476 



Department op Natural Resources. 



Annapolis, Md., Fehruarp 2, 1971. 

 Mr. Andrew Heubeck, Jr., 

 Secretary, Board of Public Works, 

 State Office Building, Annapolis, Md. 



Dear jNIr. Heubeck : By letter dated November 17, 1970, I sent you comments 

 of the Dei^artment of Natural Resources concerning the proposed dredging proj- 

 ect in the approach area to the C. & D. Canal as outlined in the Corps proposal 

 dated September 11, 1970. 



In my letter of November 17th I stated that this department recommends that 

 overboard disposal not be allowed. I went on to point out that "Since the Con- 

 fined Disposal Area for the Upper Bay should be in operation by the time this 

 dredging project is to be initiated (winter of 71-72)', the Department recom- 

 mends that the spoil be placed in this disposal area." 



Since writing to you, I have determined thait it is quite unlikely that the Con- 

 fined Disposal Area will be completed in time to accommodate the proposed main- 

 tenance dredging in the approach to the C. & D. Canal. Furthermore, it now 

 seems prudent to reserve, during the initial years at least, the capacity of the 

 Confined Disposal Area for the contaminated dredging that will be removed from 

 Baltimore Harbor. Thus, it might be unwise to use the high cost Confined Dis- 

 posal Area for the type of spoil that will result from the C. & D. maintenance 

 dredging. 



I have corresponded with Dr. Cronin of the Natural Resources Institute and 

 he confirms the conclusion of their special report number 3, July, 1970, which 

 indicated that there was no gross effect of the overboard disposal in Upper 

 Chesapeake Bay from the deepening of the C & D approach channel in 196.5-67. 



In view of these considerations, the Department of Natural Resources with- 

 Corps of Engineers proposal dated September 11, 1970 provided that : 



(1) a safety zone of .500 feet for each foot of expected disposition be pro- 

 vided between the receiving area and any shellfish beds or other areas of 

 special significance ; 



(2) to protect fish eggs and larvae as well as other biological activities in 

 the Bay, the dredging should be conducted during the months of February- 

 March or September-October ; and 



(3) that the Corps obtain and provide to the State, accurate information 

 on the deposition and movement of the spoil. 



If the aforementioned three oonditicns are acceptable to the Corps of Engi- 

 neers, the Department of Natural Resources withdraws its opposition to the 

 overboard disposal of spoil in the Upper Chesapeake Bay near the site of the C & D 

 Canal approach channel. 



Please let me know if we can be of further assistance in this matter. 

 Sincerely yours, 



.Tames B. Coulter, 



Deputy Secretary. 



Mr. DiNGELL. Perhaps we could address ourselves to one particular 

 point. The comments I have heard from port authorities, so far, would 

 tend to indicate the particular areas of your apprehension. Yesterday, 

 we heard from the American Institute of Merchant Shipp)in^, and 

 also from the American Association of Port Authorities, who indicated 

 their apprehension was the transfer projected by the legislation before 

 this committee of the authority over dumping from the Corps of 

 Engineers to the 



Mr. Douglas. Environmental Protection Agencj^, sir. 



Mr. DiNGELL. Yes, to the Environmental Protection Agency. 



The chair notes, in the bill before us that their objection may well 

 have been met, and I think the greatest help you could afford this 

 committee at this particular time would be to comment with regard 

 to that particular point. 



The chair notes that under the bill before us, as interpreted this 

 morning, the Corps of Engineers will continue to issue the permits, 

 as they have in times past, but will do so in conformity with the 



