However, such projects have aroused contro- 

 versy concerning the possible harmful effects on 

 wildlife and pollution flushing rates. 



A massive project proposed by a Corps of 

 Engineers Study^ responding to Congressional 

 action envisioned a storm protection barrier 

 across the mouth of Narragansett Bay. The pro- 

 posed barrier was opposed by many interests on 

 the grounds that it would adversely affect recrea- 

 tion, water quality, and fishery resources in the 

 Bay. Responding to the many questions raised, the 

 Army reported against the project to Congress. 



Combined hurricane protection and beach sta- 

 bilization projects such as the Wrightsville Beach, 

 North Carolina, described in the preceding section 

 met with greater favor. The multiple benefits of 

 shore protection and recreation are more apparent. 



III. DREDGING AND FILLING 



Dredging and/or filling in coastal waters is the 

 means by which most shoreline and port develop- 

 ment is accomplished. It constitutes one of the 

 major controversial issues today and perhaps the 

 most severe problem of the future. 



Dredging can be defined as the removal of 

 submerged material from the water bottom and 

 can include the placement of such material as fill, 

 or the overboard dumping of dredged spoil into 

 adjacent waters of an estuary or lake. 



Dredging is carried on for a variety of reasons: 



—Creation and maintenance of navigable channels 

 and inlets for commercial and recreational use 



—Creation of useful property, marinas, and rec- 

 reational areas 



—Improved flushing action in bays and estuarine 

 creeks 



—Commercial mining of sand, gravel, and oyster 

 shell. 



Much debate arises out of lack of knowledge 

 about the consequences of dredging. The areas 

 needing clarification include: 



—Influence of dredging on fish and shellfish 

 ecology 



—Value of bottom rehabihtation by means of 

 dredging 



—Effect of dredging on salt water intrusion 



—Pollution control versus salinity control 



-Effect of dredging of inlets and their stabiliza- 

 tion 



—Disposition of dredging spoil. 



Presently the principal control over dredging 

 and filling operations is incident to obstruction to 

 navigable waters by the River and Harbor Act of 

 1899'° and control is administered by the Corps 

 of Engineers on a permit basis. 



'Act of June 15, 1955, Public Law 84-71, 69 Stat. 

 131, authorized a hurricane survey of the Narragansett 

 Bay area. The report is House Document No. 450, 89th 

 Congress, May 31, 1966. 



Figure 6. Dredging and filling of estuaries has 

 become a highly controversial issue. Estuaries 

 are necessary to the life cycles of many im- 

 portant fish species. (U.S. Bureau of Sport 

 Fisheries and Wildlife photo by John Clark) 



Because of the responsibilities inferred by the 

 Federal Water Pollution Control Act,' ' the Fish 

 and Wildlife Coordination Act'^ and the Execu- 

 tive Order on Federal Water Pollution Activity'^ 

 and the proposed legislative threat of a "dual 

 permit" system, the Secretary of Interior and 

 Army enacted a "Memorandum of Understanding" 

 on July 13, 1967 in which the Corps of Engineers 

 would consider the effects on fish and wildlife, 

 recreation, and pollution in the Corps of Engineers 

 navigation control projects and in the issuance 



'"Act of March 3, 1899, 30 Stat. 1151, 33 U.S.C. 

 401-418. 



"Act of July 17, 1952, as amended, 66 Stat. 755, 16 

 U.S.C. 466-466k. 



'^Act of March 10, 1934, as amended, 48 Stat. 401, 16 

 U.S.C. 661-666C. 



'^Executive Order 11288, July 2, 1966. This order 

 requires compliance, insofar as practicable, by Federal 

 departments and agencies with the Federal Water Pollu- 

 tion Control Act (33 U.S.C. 666h). 



III-36 



