Transparent Integration of Stakeholder Values in Dredging Planning: Long Island Sound DMMP

Transcription

1 Transparent Integration of Stakeholder Values in Dredging Planning: Long Island Sound DMMP Matthew Bates1*, Zachary Collier1, Igor Linkov1, Tom Fredette1, Mike Keegan2, Mark Habel2, Steven Wolf2 1US Army Corps of Engineers, ERDC Risk and Decision Sciences 2US Army Corps of Engineers, New England District Dredging 2012 Conference October 22-25, 2012 San Diego, CA

2 Motivation Sediment management is important, yet costly Need to be able to get it right the first time. The status quo decision process is no longer acceptable E.g., where cost is essentially the only criterion and the project funder is the only meaningful stakeholder. We need more-sustainable decision approaches Due to greater public involvement and a desire to balance a wide range of decision criteria. 2

3 Approach Structured stakeholder involvement can avoid later conflict if views are accurately and meaningfully incorporated. Quantitative decision-analysis tools fairly and transparently incorporate stakeholder views. Working groups frame the problem together, then individual interviews elicit unique organizational perspectives. 3

4 38.5 million cubic yards of dredged material produced in 30 years Majority of combined needs from CT: New Haven ~8.7 million cy Bridgeport ~4.6 million cy New London ~2.5 million cy Connecticut River ~2.4 million cy Clinton/Westbrook ~2.4 million cy Norwalk ~2.2 million cy Long Island Sound study 4 Maintenance Needs

5 Long Island Sound DMMP DMMP requested by Governors of Connecticut and New York after the EPA designated changes to open water dredged-material disposal sites in LIS. Issue: Stakeholders disagree States, Harbormasters, Marinas, Yacht Clubs, Boat Yards, Cargo Terminals, Power Plants, Military Facilities, State Piers, Ferry Terminals, Dredgers, etc. Result: $15M and 3 yrs later state & stakeholder issues reach US congress and process told to start over 5

6 Stakeholder Engagement The process calls for Federal agencies to seek public input regarding development of the LIS DMMP. Earlier attempts at generating criteria focused on sitespecific screening constraints; did not comprehensively address stakeholder values. The Corps has been hosting a series of Working Group meetings to established evaluation criteria based on stakeholder interests and concerns. A formal decision analysis will use input to rank alternatives. Choice of Management Alternatives 6 6

7 Decision Model Process Individual stakeholder organizations identify & weight criteria & sub-criteria relevant to the decision. District-led scientists & engineers perform technical analysis to score placement sites for each region of Long Island Sound against these metrics. Stakeholder weights and technical scores are combined through an MCDA model to rank regional placement sites. Results will form one component of the LIS DMMP. 7

8 Criteria Structure of the Decision Model Environmental Media Stakeholders Ecological Receptors Human Welfare Economics Sub-Criteria Aquatic Terrestrial Air Birds Fish Shell Fish Benthic Mammals Health Social Short Term Long Term Plants Other Metrics Alternative Placement Sites (3x)* No Action Upland Placement Open Water Innovative Technology Beneficial Use Army Corps of Engineers 8

9 Placement Alternatives to be Compared Alternatives Type of Material Type of Alternative Unsuitable Suitable Fine Suitable Coarse (e.g., Sandy) No Action: No Action No Action No Action Upland Placement: Shoreline CDF*, Upland CDF*, Mines & Quarries*, Landfills* Shoreline CDF*, Upland CDF*, Mines & Quarries*, Landfills* Aquatic Placement: Innovative Treatment Technologies: Beneficial Uses: In-Harbor CAD Cell, Confined Open Water Placement, Island CDF Unconfined Open Water Placement, Island CDF Varies by Product* (results in material unrestricted for final placement or use) N/A N/A Brownfields & Other Redevelopment*, Island Creation or Restoration Brownfields & Other Redevelopment*, Island Creation or Restoration, Agriculture*/ Aquaculture, Shoreline Restoration, Habitat Restoration / Enhancement or Creation, Road Bed & Berm Material*, Landfill* & CDF* / CAD Cap Material Shoreline CDF*, Upland CDF*, Mines & Quarries*, Landfills* Unconfined Open Water Placement, Island CDF Brownfields & Other Redevelopment*, Island Creation or Restoration, Agriculture*/ Aquaculture, Shoreline Restoration, Habitat Restoration / Enhancement or Creation, Road Bed & Berm Material*, Landfill* or CDF* / CAD Cap Material, Beach and Dune Nourishment, Nearshore Bar Placement, Asphalt / Cement & Other Aggregates* *Requires use of a dredged material transfer facility May need the use of a dredged material transfer facility CDF = Confined Disposal Facility; CAD = Confined Aquatic Disposal 9

10 Summary of Criteria, Sub-criteria & Metrics 10

11 Participation Summary

12 Participation Summary - Respondents Participation Summary Number of Respondents: 20 By Area Represented Number Percentage CT % NY % Other (e.g., Multi-State) % By Primary Mission Number Percentage Environmental % Commerce % Mixed % By Organization Sector Number Percentage Fed/State % Local/Reg % NGO %

13 Main Results *Note: error bars show one standard deviation about mean scores.

14 Subcriteria Results *Note: error bars show one standard deviation about mean scores.

15 Subcriteria Results *Note: error bars show one standard deviation about mean scores.

16 Subcriteria Results *Note: error bars show one standard deviation about mean scores.

17 Subcriteria Results *Note: error bars show one standard deviation about mean scores.

18 Take Home Points The stakeholders identify all criteria important; No single factor dominates and we have to consider all criteria. Economics come out ahead, but within one StDev. There was more agreement between organizations than originally anticipated. While not all stakeholders may be happy with outcomes, the process is transparent and fair. We are presenting this next week, and then will combine with technical analysis to rank regional alternatives. This provides input for the COE to consider in the DMMP.

19 Summary of Tools to Increase Sustainable Sediment Management Structured stakeholder engagement To define and weight the decision criteria. Formal decision analysis To combine science and preference to transparently rank project alternatives. Life-cycle analysis To assess distributed and dispersed environ impacts. Multi-objective optimization (e.g., D2M2) To find planning solutions that best balance criteria. 19

20 Thank You, Any Questions? 20

21 References Linkov, I., Seager, T.P. (2011). Coupling multi-criteria decision analysis, life-cycle assessment, and risk assessment for emerging threats. Environmental Science and Technology 45(12): Sparrevik, M., Barton, D. N., Bates, M., Linkov, I. (2012). Use of Stochastic Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis to Support Sustainable Management of Contaminated Sediments. Environmental Science & Technology 46(3): Linkov, I., Bridges, T.S. (2011). Climate: Global Change and Local Adaptation. Dordecht, The Netherlands: Springer. Sparrevik, Linkov, I, et al. (2011). Use of Life Cycle Assessments to Evaluate the Environmental Footprint of Contaminated Sediment Remediation. Environmental Science and Technology 45: Bates, M.E., Lund, J.R. (2011). Delta Subsidence Reversal, Levee Failure, and Aquatic Habitat A Cautionary Tale, San Francisco Estuary and Watershed Science (in review). Linkov, I., Bates, M.E., Loney, D., Sparrevik, M., Bridges, T.S. (Oct 2011). Risk Management Practices Cross-Agency Comparisons and Tolerable Risk, chapter in Climate: Global Change and Local Adaptation, NATO Science for Peace and Security Series, Amsterdam: Springer. 21