148 
these and other innovative aquatic disposal measures for dredged material, as well 
to insure the judicious application of these aquatic options, should scientific re- 
search demonstrate their environmental acceptability. : 
The draft of proposed amendments also states that any ocean site with an interim 
designation on such date of enactment of the amendments, could not be further 
used until required site designation requirements, including characterization of ba- 
seline environmental conditions, are fully compiled with. To date, we have received 
final designation for five of the Corps approximately 1380 historically-used, and inter- 
im designated ocean sites. If the proposed amendments to discontinue use of interim 
ocean sites pending final designation are enacted by this Congress, we estimate that 
continued disposal at over 90 percent of the Corps ocean sites would be prohibited. 
In our judgment, this proposed action would create a significant economic hardship 
to coastal communities throughout the United States, and would, in turn, seriously 
disrupt our national economy. 
Finally, the draft of proposed amendments requires monitoring of all designated 
ocean disposal sites. Date collection of any kind within the open ocean is extremely 
expensive. The judicious use of field monitoring is certainly desirable, but, in the 
case of ocean dredged material disposal sites, only where this need is clearly indicat- 
ed and only for selected parameters for which research indicates potential environ- 
mental concern. In addition, it is not clear within the present language of the 
MPRSA, nor within the proposed amendments, as to a specific responsibility for 
monitoring ocean dredged material disposal sites. 
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY Mr. FoRSYTHE AND ANSWERED BY THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS 
Question. What funds were contributed by the Corps to EPA for the designation of 
ocean disposal sites for dredged materials in fiscal year 1981? 
Answer. $3.2 million. 
Question. What do you estimate will be the Corps’ contribution in fiscal year 1982 
and fiscal year 1983? 
Answer. Fiscal year 1982—$1.6 million. Fiscal year 1983—$1 million. 
These monies include additional field data requirements for nine navigation proj- 
ects and, at minimum, eleven interim designated ocean dredged material disposal 
sites. All required data collection efforts, as well as the preparation of site designa- 
tion EIS documents for eight of these projects, will be undertaken by the Corps’ dis- 
trict offices. 
Question. What percentage of the total cost of the program is represented by these 
funds from the Corps? 
Answer. Considering ship time costs which were contracted separately by EPA, 
the Corps’ contribution is approximately 50 percent of overall program costs to date. 
Question. Are processing fees charged for dredged material permits and, if so, 
wea peree nee of the cost of processing an individual permit is covered by this 
charge? 
Answer. Fees are charged for some ocean disposal permits. The fee is $100.00 for 
commercial applicants. No fees are charged to governmental entities, Federal, state 
or local. The Corps does not keep precise figures on processing costs for ocean dis- 
posal permits as generally only about thirty are issued each year, compared to ap- 
proximately 18,000 per year issued under Section 10 and Section 404 authorities. On 
average, the Corps spends about $2,000 to process a permit. Ocean disposal permits, 
because of the more exacting nature of information requirements and review, may 
cost two to three times this figure. 
Such an estimate may be somewhat misleading, however. Permit applications are 
reviewed by EPA as required by the Ocean Dumping Criteria. Additional review is 
provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries 
Service under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act. On some occasions additional 
review is provided by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Such 
review should legitimately be considered part of permit processing. The Corps has 
no figures on the costs of these reviews. 
Question. Have you considered collecting fees from the permittees to cover the 
costs of research and monitoring? 
Answer. Of all the dredged material which is disposed in the ocean, over 93 per- 
cent is from Corps dredging activities. The remaining 7 percent disposed in the 
ocean is regulated under permit from the Corps. The Corps issues, on an average, 
about 30 permits per year for commercial dumping, but those quantities are insig- 
nificant in comparison with Corps ocean disposal activities. Primarily for this 
reason, the Corps has not considered user fees to help defray research and monitor- 
ing costs. While there could be some monies collected from such a fee, we believe 
