149 
that the administrative bookkeeping burden on the Corps would be much greater 
than that collected. Also, the applicant for a permit for ocean disposal already bears 
substantial costs in terms of biological testing and other expenses associated with 
complying with the requirements of the permit application. 
Question. How many ocean dump sites have received final designation status for 
the disposal of dredged materials? 
Answer. Five of the 57 sites included in EPA’a national program. Each of these 
sites is located in the State of Hawaii. 
Question. How many sites are presently going through the designation process? 
Answer. The remaining 52 sites under EPA’s national program. In addition, site 
designation efforts are being undertaken by the Corps at Norfolk, Mobile, Galves- 
ton, Crescent City, CA, and Coos Bay, OR in conjunction with proposed deepening of 
these navigation projects. 
The Corps is presently placing its priority on completing site designation require- 
ments under EPA’s existing national program. Depending on availability of funds 
and other factors, the Corps will initiate action to designate the remaining interim 
designated sites (approximately 70) based on the results of the existing program and 
after EPA has promulgated its planned revisions to the ocean dumping criteria. 
Question. What percentage of your active sites are being monitored? 
Answer. The major disposal sites (e.g. sites used frequently) are routinely moni- 
tored to insure that sediment buildup does not interfere with navigation. Approxi- 
mately five percent of the sites were monitored in fiscal year 1981 for other effects 
such as uptake of selected chemical constituents by benthic organisms. Major moni- 
toring efforts include the New York Bight, selected sites within the New England 
Division, and sites at Coos Bay, Oregon. 
Our research indicates that, for the majority of our dredged material disposal 
sites, the impacts are strictly physical and short-term and are predictable without 
the requirement for monitoring. This is particularly true of the approximately 70 
ocean sites which presently have an indefinite interim designation. Most of these 
sites are used infrequently (8-5-10 year cycles) and are used for the disposal of clean 
sand which originates from longshore sediment transport. 
At present there is a gray area in the MPRSA as to which Federal agency is re- 
sponsible for monitoring dredged material disposal sites. NOAA is the lead Federal 
agency for monitoring overall effects of ocean disposal under the Act. Out of necessi- 
ty, NOAA’s priorities in funding ocean monitoring efforts must remain flexible. 
These priorities, at present, are in other areas besides dredged material disposal. 
The Corps will continue to monitor selected sites, in close consultation with 
NOAA and EPA. We intend to establish national monitoring guidelines based in 
part on the results of EPA’s ongoing national ocean site designation program and, 
in part, on results of our ongoing research which is evaluating the long-term effects. 
We anticipate that specific sites such as the New York Mud Dump will be moni- 
tored routinely for certain types of parameters as defined by ongoing programs. 
However, for most of our 130 ocean sites, a regional approach may be more appro- 
priate where selected representative project types would be monitored and results 
applied to other projects of that type within the region. 
Question. What do you anticipate will be needed to fund your research effort on 
the long-term effects of disposal operations? 
What have you requested in your fiscal year 1983 budget for these activities? 
Answer. We anticipate that this effort will require approximately $10,650,000. The 
program is scheduled to be complete in 1990. We have included $1,040,000 in the 
fiscal year 1983 budget request for our program on Long Term Effects of Dredging 
Operations. 
Question. Do you think new technology could reduce the problem related to the 
disposal of contaminated dredged materials in the oceans? 
Answer. Yes. As we stated in our testimony, scientific data clearly indicate that 
aquatic (including ocean) disposal of “contaminated” dredged materials may, in 
many cases, prove less harmful to human health than land-based disposal alterna- 
tives. This is due to the fact that, when the dredged sediments are taken from an 
aquatic environment of near neutral pH, low dissolved oxygen etc., to an upland 
confined site, the geochemistry of the material may be drastically altered. Through 
oxygenation, changed pH, temperature changes, etc., the geochemistry of contami- 
nants may be altered from a state in which they are tightly bound to the sediments 
to a new state in which they become readily available to biota and, ultimately, to 
humans. This availability can be through plant uptake, runoff from the confined 
areas back into receiving waters and introduction of available forms of contami- 
nants into groundwater supplies. A similar phenomenon occurs with garden soils, 
where fertilizers, lime, etc., are added to alter the geochemistry of the sediment so 
