473 



■ (.'■>«."*.+ * •■ 

 "BacF' spoil is typified by bottom materiar which has Been sub- 

 jected to industrial or municipal wastes and become contaminated as a 

 consequence. Such "bad"' spoil can be a pollutant and should be dis- 

 posed of so that it does not degrade water quality. To this end, Mary- 

 land is constructing at its ovrn expense a $13 million disposal area to 

 receive and confine such "bad"' spoil. 



In Marjdand 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 en- 

 vironmental and ecological quality of our highly cherished Chesa- 

 peake Bay. This has caused us to give a great deal of attention to rec- 

 onciling the requirements of the two assets, ^vith particular atten- 

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

 leai'ned 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 Harbor and channels. However, this same "Dumping 

 Ground" is the most popular sport fishing location on the bay, partic-t 

 ularly 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 ground lies near the center of the 

 relatively small area of the bay w^hich was the most productive. 



(3) A $268,000 study of an actual case of overboard disposal of 

 dredging spoil conducted by the Natural Kesources Institute of the 

 University of Maryland in 1966 concluded that there were no observ- 

 able 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 unconta,minated spoil need not be kept out of the 

 bay. See exhibit B. 



With respect to the Corps of Engineers, we would like to call atten- 

 tion to the changes in their permit criteria resulting from the passage 

 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (Public Law 91- 

 190, Jan. 1, 1970), and the Water Quality Improvement Act of 1970 

 (Public Law 91-224, Apr. 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, concern- 

 ing 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 in- 

 cluding factors such as : "navigation, fish and wildlife, water quality, 

 economics, conservation, aesthetics, recreation, water supply, flood 

 damage prevention, ecosystems, and, in general, the needs and welfare 

 of the people." This change clarifies the standard against which per- 

 mit applications are to be judged and reemphasizes that the Corps is 

 no longer concerned only with the impact which a proposed project 

 may have on navigation." 



We respectfully request that the committees give due consideration 

 to the above points in their deliberations on H.R. 4723. 



62-513—71 31 



