314 



(b) Oompliance with the Corps of Engineers "Section 403" critertia regard- 

 ing environmental and ecological effects as required by : 



The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Acts (16 USC 661 and 16 USC 

 742-A) 



The National Environmental Policy Act (P.L. 91-90) 

 The Water Quality Impi'ovement Act. (P.L. 91-224) 



The reason we fear delay in the processing of applications for permits as a 

 result of shifting the permit authority from the Corps of Engineers to the En- 

 vironmental Protection Agency is that the Corps of Engineers is equipped for 

 the job with personnel experienced in this field and 40 district offices, whereas 

 the Environmental Protection Agency does not have a comparable staff and, as 

 we understand it, envisions only 10 field offices. We believe there is a significant 

 advantage in the more decentralized organization of the Corps of Engineers 

 which brings the application and permit process much closer to the applicant 



Since we are recommending changes in the Bill involving dredging spoil and 

 the Corps of Engineers, we would like to offer some comments' on these two 

 subjects. 



First, as to dredging spoil. This is not necessarily the ogre that it is frequently 

 considered to be, in spite of the unpleasant connotation of the word "spoil". 

 There is "good" spoil and "bad" spoil. Typical of the former is natural uncon- 

 taminated bay or river bottom. Mo^dng in from one location on the bottom to 

 another nearby location on the bottom can hardly be considered as polluting 

 the body of water involved. "Bad" spoil is typified by bottom material which has 

 been subjected to industrial or municipal wastes and become contaminated as a 

 consequence. Such "bad" spoil can be a pollutant and should be disposed of so 

 that it does not degrade water quality. To this end, Maryland is constructing at 

 its own expense a $13 million disposal area to receive and confine such "bad" 

 spoil. 



In Maryland we are confronted with the problem of simultaneously advancing 

 our most important economic asset, the port of Baltimore, With its port-oriented 

 heavy industry, and also preserving the environmental and ecological quality 

 of our highly cherished Chesapeake Bay. This has caused us to give a great deal 

 of attention to reconciling the requirements of the two assets, with particular 

 attention to the handling of dredging spoil, and as a consequence we have learned 

 some interesting things : 



1. Since 1924 a deep, natural trough in the bottom of the Bay, known as "The 

 Dumping Ground" has received most of the dredging spoil from Baltimore har- 

 bor and chaimels. However, this same "Dumping Grround" is the most popular 

 sport fishing location on the Bay, particularly for striped bass; and on any 

 summer weekend, hundreds of sport fishing boats can be seen there. 



2. Last year's oyster harvest from the Chesapeake Bay was the largest on 

 record. The "Dumping Groimd" lies near the center of the relatively small area 

 of the Bay which was the most productive. 



3. A $268,000 study of an actual case of overboard disposal of dredging spoil 

 conducted by the Natural Resouirces Institute of the University of Maryland 

 in 1966 concluded that there were no observable detrimental effects from such 

 spoil disposal. ( See Exhibit A) 



4. In the opinion of knowledgeable people concerned with natural resources 

 conservation, it is recognized that not all dredging spoil is harmful, and that 

 umcontamlnated spoil need not be kept out of the Bay. ( See Exhibit B ) 



With respect to the Corps of Engineers. We would like to call attention to the 

 changes in their i)ermit criteria resulting from the passage of the National En- 

 vironmental Policy Act of 1969 (P.L. 91-190, January 1, 1970), and the Water 

 QuaUty Improvement Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-224, April 3, 1970), and promulgated 

 by the Secretary of the Army. These are succinctly expressed in Press Release 

 70-8 of May 15, 1970, by the Baltimore District, Corps of Engineers, concerning 

 evaluation of permit applications, to the effect that, 



' "The decision . . . will be based ... on an evaluation of the proposed work 

 on the public interest." "Public interest" is described as including factors 

 such as: "navigation, fish and wildlife, water quality, economics, conserva- 

 tion, aesthetics, recreation, water supply, fiood damage prevention, ecosys- 

 tems and, in general, the needs and welfare of the people." This change 

 clarifies the standard against which permit applications are to be judged 

 and re-emphasizes that the Corps is no longer concerned only with the impact 

 which a proposed project may have on navigation.' 



