399 
line what this study showed was that properly managed dredge dis- 
posal does not have to be an environmentally harmful function. 
Mr. Breaux. | think that is clear. If you are dredging and dispos- 
ing of nontoxic dredge material you don’t have a problem. If, on 
the other hand, you are picking up dredge material that has toxins 
in it, you can create a large number of problems. 
Mr. Brinson. We have a written summary of those findings and 
our observations on them. We would be happy to provide them to 
the committee. 
Mr. Breaux. I would like to have the summary for my personal 
review and we can make it part of the record. 
[The information follows:] 
SYNTHESIS OF RESEARCH RESULTS—DREDGED MATERIAL RESEARCH PROGRAM, 
DECEMBER 1978 
At the beginning of this decade, the concern over the environmental impacts of 
dredging to maintain navigable waterways and harbors and the disposal of the 
dredged material reached the stage where Federal legislation was necessary. Howev- 
er, it was recognized that the technical base on which the initial legislation was 
based was inadequate—existing information was limited to site-specific studies that 
permitted only inferences that the open-water disposal of polluted dredged sedi- 
ments presumably must be harmful to the environment. It was in this context that 
the need for a comprehensive nationwide research program was recognized and au- 
thorized by Congress (Public Law 91-611). 
Responding to this need for more basic information on all types of dredged mate- 
rial disposal and possible alternatives to existing methods, the Corps of Engineers 
undertook the Dredged Material Research Program (DMRP) via the Waterways Ex- 
periment Station in Vicksburg, Mississippi. Initiated in 1973, the DMRP was accom- 
plished in the planned 5-year time frame at a cost of $32.8 million. Highly interdis- 
ciplinary in nature, it was a tightly managed, basically contracted (70 percent of 
total research funds), extensively coordinated effort involving more than 250 indi- 
vidual studies. These consisted of a planned and phased mixture of conceptual, labo- 
ratory, and field studies in association with routine Corps projects designed to un- 
derstand the processes and mechanisms involved in environmental impacts. To an 
extent not possible previously, this generic approach was intended to permit the de- 
velopment of much-needed methods for predicting effects before a project is carried 
out or a permit issued under regulatory functions. 
The DMRP was designed to be as broadly applicable as possible on a national 
basis with no major type of dredging activity or region or environmental setting ex- 
cluded. It thus resulted in methods of evaluating the physical, chemical, and biologi- 
cal impacts of a variety of disposal alternatives—in water, on land, or in wetland 
areas—and produced tested, viable, cost-effective methods and guidelines for reduc- 
ing the impacts of conventional disposal alternatives. At the same time, it demon- 
strated the viability and limits of feasibility of new disposal alternatives, including 
the productive use of dredged material as a natural resource. 
Before summarizing the more significant findings of the DMRP, it is important to 
note that extensive efforts were taken to ensure effective information dissemination 
and technology transfer. In addition to a wide variety of publications designed to 
meet the varying requirements of different audiences, the technical staff that man- 
aged the DMRP repeatedly briefed Corps and non-Corps personnel at all levels 
throughout the nation and participated in several interagency coordinating and 
planning committees. Of greater significance were the efforts to incorporate re- 
search results into Corps regulations and operating procedures and into the criteria 
and guidelines developed for regulatory programs. In the latter case, both the Sec- 
tion 103 (Public Law 92-532) and 404 (Public Law 92-500) programs for ocean and 
inland water protection have profited from results of the DMPR and will continue 
to do as efforts progress to prepare technical implementation manuals for both pro- 
grams. 
To those concerned with national or regional planning and policy formulation, 
there are two extremely important fundamental conclusions that can be drawn 
from the DMRP. The first is that. there is no single disposal alternative that pre- 
sumptively is suitable for a region or a group of projects. Correspondingly, there is 
no single disposal alternative that presumptively results in impacts of such nature 
