Kennebec River Dredging: Agency Collaboration Complicated by Public Perception

1. Kennebec River Dredging: Agency Collaboration Complicated by Public Perception Valerie A. Cappola, Ph.D. Kenneth M. Levitt USACE New England District

2. Kennebec River Federal Navigation Project, Maine • 27 ft MLLW • At lest 500 ft wide • Extends ~ 13 miles from River entrance to city of Bath

3. Specific Project Areas

4. Kennebec River Estuary • elongate and rock-bound • large tidal ranges • extreme discharge seasonality • Doubling Point channel • bedload convergence zone • Bluff Head placement site • an erosional area

5. Nearshore Placement Area Goldschmidt et al. 1991 • Jackknife Ledge Placement Area • sand expected to remain in nearshore system • help to indirectly re-nourish beaches due to sediment gyre

6. Multiple Competing River Uses • Bath Iron Works • Shellfish harvest • Lobster fishing • Recreation • boating, fishing, beaches • Bed & Breakfasts • Heavily utilized in the summer

7. Request for Dredging • November 2010 • Notified about need for dredging • Surveyed channel • December/January 2010/2011 • February 2011 & May 2011 • February 2011 • USS Spruance – sea trials • EA/Coordination • WQC, CZM, Biological Opinion, contract out the work • Dredge • September 1, 2011 • USS Spruance departs BIW

8. Dredge in August, outside typical dredge window • Major Concerns • closures to shellfish harvest • interference with recreation • noise concerns • inability to set lobster traps and burial of traps (www.newmainetimes.com) Dredging the Kennebec: A significant loss Posted Wednesday, August 3, 2011 in Investigation

9. State & Federal Agencies Cooperation • State and US EPA- worked to correct water quality classification description for in-river placement area • NMFS- biological opinion for Atlantic Salmon, Shortnose Sturgeon & Atlantic Sturgeon • incidental take statement of 27 shortnose sturgeon • no take of Atlantic salmon (not expected to be present) • no conference is necessary for Atlantic sturgeon, but report any interactions • observed no takes or interactions with any species

10. Public Actions • Letters in response to public notices • questioned the water quality classification at the Bluff Head placement site • potential economic impacts to fishermen (shellfish and lobster) • potential impacts to commercial and recreational fishing, and tourism • potential environmental impacts to lobsters, clams, endangered species and marine mammals (harbor seals) • Requested minimal dredging or placement of dredged material upland or at Portland Disposal Site

11. Obstacles Associated With Project • Clarification of the water quality classification • Governor signed an emergency bill • DEP WQC- appeal to the State of Maine Board of Environmental Protection • denied (July 22, 2012) • Federal injunction • July 29, 2011 the Court denied the Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction • NMFS - 60 Day Notice Letter Regarding Legal Violations in NMFS’ Biological Opinion, August 2011 F/NER/2011/00691 • no impacts to endangered species

12. Monitoring • USACE conducted pre and post-dredge surveys of the nearest shellfish beds to determine if any • bacterial contamination resulting in closure of shellfish beds • increased sedimentation • Pre-dredge monitoring - July 28, 2011 • grain size distribution • fecal coliforms • water quality profiles • sediment cores • surface/underwater images • Post-dredge August 25,2011

13. Monitoring Results • no coliform colonies found • no shellfish closures

14. After Project Completion

15. Lessons Learned Don’t always assume the science wins over public perception Work with other agencies especially to help explain their responses to the public in relation to potential impacts from dredging not as matter of fact responses If possible, try to keep ahead of any misinformation to alleviate public concerns