CCE also expressed concern that public input on the DMMP was not incorporated and hope that EPA will turn 

it into a genuine partnership between stakeholders and the public to protect Long Island Sound. 

Response:

EPA considered these comments carefully but does not share the commenter’s negative perception of 

the utility of the DMMP, now and for the future. EPA concludes that its decision to use the DMMP as 

part of the basis of the current regulatory amendments is sound, appropriate, and consistent with the 

terms of 40 CFR 228.15(b)(4)(vi)(C), footnote 1, and (G).

EPA believes the DMMP provides useful information that will help the agencies achieve the goal of 

reducing or eliminating the open-water disposal of dredged materials in the Sound. To help realize this 

goal, the DMMP recommends standards and procedures for the agencies to use in the review of dredged 

material management proposals. In addition, the DMMP identifies and discusses a range of specific

alternatives to open-water disposal for each of the 52 Federal Navigation Projects (FNPs) in Long Island 

Sound. The DMMP correctly does not purport to make final decisions about which option or options 

should be selected for any of these FNPs. As the DMMP states:

[t]he LIS DMMP ... identifies a wide range of potential environmentally 

acceptable, practicable management plans that can be utilized by various dredging 

proponents in their analysis of options to manage dredging projects. 

Recommendations for individual Federal projects include those alternatives 
4

identified as the likely Federal Base Plans for each Federal project, and other 

environmentally acceptable alternatives that are either very close in cost to the 

Base Plan or represent opportunities for beneficial use and reduction in open 

water placement. ... Actual decisions on the Federal Base Plan and any 

alternative Recommended Plan would be made as projects are funded and 

investigated in the future. These projects would each need to conduct 

investigations on sediment suitability and placement site acceptability, prepare 

any NEPA and decision documents, provide for adequate public involvement and 

review, secure any necessary Federal and state agency regulatory approvals, and 

secure Federal and sponsor funds for implementation.

LIS DMMP, p. ES-13. See also LIS DMMP, p. 4-16. Thus, the choice of which alternative (or 

alternatives) should be implemented for a specific project will be made in the future based on the facts, 

law and policy that exist at the time of the decision. Going forward, consideration of the otherwise “nonfinal” evaluations and assessments in the DMMP will occur at that later time, within the context of any 

particular project. 

The USACE uses the “Federal Standard” in the DMMP to project the likely “Base Plan” for each FNP. 

While the term Federal Standard is often used synonymously with the term Federal Base Plan, the 

former is defined in USACE regulations as the least costly dredged material placement alternative 

identified by USACE that is consistent with sound engineering practices and meets all federal 

environmental requirements (including those established under the Clean Water Act (CWA) and the 

Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA). 33 CFR § 335.7. The DMMP explains that 

“[t]he Federal Base Plan for any particular project is defined as the least cost environmentally acceptable 

alternative for constructing the project.” LIS DMMP, p. ES-1. The DMMP further explains that “Federal 

Base Plan is a more accurate operational description of the Federal Standard, because it defines the 

disposal or placement costs that are assigned to the “navigational purpose” of the project.” LIS DMMP, 

p. ES-1. 

The Federal Standard and Base Plan are derived from USACE regulations and policy. See 33 C.F.R. §§ 

335.7, 336.1(c)(1) and 336.2(d)(1). It was never intended or suggested that the DMMP would (or even 

could) alter the Federal Standard or Base Plan concepts as used by the USACE. These concepts are 

derived from nationally applicable USACE regulations and policy. At the same time, the DMMP makes 

clear that identifying the Federal Standard for a project is not the same thing as selecting the 

management option for the dredged material from that particular project. The DMMP explains that: 

[e]stablishing the Federal Base Plan for a particular dredging project is not the 

same as selecting a placement option for that project, nor does it limit potential 

Federal participation in the project. Other factors beyond cost contribute to 

decisions on placement options for dredging projects. Ecosystem restoration is 

recognized as one of the primary missions of the USACE under its budget 

guidance, and the placement option that is selected for a project should maximize 

the sum of net economic development and environmental restoration benefits. A 

beneficial use option may be selected for a project even if it is not the Federal 

Base Plan (Federal Standard) for that project. 

LIS DMMP, p. ES-2. If a beneficial use is selected for a project and that beneficial use happens to be (or 

be part of) the Federal Base Plan option for the project, then the costs of that beneficial use are assigned 

to the navigational purpose of the project. Costs of a beneficial use option that exceed the cost of the 

Federal Base Plan option become either a shared federal and non-federal responsibility, or entirely a 
5

non-federal responsibility, depending on the type of beneficial use in question and whether or not any 

federal funding authorities apply. 

It should be understood that the USACE expenditures for dredged material management are constrained 

by statute, regulation, and policy that govern how the USACE can expend federal funds. The USACE 

works to plan, design, and construct projects in a manner that most efficiently uses federal fiscal 

resources. The DMMP provides useful information on the range of authorities that might enable the 

USACE to participate in funding projects that cost more than the Base Plan, and the DMMP makes clear 

the USACE’s willingness to use the authorities available to it to pay for what it lawfully can. The 

authorities that allow USACE to pursue alternatives beyond the Base Plan all require some prescribed 

percentage of non-federal cost-sharing. Identifying future sources of non-federal cost sharing is one of 

the important challenges for the Regional Dredging Team. 

In evaluating dredged material management options, cost is one of many important considerations in the 

decision-making process. Federal and state agencies must make fiscally responsible project management 

decisions consistent with the applicable legal standards, which take cost and other factors into account. 

Under EPA regulations, when determining whether there is a “need” for open-water disposal, EPA 

considers the “relative environmental risks, impact and cost for ocean dumping as opposed to other 

feasible alternatives ....” 40 C.F.R. § 227.15(c). Furthermore, as discussed in EPA’s Proposed Rule, and 

in the record for the 2005 Rule, EPA defines practicable alternatives to ocean dumping to be options 

that: 

... are available at reasonable incremental cost and energy expenditures, which 

need not be competitive with the costs of ocean dumping, taking into account the 

environmental benefits derived from such activity, including the relative adverse 

environmental impacts associated with the use of alternatives to ocean dumping. 

40 C.F.R. § 227.16(b). Thus, an alternative for any particular project would not be considered 

“practicable” if it would cost an unreasonable amount more than the open-water disposal option, taking 

into account the relative environmental benefits and detriments of both options. Moreover, an option 

might not be considered “available” if, after the relevant agencies work to seek funding, no party has the

authority to fund that project and/or sufficient funds to do so. 

For each of the 52 FNPs in the Long Island Sound area, the DMMP identifies a range of possible 

alternatives to open-water disposal for managing the different types of dredged material (e.g., sand, finegrained silty material) expected from each FNP. The DMMP also estimates the possible costs associated 

with each alternative. In some cases, the DMMP offers the USACE’s current judgment about whether an 

option has promise, is or is not cost effective, or may or may not be infeasible due to cost or other 

considerations. See, e.g., LIS DMMP, p. 5-231 (discussion of Port Chester Harbor alternatives). In other 

cases, it does not offer such views. See, e.g., LIS DMMP, p. 5-239 (discussion of Mamaroneck Harbor 

alternatives). As suggested above, a management option with costs substantially more than the cost of 

open-water disposal might not be a practicable alternative in a particular case because a substantial 

incremental cost over the cost of open-water disposal might be considered unreasonable. As also 

indicated above, however, whether higher costs are considered reasonable or not depends not just on the 

amount of money involved, but also on an assessment of the relative environmental effects of the 

options being compared. See 40 C.F.R. § 227.16(b). In any event, there is no need to resolve these issues 

at this time. As the USACE explained, its intent for the DMMP was only “to prepare as comprehensive a 

list as possible of potential dredged material placement and processing alternatives for evaluation on a 

programmatic level (not project specific), with the understanding that future dredging projects would 

need to conduct their own site specific investigations when they were funded for pre-construction 
6

studies or implementation.” LIS DMMP, p. 4-16. At that time, the Long Island Sound Regional 

Dredging Team (RDT) will work to assess the available alternatives for such projects. 

Beyond finding funds for costs above the Federal Standard, another important approach for the RDT is 

to identify incentives and remove barriers to beneficial use such that the cost of alternatives becomes 

more competitive with open-water disposal. It has become clear in recent years that sandy dredged 

material is a valuable commodity, especially along New England’s beachfronts. Thus there are 

economic as well as environmental factors that result in most all suitable sandy dredge material being 

used beneficially, principally for beach and nearshore bar nourishment. The next challenge is to find 

economic and beneficial environmental uses for suitable silty material. As coastal resiliency becomes an 

increasingly important priority, EPA is hopeful that beneficial uses for silty material will emerge and 

expand. 

In response to comments from Connecticut and New York, EPA’s Final Rule contains provisions for 

identification of a baseline for the volume and percentage of dredge material being beneficially used and 

placed at the open-water sites; establishing a reasonable and practicable series of stepped objectives, 

including timeframes, to increase the percentage of beneficially used material; and developing accurate 

methods to track reductions with due consideration for annual fluctuations. (See responses to Comments 

112 and 116.)

Regarding the concern about nitrogen loading, nitrogen loading is a concern due to its impact on 

excessive algae levels, which among other concerns is one potential driver of hypoxia in the waters of 

the Sound. EPA notes that USACE did include such a discussion in Section 3.5.2 of the DMMP (and in 

Section 4.5.1 of the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement [PEIS]). The annual placement of 

dredged material at the open-water sites is estimated to add less than one tenth of one percent of the 

overall annual nitrogen loading to Long Island Sound. As noted in the DMMP, the dredging process 

scrapes a relatively thin layer of surficial sediment from a wide area, and aquatic placement consolidates 

that volume of sediment into a much smaller footprint. Hence, much of the nitrogen that was available 

for potential future release from surficial sediment (due to biological reworking or physical disturbance 

in the shallower environment) is sequestered out of contact with the water column in deposits that have 

been shown to be stable features on the seafloor. 

Regarding concerns raised by NY DOS in 2004, EPA believes these concerns have been addressed by 

decades of scientific evidence from Long Island Sound. USACE’s Disposal Area Monitoring System 

(DAMOS) has gathered information on dredged material placement sites in the Sound since the late 

1970s. The program has generated over 200 detailed reports addressing questions and concerns related 

to placement of dredged material in the Sound. Sequential surveys of biological conditions at sites 

following the placement of dredged material consistently show a rapid recovery of the benthic 

community to that of the surrounding habitat outside the disposal sites. Monitoring at the CLDS and 

WLDS has verified that past management practices have been successful in adequately controlling any 

potential adverse impacts to water quality and benthic habitat. With the nearly 40 year record of surveys, 

there have been multiple opportunities to evaluate the passage of large storms (both hurricanes and 

nor’easters) on the dredged material mounds on the seafloor. These investigations have demonstrated 

long-term stability of the mounds even at the most exposed or energetic sites.

The devastating decline of the lobster fishery in Long Island Sound is most likely due to a number of 

factors, but disposal of dredged material is not one of them. The 1999 lobster die-off prompted millions 

of dollars in research over the past 16 years, the results of which have led scientists and resource 

managers to believe that the phenomenon was caused by a combination of factors, including increased 

water temperatures, low dissolved oxygen levels (hypoxia), a parasitic disease (paramoeba), and 
7

possibly pesticide runoff. At the Long Island Sound Lobster Health Symposium on March 7, 2003, 

researchers did not cite dredged material disposal as a possible factor in the die-off. Instead, the leading 

suspect, according to the researchers, is abnormally warm water temperatures in the Sound. 

Finally, EPA strongly disagrees with the suggestion that toxic sediments will be disposed of at the sites. 

Rigorous physical, chemical and biological testing and analysis of sediments is conducted prior to any 

authorization being issued to allow materials to be placed at the sites. As the amended rule makes clear,

and as the MPRSA and EPA’s ocean dumping regulations provide, sediments that do not pass these tests 

are considered “unsuitable” and shall not be disposed of at the sites.

Comment 79:

At the public hearing in Port Jefferson, the commenter stated that we need to stop unconfined open-water 

dumping. Reducing it is just not going to work. We have advanced sufficiently socially and technologically to 

know that this practice is really detrimental. The commenter asked EPA and the Corps to go back to the 

drawing board in a very timely fashion to figure out how to ramp down to zero. That will actually force groups 

to focus on beneficial reuse and really do it because there is an absolute bar – you have no more choice but to 

start doing more beneficial reuse. One of those methods is solidification and using it in construction materials 

because it immobilizes any contaminants. 

Response:

EPA believes it is neither possible nor practical to simply end open-water disposal at this time. There are 

and will continue to be needs for dredging to allow for safe navigation in the harbors of Long Island 

Sound. While the goal set in 2005 and retained in EPA’s Final Rule is to reduce or eliminate open-water 

disposal, the Rule recognizes that the use of alternatives to open-water placement is limited by the 

availability of practicable alternatives. The method of solidification and use as a construction material is 

currently extremely expensive due to the need for dewatering and storage near to the shore, making it 

practicable for perhaps only the most highly contaminated dredged material. As described in the 

response to Comments 112 and 116, EPA has augmented the procedures in the Final Rule to provide a 

more robust management framework for promoting progress toward and achieving the goal of reducing 

or eliminating open-water disposal in the Sound.

Comment 80:

At the public hearing in Port Jefferson, the commenter, representing the Setauket Harbor Task Force, expressed 

concern that what EPA is trying to do doesn’t square with the recommendations of USACE. The commenter 

expressed frustration that no changes resulted from the public participation on the DMMP and suggested that 

“we have to throw it out and we need to start over again.”

Response:

Without further specificity from the commenter, it is difficult to understand what the commenter 

believes doesn’t “square with” the recommendations of USACE. EPA’s Final Rule is consistent with the 

recommendations in the DMMP. In response to comments from Connecticut and New York, EPA’s 

Final Rule augments the procedures recommended in the DMMP by adding provisions for identification 

of a baseline for the volume and percentage of dredge material being beneficially used and placed at the 

open-water sites; establishing a reasonable and practicable series of stepped objectives (including 

timeframes) to increase the percentage of beneficially used material; and developing accurate methods 

to track reductions with due consideration for annual fluctuations. (See responses to Comments 112 and 

116.)

Comment 81:
8

At the public hearing in Port Jefferson, the commenter agreed with the others (78-80) and noted that there was 

no budget put forth. The commenter felt there was a lack of a slide aggregating all the dumping events over the 

last 100 years. It’s unfair to just look at what current practice is when over the course of a century there has 

been a tremendous degradation of Long Island Sound. What comes out of Long Island Sound should be put 

back on land.

Response:

EPA has responded to Comments 78-80 directly above. Neither EPA nor any of the other federal or state 

agencies involved in dredged material management are in a position to forecast future budgets that the 

U.S. Congress or the state legislatures may appropriate to support dredging projects or support any 

incremental cost of alternative placement of dredged material. At the public hearing, EPA presented a 

slide with detail on the amounts of dredged material disposed of at the four existing disposal sites in 

Long Island Sound since 2005, when the Central and Western disposal sites were designated. Similar 

annual detail prior to 2005 was not available to EPA, but an annual average estimate for the period 1982 

to 2004 was provided. EPA’s Final Rule supports the beneficial use of dredged materials whenever 

practicable. Moreover, while the waters of Long Island Sound suffered from degradation over the last 

century, Congressional enactment in the 1970s of environmental protection laws – such as the Clean 

Water Act, the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act, and the National Environmental 

Policy Act, and others – gave federal, state, and local governments, as well as the public, tools to reduce 

and reverse this degradation. Using these tools, substantial efforts by government agencies and the 

public have been directed to restoring and protecting the waters of Long Island Sound. While there is 

always more to do, these efforts have achieved significant successes. 

Comment 82:

The commenter wrote in opposition to the genesis of the reasoning for the proposed amendments – the 

continued dumping of dredge spoils into Long Island Sound. The commenter believes the mission to reduce or 

eliminate the open-water disposal of dredged material has been abandoned by EPA and USACE in favor of 

continued dumping of potentially toxic-laden spoils for the next three decades. To adopt and implement rules 

that codify the continued dumping of pesticides and heavy metals in the Sound undermines the hard work and 

gains made to bring the Sound back to health. Those efforts are real and measurable, but infantile and fragile. 

EPA should withhold from adopting these amendments in favor of alternatives that complement the investments 

and commitments that have been made to better the Sound.

Response:

EPA’s proposed amendments did not intend to change the 2005 goal to reduce or eliminate wherever 

practicable the disposal of dredged material into Long Island Sound. EPA has edited the language in 40 

CFR 228.15(b)(4)(vi) to make this more clear. This is also discussed in the preamble to the Final Rule. 

EPA disagrees with the suggestion that toxic sediments will be disposed of at the sites. Rigorous 

physical, chemical and biological testing and analysis of sediments is conducted prior to any permit to 

place materials at the sites. As EPA’s existing MPRSA regulations in 40 CFR Part 227 provide, and the 

amended rule reiterates, sediments that do not pass these tests are considered “unsuitable” and may not 

be disposed of at the sites.

EPA acknowledges the hard work and progress that has been made in bringing Long Island Sound back 

to health and notes that this has happened at the same time as dredged material placement in the Sound 

has been managed by federal and state agencies working, with public input, to implement statutes such 

as the MPRSA, the CWA and the CZMA. In the last decade, the RDT review process established in the 

2005 rule has been an important part of this effort. The proposed amendments retain the RDT and 

further encourage the beneficial use of dredged material. In response to comments from Connecticut and 

New York, EPA’s Final Rule contains provisions for identification of a baseline for the volume and 
9

percentage of dredge material being beneficially used and placed at the open-water sites; establishing a 

reasonable and practicable series of stepped objectives, including timeframes, to increase the percentage 

of beneficially used material; and developing accurate methods to track reductions with due 

consideration for annual fluctuations. (See responses to Comments 112 and 116.)

Comment 84:

The Village of Asharoken asked EPA to withdraw the recommendations of the DMMP. The DMMP was tasked 

with coming up with an alternative that would phase out open-water disposal of dredged materials. While 

recognizing that dredging is a necessary activity, the commenter encouraged the use of the alternatives 

described in the DMMP. Open-water dumping may make economic sense being the least expensive, but it does 

not make environmental sense. It does not make sense to proceed with a plan that did not follow its directive, 

harms the ecosystem of the LIS, and counteracts all the good efforts to improve the LIS.

Response:

EPA does not agree that the task of the DMMP was limited to proposing a plan to phase out open-water 

placement of dredged material regardless of whether such a plan would be feasible. Rather, the DMMP 

met its objectives of identifying future dredging needs within Long Island Sound and estimating the 

quantities of dredged material that will be generated by this dredging, as well as identifying a range of 

options, including beneficial use options, for managing that material. Individual project-specific 

permitting decisions will determine whether the material at issue should be handled by placing it at an 

open-water site or through some practicable alternative method. EPA agrees with the commenter’s 

encouragement of the use of alternatives described in the DMMP and the proposed amendments 

establish standards and procedures toward that end. It would be counterproductive to ignore the many 

useful recommendations in the DMMP. The goal set in 2005 and retained in EPA’s Final Rule is to 

reduce or eliminate open-water disposal, but the 2005 regulations also recognized, as common sense 

indicates, that alternatives to open-water disposal can only be implemented when they are practicable. 

See 70 FR 32519 (2005 Rule, 40 CFR 228.15(b)(4)(vi)(C) (“Completion of the DMMP means finishing 

the items listed in the work plan ..., including the identification of alternatives to open-water disposal, 

and the development of procedures and standards for the use of practical alternatives to open-water 

disposal.”). Finally, as noted in the response to Comment 78, EPA disagrees with the assertion that the 

disposal of suitable dredged material harms the ecosystem of Long Island Sound.

Comments 85, 86, 88, 90, 99, 102, 103, 106:

EPA received eight comments in opposition to the disposal of dredged material in Long Island Sound without 

making direct reference to the proposed amendments. The concerns mentioned included the fragility of Long 

Island Sound, the possibility that some of the material is toxic; and the need for alternative uses of dredged 

materials. 

Response:

As discussed above in the response to Comment 78, neither the existing laws and regulations nor the 

proposed amendments would allow the disposal of toxic or contaminated material at the sites. As noted 

in the response to Comment 83, improvements in both water and sediment quality in Long Island Sound 

have been coincident with, among other things, the careful management of dredging and dredged 

material disposal. The Final Rule will strengthen that management approach and further encourage the 

beneficial use of dredged materials. 

Comment 91:

EPA received comments at the Public Hearing in Stamford from the Greenwich Harbor Management 

Commission in support of the proposed amendments. The Commission expressed concern that there be an open-
10

water disposal option for an upcoming project to dredge the Mianus River next winter. The Commission urged 

EPA to keep the disposal sites open while looking for other long-term solutions. 

Response:

EPA acknowledges the support for the proposed amendments and agrees that there is a continuing need 

for open-water disposal sites for suitable material, while also requiring beneficial use of dredged 

materials when practicable alternatives are available.

Comment 92: 

EPA received oral comments at the public hearing in Stamford and written comments from the Connecticut 

Harbor Management Association supporting the proposed amendments. They believe the amended regulations 

incorporate standards and procedures for determining which alternatives to pursue for different dredging 

projects so as to reduce or eliminate wherever practicable the open-water disposal of dredged material. They 

support the goal of reducing open-water placement, but believe that it is not feasible at this time, either 

environmentally or economically. 

Response:

EPA acknowledges the support for the proposed amendments and agrees that the standards and 

procedures, as augmented in the Final Rule, will support the goal of eliminating or reducing open-water 

disposal. EPA also agrees that relying solely on alternatives to open-water disposal for all dredged 

material from the Central and Western regions of Long Island Sound is not likely to be feasible at this 

time. Such alternatives will, however, likely be feasible for some of that material. For example, sandy 

material is commonly used for beach and nearshore bar nourishment at the present time and the 

standards in the Final Rule expect that sandy material will continue to be used beneficially. Ultimately, 

decisions about how particular dredged material will be managed will be made in individual projectspecific reviews under the MPRSA and/or the CWA. 

Comment 93:

EPA received comments at the public hearing in Stamford from the Fairfield County Commodores Association 

in support of the proposed amendments that were principally focused boater safety, the environmental cost of 

transportation for upland disposal and the significant increase in cost to dispose of dredged material if the sites 

are closed. They referred to a statement by CT DEEP Commissioner Klee saying, “In all these years, there is no 

evidence linking the open-water disposal of dredged materials to diminished water quality or damage to natural 

resources, aquatic life or public health in Long Island Sound.”

Response:

EPA acknowledges the support for the proposed amendments and agrees that the disposal of suitable 

dredged material does not significantly diminish water quality nor cause long-term damage to aquatic 

life in Long Island Sound. In addition, EPA agrees that dredging is necessary to assure safe navigation 

in the waters of Long Island Sound for recreational, commercial, national defense, and public safety 

purposes. EPA also agrees that when considering dredged material management options, not only should 

possible adverse effects of open-water placement of the material be considered, but it is important to 

consider any adverse environmental consequences of the possible alternatives to open-water placement 

of the dredged material. 

Comments 94, 95, 96, 97:

EPA received oral and written comments from three marine trade representatives and oral comments from a 

fourth at the public hearing in Stamford in support of the proposed amendments. The main points of the 

commenters were that: dredging is essential to provide safe access to harbors and rivers for recreational and 
11

commercial boat users; many waterfront businesses and jobs depend on boat operators having safe access to and 

from Long Island Sound; the disposal sites provide a much needed option for placement of dredged material; 

and the proposed amendments provide adequate safeguards against environmental harm.

Response:

EPA acknowledges the support for the proposed amendments and agrees that there is a continuing need 

for open-water disposal sites for suitable material, with emphasis on beneficial use of dredged materials 

whenever practicable. EPA also agrees that the existing laws provide strong safeguards for the 

environment of Long Island Sound and EPA is committed to working with federal, state and local 

authorities, as well as with the public, to enforce those safeguards. 

Comment 101:

The Town of Brookhaven, NY provided comments that are captioned as comments on the Draft Dredged 

Material Management Plan (DMMP) and PEIS. The Town was critical of many aspects of the draft DMMP and 

requested more time to review the Plan. In closing, the Town encouraged EPA to include enforceable 

quantitative goals for substantial reductions in open-water disposal, advocating a goal of 50% or greater 

reduction. The Town also proposed a quantifiable goal of sedimentation reduction for each dredge site. 

Response:

EPA notes that the USACE’s draft DMMP and PEIS were the subject of public comment in 2015 and 

were finalized in January, 2016. The comments do not make any direct reference to EPA’s proposed 

regulatory amendments. In response to comments from Connecticut and New York, EPA’s Final Rule 

contains provisions for identification of a baseline for the volume and percentage of dredge material 

being beneficially used and placed at the open-water sites; establishing a reasonable and practicable 

series of stepped objectives, including timeframes, to increase the percentage of beneficially used 

material; and developing accurate methods to track reductions with due consideration for annual 

fluctuations. The inter-annual variability in the number of dredging projects and the amount of dredged 

material generated by those projects, along with the uncertainty of the federal budget process, and the 

current uncertainty around whether various alternatives to open-water disposal will be able to 

accommodate some or all of the material from specific projects in the future makes it inadvisable to set 

rigid, enforceable open-water disposal reduction requirements. That said, EPA agrees that setting nonenforceable step-down goals is a good idea that can help provide an incentive and a measuring stick to 

help drive reductions in open-water disposal. The Final Rule establishes a Steering Committee and RDT 

and charges them with establishing step-downs in the amount of dredged material to be disposed of over 

time with a mechanism to track those step-downs reductions. (See responses to Comments 112 and 116.)

Comment 104:

The commenter, a lifelong resident and boater in the waters surrounding Long Island, expressed concern with 

the proposed amendments. The commenter notes the seemingly contradictory regulatory views of what is 

suitable for being placed in Long Island Sound – tight regulation of the holding tank in boats, while allowing 

disposal of contaminated dredged spoils in the Sound. What happened to the 2005 agreement to phase out openwater disposal? Dumping should not be allowed to continue. There are better alternatives.

Response:

EPA does not agree that differing regulatory programs affecting Long Island Sound contradict one 

another. Boating and runoff regulations are primarily aimed at reducing the discharge of nitrogen and 

bacteria and other pathogens into the waters of the sound. Neither of these pollutants, however, are 

significant constituents of dredged material that might be disposed of in the Sound. Moreover, EPA’s 

regulations under the MPRSA strictly limit the presence of contamination in dredged material that could 

be placed at a disposal site in Long Island Sound. See 40 CFR Part 227 and 40 CFR 
12

228.15(b)(4)(vi)(C)(3)(i) of the new Final Rule. EPA’s proposed rule provides standards that reflect the 

expectation that alternatives to open-water disposal will be employed for nearly all sandy sediments, and 

requires project proponents to evaluate practicable alternatives to disposal of silty materials. EPA’s 

proposed rule retains the 2005 long-term goal of reducing or eliminating open-water disposal. 

Comment 108:

Spicer’s Marina expressed concern with EPA’s conclusion that the proposed action will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. It contends this 

has been totally untrue due to the predatory, discriminatory, and unfair actions of the NY DOS. 

Spicer’s Marina also believes the Ambro Amendment, which applies the MPRSA to Long Island Sound, has 

adversely effected Connecticut and Long Island Sound by increasing costs and paperwork and delaying 

projects. It suggests that the eastern boundary of Long Island Sound should run from Little Gull Island, through 

Bartlett’s Reef to the Connecticut mainland. It further contends that Block Island Sound, Gardiners Bay, the 

Race, Fishers Island Sound, and the New London Disposal Site are not part of Long Island Sound. 

Spicer’s Marina believes it must have the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) for Eastern 

Long Island Sound completed in order for it to be able to effectively comment on whether the Connecticut 

waterfront, especially in Eastern Connecticut, is being treated fairly and will be able to operate effectively under 

the proposed conditions and with a fair and reasonable number of nearby dredge material disposal sites.

Response:

EPA disagrees with the commenter regarding its objection to EPA’s conclusion that the proposed action 

will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act. As EPA noted in the proposed amendments, the restrictions apply only to 

projects subject to MPRSA; i.e., all federal projects and non-federal projects greater than 25,000 cubic 

yards. Small entities are most likely to be involved with projects below the 25,000-cubic yard threshold 

and are not directly affected by these regulatory amendments. Such small projects are subject to Clean 

Water Act requirements instead. If anything, EPA’s action to amend the regulations and maintain the 

site designations for the CLDS and WLDS will assist these small entities by providing a clear option for 

open-water disposal of dredged material when necessary and appropriate.

The commenter’s suggestion of a different eastern boundary has been raised with USACE and EPA in 

the past. In 2009, EPA advised USACE that the boundary suggested by the commenter should not be 

used as the eastern boundary of the Sound under MPRSA Section 106(f). See Memorandum from Mark 

A. Stein and Melville P. Coté, Jr., EPA, to Michael F. Keegan, USACE, “The Eastern Boundary of 

‘Long Island Sound’ for Purposes of MPRSA § 106(f), 33 U.S.C. § 1416(f),” (May 12, 2009). EPA’s

analysis concluded that the boundary runs northeasterly from Orient Point, through Plum Island, Great 

Gull and Little Gull Islands, Fishers Island, and Napatree Point, RI, which is sometimes referred to as 

the “Old Base Line.” This boundary has been used consistently by EPA and USACE in all discussions 

and documents concerning dredged material disposal sites in Long Island Sound. 

A Draft Supplemental EIS in support of EPA’s proposed designation of an open-water dredged material 

disposal site for Eastern Long Island Sound was made available for public comment on April 27, 2016.

See 81 FR 7055 (February 10, 2016). 

Comment 109:

The Mayor of the Village of Northport, New York urged EPA to reject the DMMP, asserting that it ignores the 

intent and goal of eliminating open-water dumping of dredge material. The commenter asserts that allowing 

dumping would negate the investments Northport has made in reducing nitrogen levels in their sewer plant and 
13

other infrastructure improvement to control storm water runoff and notes that these investments have led to 

significant reductions of pollution in Northport Harbor and ultimately Long Island Sound. 

Response:

EPA’s Final Rule explicitly retains the goal of reducing or eliminating open-water disposal of dredged 

material. EPA applauds the investments that the village has made to reduce the discharge of pollutants 

into Northport Harbor, but disagrees that these investments will be negated by placement of suitable 

dredged material at the designated sites in the Sound. As discussed in greater detail in the response to 

Comment 78, the annual placement of dredged material at the open-water sites is estimated to add less 

than one tenth of one percent of the overall annual nitrogen loading to Long Island Sound. Reduced 

pollutant discharges as a result of improvements such as those made by the Village of Northport should 

generally reduce the contaminant load found in dredged material. Individual, project-specific reviews 

will determine how the material from a particular project will be managed, either through beneficial use, 

open-water disposal, placement in a containment facility, or some other method. 

Comment 110:

The Village of Mamaroneck, New York submitted a copy of a resolution adopted by the Board of Trustees of 

the Village, urging Governor Cuomo and New York State to support the initiatives of the EPA and USACE to 

retain the relocation sites for dredged material in an environmentally safe manner in accordance with the 

DMMP and EPA’s proposed rulemaking. 

Response:

EPA acknowledges the support for the proposed amendments and agrees that adequate safeguards have 

been incorporated.

Comment 111:

The U.S. Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) requested that EPA consult with the 

Shinnecock Indian Nation on the proposed rule.

Response:

EPA coordinated with all potentially affected indian tribes. Upon receipt of the letter from BIA, EPA

again contacted the Shinnecock Indian Nation to gauge its interest in participating in the formal 

consultation process. The tribe did not, however, express an interest in participating. EPA will continue 

to coordinate with the Shinnecock Indian Nation, as appropriate, in the future.

Comment 112:

The Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) strongly supports the adoption of 

the regulation such that it ensures the continued ability to conduct maintenance dredging and make use of the 

Central and Western disposal sites as cost-effective and environmentally sound methods of dredged material 

management. DEEP also agrees that it is important to pursue alternatives to the use of open-water disposal 

sites, particularly focused on beneficially using dredged material as a resource to achieve habitat restoration and 

coastal resilience objectives.

DEEP believes that through continued collaborative efforts with federal and state partners, progress can be 

made toward increased use of alternatives to open-water disposal, but with the understanding that it will take 

time and large reductions may not be feasible in the short term. DEEP recommended that EPA have the 

following guiding principles in mind when finalizing the regulation.

 The stated goal remains the same as in the 2005 rule – “reduce or eliminate open-water disposal of 

dredge material in Long Island Sound.”
14

 The rule should direct the establishment of a Steering Committee consisting of high level representatives 

from the states, EPA and USACE. The charge to the Steering Committee is to develop a baseline for the 

current percentage of dredge material being beneficially used and to establish a reasonable and 

practicable series of stepped objectives to increase the percentage of beneficially used material including 

timeframes. The charge will also include developing accurate methods to track reductions with due 

consideration for annual fluctuations.

 When tracking progress it must be recognized that “exceptional circumstances” may result in delays in 

meeting an objective. Exceptional circumstances should be infrequent, irregular and unforeseeable.

 While acknowledging the importance of making measurable progress toward the goal, the milestones 

and stepped objectives should incorporate an adaptive management approach toward continuous 

improvement and not establish enforceable commitments to numeric reduction targets.

 For dredging projects subject to this regulation, the RDT should be consulted starting in the early stages 

of project planning for consideration and recommendation of beneficial use of dredged material 

wherever practicable, as that term is defined by EPA.

Connecticut expressed commitment to working with federal and state partners to develop and promote the use 

of innovative and practicable alternatives to open-water disposal. This effort must include identification of 

funding sources. In addition, all partners need to work together to address and overcome regulatory hurdles. 

One activity that may facilitate and establish a path forward is to commit to jointly implement two pilot 

projects.

Finally, DEEP emphasized how important it is for EPA to resolve issues raised by USACE that have the 

potential to constrain their ability to conduct future maintenance dredging. It is imperative for Connecticut that 

the final rule allow for the continued use of open-water disposal sites while alternatives are developed over the 

long term, and that USACE’s important role in maintenance dredging is crucial to Connecticut’s coastal 

economy, continues.

Response: 

EPA appreciates Connecticut DEEPs support for the proposed regulation. EPA agrees that the proposed 

rule ensures the continued ability to conduct maintenance dredging and make use of the Central and 

Western disposal sites as cost-effective and environmentally sound methods of dredged material 

management. EPA also agrees that it is important to pursue alternatives to the use of open-water 

disposal sites, particularly focused on beneficially using dredged material as a resource to achieve 

habitat restoration and coastal resilience objectives.

EPA shares DEEP’s belief that through continued commitment to collaborative efforts with federal and 

state partners, progress can be made toward developing and promoting the use of innovative and 

practicable alternatives to open-water disposal. This effort must include identification of funding sources 

and a commitment to work together to address and overcome regulatory hurdles, when appropriate. 

EPA agrees that committing to a few projects to pilot alternative uses of dredged material can facilitate 

and establish a path forward. EPA agrees that this will take time and that large reductions may not be 

feasible in the short term. 

EPA’s response to DEEP’s suggested guiding principles is as follows:

 EPA agrees with Connecticut (and New York, see Comment 116) that the fundamental goal of the state 

and federal parties since at least 2005 has been to reduce or eliminate open-water disposal of dredged

material in Long Island Sound. EPA used those same words in the proposed rule in the very first 

paragraph of the “Background” section of the preamble. EPA did not intend to signal a change in that 
15

goal in the Proposed Rule and has added language in 40 CFR 228.15(b)(4)(vi) of the Final Rule to 

clarify this point. At the same time, EPA believes that in the context of the RDT reviewing projects or 

developing alternatives, the idea of practicability, as defined in 40 CFR 227.16(b), provides important 

additional clarification to the application of the goal. EPA notes that New York supports the 

consideration of practicability in this context. 

 EPA agrees with Connecticut (and New York, see Comment 116) that it would be useful to establish a 

Steering Committee, consisting of high level representatives from the states, EPA and USACE. The 

Steering Committee will provide policy level direction to the RDT and facilitate high level collaboration 

among the agencies critical to the accelerating the development and use of beneficial alternatives for 

dredged material. The charge to the Steering Committee includes identification of a baseline for the 

volume and percentage of dredge material being beneficially used and placed at the open-water sites; 

establishing a reasonable and practicable series of stepped objectives, including timeframes, to increase 

the percentage of beneficially used material, while recognizing that the nature of the dredging program 

will result in fluctuating annual volumes of dredged material; and guiding the RDT’s development of 

accurate methods to track reductions with due consideration for annual fluctuations. While state 

participation on the Steering Committee and RDT will be voluntary, EPA expects that each of the 

interested federal and state agencies will commit the necessary resources to collect the data necessary to 

support the establishment of the baseline and tracking the future disposition of dredged materials, and to 

engage in timely RDT project reviews.

 EPA agrees with Connecticut (and New York, see Comment 116) that when tracking progress, it must 

be recognized that “exceptional circumstances” may result in delays in meeting an objective. 

Exceptional circumstances should be infrequent, irregular and unpredictable.

 EPA agrees with Connecticut that while acknowledging the importance of making measurable progress 

toward the goal, the milestones and stepped objectives adopted by the Steering Committee should 

incorporate an adaptive management approach toward continuous improvement rather than establishing

enforceable commitments to strict numeric reduction targets.

 EPA agrees with Connecticut that for dredging projects subject to this regulation, the RDT should be 

consulted starting in the early stages of project planning for consideration and recommendation of 

beneficial use of dredged material wherever practicable, as that term is defined by EPA.

Comment 113:

Connecticut’s entire Congressional Delegation jointly wrote in support of USACE’s DMMP and PEIS and 

noted that EPA’s proposed rule to amend the restrictions on CLDS and WLDS reflect many of the overall goals 

of the DMMP. They noted that the proposed rule examines alternative placement opportunities for dredged 

material before resorting to open-water placement and highlights the need to continuously monitor and research 

the environmental impacts of all dredging activities, past and future. They expressed concern that language 

carried over from the 2005 Rule regarding “practicable alternatives” and “reasonable incremental costs” is not 

defined in clearer terms. In order to effectively maintain the balance between environmental and economic 

benefits of Long Island Sound, some certainty regarding the potential cost of maintenance projects must be 

included in the final language. Knowing that the makeup of dredged material from each navigation project is 

different, they understand that placement alternatives need to be examined on a case-by-case basis. They note 

that EPA itself recognizes in the proposed rule that the lack of clarity on future project costs “could result in 

deferral of maintenance or improvement projects that could impact navigation.” They hope that the Final Rule 

will more clearly address this issue.

The Delegation notes that without reliable and timely dredging, Connecticut’s deep-water ports in Bridgeport, 

New Haven and New London have seen an 80 percent decrease in imports over the last decade. A 

comprehensive dredging plan for Long Island Sound needs to be a vital component of the Connecticut Port 

Authority’s goal to expand Connecticut’s major ports and grow the maritime economy. They believe that 
16

continued use of CLDS and WLDS, along with an increased effort to find sustainable on-land solutions for 

suitable dredged materials, will provide the Long Island Sound region with a balanced approach for future 

waterway maintenance projects.

Response: 

EPA appreciates the Connecticut Congressional Delegation’s support of the proposed rule and 

recognizes the importance of dredging to Connecticut’s deep-water ports. EPA agrees that increased 

efforts to find sustainable alternative solutions for suitable dredged materials will provide important 

options for the future. 

The term “practicable alternative” is defined in 40 CFR 227.16(b) of EPA’s ocean disposal regulations 

as an alternative which is “available at reasonable incremental cost and energy expenditures, which need 

not be competitive with the costs of ocean dumping, taking into account the environmental benefits 

derived from such activity, including the relative adverse environmental impacts associated with the use 

of alternatives to ocean dumping.” This definition of “practicable alternatives” has been in EPA’s MPRSA 

regulations since 1977, and it has been expressly cross-referenced in the restrictions on the CLDS and 

WLDS since promulgation of the 2005 Rule (compare (b)(4)(vi)(I)(1) and (2) in the 2005 rule with 

(b)(4)(vi)(C)(1) and (2) in the Proposed Rule). The accompanying discussions in the preamble of the 2005 

Rule and the Proposed Rule are essentially the same. In the nearly eleven years that the restrictions have 

been in place there have been no instances where a dredging project could not go forward because of a 

disagreement over whether an alternative was “practicable.” 

The possibility that EPA and USACE might disagree whether or not an alternative is “practicable” is rooted 

in part in the fact that the two agencies have different regulatory definitions of the term “practicable.” That 

difference has existed since 1977. Yet, despite these differences, the two definitions also share important 

commonalities, as is discussed in the preamble to the Final Rule. For example, cost and technical feasibility 

are considered under both definitions. EPA is unaware of any project in New England that has been stopped 

due to the difference in definitions. EPA’s Ocean Dumping Regulations also provide a mechanism for 

elevation and resolution in the event there is a disagreement between the EPA Regional Administrator and 

USACE’s District Engineer. [40 CFR 225.2 – 225.4]

EPA’s definition of “practicable” and its application do not directly affect USACE’s definition of the Federal 

Standard. If EPA determines that an alternative is “practicable,” then non-federal sponsors would need to be 

found to pay for any incremental cost above what USACE can legally participate in. One of the important 

roles of the Steering Committee and RDT described above in response to Connecticut DEEP (see Comment 

112), is the identification and piloting of beneficial use alternatives, identifying possible resources to 

support those alternatives, and eliminating regulatory barriers, as appropriate. EPA expects that the 

Steering Committee and RDT will, generally and on a project specific basis, facilitate the process of 

matching projects, beneficial use alternatives and the resources necessary to implement them, thus 

mitigating the risk that a project cannot proceed.

EPA's definition of “practicable” requires that the alternative be “available at reasonable incremental 

cost.” Said differently, by definition, a “practicable alternative” will not impose unreasonable

incremental cost above the cost of ocean disposal. As noted in the preamble to the Proposed Rule, the 

language retained from the 2005 Rule does not attempt to specify in advance how the ”reasonable 

incremental cost” standard will be applied in any particular case. The regulation contemplates a 

balancing test, and the EPA believes that the determination is best made on a case-by-case basis. The 

language of the 2005 Rule also does not attempt to specify who will need to pay for any reasonable 

incremental costs. Rather, the share of such costs (if any) to be borne by private parties, state 

government, local government, or the federal government also will need to be worked out in response to 
17

actual situations. The DMMP takes a similar approach, leaving decisions about alternatives and funding 

to later, case-by-case determinations. 

In Long Island Sound, with the states and federal agencies working in partnership, EPA believes that there is 

a strong likelihood that the optimal dredged material management options will be selected.

Comment 114:

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New England District (USACE) expressed concern that the proposed rule 

could have a significant adverse impact on federal navigation by potentially adding significant costs to USACE 

projects. USACE’s specific concerns are as follows:

1. The proposed rule provides that if the use of a practicable alternative is required in the future and no entity is 

willing to pay the reasonable incremental cost, the use of the sites will be prohibited for such projects even 

when this means the plan projects cannot go forward. The scenario could arise where a practicable alternative is 

identified that exceeds the Federal Standard and therefore would require a non-federal sponsor to fund the 

difference in cost. If a non-federal sponsor could not do so or refused to do so, disposal at the Central or 

Western disposal sites would be prohibited and the project could not go forward. As such, this provision of the 

Proposed Rule would impact the Corps’ application of the Federal Standard and negatively impact maintenance 

of Federal Navigation Projects in Long Island Sound.

2. The role of the RDT under the proposed rule raises concerns regarding whether it is in compliance with the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) since it is required to provide “recommendations” to the USACE. 

Furthermore, while the RDT’s recommendations may have been necessary while the DMMP was under 

development, now that the DMMP has been finalized, the role of the RDT should be one of an informational 

resource and collaborator rather than a body charged with providing “recommendations” to the Corps. This 

point was reflected in the DMMP where the Corps stated: “From a Federal agency perspective (due to the 

requirements of the FACA) an RDT cannot exercise regulatory authority, advise, make recommendations or 

supplant the authority of its member agencies. However, the collaborative nature of the team should provide the 

agencies with more information and greater options for their evaluations and decision-making on the projects 

and applications for approval before them for action.”

3. The Proposed Rule maintains the current language of 40 CFR 228.15(b)(4)(vi) which provides “All 

references to ‘permittees’ shall be deemed to include the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) when it is 

authorizing its own dredged material disposal from a USACE dredging project.” The USACE does not permit 

its own projects and is therefore not a permittee. This language should be stricken.

4. The Proposed Rule maintains the current language of 40 CFR 228.15(b)(4)(vi)(I)(1), which states that 

“disposal at the sites shall only be allowed if there is no practicable alternative to open-water disposal and that 

any practicable alternative will be fully utilized for the maximum volume of dredged materials practicable.” 

The requirement that “any practicable alternative will be fully utilized for the maximum volume of dredged 

material practicable” could be problematic since it could require the Corps to dispose of dredged materials at 

more than one locations, which would add significant cost to the project. If such cost was not covered by the 

non-federal sponsor, dredging would be deferred, severely impacting navigation in Long Island Sound.

USACE closed by expressing great concern that the Proposed Rule, as drafted, could have an adverse impact on 

the continued viability of USACE’s navigation and dredging program in Long Island Sound.

Response:

EPA believes it is unlikely that the proposed rule could have a significant adverse impact on federal 

navigation by potentially adding significant costs to USACE projects. EPA’s specific responses are
18

numbered in the same fashion as in USACE’s comment. EPA’s responses to these comments are also 

further elucidated in the preamble to the Final Rule. 

1. The USACE expresses concern that requiring the use of practicable alternatives to open-water 

disposal could result important federal dredging projects being blocked when a practicable alternative is 

identified but no party is willing or able to pay required non-federal costs for the alternative. After 

careful consideration, EPA takes issue with the premise of the comment and concludes that the result 

feared by the USACE is highly unlikely to materialize in practice. While every case must be looked at 

based on its own particular facts, EPA thinks that if no party is willing or able to pay required costs for 

the alternative, then the alternative would, at least in most cases, be regarded as “unavailable.” As a 

result, the alternative would be outside the definition of “practicable,” which only includes available 

alternatives. It should be clear that EPA understands and appreciates the importance of dredging in Long 

Island Sound for ensuring safe navigation and facilitating marine commerce and recreation. EPA is

designating the CLDS and WLDS because open-water dredged material disposal options are needed to 

support necessary dredging. EPA does not want to block this necessary dredging by deeming 

alternatives to open-water disposal to be practicable even though no one can or will pay for them to be 

implemented. See also Response to Comment 113 (immediately above USACE’s comment). 

2. EPA notes that the 2005 rule established the RDT and charged the RDT with making 

“recommendations” until the completion of the DMMP. The Proposed Rule incorporated the same 

language in providing for the RDT into the future. The “recommendations” of the RDT are not formal 

decisions subject to appeal, but rather advice or suggestions to USACE for its consideration regarding 

whether the RDT has identified a practicable alternative to open-water disposal for a particular project. 

EPA does not intend for the RDT to in any way usurp USACE’s authority to make decisions or

determinations on the placement of dredged material (subject to EPA’s review under Section 103(c) of 

the MPRSA, 33 USC 1413(c)). 

Regarding USACE’s concerns about the FACA, EPA has carefully reviewed the roles of the RDT and 

Steering Committee as contained in the Final Rule and finds that the RDT and Steering Committee are 

exempt from the FACA under 2 USC 1534(b). See also Memorandum by the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) entitled, “SUBJECT: Guidelines and Instructions for Implementing Section 204, ‘State, 

Local, and Tribal Government Input,’ of Title II of P.L. 104-4” (Sept. 21, 1995). At the same time, 

creating federal/state committees such as the RDT and Steering Committee to share information and 

advice and recommendations is also consistent with the FACA and relevant implementing guidance 

from OMB.

3. The language in question was also included in the restrictions in the 2005 Rule. The intention of the 

2005 Rule was to apply the restrictions to all persons who may seek to dispose of dredged material at the 

sites under MPRSA. As discussed in the preamble to the 2005 Rule (70 FR 32511), the restrictions were 

intended to apply both to all MPRSA permittees (i.e., private parties and governmental agencies other 

than the USACE), and to the USACE itself which disposes of dredged material pursuant to 

authorizations rather than permits. The USACE was ‘‘deemed’’ to be a permittee in the 2005 Rule so as 

to make it clear that it was subject to the site Restrictions where the term “permittee” was used. EPA 

was not suggesting that the USACE was actually a permittee or that it needed to issue itself a permit. 

EPA understands USACE’s comment as objecting to being considered a “permittee,” rather than an 

indication that USACE is not subject to the restrictions. Since other proposed revisions to the 2005 rule 

eliminated the use of the word “permittee,” there is no longer a need to specifically qualify what 

“permittee” means. Consistent with USACE’s comment and EPA’s intention that the restrictions apply 

to all persons who may dispose of dredged material at the sites, EPA has revised the sentence in 
19

question in 40 CFR 228.15(b)(4)(vi) to read: “With regard to federal projects, the restrictions apply to 

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) when it is authorizing its own dredged material disposal 

from a USACE dredging project, as well as to federal dredged material disposal projects that require 

authorization from a permit issued by the USACE.” 

4. As acknowledged by USACE, the language in question was included in the restrictions in the 2005 

Rule. In the preamble to the 2005 Rule, EPA explained that even if a practicable alternative is not 

available for all of the dredged material from a project, if a practicable alternative is available for a 

portion of the dredged material, it must be used for disposal of that portion of the material in order to at 

least reduce the use of the designated sites. EPA views the concern that this “could be problematic” 

because it might “add significant cost to the project” as misplaced. As discussed above, by definition, 

the requirement that projects use “practicable alternatives” will not impose unreasonably higher costs. 

In the near term, sandy material is most likely to have a beneficial use. Since sand is an increasingly 

valuable commodity, EPA considers it unlikely that a non-federal sponsor cannot be found to cover the 

reasonable incremental cost.

Comment 115:

The Connecticut Harbor Management Association (CHMA) provided extensive written comments in support of 

the proposed amendments to augment the oral testimony provided by one of their members at the public hearing 

in Stamford, CT on March 2, 2016. (See Comment 92). The letter provides background information on 

CHMA’s interest in the DMMP and EPA’s rulemaking. Representatives of CHMA participated in the process 

of preparing the DMMP and some of the information was previously supplied in comments to USACE on the 

DMMP. CHMA represents the interests of municipal harbor management commissions, state harbor masters 

among others. CHMA notes that the active federal navigation projects in CT impact 28 waterways. These 

waterways require timely and economical maintenance dredging to maintain use by industry, commercial, and 

recreational users. CHMA referred to a study of federal maintenance dredging projects they authored in 2005 

and included in an appendix.

While supporting the goal of reducing open-water disposal, CHMA believes the goal of elimination of openwater disposal is not an appropriate solution, is economically and environmentally infeasible and unnecessary at 

the present time. CHMA makes note of USACE’s Federal Standard and the rigorous testing required to

determine suitability for open-water disposal. CHMA is aware of no scientific data or study indicating that 

open-water disposal is causing any significant adverse impacts on coastal resources and environmental quality.

CHMA’s experience is that fine-grained sediments dominate the material dredged and that alternative uses of 

this material are economically and environmentally infeasible. 

CHMA encourages EPA to amend the 2005 rule to incorporate procedures and standards that are consistent 

with the recommendations of the DMMP. CHMA also recommends that coordination and cooperation between 

the coastal zone management programs of Connecticut and New York be stated as a specific objective of 

federal policies and regulations for LIS dredged material management. They further recommend that increased 

attention be given to implementation (as distinguished from simply identification) of feasible alternatives. 

CHMA encouraged Congress to consider funding demonstration/pilot programs for alternative methods for 

beneficial use. They encourage Connecticut to amend regulations to facilitate beneficial, environmentally 

sound use of suitable materials upland. They also recommend the increased use of federal hopper dredges.

CHMA encourages a meeting of the Long Island Sound Congressional Caucus to hear and consider issues 

affecting beneficial use. Finally, CHMA encourages all stakeholders to recognize and respect each other’s 

objectives as important and legitimate and work together as partners to resolve issues in an objective, balanced 

and practical manner.
20

Response:

EPA appreciates the Connecticut Harbor Management Association’s support for the proposed 

amendments and their participation in the process of developing the DMMP. EPA agrees that timely and 

economical maintenance dredging is critical to maintaining safe navigation for all manner of users. In 

EPA’s view, the proposed amendments are consistent with the recommendations in the DMMP. 

As noted in the response to Comment 92, EPA also agrees that relying solely on alternatives to openwater disposal for all dredged material from the Central and Western regions of Long Island Sound is 

not likely to be feasible at this time. EPA agrees that a concerted, collaborative effort will be needed to 

spur greater use of beneficial alternatives, including piloting alternatives, identifying possible resources, 

and eliminating regulatory barriers. As described in the response to Comment 112, EPA believes that a 

Steering Committee should guide these efforts, with the support of the Regional Dredging Team, and 

has included this among the responsibilities of the Steering Committee in the Final Rule.

Comment 116:

The New York State Department of State (DOS) and the New York State Department of Environmental 

Conservation (DEC) jointly commented on the proposed amendments. They noted New York’s unwavering 

commitment to the Sound’s environment which has led to the State consistently advocating for clear, staged 

reductions of the dumping of dredged material in the Sound. In order to move forward on the issue of dredged 

material management, NY requests that EPA revise the proposed amendments to produce measurable advances 

as required in the 2005 rule.

NY believes the DMMP fails to recommend sufficient procedures and standards to meet the goal of the 2005 

rule to reduce or eliminate the disposal of dredged material in Long Island Sound. Thus, EPA cannot rely solely 

on the DMMP in amending the rule. Rather EPA must amend the rule to establish additional procedures and 

standards that will result in clear, staged reductions in open-water disposal of dredge material over time.

Specifically, NY requests the following:

The goal of the amended rule must remain the same as the 2005 rule “to reduce or eliminate open-water 

disposal of dredged material in Long Island Sound.”

A Steering Committee of high level representatives from the States, EPA, and the Corps should be established 

and charged with setting a baseline from which to measure how much dredged material has been disposed of in 

the Sound. Subsequently, the Steering Committee should establish step-downs in the amount of dredged 

material to be disposed of over time with a mechanism to track those step-downs reductions. Due to the very 

nature of dredging projects, NY recognizes that there may be fluctuations in annual volumes. NY believes that 

this type of process will ultimately achieve actual reductions in accordance with the goal of the 2005 rule.

To provide additional surety that the goal will be met, NY requests that an additional provision be included in 

the rule to provide that if there is an initial failure to maintain or reduce the amount of disposal over the next ten 

years, as measured at year 10, that the rule can be reopened upon a petition to EPA. This would afford further 

assurance that the parties successfully work together to meet the goal. For the purpose of the step-downs, NY 

recognizes that due to the nature of dredge projects there may be “exceptional circumstances” that could result 

in delay in meeting a step down, but that this should not affect the ten year milestone.

NY supports EPA’s proposal to charge the regional dredge team to review each project and require beneficial 

use of dredged material, where practicable, utilizing the EPA definition of practicable. Ultimately, NY believes 

that all the parties must work together to find viable alternatives, including identifying possible resources and 

the removal of regulatory hurdles. NY is willing to do so and commits to work with the parties on two initial 

pilot projects.
21

Response:

EPA appreciates New York’s commitment to Long Island Sound’s environment and suggestions for 

improving the proposed rule. EPA believes the recommended procedures and standards in the DMMP 

provide a solid foundation for meeting the long term goal to reduce or eliminate the open-water disposal 

of dredged material. At the same time, EPA agrees with New York (and Connecticut, see Comment 112) 

that suggested additions to the Proposed Rule can serve to strengthen the procedures and standards and 

increase the likelihood of success in meeting the goal.

EPA’s responses to NY’s specific requests are as follows:

 EPA agrees with New York (and Connecticut, see Comment 112) that the fundamental goal of the state 

and federal parties since at least 2005 is reduce or eliminate open-water disposal of dredge material in 

Long Island Sound. EPA used those same words in the proposed rule in the very first paragraph of the 

“Background” section of the preamble. EPA has used the same language at the outset in the Final Rule. 

As mentioned above and in the preamble to the Final Rule, EPA has added language to 40 CFR 

228.15(b)(4)(vi) to ensure that the overarching goal is clear. 

 EPA agrees with New York (and Connecticut, see Comment 112) that it would be useful to establish a 

Steering Committee, consisting of high level representatives from the states, EPA and USACE. The 

Steering Committee will provide policy level direction to the Regional Dredging Team and facilitate the 

type of high-level collaboration among the agencies that will be critical to accelerating the development 

and use of beneficial alternatives for managing dredged material. The charge to the Steering Committee 

includes determining a baseline for the volume and percentage of dredge material being beneficially 

used and placed at the open-water sites; establishing a reasonable and practicable series of stepped 

objectives, including timeframes, to increase the percentage of beneficially used material, and guiding 

the RDT’s development of accurate methods to track reductions with due consideration for annual 

fluctuations. EPA expects that each of the agencies will commit the necessary resources to collect the 

data necessary to support the establishment of the baseline and tracking the future disposition of dredged 

materials. Whether such commitments will be forthcoming from each agency is, of course, subject to the 

uncertainties of state and federal budget and appropriation processes. 

 EPA is optimistic that the restrictions contained in the Final Rule will be sufficient to make progress 

toward the goal of reducing or eliminating open-water disposal. However, if the volume of dredged 

material disposed of at the sites, as measured ten years from now, has increased, it may be an indication 

that the standards and procedures contained in the Final Rule have not succeed as intended. (There also 

could be other reasons that dredged material volumes could rise, such as, for example, more frequent 

large storms.) EPA agrees that it is reasonable to include an explicit provision in the Final Rule that 

provides any party with the opportunity to petition EPA to reconsider the regulation under these 

circumstances. EPA has added paragraph (b)(4)(vi)(G) to the Final Rule, to provide for this.

 EPA agrees with New York (and Connecticut, see Comment 112) that when tracking progress, it must 

be recognized that “exceptional circumstances” may result in delays in meeting an objective. 

 EPA agrees that in the context of the RDT reviewing projects or developing alternatives, the idea of 

practicability provides important additional clarification to the application of the goal.

 EPA agrees that a concerted, collaborative effort by all parties will be needed to spur greater use 

beneficial use alternatives, including piloting alternatives, identifying possible resources, and 

eliminating regulatory barriers. As described above, EPA believes that a Steering Committee should 

guide these efforts, with the support of the RDT, and has included this among the responsibilities of the 

Steering Committee in the Final Rule.

 

Comment 117:
22

The Town of Southold, NY, provided comments focused on the draft DMMP and the associated draft PEIS, 

considering that these documents provided the basis for EPA’s proposed amendments. While recognizing the 

necessity of dredging, the Town is strongly opposed to further open-water disposal of dredge spoil in Long 

Island Sound due to the potential adverse impacts to the ecological and economic functions and values and the 

indirect and direct impacts to the Town.

The Town then reiterates comments and questions on the draft DMMP and PEIS regarding the cost matrix; nonfederal projects; the suitability/compatibility of dredged materials; toxicity tests; exposure to ecological and 

human health; impacts from smaller dredging projects; conflicts with NY State permit for discharges from 

municipal separate storm sewer systems; failure to assess impacts on marine mammals; failure to adequately 

assess the potential impacts on commercial and recreational marine species; concern regarding alternatives; and 

the adverse effects of discharged sediment. 

The Town supports: the goal of eliminating the need for open-water placement of dredged material; the 

beneficial use of dredge spoil in Southold; and EPA recognition of viable alternatives that involve 

environmentally preferable beneficial use of dredge spoils even if the use of Long Island Sound has been 

determined to be environmentally acceptable – that is, if alternatives are available at “reasonable incremental 

cost” they will need to be used. 

Response:

The Town’s comments and questions regarding the draft DMMP and PEIS do not directly address 

EPA’s proposed amendments. EPA notes that USACE provided responses to the Town’s comments 

when the DMMP and PEIS were finalized in January, 2016. EPA disagrees with the broader suggestion

that disposal of dredged material at the sites will have adverse ecological impacts. With the restrictions 

on the sites as adopted in 2005 and amended by the Final Rule, EPA believes that there will not be 

adverse impacts to ecological and economic functions and values. 

As noted in response to comments by Connecticut and New York, the fundamental goal of the state and 

federal parties since at least 2005 is reduce or eliminate open-water disposal of dredge material in Long 

Island Sound. It remains the goal in the Final Rule. EPA appreciates support for the requirement that 

“practicable” alternatives should be used when they are available. EPA also disagrees that potential 

effects on marine species, including marine mammals, have not been adequately considered. These 

issues are discussed in the preambles to both the Proposed and Final Rules. 

Comment 118:

The commenter noted that Long Island Sound has been under attack for many years from many sources 

including the dumping of dredged materials and asserted that dredged materials are known to contain all sorts of 

toxins from chemicals to heavy metals, plastics, etc. The commenter encouraged looking for another place that 

is safer to dispose of these dredge materials as they do not belong in water. There needs to be a time limit 

placed on this practice of dumping in LIS and the sooner it stops completely, the better it will be for the 

environment. 

Response: As discussed above in the response to Comment 78, the proposed amendments would not 

allow the disposal of toxic or contaminated material at the sties. The goal of reducing or eliminating 

open-water disposal of dredged materials remains in the proposed amendments and the amendments 

institute procedures that will lead toward the goal. In response to comments from Connecticut and New 

York, EPA’s Final Rule contains provisions for identification of a baseline for the volume and 

percentage of dredge material being beneficially used and placed at the open-water sites; establishing a 

reasonable and practicable series of stepped objectives to increase the percentage of beneficially used 
23

material, including timeframes; and developing accurate methods to track reductions with due 

consideration for annual fluctuations. (See responses to Comments 112 and 116.)

Comment 119:

The commenter asked that dredging spoils not be dumped in Long Island Sound; it should be the option of last 

resort. It is worth the extra cost to find a safer home on the land. Identifying alternatives, and using them, would 

reduce their cost. There are many examples of dredged material being put to good use. 

Response: EPA agrees that there are examples of dredged material being put to good use and that 

identifying and using alternatives would be likely to reduce the cost of using them. The Steering 

Committee and Regional Dredging Team included in the Final Rule are charged with identifying 

alternatives and promoting pilot projects aimed to increase the availability of beneficial uses for dredged 

material. The Final Rule requires that practicable alternatives be utilized.
24

Commenters, by comment number assigned upon receipt

# Commenter

Date 

received

1 Malvin, Ronald 2/20/2016

2 Shamoon, Harry 2/20/2016

3 Johnson, Greg 2/20/2016

4 Wildermuth, Nancy 2/20/2016

5 Gerson, James 2/20/2016

6 Brewer Yacht Yards 2/20/2016

7 Blecher, Steven & Amy 2/21/2016

8 Rowland, George 2/21/2016

9 Vitolo, Dominick 2/21/2016

10 Murphy, F 2/21/2016

11 Brooks, Rhys 2/21/2016

12 Fontanella, Tish 2/21/2016

13 Canter, Richard & Meredith 2/21/2016

14 Fontanella, Joseph 2/21/2016

15 Crawford, George 2/22/2016

16 Helsel, Eric 2/22/2016

17 Sheerin, John 2/22/2016

18 Goldstein, Arnold 2/22/2016

19 Schiff, Debbie & Howard 2/22/2016

20 Miller, Harry 2/22/2016

21 Cavicchio, Rob 2/22/2016

22 Conroy, Matt & C Chesanek 2/22/2016

23 Strauss, David 2/22/2016

24 Stebbins, Lynne & Douglas 2/22/2016

25 Marmer, Jerry 2/22/2016

26 Porcello, John 2/22/2016

27 Steiner, Solomon 2/22/2016

28 Mannuccia, Sal 2/22/2016

29 Knight, Steve 2/22/2016

30 Zajac, Jeffrey 2/22/2016

31 Schoen, Chris 2/22/2016

32 Valentine, Jay 2/22/2016

33 Vasilas, Chris 2/22/2016

34 Kellogg, Amy 2/22/2016

35 Connal, Pete 2/22/2016

36 Costello, Don & Louise 2/22/2016

37 Drake, George & Diane 2/22/2016

38 Lamb, David 2/22/2016

39 Jones, Timothy 2/22/2016

40 Lieblich, Paul 2/22/2016

41 Hartog, Jack 2/22/2016

42 Rappaport, Bill 2/22/2016
25

43 Giulini, Bruno 2/22/2016

44 Mormino, Matthew 2/22/2016

45 O'Brien, Ed 2/22/2016

46 Valentino, Patrick 2/22/2016

47 Anonymous1 2/22/2016

48 Riso, Stephen 2/23/2016

49 Lewis, Chris & Deborah 2/23/2016

50 Morrison, Rayon 2/23/2016

51 Counihan, Robert 2/23/2016

52 Hoddinott, Jane & David 2/23/2016

53 England, Sheila 2/23/2016

54 Wade, Steven 2/23/2016

55 Church, Stanley 2/23/2016

56 Evans, Scott 2/23/2016

57 Homer, Glen 2/23/2016

58 Hauser, Tab 2/23/2016

59 Soltz, Robert 2/24/2016

60 Indian Town Association 2/24/2016

61 Bowolick, Thomas 2/24/2016

62 McKeon, Paul & Nancy 2/24/2016

63 Slomkowski, Leon 2/24/2016

64 Catalano, Philip 2/25/2016

65 DeWahl, David 2/25/2016

66 Parker, Andy 2/25/2016

67 Whiting, Robert & Carolyn 2/25/2016

68 Smith, Daniel 2/25/2016

69 Nickl-Weller, Christine 2/25/2016

70 Caspersson, Sten & Martina 2/27/2016

71 Guilford Boat Yard 2/27/2016

72 Spielvogel, David & Lisa 2/28/2016

73 Weicker, Scot 2/28/2016

74 Hyatt, Henry 2/28/2016

75 French, Robert 2/29/2016

76 Lebert, John 2/29/2016

77 Barry, John & Mary Gail 3/1/2016

78 Citizens Campaign 1 3/1/2016

79 Capon, Virginia 3/1/2016

80 Setauket Harbor Task Force 3/1/2016

81 Roel, Ray 3/1/2016

82 Hahn, Kara 3/1/2016

83 Saybrook Point Marina 3/1/2016

84 Village of Asharoken 3/2/2016

85 Furnari, Thomas 3/2/2016

86 Lefferts, Sybil 3/2/2016

87 Spader, David & family 3/2/2016

88 Pomerantz, Paul 3/2/2016
26

89 Lovito, Andrew & Kenna 3/2/2016

90 Boswell, Rob 3/2/2016

91

Greenwich Harbor Management 

Commission 3/2/2016

92 CT Harbor Management Assoc 3/2/2016

93 Fairfield County Commodores Assoc 3/2/2016

94 CT Marine Trades Association 3/2/2016

95 Rex Marine Center 3/2/2016

96 Derektor Shipyard 3/2/2016

97 Daniel Natchez and Associates 3/2/2016

98 Citizens Campaign 2 3/2/2016

99 Dumser, Nadine & John 3/3/2016

100 Wachter, Steven 3/3/2016

101 Town of Brookhaven 3/3/2016

102 Anonymous 2 3/4/2016

103 Gose, Evelyn 3/5/2016

104 Judson, Charles 3/7/2016

105 Infantino, Michael 3/9/2016

106 Anonymous 3 3/10/2016

107 Rose, Tina 3/14/2016

108 Spicer's Marina 3/15/2016

109 Village of Northport, NY 3/16/2016

110 Village of Mamaroneck, NY 3/18/2016

111 U.S. Department of Interior 3/24/2016

112 Connecticut DEEP 3/24/2016

113 CT Congressional Delegation 3/24/2016

114 US Army Corps of Engineers 3/24/2016

115 CT Harbor Management Assoc 3/25/2016

116 NYS DOS and DEC 3/25/2016

117 Town of Southold, NY 3/25/2016

118 Bellinson, Susan 3/25/2016

119 Anonymous 4 3/25/2016
27

Commenters, arrayed alphabetically

Cmt 

#

47 Anonymous 1

102 Anonymous 2

106 Anonymous 3

119 Anonymous 4

77 Barry, John & Mary Gail

118 Bellinson, Susan

7 Blecher, Steven & Amy

90 Boswell, Rob

61 Bowolick, Thomas

6 Brewer Yacht Yards

11 Brooks, Rhys

13 Canter, Richard & Meredith

79 Capon, Virginia

70 Caspersson, Sten & Martina

64 Catalano, Philip

21 Cavicchio, Rob

55 Church, Stanley

78 Citizens Campaign 1

98 Citizens Campaign 2

35 Connal, Pete

112 Connecticut DEEP

22 Conroy, Matt & C Chesanek

36 Costello, Don & Louise

51 Counihan, Robert

15 Crawford, George

113 CT Congressional Delegation

92 CT Harbor Management Assoc

115 CT Harbor Management Assoc

94 CT Marine Trades Association

97 Daniel Natchez and Associates

96 Derektor Shipyard

65 DeWahl, David

37 Drake, George & Diane

99 Dumser, Nadine & John

53 England, Sheila

56 Evans, Scott

93 Fairfield County Commodores Assoc

14 Fontanella, Joseph

12 Fontanella, Tish

75 French, Robert

85 Furnari, Thomas

5 Gerson, James
28

43 Giulini, Bruno

18 Goldstein, Arnold

103 Gose, Evelyn

91

Greenwich Harbor Management 

Commission

71 Guilford Boat Yard

82 Hahn, Kara

41 Hartog, Jack

58 Hauser, Tab

16 Helsel, Eric

52 Hoddinott, Jane & David

57 Homer, Glen

74 Hyatt, Henry

60 Indian Town Association

105 Infantino, Michael

3 Johnson, Greg

39 Jones, Timothy

104 Judson, Charles

34 Kellogg, Amy

29 Knight, Steve

38 Lamb, David

76 Lebert, John

86 Lefferts, Sybil

49 Lewis, Chris & Deborah

40 Lieblich, Paul

89 Lovito, Andrew & Kenna

1 Malvin, Ronald

28 Mannuccia, Sal

25 Marmer, Jerry

62 McKeon, Paul & Nancy

20 Miller, Harry

44 Mormino, Matthew

50 Morrison, Rayon

10 Murphy, F

69 Nickl-Weller, Christine

116 NYS DOS and DEC

45 O'Brien, Ed

66 Parker, Andy

88 Pomerantz, Paul

26 Porcello, John

42 Rappaport, Bill

95 Rex Marine Center

48 Riso, Stephen

81 Roel, Ray

107 Rose, Tina

8 Rowland, George
29

83 Saybrook Point Marina

19 Schiff, Debbie & Howard

31 Schoen, Chris

80 Setauket Harbor Task Force

2 Shamoon, Harry

17 Sheerin, John

63 Slomkowski, Leon

68 Smith, Daniel

59 Soltz, Robert

87 Spader, David & family

108 Spicer's Marina

72 Spielvogel, David & Lisa

24 Stebbins, Lynne & Douglas

27 Steiner, Solomon

23 Strauss, David

101 Town of Brookhaven

117 Town of Southold, NY

111 U.S. Department of Interior

114 US Army Corps of Engineers

32 Valentine, Jay

46 Valentino, Patrick

33 Vasilas, Chris

84 Village of Asharoken

110 Village of Mamaroneck, NY

109 Village of Northport, NY

9 Vitolo, Dominick

100 Wachter, Steven

54 Wade, Steven

73 Weicker, Scot

67 Whiting, Robert & Carolyn

4 Wildermuth, Nancy

30 Zajac, Jeffrey