New Jersey Administrative Code › Title 7 - ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION › Chapter 7 - COASTAL PERMIT PROGRAM RULES › Appendix G - THE MANAGEMENT AND REGULATION OF DREDGING ACTIVITIES AND DREDGED MATERIAL IN NEW JERSEY'S TIDAL WATERS

Current through Register Vol. 56, No. 14, July 15, 2024
Chapter I - Purpose
This appendix establishes the policies and procedures which
				the Department will use to conduct reviews of applications for permits for
				dredging activities in tidal waters of the State of New Jersey and the
				management of the dredged material. This document also provides Departmental
				staff and project applicants with criteria for the required sampling, testing,
				and permitting of dredged material for various identified management
				alternatives, including potential use options. These policies and procedures
				have been developed to ensure that proposed dredging projects and the
				management of dredged material are conducted so as to minimize the potential
				for adverse impacts to the environment and public health.
Chapter II - Overview
A: Authorities
-The Department is responsible
				for the evaluation and permitting of all dredging-related activities that occur
				in the waters of the State of New Jersey. As part of that review, the
				Department evaluates the proposed dredged material management option. Existing
				management options include in-water disposal, upland containment/disposal,
				and/or various potential uses of the dredged material. The objectives of the
				Department's regulatory program overseeing dredged material management
				activities include:
(1) the identification of potential adverse impacts to the
				environment and public health which could result from a proposed
				activity;
(2) the regulation/management of a proposed activity to ensure
				that any potential adverse impacts are minimized; and
(3) the development of appropriate protocols to monitor for
				potential adverse impacts.
The authority to regulate proposed dredging activities and the
				management of dredged material is derived from the following statutes:
Waterfront Development Law (
				N.J.S.A.
				12:5-3 et seq.)
Riparian Interests (
				N.J.S.A.
				12:3-1 et seq. and
				N.J.S.A.
				18A:56-1 et seq.)
New Jersey Water Pollution Control Act (
				N.J.S.A.
				58:10A-1 et seq.)
Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act
				Amendments of 1977;
				33
				U.S.C. §
									1341, Section
				401
				)
Federal Coastal Zone Management Act (
				16 U.S.C. §§
									1451 et seq.)
The siting of upland confined disposal facilities may also be
				regulated by the following:
Flood Hazard Area Control Act (
				N.J.S.A.
				58:16A-50 et seq.)
Freshwater Wetlands Protection Act (
				N.J.S.A.
				13:9B-1 et seq.)
Wetlands Act of 1970 (
				N.J.S.A.
				13:9A-1 et seq.)
Coastal Area Facility Review Act (
				N.J.S.A.
				13:19-1 et seq.)
B: Permit Review Process
- Pre-application
				conferences in accordance with N.J.A.C. 7:7-22are recommended prior to the
				submittal of a permit application, to discuss the proposed project, required
				permits, sampling and testing protocols, and other information which must be
				submitted with the application.
In most cases, dredging projects in New Jersey's navigable
				tidal waters will require a waterfront development permit and a water quality
				certificate (WQC); the WQC is issued jointly with the waterfront development
				permit. While a WQC is not required for the actual dredging operation, it is
				required for any discharge of dredged material into navigable waters of the
				United States associated with the dredging operation. Any such discharge will
				also require a permit from the USACE pursuant to Section 404 of the Federal
				Clean Water Act; the Section 404 Permit triggers the requirement for a WQC.
				Federally conducted, funded, or permitted activities, including Federal
				navigation projects, which have a direct impact on New Jersey's Coastal Zone,
				will require a Federal consistency determination from the Department, pursuant
				to the Coastal Zone Management Act. The USACE also has authority over dredging
				activities conducted in navigable waters of the United States pursuant to
				Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899.
Disposal of dredged material in ocean waters is regulated by
				the USACE and the USEPA pursuant to the Marine Protection, Research, and
				Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA). Ocean waters are located offshore of the "baseline"
				established by the USEPA pursuant to the MPRSA -- offshore of Long Island and
				New Jersey connected by the transect between Rockaway Point and Sandy Hook,
				offshore of New Jersey and Delaware connected by the transect between Cape May
				Point and Cape Henelopen Point. Dredged material may be disposed of in ocean
				waters only at sites designated by the USEPA, with permits issued by the USACE
				pursuant to Section 103 of the MPRSA. The State of New Jersey has discretionary
				authority to review disposal activities at ocean disposal sites pursuant to the
				Federal Coastal Zone Management Act. The review of proposed ocean disposal
				operations at currently designated ocean disposal sites will be coordinated
				with the USACE and USEPA. In inland (that is, "non-ocean") waters, the actual
				dredging operation, or any associated dredged material disposal/management/use
				alternative, which results in the placement of dredged material into navigable
				waters of the United States requires a Clean Water Act Section 404 permit from
				the USACE.
The Department regulates the management of dredged material
				from out-of-State waters pursuant to the permits issued for the New Jersey
				facility which will handle the dredged material. These permits identify the
				dredged material suitable for management at the facility (locations of origin,
				sediment quality characteristics, quantities, etc.). Any dredged material
				originating in out-of-State waters would have to meet the requirements
				specified in the permits for the New Jersey management facility. The sediments
				to be dredged must comply with all of the sampling and testing requirements and
				protocols applicable to projects in New Jersey waters. However, note that only
				Testing Exclusion Case #1 (see Section III-C) will be applicable to dredged
				material originating in out-of-State waters. The specific evaluative criteria
				applied will vary with the proposed disposal/management/use alternative and its
				location. Likewise, dredged material from out-of-State waters proposed to be
				used in New Jersey would have to meet the same regulatory, sampling, and
				testing requirements as that of dredged material from New Jersey waters. Given
				these requirements, any out-of-State applicant(s) proposing to dispose/manage
				or use dredged material in New Jersey must contact the Department to discuss
				the project prior to the submittal of permit applications. The background
				information listed in Section III-A must be submitted to the Department prior
				to this discussion.
In general, an applicant proposing to dispose of or use
				dredged material originating in New Jersey at an out-of-State location would
				have to demonstrate to the Department that this option is approved by the state
				proposed to accept or use the material. This would consist of a letter from the
				appropriate regulatory agencies of the state where the disposal facility or use
				option is located, or copies of current facility permits, verifying that the
				facility is operating in accordance with applicable rules and regulations and
				can lawfully accept the dredged material for the declared disposal or use
				option. Note that the state proposed to accept or use the material may have
				different sediment sampling and testing requirements and evaluative criteria
				than those of the Department.
A number of factors are considered by the Department in its
				evaluation of a dredging project and proposed dredged material management
				alternatives. In general, each proposed project has its own set of potential
				problems and impacts to the environment and public health. Thus, not all of the
				concerns or regulatory requirements discussed in this appendix are applicable
				to all projects. To some degree, each proposed project will be evaluated by the
				Department on a "case-by-case" basis.
The Department will ensure the appropriate application of this
				appendix in its regulatory reviews. For example, the Department has divided the
				tidal waters of New Jersey into three geographical regions based on the
				expected degree and type of sediment contamination, and historic/potential
				dredged material management alternatives (see Figure 1 and Section III-B). In
				general, the applicable regulatory requirements vary between these regions, but
				are similar for projects located within any one region.
Finally, the Department will periodically revise this appendix
				as its knowledge and experience increases, additional research is completed,
				new dredging and dredged material management alternatives become available, and
				in response to comments from the public. These revisions will also consider the
				Department's regulatory decisions to further ensure consistency in the
				Department's regulatory program. In the future, it is expected that many of the
				case-by-case decisions now required of the Department will be eliminated, and
				more specific regulatory criteria will be developed for various types of
				dredging projects and dredged material management alternatives.
Chapter III--Information Required of All Projects
A--Background Information
In order for the Department to determine what specific sampling
				and testing are required for a proposed dredging project and the management of
				the dredged material, background information must be submitted to the
				Department. The following information shall be submitted to Department for all
				applications:
1. The proposed dredging method, project depth, and areal
				extent of project.
2. A hydrographic survey of the dredging site taken within the
				past six months. All hydrographic surveys shall be performed by an ACSM
				(American Congress of Surveying and Mapping) certified hydrographer, a licensed
				land surveyor with five years hydrographic experience, or a professional
				engineer. For detailed information on how to conduct these surveys, see USACE
				(2002), Engineer Manual for Hydrographic Surveying. This USACE manual provides
				information on levels of accuracy, transect line spacing, acceptable surveying
				methods, and the class of survey applicable for a specific project. The
				hydrographic survey and plans of the dredging project submitted to the
				Department should also be consistent with the following criteria:
* all hydrographic/survey plans submitted shall be of a scale
				no greater than one inch equals 100 feet;
* all plans shall be submitted with an accompanying site
				location map (a USGS quadrangle is preferred);
* all projects must provide precision bathymetry (accurate to
				0.10 foot vertically and one foot horizontally);
* all plans submitted shall show nearby outfalls, bulkheads,
				dolphins, mooring areas, turning basins, and any other prominent surface or
				bottom features;
* all plans must accurately identify proposed core sampling
				locations;
* hydrographic plans must be dated indicating the time the
				survey was taken and when the plan(s) was prepared;
* all plans must identify the areas to be dredged;
* all plans shall identify project depths in feet below mean
				low water;
3. The location of the proposed disposal/management area,
				photographs of the disposal site, and method of transporting material to the
				disposal area. For proposed use options, a description of how the dredged
				material is to be used must be provided.
4. The estimated volume of dredged material and length of time
				necessary to conduct the dredging project, including approximate number of
				barge trips, if applicable.
5. An inventory of aquatic resources in the area to be dredged
				such as shellfish habitat, submerged vegetation habitat, wetlands, shorebird
				nesting habitat, migratory pathways for finfish, and other aquatic organisms.
				Mapping of many resources is available from the Division. The Division may
				require surveys at the application stage if insufficient data are available for
				the Division to determine the project's compliance with the Coastal Zone
				Management rules (such a determination will be made on a project-specific
				basis).
The Department recommends that the following information also
				be submitted with the application. This information will be utilized by the
				Department as part of its review to determine the potential of sediments in the
				dredging project area to contain contaminants, in an effort to minimize the
				sampling and testing requirements for applicants, and to develop a sampling
				plan. Any additional available information related to potential contamination
				or non-contamination of the sediments should also be submitted.
6. The location and type of all existing outfalls to surface
				waters on site and within 500 feet of the site.
7. Where available, a 10-year history and summary of past
				dredging events, including grain size, total organic carbon, percentage
				moisture, and bulk sediment chemistry analysis data.
8. The past history of on-site and adjacent land uses, and
				documented spills (including type, volume, and date) either on land or into
				surface waters.
9. An inventory of known and suspected historic upstream and
				downstream spills and unauthorized discharges of pollutants.
10. The location of any potable water intakes within one mile
				of the disposal site.
Pre-application conferences in accordance with N.J.A.C.
				7:7-22are recommended prior to the actual submittal of a permit application, to
				discuss the proposed project, required permits, sampling and testing protocols,
				and other information which must be submitted with the application. At this
				time, a project manager from the Department will be assigned to the proposed
				project and will act as the Department's point of contact with the applicant.
				The purposes of the pre-application conferences are (1) to preliminarily
				identify potential project impacts and areas of concern, (2) to identify the
				permits required for the proposed project, (3) to develop the sampling and
				testing plans needed to obtain the data required by the Department to properly
				characterize the sediments to be dredged (which will, in part, be used to
				evaluate the potential impacts of the dredging operation and the
				applicant-selected dredged material management alternative), (4) to identify
				other information the Department will need as part of its regulatory review
				process, and (5) to develop a plan of action and tentative schedule for
				completing data-gathering and review activities, ultimately leading to a
				regulatory decision by the Department.
B - Geographical Regions
Based on existing information and experience, the Department
				has divided the tidal waters of New Jersey into three geographical regions (see
				Figure 1). In general, the expected degree and type of sediment contamination,
				and historic/potential dredged material management alternatives are similar
				within each region. Likewise, the applicable regulatory requirements are
				expected to be generally similar for projects located within any one region,
				but will vary between the regions.
The three regions are described as follows:
Region 1 - North of Sandy Hook (including Raritan Bay, Sandy
				Hook Bay, Raritan River, Arthur Kill, Kill Van Kull, Newark Bay, Passaic River,
				Hackensack River, Upper and Lower New York Bays, Hudson River, and associated
				tributaries)
Region 2 - the Atlantic Ocean coast from Sandy Hook to the
				western entrance of the Cape May Canal, including the Navesink and Shrewsbury
				Rivers, Barnegat Bay and associated tributaries, Mullica River, and Great Egg
				Harbor River;
Region 3 - Delaware Bay, tidal Delaware River, and associated
				tributaries.
C - Testing Exclusions
Testing of dredged material for contaminants will not always
				be necessary. Based on the volume of dredged material, the potential for
				contaminants to be present, and the proposed management alternative, the
				Department has developed the following five cases in which dredged material
				will be excluded from bulk sediment chemistry, elutriate, modified elutriate,
				and biological testing (see Figure 2). For exclusions from testing for
				evaluation of ground water impacts, see Section IV-C(4).
Case 1 - Sand:
No further testing will be required if:
-- the material to be dredged is greater than 90 percent sand
				(grain size >0.0625 mm); and
-- other background information (for example, no known
				historical spills or discharges of pollutants in the project area, previous
				sediment chemistry data, etc.) does not lead the Department to believe the
				material may be contaminated.
Case 2 - Subaqueous Disposal Pits:
No further testing will be required for dredging projects
				where less than 1,000 cubic yards of dredged material will be removed over the
				five-year life of the waterfront development permit and disposal will occur in
				a subaqueous disposal pit approved by the Department.
Click here to
				view
Case 3 - Residential Properties in Region
				2:
No further testing will be required for dredging projects in
				Region 2 which meet all of the following requirements:
-- less than 500 cubic yards of dredged material will be
				removed over the five-year life of the waterfront development permit;
-- the dredged material will be placed on the upland portion
				of the residential property adjacent to the area being dredged;
-- the dredging site contains four or less boat slips;
-- the upland property is residential and owned by the same
				person(s) as the dredging site; and
-- the dredged material will be capped with a six-inch layer
				of clean fill.
Case 4 - Small Projects in Region 2:
For dredging projects in Region 2, no further testing of
				dredged material will be required if all of the following requirements are
				met:
-- less than 1,000 cubic yards of dredged material will be
				removed over the five-year life of the waterfront development permit;
				and
-- disposal is proposed in an area which will not be subject
				to residential or active recreational use.
Case 5 - Small Marinas, Channels, and Other Projects
				in Region 2:
For dredging projects in Region 2, no further testing of
				dredged material will be required if all of the following requirements are
				met.
-- less than 5,000 cubic yards of dredged material will be
				removed over the five-year life of the waterfront development permit;
-- there has not been an historic or current upland industrial
				use, there is no history of spills or discharges of pollutants in the area, and
				the site is not now or previously occupied by a marina/marine basin of 25 or
				more boat slips; and
-- disposal is proposed in an area which will not be subject
				to residential or active recreational use.
For the purposes of these testing exclusions, areas of "active
				recreational use" refer to those locations and/or facilities visited/used by
				the general public on a frequent basis. Such recreational areas include sports
				facilities (for example baseball fields, basketball and tennis courts, golf
				courses), playgrounds, picnic sites, swimming areas (pools, beaches, shores),
				and fishing areas. This term does not include more "passive recreational
				areas", such as hiking trails and open space areas.
Click here to
				view
D-Sampling of Sediments
The proposed sampling plan must be presented to the Department
				for review and approval prior to samples being taken. In addition, the required
				information discussed in Section III-A must be submitted to the Department with
				the proposed sampling plan. The sampling plan must include the following
				information.
(1) Development of a Sampling Plan
a. Sample locations should be chosen so as to provide
				representative information on the volume, potential contamination, grain size,
				total organic carbon, and percentage moisture of sediments to be
				dredged.
b. In order to evaluate contamination of the sediments by
				pollutants, the sampling plan should include locations near the positions of
				any outfalls, tributaries, industrial sources, and historical spill areas.
				Previous test data for maintenance dredging projects should also be taken into
				account when choosing sampling locations.
c. The required number of sediment core samples to be taken per
				volume of sediment to be dredged, and the maximum number of core samples per
				analytical composite, is based (in part) on the application of guidelines
				developed for the Puget Sound Dredge Disposal Analysis Program (USACE, Seattle
				District et al., 1997). This guidance has been used to determine the total
				number of core samples which will be necessary to fully characterize the
				dredging project. In most cases, individual core samples may be composited for
				analytical purposes.
d. For all projects (that do not meet Testing Exclusion Cases
				#3, #4, or #5 -- see Section III-C), a minimum of three core samples must be
				collected. For general guidance on the required number of core samples to be
				taken per volume of sediment to be dredged and the maximum number of core
				samples which may be composited, use the following table:
Maximum Project Size (cubic yards (CY))
Max Volume per Core (cubic yards (CY))
Max # Cores per Composite
Region 1
60,000 CY
4,000 CY
3
(except Ambrose and Sandy Hook Channels)
Region 2
72,000 CY
8,000 CY
3
Region 3
64,000 CY
8,000 CY
2
For dredging projects of larger volumes than that stated
				above, sampling plans and compositing scheme will be developed on a
				case-by-case basis by the Department in conjunction with the project applicant.
				Note, however, that each project (regardless of size) should be assessed on a
				site-specific basis, taking into consideration reach boundaries and the areal
				extent of the project, the location(s) of outfalls and tributaries, as well as
				the volume of dredged material.
e. Samples may be composited using the following general
				guidelines. The Department will determine the sample compositing scheme for the
				project:
1. Separate cores may be composited only if the grain size and
				likelihood of contamination is similar based on depositional characteristics,
				spill history, location of outfalls, etc. If a group of cores is greater than
				six feet in length, similar strata occurring at approximately the same depths
				may be composited; dissimilar strata cannot be composited.
2. The number of cores to be composited should be kept to a
				minimum. Minimal compositing will serve to fully characterize the sediments
				proposed for dredging and disposal/management/use.
3. Compositing will be conducted on a reach-by-reach basis. A
				reach is a continuous stretch of waterway not separated by any structure and
				subject to similar hydrodynamic and depositional features as well as similar
				upland inputs. Reach boundaries must be approved by the Department.
f. For proposed uses of dredged material (see Chapter V and
				Attachment G), the general sampling and compositing requirements specified
				above may not be appropriate. The Department will develop the sampling plan and
				compositing scheme for such projects on a cases-by-case basis in conjunction
				with the project applicant.
g. The Department will coordinate with the USACE and USEPA on
				the approval of sampling plans and testing for ocean disposal projects in New
				Jersey waters.
(2) Operational Aspects of Sampling and Compositing
a. In order for the data to be valid, all sediment core samples
				must be taken in accordance with the approved sampling plan, and the guidance
				specified in this Section and in Attachment A.
b. Core samples are to be taken to the proposed project depth
				plus allowable overdredge (two feet).
c. Field logs of each core shall be submitted. Grain size
				analysis shall be conducted, using the method of R.L. Folk, 1980.
d. Core samples six feet or less in length may be homogenized.
				Separate cores may be composited only if the grain size and likelihood of
				contamination is similar based on depositional characteristics, spill history,
				location of outfalls, etc.
e. Cores greater than six feet in length may be homogenized
				unless there are distinct visual strata in grain size and composition which are
				at least two feet in depth. The Department shall be notified of any such cores
				that show grain size stratification prior to homogenizing. For those cores that
				show grain size stratification, each strata with a depth of two feet or greater
				must be analyzed separately (that is, the entire core should not be homogenized
				for testing purposes if distinct strata are present). If a group of cores is
				greater than six six feet in length, similar strata occurring at approximately
				the same depths may be composited; dissimilar strata cannot be
				composited.
f. The compositing scheme associated with a sampling plan
				approved by the Department may need to be modified based on the actual core
				samples collected. If there are large differences in the grain size
				characteristics of the individual cores -- and thus potentially large
				differences in the degree of contamination of the sediments -- it is not
				appropriate to composite the individual cores, even if so required by the
				approved sampling plan and compositing scheme. In such cases, before proceeding
				to composite and analyze the samples, immediately contact the Department in
				order to obtain a revised compositing scheme.
g. In those cases in which there is a potential for the
				uncovering of more contaminated sediment, such as new work dredging projects in
				shoaling zones, the bottom six inches of each core will be separated from the
				remainder of the core and reserved. The material shall be visually inspected to
				determine if it is predominantly sand, gravel, silt or clay. The bottom 6
				inches is considered representative of the material that will be exposed as a
				result of dredging. If the 6 inch sample is less than 90 percent sand, as
				determined by grain size analysis, bulk sediment chemistry analysis will be
				required. If the bottom six inches of each core is similar in grain size and
				visual characteristics, this material may be composited for analysis.
The purpose of testing the bottom six inches of a sediment
				core is to identify a potential problem - that more contaminated sediments will
				be exposed by the dredging project, and thus available to biota. If such
				contaminated sediments are found, a number of management/regulatory options are
				available to the project applicant and the Department:
-- not permit the dredging project as proposed;
-- dredge to a shallower depth than proposed, so as not to
				expose the more contaminated sediments; or
-- over-dredge the project area, removing and disposing of the
				contaminated sediments (that is, "remedial/environmental dredging").
The Department will work with the project applicant to develop
				an appropriate plan of action in the event the proposed dredging project will
				uncover more contaminated sediments.
Chapter IV - Management of Dredging Activities and Dredged
				Material
A - Management of Dredging Activities and Transport of
				Dredged Material
(1) Authority/Permitting Process: Refer to Sections II-B and C
				for a discussion of relevant statutes, regulations, and an overview of the
				permitting process. The Department will review proposed dredging operations
				under the Coastal Zone Management rules ( N.J.A.C. 7:7). These rules provide
				the basis for the Department's review, including an evaluation of the
				locational requirements for the issuance of permits for maintenance and new
				dredging projects.
The riparian statutes contained within Titles 18A (
				N.J.S.A.
				18A:56-1 et seq.) and 12 (
				N.J.S.A.
				12:3-1 et seq.) may also apply to a dredging
				project. Tidelands conveyances are not required when dredged material is
				removed from tidelands and placed in a different tidelands location. This would
				include ocean disposal operations, reprofiling, or disposal into subaqueous
				disposal pits. It would also include placement on upland sites which are
				State-owned formerly flowed tidelands.
Construction of a subaqueous disposal pit by the removal of
				material may require a tidelands conveyance to transfer ownership of the
				tidelands from the State of New Jersey to the owner/operator of the pit. A
				conveyance may also be needed for a nearshore diked containment area. If
				dredged material having an economic value is placed in an upland location by an
				entity other than the State or Federal government, a commercial dredging
				license must be issued by the Tidelands Resource Council. An example would be
				dredged material that could be subsequently used or sold as construction
				aggregate or fill material.
Click here to
				view
Table 1: Potential Sediment Testing and Permitting
				Requirements for Various Dredged Material Management Alternatives
Management Alternative
Open Water
Subaqueous Disposal Pit
Containment Area
Upland CDF
Use
TESTS
Grain Size, TOC, & Percent Moisture
R
R
R
R
R
Bulk Sediment Chemistry
R*
R*
R*
R*
R
Modified Elutriate
(1)
(1)
R*
R*
-
Leaching Test
-
-
(2)
(2)
(2)
Biological Testing
?
-
?
?
(3)
PERMITS
Waterfront Dev.
R
R
R
PR
PR
Tidelands Instrument
R
R
R
PR
PR
Water Quality Cert.
R
R
R
PR
PR
NJPDES-DSW
-
-
(1)
(1)
-
NJDES-DGW
-
-
(2)
(2)
-
Stream Encroach.
-
-
PR
PR
PR
CAFRA
-
-
PR
PR
PR
Fresh. Wetlands
-
-
PR
PR
PR
Coastal
-
-
PR
PR
PR
Wetlands
Key: R - required in all cases
R* - required except where sediments meet an applicable
				testing exclusion (see Section III-C)
(1) - may be required when dredged material originates in a
				waterbody different from that in which the management site is located
(2) - may be required depending upon the results of site
				specific groundwater impact evaluations and/or sediment characteristics
(3) - may be required depending on the proposed use
? - may be required depending on bulk sediment chemistry data;
				to be coordinated with USACE
PR - potentially required if the facility is to be located in
				an area regulated by the listed program
(Note: In addition to required State permits, permits will be
				required from the USACE pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of
				1899 and Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act.)
(2) Potential Impacts/Regulatory Objectives: Potential adverse
				environmental impacts associated with dredging operations arise from the
				alteration of benthic habitat as a direct result of the operation and the
				dispersal of sediments and associated contaminants away from the dredging area.
				The Department's objective in regulating dredging operations is to minimize the
				potential for such impacts to occur.
The dispersal of sediments away from the dredging area may
				result in adverse impacts. Impacts could result from the direct physical
				settlement of the dispersed sediments onto sensitive benthic areas. Dispersal
				of contaminants associated with these sediments could have impacts to both
				benthic and water column food webs. The Department has developed a list of best
				management practices which should be used to minimize the creation and
				dispersal of suspended sediments during dredging operations.
New dredging should avoid impacting areas of ecological
				importance. The Coastal Zone Management Rules provide the basis for the
				Department's review of proposed dredging projects and evaluation of the
				potential impact of dredging projects. In its review of the location and need
				for any dredging operation, the Department will consider direct and indirect
				impacts to sensitive areas, such as shellfish beds and finfish migratory
				pathways. To evaluate potential impacts to estuarine benthic communities as a
				result of the dispersal of contaminated suspended sediments, the Department
				will compare the bulk sediment chemistry data with the guideline values
				developed by Long et al. (1995) and other literature sources, on a case-by-case
				basis.
The Department is also concerned about the potential long-term
				and cumulative impacts of dredging operations. The potential for such impacts
				will be evaluated as part of the Department's review of proposed dredging
				projects.
(3) Best management practices (BMPs): The Department has
				identified a number of BMPs which should be used to minimize the potential for,
				and magnitude of, adverse environmental impacts that could result from dredging
				operations. The need for any BMPs will be determined by the Department and will
				be included as permit conditions. The applicability of the use of a particular
				BMP for a dredging project will be evaluated by the Department in consultation
				with the permit applicant.
The effectiveness of a particular BMP to minimize potential
				adverse impacts will vary with the conditions present at a particular dredging
				operation. Thus, the Department will consider this list of BMPs as a "menu,"
				from which those practices anticipated to be most effective and implementable
				for a particular dredging project can be selected. The use of these BMPs would
				then be incorporated as conditions into the permits issued by the Department
				for the dredging operation.
The following BMPs have been identified by the Department.
				This list is not intended to be all inclusive, and additional BMPs will be
				considered by the Department.
*Hydraulic Dredging - This method can be used when the channel
				or berthing area configuration, the type of sediments to be dredged, and the
				volume of dredged material allows it. Hydraulic dredging is preferable when an
				acceptable upland confined disposal facility (CDF) is available within pumping
				distance of the dredging area. It reduces the generation of suspended sediments
				at the dredging site. However, this method results in the production of large
				volumes of a high percent water content dredged material slurry. Thus, the
				proposed upland CDF must be designed and operated to accept such
				material.
*Closed Clamshell - The use of a closed, watertight clamshell
				reduces the production of suspended solids at the dredging site. An example of
				an acceptable closed clamshell device is described in Raymond (1983). A closed
				clamshell will be required by the Department when the sediments to be dredged
				are contaminated at levels warranting concern. A closed clamshell would also be
				required by the Department whenever a no-barge-overflow permit condition is in
				effect. The Department has identified a number of areas in the New York-New
				Jersey Harbor portion of Region 1 where existing information shows the
				sediments to be contaminated at levels warranting concern; dredging operations
				in these areas will require the use of no-barge overflow or shunting, and thus
				also a closed clamshell.
*Dredging Practices - A number of procedures can be employed
				by the dredging contractor to minimize the creation and dispersal of suspended
				sediments when using a clamshell dredge. These include:
(1) maximizing the size of the "bite" taken by the clamshell.
				This also results in a minimization of the number of "bites" needed to dredge a
				particular volume of sediment;
(2) slowly withdrawing the clamshell through the water
				column;
(3) not hosing down or rinsing sediments off the sides and
				gunwales of the barge.
*No-Barge-Overflow - This BMP reduces the creation and
				dispersal of suspended sediments when finer-grained sediments are dredged. It
				will be required by the Department when the dredged material is contaminated at
				levels warranting concern. This condition will always apply to dredging
				operations in Newark Bay, the Passaic River and its tidal tributaries from
				Newark Bay to Dundee Dam, the Hackensack River and its tidal tributaries from
				Newark Bay to Oradell Dam, the Kill Van Kull, the Arthur Kill, Elizabeth
				Channel, City Channel, and Upper New York Bay. This condition will also apply
				when the dredged material is to be rehydrated as part of its
				disposal/management.
The purpose of this BMP is to limit the dispersal of
				contaminated sediments from the dredging site. If the applicant for a specific
				project can demonstrate that State Water Quality Criteria can be met at the
				dredging site with barge overflow, the Department will not require this BMP.
				This "demonstration" must include detailed project- and site-specific
				evaluations, monitoring, and/or modeling.
*Shunting - This BMP involves the active pumping of free water
				in a barge to the bottom of the water column at the dredging site. It may act
				to reduce turbidity in the upper water column. The discharge end of the
				shunting system must include a diffuser in order to minimize the potential for
				additional disruption of benthic sediments. Additionally, the pumping rate and
				location of the discharge must not result in the disruption of in-place
				sediments. This BMP could be used as an alternative to barge-overflow in
				reducing the volume of water in the barge.
*Seasonal/Migratory Periods - Depending on the location of the
				dredging area, the Department may prohibit operations during certain times of
				the year to minimize potential adverse impacts to anadromous or other migratory
				finfish, nesting shorebirds, etc.
*In certain semi-enclosed water bodies, dredging only on the
				incoming tide may provide additional time for suspended sediments to settle,
				thus minimizing the dispersal of contaminated sediments out of the water
				body.
*Dredging contractors may be required to employ independent,
				on-board dredging inspectors certified by the USACE. These inspectors will
				observe the dredging and disposal operations to ensure compliance with all
				permit conditions. (Note: The Federal government requires such inspectors for
				all ocean disposal projects.)
*Silt curtains may be practical for use in areas where the
				water current is less than one knot. The use of silt curtains may minimize the
				upper water column dispersal of sediments from the dredging area. This BMP can
				also be used to protect tidal creeks, interpier areas, etc. adjacent to the
				dredging area.
*Split-hull barges should only be used in dredging projects
				which will use open water disposal methods or subaqueous disposal pits.
*Dredged Material Pumping Systems - The use of a number of
				pumping systems can provide for more precise dredging operations and minimize
				the resuspension of sediments at the dredging site. In addition, these systems
				can reduce the volume of the dewatering discharge from an upland CDF, thus
				reducing the potential for impacts to surface water quality. The greatest
				percent solids transfer is obtained using positive displacement pumps which
				move material at in situ moisture levels. Typically used for concrete, these
				devices can achieve pumping capacities in excess of 140 cubic yards per hour.
				Reduced water content of dredged material can also be achieved through the use
				of vortex type pumps, which in combination with a directional control system
				serve the same function as a closed clamshell or a hydraulic cutterhead.
				However, the material removed has an increased solids content compared to
				typical hydraulic dredges, and is similar (if not greater than) a closed
				clamshell, but with far less sediment disturbance and turbidity
				generation.
(4) Testing Requirements: Chapter III discusses the sampling
				required for all proposed dredging projects. Sediments which do not qualify for
				a testing exclusion, as described in Section III-C, will require additional
				testing (bulk sediment, modified elutriate, etc.) as discussed in Chapters IV
				and V.
(5) Overland Transport of Dredged Material: The Department's
				major concern with the transport of dredged material, by truck or rail, is the
				prevention of spills and leaks. Dredged material transported in trucks must be
				managed so as to preclude spillage or leakage onto public roadways. It is
				recommended that dredged material be dewatered prior to transport by truck.
				Dredged material that has been dewatered (that is, no free water) should be
				transported in lined or watertight trucks, adequately covered/tarped over the
				top, to prevent the spilling or air dispersal of fugitive material. Dredged
				material shall be considered to contain free water unless it has been
				dewatered, amended, and/or otherwise stabilized/processed, and/or it has been
				demonstrated to the Department that the dredged material has no free water.
If dewatering is not possible, dredged material containing
				free water must be transported in trucks with water-tight tailgates, liners, or
				other methods to prevent leakage. When filling the trucks, sufficient freeboard
				must be maintained to prevent spillage over sideboards.
Measures must also be implemented to prevent the off-site
				tracking of dredged material from the loading and unloading operation sites.
				This can be accomplished with the use of a stone tracking pad and/or a truck
				wash station. All trucks, equipment, and staging areas used in the loading and
				transport of contaminated dredged material should be thoroughly cleaned and/or
				decontaminated, as appropriate. In addition, all efforts must be made to keep
				streets free of any dredged material released during transport operations; if
				needed, routine/periodic sweeping and street cleaning should be
				undertaken.
B - Open Water Alternatives
(1) Authority: Refer to Sections II-B, C for a discussion of
				relevant statutes and regulations.
Open water disposal refers to disposal in tidal waters. While
				the USEPA/USACE Draft Inland Testing Manual (1993) refers to all tidal waters
				which are not ocean waters as inland waters, the Department will refer to these
				tidal waters as open waters.
All open water disposal operations in State waters require a
				WQC (this is required in conjunction with the permit issued by the USACE
				pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act). Non-Federal projects also
				require a waterfront development permit (which is a Federal consistency
				determination). Federally-conducted projects require a Federal consistency
				determination (but not a waterfront development permit).
(2) Ocean Disposal:
(a)
Overview
. There are currently six
				Federally authorized ocean disposal sites in proximity to New Jersey. They are
				the Mud Dump/Historic Area Remediation Site (approximately six miles offshore
				of Sea Bright), sites at Shark River Inlet, Manasquan Inlet, Cold Spring/Cape
				May Inlet, and Absecon Inlet (the Inlet sites may only be used for the disposal
				of sediments dredged from each inlet), and Buoy 10 in Delaware Bay (the Buoy 10
				site may only be used for disposal of dredged material from specific reaches on
				the Delaware River). The expansion of any of these sites or the designation of
				new sites will require a Federal consistency determination from the Department.
				In addition, individual disposal operations will require a Federal consistency
				determination.
(b)
Testing Requirements
. Disposal of dredged
				material in ocean waters is regulated by the USACE and the USEPA pursuant to
				the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act. The State of New Jersey
				has discretionary authority to review disposal activities at ocean disposal
				sites pursuant to the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act. The review of
				proposed ocean disposal operations at currently designated ocean disposal sites
				will be coordinated with the USACE and USEPA.
(3) Other Open Water Disposal Areas:
(a)
Overview
. Dredged material can be placed
				in nearshore waters through sidecasting, reprofiling, interpier disposal, or
				other means. If the material will be contained by a bulkhead, berm, etc., it
				will not be considered open water disposal, but will be regulated as a
				containment area (see Section IV-E).
The following open water disposal sites have been approved by
				the Department and used repeatedly for the disposal of sediments dredged from
				the Intracoastal Waterway or adjacent channels. Proposals for open water
				disposal at these sites (or new proposed sites) will be reviewed by the
				Department on a case-by-case basis:
-- Great Sound site, located north of Gull Island, Cape May
				County;
-- Great Bay site, located behind Little Beach Island,
				Atlantic County.
(b)
Permitting Process
. Open water disposal is
				currently acceptable only in the designated areas. Where the dredged material
				is less than 90 percent sand, additional testing will be required. (Note: This
				criterion of 90 percent sand is not based on the mean of the samples/cores
				collected for a project. This criteria applies to each distinct portion (that
				is, reach) of the dredging project "represented" by an individual sample/core.)
				Further, practicable upland disposal alternatives must not be available.
				Disposal at a designated open water site requires a waterfront development
				permit (with the exception of Federal projects), a WQC, and a Federal
				consistency determination. (Note: A Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit will
				also be required from the USACE.)
(c)
Potential Impacts/Regulatory Objectives
.
				Disposal at an open water site requires a demonstration that no practicable
				alternative site exists, Federal and State Water Quality Standards will be met,
				and potential adverse environmental impacts will be minimized. An evaluation of
				the proposed disposal operation will be made using the Coastal Zone Management
				Rules ( N.J.A.C. 7:7) to ensure that sensitive areas will not be adversely
				affected. Sensitive areas include, but are not limited to, shellfish habitat,
				prime fishing areas, submerged vegetation, shallow water habitat, and
				threatened and endangered species habitat.
(d)
Testing Requirements
. Required testing of
				dredged material to be disposed of at an open water site includes an analysis
				of sediment cores for grain size, total organic carbon, and percent moisture.
				If the dredged material is greater than 90 percent sand, no additional testing
				will be required. If the dredged material is less than 90 percent sand, the
				Department may require additional testing, such as that contained in the
				USEPA/USACE Draft Inland Testing manual (1993). See Section III-D for sampling
				procedures.
(4) Reprofiling Operations
(a)
Definition
. Reprofiling is a method of
				maintenance dredging which consists of the movement of sediments from one
				location to a specific adjacent and deeper location, without removing the
				sediments from the water, resulting in a recontouring of both the reprofiled
				and depositional areas. It is usually performed by a crane or tug boat dragging
				a steel I-beam across the area to be reprofiled. The drag is terminated in the
				adjacent, deeper area, where the sediments are deposited (see Figure 4).
				Reprofiling operations are limited to the displacement of accumulated sediments
				within a previously dredged area to the previously approved depth. Overdredging
				will not be permitted.
(b)
Permitting Process
. The Department
				considers the use of reprofiling only as an interim management technique
				suitable for smaller projects (generally less than 5,000 cubic yards in size).
				Its use requires a demonstration that no other dredged material management
				alternative discussed in this appendix is practicable. Further, reprofiling
				will be restricted to the New York-New Jersey Harbor area of Region 1,
				excluding Raritan Bay and its tributaries east of the Cheesequake Creek. A
				reprofiling operation will require a waterfront development permit, a WQC, and
				a Federal consistency determination from the Department.
Click here to
				view
Click here to
				view
(c)
Potential Impacts/Regulatory Objectives
.
				The Department's main concern with reprofiling operations is to ensure that the
				proposed depositional area is of sufficient size and depth to contain the
				relocated sediments. In addition, since reprofiling only moves sediments from
				one location to another, the Department is concerned that the sediments may be
				resuspended and redeposited in other areas, particularly adjacent berths and
				navigation channels. The redeposition of sediments may also adversely impact
				existing benthic communities in the vicinity of the project area. Whereas
				conventional dredging operations remove contaminated sediments from the aquatic
				ecosystem, reprofiling does not and, further, may result in the redistribution
				of such sediments. The potential for, and magnitude of, these impacts can be
				reduced by employing techniques to ensure that the resuspension/redeposition of
				the relocated sediments is minimized.
Reprofiling does not remove sediments from the aquatic
				environment, and thus is not a long-term solution to navigational problems
				caused by shoaling. Simply put, reprofiling begets more reprofiling.
(d)
Management/Regulatory Process
. The
				following criteria apply to proposed reprofiling operations and the identified
				information must be submitted with the permit application and/or reprofiling
				request:
i. The applicant must contact the Department to determine the
				boundaries of the area within which to conduct pre- and post-work hydrographic
				surveys. This survey area will typically include an area larger than the
				reprofiling and depositional locations, and will show bathymetry to any
				existing navigable channels and berths up to 500 feet from the work area.
a. The applicant must submit a pre-work precision hydrographic
				survey (accurate to 0.10 feet vertically and one foot horizontally), completed
				no more than 60 days prior to the submission of the permit application or
				reprofiling request.
b. The applicant must demonstrate that there is adequate
				capacity at the proposed adjacent depositional area(s) for the sediments to be
				relocated. This shall be accomplished through the submission of a cut and fill
				calculation prepared by a licensed land surveyor or a professional
				engineer.
ii. The cut limit for a reprofiling operation shall be a
				maximum of three feet.
iii. A second pre-work precision hydrographic survey must be
				completed no more than 48 hours prior to the start of the reprofiling
				operation. This survey shall be used in the additional quantitative cut and
				fill calculations stipulated in Item iv.
iv. Within 48 hours of the completion of the reprofiling
				operation, a post-work precision hydrographic survey must be completed. This
				post-work survey area shall be identical to the pre-work survey area, including
				the same survey stations. The bathymetric data collected shall be used to
				provide cross sections of the reprofiled and depositional areas, and to prepare
				a quantitative calculation to compare the actual volumes of cut and fill
				material.
v. A second post-work hydrographic survey of the survey area
				shall be conducted 30 days after the completion of the reprofiling operation,
				and plotted in cross section on the same stations as the pre- and post-work
				hydrographic surveys. No cut and fill calculations are required for this survey
				data.
vi. The survey data, cross sections, and quantitative cut and
				fill calculations for the post-work hydrographic survey (Item iv only) shall be
				submitted to the Department within 60 days of the completion of the reprofiling
				operation. Should the results of the hydrographic surveying/monitoring or cut
				and fill calculations demonstrate that sediments from the reprofiling operation
				are entering adjacent channels or berths, the Department may require that these
				sediments be removed, and/or may not approve further reprofiling operations in
				the project area.
vii. Reprofiling shall be accomplished by dragging a steel beam
				or pipe across the berth/channel bottom, thereby leveling accumulated sediment
				to a uniform, specified depth. Alternative procedures will be considered only
				under special instances where the use of a drag bar is impractical due to
				limited space in the project area.
viii. Sediment depositional areas used for all reprofiling
				operations must be a minimum of 100 feet from established navigation channels,
				unless otherwise deemed suitable by the Department.
Any waterfront development permits issued by the Department
				for reprofiling operations are valid in accordance with
				N.J.A.C.
				7:7-8.2. However, only the initial
				reprofiling operation will be approved upon issuance of the permits. Subsequent
				operations must receive specific approval (this will be a condition of the
				permits). If the hydrographic surveys required by the Department show that the
				reprofiled sediments do not stay in the depositional area, future reprofiling
				operations may not be approved by the Department.
(e)
Testing Requirements
. Testing of the
				sediments to be reprofiled is not required.
C - Upland Confined Disposal
				Facilities
(1) Overview: Sediments in New Jersey's tidal waters may be
				impacted to varying degrees by a number of pollutants. Not all sediments are
				considered to be "contaminated." In order to place dredged material in an
				upland confined disposal facility (CDF), it must be demonstrated that the
				placement of the dredged material would not result in significant adverse
				impacts to terrestrial or aquatic ecosystems or pose risks to public health.
				The Department's regulatory programs are designed to identify and minimize
				potential adverse environmental impacts resulting from proposed activities. For
				dredged material upland CDFs, the magnitude of these impacts is dependent upon
				the following:
(a) Location of the facility and site-specific conditions
				(including compatibility with adjacent and nearby land uses);
(b) Characteristics of the dredged material proposed for
				placement at the facility;
(c) Design and construction of the facility;
(d) Operation of the facility; and
(e) Final closure and use of the facility site.
These five factors will be considered collectively, as
				regulatory decisions will be based on a comprehensive review of a proposed
				upland CDF. With proper design and operation of the upland CDF, the potential
				for adverse impacts can be reduced significantly. Upland CDFs will be designed,
				permitted, and operated on a case-by-case basis.
Siting of a proposed upland CDF will be addressed by the
				Division. In New Jersey's designated coastal zone, the Coastal Zone Management
				Rules will be applied to proposed sites. These rules include constraints on the
				types of activities which can occur in various types of coastal areas. In
				addition, a number of regulatory programs, such as the Freshwater Wetlands
				Protection Act and the Flood Hazard Area Control Act, may restrict the use of a
				particular site.
The major potential adverse environmental impacts associated
				with the upland containment of dredged material are surface and ground water
				contamination. Testing of dredged material for upland containment is driven, in
				large part, by the potential for contamination of surface and groundwaters. The
				discharge of contaminants from upland CDFs to surface water must be controlled
				to minimize potential adverse impacts to the aquatic ecosystem. The
				Department's testing requirements and evaluation protocols for surface and
				groundwater discharges are discussed in detail in Sections IV-C(3) and IV-C(4),
				respectively.
Potential adverse impacts could result from the dispersal of
				contaminants into terrestrial ecosystems effecting receptor organisms. The
				upland CDF must be designed and operated to minimize the dispersal of
				contaminants. A number of management techniques are available to address this
				concern. This topic is discussed in more detail in Section IV-C(5).
Potential adverse impacts to public health could result from
				human exposure to dredged material contaminated at levels which have been
				identified as being of concern. Potential exposure pathways with contaminated
				dredged material must be identified and controlled. This topic is discussed in
				more detail in Section IV-C(6).
End-use(s) and final closure of the upland CDF site must also
				be addressed in the regulatory process. Long-term impacts of the facility will
				be evaluated and appropriate management actions to minimize such impacts will
				be required. These concerns are discussed in more detail in Section
				IV-C(2).
(2) Design, Construction, Operation, and Closure:
(a)
Authority
. The Department will regulate
				the design, construction, operation, and closure of upland CDFs pursuant to the
				Waterfront Development statute. The New Jersey Flood Hazard Regulations and the
				Coastal Area Facilities Review Act may also be applicable.
(b)
Potential Impacts/Regulatory Objectives
.
				Potential adverse impacts which could result from the operation and
				interim/final closure of an upland CDF would be caused by the dispersal of
				contaminants out of the upland CDF into the environment. These potential
				impacts are discussed in detail in Sections IV-C(1), (3), (4), (5), and (6).
				Potential contaminant migration pathways and exposure hazards can be minimized
				and controlled through oversight of the design, construction, operation, and
				interim/final closure of the upland CDF.
i. Design and Construction - an upland CDF is not fundamentally
				different in the structural aspects of its design from any earthen berm/dike.
				It must be capable of resisting the forces exerted by the weight of the dredged
				material placed within it and the hydraulic forces exerted by adjoining surface
				water bodies, underlying ground water, stormwater discharges, and dewatering
				effluent. The containment structure must be able to withstand the effects of
				erosion, settlement, provide a stable platform for the operation of equipment,
				and allow for the potential vertical expansion of the containment
				structure.
The USACE has considerable experience in the design of upland
				CDFs. The Department will use the technical standards in the following
				documents as the basis for its engineering review of the design and
				construction of proposed upland CDFs:
Confined Disposal of Dredged Material, Engineer Manual (EM
				1110-5027), September 1987; and
Confined Disposal Guidance for Small Hydraulic Maintenance
				Dredging Projects - Design Procedures, Environmental Effects of Dredging
				Technical Note EEDP-02-8, December, 1988.
Where circumstances, as described in Section IV-C(4)(c),
				require the use of liners and leachate collection systems within the design of
				an upland CDF to control discharges to groundwater, the Department's regulatory
				standards for the design, construction, and quality control of landfill liners
				and leachate collection systems (
				N.J.A.C.
				7:26-2A.7 ) will be used for technical
				guidance. The Department does not anticipate that the multiple liner system
				required for certain landfills will be needed in the design of upland
				CDFs.
Erosion control of all external surfaces of an upland CDF will
				be necessary to prevent undermining of the containment berms and to control
				sediment transport to adjoining surface waters. Erosion may be caused by wind
				and wave action, stormwater runoff, discharge of dewatering effluent, and
				infiltration of water through the containment berm. The New Jersey Standards
				for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control ( N.J.A.C. 2:90) shall be applied to the
				design and construction of a proposed upland CDF. If required by the
				appropriate regional office of the Soil Conservation Service, a Certified Soil
				Erosion and Sediment Control Plan shall be obtained for the upland CDF.
The importance of following all aspects of the approved
				engineering design for an upland CDF must be emphasized. Accordingly, the
				Department will require the filing of "as built" plans, with a certification by
				a professional engineer licensed to practice in New Jersey that the approved
				engineering design plans have been adhered to.
ii. Operation - It will be necessary for the Department to have
				adequate operational oversight of an upland CDF in order to ensure that the
				stability and integrity of the containment structure is maintained, and to
				prevent the uncontrolled release of dredged material, ponded water, and
				associated contaminants. Additional oversight and/or monitoring may be needed
				to control the rate at which the upland CDF is filled, the manner in which it
				is filled, and how dewatering occurs in order to address potential requirements
				relating to surface water (Section IV-C3) and ground water (Section IV-C4)
				discharges. Additional oversight may be needed to address potential human and
				terrestrial ecosystem exposure concerns as they may arise on a case-by-case
				basis (see Sections IV-C5 and 6).
To maintain oversight, the Department will require the owner
				and/or operator of an upland CDF to submit an annual report to the Department.
				The report will summarize the past year's activities at the upland CDF.
				Projected activities for the next five years shall also be identified. The
				report shall document the following information:
(1) Condition of containment berms, dewatering and stormwater
				discharge weirs, and other engineering structures critical to the operation of
				the upland CDF. Any changes to the upland CDF must be first approved by the
				Department and revised "as built" plans documenting any significant changes
				submitted.
(2) Summary of disposal operations at the upland CDF, including
				a listing of all dredging projects and their volumes.
(3) Summary of maintenance and management activities conducted
				at the upland CDF, including regrading, ditching, crust management, and interim
				closure procedures, if required (see Section iii below).
(4) Summary of any dredged material removed from the upland CDF
				and its final use/destination.
(5) An analysis of available disposal capacity in the upland
				CDF. This will be compared with the projected disposal activities for the next
				five years and a running total of available capacity for the next five years
				estimated.
(6) Summary of surface and ground water discharge monitoring
				programs for all required parameters.
(7) Any additional monitoring or certifications required
				pursuant to Sections IV-C(5) and (6) of this appendix.
The USACE Engineer Manual EM 1110-2-5027, Confined Disposal of
				Dredged Material, includes discussions of a variety of concerns critical to the
				proper operation and maintenance of an upland CDF.
iii. Closure - It is expected that most of the dredged material
				placed in upland CDFs will be contaminated by organic and inorganic pollutants
				at various levels. It is necessary to assure long-term containment of the
				dredged material, in order to prevent the dispersal of contaminants into the
				environment. Potential human health exposure pathways include direct contact
				and inhalation (particulate transport via dust) routes (refer to Section
				IV-C(6)). Potential uptake of contaminants by plants and animals which colonize
				or use the upland CDF is also of concern (see Section IV-C(5)). Upland CDFs may
				erode, resulting in the transport of contaminants into surface waters.
				Infiltration will also continue to occur, with the resulting generation of
				leachate and surface water runoff, which may impact ground or surface water
				resources.
This section discusses the closure requirements for those
				upland CDFs which accept any dredged material which does not meet the testing
				exclusion criteria listed in Sections IV-C(4) and III-C.
To control or mitigate these potential adverse impacts, the
				Department will require interim/final closure of the upland CDF. Final closure
				refers to the implementation of practices after the cessation of dredged
				material disposal operations at the upland CDF. Interim closure practices may
				be needed if there will be a long (generally greater than six months) interval
				between disposal or management activities at the upland CDF.
Interim Closure
Interim closure procedures are largely concerned with
				minimizing the potential for direct human and plant/animal exposure to
				contaminated dredged material. These are discussed in Sections IV-C(5) and
				(6).
The need for interim closure procedures will be determined by
				the Department on a case-by-case basis. The Department will require the
				submittal and approval of a formal plan to address interim closure
				requirements. Such a determination will be based on the testing data available
				for the dredged material; alternatively, additional testing of the exposed
				dredged material may be needed (see Section (d) below).
Interim closure procedures include the implementation of
				measures to control the generation of dust. Site access controls (for example,
				fencing) shall be maintained. The need for capping of exposed dredged material
				with clean fill will be determined by the Department on a case-by-case basis.
				The requirements of any WQC or New Jersey Pollutant Discharge Elimination
				System (NJPDES) permits for discharges to surface or ground water from the
				upland CDF must be maintained during the interim closure period. Likewise,
				required soil erosion and sediment control measures must be maintained.
The annual report on the status of the upland CDF, discussed
				in Section ii-Operation, shall include a summary of interim closure procedures
				implemented at the facility. An interim closure period will not last longer
				than five years; implementation of final closure procedures will be required
				for such situations.
Final Closure
Upland CDFs are expected to contain dredged material
				contaminated with pollutants at various levels of concern. Thus, long-term
				containment of these contaminants must be assured. The owner of record of the
				property on which the upland CDF is constructed is ultimately responsible for
				the final closure of the facility and any required post-closure
				monitoring.
The Department will require the submittal and approval of
				formal plans that address final closure, post-closure maintenance and
				monitoring, and site development or use for all upland CDFs. This requirement
				does not apply to those upland CDFs permitted and used solely for the disposal
				of dredged material which meets the exclusion criteria listed in Sections
				IV-C(4) and III-C. A preliminary final closure plan should be submitted with
				the permit application to construct and operate the upland CDF. A Final Closure
				Plan shall be submitted to the Department no later than 60 days following the
				issuance of Departmental approval to construct and operate the upland CDF. The
				Final Closure Plan must propose all engineering controls designed to contain
				the contaminated dredged material and prevent direct contact with, and off-site
				transport of, contaminants of concern. The Final Closure Plan must also include
				provisions for post-closure monitoring of the upland CDF and a Financial Plan.
				The Financial Plan shall be prepared following the general guidance in the
				Department's landfill closure regulations (
				N.J.A.C.
				7:26-2A.9 ), adapted to the specific design
				and closure features of the upland CDF. In the event of a proposed transfer of
				ownership of property containing an upland CDF, a new Final Closure Plan
				(including a Financial Plan), to be implemented by the prospective purchaser,
				shall be submitted to the Department for approval prior to the final change of
				Title.
A major component of the Final Closure Plan will relate to the
				cap design for the upland CDF. The exact nature of the cap construction must be
				included in the Final Closure Plan. Cap requirements will be determined on a
				case-by-case basis by the Department, in consultation with the owner/operator
				of the upland CDF. In general, a minimum thickness of two feet of cover,
				consisting of 18 inches of clean fill overlain by six inches of topsoil, with a
				complete vegetative cover, will be required. Clean fill and top soil shall be
				considered material demonstrated to have an origin from a non-contaminated
				source or material which has been tested and shown to attain the appropriate
				Residential Direct Contact Soil Remediation Standards. In situations where all
				the dredged material placed in the upland CDF meets the appropriate Residential
				Direct Contact Soil Remediation Standards, at N.J.A.C. 7:26D, or if such
				material is used as a substantial top cover on the upland CDF, reduced cap
				design criteria may be warranted.
Generally, the final cap should be placed as soon as the
				dredged material has dried and consolidated to the point where it can support
				placement of the cap. This will vary with the characteristics of the dredged
				material and the type of dewatering operations conducted at the upland CDF. In
				general, the Department anticipates that the final cap will be placed no later
				than three years after the cessation of disposal operations at the upland
				CDF.
The Final Closure Plan, where warranted, shall include
				provisions to restrict site access, including fencing, and future site use
				using a declaration of environmental restrictions, deed restrictions, or other
				site use restriction documentation. It is possible that at some point following
				final closure of the upland CDF, reuse of the property may be proposed (the
				potential for such reuse should be identified in the Final Closure Plan, and
				continually investigated during the operational lifetime of the facility). If a
				final reuse (other than the creation of habitat via natural succession
				processes) is proposed, the owner of the property will be required to submit a
				modified Final Closure Plan to the Department. The contents of this plan will
				vary with the upland CDF and the proposed final reuse, and will be determined
				on a case-by-case basis by the Department, in consultation with the owner of
				the property. The main objective of the Final Closure Plan is to ensure that
				the proposed project design will not in any way reduce the effectiveness of the
				dredged material containment provided by the upland CDF.
Additional components of the Final Closure Plan could include
				provisions for the maintenance and monitoring of the following
				parameters:
(1) Surface and/or ground water discharge monitoring required
				pursuant to any WQC or NJPDES permits issued for the upland CDF;
(2) Erosion, stormwater run-off, and drainage controls;
(3) Stabilization and vegetation of the final cover;
(4) Weir and other outlet structures;
(5) Security and access restrictions; and
(6) Leachate collection and/or control (if required).
The submission of an annual Post-Closure Maintenance Report,
				summarizing the status of the upland CDF and activities associated with its
				final closure, and updating the Financial Plan, may be required by the
				Department.
(c)
Permitting Process
. Applications to
				construct, operate, and close upland CDFs will be reviewed by the Department
				pursuant to the Waterfront Development statute, the Coastal Area Facilities
				Review Act, and the New Jersey Flood Hazard Control Act, as applicable. The
				Department's review will also address the concerns discussed in Sections
				IV-D(3), (4), (5), and (6).
(d)
Testing Requirements
. Design of the upland
				CDF containment structures must consider the engineering properties (for
				example, soil density, grain size, percent compaction) of the material to be
				used. In those cases where dredged material is to be used to construct, or
				enlarge, containment berms, the material on the exposed surfaces of the berm
				must meet the appropriate Direct Contact Soil Cleanup Criteria. Additional bulk
				sediment analyses of any dredged material proposed for such use may be
				required, as determined by the Department on a case-by-case basis.
Given that the dredged material in the upland CDF has already
				been tested, with prompt capping of the exposed dredged material, no additional
				sampling other than that required to ensure the use of clean fill and soil
				cover in the cap, will be required. If a reduction in the design cap criteria
				are proposed by the owner and/or operator based upon site-specific conditions,
				then sampling and testing of the exposed dredged material will be required. In
				general, a minimum sampling frequency of one sample per two acres will be
				required. Analysis must include all the target compounds listed in Attachment A
				of this appendix.
Should off-site transport of dredged material or its
				contaminants become evident, the sampling of the media (including surface
				waters, sediments, and soils) surrounding the facility shall be required. Such
				sampling would require analysis for all of the target compounds listed in
				Attachment C of this appendix.
(3) Surface Water Discharges:
(a)
Authority
. The authority to issue permits
				for direct point source surface water discharges is derived from both the
				Federal and State Water Pollution Control Acts, also known as the Clean Water
				Act(s). The New Jersey Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NJPDES)
				regulations ( N.J.A.C. 7:14A) are the operating regulations that implement the
				State Clean Water Act.
Additionally, authority for the permitting of the effluent
				from dewatering dredged material to surface waters of the State can be found in
				Section 401 of the Federal Clean Water Act for the issuance of WQCs.
(b)
Potential Impacts/Regulatory Objectives
.
				The objectives of any regulatory oversight document (that is, NJPDES permit or
				WQC) for the point source discharge of effluent from the dewatered dredged
				material is to prevent any adverse impacts of the discharge on the receiving
				water body. Adverse impacts to the receiving water body may include toxic
				effects or bioaccumulation of contaminants in aquatic organisms, as well as
				adverse effects in humans through finfish and shellfish consumption or water
				exposure. To ensure that no adverse impacts occur, the amount and type of
				potential pollutants (as defined by
				N.J.S.A.
				58:10A-3 ) that could be discharged to the
				receiving water body will be regulated. The two principal methods of
				controlling the amount and type of potential pollutants that could be
				discharged are by having either technology based discharge criteria or water
				quality based discharge criteria in either the NJPDES permit or the WQC. Either
				of these two methods of developing discharge criteria will serve to protect the
				water quality of the receiving water body.
i. Technology Based Discharge Criteria - The rationale for
				technology based numbers is that compliance with either NJPDES permit or WQC
				discharge conditions can be demonstrated through the use of engineering
				solutions such as retention basins, flocculents, and other innovative methods.
				Any particular type of treatment that will achieve pollutant reduction to a
				defined and/or acceptable level(s) is satisfactory. These criteria may be
				utilized when the source dredged material is from a waterbody other than the
				discharge receiving water body. The effluent from the dewatered dredged
				material must meet these NJPDES permit or WQC conditions at all times.
ii. Water Quality Based Discharge Criteria - These types of
				discharge criteria are based on the existing water quality of the receiving
				water body as well as the ability of the receiving water body to assimilate any
				additional loading(s) of pollutants without any adverse effects. The rationale
				for this method of permit development for the effluent from the dewatered
				dredged material is to set the discharge criteria of the effluent to ambient
				levels of the receiving water. In this way no additional loading(s) of
				potential pollutants will be discharged to the receiving water body in excess
				of what is already presumably present in the receiving water body. The
				procedures to establish ambient conditions can be found in the following three
				reference documents:
(1) Guidance for Preparation of Combined Work/Quality Assurance
				Project Plans for Environmental Monitoring. (OWRS QA-1), Office of Water
				Regulations and Standards, USEPA;
(2) Field Sampling Procedures Manual. NJDEP, 2005; and
(3) USEPA Handbook - Stream Sampling for Waste Load Allocation
				Applications.
Additionally, this method can utilize indicator parameters
				such as total suspended solids (TSS) as action levels in the permit or WQC.
				Indicator parameters are indicative of groups of individual pollutants; the use
				of an indicator parameter serves to limit the discharge of the target group of
				pollutants. The use of indicator parameters will allow for more rapid data
				generation for compliance purposes.
The criteria established by the Department for dewatering
				effluent discharges include consideration of ambient surface water quality
				criteria and/or State water quality criteria. In addition, the Department will
				consider requests to incorporate a mixing zone approach to the discharge of
				dewatering effluent from an upland CDF. These criteria will be based on a daily
				maximum or appropriate average discharge levels. Monitoring for compliance with
				the WQC or NJPDES permit must be representative of the dewatering discharge.
				Monitoring requirements will be developed by the Department on a site-specific
				basis, and may include monitoring for daily maximum and/or appropriate average
				discharge levels. For most upland CDFs, it is anticipated that monthly average
				monitoring will be required, however this would vary with the length of the
				activity and operations at the upland CDF.
The setting of action levels as permit conditions is
				consistent with the Department's direction of emphasizing compliance with
				permit conditions instead of monetary penalties for numerical permit
				violations. Exceedances of action levels trigger corrective action measures
				such as additional treatment of the effluent or increased retention time prior
				to effluent discharge. The permit and WQC will contain language that reflects
				the action level concept so that permission to discharge is contingent upon
				compliance with either action levels or corrective action measures. This is the
				method of choice when the dredged material originates in the same water body to
				which the effluent from the dewatered dredged material is being
				discharged.
(c)
Permitting Process
. The point source
				discharge of the effluent from the dewatering dredged material to surface
				waters of the State will fall into one of two categories:
(1) Dredged material dewatering effluent returning to the same
				water body from which the material was originally dredge will require a WQC.
				This WQC will have discharge conditions similar, if not identical, to those
				which would be found in a NJPDES/Discharge to Surface Water (DSW) permit;
				or
(2) A NJPDES/DSW permit will be required for discharges from
				facilities accepting material from single or multiple dredging sites located in
				a different surface water body, or from "unidentified" sites.
(d)
Testing Requirements
. Exclusionary
				criteria for the testing requirements are described in Section III-C. Any
				project which does not qualify for a testing exemption as described in Section
				III-C will be subject to the following requirements.
Initially, the background information submitted for a dredging
				project proposing upland disposal/containment will be evaluated to determine
				the testing necessary to characterize potential adverse impacts of the
				dewatering discharge to the receiving waterbody. A list of the required
				background information is provided in Section III-A. The primary information
				used to assess potential surface water impacts are previous and current bulk
				sediment chemistry and modified elutriate analyses of site sediments.
Unless the bulk sediment chemistry data shows no detections
				for the target analytes listed in Attachment D, the Modified Elutriate Test
				will be required to predict pollutant concentrations in the discharge, both
				soluble and particulate-bound. Modified Elutriate Test results will be
				considered valid only if:
(1) The Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) found in the U.S.
				Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experimental Station Environmental Effects of
				Dredging Technical Note, EEDP-04-2 (June 1985; or most recent version) is
				followed, in conjunction with the Department-approved use of a site-specific
				field retention time, and analysis of both dissolved and suspended
				fractions;
(2) Sediment core sampling, homogenizing, and compositing
				follows Section III-D; and
(3) The total suspended solids value required for the final
				calculation in the Modified Elutriate Test data analysis does not exceed either
				ambient TSS concentrations for the receiving waterbody or State surface water
				quality standards for TSS for the receiving waterbody.
As described in Section IV-C(3)(b)ii, the applicant, in the
				recommended pre-application conference, may choose to determine ambient
				pollutant/parameter concentrations in the receiving waterbody for setting
				discharge criteria; the methods required for this determination are referenced
				in this section. Ambient condition determinations will be reviewed by the
				Department on a case-by-case basis. Should existing information lead the
				Department to believe that surface water discharges from an upland CDF will not
				result in adverse impacts, the Modified Elutriate Test may not be
				required.
If the applicant proposes to use a flocculent to increase the
				settling of solids in the upland CDF, this should be incorporated into the
				Modified Elutriate Test procedure.
(4) Ground Water Discharges:
(a)
Authority
. The New Jersey Water Pollution
				Control (WPC) Act includes "dredge spoils" in its definition of a "pollutant."
				The placement of dredged material in an upland CDF represents a potential
				discharge of pollutants, and is subject to regulation pursuant to the authority
				of the New Jersey Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NJPDES) regulations
				(N.J.A.C. 7:14A-1) and the Ground Water Quality Standards (GWQS; N.J.A.C.
				7:9C).
(b)
Potential Impacts/Regulatory Objectives
.
				When dredged material is placed at upland locations, contaminants may become
				soluble and can be transported into the subsurface terrestrial environment by
				leachate generation and seepage. The introduction of contaminants into the
				subsurface terrestrial environment may degrade ground water quality and may
				threaten potable water supplies. The susceptibility of ground water to
				contamination and the degree to which it can be degraded is dependent upon the
				hydrogeologic characteristics of ground water resource and the designated use.
				The impact of upland confined disposal facilities (CDFs) on ground water
				resources can be limited through an integrated approach of ground water
				resource classification, engineering of upland CDFs, dredged material testing
				and leachate analysis, and site-specific geotechnical evaluation. Through this
				approach, ground water resources can be protected at an appropriate level
				relative to their sensitivity and use, and the objectives of the NJPDES
				regulations and the GWQS can be achieved.
(c)
Permitting Process
. The degree to which
				the discharge to ground water (DGW) emanating from the upland disposal of
				dredged material will be regulated pursuant to the NJPDES regulations and the
				GWQS is dependent upon the following characteristics:
-- The classification of the ground water (Table 2);
-- The nature of the upland CDF (Type A or B);
-- The source and quality of the dredged material; and
-- The management of the dredged material.
The NJPDES-DGW permitting process involving the upland
				disposal of dredged material will include any or all of the following
				components:
-- Determination of leachate quality from dredged
				material;
-- Ground Water Protection Plans; and/or
-- An NJPDES-DGW permit.
In order to determine which components of the NJPDES-DGW
				permitting process apply, it must be determined whether the project involves a
				Type A or Type B upland CDF as defined below:
Type A upland CDFs involve projects where the specific
				location(s) from which sediments are to be dredged is known prior to preceding
				with the development of a Ground Water Protection Plan and issuance of a
				NJPDES-DGW permit. In these cases, leachate quality from the sediments to be
				dredged can be evaluated on a preliminary basis allowing for a wider variety of
				management and/or permitting alternatives.
Type B upland CDFs are constructed independent of any specific
				dredging project(s). As such, the leachate quality of all sediments to be
				placed within the upland CDF cannot be determined prior to development of a
				Ground Water Protection Plan and issuance of a NJPDES-DGW permit. Therefore,
				the only regulatory options available are those detailed below at IV-C(4)(c)ii
				and iii.
i. Determination of Leachate Quality from Dredged Sediments:
				Leachate quality from dredged sediments to be placed in upland CDFs can be
				determined preliminarily for Type A upland CDFs, or as a monitoring condition
				of a NJPDES-DGW permit for Type B upland CDFs. Leachate quality shall be
				evaluated according to the procedure outlined in IV-C(4)(d).
Where leachate testing is conducted on dredged sediments to be
				managed in a Type A upland CDF, and the maximum leachate quality for any
				parameter exceeds the Ground Water Quality Criteria in Table 2, a Ground Water
				Protection Plan will have to bedeveloped and implemented through a NJPDES-DGW
				permit. Where leachate testing is conducted on dredged sediments to be managed
				in a Type A upland CDF, and the maximum leachate quality for all parameters
				does not exceed the Ground Water Quality Criteria in Table 2, the project will
				be exempt from both the requirement to develop a Ground Water Protection Plan
				and to obtain an individual NJPDES-DGW permit.
Table 2: Ground Water Quality Criteria
Aquifer Classification
Class I: Ground Water of Special Ecological Significance
Class II: Ground Water for Potable Water Supply
Class III:
						Ground Water with Uses Other Than Potable Water Supply
Ground Water Quality Criteria
Site specific
						ground water constituent standards determined as per N.J.A.C. 7:9-6.8
IIA Ground Water Quality Criteria or site specific criteria based upon ground
						water constituent standards determined as per N.J.A.C. 7:9-6.8
IIA
						Ground Water Quality Criteria or site specific criteria based upon ground water
						constituent standards determined as per N.J.A.C. 7:9-6.8
ii. Ground Water Protection Plans: Ground Water Protection
				Plans shall be developed for:
-- All Type B upland CDFs; and
-- All Type A upland CDFs where the anticipated quality of the
				leachate, determined as per IV-C(4)(c)i and in accordance with IV-C(4)(d),
				exceeds the Ground Water Quality Criteria for any parameter.
The Ground Water Protection Plan for any upland CDF must
				comply with the general provisions of
				N.J.A.C.
				7:14A-7.6, which includes the
				following:
-- An engineering design and construction plan of the proposed
				CDF;
-- An operation and maintenance plan which details the use of
				the proposed CDF;
-- Detailed evaluation of potential contaminant migration
				pathways which considers at a minimum the following:
- Regional physiography;
- Site specific geology and hydrogeology; and
- Regional ground water use and receptors;
-- Annual leachate discharge and contaminant loading into
				ground water from the upland CDF in consideration of:
- Maximum leachate concentration determined as per
				IV-C(4)(c)i; and
- Annual leachate volume estimated using the Hydrologic
				Evaluation of Landfill Performance (HELP) Model, (Schroeder et al., 1994;
				EPA/600/R-94/168a; and
-- Submission of results of a physical or mathematical ground
				water flow and/or contaminant transport model that depicts the fate of the
				DGW.
iii. NJPDES-DGW Permitting: A NJPDES-DGW permit is required for
				a facility that must develop a Ground Water Protection Plan according to
				IV-C(4)(c)ii. Dependent upon the results of the Ground Water Protection Plan, a
				NJPDES-DGW permit may require any or all of the following:
-- Installation and periodic sampling of ground water
				monitoring wells;
-- In-situ leachate monitoring through lysimetry;
-- Liner and/or leachate collection system monitoring;
				and/or
-- Leachate quality analysis of the dredged material.
iv. Exclusions: Projects which qualify and meet either of the
				three criteria listed below are exempt from the requirements outlined in
				IV-C(4)(c)i-iii because they represent insignificant discharges to ground water
				and are not considered likely to contravene ground water quality standards.
				These exclusions only apply to upland CDFs which do not discharge into Class I
				ground waters or wellhead protection areas as delineated by the
				Department.
(1) Projects in Region 2 where:
-- Less than 5,000 cubic yards (yd3) of dredged material will
				be placed in an upland CDF over the five-year life of the associated permit;
				and
-- The sediments are dredged from a waterway(s) where there
				has not been an historic or current upland industrial use and the site is not
				currently or previously occupied by a marina of 25 or more boat slips.
(2) Any project is excluded from NJPDES-DGW permit requirements
				where:
-- Less than 1,000 cubic yards (yd<3>) of dredged
				material will be placed within an upland CDF over the five-year life of the
				associated permit; and
-- The sediments are placed over impervious soils, or are
				underlain by a liner that has a hydraulic conductivity less rapid then
				10-<7> centimeters per second (cm/sec)
(3) Any project is excluded from NJPDES-DGW permit requirements
				where:
-- The dredged material to be placed in the upland CDF is
				>90 percent sand (grain size >62.5 um); and
-- Other background information does not lead the Department
				to believe the material is contaminated.
(d)
Testing Requirements
. Leachate quality
				shall be determined using the Sequential Batch Leaching Test (SBLT) procedure
				(for freshwater and estuarine sediments) or the Column Leaching Test (CLT)
				procedure (for estuarine sediments) developed by the USACE, Waterways
				Experiment Station (USACE-WES), or other tests as approved by the Department in
				advance. Leaching tests shall be conducted in accordance with the guidelines
				established by USACE-WES (Myers et al., 1996; Brannon et al., 1994).
For Type A upland CDFs leachate quality shall be determined
				for a representative number of samples for the parameters listed in Attachment
				C, in each location to be dredged prior to proceeding with the development of a
				Ground Water Protection Plan and issuance of a NJPDES-DGW permit.
For Type B upland CDFs, leachate quality shall be determined
				for a representative number of samples for the parameters listed in Attachment
				C on all sediments to be received as a condition of the NJPDES-DGW permit. (5)
				Terrestrial Ecosystem Impacts:
(a)
Authority
. The Department's authority to
				regulate terrestrial ecosystem impacts which may occur during the operation of
				an upland CDF depends on the location of the facility. The Department may have
				regulatory authorities pursuant to the Flood Hazard Area Control Act, the
				Freshwater Wetlands Protection Act, the Wetlands Act of 1970, the Waterfront
				Development Act, and the Coastal Area Facility Review Act. Additional
				Department authority may also be derived from both the Federal and State Water
				Pollution Control Acts and the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act.
(b)
Potential Impacts/Regulatory Objectives and the
				Management/Regulatory Process
. The regulatory objectives of the
				Department are to identify and minimize the potential for contaminant mobility
				and transport into terrestrial ecosystems resulting from the upland disposal of
				contaminated dredged material. Potential adverse impacts will be evaluated on a
				case-by-case basis, initially considering the bulk sediment chemistry analyses
				of the dredged material placed in the upland CDF and the proposed schedule for
				future disposal and management operations at the facility. Additional
				discussions of potential impacts to the terrestrial ecosystem can be found in
				Section IV-C(2).
When dredged material is allowed to dry in an upland CDF,
				there is potential for dust generation. This potential is greater when the
				dredged material consists of fine particles and has not revegetated. Dust
				generation could facilitate the dispersal of contaminants into the terrestrial
				ecosystem. Management techniques will be required, as necessary, to control the
				generation and dispersal of dust from an upland CDF. Potential management
				techniques include interim/final capping of contaminated and exposed dredged
				material and the use of erosion control mats.
The potential impacts to terrestrial ecosystems associated
				with the upland disposal of contaminated dredged material also include the
				possibility of increased contaminant mobility through uptake by colonizing
				plants and animals. This potential is enhanced by the physicochemical changes
				which occur when dredged material is disposed of in an upland setting. Such
				chemical changes include the oxidation associated with drying, leaching by
				rainwater, and a decrease in pH, resulting in increased availability of metal
				contaminants.
The Department has identified a number of possible scenarios
				for the operation of upland CDFs. These scenarios, described in the following
				sections, have different potentials to produce adverse impacts to the
				terrestrial ecosystem. During the operation of an upland CDF, management
				techniques can be utilized to minimize potential adverse impacts. Appropriate
				management techniques, summarized and briefly discussed in the following
				sections, will be evaluated as part of the project-specific review and
				permitting of an upland CDF. In general, potential impacts to the terrestrial
				ecosystem as a result of the upland disposal of contaminated dredged material
				will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
i.
Upland CDFs Maintained in Continuous
				Operation
For most large upland CDFs, it is expected that the facility
				will be operated in a continuous active mode during its operational lifetime.
				This would involve the continual placement of dredged material in the upland
				CDF, followed by periods of dewatering, drying, crust management, etc. - with
				subsequent repetitions of this cycle. This active mode of operation, in which
				the dredged material placed in an upland CDF remains in a disturbed condition,
				should effectively limit the ability of plants and animals to recolonize the
				site. However, wildlife may forage at the site because of the easy availability
				of aquatic organisms in dredged material. For such facilities, the permittee
				will be required to submit an annual report (see Section IV-C(2)(b)ii) to the
				Department, summarizing the disposal and management operations at the upland
				CDF, and further certifying that the site has not been recolonized to any
				significant extent by terrestrial plants or animals for extended periods of
				time (generally considered to be six months or longer). This certification
				shall include photographs of the upland CDF documenting site conditions. In
				addition, the owner/operator of the facility must implement measures to
				minimize foraging activities at the site if they are observed.
ii.
Upland CDFs Operated Intermittently
Upland CDFs which are operated intermittently, such that the
				dredged material placed on the site is allowed to dry out for a period of time
				exceeding six months in an undisturbed condition, will be more available for
				use and/or recolonization by plants and animals. Such upland CDFs therefore
				have the potential to result in increased contaminant mobility and transport
				into terrestrial ecosystems.
a. Maintaining an upland CDF in a ponded condition would serve
				to reduce the potential for increased contaminant mobility through plant and
				animal colonization. This may be practicable in situations where the upland CDF
				will be used infrequently, with long periods of time between disposal
				operations. However, there is a concern that birds may use a ponded CDF. If
				this occurs, methods could be employed to discourage such use. For such
				facilities, the permittee will be required to submit an annual report (see
				Section IV-C(2)(b)ii) to the Department, summarizing the disposal and
				management operations at the upland CDF, and further certifying that the site
				has not been recolonized or used by terrestrial plants or animals for an
				extended period of time.
b. In those cases where an upland CDF will be used only
				intermittently and allowed to dry out and remain undisturbed for time periods
				exceeding six months between disposal operations, the potential exists for the
				site to be recolonized and/or used by plants and animals. The greater the
				contamination of the dredged material, and the longer the site remains
				undisturbed (and thus available for recolonization and use), the greater the
				potential for adverse terrestrial ecosystem impacts to occur.
Potential adverse impacts will be evaluated on a case-by-case
				basis, initially considering the bulk sediment chemistry analyses of the
				dredged material placed in the upland CDF and the proposed schedule for future
				disposal and management operations at the facility. The permittee will be
				required to submit an annual report (see Section IV-C(2)(b)ii) to the
				Department, summarizing the anticipated disposal and proposed management
				operations at the upland CDF. Interim management operations (between disposal
				operations) may be required to minimize potential adverse terrestrial ecosystem
				impacts. These could include interim capping measures to isolate contaminated
				dredged material (see Section IV-C(2)).
(c)
Testing Requirements
. Section III-C of
				this document identifies those sediments which are excluded from the
				Department's testing or reporting requirements; these exclusions also apply to
				any additional testing required for an evaluation of potential terrestrial
				ecosystem impacts. Any dredged material which does not qualify for a testing
				exemption as described in Section III-C may be subject to additional testing.
Section (b)-ii discusses "Upland CDFs Operated
				Intermittently." If recolonization and/or use of such CDFs by plants or animals
				occurs, there is potential for increased contaminant mobility and transport
				into the terrestrial ecosystem. To evaluate the potential for such impacts,
				predictive animal and plant uptake bioassays may be required. Specific
				contaminants of concern will be determined by the Department on a site-specific
				basis, and will vary with the dredged material placed in the upland CDF. In
				particular, the Department will consider the contaminants present in the
				last-placed dredged material, along with proposed capping measures, in its
				evaluation of the potential bioaccumulation of contaminants by terrestrial
				organisms. The Department will determine the need for such testing on a
				case-by-case basis.
(6) Public Health Impacts:
(a)
Authority
. The Department's authority to
				control potential public health impacts which may be associated with the
				disposal of dredged material at an upland confined disposal facility is derived
				from the Federal and State Water Pollution Control Acts, the New Jersey
				Waterfront Development Law, and the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act.
(b)
Potential Impacts/Regulatory Objectives
.
				The potential impacts to public health associated with the upland disposal of
				dredged material include the potential for direct human contact with
				contaminated dredged material, dust generation from drying dredged material
				with a potential inhalation exposure pathway, and surface and ground water
				impacts. The frameworks for regulating potential surface and ground water
				impacts are described in Sections IV-C(3) and IV-C(4), respectively.
The regulatory objectives of the Department are to identify
				and control public health impacts originating from the upland disposal of
				contaminated dredged material. The Department discourages the use of upland CDF
				sites for agricultural activities, unless such use can be demonstrated not to
				have potential adverse impacts to public health.
(c)
Management/Regulatory Process
. The
				Department will use the Coastal Zone Management rules in evaluating the siting
				of upland confined disposal facilities (CDFs). These rules serve to minimize
				potential public health impacts.
During the operation of an upland CDF, management techniques
				can be applied to control and minimize potential public health impacts.
				Management techniques will be required, as necessary, to control the generation
				and dispersal of dust. This will further serve to minimize the inhalation
				pathway for human exposure. Direct human contact will be controlled through
				access restrictions to the upland CDF. Facility personnel will be required to
				use the appropriate precautionary measures to avoid direct contact with
				contaminated dredged material.
(d)
Testing Requirements
. Section III-C of
				this document identifies those sediments which are excluded from the
				Department's testing requirements. Any dredged material which does not qualify
				for a testing exemption as described in Section III-C will be subject to the
				following requirements.
Bulk chemical analysis of the sediments to be dredged will be
				required. Potential public health impacts will be evaluated by comparison to
				the appropriate Residential Direct Contact Soil Remediation Standards, N.J.A.C.
				7:26D. These analyses will be conducted to determine if the dredged material to
				be disposed of requires precautions to avoid direct human exposure pathways
				during and after disposal in an upland CDF.
Results of the bulk sediment chemistry analyses will be
				considered valid only if:
(1) The bulk sediment chemistry analysis includes all target
				analytes for which appropriate Direct Contact Soil Cleanup Criteria exist
				(which is included in the list in Attachment D); and
(2) Sediment core sampling, homogenizing, and compositing
				follows Section III-D sampling procedures.
D - Subaqueous Disposal Pits
(1) Overview: Subaqueous disposal pits are submarine trenches
				or pits excavated below the ocean/bay bottom for the specific purpose of
				containing contaminated dredged material. This also includes pits excavated
				under navigation channels. Existing subaqueous borrow pits created as a result
				of past sandmining activities, or natural pits and depressions, could also be
				used as subaqueous disposal pits. The effective function of a subaqueous
				disposal pit is predicated upon its ability to contain the contaminated dredged
				material which will be placed in it.
Subaqueous disposal pits are considered distinct from open
				water disposal sites (discussed in Section IV-B).
(2) Authority: Refer to Section II-B for a listing of relevant
				statutes and regulations.
(3) Potential Impacts: The potential adverse environmental
				impacts of a subaqueous disposal pit depend directly upon the location
				(including physical conditions and hydrodynamics) and existing ecological
				functions of the pit site. Potential impacts which may require evaluation
				include physical disruptions during construction and disposal operations
				(resulting in, for example, temporary interference with existing benthos,
				fisheries, or anadromous fish migrations), short-term benthic and water column
				toxicity impacts as a result of the disposal of contaminated dredged material,
				and water column impacts associated with the resuspension of sediment. In
				addition, long-term impacts to biota and the ecosystem may result if the
				contaminated dredged material placed in a subaqueous disposal pit is not
				adequately contained and isolated from the marine environment.
(4) Regulatory Objectives/Management Process: Short-term
				regulatory concerns lie primarily with minimizing the potential adverse
				environmental impacts associated with the construction of a subaqueous disposal
				pit and dredged material disposal operations. Submarine excavation of bay/ocean
				bottom or the use of existing pits/depressions to create a subaqueous disposal
				pit will be evaluated using the Coastal Zone Management Rules. In general, it
				is preferable that subaqueous disposal pits be located in areas where existing
				surficial sediments have similar levels of contamination as the dredged
				material proposed for disposal in the pit.
Short-term impacts can result from the dispersal of dredged
				material during disposal operations. Such impacts include physical disruption
				of benthos surrounding the subaqueous disposal pit, as well as water column and
				benthic toxicity and contamination. With proper design and management of the
				subaqueous disposal pit, these impacts can be limited. The use of best
				management practices (BMPs) during disposal operations will be required and
				permit conditions will be applied to ensure these impacts are minimized.
The filling of a subaqueous disposal pit with contaminated
				dredged material will employ BMPs which reduce suspension and dispersal of the
				dredged material during the disposal operation. These include adherence to
				strict navigation requirements to ensure point disposal of the dredged
				material. Additionally, restrictions on conducting disposal operations during
				severe weather/tidal conditions may also serve to minimize the dispersal of
				dredged material. The use of geotextile containers (see Clausner et al., 1996)
				or the direct shunting of dredged material into the pit should be
				considered.
Potential long-term impacts can be minimized, and mitigated
				upon closure of the subaqueous disposal pit. Designing the pit to be properly
				capped, and maintaining the integrity of the cap, is an essential regulatory
				goal to ensure the long-term isolation of contaminants. In general, one meter
				of suitable clean material (as defined in Section V-I) will be required as a
				final cap. The placement of interim caps may also be required between dredged
				material disposal operations. Long-term monitoring of the subaqueous disposal
				pit, its final cap, and the surrounding environment will be required to ensure
				cap integrity is maintained. For additional discussion of generally applicable
				capping requirements, see Section VI. In addition, restoration of the natural
				bathymetry of the subaqueous disposal pit site using appropriate clean material
				as a final cap will serve as
de facto
mitigation for the
				temporary loss of benthic habitat resulting from the construction of the
				pit.
Some of the techniques and designs which should be considered
				when constructing a subaqueous disposal pit are:
(a) Existing Pit with Capping - involves locating a subaqueous
				disposal pit in a natural bottom depression or existing subaqueous borrow pit.
				This reduces the need to excavate. Dredged material is placed in the pit up to
				a predetermined level. The site is then capped with clean material up to the
				level of the surrounding bay/ocean bottom.
(b) Contained Subaqueous Disposal - involves constructing a
				berm opposite an existing subaqueous ledge or wall. The cavity formed between
				these features is then filled and capped with clean material.
(c) New Excavation - entails the construction of a new
				subaqueous disposal pit, designed specifically for the containment of
				contaminated dredged material. In theory, such a pit may provide for better
				containment compared to that offered by existing borrow pits or natural
				depressions.
(5) Testing Requirements: Section III-C discusses general
				testing exclusions. Where the dredged material originates in the same waterbody
				as the subaqueous disposal pit, required testing will consist of grain size
				analysis, total organic carbon, and bulk sediment chemistry. In general, the
				disposal capacity of subaqueous disposal pits should be "reserved" for projects
				for which other dredged material management alternatives are not available or
				acceptable. The bulk sediment chemistry data will be used to ensure that only
				contaminated dredged material is placed in the subaqueous disposal pit. It will
				also be used in the development of the monitoring and management plan for the
				pit.
If the dredged material originates in a waterbody different
				from that of the subaqueous disposal pit, testing requirements will be
				determined on a case-by-case basis. Testing may include bulk sediment chemistry
				and modified elutriate testing (with retention time to be specified; ambient
				water quality testing of the subaqueous disposal pit site may also be needed),
				depending on the dredging site, subaqueous disposal pit site characteristics,
				and the volume of dredged material to be placed in the pit. Section III-D
				includes general guidance on sampling and testing the dredged material.
Precision bathymetry (accuracy to six inches or better) of the
				subaqueous disposal pit site will be required prior to initial site
				disturbance/pit construction, upon the completion of the construction of the
				pit, and may be required prior to and after any dredged material disposal
				operation. This will provide information on existing subaqueous disposal pit
				capacity and help ensure the dredged material is contained within the
				pit.
E - Containment Areas
(1) Overview: Dredged material containment areas are features
				artificially created in open water or wetlands and include any structure which,
				upon the completion of its filling with dredged material, would result in an
				extension of existing upland into open waters (that is, the creation of
				"fastland"). In addition, a containment area could be constructed so as to form
				the substrate on which a wetland could develop. They are usually created by
				constructing a retaining structure (berm or bulkhead) in an open water area and
				filling the enclosed area with dredged material.
(2) Authority: The near-shore disposal of dredged material into
				a containment area is subject to the Waterfront Development Act, the Coastal
				Zone Management Rules ( N.J.A.C. 7:7), Federal consistency determinations
				pursuant to the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act, Water Quality
				Certification pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, and riparian
				interests. Disposal into open waters or wetlands is also regulated by the
				Federal government pursuant to Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act.
In all cases, either a WQC or NJPDES Discharge to Surface
				Water permit will be required for a containment area. A NJPDES Discharge to
				Surface Water permit may be required for the effluent from the dewatering
				dredged material if the dredged material is not from the same waterbody as the
				containment area. A WQC will be required for the effluent from a containment
				area which only accepts dredged material from the waterbody in which it is
				located.
A NJPDES Discharge to Groundwater Permit may be required
				pursuant to N.J.A.C. 7:14A-1, subject to a determination by the Department's
				Bureau of Nonpoint Pollution Control.
(3) Potential Impacts: The potential adverse environmental
				impacts of a dredged material containment area depend directly upon the
				location and existing ecological functions of the site. Potential impacts which
				require evaluation include the destruction and permanent loss of benthic, open
				water, or wetlands habitats, and temporary physical disruptions during
				construction of the containment area (resulting in, for example, interference
				with existing benthos, fisheries, or anadromous fish migrations). Potential
				short-term surface water quality and benthic toxicity impacts may result from
				the dispersal of sediments and associated contaminants due to the construction
				of the containment area.
Potential impacts to surface water quality during the filling
				of the containment area with contaminated dredged material resulting from the
				discharge of effluent from the dewatering dredged material, are similar to
				those for upland confined disposal facilities (CDFs; see Section IV-C(3)). In
				addition, potential water quality impacts resulting from the permeability of
				the berm/bulkhead will be considered on a case-by-case basis.
Potential long term impacts to ground water quality are also
				similar to those for upland CDFs, and are discussed in Section IV-C(4).
				Long-term impacts to aquatic biota and the marine ecosystem may result if
				contaminated dredged material placed in a containment area is not adequately
				contained and isolated. In addition, filling of the containment area ultimately
				results in the creation of additional upland. Potential impacts to the
				terrestrial environment are essentially the same as those associated with
				upland CDFs (see Sections IV-C(2), (5), and (6)).
(4) Regulatory Objectives/Management Process: The creation of
				upland (or wetlands) areas by filling open water/wetland environments is a
				regulatory concern. Based upon the Coastal Zone Management Rules at
				N.J.A.C.
				7:7-12.11, filling in natural water areas is
				discouraged and filling wetlands areas is prohibited. Such activity requires a
				demonstration that there is no practicable or feasible land alternative. In
				addition, minimal interference to special areas at N.J.A.C. 7:7-9(such as
				intertidal and subtidal shallows, finfish migratory pathways, and submerged
				vegetation habitats) must be demonstrated.
Short-term regulatory concerns lie primarily with minimizing
				the potential adverse environmental impacts associated with the construction of
				the containment area and dredged material disposal operations. It is preferable
				that containment areas be located in areas impacted by similar levels of
				existing sediment contamination as the dredged material proposed for disposal
				in the area. Locating a dredged material containment area site will be
				evaluated using the Coastal Zone Management Rules.
Short-term impacts can result from the dispersal of
				contaminated dredged material during disposal operations. Such impacts include
				physical disruption of benthos surrounding the containment area, and water
				column and benthic toxicity and contamination. With proper design and
				management of the containment area, these impacts can be minimized. The use of
				best management practices (BMPs) during disposal operations will be required
				and permit conditions will be applied to ensure these impacts are minimized.
				Such BMPs could include controlling the rate of dredged material placement in
				the containment area to allow for adequate settling of suspended solids. The
				use of geotextile containers or liners (see Clausner et al., 1996), and the
				pumping of free water to upland water quality basins to provide settling of
				suspended solids prior to discharge, could also be used.
Potential long-term impacts could result if the containment
				area does not adequately isolate contaminated dredged material from the
				surrounding aquatic and terrestrial environments. The containment area
				berm/bulkhead must be designed and constructed to ensure maximum isolation of
				contaminants. If the containment area is filled with contaminated dredged
				material, final capping of the created upland (or wetlands substrate) area is
				required to ensure the long-term isolation of contaminants from the
				environment. Potential impacts to the terrestrial environment and public health
				are similar to those for upland CDFs, and are discussed in Sections IV-C(5) and
				(6). In addition, site closure/final use considerations are discussed for
				upland CDFs in Section IV-C(2). Long-term monitoring of the containment area
				site and the surrounding environment may be required to ensure that
				contaminated dredged material has been adequately isolated.
The use of dredged material in habitat development (including
				wetlands) is discussed in Section V-D.
Construction of the containment area will result in the loss
				of open water habitat and/or wetlands. In some cases, mitigation for this loss
				by means of in-kind replacement will not be possible. Thus, construction and
				operation of a dredged material containment area may result in the permanent
				loss of aquatic habitat. Proposals for out-of-kind mitigation may be considered
				by the Department during the regulatory review of proposed containment
				areas.
(5) Testing Requirements: Section III-C discusses general
				testing exclusions. Regulatory concerns with potential impacts to surface and
				ground water quality, the terrestrial ecosystem, public health, and site
				closure/final use are essentially similar to those for uplands CDFs; see
				Sections IV-D(2), (3), (4), (5), and (6) for applicable guidance.
Chapter V - Use Alternatives
A - Authority
Dredged material can be considered a resource, and the
				Department strongly supports its use, wherever possible, as opposed to
				exclusive reliance on disposal facilities. The Department will evaluate and
				authorize proposed uses of dredged material pursuant to the process described
				in Attachment G of this appendix. This Acceptable Use Determination process is
				intended to streamline the approval of use activities.
Authority to regulate potential uses of dredged material can
				be found in the State and Federal Water Pollution Control Acts, the Waterfront
				Development Law, the Flood Hazard Area Control Act, and the Federal Coastal
				Zone Management Act. The Coastal Zone Management Rules are also applicable to
				these use options.
B - Linkages with Other Management
				Alternatives
The use options discussed in Sections V-C through V-H can be
				divided into three general categories. These categories reflect the degree to
				which the dredged material must be processed/amended prior to its use, or the
				use of dredged material to support another dredged material management
				alternative (discussed in Section IV of this document):
(1) Use options supporting other dredged material management
				alternatives - capping open water disposal sites;
(2) Use options requiring minimal processing of the dredged
				material - beach nourishment, aquatic and wetland habitat development;
				and
(3) Use options requiring substantial processing or amendment
				of the dredged material - structural and non-structural fill material, landfill
				cover, agricultural use, and terrestrial habitat development.
For uses
(1) and
(2), the dredged material would have to meet applicable testing
				requirements to verify its suitability for the proposed use. Suitability
				criteria would include grain size and contaminant characteristics. Rehandling
				of this material would be limited to its transport to the use site and its
				placement in accordance with the applicable engineering design and regulatory
				requirements.
In most cases, dredged material proposed for the use (3)
				options noted above would first have to be dewatered. This would most likely
				occur at an upland confined disposal facility (CDF). A "use train," involving
				sequential placement of dredged material in an upland CDF, dewatering over a
				period of time, and then removal from the upland CDF for use purposes, could be
				developed. Olin and Bowman (1996) discuss the potential of soil washing and
				other techniques to isolate the coarser-grained and less-contaminated fractions
				of dredged material placed in upland CDFs. Such activities would not only
				provide a useable product, but would enable an upland CDF to remain in
				operation for a longer period of time before it reached its design capacity.
				Dredged material contaminated to various degrees could be suitable for these
				use options; testing requirements, evaluation criteria, and site-specific
				authorization of potential use projects are discussed in the appropriate
				sections of this document.
C - Beach Nourishment
(1) Authority: the Department's authority to regulate the use
				of dredged material for beach nourishment is derived from the Waterfront
				Development Act, the Coastal Area Facilities Review Act, the Federal Coastal
				Zone Management Act, and the Water Quality Certification provisions (Section
				401) of the Clean Water Act.
(2) Potential Impacts/Regulatory Objectives: The Department
				encourages the renourishment of eroding beaches through the placement of clean
				sand of acceptable grain size composition.
Beach nourishment operations usually involve the borrowing of
				sand from inshore or offshore locations and transporting it by truck or
				hydraulic pipeline to an eroding beach for the purpose of restoration. A hopper
				dredge, with or without pumpout capability, can also be used. This can result
				in displacement of existing substrate, the destruction of non-motile benthic
				communities, and changes in the topography of both the placement and borrow
				areas. However, a beach nourishment operation also creates new habitat which is
				usually rapidly recolonized by benthic organisms. Significant impacts to
				offshore organisms can be minimized by selecting borrow areas to avoid
				important benthic habitats, not creating deep/anoxic borrow pits, and
				maintaining substrate quality in the borrow area (that is, grain size
				characteristics, total organic carbon, etc.).
Potential adverse impacts could also result from the placement
				of dredged material with excessive organic content on beaches. This situation
				is aesthetically unpleasant, but temporary in duration. In addition, placement
				of dredged material contaminated by chemical or biological pollutants may
				affect nearby benthic and open water habitats, and may pose a public health
				concern. The Department's objectives in regulating the placement of dredged
				material on beaches are to prevent any adverse impacts to the beach area, be
				they aesthetic (human interest), public health, or to nearby benthic and open
				water communities.
(3) Permitting Process: Permitting for this use of dredged
				material is conducted by the Division. The Coastal Zone Management Rules govern
				beach nourishment and dune construction activities.
In terms of grain size, suitable material must be comprised of
				75 percent or greater sand (grain size larger than 0.0625 mm) with a grain size
				compatible with that of the receiving beach. (Note: Material less than 90
				percent sand will require bulk sediment chemistry analyses and additional
				testing - see Section III.)
(4) Testing Requirements: All dredged material proposed for
				beach nourishment must be characterized by grain size analyses. In addition,
				grain size analyses of the sand on the proposed receiving beach must also be
				completed. Sampling guidance for these required analyses will be provided by
				the Department on a case-by-case basis. Exclusionary criteria for testing
				requirements are described in Section III-C. Bulk sediment chemistry analyses
				will be required for dredged material which does not meet the exclusionary
				criteria. This data will be compared with the Residential Direct Contact Soil
				Remediation Standards, N.J.A.C. 7:26D, to evaluate potential impacts to public
				health. To evaluate potential impacts to estuarine benthic communities, the
				Department will compare this data with the guidelines values developed by Long
				et al. (1995) and other literature sources, on a case-by-case basis.
D - Habitat Development
(1) Overview: A wide range of habitat types can be developed
				(created, restored, or enhanced) using dredged material. The development of
				upland and wetlands habitats is discussed in this Section of the appendix.
				These could include areas which would then be developed further, in whole or in
				part, for parkland/open space or passive/active recreation uses.
The construction of islands using dredged material, on which
				wetlands as well as upland habitat types could develop, is considered to be a
				special case. Islands are not addressed in this appendix, but will be
				considered by the Department on a project-specific basis.
Aquatic habitats (including tidal flats, seagrass meadows, and
				other benthic habitats) could also be developed as a result of the open water
				disposal of dredged material (see Section IV-B). Development of aquatic habitat
				in association with such disposal operations will be evaluated on a
				case-by-case basis. In general, dredged material used to create such habitats
				should be placed so as to maximize habitat value; the final cap must also be
				designed to consider potential contaminant uptake. A special case of aquatic
				habitat development is the use of dredged rock to create artificial reefs,
				jetties, etc.
The USACE Engineer Manual EM 1110-2-5026 (30 June 1987),
				Beneficial Uses of Dredged Material, includes detailed discussions and a
				listing of references concerning habitat development using dredged
				material.
(2) Authority: The Department's authority to regulate the use
				of dredged material for habitat development depends on the location of the
				project site. The Department may have regulatory authority pursuant to the
				Flood Hazard Area Control Act, the Waterfront Development Act, the Freshwater
				Wetlands Protection Act, the Wetlands Act of 1970, and the Coastal Zone
				Management Act. Additional Departmental authority may also be derived from both
				the Federal and State Water Pollution Control Acts. Dredged material could also
				be used in restoration or mitigation activities required pursuant to permits
				issued for other projects.
(3) Potential Impacts/Regulatory Objectives:
(a)
Upland Habitats
. Habitats will develop on
				upland dredged material disposal sites regardless of human intervention.
				However, the use of a variety of management techniques can improve the habitat
				that develops, or foster the development of specific habitat types. Although
				the level of effort needed to develop upland habitat could essentially be
				limited to that necessary to provide erosion control, additional effort and
				long-term management may be needed to create specific and more productive
				habitats. The objectives (that is, habitat functions and values) of proposed
				upland habitat development projects must be identified in advance, and the
				project designed and managed accordingly.
Some of the potential impacts and regulatory objectives
				associated with habitat creation at upland confined disposal facilities (CDFs)
				are discussed in Section IV-D(5).
Dredged material used for upland habitat development must be
				suitable in terms of physical (particularly grain size) and chemical (salinity,
				nutrients, and contaminants) characteristics. The main concern of the
				Department is the potential dispersal of contaminants from the dredged material
				into the terrestrial environment and food webs. For example, Brandon et al.
				(1996) report on plant uptake of heavy metals (zinc, cadmium, nickel, lead,
				chromium, copper, and mercury) at levels of potential concern. Uptake of lead
				and cadmium by animals colonizing the upland habitat area are also of potential
				concern. Refer to Section IV-D(2) for information concerning the development of
				habitat as part of the final closure process on upland CDFs. In general,
				placement of a clean cap at least two feet thick will serve to isolate the
				underlying contaminated dredged material and eliminate many of the concerns
				with the dispersal of contaminants into the terrestrial ecosystem.
When placed in an upland environment, among other changes it
				will undergo, dredged material will dry, tend to oxidize, and decrease in pH.
				Thus, soil amendments (including lime, manure, sand, and limestone gravel) may
				be needed to provide a suitable medium for the recolonization and growth of
				plants. In addition, the salt content of material dredge from estuarine areas
				may inhibit the development of upland habitat. For additional information and
				guidance, refer to Brandon et al. (1996 and 1992).
Section V-C of this appendix briefly discusses the use of
				dredged material to create dunes on beaches.
(b)
Wetlands
. The beneficial use of dredged
				material to create or restore wetlands shall be consistent with
				N.J.A.C.
				7:7-9.27.
The objectives (that is, habitat functions and values) of
				proposed wetlands development projects must be identified in advance, and the
				project designed and managed accordingly.
Dispersal of contaminants from dredged material used for
				wetland development can occur through two major routes: (1) resuspension of
				dredged material due to waves and currents, and (2) uptake by plants and
				animals colonizing or using the created wetland. In order to prevent the
				physical dispersal of the placed dredged material, low wave/current energy,
				shallow water sites should be used for wetland creation projects. Temporary
				(and possibly permanent) protective/retaining structures may be needed to
				contain the dredged material (see Containment Areas, Section IV-E).
Additional design and management factors which must be
				considered to create a productive wetland, while minimizing the potential for
				contaminant dispersal, include salinity, tidal range, weir operation, and
				placement of a cap.
Uptake of contaminants by plants and animals will be minimized
				by restricting the contaminant levels allowable in dredged material proposed
				for wetland creation. In addition, capping of contaminated dredged material
				with clean material may be required. To evaluate potential impacts to benthic
				communities, the Department will compare bulk sediment chemistry data with the
				guidelines values developed by Long et al. (1995) and other literature sources.
				Additional biological testing as specified in the USACE/USEPA Inland Testing
				Manual (1998) may also be required.
(4) Permitting Process: The development of wetlands using
				dredged material is regulated by the Division pursuant to the Coastal Zone
				Management Rules and other applicable authorities.
Long-term maintenance and monitoring of both upland and
				wetlands habitat development projects may be required.
(5) Testing Requirements: The use of dredged material to
				develop wetlands habitats may require project-specific permits with specific
				conditions. Section III-C of this document identifies those sediments which are
				excluded from the Department's testing or reporting requirements for the
				purpose of disposal. These exclusions may not apply to the testing required for
				an evaluation of potential impacts resulting from the use of the dredged
				material for habitat development. The testing needed to evaluate the
				suitability of the dredged material for the proposed habitat development
				project includes considerations of salinity, nutrients, and degree of
				contamination. This could include bulk sediment analyses, modified elutriate
				testing, and predictive animal and plant bioassays. The Department will
				determine the need for such additional testing on a case-by-case basis.
E - Structural & Non-structural
				Fill
(1) Overview: Given the various physical/geotechnical
				requirements for structural or non-structural fill applications, dredged
				material must be dewatered before it could be used. In addition, if the dredged
				material contains a high proportion of fine-grained particles and/or
				contaminants at levels of concern, it would have to be blended with
				coarser-grained material or otherwise processed/stabilized/amended to form a
				"product" which would then meet the required engineering and environmental
				specifications.
(2) Potential Impacts/Regulatory Objectives: Given that the
				dredged material has been dewatered and/or processed/stabilized/amended to meet
				the physical and engineering specifications required for a proposed structural
				or non-structural fill use, the Department's main concerns are (1) potential
				human exposure to contaminants in the dredged material, and (2) the dispersal
				of contaminants from the dredged material. In particular, the Department is
				concerned with the leaching of contaminants from the dredged material due to
				percolation and stormwater runoff. The Department will evaluate any proposed
				fill uses on a case-by-case basis consistent with the "Acceptable Use
				Determination Process" presented in Attachment G.
(3) Testing Requirements: exclusionary criteria for testing
				requirements are described in Section III-C. However, note that the
				processing/stabilization/amendment of dredged material through the addition of
				various substances has the potential to increase the bulk concentration of
				contaminants in the dredged material "product" compared to the "raw" dredged
				material. Thus, depending on the types of substances to be added, testing of
				the "product" may be required irrespective of the dredged material meeting any
				of the testing exclusions discussed in Section III-C (see Attachment G).
				Required testing will be determined by the Department on a case-by-case basis,
				but will usually consist of bulk chemical analysis of the dredged material and
				any processed/stabilized/amended "product," and an appropriate leaching test.
F - Landfill Cover
(1) Authority/Management Process: In recent years, the
				Department has received numerous requests for the utilization of residual
				materials as daily landfill cover throughout the State. Contaminated soils,
				shredder residue, sludge derived products, and other materials have been
				authorized for daily cover application or in blends with other soil to produce
				a suitable product. Since landfill operators would otherwise have to purchase
				soil for cover, the acceptance of residual materials for approved applications
				has been considered an exempt activity pursuant to
				N.J.A.C.
				7:26-1.1.
The Department's regulations at
				N.J.A.C.
				7:26-2A.8(b)13  and 14
				address landfill cover requirements. In general, three different
				classifications of cover are addressed - daily, intermediate, and final cover.
				All exposed surfaces of solid waste must be covered at the close of each
				operating day with a minimum of six inches of daily cover. Areas outside the
				immediate landfill working face which will be exposed for any period exceeding
				24 hours must contain at least 12 inches of intermediate cover. Finally, the
				Federal government adopted amendments to the Resource Conservation and Recovery
				Act in 1993 at
				40 CFR 258.60
				which address landfill closure requirements. Under these rules, an infiltration
				layer of at least 18 inches of earthen material with a permeability less than
				or equal to the bottom liner and an erosion layer of at least six inches of
				earthen material capable of sustaining plant growth must be provided as part of
				a final landfill cover system.
(2) Testing Requirements: The purpose of a good landfill cover
				is to (1) impede rodents and vectors from entering the waste fill, (2) control
				malodorous emissions, (3) provide a firebreak, (4) have limited erosion
				potential, (5) not be easily windblown, and (6) provide control of windblown
				litter. Given these purposes, the physical properties of dredged material
				(which tend to be low cohesion fine-grained material) must be evaluated to
				ascertain its suitability for use as cover material. For example, excessively
				fine-grained material is generally prohibited due to its susceptibility to
				windblown dust, erosion, and potentially limiting hydraulic conductivity
				(preventing good drainage capability which consequently can cause leachate
				seeps on side slopes). The moisture content of the material must also be
				evaluated to ascertain its workability. If the moisture content is too high,
				then the material must be dewatered, which will require additional processing.
				The Department will evaluate the suitability of dredged material proposed for
				use as landfill cover on a case-by-case basis.
G - Agricultural Use
(1) Overview: An additional area in which dredged material may
				have potential use applications is for agricultural/horticultural purposes,
				particularly for non-food crop applications. As an example of this type of a
				use with a material similar to dredged material, New Jersey potable water
				treatment plant residuals have been approved by the Department for several
				uses. These include blending with other materials to create soil products for
				rehabilitating barren sites and as soil for nursery use as potting and field
				growing media. In some cases, the residuals also have qualified for use
				directly as clean fill on review by the Department on a case-by-case basis.
While the chemical and physical qualities of specific dredged
				material would have to be evaluated, it is likely that cleaner materials would
				also qualify for many types of similar agricultural/horticultural uses in New
				Jersey, and other states as well. For example, dredged material can contain
				high levels of plant nutrients (including nitrogen, phosphorous, and silicon)
				and thus could be used to amend marginal soils, resulting in increased crop
				production. However, salinity problems will occur with the use of dredged
				material from estuarine waters.
(2) Potential Impacts/Regulatory Objectives: The Department's
				main concerns with the use of dredged material for agricultural purposes are
				human exposure to, and the dispersal of contaminants from, the dredged material
				through runoff/leaching and uptake by plants. In addition, the level of
				contamination in the dredged material will affect its potential use in food and
				non-food crop applications. In general, dredged material proposed to be used
				for agricultural purposes will have to meet the Residential Direct Contact Soil
				Remediation Standards, N.J.A.C. 7:26D, or blended with suitable materials to
				meet these criteria.
(3) Testing Requirements: Any dredged material proposed for use
				in agricultural operations must be subjected to bulk sediment chemistry
				analyses; the testing exclusions discussed in Section III-C are not applicable.
				In addition, if the dredged material is blended with other materials prior to
				its use, this "product" must also be subject to bulk chemical analysis. In
				addition, the Department may require an appropriate leaching test of the
				dredged material.
H- Capping Open Water Disposal Sites
(1) Overview: Depending upon its degree of contamination,
				dredged material proposed for disposal at an open water site (see Section IV-B)
				may only be acceptable for disposal if management techniques are used to
				isolate the contaminated dredged material from the surrounding environment. The
				principal method used to isolate contaminated dredged material placed at an
				open water disposal site is to cap it with a layer of clean material. Capping
				could be required as both an interim and final dredged material management
				method.
The use of suitable clean dredged material for capping
				purposes involves a number of engineering and design considerations beyond
				those associated solely with the open water disposal of dredged material. In
				addition, capping may be required for the disposal of contaminated dredged
				material. Thus, the Department considers capping to be a potential use of clean
				dredged material.
Capping may also be required at subaqueous disposal pits
				(Section IV-D) and containment areas (Section IV-E) in which contaminated
				dredged material is disposed. The following discussion of capping open water
				disposal sites is also generally applicable to these two dredged material
				management alternatives.
(2) Authority: Capping may be required for contaminated dredged
				material placed at an open water disposal site, in a subaqueous disposal pit,
				or in a containment area. The Department's authority to regulate dredged
				material disposal activities at these areas has been discussed in Sections
				IV-B, IV-D, and IV-E, respectively.
Disposal of dredged material in ocean waters (and thus any
				required capping of such material) is regulated by the USACE and USEPA. The
				State of New Jersey has discretionary authority to review disposal activities
				at ocean disposal sites pursuant to the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act.
				The review of proposed ocean disposal (and capping) operations at currently
				designated ocean disposal sites will be coordinated with the USACE and
				USEPA.
(3) Potential Impacts/Regulatory Objectives: The primary
				purpose of capping an open water disposal site is to isolate contaminated
				dredged material placed at the site from the surrounding environment. This will
				serve to minimize potential adverse impacts to the benthic and pelagic
				communities as a result of exposure to the contaminants.
It must be emphasized that the use of capping must be
				considered throughout the siting, development and implementation of the open
				water dredged material disposal alternative. This begins with the process used
				to select the disposal site. The USACE Waterways Experiment Station Dredging
				Research Technical Notes DRP-5-03 (Palermo, 1991a) and DRP-5-04 (Palermo,
				1991b) provide discussions of design, engineering, and construction
				considerations for the capping of dredged material disposal sites. The USACE
				emphasizes that a capping project must be considered as an engineered
				structure, with specific design and construction requirements that must be
				implemented, monitored, and maintained.
Any cap placed on contaminated dredged material must be of a
				thickness to ensure the long-term isolation of the contaminants from the
				surrounding environment. The required thickness will be dependent on the
				following factors:
(a) The physical and chemical properties of the contaminated
				dredged material and the clean material to be used for capping;
(b) The potential for bioturbation by recolonizing benthic
				organisms to disturb the cap and expose the underlying contaminated dredged
				material; and
(c) The potential for consolidation and erosion of the cap
				material, including consideration of hydrodynamic conditions at the site.
In general, a required final cap will be three to four feet
				thick, plus allowances for consolidation and erosion.
Interim capping, between disposal operations at open water
				disposal sites or in subaqueous pits, may also be required. The need for and
				thickness of an interim cap will be determined on a case-by-case basis. Factors
				that will be considered in making such a determination include the grain size
				of the last-placed dredged material, its degree of contamination, the
				anticipated schedule of future disposal operations at the site, and the
				physical conditions (particularly currents) at the disposal site.
Only clean material of suitable grain size, which would
				otherwise be acceptable for unrestricted open water disposal, can be used for
				capping purposes. Both fine grain and sandy material may be suitable for
				capping. However, in order to avoid mixing or displacing the contaminated
				dredged material during capping operations, the cap material should be applied
				in a manner that does not displace the underlying contaminated dredged
				material. In addition, the cap material should be of a grain size which will be
				resistant to erosion and thus stable over the long-term. The USACE Waterways
				Experiment Station Dredging Research Technical Note DRP-5-05 (Palermo, 1991c)
				discusses a variety of techniques which can be used to construct a cap.
When selecting material to be used for capping purposes, its
				suitability (particularly grain size) for recolonization by benthic organisms
				must be considered. The cap must be thick enough to ensure that recolonizing
				organisms cannot penetrate down to the underlying contaminated dredged material
				and that bioturbation will not expose the contaminated material. However, the
				cap may also serve to mitigate the original loss of habitat resulting from the
				disposal of the contaminated dredged material.
(4) Management Process: Short- and long-term monitoring of
				capped open water disposal sites will be required to ensure that contaminated
				dredged material is isolated from the environment. Refer to the USACE Waterway
				Experiment Station Dredging Research Technical Note DRP-5-07 (Palermo et al.,
				1992) for general guidance on designing an appropriate monitoring program.
A precision bathymetric survey (accuracy to six inches or
				better) of the disposal site will be required prior to any interim or final
				capping operation. Immediately after the capping operation is completed,
				additional monitoring will be required to verify that a cap of the required
				thickness has been placed as intended. This would include a precision
				bathymetric survey and the collection of core samples. The placement of
				additional cap material will be required if the specified cap design parameters
				have not been met.
Long-term monitoring of the open water disposal site and its
				cap will be required to ensure that (1) the stability and required thickness of
				the cap is maintained, and (2) the cap is effective in isolating the
				contaminated dredged material. This will consist of precision bathymetric
				surveys, the collection of core samples and the chemical analysis of sediment
				and body burden analyses of benthic organisms in the disposal area. Appropriate
				management actions will be required to ensure that the contaminated dredged
				material is isolated from the environment. This will usually involve the
				placement of additional suitable cap material.
(5) Testing Requirements: Only clean dredged material which
				will ensure the long-term isolation of the underlying contaminated dredged
				material is suitable for use in capping open water disposal sites. This
				involves a consideration of the physical and chemical characteristics of the
				capping material in relation to both the disposal site and the underlying
				contaminated dredged material. Such considerations must be evaluated as part of
				the process of selecting/siting the open water disposal site. Grain size
				analyses will be required to evaluate the potential long-term stability of the
				cap when subjected to the current and other erosive forces in the disposal
				area. The grain size data will also be used to ensure that the contaminated
				dredged material is not dispersed as a result of the capping operation. In
				addition, this information will be considered as part of the evaluation of the
				potential recolonization of the cap by benthic organisms.
Chemical analyses of the proposed capping material will also
				be required to ensure it is acceptable for unrestricted open water disposal.
				Refer to Section IV-B-(3)(d) for applicable testing requirements (note: Any
				dredged material that meets the testing exclusion criteria listed in Section
				III-C does not need to undergo bulk sediment chemistry testing). This
				information, together with the chemical data for the underlying contaminated
				dredged material, will be used in the development of a monitoring program for
				the open water disposal site and its cap.
Given the interdependent and complex evaluations needed, the
				suitability of any material for use in the capping of an open water disposal
				site will be made on a case-by-case basis.
Dredged material proposed for capping at an ocean disposal
				site must be tested per the document entitled "Dredged Material Proposed for
				Ocean Disposal - Testing Manual" (USEPA and USACE, 1992) and regional
				implementation (USACE and USEPA, 1992) testing manuals, unless it meets the
				exclusionary criteria of the USEPA Ocean Dumping Regulations (see
				40 CFR 227.13
				).
Chapter VI--References
The following documents are incorporated by reference into this
				appendix and chapter.
"Beneficial Uses of Dredged Material." Department of the Army
				-- U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1987. Beneficial Uses of Dredged Material,
				Engineer Manual EM 1110-2-5026, 30 June 1987. This document is available on the
				web at
http://www.publications.usace.army.mil/Portals/76/Publications/EngineerManuals/EM_1110-2-5026.pdf
.
"Confined Disposal Guidance for Small Hydraulic Maintenance
				Dredging Projects -- Design Procedures." Schaefer, T.E. and P.R. Schroeder
				1988. "Confined Disposal Guidance for Small Hydraulic Maintenance Dredging
				Projects -- Design Procedures." U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways
				Experiment Station Environmental Effects of Dredging Technical Note EEDP-02-8,
				December, 1988. This document is available on the web at
http://erdc-library.erdc.dren.mil/xmlui/handle/11681/8813
.
"Confined Disposal of Dredged Material, Engineer Manual."
				Department of the Army -- U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1987. Confined Disposal
				of Dredged Material, Engineer Manual EM 1110-2-5027, September 1987. This
				document is available on the web at
http://www.publications.usace.army.mil/Portals/76/Publications/EngineerManuals/EM_1110-2-5027.pdf
.
"Contaminant Levels in Muscle and Hepatic Tissue of Lobster
				from the New York Bight Apex." Folk, R. 1980.
Petrology of Sedimentary
				Rocks
. Hemphill Publishing Co., Texas. 181 p. National Marine
				Fisheries Service. 1996. "
Contaminant Levels in Muscle and Hepatic
				Tissue of Lobster from the New York Bight Apex.
" This document is
				available on the web at
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/
.
"Design Requirements for Capping", Dredging Research Technical
				Note." Palermo, M.R. 1991a. "Design Requirements for Capping", Dredging
				Research Technical Note DRP-5-03, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment
				Station, Vicksburg, MS, February 1991. This document is available on the web at
http://erdc-library.erdc.dren.mil/xmlui/handle/11681/4908
.
"Dredged Material Evaluation and Disposal Procedures: A Users
				Manual for the Puget Sound Dredged Disposal Analysis (PSSDA) Program." U.S.
				Army Corps of Engineers -- Seattle District, U.S. Environmental Protection
				Agency -- Region 10, Washington Department of Natural Resources, and Washington
				Department of Ecology 1997.
Dredged Material Evaluation and Disposal
				Procedures: A Users Manual for the Puget Sound Dredged Disposal Analysis
				(PSSDA) Program
, July 1, 1997. This document is available on the web
				at
http://www.nws.usace.army.mil/Missions/CivilWorks/Dredging
.
"Engineer Manual for Hydrographic Surveying." U.S. Army Corps
				of Engineers 2002. Engineer Manual for Hydrographic Surveying, EM 1110-2-1003,
				31 January 1, 2002. This document is available on the web at
http://www.publications.usace.army.mil/USACEPublications/EngineerManuals.aspx?udt_43544_param_page=4
.
"Equipment and Placement Techniques for Capping," Dredging
				Research Technical Note. Palermo, M.R. 1991c. "Equipment and Placement
				Techniques for Capping," Dredging Research Technical Note DRP-5-05, U.S. Army
				Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS, November 1991. This
				document is available on the web at
http://erdc-library.erdc.dren.mil/xmlui/handle/11681/4910
.
"Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Discharge in
				Waters of the U.S.-Testing Manual (Inland Testing Manual). U.S. Environmental
				Protection Agency and Department of the Army-U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
				1998. Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Discharge in Waters of the
				U.S.-Testing Manual (Inland Testing Manual). EPA 823-B-98-004, February 1998.
				This document is available on the web at
http://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-08/documents/inland_testing_manual_0.pdf
.
"Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Ocean Disposal --
				Testing Manual." U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Department of the
				Army -- U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1991. Evaluation of Dredged Material
				Proposed for Ocean Disposal -- Testing Manual, EPA-503/8-91/0001, February
				1991. This document is available on the web at
http://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-10/documents/green_book.pdf
.
"Field Sampling Procedures Manual." New Jersey Department of
				Environmental Protection 2005. This document is available on the web at
http://www.nj.gov/dep/srp/guidance/fspm
.
"Guidance for Performing Tests on Dredged Material Proposed for
				Ocean Disposal," U.S. Army Corps of Engineers -- New York District and
				Environmental Protection Agency -- Region II April 2016. This document is
				available on the web at
http://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-10/documents/r2_rtm-april_2016.pdf
.
"Guidance for Preparation of Combined Work/Quality Assurance
				Project Plans for Environmental Monitoring." U.S. Environmental Protection
				Agency. "Guidance for Preparation of Combined Work/Quality Assurance Project
				Plans for Environmental Monitoring," OWRS QA-1, Office of Water Regulations and
				Standards. This document is available on the web at
http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/9100PXYB.PDF?Dockey=9100PXYB.PDF
.
"Handbook -- Stream Sampling for Waste Load Allocation
				Applications." U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. This document is available
				on the web at
http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/30004BG9.PDF?Dockey=30004BG9.PDF
.
"Incidence of Adverse Biological Effects Within Ranges of
				Chemical Concentrations in Marine and Estuarine Sediments." Long, E.R., D.D.
				MacDonald, S.L. Smith, and F.D. Calder 1995. "Incidence of Adverse Biological
				Effects Within Ranges of Chemical Concentrations in Marine and Estuarine
				Sediments," Environmental Management 19(1):8l-97. This document is available on
				the web at
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02472006
.
"Leachate Testing and Evaluation or Estuarine Sediments
				Technical Report." Myers, T.E. J.M. Brannon, B.A. Tardy, and D.M. Townsend
				1996. "Leachate Testing and Evaluation or Estuarine Sediments", Technical
				Report D-96-1, U.S. Army Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
				This document is available on the web at
http://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a306421.pdf
.
"Leachate Testing and Evaluation of Freshwater Sediments."
				Brannon, J.M., T.E. Meyers, and B.A. Tardy 1994. "Leachate Testing and
				Evaluation of Freshwater Sediments," Miscellaneous Paper D-94-1, U.S. Army
				Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS, April 1994. This document
				is available on the web at
http://erdc-library.erdc.dren.mil/xmlui/handle/11681/3049
.
"Long-term Evaluation of Plants and Animals Colonizing
				Contaminated Estuarine Dredged Material Placed in Upland and Wetland
				Environments." Brandon, D.L., C.R. Lee, and J.W. Simmers 1992. "Long-term
				Evaluation of Plants and Animals Colonizing Contaminated Estuarine Dredged
				Material Placed in Upland and Wetland Environments," Environmental Effects of
				Dredging Information Exchange Bulletin D-92-4, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways
				Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS, September 1992. This document is available
				on the web at
http://usace.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p266001coll1/id/6885/rec/683
.
"Method 1613-Tetra- through octa-chlorinated dioxins and furans
				by isotope dilution HRGC/HRMS." U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1994.
				Method 1613-Tetra- through octa-chlorinated dioxins and furans by isotope
				dilution HRGC/HRMS. October 1994, 89 pp. This document is available on the web
				at
http://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-08/documents/method_1613b_1994.pdf
.
"Method 8290--Polychlorinated dibenzodioxins (PCDDs) and
				polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDFs) by high-resolution gas
				chromatography/high-resolution mass spectrometry (HRGC/HRMS)." U.S.
				Environmental Protection Agency 1994. Method 8290-Polychlorinated
				dibenzodioxins (PCDDs) and polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDFs) by
				high-resolution gas chromatography/high-resolution mass spectrometry
				(HRGC/HRMS). September 1994, 71 pp. This document is available on the web at
http://www.caslab.com/EPA-Methods/PDF/8290.pdf
.
"Monitoring Considerations for Capping." Palermo, M.R., T.
				Fredette, and R.E. Randall 1992. "Monitoring Considerations for Capping,"
				Dredging Research Technical Note DRP-5-07, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways
				Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS, June 1992. This document is available on the
				web at
http://erdc-library.erdc.dren.mil/xmlui/handle/11681/4896
.
Personal communication on July 20, 1994 to S. Ausubel, U.S.
				Environmental Protection Agency, Region II. O'Connor, T. 1994.
"Petrology of Sedimentary Rocks." Folk, R.L. 1980. Petrology of
				Sedimentary Rocks, Hemphall Publishing Co., Austin, Texas. This document is
				available on the web at
http://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/handle/2152/22930
.
"Potential Application of Geosynthetic Fabric Containers for
				Open-water Placement of Contaminated Dredged Material." Clausner, J. M.
				Palermo, D. Banks, and J. Palmerton 1996. "Potential Application of
				Geosynthetic Fabric Containers for Open-water Placement of Contaminated Dredged
				Material", Environmental Effects of Dredging Technical Note EEDP-01-39, U.S.
				Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS, March
				1996. This document is available on the web at
http://erdc-library.erdc.dren.mil/xmlui/handle/11681/8795
.
"QA/QC Guidance for Sampling and Analysis of Sediments. Water.
				and Tissues for Dredged Material Evaluations." U.S. Environmental Protection
				Agency and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1995. QA/QC Guidance for Sampling and
				Analysis of Sediments. Water. and Tissues for Dredged Material Evaluations. EPA
				823-B-95-001. This document is available on the web at
http://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/qaqc.pdf
.
"Sampling and Analytical Methods of the National Status and
				Trends Program. National Benthic Surveillance and Mussel Watch Projects 1984 --
				1992." Sloan, N.; G. Adams; R. Pearce; D. Brown; and S-L Chan. 1993. Sampling
				and Analytical Methods of the National Status and Trends Program. National
				Benthic Surveillance and Mussel Watch Projects 1984 -- 1992. Volume IV
				Comprehensive Descriptions of Trace Organic Analytical Methods. NOAA Technical
				Memorandum NOS ORCA 71. 97 p. This document is available on the web at
http://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/2893
.
"Sediment quality of the NY/NJ Harbor system." Adams, D.A.,
				J.S. O'Connor, and S.B. Weisberg 1998. Sediment quality of the NY/NJ Harbor
				system. EPA/902-R-98-001, March 1998. This document is available on the web at
http://www.nj.gov/dep/passaicdocs/docs/NJDOTSupportingCosts/STUDY-EPA-NYNJHARBOR-FINAL.pdf
.
"Sediment Resuspension During Clamshell Dredging, Dredged
				Material Research." Raymond, G.J. 1983. "Sediment Resuspension During Clamshell
				Dredging", Dredged Material Research D-83-1, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
				Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS, January 1983. This document is
				available on the web at
http://semspub.epa.gov/work/05/142783.pdf
.
"Site Selection Considerations for Capping," Dredging Research
				Technical Note. Palermo, M.R. 1991b. "Site Selection Considerations for
				Capping," Dredging Research Technical Note DRP-5-04, U.S. Army Engineer
				Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS, November 1991. This document is
				available on the web at
http://erdc-library.erdc.dren.mil/xmlui/handle/11681/4907
.
"Soil Washing Potential at Confined Disposal Facilities,
				Environmental Effects of Dredging Information Exchange Bulletin." Olin, T.J.
				and D.W. Bowman 1996. "Soil Washing Potential at Confined Disposal Facilities,"
				Environmental Effects of Dredging Information Exchange Bulletin D-96-3, U.S.
				Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS, September 1996. This
				document is available on the web at
http://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a316456.pdf
.
"The Hydrologic Evaluation of Landfill Performance (HELP)
				Model: User's Guide for Version 3. Schroeder, P.R., N.M. Aziz, C.M. Lloyd, and
				P.A. Zappi 1994. The Hydrologic Evaluation of Landfill Performance (HELP)
				Model: User's Guide for Version 3. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office
				of Research and Development. Washington, D.C., EPA/600/R-94/168a. This document
				is available on the web at
http://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1015/ML101590180.pdf
.
"Update: Evaluating Ecosystem Development at Contaminated
				Dredged Material Placement Sites." Brandon, D.L., C.R. Lee, and J.W. Simmers
				1996. "Update: Evaluating Ecosystem Development at Contaminated Dredged
				Material Placement Sites," Environmental Effects of Dredging Information
				Exchange Bulletin D-96-2, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,
				Vicksburg, MS, June 1996. This document is available from USACE at
http://www.erdc.usace.army.mil/Library/
.
"U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station
				Environmental Effects of Dredging Technical Note EEDP-04-2." Palermo, M.R.
				1985. Interim guidance for predicting quality of effluent discharged from
				confined dredge material disposal areas-test procedures. U.S. Army Corps of
				Engineers Waterways Experiment Station Environmental Effects of Dredging
				Technical Note EEDP-04-2, June 1985. This document is available on the web at
http://erdc-library.erdc.dren.mil/xmlui/handle/11681/8783
.
Chapter VII - Glossary
The definitions at
				N.J.A.C.
				7:7-1.5 apply to terms used in this appendix.
				In addition, the following definitions are for terms used in this appendix that
				are not defined at
				N.J.A.C.
				7:7-1.5.
Ambient conditions: Those physical, chemical, and biological
				conditions present in the immediate vicinity of the project site.
Anadromous fish: Marine or estuarine species of finfish that
				spawn in freshwater; fish that migrate from oceanic to coastal waters, or from
				salt water to fresh water.
Benthic: Occurring or living on or in the bottom of a water
				body; the bottom of a water body, with particular reference to
				sediments.
Benthos: see benthic; the organisms living on the bottom of a
				water body.
Best management practices (BMPs): Methods and measures (or the
				prohibition of practices) employed to reduce the adverse environmental impacts
				resulting from a dredging or dredged material management/disposal
				activity.
Bioaccumulation: The accumulation of contaminants in the
				tissues of organisms through any route, including respiration, ingestion, or
				direct contact with sediment or water; indicates the biological availability of
				contaminants.
Bioassay (test): Acute or sublethal/chronic toxicity or
				bioaccumulation tests using organisms representative of the water column,
				benthic, and terrestrial environment(s) at the dredging or dredged material
				disposal site.
Borrow pit: A deep hole in a bay or near-shore area remaining
				after borrow material has been removed.
Bulk (sediment) chemical analysis: The determination of the
				concentration of target analytes present in the whole sediments to be
				dredged.
Clamshell dredge: A dredging bucket comprised of two hinged
				jaws; a boat or barge equipped with such a machine.
Containment area: Any site used for the permanent disposal or
				temporary confinement of dredged material, and which may or may not have a
				permanent retaining structure, located in an open water or wetland area
				directly adjacent to an upland area.
Dewatering: The practice of actively or passively removing
				water from dredged material, usually occurring in a barge or upland confined
				disposal facility.
Dioxin: Commonly refers to polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins
				(PCDD) and polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDF), in particular 2,3,7,8-TCDD
				(tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin).
Effluent: A discharge of pollutants into the environment,
				whether untreated, partially treated, or completely treated; particular
				reference to the quality of water coming over a weir from a dredged material
				upland confined disposal facility during and after a disposal operation.
Elutriate (test): Involves mixing dredged material with
				dredging-site water and allowing the mixture to settle - the potential release
				of dissolved chemical constituents from the dredged material is determined by
				chemical analysis of the supernatant (elutriate) remaining after undisturbed
				settling.
Environmental dredging: see
				N.J.A.C.
				7:7-12.8(a).
Flocculents: substances which, when added to dredged material,
				result in the aggregation of finer particles into larger particles, thus
				enhancing the settling properties of the suspended particles and lowering the
				Total Suspended Solids in the dewatering effluent.
Furans: see dioxin.
Geotextile bag/container: Tubes, bags, and other containers
				constructed of woven and non-woven water permeable synthetic fabrics which can
				be filled with dredged material.
Heavy metals: Metals which have proven to be hazardous to
				living organisms ingesting them in sufficient quantities; generally, cadmium,
				nickel, lead, zinc, copper, mercury, and chromium.
Hopper dredge: Self-propelled seagoing ships equipped with
				sediment containers (hoppers), dredge pumps, and other special equipment.
				Dredged material is raised by dredge pumps through drag arms in contact with
				the bay/ocean bottom and discharged into hoppers built in the vessel.
Hydraulic conductivity: Ratio of the velocity to driving force
				for viscous flow under saturated conditions of a specified liquid in a porous
				medium.
Hydraulic dredging: Use of suction equipment to remove a
				sediment/water slurry from the bay/ocean bottom.
Hydrogeology: The study of those factors that deal with
				subsurface waters and related geologic aspects of subsurface waters.
Impervious: Impassable, applies to strata such as clays,
				shales, etc., which will not permit the penetration of water, petroleum, or
				natural gas.
Leachate: A solution obtained by leaching, as in the downward
				penetration of water through soil or solid waste, and containing soluble
				substances.
Lysimeter: A structure containing a mass of soil and so
				designed as to permit the measurement of water drainage through the
				soil.
Maintenance dredging: see
				N.J.A.C.
				7:7-12.6(a).
Mitigation: see
				N.J.A.C.
				7:7-17.1.
Modified elutriate test: Used to predict the quality of
				dewatering effluent discharged from upland confined disposal facilities and
				similar operations; see elutriate (test).
New dredging: see
				N.J.A.C.
				7:7-12.7(a).
Ocean: Those waters of the open seas lying seaward of the
				baseline from which the territorial sea is measured.
Ocean disposal: The practice of dredged material disposal via
				oceangoing barge into a designated disposal site in deep, open water, often
				miles from shore.
Open water disposal: The practice of dredged material disposal
				anywhere into open water, exclusive of disposal into a subaqueous disposal pit
				or containment area.
Permit(s): For the purposes of this appendix, an
				authorization, license, or equivalent control document issued by the U.S.
				Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, or approved
				State agency to implement requirements of an environmental regulation.
Physiography: The physical geography of the general
				region/area in the vicinity of a project site; the study of the genesis and
				evolution of land forms.
Pollutants: Any gaseous, chemical, or organic waste (natural
				or man-made) that contaminates air, soil, sediment, or water, and has the
				potential for harm to human health, to any aspect of human or natural
				ecosystems, or to environmental aesthetics or vitality.
Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs): Nonflammable liquids
				formerly used in heat exchangers, electrical condensers, hydraulic and
				lubricating fluids, etc. with demonstrated chronic toxicity effects.
Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs): Although present in
				some natural products (for example, crude oil), they are generally associated
				with the incomplete combustion of organic materials; some have demonstrated
				carcinogenic effects.
Reprofiling: The leveling of sediments within a berth or
				reach, essentially removing small mounds on the bay bottom, by redistributing
				the sediments within the boundaries of the berth or reach.
Sample compositing: Mixing distinct samples, or sediment
				layers from distinct samples, (see stratification) collected in a berth or
				reach proposed to be dredge.
Sample homogenizing: Mixing an entire sediment core sample
				which is not stratified (see stratification).
Sand: Loose, granular particles of worn or disintegrated rock,
				finer than gravel, and coarser than dust; the fraction of dredged material
				whose grain size distribution is greater than 0.0625 mm, and less than 2.00
				mm.
Sidecasting: The pumping of dredged material and the discharge
				of the material to the side of the dredge, out of the channel or berth
				area.
Stratification (of sediments): The formation of distinct
				layers of sediments having the same general composition (grain size, quality),
				arranged one on top of another.
Target analyte/compound: A hazardous substance, hazardous
				waste, or pollutant for which a specific analytical method is designed to
				detect that potential contaminant both qualitatively and quantitatively (
				N.J.A.C.
				7:26E-1.8 ).
Terrestrial ecosystem: Of, pertaining to, or composed of land
				as distinct from air or water.
Total suspended solids (TSS): The mass per unit volume
				(usually expressed in units of milligrams per liter - mg/L) of solid material
				obtained by filtering a known volume of liquid.
Toxic/toxicity: A condition or substance that is harmful,
				destructive, poisonous, or deadly; the limit of intolerance of organisms to
				survive lethal chronic or short-term (acute) subjection to certain chemical and
				contaminating substances, or physical and environmental conditions.
Upland confined disposal facility: A disposal site/structure
				located above the mean high tide level built to hold dredged material in a
				confined condition. Upland CDFs are usually built to permanently hold
				contaminated sediments, but this term also refers to those facilities which
				will only contain dredged material for dewatering purposes prior to some future
				beneficial use or decontamination management alternative.