negative determination has as yet been filed with the Council
Occasionally the Corps does such a good job of material
on Environmental Quality.
placement that disposal sites are preempted. At Cabin Johns
Under the previously mentioned public notice provision,
Creek, on the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal, we used up
those in oppostion to a project not covered either by an EIS
approximately 1/3 of our disposal capacity at that uncon-
or negative determination have a basis for legal action. In
tested placement site back in 1969. When we returned this
emergency situations, however, waterway navigation and
year to reuse the site, we found that the pond created in the
dredging activities to sustain it must continue-meaning
upper basin had become a popular fishing place, was abun-
some dredging projects may have to go ahead immediately
dant with wildlife and enjoyed by many recreational visitors.
without either type of statement. Potentially controversial
So that site is now a valuable natural resource,environmen-
projects, however, have been identified and expedient EIS
tally unacceptable to use for further disposal placement.
action is being taken to preclude work stoppage by legal in-
junction.
n the legislative arena there have been several major laws
A
I enacted that impact on our maintenance effort, beginning
with the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958. Only 3
nother congressional directive engendered a constraint
of the laws enacted since then, however, primarily affect
of an entirely different nature, which also had an im-
dredging. These are the National Environmental Policy Act
pact on the dredging program. Two years ago, the House and
(NEPA) of 1969, Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution
Senate Appropriations Committees directed the Corps to
Control Act Amendments of 1972, and Section 103 of the
undertake a study and make recommendations back to them
on the proportionate number of dredging vessels required in
Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972.
The latter section is referred to separately as the Ocean
both the Federal and private sectors. During the conduct of
Dumping Act.
this study, a moratorium was placed on any additions,
Under NEPA, an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
modifications or replacements to the Corps-owned dredge
is required whenever a major Federal action significantly
fleet.
affects the quality of the human environment. On the date of
This moratorium came at a time when decisions were
NEPA's enactment the Corps had over 1,200 navigation
needed to update a dredge fleet that had been in operation an
maintenance projects, many of great scope and environmen-
average of 30 years and was getting continuously more ex-
tal complexity, and we had to consider initiating impact
pensive to operate and maintain without extensive modifica-
statements on them all. The administrative burden alone
tions or replacement. Private contractor-owned dredge
equipment was in much the same condition. In view of the
was rather staggering.
During the period the Corps was getting underway with
moratorium placed on the Federal sector, private contrac-
NEPA, Congress passed the Federal Water Pollution Con-
tors were unwilling to make large capital investments until
trol Act Amendments and the Ocean Dumping Act. While
Congress reached some decisions.
both acts designate the Corps as the permit issuing agency
While the Federal and private sector dredge-plant equip-
ment has been capable of handling normal maintenance re-
responsible for authorizing dredged material discharges,
they also give EPA substantial review responsibility and the
quirements, despite age and condition, emergency situations
ultimate decision making power in a contested action.
have played havoc with that capability.
The key factor in each act is the requirement to provide
Last spring, for example, because of flooding, high waters
notice and opportunity for public hearings. While this re-
and extremely heavy silting in the Mississippi River, the
quirement has existed for construction projects for many
entrance channel to the Port of New Orleans was reduced in
years, this is the first time it has been applicable to mainte-
depth from 40 to 34 feet. This required ships to sail in and
out with less than a full load, holding some 0 million in
nance work. Although primarily oriented toward permit
authorization for dredge disposal by commercial entities,
imports and exports out of the world commerce market. To
meet this crisis, the Corps had to shift both federally-owned
these provisions apply equally to Corps operations. While
and contractor plant equipment within the Gulf coast area
the Corps does not issue permits to itself, it does apply to it-
self (by regulation) the same criteria and procedures that are
and from the entire East Coast just to dredge the New
applied to other permit applicants. Of course, Corps actions
Orleans channel back to normal project depth. As a result of
are also subject to EPA review and potential denial of
this emergency requirement, a dredging backlog was created
in other ports and harbors.
selected sites.
While the administrative requirements are being met with
In addition to the inefficiencies of aging plant, and the
relative ease, the remaining problems involve 2 principal
higher costs of labor and materials, there are increased costs
associated with more expensive disposal methods-such as
matters: first, the overwhelming number of impact state-
ments that have had to be prepared; second, it now requires
long-haul ocean disposal-in trying to use equipment which
is not well adapted to those methods.
greater effort and time to provide impact statements suffi-
Dredging costs, like the costs of all goods and services,
ciently technical and legal to satisfy private organizations and
are steadily increasing. In 1967, the cost was less than 30
other Federal agencies.
cents a cubic yard for the removal and disposal of dredged
Not being able to prepare these impact statements on
material. By 1976, at the projected rate of increase indicated
short notice, we established a priority for ongoing projects.
by all economic factors, this cost will rise to almost 60 cents a
Even though NEPA did n o t require an EIS on projects under
construction prior to NEPA, the Corps made a conscious
cubic yard.
At our peak in maintenance dredging we removed and dis-
decision to include these in the belief that some change
posed of 300 million cubic yards of dredged material. Com-
might be needed in a given project which would be beneficial
to the environment.
pressed into one-yard cubes covering a mile square area, this
To date, over 1,600 environmental statements have been
amount would grow skyward at the rate of one football field
prepared. We now have impact statements prepared and filed
length each year. Spread out, it would give Delaware a new
on all new construction work. On certain dredging projects in
surface, a yard deep, every 20 years.
operation before NEPA, some of which have been underway
While our ability has been declining since that peak
for a century, we still have a substantial backlog. There are
period, the requirements have continued steadily upward
and at this point-in-time we should be at the 400 million
environmental assessments available, but no statement or
7
WATER SPECTRUM
Previous Page
