129 
The second basic conclusion is that environmental considerations are acting more 
strongly than possibly any other force to necessitate long-range regional planning as 
a lasting, effective solution to dredged material disposal problems. No longer can 
disposal alternatives be planned independently for each dredging operation for mul- 
tiple projects in a given area. While each project may require a different specific 
solution, the interrelationships must be evaluated from a holistic perspective and 
thought given to replacing particular disposal alternatives as conditions change. Re- 
gional disposal management plans not only offer greater opportunities for environ- 
mental protection ultimately at reduced project cost, but also meet with greater 
public acceptance once they are agreed upon. 
The development of long range disposal management plans is particularly critical 
for many of our coastal projects, as suitable inland disposal sites are becoming ex- 
ceedingly difficult to obtain, and, in some areas, are essentially non-existent. A 
number of the Corps coastal districts, including New York, Mobile, and Norfolk, and 
presently developing these long-range disposal plans for critical ports and harbors 
within their jurisdiction. 
DEEP-DRAFT NAVIGATION CONSIDERATIONS 
Considerable congressional interest has been expressed recently in the improve- 
ment of the U.S. deep-draft port facilities. I believe that this interest exists and is 
intensifying because these facilities must be adequate to accommodate both critical 
domestic and international requirements for coal-related and other energy products. 
Few improvements to the entrance channels of our Nation’s port facilities have 
been undertaken since World War II, and none of these has been on the scale of the 
deep-draft harbor improvements at Rotterdam, Gulf de Fos, and Zeebrugge. Conse- 
quently, the U.S. lags significantly behind the rest of the world’s major economic 
centers in port improvement and development. 
Navigation improvements to a number of our port facilities to depths from 50 to 
55 feet will involve the removal of large volumes of dredged material and, in turn, 
consideration of the associated disposal problems. As an example, we estimate that, 
for the four existing coals ports of Norfolk, Baltimore, Mobile, and New Orleans, 
planned channel deepening to accommodate deep-draft navigation would involve the 
dredging and disposal of over 460 million cubic yards of dredged material. Recent 
reports have identified other U.S ports as having a potential for serving increased 
steam coal exports. 
Because these materials would originate from new work dredging, we do not an- 
ticipate problems with contaminated sediments. However, the extremely large vol- 
umes of sediments involved would necessitate a careful consideration of all reason- 
able disposal alternatives, including innovative approaches to the disposal of 
dredged material. This is particularly critical, considering the growing shortage of 
traditional inland disposal alternatives for many of our coastal projects. 
It is our opinion, based on available scientific evidence, that the ocean may, in 
many cases, provide the best available alternatives for minimizing the environmen- 
tal impacts of disposing of these large volumes of dredged sediments. Our research, 
as well as information resulting from a number of independent studies of both do- 
mestic and international origin, have demonstrated that the ocean has a significant 
assimilative capacity for degradable compounds and dredged sediment, in contrast 
to inland disposal alternatives. This scientific information is well documented in a 
number of recent reports including one of the National Advisory Committee on 
Oceans and Atmosphere (NACOA) and the proceedings of symposia of the National 
Assembly of Engineering Symposium of June 1981. 
Results of the DMRP and other research have also demonstrated the feasibility of 
using certain types and quantities of dredged materials for such productive uses as 
creation and restoration of marshes and wetlands and for beach nourishment. How- 
ever, our experience to date with productive uses of dredged material, is that these 
disposal options are frequently limited. These limitations result from inappropriate 
types and quantities of material. This is due, in part, to logistic considerations and, 
in part, to existing regulatory requirements. As an example, dredging requirements 
do not always coincide with requirements for beach nourishment or other produc- 
tive uses of dredged material. Thus, stockpiling of appropriate quantities and types 
of dredged material, and possibly of multiple sites for rehandling at a later date, 
would be required to insure maximum utility of certain of these disposal options. 
These, and all other feasible disposal options, are routinely considered in the plan- 
ning process for our projects and are utilized to the maximum practical extent. 
However, adequate flexibility in dredged material disposal criteria and guidelines 
would not only increase the utility of these and other disposal options on our exist- 
