Main report & environmental statement Baltimore Harbor and Channels, Maryland and Virginia

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

r7o 7r7
Final / August 1981

US Am PS Combined Phase I and 11
o f E n g i nyeCe Orsr
Baltimore District General Design Memorandum

SEW 9 x - X'.. SIR
.NIN
R
U mg, egm:
OR
RIN
Mon pod.
"I", A, IND
INA,
OS NEW
&Enwronmental I
'&atement
.W
5V
M

AA
Baltimore'
jag
Harbor and Channels,
Maryland and Virginia

-V 77
3

if
19
:pl@ UP,

"R_
Xz;
k'@
N,
cg'
3y
in
R, W,
IT
,A"41
i7.-
v

225
32
M35

Ilk-

ri 0'77

BALTIMORE HARBOR AND CHANNELS

MARYLAND. AND VIRGINIA

COMBINED PHASE I AND 11 GENERAL DESIGN MEMORANDUM

SYLLABUS

A plan of improvement to deepen the existing channels and approaches to Baltimore
Harbor to meet the existing and prospedive needs of navigation was authorized by the
Congress (1970 River and Harbor Act, P.L. 9 1-611) f or construction to an amount not to
exceed $40,000,000 for initiation and partial accomplishment following approval by the
Office of Management and Budget, the, Secretary of the Army and the President. The
Office of Management and Budget approved the project in March 1975 and the Secretary
of the Army and the President approved the project in June 1975.

This combined General Design Memorandum (GDM) presents a review of the economic,
engineering, and environmental feasibility of the authorized plan of improvement.

The project provides for the deepening to 50 feet of the main shipping channel to, the
.Port of Baltimore, from the Virginia Capes to Fort McHenry, with channel widths of
1,000 feet in the Virginia channels and 800 feet in the Maryland Channels; deepening of
the Curtis Bay Channel to 50 feet for a width of 600 feet; and deepening of the East and
West Channels of the northwest Branch to 49 feet and 40 feet, respectively, for a width
of 600 feet.

The investigations for the GDM have been coordinated with the responsible Federalp
state, and local agencies, and institutions. The project is strongly supported by the State
of Maryland.
The estimated total first cost for the recommended project is $301.5 million. The
benefit-cost, ratio for the overall project is 5.5 to 1.0.

L'n

US Department of Commerce
NOAA Coastal Services Center Library
2234 South Hobson Avenue
C harleston, SC 29405-2413
LL-

BALTIMORE HARBOR AND CHANNELS

MARYLAND AND VIRGINIA

COMBINED PHASE I AND II GENERAL DESIGN MEMORANDUM

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Pertinent Data Page

A Introduction A-1

B Purpose of Study B-1

C Project Authorization C-1
Prior Authorizations C-1
Authorizations C-5
Local Cooperation C-5

D Description ofthe Port D-1
Location. D-1
Tributary Area D-1
Port Facilities D-3

E@ Authorized Plan E-1
Description E-1
Present Condition E'-1

F Current Needs and Development Objectives ---F-71
Introduction F-1
Port Commerce F-1
Difficulties Attending Navigation F-5
Vessel Traffic F-5
Regional Impact F-10

G Alternatives G-1

H Investigations H-1
Project Document Investigations H-1
Investigations for the.General Design
Memorandum H-2

I Plan Formulation I-1
General I-1
Channel Depth I-1
Channel Width 1-3
Feasibility of One Way Channel 1-5
Disposal Areas 1-9

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

Section Pertinent Data Page

J Public Views and Responses
Public Participation J-1
Agency Coordination J-1
Pertinent Correspondence J-5
K Environmental Analysis K-1
Profile of Existing Conditions K-1
Conditions "Without the Project" K-28
Conditions "With the Project" K-19
Fate of Dredged Material in the Chesapeake Bay K-23

L Project Plan L-1
General L-1
Recommended Plan L-1
Dredged Material Disposal L-6
Economics of the Project Plan

M Schedule for Design and Construction M-1

N Operation and Maintenance N-1
Virginia Channels N-1
Maryland Channels N-1

0 Cost Estimate 0-1
Current Estimate of First Cost 0-1

P Benefits P-1
introduction P-1
Commerce Analysis and Projections P-1
Fleet Composition P-20
Transportation Cost Analysis P-47
Estimate of Benefits P-55

Q Cost Allocation and Apportionment Q-1
Allocation of Costs Among Purposes Q-1
Apportionment.of Costs Among Interests Q-1

R Local Cooperation R-1

S Real Estate Requirements S-1

T Departures for Project Document Recommendations T-1

U Public Law 92-500 U-1

V Recommendations V-1

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

Addendum I - An Overview of Dredged Material Management
in the Chesapeake Bay

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Addendum II Public Views and Comments

List of Appendices

Appendix A Hydrographic Surveys and Utility Crossing
and Relocations

Appendix B Foundation Exploration (Geophysicali

Appendix C Virginia Institute of Marine Science Report, 1972

Appendix D Virginia Institute of Marine Science Report, 1978

Appendix E Technical Correspondence

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

LIST OF TABLES

Number Ti tle Page

C-1 Prior Authorizations C-1
E-1 Status of Existing Project E-2
F-1 Baltimore Harbor Waterborne Commerce, 1967-1976 F-2
F-2 Baltimore Harbor Commerce, 1976 - by Commodity
Classification F-3
F-3 Baltimore Harbor Prospective Deep Draft Commerce F-4
F-4 Baltimore Harbor and Channels, Trips and Draft
of Vessels (Passengers and Dry Cargo) F-6
F-5 Baltimore Harbor and Channels, Trips and Draft
of Vessels (Tankers) F-7
F-6 'Baltimore Harbor Major Dry Bulk Movements, 1975
and 1976 (Number of Trips) F-8
F-7 Baltimore Harbor Typical Vessel Dimensions F-9
H-1 Prospective Deep Draft Commerce for Baltimore
Harbor H-3
Summary of Economic Justification H-4
H-3 Summary of Economic Studies H-5

1-2 Criteria for Determining Channel Widths for Two-
Way Deepwater Channels 1-5
1-3 Recomputed Channel Widths for the Baltimore Harbor
and Approach Channels 1-7
1-4. Disposal Areas Evaluation Summary 1-11
K-1 Comparison of Sport and Commercial Catch Within
Sport Fishing Survey Areas for 1976 K-13
K-2 Soft Clam Harvest and Benthic Species K-17
K-3 Tidal Current Velocity Characteristics K-25
L-1 Cost Comparison of Cape Henry Channel Dredged
Material Disposal Alternatives L-7
L-2 First Costs Section 150 - Wetland Creation Project L-10
L-3 Maryland Disposal Site Inventory L-14
L-4 Estimates of Annual Charges L-17
L-5 Average Annual Savings L-18
L-6 Average Annual Savings by Channel Segments L-19
L-7 Summary of Economic Justification L-20
N-1 Annual Maintenance Costs N-2
0-1 Dredging Quantities - Maryland and Virginia
Channels 0-2
0-2 Estimated Costs of Virginia Channels 0-5
o-3 Estimated Costs of Main Ship Channel 0-6
o-4 Estimated Costs of Branch Channels 0-7
0-5 Estimated Costs of Private Channels 0-9
o-6 Utility Relocationc.Costs 0-11
0-7 Summary of Estimated First Costs 0-13
o-8 Summary and Comparison of Estimated First Costs 0-14

'TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

LIST OF TABLES (continued)
Number Title Page

P-37 Baltimore Harbor Future Fleet Distribution -
Petroleum P-45
P-38 Baltimore Harbor Sugar Imports by Vessel Size,
1975 and 1976 P-46
P-39 Baltimore Harbor Future Fleet Distribution
Sugar P-47
Hourly Operating Costs, Foreign Flag Dry
Bulk Vessels P-48
P-41. Hourly Operating Costs, U.S. and Foreign
FlAg Tankers P-49
P-42 Round Trip Distances P-51
P-43 Unit Cost Calculation P-52
P-44 Unit Savings Computations, Iron Ore from
Tubarao, Brazil P-53
P-45 Summary of Transportation Cost Analysis P-54
P-46 Average Annual Savings by Commodity P-56
P-47 Average Annual Savings by Channel Segment P-57
P-48 Average Annual Savings, Iron Ore Diverted
from Philadelphia P-57
Q-1 Apportionment of First Costs Between Federil
and Non-Federal Q-2

LIST OF FIGURES

D-1 Regional Tributary Area D-2
E-1 General Plan E-4
E-2 Plan of Improvement - Cape Henry and York
Spit Channel E-5
E-3 Plan of Improvement - Rappahannock Shoal Channel E-6
E-4 Plan of Improvement - Maryland Channels E-7
E-5 Plari of Improvement - Northwest Branch E-8
I-1 Factors Affecting Channel Depth 1-2
1-2 Determination of Authorized Channel Widths (from
Project Document) 1-4
1-3 Locations of Single Lane Channels I-10
K-1 Salinity Zones K-5
K-2 Survey Areas and Sampling Points K-12
K-3 Natural Oyster Bars K-15
..K-4 Natural Oyster Bars K-16
K-5 Simplified Cross Sections of the Coastal Plains
Formations in the Baltimore Area K-297
K-6 Erosion-Deposition Criteria for Uniform
Particles
L-1 Norfolk and Dam Neck Disposal Area L-2
L-2 Disposal Sites - Cape Her@ry_and York:Spit Channel L-3
L-3 Disposal Sites - Rappahannock Shoal Channel L-4
L-4 Disposal Sites - Maryland Channels L-5
L-5 Major Federal Channels and Disposal Areas L-12
L-6 Proposed Disposal Sites - Baltimore Harbor L-13

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

LIST OF TABLES (continued)

Number Title Page

P-1 Baltimore Harbor Major Bulk Movements - 1978 P-2
P@2 Baltimore Harbor Bulk Commerce, 1969-1978 P-3
P-3 Baltimore Harbor Prospective Deep Draft Commerce P-4
P-4 Baltimore Harbor Iron Ore Imports (1975-76)' P-5
P-5 Projections of Iron Ore Imports P-7
P-6 Coal Exports, 1970-1979, United States and
Baltimore P-8
P-7 U.S. Exports of Bituminous Coal, P-8
P-8 Baltimore Coal Exports by Trade Area, 1970-1980 P-9
P-9 U.S. Coal Export Projections - WOCOL P-12
P-10 U.S. Share of Primary World Demand - Steam Coal P7-13
P-11 U.S. Steam Coal Exports (200.0), ICE vs. WOCOL P-13
P-12 Baltimore Harbor Metallurgical Coal Export
Projections P-16
P-13 Baltimore Harbor Coal Export Projections,, Steam
and Metallurgical P-16
P-14 Projections of Residual Oil Receipts - Exxon
Terminal, Northwest Branch P-17
P-15 Baltimore Harbor Sugar Projections, P-19
P-16 Projected Grain Exports by Destination P-19
P-17 Projected Grain Exports by Pier P-20
P-18 World Dry Bulk Carriers, 1958-1976 P-22
P-19 World Dry Bulk-Fleet Distribution, by Year of
Build P-23
P-20 World Dry Bulk Carrier Fleet, 1977 P-24
P-2.1 Dry Bulk Carriers on Order in World's Shipyards,
1977 P-25
P-22 World Tanker Fleet, Trends in Average Size P-27
P-23 World Tanker Fleet, 1977 P-28
P-24 United States Tanker Fleet', 1977 P-,29
P-25 Baltimore Harbor Iron Ore Imports, 1975-76 P-30
P-26 Baltimore Harbor Future Fleet Distribution -
Iron Ore Imports P-32
Baltimore Harbor Coal Exports, 1979-80 P-34
P-@-28 Baltimore Harbor Coal Exports Shipment
Characteristics, 1979-80 P-35
P-29 Baltimore Harbor Fleet Distribution, Coal to
South America P-36
P-30 Baltimore Harbor Fleet Distribution, Coal to
Europe P-37
P-31 Coal Exports to Japan, Panama Canal Vs. Africa P-37
P-32 Baltimore Harbor. Fleet Distribution, Coal to
Japan P-38
P-33 Baltimore Harbor Grain Exports, 1975-1976 by
Vessel Size P-39
P-34 Baltimore Harbor Grain Exports, 1975-1976 P-41
P-35 Baltimore Harbor Future Fleet Distribution
Grain Exports P-42
P-36 Baltimore Harbor Petroluem ITports, 1975 and 1976 P-44

vii

BALTIMORE HARBOR AND CHANNELS

MARYLAND AND VIRGINIA

COMBINED PHASE I AND H GENERAL DESIGN MEMORANDUM

PERTINENT DATA

Authorizing Act: Section 101, River and Harbor Act of 1970, Public Law 91-611

Project Document: House Document No. 94-181, 94th Congress, Ist Session
Description: Deepening to 50-feet of the main shipping channel to the port of
Baltimore, from the Virginia Capes to Fort McHenry, with
channel widths of 1,000 feet in the Virginia ch 'annels and 800 feet
in the Maryland channels; deepening of the Curtis Bay Channel to
50 feet for a width of 600 feet; and deepening of the East and
West Channels of the Northwest Branch to 49 feet and 40 feet,
respectively, for a width of 600 feet.

First Costs: Federal $232,850,000
Non-Federal $69,680,000
Total $301,53OoOOO

Annual Costs for Project
Modif ication: $ 28,281,000

Annual Benefits: Transportation savings in the deep-draft traffic of Iron Ore,
Coal, Sugar, Grain, and Petroleum amounting to:

$156,456,000

Economic
Justif ication: Benefit to cost ratio of 5.5 to 1.0

Project Functions: Navigation improvement

Physical Data:

Additional
Approximate Initial I/ Annual
Channel Length Width Depth Dredging Maintenance
(miles) (f t) (f t) (1,000 cy) -(1,000 cy)

Maryland Channels

Craighill Entrance
and Craighill
Channel 6.8 800-19700 50 109828 0

Craighill-Cutoff
Angle and Cutoff
Section 4.1 goo-itgoo 50 7,350 0

Cutoff -Brewerton
Angle and Brewerton
Section 4.6 800-1,700 50 7,757 0

Brewerton-Ft.
McHenry Angle
and Ft. McHenry
Section, 4.4 800-1@400 50 9,235 0

Curtis Bay Channel 2.3 600 50 3,080 0

Northwest Branch -
East Channel 1.0 600 49 lp673 0

Northwest Branch -
West Channel 1.1 600 40 i,285 0

SUB-TOTAL 24.3 .41,208 0

Virginia Channels

YoFk Spit Channel 18.2 19009 50 199470 184

Rappahannock S.hoal
Channel 8.9 1,000 50 8,603 0

Cape Henry Channel 2.7, 19000 50 2,515 230

SUB-TOTAL 29.8 30,588 414

TOTAL 54.1 71,796 414

I/ Includes 2-f oot allowable overdepth dredging.

SECTION A

BALTIMORE HARBOR AND CHANNELS

MARYLAND AND VIRGINIA

COMBINED PHASE I AND 11 GENERAL DESIGN MEMORANDUM

INTRODUCTION

1. The navigation improvements under study consist of widening and deepening the
existing Federal channels and approaches to the Port of Baltimore, excluding Chesapeake
and Delaware Canal approach channels. House Document No. 94-181, 94th Congress, lst
Session, Baltimore Harbor and Channels, Maryland and Virginia, is.the Project Document
for this study.

2. By approval of the Chief of Engineers, the Phase I and 11 portions of post-
authorization study have been combined into one General Design Memorandum. The
decision to combine Phase I and Phase II study was based on the following:

a. The 1970 project authorizat'ion provided for initiation and partial accomplishment
of the 50-foot project, thereby eliminating the need for a separate Phase I report to
Congress for construction authorization.

b. The project formulation and design is relatively simple since the channels have
been deepened and maintained previously to'42 feet and only need to be lengthened to
the 50-foot depth curves, deepened and widened where necessary.

c. Since the project does not involve extremely detailed plans, most of the
formulation that would be included in the Phase H report would be repeated from the
Phase I document.

3. Th@ environmental, economic, and engineering analyses conducted for this study are
contained within this report. The accompanying Environmental Impact Statement
provides a summary of all investigations and findings.

A-I

SECTION B

PURPOSE OF STUDY

L' Prior to initiation of the General Design Memorandum (GD M), the findings of the
most recent investigations of the project were contained in the.Review Report,
Baltimore Harbor and Channels, June 1969, which was subsequently supplemented by a
report entitled, Baltimore Harbor and Channels, Maryland and Virginia - Supplemental
Information Requested by the Office of Management and Budget to June 1969 Review
Report 19 July 1974. The purpose of these prior reports was to evaluate the need for,
and advisability of, deepening the existing channels and approaches to Baltimore Harbor
in order to meet the existing and prospective needs of navigation. These reports have
been printed as House Document No. 94-181.

2. The purpose of this study is to affirm the authorized plan of improvement; taking into
account environmental and technical considerations, economic feasibility, social impact,
public involvement; and refine the design, construction schedule, and operation /maintenance
plan for the authorized improvements.

SECTION C

PROJECT AUTHORIZATION

PRIOR AUTHORIZATION

1. Prior authorizations in the interest of navigation improvements for Baltimore Harbor
and Channel are listed in Table C-1 and thereby provide a brief history of Federal
improvements in Baltimore Harbor. Authorizations prior to 1917 are not listed.

TABLE C-1

PRIOR AUTHORIZATIONS

Acts Work Authorized Documents

Aug 8, 1917 Branch channel 35 f eet deep to head of Curtis H. Doc. 799,
Bay,,and one 35 feet deep and 400 feet wide 64th Cong.,
f rom Fort McHenry to Port Covington entrance Ist sess.
channel,thence '150 feet wide to Ferry Bar,
and thence 27 f eet deep and 150 f eet wide to
Hanover Street Bridge, widen approaches and
bends,.and enlarge anchorage basin near
entrance. Inclusion of Patapsco River and
tributaries into one project for Baltimore
Harbor.

Jan 21, 1927 Change in location of anchorage near upper
end of Fort McHenry Channel.

Jul 3, 1930 Increased anchorage facilities, Rivers and
Harbors Com-
mittee Doc. 11,
70th Cong.,
... Ist sess.

C-1

Table C- I Continued
Prior authorization

Acts Work Authorized Documents

Jul 3, 1930 For 37-f oot depth in that portion of H. Doc. 86
channel to Baltimore lying between 85th Cong.,
37-f oot depth curve near Baltimore Ist sess.
Light to Sparrows Point entrance
channel; widen angle between Fort
McHenry and Ferry Bar Section; and
f or width of 400 f eet in Curtis Bay
section.

Oct 17, 1940 For 22-, 18-, and 15-foot channels Adopte d as
in Curtis Creek f rom 22-f oot depth a national
below Pennington Ave. Bridge to defense pro-
upper end of marginal wharf of U.S. ject. (No
Ordinance Depot. printed report.)

Mar 2, 1945 Unif orm main. channel 39 f eet deep H. Doc. 741,
from the ocean through York Spit 79th Cong.,
section and Craighill Entrance to 2d sess.
Fort McHenry, additional anchorage
areas, 2,400 feet long, 1,200 f eet
wide, and 30 feet deep; a connecting
channel 400 f eet wide and 27 f eet deep
from Cutoff Brewerton Angle in main
channel to Inland Waterway f rom Dela-
ware River to Chesapeake Bay; a channel
in Curtis Creek 200 feet wide and 35
f eet deep f rom head of existing 35-
f oot project channel in Curtis Bay to a
point in creek about 750 feet below
Pennington Avenue Bridge.

Mar 2, 1945 A channel 22 feet deep and 200 feet -In accordance
wide f rom 22-f oot depth curve south with plans on
of Baltimore & Ohio R.R. bridge file in the
about 2,800 f eet to vicinity of Arundel Office, Chief
Cove, thence 100 feet wide in Arundel of Engineers.
Cove f or about 2, 10 0 f eet; with an
anchorage basin about 700 feet square
adjacent to channel southwesterly of
Coast Guard wharf.

Jul 3, 1958 Main channel 42 feet deep and 1,000 H. Doc. 86,
f eet wide in Cape He Inry section at 85th Cong.,
entrance to Chesapeake Bay and in Ist sess.
York Spit section, 42 feet deep and
800 feet wide in Rappahannock Shoal

C-2

Table C-1 Continued
Prior Authorization

Acts Work Authorized Documents

section and in approach channel to
Baltimore Harbor from Craighill Entrance to
Fort McHenry, with widening at entrance and
bends; channels 42 feet deep and 600 feet
wide in Curtis Bay and Ferry Bar sections
of harbor; a connecting channel 35 f eet
deep and 600 f eet wide f rorn main channel to.
approach channel to Chesapeake and Delaware
Canal, and f or three disjointed sections of
channels of same depth and width in Chesapeake
Bay leading to Chesapeake and Delaware Canal;
and to provide Federal maintenance of a 39-f oot
depth in Northwest Branch, in areas dredged to
that depth by local interests.

2. The project for Baltimore Harbor and Channels was adopted by the River and Harbor
Act approved 8 August 1917 and provided for additions to the project existing at that
time and for the inclusion of all Federal river and harbor works in the Patapsco River, its
tributaries, and approaches into one project. Adopted by the Act -of 1917, and modified
by the River and Harbor Acts approved 21 January 1927, 3 July 1930, 17 October 1940,
2 March 1945, and 3 July 1958. As of 3 July 1958, the project consisted of:

a. A uniform main channel 42 feet deep, between the Virginia Capes and Fort
McHenry at Baltimore, Maryland, with dimensions as follows;

(1) Cape Henry Channel 42 feet deep and 1,000 feet wide from the 42 foot
-depth curve in the Atlantic Ocean to that depth in Chesapeake Bay a distance of 1.0
miles.

(2) York Spit Channel: 42 feet deep and 1,000 feet wide connecting the 50-
f oot depth curves in Chesapeake Bay near York Spit, a distance of 10.4 miles.

3) Rappahannock Shoal Channel: 42, feet deep and 800 feet wide connecting
the 42-f oot depth curves in the Chesapeake Bay opposite the Rappahannock River, a
distance of 5.3 miles.

(4) Baltimore Harbor Approach Channels: 42 feet deep and generally 800 feet
wide, widened at the approach and bends, f rom the 42-f oot depth curve in Chesapeake
Bay opposite the mouth of the Magothy River to Fort McHenr y on the Patapsco River a
distance of 19.9 miles.

b. Branch channels with dimensions as follows:

(1) Connecting Channel to Chesapeake and Delaware Canal Approach
Channel 35 f eet deep, 600 f eet wide, and 13.0 miles long f rom the Cutof f -Brewerton
Angle in the main. channel to the 35-f oot depth curves in the natural channel on the east

C-3

side of Chesapeake Bay which is a part of the inland waterway from Delaware River to
Chesapeake Bay. The channel includes the Brewerton Extension, Swan Point, and
Tolchester Sections.

(2) Curtis Bay: 42 feet deep, 600 feet wide, and 2.3 miles long from the main
channel to and including a 900-f oot wide turning basin at the head of Curtis Bay.

(a) A channel, 35 f eet deep and 200 f eet wide, f rom the 42-f oot channel
in Curtis Bay to 750 f eet downstream of the Pennington Avenue Bridge.

(b) A channel, 22 f eet deep and generally 200 f eet wide, f rom the 35-f oot
channel to and along the marginal wharf of the Curtis Bay Ordinance Depot.

(d) A basin, 15 f eet deep and 450 f eet wide, f rom the end of the 22-f oot
channel to the end of the marginal wharf.
(e) A channel, 22 f eet deep and 200 f eet wide, f rom the 22-f oot channel
south of the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Bridge to the vicinity of Arundel Cove, a
distance of 2,800 f eet, thence 100 f eet wide in Arundel Cove f or a distance of 2, 100 f eet,
with an anchorage basin 700 feet square, adjacent to the channel and southwest of the
wharf of the Coast Guard Depot at Curtis Bay.

(4) Middle Branch:

(a) Ferr y Bar East ISection: A channel, 42 feet deep and 600 feet wide,
f rom the main channel at Fort Mcffe-nry to Ferry Bar, a distance of 1.4 miles.

(b) Ferry Bar West "Section: A channel, 35 feet deep and 400 feet wide,
f rom the Ferry Bar East Section to Ferry Bar, a distance of 0.8 miles.

(c) Spring Garden Section: A channel, 27 feet deep and 250 feet wide,
from Ferry Bar to and including a turning and anchorage basin immediately below the
Western Maryland Railway Bridge, a distance of 1.0 mile.

(5) Northwest Branch:

(a) East Channel: A channel 950 feet wide and 39 feet deep for a
distance of 1.0 mile.

(b) West Channel: A channel 650 feet wide and 35 feet deep, for a
distance of 1.1 miles.

c. Anchorages with dimensions as follows:

(1) Riverview Anchorage No. 1 35 feet deep, 4,500 feet long, and 1, 500 feet
wide.

(2) Riverview Anchorage No. 2 30 feet deep, 2,400 feet long, and 1,300 feet
wide.

C-4

(3) Fort McHenry Anchorage 35 feet deep, 3,500 feet long,and 400 feet
wide.

(4) Quarantine Anchorage 35 feet deep9 3,500 feet long, and 600 feet wide.

AUTHORIZATION

2. The present Baltimore Harbor and Channels project modification was authorized by
Section 10 1 of the River and Harbor Act, dated 31 December 1970, Public Law 91-611,
which states in part:

"The following works of improvement of rivers and harbors are
hereby adopted and authorized to be prosecuted by the Secretary of
the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, in accordance with
the,plans and subject to the conditions recommended by the Chief of
Engineers in the respective reports hereinafter designated."

"Baltimore Harbor and Channels, Maryland and Virginia: Chief of
Engineers report dated September 1970, except that not to exceed
$40,000,000 is authorized for initiation and partial accomplishment of
such project, and except that construction shall not be initiated until
approved by the Secretary of the Army and the President."

The modification consisted of deepening from 42 to 50 feet the Cape Henry Channel,
York Spit Channel, Rappahannock Shoal Channel, Baltimore Harbor Approach Channels
and the Curtis Bay Channel. Also, the Rappahannock Shoal Channel will be widened to
1,000 feet and the East and West channels of the Northwest Branch will be deepened to
49 feet and 40 feet respectively.

LOCAL COOPERATION

3. The Project Document stipulated that prior to construction of the modifications,
local interests must agree to:

a. Provide without cost to the United States all lands, easements, and rights-of-
way required for construction and subsequent maintenance of the project and for aids to
navigation upon the request of the Chief of Engineers, including suitable areas .'
determined by the Chief of Engineers to be required in the general public interest for
initial and subsequent disposal of dredged material and necessary retaining dikes,
bulkheads, and embankments therefor, or the costs of such retaining works;

b. Hold and save the United States free from damages that may result from the
construction and maintenance of the project;

C. Provide and maintain at local expense adequate public terminal and transfer
facilities open to all on equal terms, and depths in berthing areas and local access
channels serving terminals commensurate with the depth provided. in the related project
areas;

C- 5

d. Accomplish without cost to the United States such utility and other relocations
or alterations as necessary for project purposes;

e. Prohibit erection of any structure within 125 feet of the project channel or
turning basin; and

f. Establish regulations prohibiting discharge of pollutants into the waters of the
channels and harbor by users thereof, which regulations shall be in. accordance with
applicable laws and regulations of Federal, State, and local authorities responsible for
pollution prevention and control.

C-6

SECTION D

DESCRIPTION OF THE PORT

LOCATION

1. Baltimore Harbor is located on the Patapsco River and extends for a 10-mile reach.
upstream of the river's mouth. The Patapsco River originates near Westminister in
Carroll County, Maryland, and flows southeasterly for 65 miles to enter Chesapeake Bay
9 miles below Fort McHenry. The lower 15 miles of the river are tidal. Upstream from
the Hanover Street Bridge, the river is narrow and shallow and navigation is limited to
barges and small craft. Immediately downstream from the Hanover Street Bridge the
width of the river increases abruptly to about 1 mile. From this point to. the mouth, the
width increases gradually to about 4 miles. The river drains an area of 547 square miles.

2. The Port of Baltimore is 50 to 200 miles clo, ser inland to the'Midwest than any other
North Atlantic port. The Midwest, commonly known as the heartland of the United
States, accounts for almost one-half. of the nation's industrial market. With many
shipping expenses based on cost-per mile, Baltimore's geography gives it a distinct
attractiveness to cost-conscious shippers. In addition, Baltimore can be approached from
the sea by two distinct routes: f rom the south by the Virginia Capes and the Chesapeake
Bay (150 miles), or from the north via the toll-free, sea-level Chesapeake and Delaware
Canal (125 miles). The authorized plan and present condition of the southern route is
described in Section E. The Chesapeake and Delaware Canal provides an authorized
depth of 35 feet and width of 450 feet.

TRIBUTARY AREA

LOCAL TRIBUTARY AREA

3. Baltimore City encompasses an area of about 83 square miles of which 75 square
miles* are land and 8 square miles are water. The population of the city in 1970 was
905,759, a decrease of 3.5 percent from 1960. In 1970, the city was the seventh largest
in the nation; whereas in both 1950 and 1960 the city ranked sixth. The Baltimore
Metropolitan Area, as defined by the Bureau of Census, is comprised of Baltimore City
and Baltimore, Carroll, Harford, Howard, and Anne Arundel Counties. In 1970, it was the
eleventh largest Metropolitan Area in the nation, comprising an area of 2,259 square
miles and having a population of 2,070,670. Although the metropolitan area was ranked
twelfth in the nation in 1960, it did not consist of Harford County. The land area was
4,807 square miles and it contained 1,803,745 people.

D_ I

REGIONAL TRIBUTARY AREA

GENERAL
4. Because of low rail transportation rates-and excellent railroad facilities, the area t@at
can reasonably be considered tributary to Baltimore includes the states of Ohio, Indiana,
Illinois, Iowa, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Wisconsin, Michigan, and
Marylandi along with portions of New York, Kentucky, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Virginia,
West Virginia, and Missouri. This regional tributary area, which is shown in Figure D-1,
contains the large consuming centers of the Middle West and agricultural, commercial,
and industrial activities of an important and widely diversified character. As mentioned
earlier, Baltimore is 50 to 200 miles closer to the Midwest than other North Atlantic
ports.

FIGURE D-1

REGIONAL TRIBUTARY AREA

CH CAG NEW YORK
LTIMORE

D-2

TRANSPORTATION NETWORK SERVING THE PORT

5. The Baltimore region is linked by a modern highway system extending to most of the
United States. Served by 160 registered interstate motor carriers offering every type of
trucking service, Baltimore can provide overnight motor freight delivery to 37.2 percent
of the United States industrial market and 31.4 percent of the United States populatiom
The port's physical layout and road locations permit cargo to be routed quickly to and
from piers. Carriers utilize the six-lane Baltimore'Beltway system, which completely
encircles the city, and the dual-tubed Baltimore Harbor Tunnel. Recently completed is
the Francis Scott Key Bridge, a four-lane bridge serving as a second harbor crossing. The
Beltway, the Harbor Tunnel, and new bridge connect -with Interstate 95 North and South
70 West, and 83 North, linking with the Pennsylvania Turnpike, Ohio Turnpike, New ,
Jersey Turnpike, and Route 40 East and West. A new 8-lane tunnel is being constructed
under the Northwest Branch Channel which will complete the 1-95 link in the state.

6. The Port of Baltimore is served by three major -trunk line railroads: the Chessie
System (Chesapeake and Ohio/Baltimore and Ohio), Consolidated Railroad Corporation
(ConRail), and the Western Maryland Railway. The three railroads provide service to and
from the port to the North, South, and Midwest, with first day rail delivery to 43.7
percent of the United States industrial market and 36.6 percent of the population.

PORT FACILITIES

7. Baltimore is the second largest container handling port on the United States Atlantic
and Gulf Coasts, after New York. Its, specialized and bulk, cargo handling facilities have
become among the most modern in the world, and in'recent years, the port's marine
terminals have handled more than 38 million tons of foreign cargo in a single year. The
port's overall annual commerc@, both foreign and domestic, has averaged nearly 50
million tons during the past decade.

8. Baltimore Harbor comprises roughly 45 miles of waterfront area surrounding nearly
1,600 acres of sheltered waters and anchorages. - The more than 100 covered and open
piers makes berthing readily and easily accessible at all times and allows 5 million cubic
feet of cold storage area. Additionally, there is ground storage' available equivalent to
53,700 railroad cars of cargo. Ore unloading Qmport) and coal loading (export) at the
port's three facilities total 7,00.0 tons per hour and 14,500 tons an hour, respectively.
The port's three grain elevators have a combined storage capacity of nearly 13 million
bushels, which they can load at the rate of 170,000 bushels every hour.

D-3

SECTION E

AUTHORIZED PLAN

DESCRIPTION

1. The authorized modification for Baltimore Harbor and Channels, as shown in Figures
E-1 through E-5, provides for:
a. Deepening the Cape Henry Channel from 42 feet to 50 feet and extension to 50-
f oot depth curves.

b. Deepening the York Spit Channel from 42 feet to`@'50 feet and extension to 50-
f oot depth curves.

C. Deepening the Rappahannock Shoal Channel from 42 f eet.to 50 feet, widening
f rom 800 f eet to 1,000 f eet, and extension to 50-f oot depth curves.

d. Deepening the Main Ship Channel from 42 feet to 50 feet and extension to 50-
f oot depth curve.

e. Deepening the Curtis Bay Channel from 42 feet to 50 feet.

f. Deepening the Northwest Branch - East Channel to 49 feet deep and widening to
600 f eet, with a turning basin at the head of the channel f rom that- depth existing at the
time of construction.

9. Deepening the Northwest Branch - West C hannel to 40 feet deep and widening to
600 f eet, with a turning basin at the head of the channel f rom that depth existing at the
time of construction.

PRESENT CONDITION

2. To determine dredging quantities, condition surveys .were made in 1977 of the
Maryland and Virginia Channels by the Baltimore and Norfolk Districts, respectively.
Those surveys and other more recent af ter dredging surveys were used to update the
project status of the project and are reflected in Table E-1.

E-I

TABLE,E-1

STATUS OF EXISTING PROJECT

Depth
(f eet) Width 11 Year
Channel Inbound Outbound Authorized (feet) --": Ascertained

Cape Henry r@hannel 43.9 42.0 50.0 11000 1977
York Spit Channel 42.0 42.3 50.0 11000 1977
Rappahannock Shoal Channel 44.7 43.6 50.0 800 2/ 1977
Craighill Entrance 41.6 39.7 50.0 1,7T-5 1980
Craighill Section 40.1 40.5 50.0 800 1980
Craighill-Cutoff Angle 40.7 42.0 50.0 1,950 1981
Cutoff Section 42.5 42.9 50.0 Boo 1980
(7utoff-Brewerton Angle 36.1 42.0 50.0 1,750 1981
Brewerton Section 38.8 39.1 50.0 800, 1980
Brewerton-Fort McHenry Angle 37.8 36.2 50.0 19445 1980
Fort McHenry Section 39.3 39.6 50.0 800 1980
Northwest Branch (Inner Harbor):
East Side Channel 33.3 36.9 49.0 950 3/ 1980
West Side Channel 34.4 34.9 40.0 650 T/ 1980
Turning Basin 23.0 25.0 40.0 950-1,200 1980
Curtis Bay 36.2 36.3 50.0 600 1981
Ferry Bar (Fast Section) 37.0 38.2 42.0 600 1979
Ferrv Bar (West Section) 19.0 19.0 35.0 170 1960
Spring Garden (Ferry Bar
to Hanover Street Bridge) 22.0 22.0 27.0 180 1960
Spring Garden (to Old
Southwest Baltimore Channel) 9.5 - 250 1938
Approach Channels to the
Inland Waterway from
Delaware River to
Chesapeake Bay
@7onnecting Channel 26.4 28.1 35.0 400 V 1980
Swan Point (7hannel 35.0 35.0 35.0 600 1981
Tolchester Channel 35.0 35.0 35.0 600 1981
Port McHenry Anchorage 31.7 30.3 35.0 400 1980
Riverview Anchorage No. 1 31.0 32.9 35.0 1,500 1980
Riverview Anchorage No. 2 27.1 31.3 30.0 1@200 1990
(7urtis Creek:
Main r@hannel 26.0 26.0 35.0 200 1966
Approach Channel to
Ordinance Depot 18.8 19.2 22.0 200 1964

E-2

TABLE E-I (continued)

Depth
Q eet) Width I/ Year
Channel Inbound. Outbound Authorized (feet) - Ascertained

Southerly Anchorage Area 15.5 15.0 450 1941
Easterly Anchorage Area 18.2 18.0 320 1941
Ch@nnel to Arundel Cove 18.2 21.2 22.0 200 1966
Channel in Arundel Cove 16.1 21.5 22.0 100 1966
.Anchorage Basin in front
of Coast Guard Depot 20.0 22.0 700 1966

I/ All channel widths to remain the same unless otherwise noted.
Authorized widening to 1,000 feet.
Authorized depths f or 600 f oot width only.
Authorized to a width of 600 feet.

E-3

OF ENSINEEM
NO M' U I ARMY
w

HAVRE OE GRACE

8 HE 46

ANNA S
Wmamm

1,4

CAPE

MOP
t

4to At A

A,
00A

RICHMONO

LEGFND:

CKANNELSBEP19JRECOMMENDED
A FOR IMPROVEMENT
Q%9=9ANNELS

-m _,RRP%A 9,NT or TK9 ARMY
.......... ...

BALTIMORE HARBOR AND CHANNELS
MARYLAND AND VIRGINIA
F7777

GENERAL PLAN
0

I Iw 71-W 10. w
t-4 Figure E-1

MobAck Bay 4/ 40'
40.

Now PcMt Comb"

It Cape Charles

Vol F'shwmen',

Hampton

Newport
News

Cape
Henry 50,
40

Norfolk CHANNELS BEING RECOMMENDED
= FORIMPROVEMENT
Portsmouth OTHER FEDERAL CHANNELS
'@fNew
3SY

"Lilt

E-5 Figure E-2

Great Fox Is.
Little Wicomic River z
0
4 Goose I Little Fox Is.
50 50' 40'
It
Tangier
Island

Watts Island

@4,
I k 40@

40,

Bluff Pt.

Windmill Pt. 0

Ra
'O'Oahannock I I

Piankatank River

50'

M
50'

_Zb

CHANNELS BEING RECOMMENDED
FOR IMPROVEMENT

40'

Mobjack
Beiy 410, t

E-6 Figure E-3

IL I ANK

lob

Z71

AT"

ANOU
ww
r

Pmr
jecriow

W-

Wl-

tj'
v

LEGEND:

FOR IMI ROV'.MW

OTHER FEDERAL CMANNELS
0,4
'011 PFWVATE CKAWMA

BALTIMORE HARM AND CNIVIIIIIIIIELS
MARYLAN 0 AND VIROW
II

PLAN dF IMPROVEMIXT
IMAYLAND C14AMISELS

E-7 Figure E-4

..... . (LY L--
I Lij np OOLULULULULI
uu [UUU 00
u 10 DOM[ELUUU IELI
F 1 1 Eu JEEBEK
-1k M--
11DOO
1E FELLS PT
41
S T

us
Duo Li
13

Fn1
Ilona
M
0 DUULLILI DUU1
0
I;:" o
Y

zm. x Ag
zAo p
m
r z

FO
"
NY
MEN

am, act

FEMY UR

x Oat
CD '2

r
F

SECTION F

CURRENT NEED AND DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES

INTRODUCTION

1. The rapid growth of international bulk trade during the past two decades and the
concurrent expansion of the world bulk fleet, both in terms of number of vessels and
their size, have led to a considerable expansion and improvement of port facilities
worldwide. Most of this development has been directed towards providing deep water
and cargo handling facilities to accommodate large bulk carriers safely and efficiently,
such vessels offering the most efficient means of transporting large volumes of
commodities. Over seventy 100,000 + deadweight ton (DWT) terminals were scheduled to
become operational before 1980. With current depth restrictions at Baltimore Harbor,
the larger bulk carriers calling on the port in increasing numbers every year cannot load
to their capacity, making water transportation of Baltimore Harbor relatively
inefficient. As Baltimore Harbor is primarily a bulk cargo port, economical water
transportation afforded by deep shipping channels is paramount in keeping Baltimore
active and competitive with other United States and World ports.

PORT COMMERCE

EXISTING COMMERCE

2. Baltimore Harbor has historically ranked as one of the leading ports in the Nation and
the World both in terms of tonnage and dollar value. Baltimore conducts trade with
about 300 different ports located in 125 countries. In 1978, Baltimore's overall
commerce total of 46,809,090 tons ranked in the top ten in the United States. Baltimore
is primarily a foreign trade port. Imports and exports in 1978 totalled 31,846,630 tons,
equal to 68 percent of the total port tonnage moved and represented 3.7 and 13.9
percent, respectively, of total United States and North Atlantic foreign trade. This
foreign trade volume ranked Baltimore sixth in the United States in tonnage and third in
cargo value. Baltimore's import volume of 17,507,549 tons ranked seventh in the Nation;
exports totalling 14,399,081 ranked fifth. Table F-1 presents a comparison of foreign and
domestic commerce over the last decade.

F-1

Table F- I

BALTIMORE HARBOR WATERBORNE COMMERCE
1969-1978 (thousands short tons)

Total
Imports Exports Foreign Domestic Total

1969 19,363 5,940 25,303 18,614 43,917
1970 20,480 9,375 29,855 21,229 51,084
1971 18,282 6,475 24,757 19,246 -44,003
1972 18,443 8,177 26,620 19,179 45,799
1973 219022 10,322 31,344 22,443 53,787
1974 25,231 12,876 38,107 21,784 599891
1975 209657 13,859 34,516 18,145 52,661
1976 18,035 14,945 32,980 19,457 53,437
1977 14,101 141040 28,141 16,615 449756
1978 17,508 14,339 31,847 14,962 469809

Source: Waterborne Commerce of the United States.

3. Bulk cargo continues to f orm the mainstay of Baltimore's cargo business, increasing
by more than 200 percent since 1945. In 1978, bulk cargo accounted for 82 percent of
the overall commerce and 82 percent of the port's foreign commerce. The commerce in
1978 by classes of commodities is shown in Table F-2. As can be seen, ores, coal, and
petroleum products are the major bulk classes with manufactured products leading in the
general cargo category. More detailed information on bulk cargo is presented in Section
P, "Benefits".

PROSPECTIVE COMMERCE

4. Detailed investigations have been made of the prospective commerce at the Port of
Baltimore for those commodities which move in deep-draf t vessels and are likely to
benefit in transportation savings from further deepening of the shipping channels.
Existing tonnage figures have been projected to year 1986, the first year the project is
estimated to become fully operational, and then over the 50-year project economic life.
The results of these investigations are shown in Table F-3 and discussed briefly below f or
each commodity. Detailed discussions and considerations in making those projections are
presented in Section P, "Benefits".

F-2

TABLE F-2

BALTIMORE HARBOR COMMERCE, 1978 - BY COMMODITY CLASSIFICATION
(Short Tons)

FOREIGN COASTWISE INTERNAL
TOTAL IMPORTS EXPORTS RECEIPTS SHIPMENTS RECEIPTS SHIPMENTS LOCAL

BULK

Ores 8,078,238 7,908,746 143,682 - 15 5,017 20,778 -
Coal 8,569,305 80 5,887,337 437 23 968,935 345,027 1,367,466
Petroleum & Products 13,733,719 4,366,074 52,974 3,692,935 41,207 1,915,107 885,037 2,780,385
Grains 5,785,487 2,673 5,685,800 2,648 91,866 2,500 -
Sugar 500,120 472,591 147 25,991 1,391
Other Bulk 1,682,584 1,535,808 22,906 44,838 3,311 .39,002 33,454 3,265
Total Bulk 38,349,453 19,285,972 11,792,846 3,766,849 137,813 2,930,561 1,284,296 4,151,116

GENERAL CARGO

Farm & Farm Products 1,340,740 519,386 469,069 76,256 158,808 116,884 337
Non-Metallic
Minerals 312,652 243,412 21,409 46,490 1,341 - -
Textiles 73,770 40,166 23,216 4,757 3,411 116 2,104
Forest Products 815,505 509,717 256,830 4,268 39,888 3,236 1,566
Chemicals 1,126,926 182,278 307,631 100,610 100,749 190,019 71,432 174,207
Manuf actured
Products 3,668,942 1,674,846 1,331,424 367,905 194,711 13,966 193,244 307
Miscellaneous I'121' 102 51,772 136,656 17,805 206,276 260,665 276,053 64,414
Total General Cargo 8,459,637 3,221,577 2,546,235 618,091 705,184 584,886 544,736 238,928

TOTAL 46,%09,090 17,507,549 14,339,0%1 4,3%4,940 B42,997 3,515,447 1,%29,032 4,390,044

Source: Waterborne Commerce of the United States

TABLE F-3

BALTIMORE HARBOR
PROSPECTIVE DEEP DRAFT COMMERCE
(1,000 short tons)

Commodity Movement I/ Existin&.Z/ 1986 2000 2036

Iron Ore 1 11,903 9,200 9,200 99200
Residual Fuel 3/ 1 1,640 1,830 2,050 850.
Coal E 6,424 38,000 54,800 54,800
Grain E 4,870 5,470 6,420 91760
Sugar 1 616 650 700 780

TOTAL 25,453 55,150 73,170 759390

I/ I=Import; E=Export
1/ 1974-1976 Average
51 Northwest Branch - East Channel only

IRON ORE

5. Iron ore imports into Baltimore.for local consumption and for transshipment inland is
projected to decline from the 1976 volume of 10.3 million tons to 9.2 million tons in the
base year, 1986. Thereafter, volumes will remain constant. If, however, Baltimore
Harbor were deepened to 50 feet, the transportation savings realized may cause an
estimated 2 million tons of iron ore to be diverted from Philadelphia to Baltimore for
transshipment inland.
RESIDUAL FUEL is
6. Whereas significant volumes of petroleum are received at numerous terminals
throughout the harbor, only residual fuel oil receipts at the terminal in the Northwest
Branch will likely be transported in deep draft vessels requiring a depth greater than 42
feet. Therefore, only these receipts are projected. Volumes received at this terminal
are expected to increase from approximately 1.38 million tons in 1976 to 2.05 million
tons in the year 2000 and declining thereafter to an estimated 850,000 tons in 2036.

COAL

7.'Coal exports from Baltimore Harbor are projected to grow from 6.5 million tons in
1976 to 38 million tons in 1986, the base year, and to 54.8 million tons in year 2000. For
the remainder of the project life, no growth in exports is projected because of major
uncertainties in the world and United States energy situation and steel making demand.
The dramatic increases projected are as a result primarily of recent and anticipated
future conversions by European utilities from oil to coal as the fuel in their electricity
generating plants.

F-4

GRAIN

Projections of grain exports from Baltimore are based on projected increases in
population and per capita income throughout the world. Export totals are. projected to,
Increase from about.5 million to 9.76 million tons by year 2036, an indicated annual
.growth rate of 1. 15 percent.

SUGAR

9. Raw sugar,receipts at Baltimore are related to population in the market areaf or the
refined.sugar. Based on population projections f or the market areaq total receipts are.
projected to increase from 600,000 tons in 1976 to 780,000 tons in 2036, an overall
.-growth.of 30'percent or an average of about 0.5 percent annually.

DIFFICULTIES ATTENDING NAVIGATION

10. The water. depths in the ship channels in and leading to Baltimore Harbor are
presently inadequate to accommodate the existing and future large bulk cargo carriers in
the world fleet. Even now a significant number of vessels in Baltimore Harbor's major
bulk trades cannot load to capacity due to the 42-f oot water depth restrictiops@ This
situation is likely to worsen in the future as. volumes of commerce at -Baltimore and. ship.
sizes in the- world fleet increase. 'Pr'e'sently, 50,000 deadweight tons.is:the approximate
maximum ship sizeable to fully load onthe 42-f oot channels.: This size ship corresponds
to a f tilly loaded draf t of 40 f eet saltwater.. Whereas 5 f eet, is the minimum
recommended keel clearance f or saf ety,, many vessel. operators regularly leave only two
feet under the keel in order to load more f ull - The problem of inadequate channel-
Y.
depths at Baltimore is compounded by the fact that Baltimore Harbor is mainly
f reshwater, which is less buoyant than seawater.. As a result a vessel drawing 40 f pet in
the ocean or lower bay would draw approximately. 41 f eet, a,Aaltimore. As the mean
range of tide at Baltimore is only' I f oot, there is little to be. gained by waiting f or@ and
navigating on high tide.:,

VESSEL TRAFFIC

EXISTING TRAFFIC

11. The foreign commerce of Baltimore Harbor, a mix of bulk,: general, and'specialized.
cargoes, is transported by an average of more than 4,000 ships annually, Or about 1.1a
day. Tables F-4.and F-5, respectively, show dry cargo and-tanker trips by draf t at
Baltimore f or the past decade. .Whereas the number of trips has remained fairly
constant, the increasing commerce is being transported in vessels of deeper draf t.
Vessels in the ore, coal, petroleum, and grain trades cornprise the majority of the vessels,
with drafts greater than 30 feet. In addition, general cargo vessels.may have drafts up to'
p
35 f eet... As can be noted f rorn the table, the number of vessels drawing 37 f eet and
greater has been increasing steadily. Considering that Baltimore Harbor presently@ has a
design. depth of 42 f eet, more and more vessels are exceeding the recommended saf ety
limits of the channel.

F-5

TABLE F-4
BALTIMORE HARBOR AND CHANNELS
TRIPS AND DRAFTS OF VESSELS I/
(Passenger and Dry Cargo),

ACTUAL
DRAFT 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1979
(feet)

42+ 2 2 1

41 1 4 4 17 4 1 2 1

40 47 76 81 103 101, .119 106 122 64 87

39 73 69 25 33 44 55 64 25 24 54

39 39 28 25 13 25 43 36 39 37 20

37 32 29 35 22 27 28 35 61 37 29
01
36 16 38 32 32 35 40 51 72 78 81

35 46 50 .61 32 46 94 50 75 66 65

34 52 44 48 39 75 .86 51 63 62 69

33 44 84 45 75 111 143 75 77 87 88

32 67 88 100 109 146 221 115 151 149 155

31 63 119 123 151 220 249 117 150 135 152

30 & 11,369 14,361 11,016 13,004 12,895 14,083 14,413 11,840 13,562 8,206
less

TOTAL 11,848 14,986 11,592 13,617 13,731 15,180 15,118 12,676 14,303 9,007

I/ Includes both inbound and outbound traffic; self-propelled vessels only.

TABLE F-5
BALTIMORE HARBOR AND CHANNELS
TRIPS AND DRAFTS OF VESSELS I/
(Tankers)

ACTUAI_
DRAFT 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1�78
(f eet)

42 2

41 2 1 2 1 1 2

40 3 .2 4 4 16 17 8 20 19

39 3 18 16 37 48- 47 31 37 27 24

39 10 .33 22 22 25 28 is 35 31 26

37 18 29 33 35 44 18 22 28 18 28

36 20 28 23 24 18 16 19 13 23 38

35 24 27 33 19- 15 12 12 15 23 29

34 39 44 38 32 38 29 16 16 30

33 29 .26 26 30 46 39 13 23 38 21

32 65 59 59 42 43 51 34 17 20 17

31 52 45 29 41. 35 28 43 36 19 12

30 & 1,589 1,981 1,784 1,568 1,482 1,613 .1,162 1,525 1,789 1,783
less

TOTAL 1,852 2,292 2,063 1,856, Ij799- 1,901- 1,398 1,764 2,038 2,029

I/ Includes both inbound and outbound traffic; self-propelled vessels only.

12. The. largest vessel calling at Baltimore -Harbor in 1975-76 -was a 160,000 deadweight'
ton combined ore/oil carrier, the "M.S. Yemanja.11 However, as Table F-6 shows, only 36
of the 1,136@vessel trips in the major dry bulk trades were larger than 80,000 DWT.
Nearly half of the vessel trips in the three major dry'bulk trades were greater than
50,000 DWT, requirin
g some light-loading to navigate the 42 foot channels. Table F-7
presents iypical,dimensi ons of the range of dry and liquid bulk.vessels expected to use
the port.,

TABLE F-6
BALTIMORE HARBOR
MAJOR DRY BULK MOVEMENTS
1975 & 1976
(number of trips)

DWT. Iron Ore Coal Grain
(0001s) Imports , Exports Exports Total

Under 30 37 @216 312
30 @ 40 27 56, 87 140
40 - 50 69, .137
29 .39
50-60 165 82 24 271
60-70 63 71 11 5-
70-80 54 93
5
80-90, .5 5 6 16
90- 100 0 1 2
5
100- 150 b 4 .15
150+ 3 0. .0 3

TOTALS 412 36-1 Iv136

PROSPECTIVE TRAFFIC

13. Because of the transportation. ef f iciencies associated with using the larger, deep
draf t specialized vessels, it is expected that. more and more. of. theselarger *ships will
enter Baltimore Harbor in future years, Port interests'have indicated that if the
Baltimore Harbor and channels were de--pened to 50 feet, this trend towards larger
vessels will be accentuated. By analyzing data on the.existing bulk carrier and tanker
fleet composition, and data supplied by local shippers, projections were made as to the
composition of the future dry bulk and liquid bulk fleet at Baltimore. The f uture fleet' is
expected to range'f rom less than 20 '000 DWT to over 150,000 DWT in the three major
hip sizes in the petroleum trades will range up
dry bulk'trades: iron ore, coal, and grain.. Si
to 90,000 DWT. More detailed discussions of existing and prospective fleets is 'presented
in Section P, "Benefits,".

F-8

TABLE, F-7
BALTIMORE HARBOR
TYPICAL VESSEL DIMENSIONS

maximum
Beam (ft.) Draft (f Q Speed (knots)
DWT Length (ft.)

DRY B U L K

15,000. 521 69 MO
:259000 582.
79. 331011 14.8:
359000 '651 87 361011 M 1
50tOOO.. 693 98. 401011 15.2
60,000 104- 115
809000 793 461,011 15.5
1009000 ..850 124 @49f0ll. 15.5
120p000 901'@ 133 .521011 15.5
1509000 970 571011 1.5.5

T A.NX E R S

209000 557 72 3111011, 16.5
250000 587 321611 16.5
37POOO .660 90. 361011 .16.5
509.000 102 .391611 .16.5
6%000 .@75, 106 401611 16! 25
.800 116 421011 .'16.25
709QOO
:'zogooo 811 .122 .43'6" 16.25
9OpOOO 122 16.0

F-9

REGIONAL IMPACT

14. There has evolved much concern fro m local shipping interests over the depth
inadequacies of the Baltimore Harbor and the approach channels and the resultant
inability to accommodate the larger, more efficient vessels in the world fleet. It is
feared that Baltimore Harbor's increasing transportation inefficiencies will eventually
result in the loss of commerce to other United States and world ports. Of primary
importance is the effect of a deeper shipping channel in keeping Bethlehem Steel
products competitive in U.S. and world markets as well as keeping United States mined
@coal competitive in the export market. Because all major industries in the Baltimore
area are either partially or completely dependent upon the port, loss of shipping, business
would have significant adverse effects on the local economic base in the form of loss of
jobs, income, and tax revenues from these firms. Similar effects would occur for
shipping-related businesses such as steamship agents, freight forwarders, stevedores,
brokerage firms, railroads, and trucking services. A study by the University of Maryland
concluded that the port of Baltimore is Maryland's single most important economic asset,
having a total annual impact of more than $2.5 billion, about 10 percent of the Gross
State Product. It was determined that the port is directly responsible for nearly 170,000
jobs and $317 million in state and local taxes. Even with the recent and planned
expansions and upgrading of shipping facilities and industries around the port, it is felt by
many that the Port of Baltimore will suffer substantially from commerce loss if the
proposed project is not accomplished.

F-10

SECTION G

ALTERNATIVES

1. The Project Document investigations dealt with the feasibility of various channel
depths and widths, and recommended the following channel dimensions.

a. Cape Henry Channel - 50 foot depth; 1,000 feet wide.

b. York Spit Channel - 50 foot depth; 1,000 feet wide.

c. Rappahannock. Shoal Channel - 50 foot depth; 1,000 feet wide.

d. Main Ship Channel - 50 foot depth; 800 feet wide.

e. Curtis Bay Channel - 50 foot depth; 600 feet wide.
L Northwest Branch -East Channe'l- 49 foot depth; 600 feet wide..

g. Northwest Branch-West Channel - 40 foot depth; 600 feet wide.

2. This report is an affirmation study of the previous conclusions rather than
reformulation report considering new or altered solutions to the problem.. There are no
viable alternate solutions to the channel deepening that would meet the existing and
prospective needs of navigation. No action would mean that the Port of Baltimore's
ability to accommodate large ships could reduce the economic efficiency of the port and
the region. The only alternatives considered in this report are those involved with
disposal of the dredged material.

G-1

SECTION H

INVESTIGATIONS.

PROJECT DOCUMENT- INVESTIGATIONS

HYDROGRAPHIC SURVEYS

1. No hydrographic surveys were conducted specifically for the Project Document. The
dredging quantitites for deepening the existing channels to 50 feet were estimated using
existing condition surveys conducted between 1961-1969 in conjunction with the 42-foot
project. The quantities involved.W'ith the channel extensions in deepening from a 42-f oot
channel to a 50-foot channel were estimated using National Oceanic Survey coast charts,
circa 1966.

SUBSURFACE EXPLORATIONS

2. Foundation information for the Project Document was taken from 40 drive spoon
penetration borings which were drilled to 50 feet mIw in support of the construction of
the 424oot channel. The subsurface information was limited to the Maryland channels.
Since -Government hopper dredges constructed the Virginia channels, subsurface
investigation was not undertaken in the Virginia channels for the Project Document
investigations. However, subsurface, exploration information is available subsequent to
the Project Document Investigation. For further information concerning soil consistency
and hardness of various materials refer to paragraphs@ 10 through 15 in this section.

UTILITY INVESTIGATION

3. Minimum utility investigations were conducted in support of the Project Document.
A 48-inch water line under the. Northwest Branch Channel was identified as the. only
utility requiring relocation.

ECONOMIC STUDIES

4. Economic studies were undertaken for the Project Document to determine potential
transportation savings to shippers resulting f rom the use of larger, deeper-draft vessels
in the ore,.coal, petroleum, sugar, and general cargo trades. Benefits and costs@ were
calculated f or deepening to channel, depths ranging f rom 42 to 50 f eet in the main ship
channels and the Curtis Bay:Channel, from 35 to.50.feet in the Northwest Branch-East
Channel, and f rom.28 to 40 feet in the Northwest Branch-West, Channel.. Commodity
projections, fleet size projections, and unit transportation cost analyses were made for
each commodity, country, and channel depth under study to determine total
transportation savings.: Table H-1 presents the future commerce projections made for
the major bulk commodities. Iron ore, projected to nearly in volume by year 2025, made
up over half of all Baltimore Harbor deep-draft commerce. The future fleet was
projected to comprise of vessels ranging f rom 20,000 to 100,000 DWT in the major bulk
trades.

5. Table H-2 presents the summary of the incremental economic analysis for the main
channels and the Northwest Branch channels prepared for the Project Document. New
benefits for deepening the main channels, including the Northwest Branch-East Channel,
from 42 feet were maximized between 49 and 50 feet. Fifty feet was the selected
optimum depth, witha corresponding benefit-cost ratio of 1.26 to 1. Net benefits from
deepening the Northwest Branch-West Channel f rom 28 feet were maximized to 40 feet,
with a corresponding benefit-cost ratio of 26.9 to 1.

6. The July 1974 Supplement to the Project Document, Baltimore Harbor and Channels
Review Report, prepared at the request of the Office of Management and Budget,
presented an updated economic analysis for the deepening to 50 feet and evaluated the
feasibility of deepening only the inbound portion of the channels to 50 feet. Dredging
costs were updated to 1973 price levels and evaluated at 5-518 percent interest rate.
Benefits were updated to 1972 price levels using the latest available vessel operating
costs. -The commodity projections and fleet size projections from the Project Document
were considered still valid. Table H-3 presents a summary of the results of the. economic
studies. The project justification increased from that presented in the Project Document
due to the dramatic increases in foreign vessel operating costs since 1969. Although the
inbound-only channel was found to have a higher benef it-cost ratio, the 50Lf oot inbound
and outbound channel with a benefit-cost ratio of 1.94 to I was recommended due to
saf ety reasons.

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

7. The Project Document was fully coordinated with concerned Federal, State, and local
agencies and local interests. The primary agencies and local interests which were
coordinated with during the penetration and review of the Project Document were:
United States Coast Guard, Fish and Wildlife Service, State of Maryland, Commonwealth
of Virginia, Public Health Service, Federal Water Pollution Control Administration (now
EPA), Association of Maryland Pilots, Baltimore Maritime Exchange, Baltimore and Ohio
Railroad Company, R.C. Heard afe Service, State of Marylandt Commonwealth of
Virginia, Public Health Service, Federal Water. Pollution Control Administration (now
EPA), Association of Maryland Pilots, Baltimore Maritime Exchange,. Baltimore and Ohio
Railroad Company, R.C. Heard and Company, John S. Connor, Inc., Bethlehem Steel
Corporation, Steamship Trade Association of Baltimore, and Exxon Company,'USA.

8. A public meeting was held in Baltimore, Maryland, on 25 May 1966. The meeting was
attended by 55 persons including representatives of Federal and State governments,
shipping interests, commercial and civil organizations, and representatives of port-linked
industries. All statements for the record, both oral and written, indorsed the proposal to
further deepen Baltimore Harbor and Channels.

INVESTIGATIONS FOR THE GENERAL DESIGN MEMORANDUM

HYDROGRAPHIC SURVEYS

9. Hydrographic Conditions Surveys were conducted on all project channels betwee n
June and September 1977. In the Virginia channels, cross sections were made every 400
feet with soundings every 50 feet. In the Maryland channels, cross sections were made
every 500 feet with soundings every 50 feet. The results of the surveys are shown in
Appendix A.

H- 2

TABLE H-1

PROSPECTIVE DEEP DRAFT COMMERCE
BALTIMORE HARBOR & CHANNELS REVIEW REPORT, 1969
Base-year (net tons)
COMMODITY Commerce (1) 1975 2000 2025
Iron Ore
Canada 3,447,000 4,100,000 .6,400,000 9,400,000
Venezuela 3,263,000 3,800,000 6,000,000 8,900,000
Liberia 1,746,000 2,300,000 3,200,000 4,800,000
Other 2 549 000 3400000 4,700,000 7,000,000
. 13,600,000 20,300,000 30,100,000
Total 11:005:000

Residual and Fuel Oils
U.S. Gulf 2,979,000 3,100,000 6,400,000 6,400,000
Foreign 2,549,000 4,600,000 9,600,000 9,600,000
Total 5,528,000 7,700,000, 16,000,000 16,000,000
Crude and Petroleum Products 3,400,000
U.S. Gulf 1,250,000 (2) 1,700,000 3,400,000
Foreign 877,000 1,100,000 2,200,000 2,200,000
Total 2,127,000 2,800,000 5,600,000 5,600,000

Coal
Japan (metallur cal) 484,000 900,000 900,000 900,000
Germ ar - 1@ , 516,000 600,000 600,000 600,000
France (70% metall., 30% steam) 530,000 900,000 1,150,000 1,500,000
Other 892,000 1,260,000 1,800,000 2,700,000
Total 2,422,000 3,660,000 4,450,000 5,700,000

Chrome Ore 401,000 496,000 740,000 IPI00'000

Total, all deep-draft commerce 21,483,000 28,256,000 47,090,000 58,500,000
(1) 1966 for all items'except coastwise, petroleum which is 1964 commerce.
(2) Excluding pipeline movement of gasoline and other clean products.

H-3

TABLE H-2

SUMMARY OF ECONOMIC JUSTIFICATION FOR
BALTIMORE HARBOR & CHANNELS REVIEW REPORT, 1969

Annual Annual Net
Benefits
Benefits Costs Benefit-Cost
Depth ($000) ($1000 Ratio ($1000)

1. Main Channel. 431, 1,648 0.93,
from Cape Henry 441- 2,855 2,166 1.32 689
to Fort McHenry .451 3,854 2,847 1.35 1,007
and Branch Channels 461 4,652 3,423 1.36 1,229
in Curtis Bay and 471 5,398 4,092 1.32 1,306
Northwest Branch 481 6,193 4,694: 1.32 li499
49, 6,900 5,316 1.30 1,584
50, .7,469 5,949 1.26 1,520

2. Northwest Branchm 291 $50 23 23.9 327
West Channel 301 953 26 32.8 827
311 10149 30 39.3 1,119
321 1,436 33 43.5 1,403
331 1,709 37 46.2 1,671
341 1,971 43 45.8 1,929
.351 2,191 50' 43.9 2,147
361 2,411 59 40.9 2,352
371 2,545 69 36.9 2,476
381, 2,677 so 33.5 2,597
391 2,761 92 -30.0 2,669
.401 2,794 - 104 26.9 2,690

3. Northwest Branch- .361 414 16 25.9 398
East Channel .371 814 21 793
381 1, M 29 40.6 1,149
.391 1,528 .39 39J 1,489
401 1,752 53 33.1 1,6"
411 1,961 65 30.2 1,89s.
2,158 79 21.3 2,079

H-4

TABLE H-3

SUMMARY OF ECONOMIC STUDIES
BALTIMORE HARBOR & CHANNELS - SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATIONP 1974
($11000)

501 Inbound 501 Inbound & Outbound June 1969-Re*view'
5518% 5518% Report 4 5/8%.
One Way Two WU

FIRST COST
Federal 529376.4 52,376.4. 83,775.8 9.6,107.2.
Non-Federal 21,531.8 21,531.8 32,784.3 3,543.0,
Total 73,909.2 73,908.2 99,656.2

ANNUAL COSTS
Federal 3,737.0 3,737.0 6,111.2 5,766.5
Non-Federal 1,295.1 1,295.1 .1,971.9 183.0
Total :5,032.1 5,032.1. 8,083.1 5,949.5

ANNUAL BENEFITS 13,186.0 15,69.7.0 79469.0

BENEFIT-COST RATIO 2.62 3.12 1.94 1.26

NET BENEFITS 9,153.9 10,664.9. .7,613.9 1,519.5

H-5.

SUBSURFACE EXPLORATIONS

10. Appendix B, Geophysical Foundation Exploration Report, contains information on the
regional geology and the results of. investigations using Standard Penetration test boringsi
vibracore borings and geophysical investigations. Su bsurface investigations in the
Maryland channels were geophysical investigations and had limited success *due to the
dampening effect of the moderately thick, soft organic layer (see above mentioned
Appendix B). Plates B-31 and B-32 summarize the findings of the geophysical
exploration, the dredging records, and the ERTS satellite flight of 1972. In the Maryland'
channels, drive spoon borings are shown in areas where more difficult dredging is
anticipated. All borings shown in the Virginia channels were accomplished by Standard
Penetration Testing Method and/or vibracoring. The "Erosion Surface" shown on profiles
in the Virginia channels was identified by geophysical survey as "pre-Recent," or the top-
of the Miocene, and probably represents slopes developed by above sea level erosion. The
"Erosion Surface" in the Maryland channels is similar; however, this surface has been
defined through interpretation of drive spoon borings, since geophysical investigations
had limited success in penetrating the softer surface sediments which contained organic
materials and entrapped gas.

VIRGINIA CHANNELS

General

11. The only borings available, in addition to those done for the GDM for the Virginia
channels, were vibracores drilled by the Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS) in
1972 and the Standard Penetration Testing Method in 1978. However, there was no
record showing the horizontal or vertical position of the VIMS borings. As a result, only
three borings, YSL-9, YSL-3, and YSL-4 could be used.- The positions shown on the
drawings are only approximate. The Virginia channel results summarized below and
shown on Plates B-31 and B-32 are primarily based on work done for the GDM.

12. Drill holes based on the Standard Penetration Testing Method were accomplished by
using a 1-3/8 inches I.D. by 2 inches O.D. by 24 inch long split spoon. Sample spoons
were advanced by a 140 pound hammer failing 30 inches. The combined blow counts of
Ahe last foot of drive Standard Penetration are shown on the drill logs, (Appendix B,
pages B- 11 and B- 12).

Cape Henry

13. Softer, recent sediments are expected to be encountered down to 60 feet below
water surface where the "erosional surface" was encountered in boring VCC-l. The
geophysical profile supports this between stations 118+80 and 10+00; between 10+00; and
22+00, a deeper, older channel was identified.

York Spit -Channel

14. Softer sediments have been identified to a depth of 60 feet or more below the water
surface between 156+16 and 180+00. South of this reach to the lower end, or to station
850+00, the geophysical profile projects harder material. Between stations 400+00 and
675+00, this harder zone could. intermittently lie above 50 feet below water surface, with

H-6

the hardest zone near station 560+00 where stiff Mioce ne clay is predicted. Three
vibracore borings were drilled under this contract in York Spit Channel. Two vibracore
borings drilled by others have also been plotted in Plate B-32 but their location is
approximate.
40 Rappahannock Shoal Channel

15. Harder sediments can be expected between stations (-)70+00 and (-)90+00 where
geophysical profiles indicate Miocene sand and silt are above -50 feet below water
surface. Three vibracore borings done for the GDM and one vibracore, RSL-4, done by
others are shown on the profile on Plate B-32.

MARYLAND CHANNELS

General.

16. Plate B-31 data were developed from drive spoon sampling accomplished for the
1963-1965 dredging contract and 1973 exploration for the proposed Route i-95, Fort
McHenry Tunnel Crossing. Plate B-31 shows those areas where dredging records and
drive spoon resistance indicates more difficult dredging. The results of geophysical
investigations were generally noninformative in this area due to a thin blanket of soft
sediment and trapped gas in organic material at the bottom, which "absorbed" subbottom
ref lections.

Craighill Cutoff Angle and Cutoff Section

17. A harder zone between Craighill cutoff angle station4+10 and cutoff section station
12+00 has been defined as Pleistocene sands and gravels in borings AA-15 through AA-
21 Dredging records during 1963 indicate harder dredging between stations 2+00 and
3+00 and stations 7+50 and 8+50 in the cutoff section.

Fort McHenry Section

18. Between stations 14+500 and 16+500, harder sand and gravel were encountered above
the.proposed channel deepening. Stiff clay between station 22+000 and 23+000 has been
recorded in the 1965 dredging records and in boring JJ-6. Boulders of sandstone,
recorded in the vicinity of station 22+600 and, 22+700 probably are associated with
Pleistocene alluvium that was deposited during periods of lower water surface.

East Channel

19. Limited borings in the east channel will require further exploration prior to
development of contract plans and specifications. Drill holes 39 and 31 suggest higher
Cretaceous sand and clay and-overlying Pleistocene sands and gravels from station 2+000
and upstation and probably in the Northwest Channel as well. Reports of excavation
difficulties along the Fort McHenry cable crossing support the presence of boulders
related to an earlier alluvium.

H-1

Curtis Bay Channel

20. Borings used to evaluate the Curtis Bay dredging suggest harder dredging between
stations 9+000 and I 1 +000 where sand and gravel were encountered in FF- 10. Harder silt
and clay between stations 6+000 and 7+000 encountered in borihgs C-1 through C-3
should be verified by additional exploration since the penetration resistance has never
been recorded.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Virginia Channels

21. The York Spit channel between stations 400+00 and 675+00 and particularly in the
vicinity of station 560+00 appears to have several reaches of harder material above the
proposed project depth andwill require the minimum predredging exploration effort.
Other areas of concern lie in the Rappahannock Shoal Channel between stations (-)70+00*
and W90+00 where more compact sandand silt have been identified.

Maryland Channels

22. Stiff clay and boulders can be anticipated in the Fort+. McHenry section between
stations 22+00 and 23+00 and upstation of station 3+00 in the East Channel. Sands and
gravels between stations 14+50 and 1,6+50 in the McHenry Channel and 9+00 and. 11+00 in
Curtis Bay will also require additional preconstruction exploration.

UTILITY INVESTIGATIONS

23. The following utility and transportation crossings exist Within or immediately..
adjacent to the limits of the proposed work and are shown on Plate A-31.

Item A. One, 48 inch cast iron water main Lazaretto Point to Fort McHenry.

Item B. One, 48 inch cast iron* water main - Fort McHenry to Fairfield.

Item C. One, 72 inch pre-stressed concrete water main; one, 24 inch.wrapped steel.
high pressure gas main; and five, 12 inch electric conduits - installed in the'same trench -
Hawkins Point to Soll.ers Point. The gas main is located 1.3.5 feet northwest of the water
main. Two of the 12 inch,electric conduits are located 18.5 feet and 28.5 feet,
respectively, northwest of the water main. The other three electric conduits are located
8.5 feet, 18.5 feetj and 28.5 feet southeast of the water main.

Item D.. Twelve, 33KV submarine electric cables - Lazaretto Point to Fort
McHenry. (The six southerly cables are spares.)

Item E. Two, 26KV submarine electric cables - Lazaretto Point to Fairfield.

Item F. Old Coast Guard electric cable Hawkins Point to Fort Carroll (abandoned
in 1959).

Item G. Future Fort, McHenry (Interstate 95) tunnel.

H-8

Item H. Existing harbor tunnel.

Item 1. Cable area - Sandy Point to Kent Island. The existence of utility lines in
this area has not been established.
24., In addition to the above utilities, there are three bridges in the project area, the
Francis Scott Key Bridge, the William Preston Lane Bridge, and the Chesapeake Bay
Bridge Tunnel. These crossings are not affected by the 50-f oot project.

CROSSING REQUIRING RELOCATION

25. Each of the existing crossings was investigated in detail to determine if a
requirement existed to relocate the utility line prior to the deepening of the channel.
The investigation included obtaining "As-Built" drawings, nautical charts, crossing
permits, and discussions with engineering personnel of each utility line owner and the
United States Coast Guard. A description of items that will require relocation and the
desi gn standards and criteria established as the basis for determining the cost for each
item follows.

Item D

26. Twelve, 33KV submarine electric cables owned by the Baltimore Gas and Electric
Company, from Lazaretto Point to Fort McHenry. These cables were installed about
1937 and are in a dilapidated condition. As a result, the cables cannot be spliced and
reused. They will have to be replaced from the manhole on Lazaretto Point to the
manhole on Fort McHenry. They were installed in a trench about 2 feet apart centerline
to centerline of cable, with the top of the cables not less than 47 feet below mean low
water level where they cross the channel, and therefore, will interfere with the
deepening of the channel. As the top of the cables must be a minimum of 5 feet below
the proposed channel overcut, the cables must be lowered a minimum of 9 feet.

27. Information obtained from a representative of the Baltimore Gas and Electric
Company indicates that the six cables on the south side are spares. A viable requirement
f or the six spare cables no, longer exists as sufficient additional facilities now exist on
each shore to handle emergency situations. Therefore, only the six active cables should
be considered for relocation. An analysis of the location of the existing cables and their
relationship to the relocation of the -49 inch water main (Item A) indicated that the six
new cables should be installed in a 14-f oot wide trench whose center line would be 60 feet
south of the existing cables for the width of the new channel. Side slopes should be 3 on
I where the trench is underwater and 2 on I on land.

28. The sequence of work would include:

a Removal of the six spare cables from the manhole and to a point 20 feet on the
riverside of the seawall at each end of the relocation.

b. Excavation of the trench (stockpile material in an inner harbor site).

H-9

c. Installation of six new 3/c-350 MCM - 33KV submersible aluminum cables, each
approximately 2,120 feet long, utilizing a barge and divers to lay the portion under
water.

d., De-energizing and disconnecting the six existing active cables at each manhole
and connection of the six new cables in each manhole.

e. Backfilling the trench at each end using stockpiled material.

f. Removal of the twelve old cables for the approximate 800 feet distance required
by the channel deepening. This will require approximately 8,500 cubic yards of
excavation. The material will be used to backf ill over the new cables up to elevation
-51. The old cables will be deposited on shore for salvage.

Item E

29. Two, 26KV submarine electric cables from Lazaretto Point to Fairfield. The
Baltimore Gas and Electric Company originally installed four, 26KV cables at this
location. About 1955, they removed all the underwater portions of these cables and
installed two new 26KV cables, which had to be spliced in several places.

30. A representative of the Baltimore Gas and Electric Company indicated that the two
cables have been de-energized for several months, that they are no longer required, and
that the Company is developing plans to remove them and store -for use on some future
project.

31. The War Dep artment Permit for these two 26KV submarine electric cables required
that the owner remove or relocate these facilities as necessary due to future operations,
without expense to the United States Government.

32. In view of the stated intent of the Baltimore Gas and Electric Company to remove
these cables in the near future for salvage value, no estimate of cost has been prepared
for this item and none of the cost is included as part of the non-Fedeal costs.
CROSSINGS NOT REQUIRING. RELOCATION

33. The following crossings have been determined to not require any relocation action.

Item A@

34. One, 49-inch cast.iron water main from Lazaretto Point to Fort McHenry. As part
of construction of the Fort McHenry (Interstate 95) tunnel the contractor will relocate
the 48-inch cast iron water main. This City of Baltimore line was constructed in 1949,
using cast iron pipe strapped to pile bents where it"crosses under the east channel of the
Northwest Branch. Its centerline is about 50.6 feet below mean low water for the
approximate 700 feet length where it crosses the cNannel at an angle and, therefore, will
interfere with the deepening of the channel. The pipe will need to be lowered a minimum
of 5.5 feet as 3 feet of cover will be required over the pipe.

H- 10

Item B

35. One, 49 inch cast iron water main from Fort McHenry to Fairfield. As it is not
planned to deepen the Ferry Bar Channel, this City of Baltimore water line will not have
to be relocated. A portion of the line just south of Fort McHenry will require relocation
as part of the Fort McHenry Tunnel (Interstate 95) project.

Item C

36. One City of Baltimore 72 inch water main; one Baltimore Gas and Electric Company
24 inch gas main; and five Baltimore Gas and Electric Company 12 inch conduits from
Hawkins Point to Sollers Point. The top of all pipes where they cross the main channel
are about 70 feet below mean low water.

Item F

37. Old Coast Guard electric cable from Hawkins Point to Fort Carroll. This cable
served a navigation light on Fort Carroll. It was de-energized and abandoned in place by
the Coast Guard in 1959. Its exact location and depth is not known. At the time of
construction, the dredging contractor will be required to precisely locate the cable.

Item G

38. Approximate location of the future Fort McHenry Tunnel. Information furnished by
the City of Baltimore Interstate Highway Division indicated that design began during the
summer of 1978, construction has begun and the project will be completed in 1985. The
top of the tunnel will be about 60 feet below mean low water at the channel crossings.
Representatives of the City and the Baltimore Gas and Electric Company have indicated
a desire to relocate their utilities alongside this tunnel.

Item H

39. While this item does not require relocation as a part of the channel deepening, it
represents an area that should be "off -limits" to dredge when lowering "spuds" for
anchoring or similar operations as such action could result in serious damage.

Item I

40. Cable area from Sandy Point to Kent Island. This cable area is shown on Nautical
Charts 12273, 12278, and 12282. This area is outside the limits of channel excavation
and is shown for information only.

BAY MODEL TESTS

41. The Plan of Study (POS) for this General Design Memorandum, May 1977, identified
three separate tests to be performed on the Chesapeake Bay Hydraulic Model in regard
to the Baltimore Harbor and Channels AE&D Study. These tests included a hydrodynamic
test to predict current velocity and salinity changes in the estuary as a result of
constructing.the authorized 50-foot channel; a shoaling test to predict maintenance
requirements with a 50-foot channel; and a fate of dredged materials test to determine
the probable movement and deposition patterns of channel dredged material deposited in
open waters of the estuary.

H-11-

42. Subsequent to the POS, as existing'baseline information was evaluated (e.g., historic
maintenance records, history of disposal operations) and working experience was
accumulated with the model during the verification process, it became apparent that the
shoaling and fate of dredged materials tests would not develop more reliable or useful
predictions than the traditionally employed method of projecting past experiences of
operating and maintaining the channel works due to insufficient prototype (existing) data.

43. An evaluation of the channel shoaling history revealed that:

a. Historically, 65 to 75 percent of project maintenance dredging has occurred in
the Brewerton and Craighill angles of the Maryland channel sections.

b. There has been no perceptible increase in shoaling rates as authorized channel
depths have increased.

c. It is very dif f icul t to determine patterns of shoaling and scouring from existing
data.

d. Both prototype and hydraulic model data indicate that nearly all sediment
movement is caused by ship energy.

44. The adjustment of an estuarine hydraulic model so that it accurately reproduces
shoaling patterns is a time consuming and expensive process. Because ship energy
appears to be the prime cause of sediment movement, preparations for this study would
include the installation of "ship simulators" in the Chesapeake Bay Model. It is estimated
that the shoaling verification and study for this portion of the Baltimore Harbor project
would take as long as one year to complete at a cost of nearly $1 million.

45. As a result, the shoalingand fate of dredged material tests were eliminated.
Hydrodynamic test to predict current velocity and salinity changes was conducted f rom
29 July 1978 through 29 October 1978 using a drought year (water year 1963 hydrograph)
and an average inflow year hydrograph. Results of these tests may be found in Section K.

ECONOMIC STUDIES

46. Economic investigations for this GDM were directed toward affirming the findings of
the Project Document studies. Costs and benefits were calculated f or deepening to the
authorized depths of 50 feet in the main channels and the Curtis Bay channel,:A9 feet -in
the Northwest Branch-Eas 't Channel, and 40 f eet in the Northwest Branch-West
Channel. Studies and projections were made for those commodities currently moving in
deep-draf t vessels. In addition to those commodities evaluated f or the Project Document
(iron ore, petroleum, coal, chrome ore, sugar, and general cargo), manganese ore and
grains were considered as potentially susceptible to advantages of deep-draf t shipping.
New future fleet size distributions were prepared for each commodity and trade area,
over both existing and improved channel depths. Based. on the latest available vessel
hourly operating costs and other tran.sportation costs gathered f rom port interests, total
round trip costs and unit shipping costs were calculated f or each trade country by vessel
size and channel depth. Average annual transportation savings were then calculated
considering the future fleet and commerce projections over the 50 year project life.
Details of these investigations are presented in Section P, "Benef its." The cost estimates
are presented in Section 0.

H- 12

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

47. Public involvement to date has consisted of: coordination with port related interests
concerning commerce projections, interagency coordination necessary to reaffirm the
feasibility of the authorized plan, formation of a Technical Advisory Group !- and
local/regional coordination for obtaining local assurances. The post authorization study
has been fully coordinated with concerned Federal, State, and local agencies and
interests in conjunction with the public meeting held on 24 June 081.

48. Meetings were held with the port related interests in order'to solicit their opinions
and perceptions of future commerce projections and to reaffirm their need for a 50-foot
channel. State and local interests (Maryland Port Administration and. Greater Baltimore
Committee) and port users (Bethlehem Steel Corporation, Exxon Company, AMSTAR,
Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company, Amerada-Hess Corporation, Canton Railroad
Company, Indiana Grain Cooperative, CSY Finance, Inc., and, John S. Connor, Inc.),
participated in this endeavor.

49. Coordination and meetings for the purpose of reaffirming the authorized plan have
taken place with various Federal, State, and local agencies. The United States Coast
Guard, and Association of Maryland Pilots provided comments and information regarding
the one-way channel concept discussed in the Project Document, authorized channel '
widths, and required keel clearances. A detailed discussion of these issues is contained in
Section 1, "Plan Formulation". In -order to adequately address the environmental
considerations of the authorized plans, a technical advisory group was formed with the
following agencies participating: Environmental Protection Agency, Fish and Wildlife
Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, Maryland Department of Natural Resources,
Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Virginia Soil and Water Conservation Commission,
Maryland Port Administration, and Norfolk District, Corps of Engineers. The advisory
group's objectives and accomplishments are discussed in Section J, "Public Views and
Responses".

'50. Local/regional coodination was established with the Maryland Port Administration,
State of Maryland, and Commonwealth of Virginia, regarding local cooperation for the
project. Meetings have been held with the above interests, both individually and jointly,
to discuss the project and outline the required local assurances.
31. Following coordination of the draft GDM and draft EIS, a p:ubl .ic meeting was held on
24 June 1981. After the public meeting, the data presented at the meeting and the
comments received inresponse to the draft report was reviewed and fully considered'.
There will not be any additional public meetings after the Division Engineer's notice is
issued. The only remaining involvement will be execution of the Section 221 agreement
with the State of Maryland. Planned coordination and dissemination ot information from
the environmental monitoring program will take place.

ENVIRONMENTAL

52. The report to the Chief of Engineers and the Board of Engineers for Rivers and
Harbors, contained within House Document No. 94-181, recommended that "project-
related studies should be undertaken... and should be continued during the construction
period to guide dredging and disposal operations and to observe their effects upon
Chesapeake Bay." Environmental investigations were conducted during the Advanced

H- 13

Engineering and Design study phase. These investigations included bulk chemical
analysis, elutriate tests, and sediment analysis designed to locate any potential
contaminants. Results indicate that material within Baltimore's inner hairbor is polluted,
however, it diminishes in level of contamination as the harbor mouth is approached.
Material from the Virginia channels has been found to contain low levels of all
parameters tested. In addition, studies concerning the fate of dredged material after
placement in the Bay were investigated and are further detailed in Section K.

53. Also, a monitoring plan to observe the effects the dredging and placement of
dredged @ material is being developed for preconstruction, during construction and post
construction activities. This plan is being developed and coordinated through the
Technical Advisory Group. The current estimate included in the project cost for
monitoring is $3.5 million.

T+- 14

SECTION I

PLAN FORMULATION

GENERAL

1. As-mentioned previously in Section G, "Alternatives," and consistent with the Plan of
Study, May 1977, this report is an af f irmation study conducted to determine if the '
authorized plan of improvement remains justified. Therefore, plan formulation has been
primarily directed to affirming the economic justification and safety considerations of
the authorized project depths, widths, and alignments and to the evaluation of the
environmental impacts of the authorized plan. Additional plan formulation work has
been performed to respond to comments from the Office of Management and Budget on
the feasibility of a one-way channel.

CHANNEL DEPTH

2. Affirming the continued economic justification of the authorized project dimensions,
including channel depth, required updating of the commodity projections and fleet size
distribution presented in the Project Document in order to compute the current
transportation savings on which the benefits of project impletnentation are based. The
results of these investigations are found in Section P. Table L-5 compares the projected
benefits with the projected costs for project implementation, found in Section 0. This
comparison affirms the continued economic justification of the authorized plan of
improvement.

3. Additionally, a reevaluation of the operational safety considerations of the authorized
project dimensions was performed to include the results of the current fleet size
distribution projections. The following discussion regarding the safety aspects of channel
depth concludes that the authorized depth is the best depth f rorn a safety standpoint.

4. When considering channel depth, it is important to remember that the design depth
and available draft are not equivalent. This results from safety considerations which
require suf f iclent water depth under the keel of a vessel to insure saf e and eff icient
operation. A discussion of the factors to be considered when determining required keel
clearance is included in the Project Document and, since no changes have occurred in
that analysis, that discussion is not repeated herein. The following figure graphically
summarizes the keel clearances considered necessary for deep draft vessels using the
major channels of the port of Baltimore.

FIGURE I-1

FACTORS AFFECTING CHANNEL DEPTHS

TSTU@_t
t
Draft

MMMMI""
Dverabilitv Trim

Navigation Factor Allowable Depth in Feet

Squat 2 feet
Trim I f oot
Maneuverability 2 f eet

TOTAL 5 feet

This depth under the keel will be. used f or the channels at Baltimore.'

5. As presented late in Section P, "Benefits," the world dry bulk and tanker fleets have
increased in overall tonnage and average vessel size over the past two decades.
However, the dry bulk and tanker fleets calling on the port of Baltimore are constrained,
by factors such as volume of trade, cargo handling and storage facilities, and channel
depth. Accordingly, the growth of the vessel size of the dry bulk and tanker fleets
calling on Baltimore has not been as dramatic as that experienced by the world fleet.

6. Since economic incentives of private industry are,prof it oriented, the safety
considerations of a 5-f oot keel clearance are of ten overlooked in order to accommodate
deeper draft vessels. Over the past decade, there has been a significant increase in the
number of vessels transiting the Baltimore channels with drafts in excess of 37 feet. The
draf t of 37 f eet is derived by subtracting 5 f eet f rom the existing project depth of 42
f eet. For dry bulk vessels, the number of trips exceeding 37 f eet has increased f rom 122
in 1%7 to '236 in 1974 then declining slightly to 187 in 1976. For the tanker fleet calling
on the port, the number of @essel trips exceeding 37 f eet has increased f rom 7 in 1967 to
91 in 1976.

7. It is impossibl 'e to estimate the damage which would occur should a heavily laden
vessel run aground and spill its cargo. Vessel damage figures could be approximated, but
the dollar value of long-term'damage to the environment, especially the fisheries
industry, could not be anticipated. For this reason, figures such as presented in the
preceding paragraph showing close to 300 vessel trips per year exceeding the
recommended 5-f oot keel clearance is an alarming f act. This condition will continue in
the future should the 50-foot project not be constructed. Once the 50-foot project was
built, the number of vessels exceeding the 5-f oot keel clearance (i.e., draft of 45 feet)
would decrease drastically. It is apparent that'channel depths less than presently
authorized should not be considered further.

1-2

CHANNEL WIDTH

8. In the Project Document, determination of channel widths was based on the results of
investigations made during the study of the proposed sea level Panama Canal. The
f actors considered in the Project Document analysis included whether a passing situation
could occur, vessel controllability, vessel speed. relative to channel bottom, current
velocities and direction, and depth of water under the keel of the.vessel, whether the
channel occupies the entire waterway and the characteristics of the channel banks.
Figure 1-2 illustrates how the authorized channel widths were determined.

9. In recent years, additional research has been conducted on handling problems of very
large ships And required widths of,shipping channels. These studies include theoretical
analysis, model testing, and in maAy insiances, the experience of pilots. Of the various
publications available, the paper entitled, "Handling Problems of Very Large Ships in
Approach Channels and Maneuvering Areas," by C. J. Kray was used as the primary
source of information. The discussion of layout and width of approach channels in the
referenced paper lists the same factors to be considered in channel design as those
previously mentioned f rom the Project Document analysis. However, in this discussion,
channels are divided into two types. Open channels are defined as natural or dredged
access channels constituting the deepest portion of a bay, river, strait, or maneuvering.
area, whereas restricted channels are those excavated access channels or canals,
restricted i@land sea extensions, canals,between islands, or between mainland and islands.

10. On the basis of tests conducted at David Taylor Model Basin, United States Navy,
various relationships were derived f or,estimating channel @vidth in open and restricted
channels. Table 1-2 peesen-ts the design criteria developed for two-way channels,.

11. Design of open channels should use derivative. values on the lower side of t 'he range
and conversely f or restricted channels. As mentioned earlier, the values used in the
Project Document were based on results of investigations made during the study of the
Panama Canal, a restricted channel. The Baltimore -Harbor and approach channels are
open channels and accordingly, the. derivative values used in the Project Document are
considered high. The channel widths have been recomputed in Table 1-3 utilizing open
channel derivatives, updated, design ships, and other criteria previously mentioned.

12. The recomputed channel widths for the Virginia channels, Main Ship Channels into
Baltimore, and Northwest Branch-West Channel, indicate that the authorized channel
widths of 1,000, 800, and 600 feet, respectively, are still adequate. The calculations
according to the formula indicate that channel widths for Curtis Bay Channel and
Northwest Branch-East Channel, shown in the Project Document, appear low. However,
upon closer examination of the actual circumstances, it is seen that in computing channel
widths, the "design vessel" many times represents only 5 to 10 percent of the total future
fleet expected to call on the Port of Baltimore. When determining channel widths for
branch channels measuring I to 2 miles in length, the need to design for optimal
conditions in accommodating the largest vessel is questionable. The lower DWT ranges
constitute a considerably higher percentage of the future fleet. If vessel dimensions for
the lower DWT ranges are utilized in the channel design, the computed channel widths
for both the Curtis Bay Branch Channel and Northwest Branch-,East Channel reduce to

1-3

DETERMINATION OF@AUTHORIZED CHANNEL WIDTH5
(Taken from the Project Document)

z
d1z% +<b \9- 16+IQ) +
%4L- (Aa
4@

-1-d
I- T

.1,000,

VIRGINIA CHANNELS 90,000 DWT CARRIERS PASSING
um. @s 4:`

+ +
0\0 e'@ ov 0\()
,0 \V -IRP NQi
v

we,, @,

800'
MAIN SHIP CHANNELS-90,000 DWT CARRIERS PASSING

Cie

Ieb, q@
+ 09 + +

600,
BRANCH CHANNELS-CURTIS BAY40,000 DWT COLLIER AND 7560'0 DWT TANKER
N.W. BRANCH 10,000 DWT TANKER AND C-3CARGO VESSEL
122

e,+@p,

1-4 FIQURE 1-2

TABLE 1-2

CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING CHANNEL WIDTHS
FOR TWO-WAY DEEPWATER CHANNELS

Derivative Range in %
Channel Element of Beam Width of Vessel

Bank Clearance 60 to 200
Maneuvering Lane 170 to 180
Ship Clearance 100
Maneuvering Lane 170 to 180
Bank Clearance 60 to 200

600 f eet, Although the channel width computed in Table 1-3 for the Curtis Bay Channel
and Northwest Branch-East Channel indicate a required width of 7 10 f eet and 690 f eet,
respectively, it is not deemed necesary to provide a channel wider than 600 feet because
of the short channel lengths and relative low number of passing situations expected to
occur between the larger DWT vessels. In addition, vessels within these branch channels
are constantly under the escort of tugs. The Maryland Pilots in their letter of 28 April
1978 indicated that the authorized channel widths appear adequate and should provide
acceptable maneuvering conditions.

FEASIBILITY OF ONE WAY CHANNEL

13. The 28 March 1975 comments of the Office of Management and Budgeti printed on
page vii of the Project Document, stated:
"We noted that the Coast Guar'd has raised a question of safety
with regard to the one-way channel. Theref ore, we suggest
that a joint Corps/Coast Guard study of the safety aspects of
operations be undertaken, including cost considerations, prior
to the initiation of project construction."

14. The reporting officers had recommended that the-inbound channels be deepened
first, followed by deepening of the outbound channels, in order to more quickly realize
project benefits. This recommendation would create, in effect, a temporary one-way
channel. In order to adequately address OMB's comments, meetings were initiated with
the 5th District, United States Coast Guard (hereinafter referred to as the Coast Guard),
and the Association of Maryland Pilots (hereinafter referred to as the Maryland Pilots).
The following paragraphs present a reanalysis of the proposed one-way channel. Copies
of all correspondence with the Coast Guard and the Maryland Pilots is presented in
Appendix E, Pertinent Correspondence.

15. As part of the-Project Doc'umen't, the 19 July 1974 Supplemental Information report
addressed the possibility of narrower channels f rom two aspects; a single inbound lane
channel for inbound deep draft traffic only, or a single inbound lane for two-way
traffic. Because of inherent safety deficiencies, the Coast Guard did not endorse the

1-5

deepening of only half of the channel and the single lane channel concept was dropped
from further consideration as a long-term solution. However, the 1974 Supplemental
Information report did recommend dredging the inbound portions of the channels first so
that most of the project benefits could be realized as soon as possible. Utilizing an 8
year construction schedule which wa's considered in 1974, based on this concept, the
inbound channel would be completed in 5 years and the entire project completed 3 years
later.

16. In reanalyzing the feasibility of one7-way channel construction, the Coast Guard
clearly opposed this method of construction since operation of a one-way channel for any
period of time is unsafe. Other items inherent in the operation of a one-way channel
were discussed with the Coast Guard and Maryland Pilots. The items discussed are as
f ollows and the conclusions f rorn these discussions are presented in the subsequent
paragraphs.

a. Need for and cost of additional navigation aids.

b. Inherent problems of navigating the channels af ter the centerline or edge of the
deeper inbound channel has been marked with buoys.

C. Problems associated with operating 60,000 to 150,000 DWT vessels in a narrower
inbound channel.

d. Economic incentives of using a deep draf t inbound channel f or outbound traf f ic
and saf ety problems with such unorthodox usage.

e. Economics involved in dredging a one-way channel.

17. During the meeting with the Coast Guard on 16 February 1978, the need for
additional navigation aids to mark a deeper single lane channel (DSLC) was discussed. At
present, the channel sides are marked randomly and,ranges have been established to mark
the centerline of each channel. During most of the passage through the channels, the
vessels align with these ranges. Only during passing situations do they move to the
outside of the channel. If a DSLC were constructed, it would become necessary to mark
the i nsi de edge of the DSLC possibly every mile, and establish new ranges for both the
inbound and outbound channels. The first cost for additional buoys and'ranges is
estimated at $1 to $2 million with annual maintenance costs equaling 10 percent of the
f irst cost.

18. The addition of buoys within the existing channel boundaries for the purpose of
marking the edge of a DSLC will present navigation difficulties. The DSLC proposal in
the Project Document specified channel widths of 1,000 feet for the Cape Henry Channel
(f ull width), 600 f eet f or the York Spit and Rappahannock Channel, 500 f eet f or the Main
Ship Channels, and 300 f eet f or the Curtis Bay Channel and Northwest Branch-East
Channel. Figure 1-3 shows the location of the DSLC with respect to the existing channel
configuration. Although these DSLC widths would provide reasonable room f or saf e
transit and maneuvering of 140,000 DWT vessels, the opposing lane would be reduced to
400 feet in the York Spit Channel and 300 feet in the Rappahannock Shoal Channel, Main
Ship Channels, and Branch Channels. Ships customarily steer along the centerline of the
channel, Moving to the channel side to permit meeting and overtaking other vessels in
the waterway, then returning to the centerline position. Under the buoyed channel

1-6

TABLE 1-3

RECOMPUTED CHANNEL WIDTHS FOR THE BALTIMORE HARBOR AND APPROACH CHANNELS

VIRGINIA CHANNELS I/

Channel Element Derivation Element Widths

BC 120% x beam of bulk carrier 167 f eet

ML 180% x 261 feet

SC 100% x 145 f eet,

ML 180% x 261 feet

BC 120% x 167 feet

Total Width Of Channel 1001 feet

MAIN SHIP CHANNEL INTO BALTIMORE I/

Channel Element Derivation Element Widths

BC 60% x beam of bulk carrier 87 feet

ML 170% x beam of bulk carrier 247 feet

SC 100% x beam of bulk carrier 145 feet

ML 170% x beam of bulk carrier 247 feet

BC 60% x beam of bulk carrier 87 feet

Total Width Of Channel 813 feet
CURTIS BAY BRANCH CHANNEL 2/

Channel Element Derivation Element Widths

BC 60% x beam of bulk carrier 85 f eet

ML 170% x beam of bulk carrier 240 f eet

SC 100% x beam of bulk carrier 141 feet

ML 170% x beam of tanker 180 feet

BC 60% x beam of tanker 64 f eet

Total Width Of Channel 710 feet

1-7

TABLE 1-3 (cont'd)

NORTHWEST BRANCH - EAST CHANNEL -3/

Channel Element Derivation Element Widths

BC 60% x beam of bulk carrier 74 feet

ML 170% x beam of bulk carrier 211 feet

SC 100% x beam of bulk carrier 124 feet

ML 170% x beam of tanker 207 feet

BC 60% x beam of tanker 73 feet

Total Width Of Channel 689 feet

NORTHWEST BRANCH - WEST CHANNEL 4/

Channel Element Derivation Element Widths

BC 60% x beam'of bulk carrier (grain) 7-4 feet
ML 170% x beam of bulk carrier (grain) 211 feet

SC 100% x beam of bulk carrier (grain) 124 feet

ML 170% x beam of b ulk carrier (sugar) 155 feet.

BC 60% x beam of bulk carrier (sugar) 55 f eet

Total Width Of Channel 619 feet

1/ Based on. 140,000 DWT bulk carrier with 141 foot beam.

2/ Based on 140,000 DWT bulk carrier with 141 foot beam and 6.0,QDO DWT tanker with 106
foot beam.

3/ Based on 100,000 DWT bulk carrier with 124 foot beam and 90,000 DWT tanker with 122
f oot beam.

4/ Based on 100,000 DWT bulk carrier for grain with a 1.24 foot beam and 40,000 DWT bulk
carrier for sugar with a beam of 91 feet.

proposal, all vessels using the channel,-both inbound and outbound, will be compelled to transit
in the off-centerline position. It would be impossible to operate the 100,000 to 140,000 DWT
vessels calling on the port in these extremely narrow' zones. The Marylan 'd Pilots indicated that
navigation bridge levels and deck cargo configurations on many vessels limit visibility in the
area forward of the vessel so that buoys may be lost from sight within one-half mile of the
ship. When wind, current, bank effects, and steering angles are taken into account, it is obvious
that collision with buoys will be inevitable.

19. Because of the Coast Guard's requirement that both sides of the DSLC be marked with
buoys, vessels will be required to sail off the centerline of a narrow channel. This type of
operation generates an asymmetrical flow condition around the. body of the ship causing a side-
f orce toward the near bank and a turning movement away f rorn the near bank. These f orces
tend to draw a vessel toward the bank while turning the bow toward the middle of the channel.
This deterioration of directional stability will require constant rudder angle (course
compensation) toward the near bank during the entire passage (50 miles), instead of during
limited passing or overtaking situations. This effect will increase the effective width of a
vessel and further decrease passing distances and bank clearance.

20. The unit savings in shipping costs derived f rom using larger vessels is presented in
Section P, "Benefits." These figures represent an estimated annual savings of $20,618,000 for
imports and $135,838,000 f or exports, which would provide economic incentives f or using a
deeper inbound channel for outbound traffic or a deeper outbound channel for inbound traffic.
Regulations forbidding such usage could be implemented, but enforcement of such regulations
would be difficult if not impossible. The possibility of such unorthodox usage of the channels
will always exist if a DSLC is constructed f irsi. Safe operation of vessels under such
unorthodox procedures would require highly reliable communication systems among piloted
vessels, tugs and barge traf fic, local commercial freighters, coastwise traffic operating with
independent pilots, and other small craft. Any breakdown in communication could result in a
serious mishap. Delays in inbound vessels of up to 2 hours could be expected which would
increase shipping cost per ton. The extension of transit time to 14 or 15 hours under the
supervision of one pilot is unreasonable and unsafe.

21. Additionally, the import/export makeup of the port has changed in recent years to a point
where neither dominates. In the early 19701s, the major portion of the deep draft traffic passing
through the port was,imports. This domination by the import traffic was the basis for the single
inbound lane construction concept. Because the recommended dredging schedule is much
shorter than in the Review Report (4 years versus 8 years),. less benefits would be derived by
dredging a single lane (inbound or outbound) channel first; and the costs involved with additional
aids to navigation, vessel traf f ic control systems, regulation and policing which would be
required by this concept offset any benefits to be derived.

DISPOSAL AREAS

22. In discharging the Federal responsibility to assess the,suitability of the disposal areas
provided for the Baltimore Harbor Channels deepening, technical investigations were performed
at identified sites as well as at several additional locations. In all, 10 sites were examined.
Evaluation of study data and site availability through local sponsor identification resulted in
numerous site rejections or standby status. Designated project disposal areas are fully discussed
in Sections K and L. Table 1-4 summarizes the evaluation process. For an overview of dredged
material management in the Chesapeake Bay, refer to the Addendum.

1-9

LOCA71ONS OF SINGLE LANE CHANNELS

YORK SPIT CHANNEL

42-

-vi

100
Sao,

RAPPAHANNOCK SHDAL CHANNEL
goo,
AF; 7/@
-42'

10 1001

MAIN SHIP CHANNEL
Soo,

42'

Soo,

CURTIS BAY (-50) CHANNEL AND NORTHWEST BRANCH, EAST CHANNEL 4-491
600,

300'
FIGURE 1-3

I-10

TABLE 1-4

DISPOSAL AREAS EVALUATION SUMMARY

FIGURE GDM
SITE LOCATION NUMBER TYPEI/ INVESTIGATIONS 2/ STATUS REMARKS

Hari & Miller Upper Chesa- L-4 Contained None Selected Subject of EIS prepared
Islands peake Bay for regulatory permit and
(UCB) identified by non-Federal
sponsor.

Kent Island UCB None Open water 1. Bulk chemical Not off ered Historically utilized dis-
2. Elutriate by non-Fed. posal area.
3. Sediment type sponsor.

Patapsco River UCB None Open water 1. Bulk chemical Not offered Historically and currently
Neck 2. Elutriate by non-Fed. utilized disposal area.
3. Sediment type sponsor.

Smith Island UCB None W etl and 1. Cultural recon Rejected Rejected on basis of
creation 2. Feasibility excessive transportation
analysis costs.

Tangier, Island Lower Chesa- L-2&3 Wetland Lf Cultural recon Not identified Subject to Commonwealth of
peake Bay creation 2. Cultural survey by non-Fed Virginia interest (refer
(LCB) 3. Feasiblity sponsor to Section Q. Excessive
analysis construction costs.

Rappahannock LCB L-2 Open water, 1. Bulk chemical Selected Historically utilized
Shoal Deep Z Elutriate disposal area.
3. Sediment type.
4. Cultural recon

Wolf Trap LCB L-I Open water 1. Bulk chemical Selected Historically utilized
2. Elutriate disposal area.
3. Sediment type
4. Cultural recon
3. Cultural survey

SF(7TION I

PUBLIC VIEWS AND RESPONSES

1. The public involvement program for the combined Phase 1-11 GDM, as specified in the
report entitled "Baltimore Harbor and Channels, Maryland and Virginia, Advanced
Engineering and T)esign, Plan of Study 11 consists of public participation and agency
coordination. To insure that the views of public officials, interested citizens, and special
interest groups are considered, and that they are kept aware of the study progress, the
public participation consists of a public meeting. Regarding agency coordination, the
effort has been directed in two areas. The first was to pursue the interagency and local
coordination necessary to carry out a planning process and reaffirm the feasibility of the
modification. This coordination has investigated and elaborated upon issues raised during
earlier coordination of the project documents and any new issues. The second area
concerned the development of agreements for local cooperation. The need to develop
satisfactory institutional arrangements required both local and regional coordination and
agreement. The coordination for obtaining local assurances has primarily involved the
State of Afiaryland.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

2. A public hearing was held on 24 lune 1981 at the Hilton Hotel in Baltimore,
Maryland. The hearing was conducted by (@olonel James W. Peck, District Engineer,
U. S. Army Frigineer T.)istrict, Baltimore and was attended by approximately 175 persons
including: representatives of Federal, State, and local governments; officials of
commercial, civic, and environmental organizations-, representatives of business
interests; and interested individuals. The purpose of this meeting was to inform
interested parties of the findings and recommendations of the Corps' study. The
recommended plan was presented to the public in some detail. Both concurrence with
and opposition to the r@orpsl recommended plan was voiced by the speakers at the
meeting. Major concerns raised at the meeting were, the use of H.art-Miller Islands as a
disposal site, the effects of salinity changes in the bay and the movement of
contaminated sediments out to the bay.

AGENCY COORI)INATION

INTERZAGEN?7Y ANr) LOCAL e7OORDINATION

AnVISORY r.OMMITTF.F_

3. On 3 T)ecember 1976, letters of invitation to participate in an ad-hoc technical
advisory group (TAG) regarding environmental considerations of the authorized
modification were sent to the following individuals:

Regional nirector, Environmental Protection Agency, Region III
Regional r).irector, Fish and Wildlife Service
R
,egional r)irector, National Marine Fisheries Service
r)irector, Water Resources Administration, r)epartment of Natural
Resources, State of Maryland

Nrector, Virginia Institute of Marine Science
Executive Secretary, State Water Control Board, Commonwealth
of Virginia
T)eputv nirector, Virginia Soil and Water Conservation Commission
Administrator, Maryland Port Administration
rhief, Water Resources Planning Branch, Engineering Division,
Norfolk District, Corps of Engineers
Administrator, Virginia Council on the Environment
FIxecutive nirector, Virginia Port Authority
1
4. All those contacted named representatives and participated in a meeting on
17 T)ecember 1976 with the Corps of Engineers in Baltimore. During this meeting,
project background information and the general scope of work required for a Phase I and
11 GDM was presented to the group, as well as contemplated study schedules.
Information regarding existing data and specific environmental concerns were elicited
from those present. This group met periodically for the duration of the study to assist in
the identification of existing information sources, remaining information needs, means of
data collection, specific concerns, and to provide timely contributions to and review of
the study documents.

5. Subsequent to the 17 December 1976 meeting, the TAG convened 7 April 1977,
11 May 11977, 30 May 1977, 24 October 1978, 16 March 1981, and 25 March 1981.
Between meet'ings, information and concerns were communicated- by letter or through
telephone conversation.

AGENCY REVIEW

6.' The appropriate Federal and State agencies having an interest in the study area and
the authorized improvements were advised of study initiation and availability of the Plan
of Study in .1uly 1977. The Plan of Study was provided to the agencies f6r information.
The appropriate Federal and State agencies were provided draft copies of the Gn M and
accompanying draft Environmental Impact Statement for their review and comment.
Pertinent comments received are Incorporated and copies of the correspondence included
in Addendum 11, Public Views and Comments and the Final Environmental Statement.
The Federal and State interests with which the District has coordinated are listed in the
following paragraphs.

Federal Agencies

7. Federal interests with which the District has coordinated the draft and will
coordinate the final are:

T)epartment of Agriculture
Economic Research Service
Soil (-onservation Service
Department of (7ommerce
Bureau of T)omestic rommerce
Bureau of Economic Analysis
Economic r)evelooment Administration
Maritime Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

1-2

National Marine Fisheries Service
National Ocean Survey
Office of Coastal 7one Management
T)epartment of Health and Human Services
r)ePartment of Housing and Urban Development
T)epartment of Interior
Heritage (@onservation and Recreation Service (now incorporated with the Park Service)
Office of Water Research and Technology.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Geological Survey
Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Coast Guard

State Agencies

8. State interests with which the District has coordinated are listed below. Coordination
with the stateinterests has been handled through the Maryland and Virginia State
rl.ear;nghouses..

Maryland

r)epartment of Agriculture
T)epartment of Econo.mic and. 17ommunity T)evelopment
T)epartment of Health and Mental Hygiene
Department of Natural Resources
T)eoartment of State Planning
Illepartment of Transportation
Maryland Port Administration
Highway Administration
Soil Conservation Service
State Extension Service
State Historic Preservation, Office

Virginia

I'llepartment of,(7ommerce and Resources
T)epartment of Agriculture and Commerce
Department of e7onservation and Economic Oevelopment
r)epartment of 'Health
Historic Landmarks (7ommissio.n
Transportation and Public Safety
Virginia Port Authority
State Water rontrot Roard Council for the Frivironment

1-3

Local Input and,Review

9. On 21 June 1977, the Maryland Port Administration sponsored a meeting among the
port users and the Baltimore District in order to*provide an update of the study progress
and initiate contact with the port users. Numerous meetings were held between the
District and port users on a one-to-one basis in order to obtain information relative to
the economics of the project. Other local entities, such as the Greater Baltimore
Committee, also provided information relative to the economics of the project. During
the review period, for the draft report local interests were requested to review the
report. Such entities included, but not limited to, the following:

Regional Planning Commission
Greater Baltimore Committee
Chamber of Commerce
City of Baltimore
Anne Arundel County
Baltimore County
Calvert County
Cecil County
Dorchester County
Harf ord County
Kent County
Queen Annes County
St. Mary's County
Somerset County
Talbot County

Virginia

City of Norfolk
City of Portsmouth
City of Newport News
Accomack County
Glouchester County
Lancaster County
Mathews County
Middlesex County
Northampton County
Northumberland County
Princess Anne County
York County

LOCAL COOPERATION',

10. Local and regional coordination was initiated in an effort to develop and secure.
agreements for local cooperation. Numerous meetings, letters, and conversations have
transpired concerning local cooperation and in an effort of brevity, only the major
happenings are discussed further in the following paragraphs.

J-4

11. By letter of 26 August 1977, the State of Maryland was provided a copy of the
authorized improvements and required items of local cooperation published in the project
document. The State was requested to identify disposal areas'for the Maryland and
Virginia work, provide the required letter of intent, and identify a point of contact within
the State. In a letter dated 29 September 1977, the Maryland Department of
Transportation was identified as having the primary responsibility for promoting and
implementing waterway. projects and the Department of Natural Resources would
continue its role in evaluating dredged material disposal sites and monitoring of actual
field operations. Additionally, the State indicated that they could not be responsible for
identifying dredged material disposal sites in Virginia, nor should they be obligated to ,
provide capacity in Maryland containment sites for material dredged from the Virginia
channel.

12. A meeting was held between the Baltimore District and State of Maryland on
5 December 1977 to discuss required local cooperation for the project. As a result of
this meeting, the State of Maryland initiated formal coordination with the
Commonwealth of Virginia.

13. By letter dated 27 December 1977, the Commonwealth of Virginia was provided a
copy of the required items of local cooperation. The Commonwealth was requested to
identify disposal areas and provide the required letter of intent for the Virginia portion
of the project.

.14. Informal meetings were held between the Baltimore District and Maryland Port
Administration in early 1978 to further discuss the required local cooperation. During
these meetings, copies of a draft letter of intent and 221 Agreement were made
available.

15. On 7 April 1978, a meeting was held among the Baltimore District, State of
Maryland, and Commonwealth of Virginia. The purpose of this meeting was to discuss
identification of disposal areas in Virginia and possible arrangements between the State
and Commonwealth regarding the required local cooperation.

16. At the request of the Maryland Port Administration (MPA), another meeting was
held between the Baltimore District and the MPA to discuss the details of the required
letter of intent. As a result of this meeting, the Maryland Department of Transportation
submitted a letter of intent for the Maryland portion of the project to the Baltimore
District on 12 June 1978. The letter indicated that. "it is the intent of the State of
Maryland that, if construction of the Baltimore Harbor and Channels (501) Project is
commenced, the State shall ... 11 provide the necessary items of local cooperation.

17. Due to litigation arising out of the State of Maryland's designation of Hart-Miller
Islands as a dredged material placement site, the State was unable to finalize the items
of local cooperation. This litigation was resolved in the States' favor on 24 December
1980. By letter dated 12 January 1981, the State of Maryland certified that the facility
at Hart-Miller Islands would be provided as a disposal area and thus finalized the
requirements of local cooperation for Maryland.

3-5

18. By letter of 24 April 081, the Maryland Department of Transportation (DOT) and
the Commonwealth of Virginia agreed to provide disposal areas for the Virginia portion
of the project. Additionally, by another letter of 24 April 1981 to DOT, the
Commonwealth certified that there was a water control agency in place to establish
standards to regulate water quality in Virginia waters, and that the Commonwealth will
comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

19. By letter dated 28 April 1981, the State of Maryland submitted a revised letter of
intent which agreed to provide local cooperation for the entire project. The State also
inclosed the 24 April 198 1. letters from the Commonwealth of Virginia.

PERTINENT CORRESPONDENCE

20. Pertinent correspondence received from agencies, and the public, and responses to
the comments are included in Addendum 11, Public Views and Comments.

3-6

SECTION K

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

PROFILE OF EXISTING CONT)ITIONS.

,EOLOGY ANrYSFr)IMI@NTS

1. rhesapeake Bay is located in the Atlantic Coastal Plain physiographic province. This
province is characterized by thick sequences of sand, silts, and clays overlying crystalline
bedrock. From their western terminus at the fall line the deposits dip in a s*eaward
direction toward the Atlantic Ocean and continue beneath the ocean where they form the
continental shelf. The regional dip is such that bedrock outcrops in some areas of
Baltimore whereas the depth to bedrock at the southern portion of the Bay, near Cape
Henry, Virginia, is more than 2,000 feet. Extensive erosion during the Jurassic period
removed any previous sediments above the bedrock basement. It is now overlain by
geologically unconsolidated marine sediments dating from the Cretaceous, Tertiary,
Pleistocene, and Recent periods. The older sediments are generally bedded parallel to
the bedrock surface; however, younger. sediments dip at a less steep angle than does the
bedrock so as to create a succession of wedge shaped layers.

2. After deposition of the Tertiary soils and during the Pleistocene, the sea level
fluctuated with respect to the land due to the formation and melting of glaciers, and
possibly as the result of the elevation and depression of the land surface. Evidence that
sea level at one time was approximately 250 feet lower than at present is clearly
recorded in the ocean floor east of the Chesapeake Bay. Therefore, the upper part of the
Tertiary soils were at one time above sea level and subject to erosion so that only the
rretaceous and older Tertiary soils remain, The major rivers, such as the Susquehanna,
cut deep channels during the Pliocene when the land surface was higher than at present.
The channels were widened during the Pleistocene, and finally flooded, creating broad
shallow bays of which rhesapeake Bay is an example. Submergence of the river valleys
caused them to become filledt possibly first with Pleistocene sand and gravel terrace
deposits, then with soft clays and silts during Recent times. Thus, a characteristic
subsurface feature of the Bay is a relatively shallow buried erosional surface which
represents the interface between the looser and softer Pleistocene and Recent deposits
and the older, more compact pre-Pliocene deposits.

VIRGINIA CHANNEL SU@TIONS

3. The overall geologic profile includes a buried erosional surface whose depressions are
filled with soft silts and clays and occasionally layers of medium compact fine sand
which is believed to be Recent or Pleistocene age. Studies have shown that the boundary
between the erosional surface and overlying sediments represents the top of the Tertiary
deposits, which in this area are of the Miocene age. These soils are greenish gray in
color and consist of fine sandy clay, silty clay containing some fine sand and silty fine
sand, all containing at least a trace of shells, and in some cases definite shell beds.
These soils.were consolidated through dessication at a time when the land was elevated

K-1

with respect to the sea and are presently stiff to very stiff or medium compact to very
compact. However, the Pleistocene and recent soils overlying the Tertiary are only
consolidated under the weight of their existing overburden or possibly slightly more as a
result of local drying. In the vicinity of the York Spit Channel, the subsoil stratigraphy
to the depths relevant to this project are as follows: From the Bay bottom at elevation
-52 to elevation -72, the borings encountered a loose to medium compact gray fine sand,
some silt, and trace shells. The surface of the Tertiary soils began at elevation -72 and
consisted of stiff to very stiff green, gray fine sandy clay, some silt and trace shells.

MARYLANT) CHANNEL SECTIONS

4. . Aorings indicate that the surface of Cretaceous soils lies at a much higher elevation
than to the south. These soils are all hard or very compact silty to clayey sands, which
probably belong -to the Patuxent Formation. The interpretation of the generalized soils
profile indicates that harbor bottom deposits of varying thickness are underlain by
estuarine deposits across the width of the harbor. The harbor bottom deposits contain
decomposed organics and petroleum residue, while the estuarine deposits are soft to stiff
organic clayey slits or organic sandy silts. Underlying these materials is a stratum of
compact to very compact silty sand.to gravelly sand. The surface of this stratum varies
extensively even over local areas but it is generally below elevation -60.

5. For detailed geology and sediments in reaches of the authorized channel deepening,
refer to Section H for a summary of Appendix B.

CHEMICAL ANALYSIS

6. r)uring 1972, the Virginia Tnstitute of Marine Sciences (VIMS) performed an intensive
sediment sampling and analysis study of the Baltimore Harbor Channels in Virginia under
contract to the Norfolk District of the United States Army Corps of Engineers. The
results of that study may be found in Appendix C. During 1977 and 1978, VIMIS
performed a similar study under contract to. the Baltimore District (Appendix D). This
later study included sampling in the new channel areas and potential overboard disposal
areas - areas not investigated in 1972. While repeating parameters from the earlier
stu,ly, new parameters were added by suggestion of the Technical Advisory Group. Both
studies included surface sampling and sampling beyond project depth by vibracore
borings. The 1978 study also included both deep and surface sampling from the project
channels in RAaryland, and elutriate analysis for all proposed overboard disposal areas.

7. Material to be dredged from project channels in Virginia have been found to contain
low levels of all parameters tested when compared with guideline levels recommended by
the Spoil T)isposal (riteria Committee, a group established by the State of Maryland, to
identify dredged material potentially unsuitable for overboard disposal. The
Environmental Protection Agency, Region, 111, recognizes these guideline levels as
reasonable and adequate when applied to disposal of dredged materials in the waters of
the Chesapeake Bay. Results of elutriate analyses performed for the dredging and
disposal areas showed little affect upon ambient water quality.

8. Sediments tested by VIMS in Maryland waters during 1978 (Appendix D) revealed the
pattern demonstrated by a study of Baltimore Harbor sediments conducted by the

K-2

Environmental Protection Agency during 1971, and by the yearly testing performed on
the approach: channels to the harbor prior to maintenance dredging. This pattern consists
of a grossly polluted surface layer of sediments within the inner harbor, diminishing in
level of contamination as the harbor mouth is approached, and finding sediments in the
project channels in the Bay suitable for open water disposal.

HYT)ROnYNAMI('. AND HYDROLOGIC CHARACTEPISTICS

9. Chesapeake Bay is a complex, dynamic system. Average maximum tidal currents
range from 0. 5 knots to over 2 knots (1 knot equals I nautical mile of 6,076 feet per
hour). Except during periods of unusually high winds, waves in the Bay are relatively
small, generally less than 3 feet in height. The mixing in the estuary of sea water and
freshwater creates salinity variations within the systern. In the Chesapeake Bay,
salinities range from 33 parts per thousand at the mouth of the Bay near the ocean to
near zero at the north end of, the Bay and at the heads of the embayments tributary to
the Bay. Generally speaking, the annual temperature range in Chesapeake Bay is
between 0 degrees Centigrade and 29 degrees Centigrade. Because the mouth of the
estuary is close to the sea, it has a relatively stable temperature as compared with the
upper reaches. Dissolved oxygen levels vary considerably both seasonally and according
to depth. T)uring the winter, the Bay is high in'dissolved oxygen content. With spring and
higher water temperatures, the dissolved oxygen,content decreases.. While warmer
surface waters stay near saturation, in deeper waters the dissolved oxygen content
becomes significantly less.

TMES

10. The mean tidal fluctuation in Chesapeake Bay is small, generally between I and 2
feet. The mean range of tide is 2. 8 feet at the Cape Henr y@ C hanne 1, 2.3 feet at the York
Spit Channel, t.4 feet at the Rappahannock Shoal Channel, 0.8 foot at the Craighill
Entrance, 0.9 f oot in the rutoff Section, 1. 1 f eet at Fort McHenry, and. 1.2 f eet at
Poole's Island in the upper Chesapeake,Bay. Fluciuations in the water surface elevation
in Baltimore Harbor caused by lunar tides are insignificant when compared with the
fluctuations resulting from weather conditions. Prolonged high winds from the north
have a tendency to blow water from the bay and cause unusually low tides. Strong winds
from the south have the opposite effect. Serious flooding has been a recurring
phenomena in the Chesapeake Bay Region. Generally, these floods have been caused by
either hurricanes or stightly'lesser storms known as "northeasters.11 It has been the Bay
,Zegion's good fortune not to have experienced a major tidal storm for a number of
years. During this time, development within the flood plain has intensified. The
attractiveness of the shore environment has caused continued development of large
tracts of land adjacent to the Bay for residential as well as commercial and industrial
purposes. Thus, the potential for increased loss of tife and property, hazards to health,
disruption of normal economic activities, and the cost of evacuation and rehabilitation
will be greater than those as experienced in past floods.

11. To date, over 100 damaging storms, including 53 hurricanes and 47 northeasters,
have been reported in the Bay Region, from the time data has been collected on the Bay
until present, over 100 damaging storms. Each hurricane covered a large geographical
area and had winds in excess of 75 miles per hour moving in a counterclockwise
direction. The northeasters had lesser wind speeds but often covered

K-3

an even larger area. Both types of storms may cover the entire Bay Region at one time
and although all parts of the Study Area have at some time been damaged by such a
storm, the Norfolk area, due to its exposed location, is one of the centers of the highest
frequency.

r I JPPENT.S

12. Average maximum Tidal currents range from 0. 5 knots to over 2.0 knots. The
velocity of the flood current varies in strength f rom about 1.0 knot at the entrance to
Chesapeake Bay to about 0.6 knot at the Craighill Entrance Channel. The velocity of the
ebb current varies f rorn about 1.5 knots at the entrance to the bay to 0.7 knot in the
Craighill Entrance. A vessel entering Chesapeake Bay at a speed of 12 knots can pass
Cape Henry two or three hours before high tide at that point and carry a favorable tidal
current all the way to Baltimore. A vessel leaving Baltimore at the same speed at high
tide can carry a favorable tidal current almost two-thirds of the way to Cape Henry.

SALINITY

13. Within the Bay proper, and its major tributaries, there is superimposed on the tidal
currents a less obvious, non-tidal, two layered circulation pattern that provides a net
seaward flow of lighter, lower salinity water in the upper layer and a flow up the estuary
of heavier, higher salinity waters. in the deeper layer. The tidal currents provide some of
the energy necessary for the mixing of the two layers. The mixing in the estuary of sea
water and freshwater creates salinity variations within the system. Salinity patterns also
vary seasonally according to the amount of freshwater inflow into the Bay system. T.)ue
to this seasonal variation in salinity and the natural density differences between fresh
and saline waters, significant non-tidal circulation often occurs within the Bay's small
tributary embayments. In the spring, during the period of high freshwater inflow to the
Bay, salinity in the embayments may be greater than in the Bay. Because of this salinity
dif f erence, surf ace water f rom the Bay f lows into the tr1butarles on the surf ace, while
the heavier, more saline bottom water from the tributaries flows into the Bay along the
bottom. As Bay sWinity becomes greater through summer and early fall, Bay-waters flow
into the bottom of the tributaries, while tributary surface waters flow into the Bay. In
addition, the Baltiornre Harbor contains a three-layer circulation pattern which consist
of a fresh top layer and a saline bottom layer, both of which flow into the harbor and a
mixed middle layer which flows out of the harbor.
M. The salinity of Chesapeake Bay ranges from slightly below that of the open ocean- at
the Virginia Capes to f reshwater at the Susquehanna flats in the upper bay. At
Baltimore, the surface salinity. varies from an average of 5 parts per thousand in the
spring to about 10 parts per thousand in the fall. At the mouth of the Potomac River the
surface salinity varies from 11 to 18 parts per thousand, while at Cape Henry it varies
from 23 to 29 parts per thousand.

15. The Baltimore Harbor Channels are located in the me'sohaline (5-19 ppt salinity)
ecological zone near its transition with the oligohaline (0.5-5 ppt salinity) zone. These
salinity zones are shown on figure K-1. There is a longitudinal salinity gradient which
may undergo significant variations dependent on the amount of freshwater inflow from
the Susquehanna River. During a wet period such as may occur in the spring, the salinity
might be I ppt at the mouth of the Patapsco River and 6 ppt at the Bay Bridge. During

K-4

-'D Conol

VICINITY IAAP

WASHINGTON

SAL 11411TY t
ZCNES
7c.
Ilk
1. Bay Mouth BM
2.Po!yhafirit P
VA
3.Mesohaline. M
4.0liphaline 0
@.Fresh Water= FW
"V,

llw@
INi
RICHMOND X"

3CALr. OF MILES NORFOLK
to .0 10 20

FIGURE K-1
K-5

dry periods such as tend to happen in the fall, the salinity might increase to 8 ppt at the
mouth of the Patapsco River and as much as 13 ppt at the Bay Bridge.

16. The three Virginia channels-occupy the lower third of the Bay and are within the
"polyhaline" (18-30 ppt salinity) ecological zone of the estuary. The longitudinal salinity
gradient varies from close to 30 ppt at Cape Henry to approximately 19 ppt at the upper
Rappahannock Shoal Channel. During periods of high freshwater river discharge, the
salinities in the upper waters may drop as much as 5 ppt.

0
TEMPERATURE

1.7. The effects of temperature on the estuarine system are extremely important as it
affects biological processes and causes variations in water density, which plays a role in
stratification and'non-tidal circulaion. Since the waters of Chesapeake Bay are
relatively shallow compared to the ocean, they are more affected by atmospheric
temperature conditions. Generally speaking, the annual temperature range in
rhesapeake Bay is between 0 degrees Centigrade and 29 degrees Centigrade. Because
the mouth of the estuary is close to the sea, it has a relatively stable temperature as
compared with the upper reaches.

T)ISSOLVED OXYGFN

.19. Mssolved oxygen is another important physical parameter. Dissolved oxygen levels
vary c.6nsiderbly both seasonally and according to depth. During the winter the Bay is
high in dissolved oxygen content since oxygen is more soluble in cold water than in
warm. With spring and higher water temperatures, the dissolved oxygen content
decreases. While warmer surface waters stay near saturation, in deeper waters the
dissolved oxygen content becomes significantly less despite the cooler temperatures
because of increasing oxygen demands (by bottom dwelling organisms and decaying
organic material)'and decreased vertical mixing. Through the summer, the waters below
30 feet become oxygen deficient. By early fall, as the surface waters cool and sink,
vertical mixing takes place and the oxygen content at all depths begins to steadily
increase until there is an almost uniform distribution of oxygen.

TTZIBTJTAP,Y DRAINAGE

19. The source of fresh water for the Chesapeake,Bay is runoff from a drainage basin
covering 64,160 square miles. Approximately 88 percent of this basin is drained by five
major rivers - the Susquehanna, Potomac, Rappahannock, York and James. These river
basins are subject to periodic large, climatic extremes, resulting in large fluctuations in
flow, i.e., droughts and floods. Of these, droughts are the more geographically
widespread and long-term in nature.

20. Maigr floods on rivers in the Chesapeake Bay Basin may occur during any season of
the year. Usually, however, not all rivers are affected by any one storm due to the areal
extent of the Bay Basin.

WATF,R OUALITY

21. Water quality conditions in the Chesapeake Bay Area vary widely clue to a variety of
factors, e.g., proximity to urban areas, type and extent of industrial activity, streamflow
characteristics, amount and type of upstream land and water usage, and various non-
point sources of pollution.

K-6

22. Water quality as a whole in Chesapeake Bay is good. In the upper portion of the Bay,
nutrients carried by Susquehanna River waters, largely as a result of runoff f rom
extensive fertilized agricultural areas and the wastewater discharges of over a million
people, appear to be the major problem. Depression of dissolved oxygen (DO)
concentrations below Conowingo-Dam., located near the mouth of the Susquehanna River,
following late summer deep water discharges, causes occasional fish kills. In the middle
and lower Chesapeake Bay, water quality is good with most of the problems occurring in
the tributaries and near areas of high population concentration.

23. In the Patapsco. River and especially the Baltimore Harbor Area, analysis of the
water quality has indicated that many sources of pollution exist. Among these are
wastewater discharges, direct indistrial discharges, sewerage overflows and leaks into
the harbor tributaries, urban runoff, and spills of hazardous substances from vessels and
dockside facilities. Major problems include low DO content, high bacterial
concentrations, and undesirable levels of other pollutants such as heavy metals and oil.
Field investigations during December 1971 by the EPA Annapolis Field Office, identified
significant industrial discharges of ethioft (pesticide), cyanide, phenol, nutrients, and
various heavy metals into Baltimore Harbor. Although nutrient concentrations are
genera tly suf f icient for algal blooms they rarely occur. DO concentrations at the surface
have generally conformed with existing standards, while values at the 15-foot level are
frequently depressed below the standard (concentrations may be not less than 5.0
mg1liter at any time with a minimum daily average of not less than 6.0 mg/liter).

24. Groundwater quality is variable with each aquifer within the study area, however,
the only areas of significant groundwater withdrawal are the Annapolis and Baltimore
metropolitan areas. Since the Annapolis area will not be affected, only the Baltimore
area is discussed.

25. The Baltimore industrial area has a long history of domestic, industrial, and
municipal use of groundwater. This use probably peaked during World War tl when use
was so great (estimated 40 million gallons per day industrial withdrawal) that salt water
intrusion became a serious problem. The probable maximum water table decline was
during World War 11. It is believed that levels have generally risen since that time,
although in some areas industrial pumping has created cones of depression below sea
level.

AIR QUALITY

26. Generally, air quality may be considered good due to the mainly rural character of
the study area. Air quality diminishes with proximity to the metropolitan areas, e.g.,
Baltimore and Washington, which usually conflict with two of the six air quality
parameters monitored by the Environmental Protection Agency. The two parameters are
particulates and photochemical oxidants.

27. Locally, particulates in the air originate from industrial sources and construction
activites generating fugitive dust. Photochemical oxidants stem from the interaction of
the ultraviolet component of sunlight with the hydrocarbons released to the atmosphere
through automobile emissions.

28. Elaboration of air quality standards and data were not carried out due to the limited
relationship-to the project.

K-7

rULTURAL RFSOUV@F_S

29. A major theme of the Colonial Period in the Chesapeake Bay is the central
importance of waterborne transportation to the'areals maritime cultural system.
Watercraft served as the means whereby the Europeans came to the Bay area, and upon
'which their economy became dependent.

30. Although it is not entirely clear when European explorers first came to Chesapeake
Bay, it has been speculated that the Bay was visited by Norsemen as early as the I Ith
Century. The most prominent explorers of the 16th and 17th Century were the Spanish.
Towards the end of the 16th Century, the English became interested in colonizing the
New World, establishing Jamestown in 1607.

31. The spread of the English Colonial settlement in the early decades of the 17th
rentury brought disease and defeat to the American Indian tribes in the Chesapeake Bay
area. Within a relatively short time their surviving members withdrew f rorn the
Chesapeake Bay to more remote areas, or remained and adapted themselves to the ever
expanding and dominant European culture.

32. The waterborne transportation system became a central factor both in internal
communications in the Bay, and in commerce with Europe and other areas. By 1622
tobacco had become the major -cash crop in the Bay area's economy. The amount of
maritime traffic on the Bay steadily increased during the I Sth Century as the region's
economy expanded along with the emergence of the American merchant marine and the
Baltimore clipper sailing schooner. By the end of the l8th Century, the Chesapeake Bay
had become a major shipbuilding center.

33. The r@hesapeake Bay was a.major theater of operations during the War of
Independence, War of IS 12, and the Civil War, naval and military operations.

34. nuring the 19th Century, steam-powered vessels were introduced into the Bay's
maritime commerce. T)espite the introduction of steam-powered vessels, a major portion
of the Bay's maritime traffic still relied primarily on sails. Following the end of the
Civil War, the Bay's maritime trade expanded. The port of Baltimore continued to be a
center of both transportation and industry.

ECOLOGY

35. The Chesapeake Bay Area comprises open water, marshes and other wetlands, and
uplands. Approximately 22 percent of the Bay Area is classified as open water, 71
percent as uplands, and 7 percent as wetlands. It is the 29 percent wetted area total that
will be addressed as to the effect of project activities.

WETLANnS

36. Wetlands are infinitely varied, complexly integrated areas of plant and animal
communities. Although each wetland type is unique, similarities exist which enable these
types to be divided into the following three major wetland categories: coastal saline,
coastal fresh, and inland fresh. These three wetland categories total approximately
t,145,000 acres and are located in both the drainage basins and the Bay proper.

K-9

37. Coastal saline wetlands are generally located in coastal areas that are in direct
contact or are indirectly affected by saline -wate@rs. These marshes provide extremely
high quality nursery areas for both sport and commercial fishes and their value as habitat
for many wildlife species is great.

38. roastal fresh wetlands are located in coastal areas that are af f ected by tidal fresh
water. While the primary production of coastal fresh wetlands may not be as great as
coastal salt wetlands, the wildlife habitat they provide is of greater value and more
extensively utilized. This is primarily due to the array of vegetation types characteristic
of these wetlands.

39. Inland fresh wetlands include those areas u sually characterized by non-tidal fresh
water. While primary productivity is not relatively great, the wide variety of vegetation
found in this wetland category makes it of extreme value to numerous wildlife species.,

40. Recognizing the beneficial role that wetlands play in natural processes, Executive
Order 11990 was promulgated to assure their protection against long and short-term
impacts. As there are no wetlands located within project construction areas, no further
impact assessment was conducted.

SUBMERGED VASCULAR PLANTS
41. Submerged vascular plants are widely distribuied in the Bay and tributaries wherever
shallow, quiet, and relatively clean waters are present. Relatively healthy plant
populations are found in the eastern shore tributaries such as the Choptank, Nanticoke,
and (-hester Rivers. The western shore of Patuxent River is also highly productive. The
Eastern shore from the Bay Bridge to Pocomoke Sound is highly productive, particularly
in the shallow waters around islands such as Bloodsworth and Smith. These plants play an
important role in bottom stabilization, water oxygenation, providing shelter and food for
young fish, and food for wildfowl. Because they are limited to relatively shallow areas
where light can penetrate to the bottom, it is not likely that there are productive beds of
submerged aquatic vegetation in close proximity to the channels or deep water disposal
.sites (see Figures Y__ I through L-3); nor is there any marsh land nearby.

WATERFOWL

42. Chesapeake Bay is the constricted neck in the gigantic funnel pattern that forms the
Atlantic Flyway. Most of the waterfowl reared in the area between the western shore of
the Hudson Bay all the way to Greenland spend some time in the marshes of the Bay and
its tributaries during their migrations. Good wintering areas adjacent to preferred
upland feeding grounds attract more than 75 percent of the wintering. population of
Atlantic Flyway@Canada geese. The marshes and grain fields of the Delmarva Peninsula
are particularly attractive to Canada geese and to grain-feeding mallards and black
ducks. The Susquehanna Flats support huge flocks of American widgeon in the early fall,
while several species of diving ducks, including canvasback, redhead, ringneck, and scaup,
winter on Chesapeake Bay f rom the Susquehanna Flats south to the tip of the Delmarva
Peninsula. About half of the 80,000 whistling swans in North America winter on the
small estuaries in or around the Bay. While this area is primarily a wintering ground,
several other species of waterfowl, including the black duck, blue-winged teal, and wood
dui--k, find suitable nesting and brood-raising habitat.

K-9

plovers, marsh hawk, short-eared owl, herons, egrets, gulls, terns, oyster catcher, and
curlews. Many of the above species are insectivores, feeding on grasshoppers,
caterpillars, beetles, flies, and mosquitoes, while others feed on seeds, frogs, snakes, and
fish. There are numerous other birds which rely more heavily. on the wooded uplands and
agricultural rands providing their basic habitat requirements. Among these species are
many game birds, including wild turkey, mourning dove, bobwhite quail, woodcock, and
pheasant. In addition, migratory and resident songbirds and birds of prey are primarily
upland species. It should be emphasized that some of these species require both an
upland and a wetland habitat.

PHYTOPLANKTON

44. The greatest amount of accumulated information regarding the phytoplankton of
Chesapeake Bay concerns the diatoms and dinoflagellates, whereas virtually nothing is
known of the nannoplank-ton.

45. In thd seasonal cycle of the Bay, phytoplankton diatoms occur throughout the year.
Generally, they are most abundant in the fall, winter, and spring period when water
temperatures are below 20 degrees Centigrade. However, temperature does not
necessarily seem to an important indicator of population density. Other parameters such
as nutrients, day length, and turbidity are probably more significant. Planktonic diatom
populations in the lower Bay are generally more diverse with a mixing of estuarine and
marine or oceanic species.

46. Although dinoflagellates, as evidenced by the summer red water blooms throughout
the Bay, are most abundant at water temperatures above 20 degrees Centigrade,
exceptions are fairly common. The armoured dinoflagellates persist in the Bay
throughout the seasonal cycle while the naked forms are most common during the
summer months. All range throughout the Bay, but successional species changes occur
from lower to upper Bay. Silocof lagellates occur primarily during the spring period,
although they contribute a relatively small amount to the total biomass, whereas the
nannoplankton are most abundant in the summer. This last group has generally been
neglected because of the difficulties in identification and preservation. The microscopic
green and blue-green algae, which are becoming increasingly more abundant in the upper
reaches of Bay tributaries, are common constituents of the spring, summer, and fall
phytoplankton community.

BENTHIC INVERTEBRATES

47. Benthic invertebrates of the polyhaline zone in the lower Bay exhibit a high diversity
and a distribution pattern which is largely determined by the patterns in bottom sediment
type. The benthic invertebrates play an essential role in the aquatic food web by serving
as food sources for a large variety of species in higher tropic levels.

48. The distribution and abundance of fauna in Baltimore Harbor is quite distinct from
that of the Bay due to the impact from the large harbor industrial complex. Benthic
biomass values are significantly less than at reference stations. The principal reason for
the paucity of benthos is the fact that the sediments are grossly contaminated with a
number of pollutants. In addition to the large amount of chemical pollutants, the harbor
also has high concentrations of colif orm bacteria and associated organisms.

K-10

FISH ANT) SHELLFISH

Finf ish

49. The Chesapeake Bay serves as a nursery and spawning ground for fish caught from
Maine to North rarolina. The Northern part of the Chesapeake Bay, including the C&D
@7anal, is probably the largest of all spawning areas in the Bay. This area plus the upper
tidal portions of the Potomac, York, Rappahannock, James, and Patuxent Rivers,
represent about 90 percent of the anadromous fish spawning grounds in the Bay.

50.. The utili zation of Baltimore Harbor as spawning habitat is very limited. The harbor
is, however, used as a nursery and feeding ground by several fish species, white perch
being the most abundant, although many show signs of stress. Several bottom dwelling
species are conspicuously absent, probably due to the polluted nature of the bottom
sediments.

51. Some of the fish that use the Bay as a nursery include the striped bass, weakfish,
shad, alewife, blueback herring, croaker, menhaden, and kingf ish. A variety of prominent
freshwater and marine finfish in the Bay include such species as the spot, seatroutj
flounders, yellow perch, white perch, catfish, and sunfish. A large number of desirable
sport fish species are found in the Bay at various times and places, with about a dozen
being of principal interest. There is virtually no tidewater zone that does not have an
abundance of some sought-after species. Types of fishing range from dip netting for
river herring at the head of the Bay to deet) fishing for large drum in the southern
section.

52. In the spring, heavy runs of river herring and white perch occur in the streams
flowing into the Bay. Centers of intensive spring f is hing are on the Susquehanna Flats,
the Choptank River, and Allen's Fresh in Charles County.

53. The upper Bay supports both a commercial and a large sport finf ish f ishery. The
harvests of selected species for areas of the upper Bay (Figure K-2) are shown in Table K-1.

54. The mid-Bay area is heavily fished for striped bass and white perch during the
summer months with the total weight of all species taken in estimated to be around two
million pounds. The lower Bay, and particularly Tangier Sound, attracts heavy fishing for
the large red drum and black drum thatmove into the area in the spring.

55. There is generally good year-round fishing throughout the Bay, with the species
caught varying with the time of year and method of fishing. While heavy fishing occurs
in the Bay proper and the Potomac Estuary, there is also a great deal of activity in the
tidal portions of the numerous small tributaries of the Bay where several fresh water
species such as smallmouth and largemouth bass, northern pike, and crappies are caught
along with the more typically saltwater species. Other species of game fish caught
include, bluefish, weakfish, spot, cobla, flounder, and croaker.

K-1 I

(It C.,
AREA
3

_V11 A REA

ANN APOU

Figure K-2
1976 S U'I've'y areas X"2t@ I
c
0 * 1@
a"Pling Points [email protected] AREA
z

AREA
4

f. u.,

tit 4N"%(.
AREA

AREA 5

pe-
Po 4'

K-12 k

Table K-1
(' 0; ill ;I,; i, 1 .1; 01 Svor t and cop rierr, i a 1 r7 @i Lch i 0; in -or t f ish, i nq
suvv(,.'@ areas for 117G.

ffarvcst in pounds by jr.,ecies

S t r j) c d a I ue f i S 11 Wh i te Croaker po t
h

Sport 500,266 766,402 66,93.0 @1941 5 6 3) 6 1

133,589 30 111
coia""ercial 7G,554 I It." 7 3

-Area 2
S Por, t .21 9066 2jO617,722 7?1

cojivic rc i a 1 114,224 4 1 93 7 8 13 5 el 21 84

Area 3
Sport 3,712 19442.1 1 Ii I 0i 1 19 SIM

(.01"01"fercial 181,010 315,421 2217-1? 0 0

Ar ea 4
,,port .6,079 400551 28,012 0 525

cf-It'r.lercial 9, 31 r) 0 0

2j953 2100,11 25 595 4 117010"

c rc a 1 33,040 1 524 16 399 0 U

o t a I S
S;" 0 t 5 .1 r P00 2 9 15 27 4 10 1119 18 c 3

-C 0 1 C a 1 4 .11, 1 1 "Y9 70 74 718 51 201

Entire 111,wyland
.Chesapeake Bay
& tidCwate r
tributaries lp452,289 398,055 392,232 3131.3
(exclul"ive Gf
Potctrac Riv@,r)
cc"Ilf@rdal fin-
fish harwst

,source: Speir, et al., 1977

K-13

56. Generally speaking, the. commercial uses of the Bay's fishery resources are intensive,
abundant, and varied. Commerical f ishing f or industrial fishes (primarily menhaden) is
at, or surpassing, maximum sustain6d harvest capability levels. Therefore, the industrial
fish harvest cannot be expected to appreciably increase in the future. Major finfish
caught on a com mercial. basis in the study area include menhaden, alewives, striped bass,
shad, catfish, spot, croaker, and other species that are fished somewhat less extensively.

57. Except f or certain species, the edible firifish harvest has not yet reached its
maximum sustained harvest capability level. Based on catch records and professional
opinion, it appears that American shad are currently harvested tothe maximum sustained
level. Adequate information is not available to determine the variance in composition
and the maximum sus'tained harvest rates f or certain f ish species. This is particularly
true of white perch, yellow perch, catfish, and swellfish, and to a lesser degree,
weakfish, butterfish, flounder, bluefish, spot, and other species.

Shellf is h

58. The most economi call y4 mportant species of shellfish are the oyster, bluecrab and
the sof tshell clam. Virginia is the nation's leading producer of blue crabs and Maryland
leads the nation in the production of sof tshell clams and oysters.

59. Oysters are abundant in many parts of the Estuary. The numerous small bays, coves,
and inlets between the. Chester and Nanticoke Rivers along the Eastern Shore and the
lower portions of the Patuxent, Potomac, York, Rappahannock, and James Rivers
account f or approximately 90 percent of the annual harvest of oysters in the Bay.

60. Chartered oyster bars in the vicinity of the Baltimore Harbor approach channel are
shown in Figures K-3 and K-4. Although all these bars are open to public harvest, some
are no longer productive. The records of commercial harvest of soft clams f rorn the Bay
waters in the vicinity of the Baltimore Harbor approach channel are shown in Table K-2. In
general, most soft clams are found in waters less than 20 feet deep.

61. Oysters, (Crassostrea virginica comprise an important commercial fishery in
Virginia. Since they are most abundant in waters less than,25 f eet deep and occur
infrequently in waters greater than 35 feet deep, it is unlikely that productive oyster
bars are located close to the channels or deep water disposal sites.
t
62. Commerical harvesting of hard clams (Mercenaria mercenaria) is centered primarily
in the Bay tributaries. Although the clams occur throughout the lower Bay, their
concentrations are apparently only high enough to support a modest commercial fishery
there. There are likely to be scattered populations of hard clams in the Virginia
channels, particularly in Cape Henry and York Spit and possibly in the dis : sal sites.
po

63. In the lower Bay, the largest commercial fishery is for blue crabs (Callinectes
sapidus . The mouth of the Bay, an area of high salinity, is the major source of 511-ue
crabs harvested in the Bay'and its tributaries. Harvesting occurs on a year round basis
and includes a winter dredging fleet. Female crabs migrate south during the late s'urnmer
and f all to the higher salinity waters of the lower Bay. The adult f emales. pass the winter
in the deeper portion of the lower Bay, an area which includes the York Spit and Cape
Henry channels. During the spring, the crabs move into shallower water, where they will,

K- 14

TAKI omit

C H B S A P R A X x B A r

f", QD ..oi

laTtML Gram a@

DAI
7V

C, 0
71 1-

0 0
JAI
0
10
1C.
A Y

S;A It

L-J
---- -0--a
............ -.. -- - !- -.. .. ...................
........... ............ ..... ........ ...........
o I,,.) @. 01
.......... ...
-0 0

IN,

L
r-1
00 @0@

FIGURE k-4

-K-16

Table K-2 Port Softshell Clam Harvest In Bushels From Upper Chesapeake Bay Waters

County 66-672 67-68 68-69 619-70 70-71 71-72 72-73 73-74 74-75 75-76

Queen Annes 7,862 1,708 19,230 -11,288 40,552 22,011 58 323 10,213 2,994

X ent 7,550 6,61-3 7,575 16,085 --19,075 32,235 0 103 2,999 1,804

Anne Arundel 10,654 1,446 3,600 626 242 0 29 37 0

Baltimore, 0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0

lExcludes the Chester River
2HarVest f rom July of the first year to June -of the following year

spawn in late spring and summer. After hatching, the zoeae larval stage remains
planktonic f or about 6,weeks. The greatest concentrations of zoeae occur between Cape
Charles and Cape Henry in the upper water levels in the vicinity of the channel, with
lesser numbers up-Bay and seaward. As they pass through the megalopa stage and into
the young crab stage, they settle to the bottom and migrate up-Bay.

64. There is a very minor commercial fishery during the winter f or rock crabs (Cancer
irroratus). Rock crabs move into the lower Bay f rorn the Ocean in mid-November and
depart in April. They are found east of the Bay Bridge-Tunnel and the lower York Spit.

THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES

65. The f ollowing include a total of 3 threatened and I I endangered species which occur
or possibly occur in the Chesapeake Bay Area.

List of Species Status

Bald Eagle Endangered
Bog Turtle Threatened
Maryland Darter Endangered
Shortnose St urgeon Endangered
Delmarva Peninsula
Fox Squirrel Endangered
Eskimo Curlew Endangered
Arctic Peregrine Falcon Endangered
Kemp'sRidley Turtle Endangered
Leatherback Turtle Endangered
Hawksbill Turtle Endangered
Loggerhead Turtle Threatened
Green Turtle Threatened
Red-Cockaded Woodpecker Endangered
American Peregrine Falcon Endangered
66. Of these species only the Kemp's Ridley, Leatherback and Hawksbill Turtles, and
Shortnosp Sturgeon may potentially be found near construction areas. Additionally,,no
critical habitat necessary f or these turtles is located within the Bay Area arfd their
pref erred range 'encompasses warmer waters. Consequently, sitings of these turtles
north of Florida waters are only occasional. 'Regarding the Short-nose Sturgeon, all
recent records are f rom the Hudson River except f or one Floiida specimen. The
remaining listed'species would be precluded f rom the project area by their habitat
requirements.

CONDITIONS "WITHOUT THE PROJECT"

67. A decision not to implement the authorized improvements f or the Baltimore Harbor
shipping channels would have no significant direct or indirect effects on the natural
systems of the Chesapeake Bay. The maximum size of vessels using the port, however,
would be limited to the maximum size now accommodated. Improvements to other
United States and f oreign ports could reduce the competitive position of the port and this
region, particularly in the area of bulk commodities. A very high percentage of the

K-18

port's commerce consists of bulk commodities which are moved most efficiently in large
carriers, and the trend towards such carriers is clearly evident in the Port of Baltimore.

68. Use of large carriers at the Port of Baltimore will require the inefficiences and
economic disadvantages of light-loadihg to insure safe navigation. As the Port is
Maryland's single most important 'economic asset, loss of commerce would have a
significant effect on the State's economic'and social well-being.

CONDITON5 "WITH THE PROJECT"

69. While construction of the authorized channel modification is expected to 'have
improved economic impacts for the Port of Baltimore, the project impacts of primary
concern herd are confined to those generated from initial dredging, subsequent
maintenance dredging, disposal of dredged materials, and changes to the hydrodynamic
regime as a result of deepening the channel.

EFFECTS OF DREDGING (INITIAL AND MAINTENANCE)

BENTHOS

70. When the channels were last modified from 39 feet to 42 feet, the benthic population
in the channels, both micro and macroscopic, was doubtlessly eliminated along with the
interfacial sediments which supported that life. The subsequent partial filling in one of
the channels involved sedimentation of materials which may not have exactly duplicated
the original sediments. This is because the sediment was transported f rorn up- and
downstream and was thus a complex product of freshwater streaming and Bay shore
erosion processes. As such, one might expect the repopulating channel benthos to reflect
a system equilibrium somewhat diff erent f rom, that of the surrounding benthic
communities to the degree that their sedimentary habitats differ in physical and
chemical characteristics. I

71. If we now superimpose periodic maintenance dredging on this ecosystem it is clear
that productivity in the channel will oscillate between some value approximately zero
and a value reflecting the equilibrium state mentioned before. Over a long period, the
average would fall somewhere between the two extremes, meaning that, while there
would be a marked environmental impact on the maintenance channels in the f orrn of a
long-term productivity loss, it would not be "catastrophic!' in the sense of a permanent
and complete loss. An average productivity of 25 percent-of the natural value is assumed
f or the purposes of discussion. In order to place the significance of this in pr6per
perspective' it is f urther assumed that the percentage productivity in the channels with
respect to the Bay total may be derived f rorn the ratio of their areas. The area of the
Chesapeake Bay is about 2,200 square miles; that of the new channel areas is
approximately 3 square miles, which represents about 0.54 percent of the total Bay
area. Assuming a 75 percent loss of long-term channel productivity, the impacts in
terms of the Bay as a whole would represent about a 0. 1 perce nt loss f rorn dredging of
channel extensions. This value is actually very high because of the implicit assumptions
that the productivity of the Bay bottom is unif orm; actually the productivity is, higher in
the shoals than in the- channel areas. Nevertheless, the f igure of 0. 1 percent is accepted
as a maximum conservative loss estimate.

K- 19

72. A loss of 0.1 percent represents a 42 percent increase over the estimated 0.24
percent loss incurred to date within the existing channel areas, or a total loss of Bay
benthic productivity attributable to the Baltimore Harbor shipping channels of 0.34
percent.

73. One possible exception to this discussion is the York Spit and Cape Henry sections of
the channels in Virginia which lie within the general area where large numbers of female
blue crabs congregate to overwinter and spawn. Although the Virginia winter blue crab
dredging fleet would not be immediately affected, as they are not permitted to work in
the channels, a significant portion of those crabs overwintering in the channel would be
lost. Two main factors, however, suggest that impacts to the general blue crab
population levels throughout the Bay would not be substantial. The first is that the
channels make up only a small part of the overwintering area. The second factor is that
there is evidence to indicate t1lat the size of the spawning stock does not determine the
size of the-population of blue crabs surviving to harvestable age. To minimize any
impacts to the overwintering blue crabs, however, dredging will be restricted during 15
November to 15 March in these two channet sections, as recommended by the United
States Fish and Wildlife Service.

74. T)uring the actual dredging process sediments will be disturbed and suspended into
the water column. The U. S. Army Waterways Experiment Station has investigated
dredging and disposal operations for0a number of years under the Dredged Material
Research Program OMRP). Results of the program have indicated that water-column
turbidity generated, by dredging oeprations is usually restricted to the vicinity of the
operation and decreases rapidly with increasing distance f rom the operation due to
settling and horizontal dispersion of the suspended material. The main concern with the
harbor dredging is not the resultant turbidity but the release of toxic material into the
water column. The T)A4TZP research indicates long term impacts of dredged material on
water quality have generally been slight. Very little net mass release of heavy metals
into the water column was observed regardless of the composition of the sediments.
Even during open water disposal operations it was observed that there were esentially no
uptake of metals or PCB's by fish or most invertebrates.

75. (-hemical testing in the Baltimore Harbor shows that portions of the sediments are
contaminated, with the most polluted material in the Inner Harbor. The sediments
become less contaminated as you approach the mouth of the Patapsco River. This
contamination is- substantially confined to the upper 10 centimeters of the sediment. The
bulk of the material will be undistrubed clean materials which result from deepening the
channels. T)redging operations will remove most material however some sediment will. be
suspended into the water column. Since the most polluted material is in the Inner
Harbor, any suspended material will have a longer time to settle out before it reaches
the open bay. As dredging gets closer to the mouth of the river, the settling time for
suspended sediments before reaching the bay is shorter, however the material being
dredged is less contaminated. In addition the material within the channels is probably
less contaminated than material elsewhere in the Harbor due to the fact that the
channels have been deepened and maintained in the past. Also, the low velocities in the
innter harbor somewhat inhibit the transport of the sediments. The amount of
contaminated material being carried to the bay as a result of dredging operations is not
expected to be signif icant. Recent EPA testing (199 1) has shown an area adjacent to the
mouth of the Patapsco River to contain contaminated material and is limited in its

K-20

benthic diversity. Any suspended material resulting from dredging which make it to the
bay, may settle out in this area. If so, the overall impact to the area shall not be
signif icant.

FINFISH

76. Adult fintish should be able to avoid being impacted during the dredging operation,
but species which feed on benthic invertebrates may be affected by a temporary lack of.
forage species in the channel. This impact should not be severe As the dredged area is
relatively small in comparison to the area of th@5 Bay.

SHELLFISH

77. There are no commercial shellfish beds in the vicinity of the dredging areas in the
Virginia portion of the project. However, the channel in Maryland passes in the vicinity
of chartered oyster bars. The fact that these oyster bars are located in much shallower
water than the channel should help to lessen the possibility of impact. The State of
Maryland has monitored maintenance dredging activities and associated open water
disposal from the channels in Maryland for the period 1975-1978 and has found no
significant impacts (MD nNR, 1975, 1976, 1977, 1978). Additionally, there has not been
a substantial natural set of oysters from the bars in the vicinity of the channel since
Hurricane Agnes in 1972. Consequently, construction dredging activities are not
expected to adversely affect shellfish resources.

EPFECTS -OF DISPOSAL

78. in many cases, the, impacts associated with the disposal of dredged material can be
greater than with the actual dredging. With the proposed method of open water disposal
in the Virginia portion of the project, potential impacts which must be considered include
effects on the bottom community, the generation of elevated levels of turbidity, the
release of toxic materials, changes in sediment composition, and resuspension and
migration of deposited materials.

79. The results of chemical testing of the sediments (both bulk analysis and elutriate
testing) to be dredged f rorn the Virginia (hannel sections indicate that these materials
have constituent levels characteristic of "clean" sediments (see Chemical Analysis
earlier In this section). Additionally, the results of lengthy study by the United States
Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station Dredged Material Research Program
(WESIT)MP,P) regarding characteristics of the sediment load released during open water
disposal operations by a bottom dump hooper dredge, the expected dredging method for
the Virginia channel sections, indicates that the material will partition into a Main cloud
that wilt descend vertically and a turbidity cloud. The main cloud will descend at a high
velocity to the bottom and should experience negligible effects due to ambient water
currents and variations in water density. The turbidity cloud will most probably be
moved out of the general dump site area by even the smallest currents. Compared to the
main cloud which descends to the bottom, the turbidity cloud will be very small in terms
of total solids.

K-21

80. T)uring 1975, maintenance dredging was performed in the Baltimore Harbor approach
channels in Maryland by a bottom dumping hopper dredge with disposal in deep waters off
of Kent Island. The State of Maryland carefully monitored all aspects of this operat##
Island T)isposal Site and Survey of Associated Environmental Impacts, 11 February 1976, by
the Maryland nepartments of Natural Resources and Transportation. The particle sizes
of the dredged material ranged from approximately 0.6 to 12 microns. These particle
sizes are finer than those to be dredged from the Virginia sections and so, should present
a conservative indication if applied to disposal in Virginia. Results indicated that the
turbidity cloud remained primarily at depths greater than 25 feet at locations within a
few hundred meters of the dump site and was no longer detectable I hour after disposal.
The main cloud "settled to the bottom as a discrete mass with little or no material
reaching the surface. About 15 minutes after release most of the course material had
settled out of the water leaving a plume of turbid water a few meters thick that was
moved by tidal currents. After about 2 hours, the plume of turbid water had settled even
more leaving only a thin laver of turbid water very near the bottom. This layer of turbid
near bottom water has been ascribed to resuspension of sediment by action of tidal
currents... A final bathymetric survey was made... approximately 250 days after
disposal activities had ceased... Comparison of the two post-ope rational surveys shows
no compelling evidence for removal of dredged materials from the disposal site."

81. The following is a discussion of expected impacts at the individual project disposal
areas.

,APPAMANNOrK SHOAL (Figure L-3)
82. T)ueing 1967, the Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS) published a study of the
Rappahannock Shoal Channel and disposal areas designed to determine the effects of
dredging and disposal on these areas from the dredging of the then recently authorized
42-foot channel. The sampling period covered the years 1961-1964 and considered
effects on benthic fauna from the processes of dredging, disposal, and sediment
redistribution. Among several conclusions arrived at by the study was the finding that
dredged material disposal in a deep estuarine area has a transient impact on benthic
fauna. This conclusion has been affirmed by the results of the WES/DMRP
Investigations.

83. As the material to be dredged from the Rappahannock Shoal Channel is essentiall'y
the same as that removed during the operations monitored by the 1967 VINAS report, it is
reasonable to assume that the results should not markedly differ.

TANG,IER ISLAND (Figure L-3)

84. The western shore of Tangier Island has potential as a disposal area for a limited
portion of the material f rorn the Rappahannock Shoal. Channel. The material could be
utilized to create wetlands under Section 150 of the Water Resources Development Act
of 1976 (refer to Section L for details) to a limited degree or to provide erosion control
under a program of non-Federal cost sharing. The results of a benthic survey along the
western shore of Tangier Island by VIMS during 1976 indicates that both of these sites are
moderately productive but without grass beds or significant concentrations of
commercially harvested species. Dredged material placed in this area and protected
from erosive wind and wave action would provide erosion protection to the severely
eroding island, as well as productive wetland.

K-22

WOLF TRAP (Pigure,L-?)

85. New work and maintenance dredging of the York Spit rhannel, has historically been
placed at the Wolf Trap disposal area with the exception of the new work dredging for
the 39-foot modification, which was placed beside the channel. It is expected that
impacts on the benthic community would be minimal due to similarity of sediment type
between the material to be dredged and the sediments in the disposal area, and frequency
of historical use - it was last used for the disposal of 520,000 cubic yards of material
from the fiscal year 1977 maintenance dredging of the York Spit Channel. There are no
sensitive bottoms such as grass beds or commercially harvested shellfish concentrations
in close proximity to this site. The major concentration of overwintering blue crabs
occur southward. Previously used areas will be utilized before beginning disposal areas in
the eastward extension (refer to Section L for details). Visual examination of samples
from the extension and channel sites indicate similar materials (refer to Appendix D).

r)AAA NFC K 017EAN DISPOSAL SITE (Figure L-1)

86. This site was designated as an interim ocean disposal site for approved dredged
materials,by ocean dumping criteria regulations promulgated by the Environmental
Protection Agency, I I January 1977. Grain size analysis of the Cape Henry Channel
sediments to be dredged indicate that they are predominantly a fine sand. They further
occur in a high energy area. Additionally, testing (refer to Appendix D) has revealed
characteristically clean sediments. This material definitely qualifies for disposal at this
site under existing criteria. The York Spit Channel sediments will be considered for
ocean disposal at some future time. They are predominantly a coarse silt. Visual
examination of 10 samples from this disposal area and 30 samples from the channel
indicate that the material proposed for dumping is substantially the same as the
substrate at the disposal site (refer to Appendix N. Further, the dredge site is far
removed from known and existing historical sources of pollution. C hemical testing (bulk
and elutriate analysis; Appendix N indicate that this material is uncontaminated.

87. The Dam Neck disposal area lies within the migratory route of, manv fish species,
e.g., spot, croakers, weakfish, rockfish, summer flounders. As disposal would be
accomplished by botto dumping hopper dredge, it is expected that disposal impacts will
remain localized within the disposal area, and would generate minimum turbidity; a@
previously discussed in paragraph 77.

HART AND MILLFR ISLANDS (see Figure L-4)

88. This diked disposal area will receive all materials from the initial dredging of the
Maryland Channel Sections (refer to Section L). Material transported to the site will be
placed into this containment facility by the State of Maryland to avoid impacts to the
local area. Impacts associated with construction and operation of this disposal facility
have been separately examined in an EIS prepared by the United States Army Corps of
Engineers during 1976 in response to a permit application for the facility, This facility
will be carefully monitored., under conditions of the permit, by the State of Maryland.

AF)DITIONAL T)ISPOSAL AREAS

89. If other disposal areas or options become available over the planned life of the
Droject (refer to Section 1), impacts associated with them would be considered at that.
time.

K-23

FATE OF F)TZF-nGF-T) IMATT@RIAL DISPOSAL IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY

VIRGINIA CHANNELS

90. The fate of dredged material placed on the bay bottom is dependent on the dredging
method and disposal operation, the nature of the dredged material, and the energy
regime and bottom sedimentology of the disposal areas. Owing to the complexities and
interactions of the various phenomena, the prediction of the fate of the dredged material
is not a precise science.

9t. The dredged material will probably be placed overboard from either a barge or
hopper dredge. The first phase is convective descent during which the dumped material
possesses an initial downward momentum. The material settles as a cloud rather than as
individual particles. This process occurs rapidly, which means that the cloud is not in
contact with the upper portions of the water column very long. The second phase is
collapse where the cloud flattens out with a small vertical dimension usually ranging
from 3 inches to 6 inches. TN6 final phase is long-term dispersion, which includes eddy'
diffusion due to random currents, mixing by wind waves, and mixing by currents.

92. Two types of particles from the channels are involved: (a) non-cohesive particles
whose movement depends on particle properties such as shape, size and position with
respect to other particles, and (b) cohesive particles whose resistance to inititat
movement or erosion depends additionally on the strength of the cohesive bond between
particles. Greater currents are required to erode cohesive sediments than non-cohesive
sediment, but once the cohesive bond is broken during the dredge Misposal operation
these particles are susceptible to erosion.

91. The median grain size for Rappahannock Shoal Channel material ranges from 0.02
mm with an average of 0.05 mm. For the York Spit Channel, the median grain size
ranges f ro rn 0. 04 m m to 0. 48 m m with an average of 0. 17 m m.

ENERGY REGIME AT THE TDISPOSAL AREAS

RAPPAHANNOCK SHOAL DISPOSAL AREA

94. r)ue to the depth of 80 feet at the Rappahannock Shoal Disposal Site, wave induced
bottom velocities will be negligible. The primary energy source for sediment movement
at this site would be tidal current. T)ata for the Baltimore Harbor Test on the
Chesapeake Bay Model shown in Table K-3 indicates the maximum spring and minimum
neap tidal bottom current velocities for the area are 0.691 and 0.114 feet per seond,
respectively.

95. The bottom depth at the Wolf Trap Disposal Area is 39 feet. Wind speeds, 35 mph or
greater, would result in the most significant wave induced velocities of greater than 0.5
feet per second. Based on 25 years of wind occurrences at Patuxent Naval Air Station,
wind speeds greater than or equal to 35 mph from all direCtions would occur only about
48 hours per year, which is considered insignificant. it would, however, aid in
resuspension of sediment in the disposal area. As shown in Table K-3, the maximum
spring and minimum neap tidal bottom current velocities for the Wolf Trap Disposal Area
are 1.833 and 0.793 feet per second, respectively.

K-24

TABLE K-3
TIDAL CURRENT VELOCITY CHAP, ACTERISTICS - PLAN TEST CONDITION

120,000 cfs Inflow Test 30,000 cfs Inflow Test
Max Velocity, Max Velocity, Max Velocity Max Velocity
r)epth Spring Tide Neap Tide Spring Tide Neap Tide
Q t)

Flood Ebb Flood Ebb Flood Ebb Flood Ebb

Rappahannock
Shoat so 0.434 FPS 0.340 0.184 0.256 0.691 FPS 0.385 0.292 FPS 0.114
rm./Sec Cm./Sec Cm/Sec:

Wolf Trav 37 1.833 FPS 1.377 1.211 0.793 1.610 1.414 1.112 0.934
5 5.9 Cm /Sec 24.2 rm/Sec

96. One of the most commonly referenced representatives of erosion and deposition
criteria is a diagram developed by Hjulstrorn and presented by Graf in the book entitled,
Hydraulics of Sediment Transport, t 97 1. This diagram is shown as Figure K-5. The
velocity term u is an average flow velocity.

97. Using Figure K-5 and the velocity and grain sizes for the Rappahannock Shoal
("hannel, the material could fall into the transportations zone. This is based on the
maximum velocities shown in Table K-3.

98. Assuming that the material is transported out of the disposal area, its fate is
difficult to predict. A study by the Virginia Institute of Marine Science entitled, A Study
of the Effects of T)redging and Y)redge Spoil. nisposal on the Marine Environment, 1967,
stated'tha sediment placed in this disposal area will tend to move northward in the bay
or locally into deeper parts of the bay floor where currents are reduced. No surveys have
been made of the previous disposal area to determine exactly how much of the material
remained in the disposal area.
a

WOLF TRAP r)ISPOSAL AREA

99. For the Wolf Trap Disposal Area, based on the velocities in Table K-3, the material
from the York Spit Channel falls in the lower portion of the erosion zone. As described
previously, wave induced bottom velocities could add to the ambient bottom currents in
this area on a periodic basis. Similar to the.dredged material placed in the
Rappahannock Shoal T)ispqsal Area, material eroded out of the Wolf Trap would be
expected to move northward in the bay or locally to deeper parts of the. bay floor.

I-ONr!L1JS1ONS

100. Rased on the preceding analysis, it is concluded that the dredged material placed on
the bottom in either the Rappahannock Shoal or Wolf Trap Disposal Areas will be subject
to erosion and transportation forces that are capable of moving the material from the
disposal area, most likely up the bay. Predictions as to the exact movement, quantity of
material to move, and the probable locations of final deposition are difficult to make.

K-M

si
E
0 0 0
to to LO
'a'
1000

wo T
T- T T
300
41t
200
@f E roslo I T
100

i 1.10 'KitI
50
York 00"
30
iI
L Poll Ole. : I P
Maximu -200
m Spring Tide Velocity

.10 @ppa ann c
Triansill rt I ion
5
1
T
E
2
edimentation j i
Z31
T
i-v
0.5
0.3
Minimum Neap Tide Velocity 0.?

W. I
cite) W) w 0 -7 N to0 w to in 0 00 0 00 0
000 000 0 C; d 0 W to 0, 000.
0 00 0 6 6646
d 0 C5 d
id"I M M
TV-1

IF!

Figure K-5. Erosion-deposition criteria for Dredged Material, Rappahannock Shoal Channel

HYnROnYNAMIC EFFECTS

101. As part of investigations for the General r)esign Memorandum, tests on salinity and
velocity were performed on. the Chesapeake Bay Hydraulic Model in regard to the
Baltimore. Harbor and'rhannels AE&r) study. Salinities were recorded for surface, mid-'
depth and bottom waters. Results of the model tests have indicated'that some salinity
differences are associated with deepening the channels.
102. Surface waters in Cheapeake Bay south of Tangier Island generally tend to become
more saline, while surface waters up bay from Tangier generally become somewhat less
saline. Mid-depth and bottom waters generally became more saline in the bay during the
test. Test results at the mouth of the James and York Rivers indicate a reduced salinity
intrusion with fresher deep water.

103. The increase in salinity at the bottom depths was'greatest in the deeper channels
rather than shallower adjacent areas. This was expected to occur since saline water is
more dense than freshwater and the deeper an area is: the more saline it usually
becomes. The majority of increases based on seasonal averages and reflected by the
model tests were in the range of 0 to 2 ppt difference. In general, salinity differences
alternate with distance from the deepened channel and at shallow water stations. Since'
organisms within the bay usually live within a range of salinities and since salinity
ditribution varies from year to year, the small slainity increases should not adversely
affect the blota. If salinity is critical to certain organisms survival their distribution
may be shifted to adjust for any salinity changes which may occur.

104* There were two monitoring stations at the mouth of the York and lames Rivers.
No monitoring stations were upstream of the mouth or any tributary. At each of the two
rivers one of the stations showed no significant changes in salinity as a result of
deepening the channels while the other station showed a small decrease in salinity. The
decreases in salinity were observed in less than 10 percent of all samples while over 88
percent of the samples were within the designated error band. If the mouth of the James
and York Rivers became somewhat fresher and this is reflected along the entire
Tributary, the effect should not be too significant. The natural seasonal variations in
these two tributaries is greater than the model test differences. The organisms along the
edges of certain isohalines may be forced to move to compensate for the change in
salinity, however this should not be significant. Adso, salinity changes may be beneficial
whether.or not the salinity increases or decreases. For example more saline waters may
expand the area which may be suitable for oyster spat settling while fresher waters may
limit the oyster drill,,MSX, and other pathogens.

105. The greatest salinity difference indicated by the model tests were in the Patapsco
River where a majority of the results were greater than 5 ppt saltier. Stations in
nondeepened side channels within the Patapsco River and the main bay.connecting
channel leading to the C&n Canal indicate a somewhat reduced salinity response
compared with adjacent main channel stations. T)ifferences At shallow-water stations
within the Patapsco River indicate a much reduced salinity sensitivity to channel
deepening. Since the salinity differences seem to be greatest in the channel of the
Patapsco River, organisms within the channel will be affected the most. The benthic
community within the river may be altered; however, due to contaminated sediments this
community is extremely limited. Motile species will avoid the channel if salinities
surpass their tolerance level.

K,-28

ELEVATION FEET
-4, 0 L-JN
0 0 0
00 0 o 00 8 00 o 00 0
0 0

0- FALL LINE

BALTIMORE
CITY

rri

0
CURTIS SAY

.411
rn

-z' 0
rcD - t

rn
ca
Ab
SPARROWS POINT

CA 'NO
(00
.7' r@

41f
,14,

CHESAPEAKE BAY

SIMPLIFIED CROSS-SECTIO14 OF THE COASTAL PLAINS
FORMATIONS IN THE BALTIMORE AREA
K-29 FIGURE*K-6

106. r1r. William Boycourt of Johns Hopkins University modified and applied a
mathematical model developed by Dr. T)ong-Ping Tang to the deepening of the Baltimore
Harbor and Channels and its effect on Baltimore Harbor. This model takes into account
the effects of wind in the harbor while the hydraulic model does not. Dr. Boycourt's
results concur with the results of the Chesapeake Bay model in that both show an
increase in salinity of the harbor due to channel deepening. The results of the math
model show an increase of salinity of about 2-3 ppt compared to the hydraulic model
results of,greater than 5 ppt. This difference could be due to the fact that different
boundary conditions were used for each model.

107. In addition to salinity, the Cheapeake Bay Model test also monitored velocity. In
general, only subtle differences were indicated for test comparisons of amplitude, offset,
maximum flood, and maximum ebb values with existing conditions. Over 90 percent of
these comparisons for each of the parameters were within the error band for these
measurements.

108. Although no major velocity variations -.were indicated as a result of channel
deepening, slight trends in velocity characteristics may indicate subtle variations in'the
hydrodynamics of the system. The overall reduced velocity (amplitude) at each depth
during the plant tests is consistent with increased'cross-sectional area as,sociated with
channel deepening. The slight trend of increased flood dominance (higher flood and lower
ebb velocities) at the lower bay stations indicates the possibility of additional salt
intrusion into the main estuary along the deepened channel. A return flow of estuarine
water may exist in the shallower nonsampled areas.

109. in general, the examination of the current velocity information obtained during the
Baltimore Harbor Study or the! hydraulic model of Chesapeake Bay has shown that
current velocity changes in the model resulting from the enlargement of the navigation
channels are relatively small. Since this was expeitted to occur, no additional
investigations are anticipated in this area.

GROUNr)WATER EFFECTS

I 10. Salt water intrusion is considered to be the only possible ef f ect of the project on
groundwater. For purposes of assessing effects on gro.undwater, the project can be
dividedlinto two general areas.

VIRGINIA CHANNELS

III- in the Virginia portions of the channel dredging, no adverse impact is likely. In this
area the bottom and subbottom sediments are generally unconfined flat-lying sands, silts,
and clays. The area of exposure of aquifers to salt water intrusion is very large in the
natural condition, and the additional exposure is insignificant. In addition, there are no
known areas of large-scale withdrawal from the aquifers anywhere near the project.

BALTIN40RE AREA

112. In the Baltimore area the dredging project crosses the strike of the so *utheast
dipping sediments (see Figure K-6). Historically, heavy industrial pumping from wells
near the Chesapeake Bay and Patapsco River has resulted in drawdown of groundwater
levels and subsequent intrusion of salt water into aquifer outcrop exposed beneath the
Bay River, Some aquifers in the region may have become permanently contaminated;

K-30

both from direct pumping, and also the collapse of old abandoned well casings causing
interconnections between contaminated and previously unaffected aquifers.- In either
case the degree and area of intrusion.are directly related to amount and location.of the
pumping withdrawal within the aquifer.

113. In the Baltimore metropolitan area the effect of the project could be to cause
additional exposure of the outcrop area of the aquifers beneath salt or brackish water,
leading to a possible increased rate of salt water intrusion. Since salt water intrusion has
been noted in the area since at least 1895, the project would not create a new potential
source of pollution. Whether or not it would be a source of additional intrusion at all
would be dependent on the present use. of the aquifers. It is believed the ef f ect would be
minimal and may be reduced with time by normal bottom sedimentation forming a
relatively impervious blanket over the aquifer outcrop.

CULTURAL RESOURCES

114. The Corps of Engineers is required by the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (Public Law 91-190), Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (Public
Law 89-665), and Executive Order 11593 (Protection and.Enhancement of the Cultural
Environment) to, identify all sites and properties within a project's potential
environmental impact that are eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic
Places. To comply with these laws, a cultural resources reconnaissance of the Baltimore
Har,bor and Channels, channel extensions, and overboard disposal areas was prepared by
the Karell Institute, Arlington, Virginia, underwater cultural specialist, in the summer of
1978.

It 5. The cultural resources reconnaissance consisted of a documentary literature search
and evaluation of the Wueser et. at 1978) side scan sonar geophysical survey to locate
and identify shipwrecks and otherTubmerged anomalies in the Baltimore Harbor and
Channels. Nine potential shipwreck anomalies and numerous smaller targets were
located in the navigation channels. Mr. Koski-Karell recommended that the Baltimore
r)istrict undertake an Intensive Survey to obtain a closer look at the above suspected
cultural resource anomalies along with undertaking a proton magnetometer survey of the
Baltimore Harbor and Channels.

116. -Environmental studies completed concurrently with the cultural reconnaissance
study resulted in the likely deletion of some project elements considered by the cultural
investigation. For this reason, the Baltimore District programmed a modified sampli,ng
strategy for the next stage (Intensive Survey) cultural resources inve Istigations. J. Joseph
Murphy and Associates, Latham, New York, is currently completing this study. Of note,
a hands-on examination of Tangier Island's western shoreline and offshore zones found
that the offshore beach has been severely scoured by the Bay's currents and wave actions
which displaced any cultural resource that had been present.. On the shore's interface
zone, however, a large prehistoric shell heap that had been sectioned by the construction
of the navigation inlet on the western shore cut in 1960 and three smaller prehistoric -
shell heaps onthe shore interface were located. Additionally, a hands-on examination of
two anomalies in the York Spit 1hannel found no significant cultural resources.

K-31

117. The results of the intensive Survey indicate that there are no culturally significant
submerged shipwrecks or historic sites in the construction areas. Prehistoric cultural
resources that may exist in project areas other than nearshore zones were not addressed
as they would be virtually impossible to locate. This is because the State of the Art
methodology is by core sampling. This method is both highly inefficient and has a very
low probability of recovering prehistoric cultural materials in a large body of water. The
prehistoric shell heaps identified on the western shore of Tangier Island could be
impacted by a beach nourishment project. These impacts will be considered by project
plans. The project described in paragraphs L-10 through L-16 and illustrated in Figure L-3,
however, is not located near this resource and would have no impact upon it. Pending
receipt of the Intensive Survey report, no further possible cultural impacts have been
identified.

THP,F-AT'F-N'P-T) ANT) FINT)ANGERFIT) SPECIES

119. T)redging and associated disposal from the const@uction and maintenance of the
authorized project is not expected to affect the status of any threatened or endangered
species as many would not be expected to be found in the project construction areas, ihe
low probability of the remaining species occurring within the Chesapeake Bay area, and a
lack of critical habitat necessary to these latter species occurring within the project
area. For further information refer to paragraph 65.

k-32

SECTION L

PROJECT PLAN

GENERAL

1. The authorized plan of improvement provides for meeting the needs of existing And
future commerce. The following paragraphs describe the details of the plan.

RECOMMENDED PLAN

2. Following a re- analysis of the criteria used to determine the depths and widths of the
channels in the June 1969 review report and an analysis of constructing the inbound
portion of the channels first, it has been determined that construction of the project as
authorized in the Project Document is the most feasible plan. The authorized plan of
improvement for Baltimore Harbor and Channels, as shown on Figures L-1, L-2, L-3, and
L-4 provides for:

a. r)eepening the Cape Henry'rhannel from 42 feet to 50 feet and extension to 50-
foot depth curves.

b. Deepening the York Spit Channel from 42 feet to 50 feet and extension to 50-
foot depth curves.

c. Deepening the Rappahannock Shoal Channel from 42 feet.to 50 feet, widening
from 800 feet to 11000 feet, and extension to 50-f oot depth curves.

d. r.)eepening the Mai n Ship Channel from 42 feet to 50 feet and extension to 50-
f oot depth@curves.

e. r)eepening the Curtis Bay Channel from 42 feet to 50 f eet.

f. r)eepening the Northwest Branch - East Channel to 49 feet deep for a width of
.600 feet, with a turning basin at the head of the channel f rom that depth existing at the
time of construction.

g. r)eepening the Northwest Branch - West Channel to 40 feet deep for a width of
600 feet, with a turning basin at the head of the channel f rom that depth existing at the
time of construction.

3. Based on past dredging experience in the,project channels the initial dredging will
include 2 feet of allowable pay overdepth to account for the'normal inaccuracies of the
dredging process. In Addition, it is estimated thaf I foot of non-pay overdepth dredging
may occur and must be taken into account as it lengthens the dredging and rehandling
operation and requires additional disposal area capacity.

FIGURE L-I

AUTHORIZED PLAN AND DISPOSAL SITES - DAM. NECK AND NORFOLK

AUTH ORIZED PLAN AND DISPOSAL SITES - DAM NECK AND NORFOLK

60,

Cape "J"
Charles
60

A- 60,
If

ILI Fisherman
Island
60'

ATLANTIC OCEAN
,@'Cape Henry
Channel

Cape
Henry Norfolk Disposal Site
Av. Depth 70ft.

6()'

$r
r
Dam Neck Disposal @
Area (Av. 50ft-)

Channels Being
Recommended For improvement

F,7 Disposal Site

6 a I

Figure L-1

L-2
ape

FIGURE L-2

AUTHORIZED PLAN AND DISPOSAL SITE - WOLF TRAP

0 ack Bay 46' 40,
f-e,p 50'
@Isposaj"ama
Now Point Comfort I AV,' Depth 39 ft. I

Cape Charles

CHESAPEAKE BAY

Sherman Is. C

N
z
W

0
Hampton
z
Newport
News

Hampton Roads

40-
Sol"
----------
FgSto";-,,-
Cape 40' 50
Henry

Norfolk CHA NNELS BEING RECOMMENDED
FORIMPROVEMENT

Portsmouth
DISPOSAL SkTE

-@R o =:I FfET

Figure L-2

L-3
'@fN" Pol
3'y

FIGURE L-3

AUTHORIZED PLAN AND DISPOSAL SITE - RAPPAHANNOCK SHOAL

AUTHORIZED PEAN AND DISPOSAL SITE - RAPPAHANNOCK SHOAL
III I, v Great Fox Is.
Little W7r 0
I I Little Fox Is16
Goose I.-
50
40'

Tangier
Island

w
a Island
att

I, Disposal
It Site (\tv. Depth 8 40(
401.

Blu" Pt.

50, 1

Windmill Pt.

CHESAPEAKE BAY

m
5@

CKANN--S Arlhla RECOMMENDED
FOR IMPROVEMENT
1 40"
Alobjeck DISPOSAIJI SITE
say 410'

Figum,L-3
:b
@T,

FIGURE L-4
DISPOSAL SITE MARYLAND CHANNELS

AUTjiORIZED PLAN AND DISPOSAL SITE - HART-MILLER ISLAND
AUTHORIZED PLAN AND DISPOSAL SITE - HART-MILLER ISLAND
y A r

Hart-Miller Island
Diked Disposal Area

LEGEND,.

CHANNELS am RECOMMENDED
FORIMPRO MENT

co @ATECKANMELS
17=1 DwosAL WE

BALTIMORE HARBOR AND CHkjNELS
MARYLAND,AND VIRGINIA
PLA
.@NYOF MPROVEMENT
LAND CHANNEL&

L-5 Figure L-4

4. Material from the Virginia Channels would likely be removed by hopper dredges and
placed at designated sites. Material from the Maryland Channels would likely be
removed by bucket and scow and deposited in the Hart and Miller Islands contained
sites. Hart and Miller Islands would be equipped with rehandling facilities to unload the
material upon arrival. This would consist of a pump facility and clarnshell -dredge.
Material that could not be pumped would be removed by clarnshell.

5. Current estimates of first and annual costs of the project plan,along with a
comparison of previous estimates, are presented in Section 0, "Cost Estimate."

DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL

INITIAL CONSTRUCTION

VIRGINIA CHANNELS

6. About 2.5 million cubic yards (mcy) of dredged material from the Cape Henry Channel
will be placed overboard in the Atlantic Ocean in the Norfolk Disposal Site, about
eighteen miles northeast of Cape Henry (see Figure L-0 or at the existing ocean site
(Dam Neck). The latter disposal site is near full capacity and due to be closed to disposal.
operations. Use of the Norfolk Disposal Site is subject to approval by the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) under the authority of the Marine Protection, Research, and
Sanctuaries Act of 1972, as amended. At the request of the Commonwealth of Virginia,
the potential for placing suitable dredged material f rorn the Cape Henry Channel onshore
at Fort Story, Virginia, for potential future beneficial uses was evaluated. The procedure
for accomplishing the onshore disposal was based on a similar operation conducted by the
Norfolk District, Corps of Engineers, in November 1975 during which about 450,000 cy of
sand from the Thimble Shoal Channel, was placed onshore at Fort Story, Virginia, to be
eventually used as beachfill at Virginia Beach, Virginia. Details of this operation are
contained in the report entitled, "Recovery and Stockpiling of Sand from the Offshore
Zone for Beach Nourishment Purposes," June 1976, by the Norfolk District, Corps of
Engineers. Basically, the hopper dredge "Goethals" dredged the material from the
Thimble.Shoal Channel, transported it to a mooring barge about 1,000 feet offshore of
Fort Story, Virginia, and then pumped it.onshore to a designated stockpile area at Fort
Story.

7. One basic difference between the previous operation in 1975 and the operation
currently being evaluated in conjunction with the Baltimore Harbor dredging project is
the nature of the dredged material. Median grain sizes from the Thimble Shoal Channel
ranged from 0.25 mm to 0.50 mm and compared favorably with the median grain size of
the native beach material at Virginia Beach which ranges from 0.27 mm to 0.40 mm.
Based on January 1978 samples, the medium grain size of the material in the Cape Henry
Channel is estimated to range from 0. 15 mm to 0.30 mrn and as a result would probably
not be as suitable f or beachf ill as the coarser Thimble Shoal Channel material. However,
the Norfolk District has indicated that if the material is to be used for Virginia Beach,
material from Cape Henry would be better than material currently being used for beach
nourishment.

8. Table L-1 compares the unit costs and first costs of dredging material from the Cape@
Henry Chanriel and placing it onshore at Fort Story with the unit cost and first costs of
placing the material overboard in the Norfolk Disposal Area in the Atlantic Ocean. A
reasonablecapacity of the Fort Story disposal site is estimated to be from 500,000 to
750,000 c.y. From Table L-1, it is evident that placement at Fort Story is more costly

L-6

TABLE L-I

Cost Comparisons of Cape Henry Channel
Dredged Material Disposal Alternatives
(February 1981 Price Level)

Overboard Disposal Onshore Disposal
in Norfolk Site at Fort Story, Virginia

500, 000 cy $1,350,000 @ $2.70/cy $1,625,000 @ $3.25/cy

Contingencies (12%) 162,000 195,000

Engineering and
Design (3%) 45,360 54,600

Supervision and
Administration
(5.5%) 832160 100,100
Total First Cost $1,640,520 $1,974,700

L-7

per cubic yard placed. This is due to the initial cost of the rehandling equipment
required. If this operation is conducted, the costs over and above the overboard disposal
in the Norfolk site would have to be provided by non'-Federal interests. Any material not
placed at Fort Story would be placed at the ocean site.

9. Two sites in the Chesapeake Bay were investigated for placement of. the 19.5 mcy of
material to be dredged from the York Spit Channel. These were a. previously used open
water site (Wolf Trap) and a site in a deep trough (Cape Charles).' Environmental
concerns resulted in the elimination of the Cape Charles site. Accordingly, cost
estimates reflect that the 19.5 mcy of material from the York Spit Channel will be
placed overboard in the Wolf Trap site (see Figure L-2).

10. Material dredged from the Rappahannock Shoal Channel will be placed overbo 'ard in
the Rappahannock overboard site, shown on Figure L-3. The quantity of disposal
material will be 8.6 mcy. In addition, a shoreline site was also considered for creation of
wetland under Section 150 of the Water Resources Act of 1976, with dredged material
from the northern section of the Rappahannock Shoal Channel. Wetland creation under
Section 150 is limited to a cost increase of $400,000 over the cost of the proposed
disposal method. The site evaluated was Tangier Island, Virginia, and is shown on Figure
L-2. Consultations with Waterways Experiment Station (WES) staff engaged in habitat
development projects associated with the Dredged Material Research Program indicate
that wetland creation would be feasible at this site.

11. In a report to the Baltimore District, WES indicated that, based on a preliminary
evaluation, the possibility of a project combining shoreline stablization, dredged material
disposal, and marsh development on the west side of Tangier Island would be technically
feasible. As indicated in their report, the major problem in conducting the project would
be expense. First, the water energy conditions at the disposal site require that a
substantial containment structure be constructed. Second, the approximate 7 mile to 10
mile distance between the rdredging and potential disposal sites would result in high unit
costs per cubic yard of disposal material.

12. In view of these concerns, a preliminary wetland creation project design was
developed that would adhere to the Section 150 cost limitation of $400,000 over the cost
of the proposed disposal operation, which in this case is overboard disposal in the
Rappahannock Shoal site shown on Figure L-3. Based on October 1978 price levels, it
was estimated that placing material from the Rappahannock Shoal Channel in the
Rappahannock Shoal overboard disposal site would cost $0.89 per cubic yard. In
comparison, dredging material from the Rappahannock Shoal Channel and placing it
behind previously constructed dikes on the west shore of Tangier. Island would cost about
$9.90 per cubic yard based on a total quantity of 15,000 cubic yards. This cost would be
expected to decline through economy of scale with larger quantities. Under Section 150,
the dif f erence in unit costs between'the two disposal methods plus the cost of any
required retaining structures cannot exceed the $400,000 cost limitation.. Therefor ie, any
wetland creation beyond this'$400,000 cost limitation, other than the costs associated
with placement at the Rappahannock Shoal site, would have to be funded by non-Federal
interests.

13. As indicated in WES's report, a substantial containment structure would be required
to withstand the water energies existing along the Tangier Island shoreline. This design is
based on information contained in WES's-report and information contained in Technical
Report D-78-31, "Design Concepts For In-water Containment Structures For Marsh Habitat
Developmentp" 1978, prepared by the U.S. Army Coastal Engineering Research Center. In
addition, outflow structures would have to be incorporated in the dike design to allow

L-8

for discharge volumes expected at maximum tides, storm tides, and heavy rainfall run-off.
Prior to final design, a detailed analysis of the nearshore wave climate and currents, tidal
fluctuations (both normal and storm-induced), foundation conditions and impacts of the
structure's presence on the adjacent shoreline system would be required.

14. Based on, October 1978 price levels, the unit cost of th is structure was estimated to
be $400.00 per linear foot. Reflected in this cost is the assumption that existing
foundation conditions are sufficient to support the structure without significant
settlement and to provide adequate slope stability.

15. In order to adhere to the $400,000 cost limitation of the Section 150 criteria, the
length of the containment area dike would be limited to 500 lineae feet. The
containment area provided would be 400 feet long and 50 feet wide and would
accommodate about 6,700 cubic yards of dredged material at 'an elevation of about +1.0
foot mean low water (m1w) and would result in a wetland creation project of about 0.46
acres. From observations made during a site visit to Tangier Island in August 1978, it
appeared that smooth cordgrass, saltmeadow cordgrass, and saltgrass are the
predominant marsh species on the island. Due to the better erosion resistance of the
smooth cordgrass, it was recommended that it be used for the marsh establishment in
this project. The preliminary location of the project would abut the northern end of the
revetment constructed recently by the Commonwealth of Virginia, Division of
Aeronautics, State Corporation Commission. The project would consist of a dike
constructed of coarse sand about 10 feet high with I vertical on 3 horizontal side slopes,
6-foot crest width, and armor stone placed along the seaward side of the structure to
preclude erosion. About 400 feet of shoreline would be protected by the project.
Although this is a very small segment of the 7,000-foot shoreline south of Tangier
Channel that is eroding, protection of this 400-foot segment would protect the southern
end of the airport runway. Table L-2 indicates the first costs of the wetland creation
project.

16. Based on preliminary engineering and economic data, it appears that a 0.46 acre
wetland creation project that would provide erosion control for about 400 feet of the
Tangier Island shoreline is feasible under the $400,000 cost limitation of the Section 150
authority. Updating the 1978 analysis to current price levels would, of.course, tend to
reduce the size of the wetland area that could be created within the $40,0,000
limitation. However, as indicated earlier, detailed studies are required prior to final
design of the project. In addition, construction of the project under the Section 150
authority must be approved by the Office of the Chief of Engineers prior to final design
and implementation. Based on the analysis conducted, it was concluded that construction
of significant protection of Tangier Island was exceedingly expensive. Additionally, it
would not provide a site for a significant portion of dredged material. Therefore,
material from the Rappahannock Channel will be placed at the overboard site.

MARYLAND CHANNELS

17. Dredged material from the Main Ship Channel and Branch Channels will be placed in
the Hart-Miller Island Diked Disposal area to be constructed by the State of Maryland.
'This area, shown on Figure L-4, will be an 1,100 acre facility and will contain an
estimated 52 mcy of material when filled to its capacity at elevation 18 feet above mean
low water (mlw). The dimensions of the diked area are approximately 12,900 feet by
4,700 feet. Typical side slopes are 3:1 (3 horizontal to I vertical) on the exposed outside
face of the dike and 5:1 on the inside face. Also, material dredged from the private
access channels will likely be placed in the Hart-Miller Island area.

L-9

TABLE L-2

First Costs
Section 150 Wetland Creation Project
(October 1978 Price Level)

FIRST COSTS

Containment Structure
Sand Dike w/Rock
Revetment Protection

500 LF @ $400/LF $200,000

Outflow Structures 20,000

Contingencies (20%) 44,000

Engineering and Design,
Supervision and
Administration -31,700
SUB-TOTAL $295,700

Dredged Material
Disposal

8,000 cy @ $9.00/cy $72,000
(Assumes 20% loss of
material to obtain 6,666,cy
design f ill)

Marsh Establishment 2,000

Contingencies (20%) 14,800

Engineering and Design,
Supervision and
Administration (12%) -10,700
SUB-TOTAL $99,500

TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $395,000

L-10

50-YEAR MAINTENANCE

VIRGINIA CHANNELS

18. Based on a continued lack of maintenance requirements for the Rappahannock
Channel as the channel depth has been increased, no significant increase in maintenance
dredging is anticipated with the deepening to 50 feet. During the period 1968-1978, 2.7
mcy of material were dredged f rom the York Spit Channel. This amounts to an average
of about 245,500 cy per year. During the same period, 1. 1 mcy of material were dredged
f rom the Cape Henry Channel. This amounts to an average 100,000 cy per year. Due to.
the lengthening of each of these channels with the deepening to 50 f eet, it is anticipated
that maintenance dredging will increase. For the purpose of this report, it is estimated
that the maintenance dredging requirement f or each of the two channels will increase by
the percentage of length increase f or each channel. For the York Spit channel, the
channel length will increase f rom 10.4 miles to 18.2 miles or about 75 percent. The Cape
Henry Channel length will increase f rom 1.0 mile to 2.7miles or about 170 percent.
Using these percentage increases, it is estimated that the additional maintenance
dredging required due to the deepening to 50 f eet will amount to 1.84,000 cy per year and
170,000 cy per year for the York Spit Channel and the Cape Henry Channel,
respectively. It is anticipated at this time that all future maintenance dredging material
from the Virginia Channels will be placedin the same disposal areas as the new work
dredging,discussed earlier.

MARYLAND CHANNELS

19. No significant increases in maintenance dredging requirements are anticipated with
the deepening of the Maryland Channels to.50 f eet as the channels will be extended by an
insignificant amount. During the period 1968-1979, 6.9 mcy of material were dredged
f rorn the channels. This amounts to an average of 625,700 cy per year. Future .
maintenance dredging material from the Maryland channels will be placed in the Hart-
Miller Island Diked Disposal area until it reaches capacity. Based on the anticipated
maintenance dredging requirements, the new work quantity to be placed in the area and
the assumption that the Hart-M Wer Island site will be used primarily for disposal of
material from Baltimore Harbor Channels, the Hart-Miller area will reach capacity
within 10 years af ter the initial new work disposal operation is completed. Maintenance
dredging f rom that time on will have to be placed in other disposal areas to be provided
by the State of Maryland. Table L-3 from the report entitled, "Management Alternatives
for Dredging and Disposal Activities in Maryland Waters," 1977, by the Maryland
Department of Natural Resources indicates the existing and proposed disposal sites under
consideration. These areas are shown on Figures L-5 and L-6. It is estimated that the
total maintenance dredging requirement f or the Maryland Channels during the project
lif e will be about 31.3 mcy (50 years x 623,700 cy/yr). If it is assumed, as stated earlier,
that the Hart-Miller site will be f Wed to capacity with the first 10 years of maintenance
dredging f rom the channels, amounting to about 6 mcy, the alternative disposal sites will
have to accommodate about 25.3 mcy of material for the remainder of the 50-year
project lif e.

MAJOR FEDERAL CHANNELS AND DISPOSAL AREAS

Federal Channels
Baltimore District
.......... Baltimore Harbor
Harbor Approaches 00
C&D Connections
'Philadelphia District
C&D AnDroaches
*+++ C&D Canal

altimore
HarboLR,.-%-

Chesapeake
Bay /J#
10@ Dis

Existing
C&D App
Oopen wa
rlpHarbor,

Proposed

x Harbor,
SCALE: 1 30,000 ft. 6Hart &

0 w YX 4*4 3
FALLS LOCUST POINT COLGATE
REEK

OLE BRANCH
D
'ALK
UMP
HARINE
TERMINAL
FAIRFIELD
LLF-P?
PArApsco GROOXLYH
AL
t-4 RIVER Cq VR M8.4r V V
SPARROWS
POINT
SL S
PO HAWKINS

CURTIS
MARLEY
REEK 0
1140
NECK

P
0
..........n
MILES

STONCY
CREEK Roc 9
PROPOSED DISPOSAL CREEK
SITES
BALTIMORE HARBOR

TABLE L-3
MARYLAND DISPOSAL SITE INVENTORY
Area and/or Max. Allow- Remaining or Potential
1. EXISTING SITES able Elevation (+ m1w) Capacit (mcy) Probable Use

A. open Water Sites

1. Patapsco River Mouth -10' 4 Uncertain
2. Kent Island Deep -40' 15 Uncertain
3. Pooles Island Deep -18' 6.5 Uncertain
4. C&D Approaches -18' - Uncertain

B. Containment Sites
1. C&D Approaches (Federal):

Courthouse Point 240 acres/+60' 6 2.6
Grove Point 105 acres/+60' 5 Uncertain
Pearce Creek, diked 253 acres/+40' 6.3 6.3
Pearce Creek, undiked 743 acres/+60' 55 Uncertain
2. C&D Canal (Federal): 556 acres 4.9 4.9
3. Baltimore Harbor (Private):
Hawkins Point (Kennecott)* 85 acres 3 Uncertain
Masonville (Arundel)* 50 acres (variable) 2 Uncertain

Estimated Capacity
2. PROPOSED SITES Proposed Elevation (mcy) Probable Use (mcy)

A. Baltimore Harbor

W. of Colgate Creek +10' 9.8
N. of Sollers Point +10' 9.5
S. of Sollers Point +10' 8.0
Masonville +10' 11.1
Wagners Point +10' 6.8 up to 32
Curtis Bay +10' 4.7
Thomas Cove +10' 1.7
Kennecott/B&O +10' 13.5

B. Hart-Miller Islands +18 52 52

*Dike height and therefore capacity is subject to change; maximum potential height is unknown.

WRA - 1976

ECONOMICS OF THE PROJECT PLAN

INTRODUCTION

20. The economic justification of the proposed plan is determined by comparing the
average annual charges (i.e., interest, amortization of total cost, operation and
maintenance costs) with the average annual benefits which would be realized over the
50-year economic life of the project. Costs and benefits were converted to an equivalent
time basis using a 7-3/8 percent interest rate. All costs and benefits are based on
February, 1981 price levels.

COSTS

21. The estimated first costs and annual charges by channel segment for the authorized
plan of improvement are presented,in Table L-4. These charges are based on estiryfate's
of first costs presented in Section 0 and operation and maintenance costs presented in
Section N. Total first cost for the project is estimated to be $301,530,000, of which
$232,850,000 is the Federal share and 568,680,000 is the non-Federal share. Costs for
construction of the disposal area and operation and maintenance of the disposal area are
allocated to channel segment based on the volume of material to be dredged from each
segment in Maryland.

22. Interest during construction is the economic cost of the monetary capital tied up
during the construction period before the project begins to return benefits I, and
represents the opportunity cost for that money. Interest during construction is based on
a six-year construction period, starting with the construction of the disposal area in
1991, initiation of dredging in 1983, and completion of dredging in 1986. The interest is
computed at compound interest, based:on the Federal discount rate of 7 3/8 percent,
considering the actual expenditure pattern over. the construction period.

BENEFITS

23. Annual benefits, as estimated in Section P, are based on savings in water
transportation costs by providing deeper channels for the iron ore and coal trades in the
Curtis Bay and Main Channels, for petroleum* imports in the Northwest Branch-East
Channel, and for bulk sugar imports and grain exports in the Northwest Branch-West
Channel. With deeper channels, shippers in the bulk trades can use the larger, more
economical deep-draft vessels and load those vessels more fully, reducing their per-ton
shipping cost. Table L-5 presents the benefits by commodity and trade area for
deeppning the channels to the authorized depths. In Table L-6, the benefits are
presented by major channel segments.

L-15

JUSTIFICATION

24. The estimated annual benefits, annual charges, the ratio of benefits to coks, and net
annual benefits for the authorized plan of improvement are shown in Table L-7. Annual
costs and benefits have been separated for the East Channel of the Northwest Branch
into two groupings - 39 feet to 42 feet and 42 feet to 50 feet - to show the economic
justification for deepening the East Channel to the existing authorized depth of 42 feet
in the main channeL Since deepening to 42 feet is justified, costs and benefits of further
improvements to utilize the authorized 50-foot main channel are included with the main
channel. As Table L-7 shows, deepening the main channels to 50 feet is justified with a
benefit-cost ratio of 5.0 to 1.0. The total project, including the Northwest Branch
channels, is justified with a benef it-cost ratio of 5.5 to 1.0.

L-16

TABLE L-4

ESTIMATES OF ANNUAL CHARGES
($1000; February 91 Price Level)

Main Channel Northwest Branch- Northwest Branch-
and Curtis Bay East Channel West Channel

A. Federal Costs
1. federal Investment
a. First cost $2229150 $6,100 $ 49600
b. Interest during
construction 31,416 454 167
Total Federal Investment $2539566 $ 6t554

2. Federal Annual
Charges
a. Interest and
Amortization 19,249 $ 498 $ 362'
b. Additional
maintenance 19647 0 0
c. Aids to Navi-
gation 14 0 0
Total Federal Annual Charges $ T0,9 10 $ 498 $ 2

B. Non-Federal Costs
1. Non-Federal
Investment
a. First cost $619360 $49770 $2,550
b. Interest during
construction 16,865 225 0
Total Non-Federal Investment $789225 $4,995 $i,-550

2. Non-Federal
Annual Charges
a.- Interest and
Amortization 5,939 379 $ 194
Total Non-Federal Annual Charges $7 59'938 379 -5-194
Total Annual Charges $ 269848 877 $ 556

L-17

TABLE L-5

AVERAGE ANNUAL SAVINGS BY COMMODITY
IMPORTS ($1,000; February 1981 Price Levels)

Iron Ore
Canada $4,027
Brazil 2,379
Liberia 42152
Total $10,558
Petroleum $4,036

Sugar
Americas $2,276
Other World 3,748
Total $6,024

Total Imports $20,618

EXPORTS

Coal
Japan $ 14,375
Europe 111,420
Total $125,795

Grain
W. Europe $4,611
E. Europe 2,015
Mid-East 1@405
Asia 2,012
Total $-1-0,043

Total Exports $135,838

TOTAL COMMERCE $156,456

L-18

TABLE L-6

AVERAGE ANNUAL SAVINGS BY* CHANNEL SEGMENT
($1,000; February 1981 Price Level)

Main Channel and Curtis Bay
Iron Ore $10,558
Coal 125,795
Total :51369353

Northwest Branch-East Channel
Petroleum .$ 4,036

Northwest Branch-West Channel
Grain $10,043
Sugar 6024
Total 516,067

TOTAL PROJECT $156,456

L-19

TABLE L-7

SUMMARY OF ECONOMIC JUSTIFICATION

Annual Annual Benefit- Net
Existing Authorized Benef its Costs Cost Benefits
Depth Depth ($1000) -($1000) Ratio ($1000)

Main Channel
to Ft. McHenry,
Curtis Bay, and
NW-East Channels 1/ 421 .501 $137p699 $27,545 5.0 $110,154

Northwest
Branch-East
Channel 391 421 2t690 180 14.9 2p510

Northwest
Branch-West
Channel 351 401 16,067 556 28.9 15@511

Total Project,
All Channels - - 156t456 28,281 5.5 1299175

I/ Costs and benefits for Northwest Branch-East Channel are for incremental deepening from
42 to 49 feet only.

L-20

SECTION M

SCHEDULES FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION

1. The schedule developed for the project will enable completion of all dredging work
over a period of 3 years and 3 months, which would be followed by a period of continued
environmental monitoring of the effects of the dredging project. This optimum schedule
is based on the following assumptions:

a. Project funding is provided at the high level required to meet the optimum
construction schedule.

b. All material being dredged from the Maryland channels will be placed in the
Hart/Miller diked containment facility to be completed by I July 1983. The total
quantities to be placed in the facility will be based on the sum of new work including
non-pay overdepth of dredged material.

c. Environmental baseline studies for'the overboard dredged material placement
sites in Virginia Molf Trap & Rappahannock Shoal) are completed such that no delays in
initiation of dredging in the York Spit and Rappahannock Shoal channels occur.

d. Up to three contractors could work effectively at the same time in the Maryland
channels, and two contractors could be working simultaneously in the Virginia channels.

e. No additional environmental windows are imposed by regulatory agencies.

f. All private channels in Baltimore Harbor will be dredged by their respective
owners such that they will be operational by September 1986.

2. A major constraint to the optimum schedule could be the level of funding required to
complete the project in a little over three years. Large appropriation would be required
in Fiscal years 1983 through 1986 to attain this schedule. If these appropriations are not
forthcoming, the project schedule would be lengthened and project costs increased
accordingly. See Section 0 for a discussion of project cost changes due to longer
construction schedules.

3. The current schedule is based on an average production rate of 28 million cubic
yards dredged per year for Maryland and Virginia. Discussions with representatives of
three individual dredging contractors, and with representatives of the Corps' Water
Resources Support renter (Dredging Division) have indicated that private industry has
the capability to handle such production using present resources.

4. ronstruction could begin in FY 1983 in the Maryland channels upon completion of,
the HartiMiller containment facility, and in FY 1983 in the Virginia channels, subject to
the availability of adequate funds. Project completion would then be scheduled for
September 1986, contingent on the assumptions stated above. It is noted, however, that
environmental monitoring of the effects of the dredging project will continue for a
period of years.

M_ I

5. Engineering and Design is estim@ted at 3 percent of the initial construction costs in
addition to the costs of environmental monitoring of construction, and Supervision and
Administration is estimated at 5.5 percent of the initial construction costs.. Since the
recommended plan alignment is identical to the authorized plan, no relocation or
realignment of the channels is required, with one minor exception. The Northwest
Branch-East Channel will be realigned in order to allow for the Fort McHenry Tunnel.
The design of the project will consist of a more detailed foundation exploration and.
updated condition hydrographic surveys conducted immediately preceding each dredging
contract and throughout the life of each contract as required to determine accurate -
dredging quantities. Instrumentation will also be developed as necessary to assure that
accurate controls are established and maintained for determining dredge quantities.

6. The 3-year schedule for dredging the Virginia channels is based on dredging by
hopper dredge. The estimates of time and cost to dredge the Virginia channels were
computed using the operating characteristics of the Corps hopper dredge "Comber", then
indexed to approximate private industry cost. The environmental windows (see Section
K, paragraph 73) are considered as requested by the environmental agencies. The
schedule is based on disposal of the material from Cape Henry in the Norfolk Disposal
Site, York Spit material in the Wolf Trap disposal area, and material dredged from the
Rappahannock section in the Rappahannock Shoal disposal area.

7. The schedule for the dredging of the Maryland channels is contingent on the
completion of the Hart and. Miller Islands disposal area by July 1983. The estimates of
time and costs to dredge the Maryland channels are based on utilizing a bucket dredge
and small scows with disposal in Hart and Miller Islands. The schedule is based on placing
18 million cubic yards per year at Hart and Miller Islands. Provisions for short distance
pumping of materials into the containment area were also taken into account. The scows
would be transported to the rehandling facility by medium size tugs, at which point their
payload would be slurried and pumped into the containment area. The rehandling facility
would be located approximately 2500 feet from the Hart and Miller Islands facility, in a
location. which will permit unrestricted access by the tugs and scows, without
encountering shallow water.

M- 2

SECTION N

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

VIRGINIA CHANNELS

1. The maintenance plan for the Virginia channels will. consist of periodic maintenance
dredging of the channels andperiodic maintenance of aids to navigation in the channels
areas. T)isposal of the material will be in the same areas as the disposal of the initial
dredging, i.e., placement in the Norfolk site and, possibly, Fort Story, of material
dredged from the Cape Henry Channel, placement in the Wolf Trap site of material
dredged from the- York Spit Channel and placement in the Rappahannock Shoal site of
material dredged from the. Rappahannock Shoal Channel. The current estimated
maintenance dredging requirement -for the existing 42 foot deep Virginia channels is
345,500 cubic yards per year. It is estimated that deepening the channels to 50 feet will
increase the annual maintenance dredging requirement by, 354@,000 cubic yards per year.
It should be noted that no increase in maintenance is expected in the Rappahannock Shoal
Channel.

2. Annual maintenance costs of dredging have been developed based on the use of
private industry hopper dredges. Annual maintenance costs of the aids to navigation
have been furnished by the United States Coast Guard. Table N-1 indicat4is the annual
maintenance costs for the Virginia channels.

MARYLAND CHANNELS

3. The currently estimated maintenance dredging requirement for the existing 42 foot
deep Maryland channels is 625,700 cubic yards-per year. It is estimated that deepening
the channels to 50 feet will not increase the annual maintenance dredging and, therefore,
no additional maintenance costs are attributable to the project. It is estimated that the
Hart-Miller Island site will be able to accommodate the first 10 years of the existing
maintenance dredging from the channels after the initial new work disposal operation is
completed. Maintenance dredging for the remainder of the pro 'ject life will have to be
placed in one or more of the additional disposal areas being considered by the State of
Maryland. These sites have been discussed previously in the section entitled, "Project
Plan."

4. Operation and maIntenance costs for the diked disposal area at Hart-Miller Islands
have been incorporated in the first cost of non-Federal interests. This cost has been
furnished by the State of Maryland.

5. T)eepening of the Maryland Channels would also require extending to the necessary
depth contours. The extension of the channels would necessitate additional aids to
navigation. Therefore, annual maintenance costs of new aids to navigation have been
furnished by the United States Coast Guard. Table N-1 indicates the annual maintenance
cost for the 'Marviand channels. Maintenance quantities shown in Table N-1 are based on
existing conditions of the channels, and an increase in depth and length associated with
both channels. The frequency of maintenance dredging in Cape Henry and York Spit
channels are based on historical information. The cost to maintain the Cape Henry and
York Spit channels are based on dredging every 4 and 3 years, respectively.

N-1

TABLE N-1

ANNUAL MAINTENANCE COST S
($1,000; Feb 1981 price level)

Quantity Annual Cost

FEDERAL

Dredging
Cape Henry Channel 170,000 cy $ 882
York Spit Channel 184,000 cy 7652/
Rappahannock Shoal Channel 0 cy 0
Maryland Channels 0 cy 0
Total Dredging 354,00 cy 51,647

Aids to Navigation
Virginia Channels - .$ 9.
Maryland Channels - 5
Total Aids - 5 14

Total Federal Maintenance - $1,661

NON-FEDERAL - $ 0

TOTAL ANNUAL MAINTENANCE - $1,661

-1/ Includes only additional maintenance costs associated with
the channel improvements. -
2/ Includes 12% contingencies, 3% E&D, 5.5% S&A

N-2

.SECTION 0

COST ESTIMATE

CURRENTESTI MATE OF FIRST COST

GENERAL

1. The estimates of construction costs are awardable contract amounts as of February
1981. These estimates are based on the construction schedule discussed in Section M,
"Schedule For Design and Construction," and the dredging techniques discussed in
Section L, "Project Plan" and Section M. it is recognized that a contract could be bid
and awarded that would reflect a different technique, if the contractor determines this
to be cost effective and the technique is found to be acceptable to the Contracting
Officer. A contingency allowance of 12 percent is included. Engineering and design, and
supervision and administration, amounting to 3 percent and 5.5 percent, respectively, are
also included. Engineering and T)esign, and Supervision and Administration costs include
condition surveys of all channels, subsurface exploration and testing, instrumentation
programs, preparation of plans and specif ications, and engineering costs during
construction. It should be noted that a cost estimate for the environmental monitoring
program is included as part of-the total project cost.

QUANTITIES

2. T.)redging quantity estimates have been prepared based on hydrographic surveys in the
channel areas. The dates of these surveys were January-February 1977 and May-
September 1977 for the Virginia and Maryland Channels, respectively. Some
maintenance dredging is required in both the Virginia and Maryland. Channels to achieve
the existing authorized project depth of 42 feet. This dredging requirement is estimated
to be 5.4 mcy, the vast majority of which is in Maryland Channels. New project dredging
quantities are shown in Table 0- 1. Based on past dredging experiences in the channels,
two feet of allowable overdepth to reflect normal inaccuracies in the dredging process is
included in the project cost estimates. Quantity estimates including the allowable
overdepth, are shown in Table 0-1. Although not a direct project cost, the estimated one
foot of non-pay overdepth dredging increases the total dredging and placement time and
must be accounted for when determining the capacity of a given disposal area. Non-pay
overdepth dredging quantities for the Maryland channels and the Virginia channels are
estimated at 5.0 million cubic yards, and 5.8 million cubic yards respectively. Quantities
shown in Tables 0-2 through 0-4 reflect individual awardable contracts. In addition, the
quantities reflect the State of Marylandrehand ling capabilities for a 3 year, 3 month
construction period. Table 0-2 shows York 'Spit is separated into four sections. The four
sections would enable two contractors to work efficiently in the Virginia Channels.

TABLE 0-1

T)REr)GING QUANTITIES (1000 Cy)

MARYLAND ANT) VIRGINIA CHANNELS

MARYLAND CHANNELS Depth* Quantity

Craighill Entrance and
rraighill Channel 501 109828
rraighill-Cutoff Angle
and Cutoff Section 501 79350
Cutoff Brewerton Angle
and Brewerton Section 501 7,757
Brewerton-Ft. McHenry
Angle and Ft. McHenry
Section 501 .99235
Curtis Bay Channel 501 3,080
Northwest Branch-East rhannel 49, 1@673
Northwest Branch-West Channel 401 19285

Maryland Channels Total 41,208

VIRGINIA rHANNELS

Cape HenryChannel 501 29515
York Spit Channel 50, 199470
Rappahannock Shoal C hanne 1 501 8,603

Virginia Channels Total 30,588

Maryland and Virginia
rhannels Total 719796

PRIVATE CHANNELS

Mooring Basin for Marley Neck Terminal 185
Channel to Kentucky-Ohio Transportation Company 98
Channel to Bethlehem Steel Corporation Ore Pier 19568
rhannels to C&O/B&O Coal and Ore Pier 222
Channe@ I to Consolidation Coal Company 185
rhannel to Exxon Company Pier 77
Locust Point Pier 7 130

Private Channels Total 29465

Note: Ouantities include 2 feet allowable pay overdepth. Quantities do not include I
foot non-pay overdepth or existing project maintenance requirements.

0-2

UNIT r.'OSTS

Virginia #7hannels

3. @7osts to be incurred. by hopper dredge operations in the Cape Henry, York Spit, and
Rappahannock Shoal rhannels were prepared in accordance with procedures outlined in
the hopper dredge manual. They have been prepared using the disposal methods outlined
in the preceding paragraphs on. dredged material disposal. The methods are overboard
disoosal in the Norfolk site in the Atlantic Ocean of material removed from the Cape
Henry Channel and disposal of material from the York Spit and Rappahannock Shoal
(-hannels overboard in the Wolf Trap and Rappahannock Shoal sites, respectively, in the
Chesapeake Bay. These disposalareas are shown on Figures L-1, L-2, and L-3.

4. The estimates have been prepared using private industry hopper dredges. The cycle
time per load, quantity per load, effective working time, etc., were estimated for each
of the dredges in the various channel sections. The production parameters are based on
current foundation investigations as presented in Appendix B of Technical Appendices,
and previous new work dredging experience in the Virginia Channels. In addition,
meetings and discussions with private industry representatives have indicated that based
on the available information, production rates developed for the Maryland'and Virginia
rhannels are reasonable. From. this information, the time to complete the channel
dredging was computed. Using the current rental rates for the dredges, the total costs
for each channel section and the unit costs per cubic yard were computed. An average
unit cost was developed for each unit (contract) by dividing the total dredging cost for
that unit over the contract period by the total quantity in cubic yards. Cost estimates,
including the unit costs,. for the C-ape Henry, York Spit, and Rappahannock Shoal
(7hannels are shown in Table 0-2.

5. A cost estimate to stockpile dredge material at Fort Story, Virginia was
investigated. Suitab!e material would be removed from the Cape fienry Channel and
placed onshore at Fort Story. The cost estimate has been prepared using private industry
hopper firedges. Table L-I shows a cost comparison of disposing Cape Henry dredge
material at the Ocean site versus stockpiling at Fort Story,, Virginia. While the Fort
Story alternative could become a part of the project, cost to implement the scheme
would be financed by non-Federal interests during construction. This cost would be in
.addition to and is considered separate from the current total project cost.

Maryland Channels

6. Cost estimates for dredging operations in the Main Ship Channels and Branch
Channels are based on bucket dredging with disposal of the dredged material in the Hart-
Miller Island diked disposal area. The State of Maryland has desig d the diked disposal
gne
area and construction is scheduled to begin this year. The disposal area, shown on Figure
L-42 is located about five miles northeast of the Cutoff -Brewerton Angle. The State
plans to construct the disposal area with a capacity- sufficient.to accommodate dredged
material. from Baltimore Harbor for the initial deepening to 50 feet. and 10 years of
maintenance dredging. There will not be a handling basin at the disposal area. Scows
will be transported to a rehandling facility by medium size tugs at which. point their .
payload would be slurried and pumped into the containment area. The rehandling facility
would be located approximately 2500 feet from the Hart and Miller Istandsl facility, in a
location which will permit unrestricted access by the tugs and scows, without
encountering shallow water. The first costs for the diked disposal area is a non-Federal.
expense. The construction cost and the operation and maintenance cost of the diked

0-3

area, provided by the Maryland Port Administration, has been apportioned among the
Main Ship, Branch Channel, and Private Channel sections by the amount of material to be
dredged f rom a given section and placed in the area.

7. Other non-Federal costs include relocation of electrical cables located under 'the East
Channel of the Northwest Branch. The relocation is shown on Plate A-31, Appendix A.
17ost estimates for the Main Ship rhannel and Branch r!hannels are shown in Tables 0-3
and 0-4, respectively.

Private rhannels

8. The estimated costs of private channels are shown in Table 0-5. cost is based on
disposing of the material at Hart-Miller Islands.

Utility Relocations

9. The deepening of the Northwest Branch - East Channel to 49 feet will require the
relocation of 12 submarine electric cables owned by the Baltimore Gas and Electric
rompan y, running from Lazaretto Point to Fort McHenry. These will have to be lowered
a minimum of 9 feet. A detailed description of the above relocation is presented in
Section H, Investigations. Table 0-6 shows the cost for the relocation.

0-4

TABLE 0-2

ESTIMATED COSTS ($1,000) OF VIRGINIA CHANNELS

(February 1981 Price Level)

CAPE HENRY CHANNEL & YORK SPIT CHANNEL (Sections 1&2)

Ouantity - 12,487,000 cy
Contract Costs @ $2.70/cy 33,700.0
Contingencies (12%) 4,000.0
Engineering & Design (3%) 1,100.0
Supervision & Administration (5.5%) 2,100.0

TOTAL COST - CORPS OF ENGINEERS 40,500.0

YORK SPIT CHANNEL- (Sections 3&4) & RAPPAHANNOCK CHANNEL

Ouantity - 18,100,000 cy
Contract Costs @ $1.84/cy 33,300.0
Contingencies (12%) 4,900.0
Engineering & Design (3%) 1,100.0
Supervision & Administration (5.5%) 2,100.0

TOTAL COST - CORPS OF ENGINEERS 40,500.0

TOTAL COST - CORPS OF ENGINEERS
VIRGINIA CHANNELS 81,400.0

0-5

TABLE 0-3

ESTIVATED COSTS ($U,000) OF MAIN SHIP CHANNEL

(Februarv 1981 Price Level)

MAIN SHIP CHANNELS

a. Craighill Entrance and(' raighill Channel

Quantity - 10,828,000 cy
Contract Costs @ $3.201cy 34,600.0
Contingencies (12%) 4,200.0
Engineering & nesign (3%) 1,100.0
Supervision &- Administration (5.5%) 2,200.0

TOTAL COST - CORPS OF ENGINEERS 42,100.0

b. rra4ghill-rutoff Angle and Cutoff Section

Ouanfity - 7,350,000 cy
Contract Costs fa $2.77/cy 20,400.0
Contingencies (12%) 2,400.0
Engineering & T)esign (3%) 700.0
Supervision & Administration (5.5%) 1,200.0

TOTAL COST - CORPS OF ENGINEERS 24,700.0

c., Cutoff -@Brewerton Angle and Brewerton Section

Ouantity - 7,757,000 cv
Contract Costs @ $2.7 5/cy 21,300.0
Contingencies (12%) 2,600.0
Engineering & Design (3%) 700.0
Supervision. & Administration (5.5%) 1,300.0

TOTAL COST - CORPS OF ENGINEERS 25,900.0

d. Brewerton - Ft. McHenry Angle and Ft. McHenry Section

Ouantity - 9,235,000 cy
Contract Costs @ $3.10/cy 29,600.0
Contingencies (12%) 3,400.0
Engineering & nesign (3%) 19000.0
SuDervision & Administration (5.5%) 1,800.0

TOTAL (-,OST'- CORPS OF ENGINEERS 34,800.0

TOTAL MAIN SHIP CHANNELS (' OST -
CORPS OF ENGINEERS 127,500.0

0-6

TABLE 0-3 (con't)

ESTIMATED COSTS ($1,000) OF MAIN SHIP CHANNEL
(February 1981 Price Level)

NON-FEDERAL COSTS

Diked Disposal Area 27,339.0
Operations and Maintenance for
Diked Disposal Area 18,200.0

TOTAL NON-FEDERAL COST 45,539.0

TOTAL MAIN SHIP CHANNELS COST 173,039.0

TABLE 0-4

ESTIMATED COSTS ($1,000) OF BRANCH CHANNELS

(February 1981 Price Level)

CURTIS BAY CHANNEL

Quantity - 3,080,000 cy
Contract Costs @ $2.57/cy 7,9900.0
Contingencies (12%) 900.0
Engineering & Design 93%) 300.0
Supervision & Administration (5.5%) 500.0

TOTAL COST - CORPS OF ENGINEERS 9,600.0

NON-FEDERAL COSTS

Diked Disposal Area 2,161.0
Operations and Maintenance for
Diked Disposal Area 1,600.0

TOTAL NON-FEDERAL COST 3,761.0

TOTAL PROJECT COST 13,361.0

0-7

TABLE 0-4 (cont'd)

ESTIMATED COSTS ($1,000) OF BRANCH CHANNELS
(February 1981 Price Level)

NORTHWEST BRANCH - EAST CHANNEL

Ouantity - 1,673,000 cy
Contract Costs @ $2.99/cy 5,000.0
Contingencies (12%) 600.0
Engineering & Design (3%) 200.0
Supervision & Administration (5.5%) 300.0

TOTAL COST - CORPS OF ENGINEERS 6,100.0

NON-FEDERAL COST

Diked Disposal Area 1,170.0
Operations and Maintenance for
Diked Disposal Area 900.0

TOTAL NON-FEDERAL COST 2,070.0

TOTAL PROJECT COST 8,170.0

NORTHWEST BRANCH - WEST CHANNEL

Quantity - 1,285,000 cy
Contract Costs @ $2.94/cy 3,800.0
Contingencies (12%) 500.0
Engineering & Design (3%) 100.0
Supervision & Administration (5.5%) 200.0

TOTAL COST - CORPS OF ENGINEERS 4,600.0

NON-FEDERAL COSTS

Diked Disposal Area 900.0
Operations and Maintenance
for Diked Disposal Area 600.0

TOTAL NON-FEDERAL COST 1,500.0

TOTAL PROJECT COST 6,100.0

TOTAL BRANCH CHANNELS COST -
C0RPS OF ENGINEERS 20,300.0

TOTAL BRANCH CHANNELS COST - NON-FEDERAL 7,331.0

TOTAL BRANCH CHANNELS COST 27,631.0

O-8

TABLE 0-5

ESTIMATED COSTS ($1,000) OF PRIVATE CHANNELS

(February 1981 Price Level)

CHANNEL TO BETHLEHEM STEEL
CORPORATION ORE PIER

Ouantity - 1,568,000 cy
Contract Costs @ $2.81/cy 4,400.0
Contingencies (12%) 530.0
Operations and Maintenance 700.0
foe Diked Disposal Area
Diked Disposal Area 1,300.0
Engineering & Design (3%) 200.0
Supervision & Administration (5.5%) 270.0

TOTAL COST 7,400.0

CHANNELS TO C&O/B&0 COAL
AND ORE PIERS

Quantity - 222,000 cy
Contract Costs @ $4.22/cy 940.0
Contingencies (12%) 110.0
Operations And Maintenance 100.0
for Diked. Disposal Area
Diked Disposal Area 160.0
Engineering & Design (3%)
Supervision & Administration (5.5%) 60.0

TOTAL COST 1,400.0

CHANNEL TO CONSOLIDATION COAL COMPANY

Quantity - 185,000 cy
Contract Costs @ $4.28/cy 790.0
Contingencies (12%) 95.0
Operations and Maintenance 90.0
for Diked Disposal Area
Diked Disposal Area 160.0
Engineering & Design (3%) 25.0
Supervision & Administration (5.5%) 50.0

TOTAL COST l,210.0

CHANNEL TO EXXON COMPANY PIER

Ouantity - 77,000 cy
Contract Costs @ $6.23/cy 480.0
Contingencies (12%) 60.0
Operations and Maintenance 30.0
for Diked Disposal Areas

0-9

TABLE 0-5 (con't)

ESTIMATED COSTS ($1,000) OF PRIVATE CHANNELS
(February 1981 Price Level)

niked Disposal Area, 80.0
Engineering & Design 0%) 20.0
Supervision & Administration (5.5%) 30.0

TOTAL COST 4 700.0

r@HANNEL TO LOCTIST POINT PIF-R 7

Ouantity - 130,000 cy
Contract r@osts (a $4.791cy 620.0
.ontingencies (12%) 80.0
Operations and Maintenance 50.0
for Diked nisposal Area
T)iked Disposal Area 240.0
Engineering & T).esign (3%) 20.0
Supervision & Administration (5.5%) 40.0

TOTAL COST 19050.0

CHANNEL TO KENTUCKY-OHIO TRANSPORTATION
CO. PIER

Quantity - 98,000 cy
Contract Costs @ $5.62/cy 550.0
Contingencies (12%) 65.0
Operations and Maintenance 40.0
for Diked Disposal Area
Diked Disposal Area 130.0
Engineering & Design 0%) 20.0
Supervision & Administration (5.5%) 35.0

TOTAL rOST 840.0

MOORING BASIN FOR MARLEY NECK TERMINAL

Quantity - 185,000 cy
Contract Costs @ $4.281cy 790.0
Contingencies (12%) 95.0
Operations and Maintenance 90.0
for Diked Disposal Area
Diked Disposal Area 160.0
Engineering & T)esign 0%) 25.0
Supervision & Administration (5.5%) 50.0

TOTAL COST 19210.0

TOTAL PRIVATE CHANNELS COST 13,810.0

0-10

TABLE 0-6

UTILITY RELOCATION COST ($1,000)
(February 1981 Price Level)

Electrical Cable Relocation $2,000.0

STJMAAARY AND COMPARISON OF ESTIMATES OF FIRST COST

10. Table 0-7 shows a summary of the present estimate of first costs. In Table 0-8,
the present estimate of first costs is compared with the cost estimate contained
in the Project Document, the 1975 Supplemental Report to the Project Document
and to the latest approved estimate (PB-3), effective I October 1980.

11. The present estimate of cost reflects the project being constructed in a three
year time period. Dredging at this rate would require all major contracts to run
simultaneously. Should this construction schedule be lengthened for any reason,
the project cost estimate will also change accordingly. A longer project schedule
would require lengthier dredging contracts and/or "sequencing" of a%Vard of major
contracts during the overall project duration. Cost escalations wouldresult in all
contracts, particularly those awarded several years after initial project dredging.
The following comparisons of project costs reflect all additional cost escalations
for longer project schedules. The project costs discussed are, therefore, actual
anticipated financial costs. ' A construction schedule of eight years has been
considered in previous planning for the Baltimore Harbor and Channels Project.
Adoption of the eight year schedule would result in the first cost of the project
being approximately $375,230,000. This represents an increase of $73,700,000
656,800,000 Federal and $16,900,000 non-Federal)'Over the cost of *the project
based oti a three year construction schedule. Similarlyi.if a construction schedule
of six years is eventually realized, the first cost -of the project would be
approximately $339,080,000. This represents-an increase of $37,550,000
($25,650,000 Federal and $1.1,900,000 Non-Federal) over the cost of the project
based on a three year construction schedule.

12. Table 0-8 shows comparisons of estimated project first costs for various
report document investigations for the Baltimore Harbor and Channels, Maryland
and Virginia Navigation study. An explanation f or the project cost increase
between current (February 1981) and PB-3 (October 1980) cost estimates is
discussed below.

Federal rost s:

VIRGINIA (7HANNF_LS - Total cost increase of $24,260,000.0. The increase
represents $3,200,000.0 for. price level rise and S21,060,060.0 for reanalysis of
unit prices based on accomplishing the work by private,. in lieu of Government
hopper dredges.
MARYLAND CHANNELS - Total cost increase of $31,770,000.0. The
increase represents $5,900,000.0 for price level rise and $25,870,000.0 for
reanalysis of unit prices.

ENGINEERING AND DESIGN (OTHER) - Cost increase of $2,010,000.0.
Commensurate with increased construction estimate.

0-11

ENGINEERING AND DESIGN (MONITOR) - '-ost increase o f $1,240,000.0.
Reflects refinement in cost estimate.

SUPERVISION AND ADMINISTRATION - Cost increase of $3,420,000.0.
rommensurate with increased construction cost estimate.

Non-Federal (-osts:

r)REnGiNG - rost increase of $3,960,000.0. The increase represents
$450,000.0 for price level rises and $3,410,000.0 based on GOM studies. The
$3,410,000.0 includes $1,580,000.0 due to the addition of two private channels
recently identified during GnM and the $1,-830,000.0 represent refinements in
the cost estimate.

NVATER MAIN RELOCATION - Relocation being accomplished as part of city
tunnel contract to extend Interstate Route 95.

DIKE OR DISPOSAL AREAp ANT) OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE FOR
nIKET) DISPOSAL AREA - Cost decrease of $42,500,000 reflects a
$43,170,000 decrease due to refinement of the cost estimate, partially offset
by an increase of $670,000 for price level rises.

INSTALLATION OF NEW POWER CABLES - Cost'increase of $240,000.0.
The increase represents $60,000.0 for price level rises and $140,000.0 reflects
refinements in the cost estimate.

0-12

TABLE 0-7

SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED FIRST COSTS ($1,000)
(February 1981 Price Level)

FEDERAL COSTS

Dredging
Virginia Channels1/ $75,100.0
Maryland Channelsl/ 136,200.0
Engineering and Design 6,300.0
Supervision and Administration 11,600.0
Aids to Navigation 150.0
Monitoring Program 3,500.0
TOTAL FEDERAL COSTS $232,850.0

NON-FEDERAL COSTS

Dredging
Private Channels2/ $ 10,480.0
Diked Disposal Area 33,800.0
Operations and Maintenance
for Diked Disposal Area 22,4OO.O
Electric Cable Relocation 2,000.0

TOTAL NON-FEDERAL COSTS $ 68,680.0
TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $ 301,530.0

1/ Includes contingencies
2/ Includes contingencies, engineering and design,
and supervision and administration; excludes
apportioned cost for disposal area which are
included in the separate cost summary for the
disposal area.

0-13

TABLE 0-8

COMPARISON OF ESTIMATED FIRST COSTS ($1,000)

October 80 July 74
Current PB-3 Supplement Project
Cost Estimate Estimate Estimate Document
Account (Feb 81 price (Oct 80 price (July 73 price (Jan 69 price
Number Ite m level) level) level)- -level)

09. CHAN NELS 211,300.0 155,270.0 77,529.0 87,864.0

Virginia (75,100.0) (50,840.0) (42 000.0) (42,990.0)
Maryland (136,200.0) 004,430.0) (35,529.0) (44,894.0)

30. ENGR & DESIGN 9,800.0 6,550.0 2,360.0 2,870.0
Monitoring (3,500.6) (2,260.0) - -
Other (6,300.0) (4,290.0) (2,360.0) (2,870.0)

31. SUPV. & ADMIN. -11,600.0 -8,180.0 4,819.0 5,300.0

Total Corps of Engrs. 232,700.0 170,000.0 84,708.0 96,034.0

Coast Guard 150.0 150.0 238.0 73.0

Total Federal (7ost 232,850.0 170,150.0 84,946.0 96,107.0

NON-FEDERAL rOST

Dredging 10,480.0 6,620.0 .3,618.0 2,386.0

Water Main Relocation 0.0 4,320.0 0.0 0.0
Diked f)is "P'osal Area 33,800.0. 959300.0 15,682.0 0.0
Operations & Maintenance I/
for niked Disposal Area 22,400.0 11,761.0 0.0

Installation of New
Power Cables -2,000.0 -1,760.0 0.0 0.0
Total Non-Federal rost $68,680.0 $108,000.0 $ 31j060.0 $ 2,386.0
Total Project r@ost $301,530.0 $08,150.0 $1 06.0 $ TS, 4-9 3. 0

Cost for operations and maintenance for diked disposal area are
included in $95,300,000.

0-14

SECTION P

BENEFITS

INTRODUCTION

1. This section presents an analysis of those factors necessary to estimate the beneficial
impacts in transportation savings that would result f rom the construction of the
authorized deepening of the Baltimore Harbor and Channels. The authorized project
calls for deepening the main shipping channels from the Cape Henry Channel in Virginia
waters to the Fort McHenry Channel in Baltimore Harbor from. 42 to 50-feet; the Curtis
Bay Channel from 42 to 50 feet; the Northwest Branch-East Channel from 39 to 49 feet;
and the Northwest Branch - West Branch Channel from 35 to 40 feet with deepening and
extension of the turning basin to 40 feet. The project was evaluated at the current
Federal interest rate of 7 3/8 percent with an assumed project economic life of 50
years. Benefits are based on February 1981 price levels.

2. The transportation, savings on which the benefits are based are realized by shipping
more cargo tonnage per vessel trip, either by loading a vessel more fully or by utilizing
larger vessels over the deeper channels, thereby realizing the benefits of economies of
scale. By loading a vessel more fully, the fixed voyage costs are distributed over more
units of cargo, reducing the total transportation cost per ton. By using larger vessels,
although the overall voyage cost is higher, the additional cargo capacity more than
offsets this increase to reduce unit transportation costs. It is only in the major bulk
trades that vessels require water depths greater than those currently existing in
Baltimore Harbor. Benefits would result from the imports of iron ore at Sparrows Point
and Curtis Bay, sugar at the head of the Northwest Branch-West Channel, and petroleum
by the major receiver in the Northwest Branch-East Channel; and from the exports of
coal at various terminals throughout the harbor, and grain f rorn the Northwest Branch-
West Channel. The determination of the magnitude of transportation savings involves
three major areas of study; commerce analysis and projections, future fleet distribution,
and shipping cost analysis. Each is discussed in detail below followed by the computation
of total benefits.

COMMERCE ANALYSIS AND PROJECTIONS

INTRODUCTION

3. Baltimore Harbor commerce in 1978 totalled 46,809,090 tons, of which 31,846,630
tons were foreign imports and exports. Bulk cargo accounted for 82 percent of the port's
overall commerce and 82 percent of the foreign commerce. A breakdown of the
principal bulk movements for 1978 is shown in Table P-1. Analysis of shipping records
and interviews with local shipping interests reveals that only major bulk commodities
with established trade routes move in sufficient volume to utilize large vessels requiring
water depths greater than those presently existing at Baltimore. These commodities are
iron ore, coal, grain, petroleum and sugar. Historical movements of these five major
commodities are shown in Table P-2. Although significant volumes of other commodities
are being transported annually, these commodities are not, for various reasons,

P_ I

TABLE P-1
BALTIMORE HARBOR
MAJOR BULK MOVEMENTS - 1978

PRINCIPAL VOLUME
COMMODITY MOVEMENT (1000's Short Tons)

Iron ore Import 79161
Coal Export 5,887
Petroleum:
Crude Import 422
Gasoline Coastwise 388
Jet Fuel Coastwise 4
Kerosene Coastwise 4
Distillate Fuel Oil Import 24
Coastwise 578
Residual Fuel Oil Import 2,078
Coastwise 19825
Asphalt Coastwise 746
Grains:
Wheat Export 442
Corn Export 4,345
Soybeans Export 878
Sugar Import 472
Coastwise 26
Molasses Import 86
Manganese Ore Import 22
Bauxite Import 452
Chrome Ore Import 273
Salt Import 517
Limestone Import 716
Fertilizers Import 217
Export 16

Source: Waterborne Commerce of the.United States, 1978

P-2

TABLE P-2
BALTIMORE HARBOR BULK COMMERCE
1969-1978
(thousands short tons)

Iron Ore Coal Petroleum Grain Sugar
Year Imports Exports Imports Coastwise Exports Imports

1969 10,595 2,658 4,110 2,625 889 661

1970 11,223 4,725- 4,399 4,411 1,195 546

1971 9,520 3,435 3,479 4,940 1,232 531

1972 89417 3J55 49284 59487 29857 614

1973 109016 49406 5,306 5,372 3,805 603

1974 13,325 59977 4,658 5,415 4,314 737

1975 .12@076 6,758 3,299 4@380 4,783 511

1976 10,308 69536 2,668 4,994 6,009 600

1977 6,235 7,054 2,439 5,014 4,965 484

1978 7,161 59887 49366 3,693 5,686 473

Average qP888 5,119 3p901 41633 3,574 576

Source: Waterborne Commerce of the United States

P-3

susceptible to the advantages of deep-draft navigation. For example, widespread sources
of supply in the world for these commodities, with limited volumes from each point, does
not warrant the use of larger bulk carriers.

4. Of note in Table P-2 is the substantial increases in recent years in volumes of coal
and grain exports. Benefits for the export of grain were not included in the Project
Document. However, due to the increased level of exports and increase in ship sizes
carrying the grain, it has been considered in the economic evaluation f or the GDM.

5. Detailed investigations were made of the major bulk commodity trades in which
navigation benefits are expected to result. Data from 1975 and 1976 were initially used
as the baseline for the commerce analysis and projections of all the commodities under
study. However, because of dramatic changes in the coal export trade in the past two
years, data from 1979 and 1980 shipments were collected and used in the analysis of coal
exports. Taking into account local and worldwide economic trends and developments
influencing Baltimore Harbor's trade volume, future commerce in each of the major bulk
trades was projected over the 50-year project economic life f rom 1986, the first yearthe
project is estimated to become fully operational, to year 2036. Table P-3 presents the
results of these investigations. Characteristics of each commodity trade and
considerations in making the projections are discussed below for each commodity.

TABLE P-3
BALTIMORE HARBOR
PROSPECTIVE DEEP DRAFT COMMERCE
(1000 short tons)

Commodity Existing Y 1986 2000 .2036

Iron Ore Ilt9O3 91200 9,200 9,200
Residual Fuel 2/ 1,640 1,830 2,050 850
Coal 6,424 38,000 54,800 54,800
Grain 4,870 5,470 6,420 9,760
Sugar 616 650 700 780-

Total 25,453 55,150 75,390

l/ 1974-1976 average
il NW-East Branch only

IRON ORE

6. During the 1974-1976 period, an average of 11.9 million short tons of iron ore per year
was imported into the Port of Baltimore. A large portion of the'ore (about 55 percent)
was consumed in the Baltimore area by the Bethlehem Steel Corporation's Sparrow Point
plant. The remaining iron ore was transshipped to inland locations by rail mainly from
two terminals in the Canton and Curtis Bay areas owned by the Cottman Company and
the Chessie System (B&O Railroad), respectively. Relatively small volumes move
through Port Covington. Table P-4 shows the percent distribution by country of origin
for 1975-1976 iron ore imports to Sparrows Point and other harbor piers.

P-4

TABLE P-4

BALTIMORE HARBOR IRON ORE IMPORTS (1975-76)
BY PIER AND COUNTRY OF ORIGIN.

Country of Sparrows Point Canton Curtis Bay Pt. Covington Total
Origin short tons % short tons % short tons % short tons % short tons %
Canada 5,162,496 45.2 398,809 7.3 506,775 12.7 6,068,080 28.3
Liberia 2,036,142 17.8 257,397 4.7 54,779 1.4 2,348,308 10.9
Brazil 1,389,634 12.1 3,407,684 62.6 2,410,848 60.5 230,538 38.6 7,438,704 34.7
Venezuela 2,788,965 24.4 222,639 4.1 749,454 18.8 260,039 43.5 4,021.,097 18.7
Australia ---- 10.3 89,222 2.2 -- --- 08,883 3.0
Others 56,818 0.5 595,983 11.0 175,429 4.4 .106,974 17.9 935,204 4.4
TOTALS 11,434,055 100.0 5,442,163 100.0 3,986,507 100.0 597,551 100.0 21,460,276 100.0

7. The projections of iron ore imports prepared for the 1969 Project Document were
based on the expected regional distribution of projected total United States production of
steel. The projections indicated a@rate of growth of 1.75 percent annually to 1985, and
then 1.6 percent annually during the remaining project life. This rate of growth resulted
in a level of importsof 13.6 million short tons in 1975, 20.3 million tons in 2000 and 30.1
million in 2025. Although the 1975 projection is relatively close to,the actual tonnage.
during the 1974-1976 period, the latter figure is not typical of the level of imports
experienced during the early 1970's or to be expected during the latter part of the
1970's. For example, during the 1970-1973 period, average annual tonnages averaged 9.8
million tons. The reason f or the higher than average tonnage during the 1974-1976 period
was an increase in the amount of ore transshipped to inland locations due to a temporary
closing of a major iron ore supplier on Lake Superior.

8. The projections prepared for this report were based, in part, on estimates of future
iron ore use at the Sparrows Point plant. These projections showed a constant demand
for iron ore at the Sparrows Point plant over the projection period. It was assumed that
any foreseeable increase in steel production at the plant could be handled bymore
efficient production techniques or by increasing the iron content of the ore. In either
case, the amounts of iron ore required would not be significantly affected.

9. The projections of the amount of iron ore transshipped inland were based on an
analysis of the historical trends in tonnages transshipped and conversations with Chessie
System, Cottman Company and Bethlehem Steel officials. The historical data for the
1962-1973 period indicates no significant trend in the levels of imports to either the
Chessie, Cottman, or Western Maryland facility in Port Covington. Imports to the
Chessie ore pier ranged between 531,000 tons to 2.0 million tons with the average being
1.0 million tons. At the Cottman facility, the range was between 278,000 tons and 1.2
million tons with an average of 800,000. Imports into Port Covington ranged between
59,000 tons and 542,000 tons, with an average of 328,000 tons. The Bethlehem Steel
Company transships iron ore through these two terminals to the company's Johnstown,
Pennsylania, plant. Bethlehem Steel officials indicated that the transportation savings
realized f rom a 50-f oot channel could result in approximately 2.0 million short tons of
iron ore being diverted from Philadelphia to Baltimore for transshipment to the
company's plant in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. In the projections presented in Table P-5, it
was assumed that the level of iron ore transshipped would be equal to the average
tonnages for the Chessie, Cottman, and Port Covington facilities during the 1962-1973
period. Because of the high degree of uncertainty about the 2.0 million tons of induced
tonnage, it was not included in the table.

10. Based on data supplied by local iron ore importers, it was determined that approxi-
mately 50 percent of the imports to Baltimore Harbor would originate in Seven Islands,
Canada, 34 percent in Buchanan, Liberia, and the remaining 16 percent divided evenly
between Palua, Venezuela and Tubarao, Brazil.

P-6

TABLE P-5

PROJECTIONS OF IRON ORE IMPORTS
(millions of short tons)

1974-76
Average 1986 2036
Sparrows Point 6.50 7.05 7.05
Curtis Bay 2.51 1.00 1.00
Canton 2.43- 0.80 0.80
Pt. Covington 0.46 0.35 0.35

TOTAL 11.90 9.20 9.20

COAL

GENERAL

11. The United States is the largest producer of bituminous coal and th e largest coal
exporter in the world. Generally, coal exports f rom the United States have remained
fairly constant since'the 1950's, with periodic fluctuations stemming from rail and mine
strikes. Table P-6 presents coal export volumes f or both the United States and Baltimore
for the 19701s. As can be seen, Baltimore's coal exports, both in absolute volume and as a
percent of total U.S., have risen steadily and dramatically since the 1960's, when the
average annual export volume was only about 2.4 million tons. As shown in Table P-7,
the Port of Baltimore is currently the second leading coal export center in the nation,
accounting for about twenty percent of the total United States' tidewater export
volume. Baltimore's attraction as a coal port is due in part to its proximity to the rich
Appalachian coal fields which extend from western Pennsylvania to northern Alabama.
The rail lines tieing into Baltimore serve those Appalachian mines located in northern
West Virginia, western Pennsylvania, and Maryland. Vast reserves of steam and
metallurgical grade bituminous coal are mined in these fields, both types of which are in
great demand in foreign markets.

12. Table P-8 is a breakdown of Baltimore coal exports by general area of destination
from 1970 through the first ten months of 1980. Historically, Baltimore's major coal
customer has been Japan, accounting for about 53 percent of the total volume in the past
decade. Europe (including the Mediterranean area) and South America have received 41
and 4 percent, respectively, of the total. The major European, customers for Baltimore
coal have been West Germany, France, United Kingdom, Belgium, and the Netherlands,
while Brazil and Argentina are the major South American importers. Nearly all of
Japan's coal, as well as most of the coal to Europe and other countries, has been
metallurgical grade coal used in making steel. In the past two years, however, the nature
of the Baltimore coal trade (that is, the volume, destination, and type of coal exported)
has changed dramatically.

P-7

TABLE P-6
COAL EXPORTS, 1970 - 1979
UNITED STATES AND BALTIMORE

Exports (thousands of short tons) Percent
Year U.S. Baltimore Baltimore

1970 71,276 4,725 6.6
1971 56,802 3,435 6.1
1972 55,914 3,755 6.7
1973 53,011 4,406 8.1
1974 61@582 59977 9.7
1975 65,274 6,758 10.4
1976 599705 6,536 10.9
1977 53,938 7,054 13.1
1978 40,328 5,887 14.6
1979 45,643 99141 20.0

Source: Waterborne Commerce of the United States, 1970-1978.
U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 1979

TABLE P-7
U.S. EXPORTS OF BITUMINOUS COAL, 1979
(thousands of short tons)

Port of Exit Tons Percent of Total

Baltimore 9,141 20.0
Hampton Roa& 33,753 74.0
Mobile 1,284 2.8
New Orleans 1,410 3.1
Philadelphia 55 0.1

Total 459643 100.0

Note: 'Excludes Great Lakes shipments to Canada and shipments to
U. S. m ilitar y -f or ces

P-8

TABLE P-8'
BALTIMORE COAL EXPORTS BY TRADE AREA, 1970-1980
(1,000's short tons)

Europe South
Year Far East Mediterranean America Other Total

1970 2,602 1,872 251 0 4,725
1971 19950 19138 254 92 39434
1972 2,285 1,188 194 88 3,755
1973 2,684' lt424 189 109 4,406
1974 4tO46 1,767 109 55 59977
1975 59254 19105 340 .59 6t758
1976 39786 29384 339 27 6p536
1977 3,527 3,167 360 0 7,054
1978 29960 2,738 148 41 5,897
1979 41151 49513 465 12 9t 141
1980 1/ 39269 6,425 208 110 10,012

1/ 1980 figures are through October

Source: From data supplied by Maryland Port Administration

STEAM COAL BOOM

13. Export volumes from Baltimore are expected to reach 13 million tons in 1980, about
double the export totals from as recently as 1977 and 1978. Most of the recent increase
has come from a sudden demand in Europe for American steam coal, which now accounts
for about one-third of Baltimore's coal export traffic, for use in electrical power
generation. Total exports to European and Mediterranean destinations have increased
three-f old in recent years, whereas South American and Far East (mainly Japan) totals
have remained relatively constant over the long run. The recent coal boom, which has
affected not only Baltimore, but all U.S. coal ports, has come about just as the seven
major industrial democracies pledged in Venice to. double the use of coal by 1990i In
addition, the U.S. Senate has required the State Department to designate a coal export
officer in every U.S. embassy, and an international group had just published a study
calling for a ten-to fifteen-fold increase in world steam coal trade.

14. But the coal boom for the U.S. has come about, not so much [email protected] above
mentioned pronouncements, as they have due to changed demand and supply market
conditions around the world. These changed conditions include:

a. European power plants have been and are being converted from oil to coal as a
result of rapidly escalating oil prices in 1979 and 1980.

b. The rising price of bunker fuel used by vessels transporting coal has made United
States coal more competitive in some markets than more distant suppliers such as
Australia and South Africa.

P-9

c. For various reasons, traditional coal suppliers are no longer reliable sources.
Miners' strikes in Australia, in addition to an unstable political climate and crowded ports
in South Africa have meant increased business for the United States. Poland has also
been aff ected by labor and political unrest. Also, the, Soviet Union has Out a claim on
much of Poland's coal, limiting the amount available for export.

15. The demand f or U.S. coal has so exceeded the supply capacity of the transportation
system that for more than a year, dozens of. ships have lain at anchor outside of
Baltimore and other American ports typically f or more than a month each, waiting to
load coal. The Chessie coal pier in Curtis Bay, the port's only coal exporting f acility, is
now strained to its capacity of about 15 million tons annually. In late 1980, Chessie
began barging coal, loaded from the barge side of their pier, to the unused ore pier in
Port Covington, where the coal was transferred to ocean-going vessels. This temporary
practice increased the loading capacity of the port by about three million tons annually.

16. The strong market demand f or coal and optimistic long-range projections have
generated enough confidence in the coal export market that private coal interests have
announced plans for considerable investment in facilities to increase the harbor's coal
export capacity:

a. The Island Creek Coal Company, a subsidiary of Occidental Petroleum has
announced two projects representing a $50 million investment. One, already underway', is
for a 28-acre coal storage area in the Curtis Bay. area, accessible to Chessie's coal pier
located nearby. The second project is f or a.new coal pier, to be located alongside
Chessiels'pier, having an annual throughput capacity of 12 million tons by 1982.
b. The Consoli 'dation Coal Company (ConSol) is spending $110 million to purchase the
Canton ore pier an'd adjacent properties, convert the ore pier to a coal pier, and
construct the necessary support facilities. This initial investment will have an annual
capacity of 10 million tons by 1983, with the option of future expansion to 20 million tons
capacity.

c. A six company consortium, headed by Soros Associates, a New York engineering
firm, has announced plans f or a $150 million pier and storage facilities on a 500-acre site
at Marley Neck for exporting 15 million tons annually by 1985. A capability exists for
further development there whith would-increase export capacity to 30 million tons.

d. A number of other unannounced proposals have been made for coal-exporting
projects throughout the harbor. Two of these proposals, firmly in the negotiating stage,
would add another estimated 18 million tons of export capacity.

e. The Chessie System is spending $383 million to upgrade its tracks, equipment, and
yards by 1984, to insure its ability to handle the increased volume of exports anticipated.

These planned investments will increase Baltimore's coal export capacity f rom less than
20 million tons currently to at least 70 million tons, and potentially greater than 100
million tons, within the.next decade.

17. Whether the future export capacity will be built, or even whether the capacity
currently being built will be fully utilized, is dependent on the future of the current
steam coal export boom, which, in turn, is dependent on many variables in the future of.
energy. The demand f or U.S. steam coal has been described by a Chessie official as an

P-10

artificial situation and dif ficult to predict how long it will last. The United States is
currently viewed by many as a marginal supplier of steam coal. Much of the recent coal
exports have been trial shipments purchased on the spot market. Although some of these
trials have resulted in long-term contracts, many European countries have been unwilling
to make long-term commitments, without improved and new coal-loading facilities to
eliminate the costly delays they are now experiencing. However, the construction of the
announced investments in Baltimore outlined above, and investment at other U.S. ports,
should alleviate the congestion problem and lead to more long-term contracts being made
in the next few years.

18. The investments in new coal facilities in Baltimore have taken place, based not only
on contracts currently in hand, but on the assumption that there. will be an increasing
demand for steam coal in the future. Many coal-fired power plants are scheduled to
come on line in Europe in 1983. It is anticipated that with continuing oil price escalation
and potential future oil shortages, additional conversions and construction of coal-fired
utilities will occur, increasing steam coal demand. But it is difficult to accurately
forecast what the demand for steam coal exports will be because of a number of
factors. The steam coal market is sensitive to the pri,ces of alternative energy sources in
the long run. Coal could lose its price advantage over oil if OPEC were to reduce the
price of oil significantly. Also, the nuclear industry, which is currently hampered by
environmental, social, and political concerns, could recover and take over a larger share
of the energy market. Government environmental regulations regarding the burning of
coal in foreign countries, which are not as stringent as U.S. regulations, could -be
tightened (or relaxed in the United States), which could af f ect the type and volume of
coal suitable and available for export. Also, the future level of U.S. coal exports is
dependent, not only on U.S. decisions and actions, but on energy and coal developments in
each of the major einergy-using L countrIies, as well as the quality; availability, price, and
reliability of coal supplies f rom the U.S. in comparison with other coal-exporting'
countries'.

UNITED STATES EXPORT PROJECTIONS

19. There have been a number of recent studies attempting to forecast the magnitude of
the future coal market, taking into consideration the uncertainties noted above. While
the studies vary substantially in scope, they all f orecast a sharp increase in demand for
U.S. export coal. The World Coal Study (WOCOL), published in the spring of 1980, is an
exhaustive study by representatives from 16 major coal-using and coal-producing
countries assessing all aspects of coal supply and demand over the next two decades.
WOCOL concluded that world steam coal trade will need to increase by 10-15 times over
the next twenty years to satisfy projected demand, and that the U.S. is the only nation
capable of exporting more than 200 million tons by year 2000. U.S. exports are projected
to increase f rom the 1979 level of 59 million metric tons to at least 125-200 million
metric tons and'perhaps as much as 350 million metric tons by year 2000. The U.S.
WOCOL team initially assumed year 2000 U.S. export requirements of 125 mtce (millions.
of metric tons of coal equivalent; I mtce is equal to about 1. 15 short tons of Appalachian
bituminous coal) in the low coal use scenario, and 200 mtce in the high coal use case,
based on initial expectations of the likely growth in demand for exports. However,. the
possibility of greatly expanded demand f or U.S. exports up to 350 mtce (WOCOL's
"Sensitivity" scenario) was deemed more probable if the WOCOL projections of world
coal import requirements are to be satisfied. A summary of the projections for the three
scenarios is presented in Table P-9 below.

P-11

TABLE P-9
U.S. COAL EXPORT PROJECTIONS WOCOL
(mtce)

1985 1990 2000
Steam Coal
Low Use 20 30 65
High Use 30 60 130
Sensitivity 50(e) 120(e) 280

Metallurgical Coal
Low Use 50 55 60
High Use 50 60 70
Sensitivity 50 60 70

Total Coal
Low Use 70 85 125
High Use 80 120 200
Sensitivity 100 240 350

(e) = estimated; not provided by WOCOL

20. Other recent studies estimate total U.S. coal exports in the 100-160 million ton
range. These include studies by the U.S. Department of Energy, the U.S. Department of
Commerce, the Energy Modelin g Forum, and the International Energy Agency. Whereas
these studies were considered by WOCOL, they, being 2-3 years old, were made prior to
and failed to fully anticipate the advent of the steam coal export boom.

21. As the World Coal Study was being published in the Spring of 1980, the Federal
Interagency Coal Export Task-.Force, comprised of representatives from fourteen Federal
departments and agencies headed by,the Department of Energy, was being f ormed at the
direction of the President. The Interim Report of the Interagency Coal Export Task
Force (ICE), released in January 1981, was based on significant new information
developed regarding the international coal market. The report projects U.S. exports to
the primary demand areas of the world, Europe and the'Far East, of steam coal only.
Because of slightly different assumptions, more recent data, and more detailed analyses
in some, cases, ICE projections of world demand are in the high range of WOCOL
projections.

22. The United States export share of the world demand depends on the buying strategies
of the consuming countries, the policies and prices of competing exporters, and actions
taken by the U.S. to maintain reasonable prices, prompt delivery, and dependable
quality.. Although the U.S. has the highest delivered prices of coal to both Europe and
the Pacific Ri 'm, ICE determined that the price difference was not significant enough to
appreciably aff ect. buyers decisions on source of supply. Rather than the cost criterion
.alone, security and,diversification of supply are the major considerations, Table P-10
below s,ummari.zes ICE projections,of the U.S. share of the primary world demand.

P-12

TABLE P-10
U.S. SHARE OF PRIMARY WORLD DEMAND - STEAM COAL
(millions of short tons)

1985 2000
Percent Tons Percent Tons Percent Tons

Europe 28% 28 29% 49 47% 145
Pacific Rim 0% 0 17% 15 25% 52
Total 18% 28 25% -9-4 T8-% E97

23. The ICE projections of U.S. steam coal exports fall almost exactly mid-way between
WOCOL's High Use and Sensitivity scenarios for the year 2000. As shown in Table P-11
below, the projections compare fairly well by geographic area of destination.

TABLE P- I I
U.S. STEAM COAL EXPORTS (2000)
ICE vs. WOCOL
(millions of tons)

WOCOL ICE
Europe 2/ 124 145
Far East - 66 52 3/
Other World 15 10
Total 205 207

I/ Mid-point of High Use and Sensitivity scenarios
Z/ Japdn only for WOCOL, includes other countries for ICE
.1/ Not projected by ICE; 10'million estimated as WOCOL 15
million minus other Far East included by ICE

As the ICE projections are more recent and considered more authoritative, they will be
,used in making projections of Baltimore Harbor's steam coal exports. Although ICE does
not r proj ect m etallurgical coal exports, it does indicate that growth in demand f or
metallurgical coal, tied to worldwide steel production, is expected to be slow. This is
consistent with WOCOL's growth projections of metallurgical coal exports from the U.S.
of 1.4 to 2.0 percent -per year.

BALTIMORE HARBOR EXPORT PROJECTIONS

24. ICE made no attempt to allocate the total U.S; coal exports to'geographical areas or
individual ports. Important factors to be consi.dered in projecting Baltimore's share
include eff ective throughput capacity f or -coal exports, type and availability of coal
reserves captive to Baltimore, the competitive position of Baltimore compared with
other U.S. ports, the type and volume of existing coal exports from Baltimore, and longL
term contracts held by companies exporting through Baltimore. Based on these
considerations, Baltimore Harbor's future steam coal export volume was estimated using
three different methods, described below.

P-13

25. The first method, from a macroeconomic viewpoint, assumes that Baltimore will
participate in the steam coal market in proportion to its share of total U.S. steam coal
export capacity. Currently, Baltimore has about 18 percent of the total U.S. effective
coal export capacity. As discussed previously, 55 million tons of new steam coal
capacity is planned for Baltimore for the mid-term. Considering known plans for
increased capacity at Baltimore and other U.S. ports, Baltimore's share of U.S. steam
coal capacity would be about 25 percent. However, because there likely exist plans for
projects at other U.S. ports which are unannounced, Baltimore's share.would be closer to
20 percent. This percentage would yield Baltimore Harbor steam coal exports of about
42 million tons in year 2000 (20 percent of U.S. projected 207 million tons).

26. A second macroeconomic method allocates the U.S. total by world area of
destination and U.S. coastal area based on competitive factors. Although ICE projects 52
million tons to the Pacific Rim from the United States, Baltimore is not expected to
participate in this trade to any great extent. Most of this coal volume will exit f rom Los
Angeles and other west coast ports, and to some extent f rom the Gulf Coast. Baltimore
is expected to capture a significant share of the booming European steam coal market,
however. Baltimore is far ahead of other U.S. ports in the process for channel dredging
and in new coal export facilities development, which tends to attract and encourage
long-term contract commitments. Whereas some industry experts believe that the
relative market share of ports won't change much in the future, others believe that
Baltimore will be the major growth port. Despite the Gulf Coast ports' recent market
share increases, it is more expensive to ship coal to Europe through the Gulf. This is
because of more expensive overland and barging rates to the Gulf ports, and the longer
ocean voyage f rom the Gulf than f rom the East Coast. The Gulf Coast ports are
currently very busy and competitive now mainly because of longer waiting times to load
at Baltimore and Norfolk. Based on these f acts and opinions of industry experts, it was
estimated that two-thirds of the U.S. steam coal to Europe will originate on the East
,Coast. Of this volume, about half will be exported f rom Baltimore. Other than at
Newport News and Baltimore, very little coal export capacity exists on the East Coast,
although several projects are in the planning stage. If the proposed projects at Hampton
Roads are completed, that port will have (as it does now) a greater throughput capacity
than Baltimore, even considering Baltimore's capacity increase of 55 million tons.
However, much of the capacity of Hampton Roads, perhaps as much as 50 million tons,
will continue to be taken up in the metallurgical coal trades. Most U.S. metallurgical
coal comes f rom mines served by rail lines leading to Hampton Roads. Although
Baltimore exports some "met", its reserves are inferior in volume and quality to Hampton
Roads'. - On the other hand, the prime sources of steam coal are southwestern
Pennsylvania, Ohio, Western Maryland, and northern West Virginia. These areas are
served by Conrail and Chessie, both serving the Port of Baltimore. A coal company's
choice of ports depend almost exclusively on which rail lines serve the mines. Except in
a few isolated instances, coal which moves through Baltimore could not be re-routed to
other ports (and vice versa). Allocating half of the East Coast's- projected exports of
European-bound steam coal to Baltimore results in an export volume (year 2000) of about
48 million tons.

27. The third method for deriving Baltimore's future coal export volumes is from a
microeconomic, or port level, point of view. As explained previously, the tremendous
increase in demand for U.S. steam coal eventually drew out venture capital for
construction of many new steam coal export facilities in Baltimore. At the same time,
new long-term supply contracts for significant amounts of coal were awarded. At least
55 million tons of new steam coal export capacity are being planned or currently under

P-14

construction at Baltimore Harbor. New facilities are not constructed so that their full
volume will be reached immediately, but rather so that they may accommodate larger
volumes over time. But it is reasonable to assume that a significant portion of, this
capacity.is committed to long-term contracts in order to insure an adequate return on
-the millions of dollars invested. As competition for long-term contracts throughout the
nation is at this time intense, individual coal companies are somewhat reluctant to
release information on contracts negotiated. However, a number of major long-term
contracts have been announced by the companies investing in new facilities at
Baltimore. It has been estimated that over 50 percent of the planned capacity is
currently committed to European customers. As an increasing number of conversions to
coal from high-priced oil is anticipated in the near future, this percentage is likely to
increase as the exporting facilities are actually constructed. Based on the above- it is
conservatively estimated that a 75 percent utilization factor of the new coal export
capacity for Baltimore will be attained by year 2000. This would result in a steam coal
export volume of about 42 million tons (75 percent of 55 million. tons).

28. The three methods described above for determining future steam coal export
volumes from Baltimore all give comparable results, ranging from 42 to 48 millon tons
(year 2000). The mid-point of this range, 45 million tons, is selected as the best
projection of Baltimore's steam coal exports, all of which -are destined for Europe.
Export volumes for,1986 are estimated at 30 million tons..

29. Metallurgical coal exports from Baltimore, cyclical in the past, are expected to be
cyclical long-term. As explained previously, ICE indicates that the growth in demand for
metallurgical coal, tied to worldwide steel production, is expected to be slow. WOCOL,
while showing an increase in world coal demand of 3.0 to 3.7 percent annually, projects
growth in U.S. metallurgical exports of only 1.4 to 2.0 percent per year. Using the 1.4
percent growth rate, Baltimore's metallurgical coal exports will increase from 7.1 million
tons in 1977 to 9.8 million tons in 2000. The breakdown of metallurgical coal exports by
world area is shown in Table P-12. Shipments to the Far East are expected to fall off
somewhat (from 3.5 to 2.5 million tons), while volumes to other destination will double.

30. Table P- 13 shows the combined steam and metallurgical coal export projections from
Baltimore. Volumes will increase rapidly-from 9.1 million tons in 1979 to 38.0 million in
1986i the project base year, and then by 2.6 percent annually to 54.8 million tons. in
2000. Volumes are held constant thereafter because of major uncertainties in the world
energy and steelmaking situations.

PETROLEUM PRODUCTS

RESIDUAL FUEL

31. In 1976, approximately 4.4 million short tons of residual fuel were shipped into-
Baltimore by water. Residual fuel is used by industry, power plants, large commercial
establishments, and government for heating and processing purposes. It is not widely
used in most geographical areas of the United States since it is not price competitive
with other energy sources. In the Baltimore area, as well as along most of the East
Coast, residual fuel has remained competitive with other fuels due to the availability of
port facilities to handle the less expensive foreign residuals as well as domestic residuals
from coastal refineries. In 1976, approximately 47 percent of the inbound receipts at
Baltimore were from foreign sources, mainly in the- Caribbean area. The majority of the
remaining inbound *shipments were domestic in origin from either U.S.'Gulf Coast or
refineries located in the Virgin Islands.

P- 15

TABLE P-12
BALTIMORE HARBOR
METALLURGICAL COAL EXPORT PROJECTIONS
(millions of short tons)

World Area 1977 1986 2000-2040
Europe & Mediterranean 3.2 4.4 6.5
Far East 3.5 3.0 2.5
S. America & Others 0.4 0.6 0.8

Total 7.1 8.0 9.8

TABLE P-13
BALTIMORE HARBOR COAL EXPORT PROJECTIONS
STEAM AND METALLURGICAL
(millions of short tons)

World Area 1979 1986 2000-2040
Europe & Mediterranean 4.5 34.4 51.5
Far East 4.1 3.0 2.5
S. America & Other 0.5 0.6 0.8
Total 9.1 38.0 34.8

32. Inbound receipts of residual fuel experienced a significant increase starting around
1968-1969. This increase was the result of power plants in the Baltimore area converting
f rom coal to residual oil in order to meet more stringent air quality standards. With the
exception of the Calvert Cliffs nuclear power plant, virtually all of the power plants
located in the Baltimore area continue to use residual f uel. The slight drop in the level
of residual fuel receipts starting in 1975 was the result of a reduction in output by the
Baltimore Gas and Electric (BG&E) Company's remaining residual oil-fired plants after
the Calvert Cliffs plant began operations.
33. Fu 7@, ture residual fuel receipts were not projected separately in the 1969 Project
Document. Waterborne receipts of residual and distillate fuels combined were projected
in that document and assumed to increase at 3 percent annually until the year 2000 with
no growth thereafter. This rate of growth resulted in a projection of 7.7 short tons of
residual and distillate fuel receipts (foreign and coastwiSe) in 1975. Actual waterborne
receipts of these two commodities in 1975 were 4.75 million short tons. The 1974-1976
average was 5.66 million short tons.

34. Benefits in the 1969 Project Document were calculated for residual fuel receipts at
the Exxon terminal located on the Northwest Branch. As was the case in the Project
Document, the Exxon Company is the only identified potential beneficiary of a deeper
channel f or the movement of petroleum products in this analysis. In 1976, the Exxon
terminal handled 31 percent of the total residual oil receipts into Baltimore. Virtually
all of these receipts were f rom f oreign sources. In addition to commercial and industrial
consumers, the Exxon Company supplied approximately 50 percent of the total residual
fuel used by BG&E during the 1974-1976 period.

35. The projections presented in Table P- 14 are based on inf ormation received f rom the
Exxon Company and BG&E.

P-16

TABLE P-14

PROJECTIONS OF RESIDUAL OIL RECEIPTS-
EXXON TERMINAL, NORTHWEST BRANCH
(millions of short tons)

Type of Use 1976 1986 2000 2036

Public Utility Use 0.80 0.80 1.20 0.25

Other Use 0.58 1.03 0.85 .0.60

TOTAL 1.38 1.83 2.05 0.85

36. It should be noted thatthe projections of "Other Use" for residual fuel in Table P-14
do not ref lect the large future increases in commercial and industrial activity which are
expected to take place in the Baltimore area. Expected increases in the prices of
petroleum products in general, and imported petroleum products specifically, will most
probably result in energy conservation measures being instituted by commercial, and
industrial users and/or a conversion to other energy sources (e.g., distillate f uel,.natural
gas, coal).

37. A major uncertainty underlying the projections in Table P-14 concerns the type of
fuel burned by power plants. The major coastal fossil fuel plants in the BG&E system
have the capability of burning coal as well as residual. If,. as part of National energy
policy, the decision is made to encourage the useo.f coal, BG&E could convert to coal at
some or all of these plants, thereby reducing residual fuel consumption significantly. The
projections presented in Table P- 14 assume that residual f uel will continue to be primary
ener gy source,for.,all of BG&Els coastal fossil fuel plants.

OTHER PETROLEUM PRODUCTS

38. The petroleum product movements for which benefits were claimed in the 1969
Project.Document were residual fuel and the "clean" products .(i.e., gasoline, kerosenei
distillate, and jet fuel). Since the Exxon Company has recently begun shipping clean
products into Baltimore by pipeline *f rorn the Gulf Coast, benefits will not.be claimed for,
these movements in this report. Due to its physical nature, residual -fuel is- not shipped J
by pipeline in the Baltimore area.

SUGAR

39. Raw sugar is.received in Baltimore by one of the larges 't sugar ref i'neries in t'he
United States, operated by the American Sugar Refining Company. The raw material is
processed for human. consumption and distributed into the Mid-Atlantic and Southeastern
States south to South Car 'oli'na as well as into parts of West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio,
and Michigan. In 1976, approximately 600,000 short tons of sugar were shipped into
Baltimore, 91 percent of which were f oreign imports originating in 18 different
countries. The country of origin may vary considerably f rom year to year. For example,
during the 1974-76 period, 27 different countries supplied raw sugar to the' Baltimore,
plant. Coastwise receipts, mainly f rorn Puerto Rico, accounted f or the remaining 9
percent of.inbound receipts in 1976.

P-17

40. The 1969 Project Document projected a level of inbound movements of raw sugar to
Baltimore Harbor which increased steadily f rom the 1966 volume of 650,000 tons to
740,000 tons in 1975, 1,080,000 tons in 2000, and to 1,560,000 tons in the year 2025. This
rate of growth was based on the assumption that the Baltimore SMSA was the major
market for the processed sugar and the population in the SMSA would increase by 1. 5
percent per year (per capita sugar consumption was assumed to remain constant).
However, actual inbound movements of sugar during the 1966-1976 period have shown no
statistically significant upward trend when related to either SMSA population growth or
time.

4 1. These results can be attributed to several factors. First, as the price of ref ined
sugar has increased during recent years, corn syrup and other types of sweeteners have
captured a larger share of the market. Second, of lesser importance, is the fact that the
quality of raw sugar has improved over the years due to premiums paid by American
Sugar for the higher quality -raw material. This trend has tended to increase the refined
sugar output/raw sugar input relationship.

42. When raw sugar imports into Baltimore are compared to the multi-state market area
population levels over the 1954-1977 period, a statistically significant relationship at the
90 percent level of confidence is derived. Using this relationship and Series E OBERS
projections of population f or the market area, the projections of raw sugar imports into
Baltimore Harbor in Table P-15 were derived. It is expected that coastwise receipts will
contribute a somewhat lower share of the total inbound movement due to a decline in
Puerto Rico's sugar cane industry.

GRAIN

43. The Port of Baltimore grew to national prominence during the late 18th and early
19th centuries through the exporting of grain. During this period the States of Maryland,
Pennsylvania, and Virginia, were considered to be the "breadbasket" of the United
States. Since that time, however, grain cultivation has spread westward into the fertile
plains of the Midwest and Northwest. Most of the grain grown in these areas is exported
through ports in the Northwest, Gulf Coast, and Great Lakes.

44. Benefits were not calculated for the export of grain through Baltimore in the 1969
Project Document. However, due to the significant increases in the level of grain
exports since the mid-1960's, and the size of the vessels transporting these commodities
to certain destinations, it was considered appropriate that these' potential benefits be
evaluated in this report. During the 1974-1976 period, Baltimore Harbor exported
approximately 4.9 million short tons of grain annually to f oreign destinations. The level
of grain exports through Baltimore Harbor often exhibit high year-to-year fluctuations
due to weather and harvest conditions both in the United States and overseas. In
addition, political factors often play a significant role in determining the level and
destination of grain exports. The major types of grain exported during the period were
corn (58 percent), soybeans and soybean meal (21 percent), and wheat (20 percent).
Approximately 60 percent of the grain exported was bound for one of the Western
European countries. Roughly equal quantities were exported to Eastern Europe, the Mid-
East, and Asia.

P-18

TABLE P-15
BALTIMORE HARBOR SUGAR PROJECTIONS
(1,000s of short tons)

Year Foreign Imports Coastwise Receipts Total

1986 570 30 600
1990 620 30 650
2000 700 30 730
2036 750 30 780

45. Exported grain is used as either "feed grain" or "food grain." Feed grain is used
primarily as f eed f or livestock and includes corn and soybean meal. Food grains, mostly
wheat and rice, are used.primarily f or human consumption. It is expected that as per
capita income continues to increase in the importing countries, meat consumption, and
therefore the demand for feed grains is also expected to increase. On the other hand,
the worldwide demand f or food grains is expected to remain relatively constant as
increased demand due to the population increase are somewhat offset by a change.in diet
to higher meat consumption per capita.

46. The 1972 Nathan Study was used as the basis for deriving the projections of total
grain exports. Although the study is somewhat dated, the projected levels of total
exports f or the United States of 120 million tons in 2000, corresponds very favorably with
the more recent 125 million ton estimate prepared as part of the OBERS Series El
projections "prepared by the United States Departments of Agriculture and Commerce.
Nathan projections of growth rates in the demand f or United States export grain by
Western Europe, Af rica, Asia to 2000 were applied to actual export tonnages through
Baltimore f or those geographical areas during the 1974-1976 period. These same growth
rates were used to extend the projections to 2036. Table P-16 shows the projections for
Baltimore Harbor grain exports to different areas of the world.

TABLE P-16

PROJECTED GRAIN EXPORTS BY DESTINATION
(million short tons)

.1974-1976 ave. 1986 2000 2036

West Europe 2.68 3.03 3.55 5.26
East Europe 0.98 1.09 1.28 1.90
Asi a 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62
Mid-East 0.46 0.57 0.76 1.55
Other 0.13 0.16 0.21 0.43

TOTALS 4.87 5.47 6.42 9.76

47. There are three terminals currently handling grain in Baltimore Harbor. These are
CSY (a division of Central Soya) pier in the Canton area, the Indiana grain pier in the
Locust Point area of the Northwest Branch, and the Dreyfus grain pier in the Port
Covington area. The total projections by area of destination were allocated to the
individual terminals based on.each terminal's actual share during the mid-1970's. The

P-19

relative shares to each of the three elevators is not expected to be af f ected by the
project. Table P-17 shows the projected volumes of exports at each terminal to year
2036.

TABLE P-17

PROJECTED GRAIN EXPORTS BY PIER
(millions of short tons)

Pier Location 1974-76 1986 2000 2036

Locust Point 1.35 1.52 1.79 2.70
Canton 1.89 2.12 2.49 3.79
Port Covington 1.63 1.83 2.15 3.27
Total Harbor 5.47, 6.42 9.76

FLEET COMPOSITION

EXISTING FLEET CHARACTERISTICS

48. In evaluating the deepening of Baltimore Harbor's Channels, the characteristics of
the existing and anticipating vessel fleets using the channel must be evaluated. Because
deep-draf t vessels require 5 f eet clearance under the keel to allow f or such f actors as
squat, trim, and maneuverability, plus an additional foot to allow for sinkage in going
from fresh to salt water, a vessel with a f ully-loaded salt water draft greater than 36
feet, corresponding to 35,000 deadweight tons (DWT), would have to light-load part of its
cargo to safely transit Baltimore's 42-foot channel. Of the 1878 vessel trips recorded in
1975-1976 for the five bulk commodities under study, 829 were in vessels greater than
40,000 DWT and 346 were in vessels in the 30-40,000 DWT range. The majority of the
large bulk carriers calling on Baltimore are in the iron ore and coal trades, accounting
for 594 of the 829 recorded shipments in vessels over 40,000 DWT. The largest vessel
calling on the Port was a 160,186 DWT ore/oil carrier, the "M.S. Yemanja," discharging
about 100,000 tons of Brazilian iron ore in January 1977, and loading 76,000 tons of coal
in September 1977.

FUTURE FLEET CONSIDERATIONS

49. Many factors are involved in determining the sizes of vessels used in any commodity
trade and trade route. The criteria f or selecting the optimum ship size include volume of
trade, distance of transport, controlling depths in both the loading and discharge ports,
cargo handling and storage facilities at both terminals, and availability of vessels in the
wor ld ft eet to move t his car go. Generall y speaki ng, the m os t ef f ici ent vessel si ze on an y
trade route is the largest that can be accommodated on that route. Port development in
most of the major countries with which Baltiniore conducts trade allows accommodation
of 100, 000 + DWT vessels. Except for special instances, as discussed later in this section,
it was assumed that foreign port development in the major high-volume trades will
continue to provide depths, commensurate with the depths proposed at Baltimore Harbor.

P-20

WORLD BULK FLEET DEVELOPMENT

50. The rapid growth of the world dry bulk and tanker fleets, both in terms of overall
tonnage and average vessel size, is well documented. The growth of the world dry bulk
fleet (including combination ore and oil carriers) from 1958-1976 by DWT group is shown
in Table P- 18. The average dry bulk ship size has increased from 18,055 DWT in 1966 to
35,732 DWT in 1976, nearly doubling in 10 years. More importantly as far as Baltimore
Harbor is concerned, the number of vessels in the world over 40,000 DWT has increased
from 155 in 1966 to 1168 in 1976. Table P-19, showing world dry bulk fleet distribution
by year built, indicates that as the older vessels are retired, a higher percentage of cargo
carrying capacity will be in the larger DWT groups. There was only one dry bulk carrier
larger than 85,000 DWT in 1966, an ore/oil carrier of 144,000 DWT capacity. By 1976,
377 vessels were in the 85,000 DWT or larger range, with 331 larger than 100,000 DWT.
As can be seen f rom Table P-20, the majority of the dry bulk carriers over 80,000 DWT in
the world fleet are combined carriers in oil. An indication of the future world.fleet for
transporting Baltimore's bulk commodities is given in Table P-21, "Dry Bulk Carriers on
Order in World's Shipyards." It is interesting to note that excluding combined carriers,
very little tonnage is on order in the 80-100,000 DWT and 150,000 + DWT class. The 100-
150,000 DWT class is popular in all three types of dry bulk carriers.

P-21

TABLE P-18

WORLD DRY BULK CARRIERS

1958-1976
(As of Dec 31)

DWT
GROUP 1958 1%0 1962 1964 1966 1968 1970 1972 1974 1976
Under 10,000 563 614 730 736 708 707 690 733 749 761
10-20,000 237 420 572 615 640 703 758 820 848 924
20-30,000 42 107 213 322 410 558 679 871 1044 1159
30-40,000 16 26 44 87 191 245 272 363 457 558
40-50,000 6 9 17 26 49 121 159 172 194 220
50-60,000 1 6 11 26 67 129 160 185- 225 259
60-80,000 3 3 6 10 34 98 136 169 227 285
80-100,000 1 4 40 56 64 67 73
100-125,000 7 28 72 109 147
125-150,000 1 1 9 27 49 67
150-200,000 7, 49 75 86
200,000+ - .14 31 31

Total 868 1,185 1,592 1,823 2,104 2,609 2,954 3,537 4,075 4,570
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Maritime Administration

TABLE P-19

WORLD DRY B ULK FLEET DISTRIBUTION (1)

By Year of Build

VESSEL DWT 1955 earlier 1956-60 1961-65 1966-70 1971-75 1976 TOTAL
GROUP No. %DWT No. %DWT No. %DWT No. %DWT No. %DWT No. %DWT No. %DWT
TtW-sands)

10-20 209 52.4 201 46.6 169 15.5 305 10.7 192 4.0 55 6.9 1130 10.8

20-30 100 41.9 77 26.1 215 30.2 337 19.0 430 14.9 87 17.3 1246 19.0

30-40 6 3.3 21 10.5 117 23.0 117 8.9 233 10.7 51 13.3 545 11.5
40-60 - - 14' 10.0 91 23.1 219 22.9 129 g.1 41 15.9 484 14.6

60-80 2 2.4 7 6.8 12 4.6 119 17.9 109 10.0 29 14.7 277 11.7

80-100 - - 5 2.4 48 9.2 19 2.2 1 0.7 73 3.9

100-150 2 1.2 42 10.2 147 23.7 25 23.6 216 15.6
150+ - - 7 2.3 104 25.8 6 7.7 117 12.9

Totals 31'7 100.0 320 100.0 600 100.0 1194 100.0 1363 100.0 294 100.0 4088 100.0

(1) Includes combination carriers -

Source: The Bulk Carrier Register, 1977

TABLE P-20

WORLD DRY BULK CARRIER FLEET

as of Jan 1, 1977
(DWT in thousands)

COMBINED
VESSEL DWT BULK ORE CARRIERS IN OIL TOTALS
CLASS NUMBER DWT DWT% NUMBER DWT DWT% NUMBER DWT DWT% NUMBER DWT DWT%

10-20,000 1037 16,342.9 15.3 35 1 360.4 11.9 8 114.6 0.3 1130 17,817.9 10.8

20-30,000 1171 29,420.7 27.5 62 1,497.7. 13.1 13 318.3 0.7 1246 31,236.7 19.0

30-40,000 518 17,854.4 16.7 21 721.6 6.3 6 204.5 0.5 545 18,780.5 11.5

@d 40-60,000 402 19,720.6 18.5 45 2,351.4 20.5 37 1,936.2 4.2 484 24,008.2 14.6

60-80,000 188 12,770.1 12.0 17 1,212.6 10.6 72 5,199.5 11.3 277 19,182.2 11.7

80-.100,000 12 1,005.5 0.9 5 427.7 3.7 56 5,013.9 10.9 73 6,447.1 3.9

100-150,000 - 78 9,260.9 8.7 23 2,745.9 24.0 115 13,583.0 29.5 216 25,589.8 15.6

150,000 & over 3 468.9 0.4 7 1,131.1 9.9 107 19,605.8 42.6 117 21,205.8 12.9

Totals 3409 106,844.0 100.0 265 11,448.4 100.0 414 45,975.8 106.0 4088 164,268.2 100.0

Source: The Bulk Carrier Register, 1977

TABLE P-21
FIGU
DRY BULK CARRIERS ON ORDER IN WORLD'S SHIPYARDS
JOB (as of April 1, 1977)

pFfi VESSEL DWT BULK ORE COMBINED CARRIERS IN OIL TOTALS
% TOTAL % TOTAL % TOTAL . I % TOTAL
CLASS NUMBER DWT DWT NUMBER DWT DWT NUMBER DWT DWT NUMBER DWT DWT

2-20,000 157 1,945,594 9.1 3 33,800 2.4 1 15,000 0.3 161 1,994,394 7.0
20-29,999 193 4,193,330 19.6 - - - - - - 183 4,193,330 14.7
30,39,999 155 5,383,623 25.2 - - - 155 5,383,623 18.9
40-49,999 31 1,340,732 6.3 3 132,000 9.3 - 34 1,472,732 5.2
50-59,999 32 1,910,322 8.5 3 165,000 11.7 - - 35 1,975,322 6.9
60-69,999 39 2,432,M 11.4 .1 62,300 -4.4 9 572,760 10.2 47 3,067,939 10.8
@0-79,999 26 1,889,577 8.8 - - - 26 1,889,577 6.6
80-89,999 6 483,600 2.2 4 330,000 5.8 10 813,600 2.9
90-99,999 - - - 3 296,400 5.2 3 296,400 1.1
100-149,999 16 1,902,750 8.9 7 851,000 60.3 26 3,251,601 49 6,005,351 21.1
150,000 & over - - - 1 167,500 11.9 6 1,204,500 21.2 7 1,372,000 4.8

-7
Totals 645 21,382,407 100.0 18 1,411,600 100.0 49 5,670,261 100.0 712 28,464,268 100.0

Source: Derived from data in Marine Engineering/Log

51. As Table P-22 shows, the average DWT for the world tanker fleet has increased even
more sharply than dry bulk carriers, going f rom 27, 100 in 1965 to 68,000 in 1975, an
increase of 150 percent. Tables. P-23 and P-24 show existing fleet and scheduled
deliveries f or the world and Urfited States tanker fleets, respectively. Tanker sizes far
exceed those of dry bulk carriers. Over 70 percent of the world tanker carrying capacity
is in vessels over 100,000 DWT. Although vessels in the United States tanker fleet are
somewhat smaller than the world fleet, over 90 percent of the United States flag tonnage
on order is in the 100,000+ DWT class. -

FLEET SIZE PROJECTIONS

52. By analyzing data on the existing bulk carrier and tanker fleet composition, historic
trends in ship characteristics, vessels presently under construction, trends in world
9hipping, announced plans of the major bulk cargo interests in Baltimore, and other
f actors influencing vessel size, f orecasts can be made as to the composition of the vessel
fleets expected to serve Baltimore over the 50-year economic life of the proposed
project. The rapid increase in recent years in the average size of vessels used in
Baltimore's bulk trades is expected to continue into the future, regardless of channel
depths at Baltimore. If the proposed channel improvements are constructed, a greater
percentage of the commerce will be transported in large bulk carriers. The future fleet
f or the dry bulk trades is projected to range f rom less than 20,000 DWT to greater than
150,000 DWT. The future tanker fleet at Baltimore will range f rom 20-90,000 DWT.
Existing and projected fleets f or each commodity are discussed below.

IRON ORE

53. During 1975 and 1976, 412 vessels arrived at Baltimore carrying 21,460,276 tons of
iron ore. The average ship size was 55,000 DWT carrying an average load of 52,100 short
tons. Analysis of the individual shipments reveals that in almost every case, the vessels
were loaded to their maximum capacity, or capacity as constrained by channei'depths at
Baltimore or the loading port. As can be seen from Table P-25, the composition of the
fleet carrying iron ore to Baltimore varies among each of the major supply countrids.
However, the most popular class of Phip in each trade is the "Panamax" size vessels
ranging f rom 50,000-60,000 DWT, accounting f or over 40 percent of the import tonnage.
Over two-thirds of the vessels during this period were greater than 50,000 DWT, which,
with corresponding maximum draf ts of 40 f eet and greater, required some degree of
light-loading. The largest ship delivering iron ore to Baltimore was the 160,186 DWT
"Yern anj a," partially laden with justover. 100, 000 short tons of Brazilian ore.

P-26

TABLE P-22

WORLD TANKER FLEET

TRENDS IN AVERAGE.SIZE

DWT Average
Year Number (11000) DWT-

1965 3436 93,172 27tI00

1966 3524 .102,909 2%200

1967 3613 1129366 319100

1968 3775 1299128 33@900

1969 3893 146,029 37,500

1970 4002 167,940 42,000

1971 4207 193t891 46plOO

1972 4342 221t204 50t9OO

1973 4572 256,822 569200

1974@ 489.2 302,277 619800

1975 5092 347,144 68,200

Source: Sun Oil Company

P-27.

TABLE P-23

WORLD. TANKER FLEET

as of April 1, 1977

(000 DWT)

Existing Fleet Scheduled Deliveries
Vessel
DWT Class No. DWT %DWT No. DWT %DWT.

10-20,000 489 7,791 2.5 28 403 1.2

20--30,000 442 10,400 3.3 11 274 0.8

30-50,000 551 20,703 6.7 75 2,594 7.6

50-70,000 299 17@224 5.5 26 1,458 .4.3

70-100,000 391 329904 10.6 .39 39700 10.9
ibo-125,000- 131 14,817 4.8 :14 1,522 4.5

125-2759000 179 25tI64 8.1 47 6,872 20.1

175-2259000 150 31,875 10.3 2 399 1.2

225-300,000 467 119,086 38.3 21 59 424 15.8

300,000 + 85 30,907 9.9 30 1 It412 33.5

TOTALS 3184 3109871 IMP 293 34,058 100.0

Note: Excludes ships under 10,000 DWT

Source: H.P. Drewry Ltd., London and Marine Engineering/
Log, June 1977

P-28

TABLE P-24

.'UNITED STATESIANKER FLEET

as of April 1, 1977

Existing Fleet Scheduled Deliveries
Vessel
DWT Class 'No. DWT %DWT No. DWT %DWT

2-209000 19 344,117 3.7 1 10,100 a 0.2

20-30, 000 67 19796,005 19.4 2 70,000 1.5

30-409000 16 29320,779 25.1

40-@0,000 6 729,512 7.9

50-60,000 6 3129648 3.4

60-70,000 .10 .389,044 4.2

70-80,000 6 719,710 7.8
80-96,000 7 487,300 5.3 --

90-100,000 6 642,600 6.9 4 367,400 8.0

100-200,000 7 725,870 7.8 .12 1,997,600 43.4

200,000 + 3 792,219 8.6 7 -21156,310 46.9

TOTAL 212 9,259,804 100.0 26 49601,410 100.0

Source: Derived from data in Marine Engineering/Log, June 1977

P-29

TABLE P-25
BALTIMORE HARBOR IRON ORE IMPORTS, 1975-76
by vessel size

-DWT Grouo Canada Brazil Liberia Venezuela Others TOTALS
(thousands) Trips %Tons Trips % Tons Trips % Tons Trips % Tons Trips % Tons Trips Tons % Tons

Under 30 - - 24 8.6 - - 1 '0.6 12 13.7 37 888,563 4.1

30-40 3 1.4 14 7.2 1 1.5 4 3.7 5 11.4 27 992,586 4.6

40-50 16 13.4 15 10.0 4 8.1 31 35.2 3 9.1 69 3,286,613 15.3

50-60 48 45.1 56 40.9 19 42.7 35 45.5 8 26.2 165 8,896,035 41.5
60-70 19 19.6 13 10.7 11 28.1 10 13.4 10 36.3 63 3,758,@96 17.5

Id 70-80 15 16.7 10 9.0 7 19.6 3 4.6 1 4.3 36 2,395,639 11.2

C)
90-90 2 2.4 3 2.9 5 361,681 1.7

90-100 1 1.4 - - 1 87,294 0.4

100-150 - - 7 8.1 7 .599,135 2.7

150+ 2 2.7 2 204,044 1.0

TOTALS 140 100.0 144 100.0 41 100.0 94 100.0 39 100.0 412 21,460,276 100.0

% tonnage 29.3 34.7 10.9 18.7 7.4. 100.0

54. Iron ore is easily the most important dry bulk commodity in terms of tonnage to be
transported by the growing world bulk and combined carrier fleets.- The size of vessels
employed in the iron ore trades has been progressively increasing since the 19601s. In
1975, vessels over 50,000 DWT accounted for over two-thirds of the total world tradep
with nearly one-third of the total trade moving in vessels greater than 100,000 DWT.
Because shipping'costs represent such a high proportion of the total delivered price of
iron ore, the trend towards the larger, more economical carriers, in the iron ore trade is
expected to continue. For any trade, the size of vessels employed is determined by
transport distance, amount of tonnage moving on a given route, water depths at both
loading and discharge ports, adequacy of loading and unloading facilities, and the
availability of various types and sizes of vessels for this trade. Depending on the
combination of these f actors, the most ef f icient vessel on any given trade is not always
the lar gest available, as economies of scale begin to diminish once a certain size has
been reached.

55. Currently, with draft r estrictions at Baltimore Harbor, the preferred vessel size is
50,000-60, 000 DWT, the largest size ship that can presently f ully load at Baltimore over
the 42-f oot channels, allowing only a 2-f oot. keel clearance. With a 50-f oot channel at
Baltimore, the primary influencing factor in the selection of ship sizes to import iron ore
would be the draft restrictions at Baltimore's major foreign supply ports. Seven Islands,
Canada, and Tubarao, Brazil, with draft restrictions of 60 and 86-1/2 feet, respectivelyp
present no'problems in loading the largest vessels in the ore trade. The constraint in
imports f rom these countries would remain the controlling depth at Baltimore Harbor, 50
feet under improved conditions, which would allow fully loaded vessels up to 90,000 DWT.

56. On the other hand, Buchanan, Liberia, and Palua', Venezuela, Baltimore's other
primary supply ports, do restrict the draft to which a vessel can be loaded. Buchanan,
with water depths of 44 feet, restricts vessels to a salt water draft of 42 feet,
corresponding to a fully loaded 50,000 DWT bulk carrier. The channel at Buchanan has a
rock bottom and deepening is, theref ore, f elt to be too costly. A maximum of only 3 f eet
additional draft will be gained in this trade by deepening Baltimore Harbor, and
therefore, is expected to affect the future fleet distribution for Liberian iron ore very
little. The loading terminal at Palua, Venezuela, located up the Orinoco River, can
receive ships up to 42 f oot draft, or 60, 000 DWT. The controlling depth of the river
varies between 33 and 43 feet according to the season. The larger ships during the low
water season (December-May) on the Orinoco are light-loading due to draft restrictions
but at high water (June-November) can fully load to 42 feet. Aside from tidal
fluctuations, navigation on the river is also inhibited by the problem of rapid silting.
Since expropriation of the iron ore mines by the Venezuelan government, there have been
increasing problems in keeping the river dredged to its original depth. Due to the high
volume of maintenance dredging currently required, it is felt that further deepening
beyond 43 f eet high water would be cost prohibitive. Because of uncertainties
concerning future river depths due to the silting problems and the fact that depths
greater than Baltimore Harbor's existing 42.f eet are available only part of the year
during high water (43 feet maximum), no benefits in transporting iron ore from Venezuela
are expected to accrue from deepening Baltimore Harbor beyond 42 feet. Therefore, the
size distribution for the fleet from Venezuela was not projected.,

57. Future fleet distributions were projected f or iron ore imports f rom Canada, Brazil,
and Liberia, and are presented in Table P-26. Changes in the distributions on a 42-foot
and a 50-f oot channel are a result of increased use of larger vessels on a 50-f oot channel

P-31

TABLE P-26

BALTIMORE HARBOR
FUTURE FLEET DISTRIBUTION - IRON ORE IMPORTS
(by percent of commerce)

Canada Liberia Brazil
Vessel DWT -E-xis-tin-g(71 Future Existing (1) Future Existing (1) Future
Group 42 ft. 42 1 t@ 50 f to 42 ft. 42 ft. 50 ft. 42 ft. 42 ft. 50 ft.
Under 30,000 --- -- --- --- -- 8.6 --- ---
30-40,000 1.4 -- --- 1.5 --- --- 7.2 5 ---
40-60,000 58.5 40 15 50.8 35 25 50.8 40 15
60-80,000 36.3 50 55 47.7 60 65 19.7 30 35
80-100,000 3.8 5 10 -- 5 10 2.9 5 10
100-150,000 -- 5 20 --- --- --- 8.1 15 30
150,000+ -- -- 2.7 5 10
TOTAL 100.0 100 100 100.0 100 100 100.0 100 100

(1) Based on 1975-1976 imports

plus being able to load these vessels more fully. Considered in making these projections
were the announced intentions and opinions of iron ore importers and existing and
anticipated availability of various size vessels in the world fleet for this trade.

COAL

58. Vessels employed in exporting coal from Baltimore include colliers, general bulk, and
combination carriers ranging f rom under 10,000 DWT to greater than 150,000 DWT. The
shipment of record is 84,739 tons of coal, exported in the 123,450 DWT carrier, ."Sealane"
in October 1979. Table P-27 presents the existing (1979-80) distribution of coal exports
by vessel size for the major areas of trade for Baltimore. It should be noted that these
fleet size distributions vary considerably f or each area of the world. In the Japanese
trade, the majority of the commerce is transported by the "Panamax" size vessels, those
ships in the 50-80,000 DWT range. These ships, specially designed to allow transit of the
Panama Canal with beam widths of a maximum of 106 feet, have fully-laden drafts up to
47 f eet. Ships in the South American trade are generally smaller, averaging only 48,000
DWT. Ships carrying coal to Europe and other countries in the world ranged from 5,000
to 130,000 DWT, with nearly 80 percent of the commerce moving in vessels of 60,000
DWT or greater.

59. Waterborne shipping of coal has in recent years experienced dramatic growth in
average vessel size carrying coal. The share of world seaborne trade transported by bulk
carriers over 50,000 DWT grew from 4 percent in 1965 to nearly 50 percent in 1974.
-Similarly, the proportion of Baltimore Harbor coal exports in vessels over 50,000 DWT
has risen from about 10 percent in 1966 to greater than 90 percent in 1980. The main
factors in determining optimum ship size on any trade route are the shipping distance and
limitations imposed by port facilities on both the loading and discharging ends. As noted
earlier, the fleet size distribution for Baltimore coal to various areas of the world and
different countries within these areas shows significant variations. Table P-28 shows
characteristics of 1979-10/1980 coal shipments to each country. Analysis of individual
shipments to each country reveals that only coal destined for Japan, United Kingdom,
France, the Netherlands, and Turkey regularly leave Baltimore in vessels carrying full
loads of cargo. In some cases, channel depths at the Port of Baltimore restrict a ship
f rom fully loading. In other trades, depth restrictions at the unloading terminals are the
limiting factor. Also, it is common practice in many metallurgical coal trades for
vessels to partially load at Baltimore, then top-out at Hampton Roads where they can
load to 50 feet with a favorable tide. Characteristics and fleet size projections for each
of the three major geographical areas of destination for Baltimore coal are discussed
below.

P-33

TABLE P@27
BALTIMORE HARBOR COAL EXPORTS 1979-90 -1/

JAPAN SOUTH AMERICA EUROPE& OTHER TOTAL
VESSEL
DWT Tr Tons % Tons % Trips Tons % jEja Tons %
i@lp-s -

Under 20,000 0 0 0.0 .2 33,984 3.0 10 161,555 1.1 12 195,539 0.8
20-30,000 0 0 0.0 1 20,909 1.8 7 180,029 1.3 8 200,929 0.8
30-40,000 1 31,999 0.4 5 168,171 14.7 9. 337,724 2.4 15 537,894 2.2
40-50,000 3 134,941 1.6 3 129,744 11.4 12 546,969 3.8 18 811,654 3.4
50-60,000 17 951,974 11.0 10 524,707 45.9 34 1,826,184 12.7 61 3,302,865 13.7
60-70,000 47 3i 10 1,670 35.9 3 193,134 16.9 46 2,896,527 20.2 96 6,191,331 25.6
70-80,000 34 2,575,012 29.8 1 71,776 6.3 49 3,654,665 25.4 84 6,301,453 26.1
80-100,000 .5 418,719 4.9 0 0 0.0 16 1,410,180 9.8 21 1,828,899 7.6
100,000+ 12 1,418,708 16.4 0 0 0.0 31 3,352. 23.3 43 4,771,406 19.8

TOTALS 119 8,633,023 100.0 25 1,142,416 100.0 214 14,366,531 100.0 359 24,141,970 100.0

% COMMERCE 35.8% 4.7% 59.5% 100%

I/ Based on Maryland Port Administration data from 1979 through October 1980.

TABLE P-28

BALTIMORE HARBOR COAL EXPORTS
SHIPMENT CHARACTERISTICS, 1979-80

Average Average
Country Tons Tons DWT

Japan 120 7,136,850 59,474 71,942
France 37 1,969,646 .53,234 60,538
Belgium 35 2,252,294 64,351 91,651
Netherlands 26 11501,507 57,750 68,558
Scandanavia 20 1,054,155. 52,708 65,233
United Kingdom 18 7519468 41,748 51,516
Turkey 17 .749,070 44,063 479894
W. Germany .14 737,288 52,663 79,349
Romania 12 567,473 47,289 63,389
Brazil 12 307,668 25,639 479670
Argentina 10 286,990 28,699 49$598
Yugoslavia 9 636,689 709743 99,442
Italy 8 295,731 36,966 56,255
Egypt 7 .309,432 44,205 55,368
Others 13 507,435 50,801

TOTAL 358 19,063,696 53t354 67t715

South America

60. Coal exports from Baltimore to South American countries during 1979-1980 averaged
only 26,000 tons per shipment. Although some larger ships up to 72,000 DWT are used in
this trade, few were. loaded to their capacity as restricted by channel depths. The
average vessel size in this trade was only 48,000 DWT. Three factors contribute to the
use of small ships and small individual shipments. They are (1) limited volume,
(2) relatively short distance to South America, and (3) South American coal terminals
presently are not able to handle larger bulk carriers. The maximum depth available at
either Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, or San Nicholas, Argentina, the major South American
ports receiving coal through Baltimore, is 39 feet, corresponding to a f ully-loaded 40, 000
DWT ship. The future fleet distribution f or South American coal is projected below in
Table P-29. It is anticipated that,primarily vessels under 80,000 DWT will continue to be
utilized in shipments to South America. The channel depth at Baltimore is not expected
to aff ect this distribution.

P-35

TABLE P-29

BALTIMORE HARBOR FLEET DISTRIBUTION
COAL TO SOUTH AMERICA
(Percent Commerce by QWT Group)

Vessel Futur e
DWT Existing (1) 421 501

Under 30,000 4.8 5 5
30-40,000 14.71 10. 10
40-60,000 57.3 60 60
60,000+ 23.2 25 25

TOTAL 100.0 100 100

(1) 1979-1980 shipments

Although most of the commerce is projected to move in vessels greater than 40,000
DWT, it is unlikely that these ships will load to even the existing Baltimore Harbor
channel capacity. Therefore, no benefits will accrue to South American coal exports.

Europe

61. Analysis of 1.979 and 1980 Baltimore Harbor, coal exports to European countries
reveals-that 165'of the 213 shipments, representing 83 percent of the commerce, left
Baltimore in vessels either fully loaded, or loaded as fully as c hannel depths allow. * Much
of the remaining 17 percent (about I m illion' tons) is a"cco* unted for by vessels topping-of f
in Norfolk. Many European countries importing coal need a. blend of different grades of
coal f or,steel making. purposes. It is common practice f or them to charter a vessel to
load only a few holds at Baltimore where it picks up medium-volatile "Northern" coal,
then top-out at Hampton Roads with low-volatile "Southern" coal. Even the larger bulk
carriers engaged in this practice are not loading to the 42-foot available depth at
Baltimore, and there is currently no advantage to a deeper channel at Baltimore for this
type of trade. Although this practice is expected to continue, the increasing size of
vessels forecast in the coal track will mean that nearly all will require a deeper channel
in the future.

62. The future fleet for the European coal trade is projected in, Table P-30. 'Panamax"
size ships f rom 50-80,000 DWT are expected to continue. to dominate in the transatlantic
coal trades in the near future. As port facilities at the discharging end continue to be
improved, the use of 100-120,000 DWT bulk carriers and OBO's (ore/bulk/oil) will
gradually be extended. All major Western European coal importers have deep water to
accommodate 100,000 DWT carriers either currently available or in planning stages.
With deepening of Baltimore Harbor to 50 f eet, a significant portion of the coal exports'
are expected to move in vessels over 100,000 DWT.

P-36

TABLE P-30

BALTIMORE HARBOR FLEET DISTRIBUTION
COAL TO EUROPE
(Percent Commerce by DWT Group)

Vessel Future
DWT Existing (1) 421 501

Under 30,000 2.4 0 0
30-40,000 2.4 0 0
40-60,000 16.5 15 10
60-80,000 45.6 45 30
SO-1009000 9.8 10 15
100-150,000 23.1 25 35
150,000 + - 5 10

TOTAL 100.0 100 100

(1) 1979-1980 shipments.

Japan

63. In the,Japanese coal trade, the overriding factor influencing ship size is the Pan ama
Canal, with constraints ol 40 f eet maximum draf t and 106 f eet beam width, This limits
full-loaded skip size to about 50,000 DWT, although larger "Panamax@' ships'u'p to 809'000
DWT can transit the canal light-.loaded.. Vessels greater than 80,000 DWT m -ust be routed
around Africa due to the beam restrictions of the Canal. The cost analysis presented
below in Table P-31 indicates that the transportation'cost per cargo ton of shipping via
the Canal route with "Panamax" ships is less than the'cost of going around Africa with
the larger carriers.

TABLE P-31

COAL EXPORTS TO JAPAN
PANAMA CANAL VS. AFRICA
(shipping cost/ton)

Vessel 42 ft. at Baltimore 50 ft. at Baltimore
DWT Canal Af rica Canal Af ricA

50,000 $27.20 $32.81 $26.24 '$31.64
609000 26.52 32.56' 25.58 29.30
70,000 26.61 32.32 25.68 .27.30
80,000 (1) 38.62 30.60
1001000(l) 38.14 29.48
120,000 (1) 38.57 29.80
1509000 (1) 41.34 --- 31.71

(1) Beam too wide for Panama Canal

P-37

64. Although with a 50-foot channel at Baltimore "the cost difference per ton narrows, it
is still significant. Going around the tip of Africa adds more than, 10,000 nautical miles
to the round-trip distance, an increase of about 50 percent over the canal route. The
increased capacity of larger vessels going around Africa, being restricted by channel
depths at Baltimore, does not offset the increased voyage costs of going this ro 'ute.
Because there is no apparent cost advantage to routing vessels around the Cape.6f Good
Hope over taking them through the Panama Canal, it is likely that "Panamax" size ships
will continue to dominate in Baltimore's coal trade to Japan. Table P-32 presents the
percentage distribution of coal to be transported to Japan in- each vessel DWT class.

TABLE P-32

BALTIMORE HARBOR FLEET DISTRIBUTION
COAL TO JAPAN
(Percent Commerce by DWT Group)

Vessel Future
DWT Existing (1) 421 501

Under 30,000

30-40,000 0.4

40-60,000 12.6 10 5

60-80,000 65.7 65 60

80-100,000 (2) 4.9 5 5

100-150,000 (2) 16.4 20 25

150,000 + (2) - - 5

TOTAL 100.0 100 100

(1) 1979-1980 shipments
(2) Cannot transit Panama Canal

GRAIN

65. Baltimore Harbor's grain trade is characterized by widespread points of destination
and relatively small volume individual shipments. A total of. 393 shipments were
recorded in 1975 and 1976 carrying 10,590,766 short tons of cargo. The average tonnage
per shipment was 26,950 tons, with the average ship size being 32,000 DWT. Table P-33
shows, the fleet distribution in 1975.and 1976 for the major areas of the world,. Due to
limitations on channel depths and unloading facilities in many countries, larger vessels
are employed only in trade with certain countries within Europe and Asia. Vessel sizes
ranged from under 10,000 DWT to greater than 120,000 DWT. The largest vessel loading
grain at Baltimore was the 125,102 DWT bulk carrier, I'D. C. Coleman,": carrying 64,914
tons to Poland.

P-38

TABLE P-33

BALTIMORE HARBOR GRAIN EXPORTS, 1975-1976
by vessel size

Vessel W. Europe E. Europe Mid-East Asia Other Total
DWT Group % Tonnage jKja % Tonnage % Tonnage jEja % Tonnage kja % Tonnage Tons- Tonnage

Under 20,000 44 12..0 15 6.9 4 6.0 10 8.0 11 39.9 94, 1,138,632 10.8

20-30,000 70 30.8 19 1&0 17 43.3. 19 27.1 7 37.2 132 3,016,148 28.5

30-40,000 36 20.6 29 34.0 12 38.0 9 15.4 1 7.0 97 2,603,996 24.6

40-50,000 17 12.1 13 17.1 5 12.7 4 12.3 39 1,379,789 13.0

50-60,000 13 10.9 10 14.8 1 2.7 24 1,023,170 .9.7
60-- hj= 9 9.0 1 i.0 1 4.5 11 564 893 5.3

70-80,000 3 3.1, 1 1.8 1 4.9 5 272,336 2.6
go-100,006 2, 1.5 1 1.6 4 21.2 7 3531325 13

100,000 + 2 4.9 1 4.0 1 15.9 4 238 427 2.2

TOTALS 194 100.0 91 100.0 39 100.0 50 100.0 20 100.0 393 10,590,766 106.0

66. As grain shipments f rom the ited'Sta fes have increased in recent years, there has
U'd large tonnage vessels to move the grain. Vessels of
evolved a trend towards medium an
up to 100,000 DWT and greater are being increasingly employed. However, there is still
a very wide range of bulk carrier sizes seeki.ng employment. Although the average ship
.size in the grain trade has increased over the years, there seems to be a limitation on the
further use of vessels'larger than 40,000 DWT. Vessels greater than 40,000 DWT have
failed to" increase their share of the'g'rain market since 1969, due mainly to restrictions
on using large "bulk carriers within importing areas.

67. Careful analysis of grain shipments from Baltimore Harbor reveals that only on the
more established and high volume trades are the larger carriers employed. It is only at
those major importing countries that itis economical to invest in sophisticated unloading
techniques and storage facilities, and todredge channels deep enough to accommodate
the larger bulk carriers. "Table P-34'shows the average Ivessel size and shipment.size in,
1975-1976 to the countries in each of -the general geographic areas of the world recei Iving .
grain from Baltimore Harbor. The countries using the largest average vessels were to
the Netherlands, Belgium! I, Poland, Indial"and Pakistan. A significant number'oi -vessels
greater than 40,000 DWT were also r6cei Ived at England, Portugal@ West Germany, Spain,
and U.S.S.R. As can be seen, the utilization of larger vessels is cloincentrated mainly in'
the trades; with Western Eur'Ope, and to'a lesser extent Eastern Europe, where adequatle
port facilities exist. It is expected t.hat,.continued upgrading of port facilities and
deepening, of channels will conti nue in the f uture at ports in these countries as import
volumes increase. It is likely that an increasing share of the grain transported to these
countries will be carried in medium and large tonnage vessels.

68. At the other countries importing grain, particularly at discharge ports in the Third
World, the irregular trade7patterns have hindered port developmerii, grain imports being
primarily residual flows and virtually unpredictable.' Because it is not economically
feasible for these countries to improve their port facilities for grain imports, many of
the ports use general discharge berthg with time-consuming unloading techniques and
limited storage capacity, making large bulk carrier employment uneconomical if not
impossible. In addition, depth restrictions at these countries, often under 30 feet,
discourages the use of larger vessels., Because of the limited and sporadic volumes to
these minor importing countries, it is.expected that the majority of their future grain
imports will continue to be transpotted in vessels under -30,000 DWT.

69. Due to the scarcity of,grain discharging terminals in the world capable of
accommodating large bulk carriers'drawing more-than 40 f eet, no appreciable
transportation benefits would result in the grain trade from deepening the main shipping
channel in Baltimore beyond the existing 42 f eet. The grain exporter located on the.-main
channel, with restricting depth of only R f eet alongsi *de its pier, has no immediate plans
to deepen to even the existing channel depth. However, the grain exporter on the
Northwest Branch-West'Channel, where channel depths are only 35 feet, has indicated
desire to deepen its facilities to 39 or 40 feet in conjunction with the Federal project,
currently authorized to 40 feet. Therefore, benefits in' the grain trade were considered
for only this exporter. The future distribution of commerce by vessel size projected for
each major geographical area is presented in Table P-35 f or channel depths of 35 and 40
f eet.

P-40

TABLE, P-34
M' HARBOR GRAIN EXPORTS
BALTI OR

.1975-1976'

Average Average Vessels Over
Tons Tons DWT 409000-DWT

West Europe

England 15 479,673 31,979 32,893 4
France 28 510,964. 18,248 19,443 6
Italy 22 498,559 22t661 24,781 1
Netherlands .17.., 736@984 4.39352' 519564 Ij
Portugal 21 579089 27, @90 33,081. 8
West, Germany, 21 7229'265 349394 37,472 7
Spain 194909065 26,608 29,651 7
Belgium 66. '274,654 45,776 50;812 .4
Other 9 124,801 13,867 19,630 0

Total 195 5,417,354 27,781 309965 44,

East Europe
USSR @6,0 11699,892 28,331 319677 14i
Poland 22 81@@554 379@07 529189 13
Other 9 206,709, 22,968 .26,773 1

Total 911@ 2,125,155 299947 36,150 .28

Mid-East

Egypt 20 5369824, 26,841 33,615 @5-
Israel T .201,425 .28,775 29:500 0
Other 11 234,040 21,276 23,558 0

Total 38, 972,2.89 .259586 5

Far Ea@t

Japan 14 118,915 8,493 '22t32j 0
Other .9 172,468 19,163 27,745 1

Total 23 .29.19383 12,669 22p880 1,

India/Pakistan 27 7899803 299-252

Africa & S. America 19 3329021 17,475 19,823 0

TOTAL 393 @10,590,766 26,900 132,002 .89

TABLE P-35

BALTIMORE HARBOR
FUTURE FLEET DISTRIBUTION - GRAIN EXPORTS
(by percent of commerce)

Europe Asia Mid-East & Other
Vessel DWT -Future -Future Future
Group Existing (1) 35 ft. 40 ft. Existing (1) T5 ft. 40 ft. Existing (1) 35 ft. '50 ft.

Under 30 36.8 30 25 35.1 20 15 60.1 50 50
30-40,000 25.1 20 15 15.4 20 15 30.4 30 30
40-60,000 .26.0 25 20 15.0 20 20 9.5 20 20
60-80,000 9.0 15 20 9.3 15 20
80-100,000 1.5 5 10 21.2 20 20
100,000+ 1.6 5 10 4.0 5 10

TOTAL 100.0 100 100 100.0 100 100 100.0 100 100

(1) Total Harbor,. 1975-1976 shipments.

PETROLEUM

70. Table P-36 presents. the size distribution, for Yessels bringing petroleum products into
Baltimore f rorn both f oreign and coastwide sources in 1975 and 1976. Vessels ranged in
size up to 76,863 DWT, with f ully-loaded draf ts up to 42 f eet. The.record cargo during
this period was 77,139 shoa tons, received in the 68,968 DWT "Exxon Houston." The U.S.
flag ships engaged in coastwise trade with the U.S. Gulf carrying the "clean" petroleum
products to -the petroleum terminal on the Northwest Branch are generally larger than
those ships carrying the heavy residual fuel from foreign sources. Most of those larger
ships above 50, 000 DWT had to enter the harbor less than fully loaded. Because of depth
restrictions at the various petroleum terminals throughout the harbor and limited
volumes of petroleum, vessels less than 40,000 DWT ate the most popular size,
accounting f or over three-quarters of the vessel trips during 1975 and 1976.

71. Although significant volumes of petroleum are received at terminals throughout the
harbor, only,the major petroleum receiver in the Northwest Branch of the harbor has
indicated a need f or deeper channels to accommodate his present and anticipated future
vessel fleet. In the past, this terminal operator has received both "dirty" and "clean"
products by ship, but has recently switched all of its clean products over to pipeline.
Therefore, the future fleet for the heavy residual fuel oils only is projected. It is
anticipated that they would use tankers up to 90,000 DWT if adequate channel depths
were available in Baltimore. The major supply points for. residual fuel, located in the
Caribbean area, have water depths capable of accommodating vessels greater than
200,000 DWT. However,'very little residual would be imported in ships greater than
90,000 DWT, as there are very few heavy fuel oil tankers of 100,000 DWT in the world.
Table P-37.presents the future fleet projection for residual fuel oil at the Northwest
Branch terminal.

SUGAR

72. In 1975 and 1976, over one-fourth of the vessels, carrying nearly 50 percent of the,
sugar received at Baltimore, were larger than 20,000 DWT. These ships, with a fully
laden draft in excess of 32 feet, had to light-load in order to safely arrive at the sugar
pier. The largest ship received was a 37,000,DWT. vessel, with a f ully-loaded draft (salt
water) of 37 feet, 4 inches, carrying 30,520 tons of sugar from the Philippines. Table P-38
presents the sugar fleet distribution by vessel DWT class for 1975 and 1976.

P-43

TABLE P-36

BALTIMORE HARBOR
PETROLEUM IMPORTS, 1975 & 1976,

TOTAL HARBOR NW BRANCH
DWT FOREIGN COASTWISE TOTAL FOREIGN COASTWISE TOTAL
GROUP TRIPS %TONNAGE TRIPS %TONNAGE TRIPS %TONNAGE TRIPS %TONNAGE TRIPS %TONNAGE TRIPS %TONNAGE
Under 30,000 105 36.0 197 23.6 302 28.4 .7 9.2 84 21.4 91 17.6

30-35,000 57 25.0 27 6.4 84 13.5 22. 31.0 2 1.4 24 10.7

35-40,000 31 17.9 59 15.3 go 16.3 15 24.4 5 2.8, 20 9.5

40-45,000 14 8.1 25 9.4 39 8.9 3 6.3 2 1.9 5
@d 45-50,000 11 8.0 11, 5.2 22 6.3 7 15. 8 7 7 4.9,
50-60,000 .6 3.7 18 7.1 24 5.7 6 9.6 11 8.4 17 8.8

60-70,000 1 0.5 40 24.0 41 15.0 1 1.4 40 46.7 41 32.5.
70,000 & over 1 0.8 18 9.0 19 j.9 I 2.3 18 17.4 19 12.7

TOTAL 226 100.0 395 100.0 621 100.0 62 100.0 162 100.0 224 100.0

TABLE P-37

BALTIMORE HARBOR
FUTURE FLEET DISTRIBUTIW- PETROLEUM (1)
(Percent Commerce by DWT Group)

Vessel Existing (2) Future (3)
DWT Group 391 391 421 491

Under 30,000 12 10 -- --
30-4%000 22 50 10 .10
40-50,000 9 30 10 10
50-60,000 9 10 20 .15,
60-70,000 35 -- 30 .25.
70-80,000 13 30 30.
80,000 & over -- 10

TOTAL 100 100 100 100

(1) Projections for Northwest Branch terminal only
(2) All petroleum products, 1975-1976
(3) Residual fuel only

73. Most bulk sugar shipments in the world are handled in bulks of between 20-35,000
DWT, and terminal developments currently taking place throughout theworld 'Are geared
to this size tonnage. However, less than 50 percent of the sugar receipts at Baltimore
are carried in vessels of this size or greater. Because of the relatively limited 'volumes
of sugar imported and Baltimore's widespread sources of supply, it is anticipated that
much of the sugar coming into Baltimore will continue to be carried in vessels in the
20,000 DWT class, regardless of available water depths. However, those ships importing
sugar f rom Baltimore's larger supply'countries are likely to increase in size with a deeper
channel at Baltimore, reflecting increased transportation efficiency. The projected
future fleet for the Baltimore Harbor sugar trade is presented in Table P-39.

@P-45

TABLE P-38

BALTIMORE HARBOR
SUGAR IMPORTS BY VESSEL SIZE, 1975 & 1976

VESSEL 1975 1976 1975 & 1976
DWTGROUP TRIPS TONS %TONNAGE TRIPS TONS %TONNAGE TRIPS TONS %TONNAGE
Under 20,000 35 309,381 65.2 32 275,640 67 585,021 54.2
20 - 25,000 3 62,351. 13.1 4 71,664 11.9 7 134,015 12.4
25-30,000 4 12.5 11 258,314 42.7 15 3117,651 29.4
Over 30,000 . 2 43,284 9.5 - - - 2 43,284 4.0
TOTAL 44 474,353 100.0 47 605,618 100.0 91 1,079,951 100.0

TABLE P-39

BALTIMORE HARBOR
FUTURE FLEET DISTRIBUTION - SUGAR'
(Percent Commerce by DWT Group)

Vessel Future
DWT Group Existing (1) 32i 401

Under 20,000 54.2 35 35
20-259000 12.4 15 5
25-30@ 000 29.4 40 30
30-40,000 4.0 10 20
40,000 and over - - to

TOTAL 100.0 100 100

(1) 1975-1976 commerce

TRANSPORTATION COST ANALYSIS

GENERAL

74. To determine the navigation benefits to result from the deepening of the Baltimore
Harbor and Channels, it is first necessary to compute the total round-trip costs
associated with a vessel movement over each of the major trade routes used for
Baltimore commerce. Major countries supplying Baltimore with iron ore are Canada,
Venezuela, Liberia and Brazil. For petroleum imports, the major shipper is -Venezuela.
Representative countries in Baltimore's coal export trade Are Japan, Brazil.(in the South
American trade), and Netherlands (in the European trade)., For the gr .ain export trades,
voyage costs were calculated f or representative countries in West Europe, East Europe,
the Mid-East, and Asia. The shipping ports supplying Baltimore with sugar are spread
widely throughout the world. To compute transportation costs in this trade, average
shipping distances for the South and Central American and the Asian and African supply
countries were calculated. In addition to shipping distance, other f actors influencing
round-trip voyage costs include the type and size of vessel, vessel cruising speed, time
spent in port, and various costs incurred by a vessel while in port.

HOURLY OPERATING COSTS

75. Tables P-40 and P-41 present the hourly operating costs for various sizes of bulk
carriers and tankers, both at sea and in port. These costs, developed by.the Office of the
Chief of Engineers (OCE), consist of the amortized investment cost of the vessel, crew
wages and allowances, subsistence, stores, supplies and equipment, maintenance and
repairs, insurance, profits, taxes and f uel costs. As can be seen from the t ables, cost for
United States flag vessels are substantially higher than those for f oreign flag vessels.
This is due to United States registry requirements, which mandate that United States
flag ships be constructed in United States shipyards and operated by United States crews,
at costs much higher than foreign flag vessels.

P-47

TABLE.P-40

HOURLY OPERATING COSTS
FOREIGN FLAG DRY BULK VESSELS

(January, 1981. Price Level)

Vessel
Deadweight At Sea In Port

15,000. $ 734 $544

25,000 818 569

35,000 881 612

509000 986 683

6% 000 ItO94 736

80tooo 19303 845

1009000 1,486 961

1209000 It667 1,055

150,000 19957 19212

Costs are indexed to January 1981, based on Janury 1979 costs
f rom OCE.

P-48

TABLE P-41

HOURLY OPERATING COSTS
U.S.'AND FOREIGN FLAG TANKERS

(January, 1981 Price Level)

Xessel U.S. Flag Foreign Flag
Deadweight At Sea In Port At Sea In Port

20,000 $1,290 $1,079 $771 $548

25,000 .1,448 1,112 .899 582

37,000 19494 11159 878 .591

50,000 19629 1,262 19064 688

602000 1,898 1,317 1,116 728

70,000 2,026 1,483 19-159 772

80,000 2,161 1,607 1,237 826

909 000 2t 301 1,697 19283 866

120,000 2,677 1,992 1@497 .19016

150,000 2,996 29246 19745 IpI58

I/ Costs- are indexed, to January 1981, based on January 1979 costs
f rom OCE.

P-49

COSTS AT SEA

76. Costs at sea in each trade ar6 determined by hourly operating costs at sea, round-
trip distance, and average cruising speeds f or each size vessel. Round-trip distances
were derived f rorn data contained in Distances Between Ports 1965, Department of the
Army Oceanograhic Office, and are shown in Table P-42. Average cruising speeds for
vessels serving Baltimore Harbor, taken from data provided by Office of the Chief of
Engineers, ranged f rorn 14.0 to 15.5 knots f or dry bulk vessels and f rom 16.0 to 16.5 f or
tan kers.

COSTS IN PORT

77. Costs in porf are comprised of operating costs for the time spent in port and other
charges f or various services perf ormed f or that vessel in port. Total time in port
consists of time spent on loading and unloading of car go, plus additional time not directly
related to cargo handling. Loading and unloading times f or each commodity were
determined by averaging cargo handling rates for Baltimore and the appropriate foreign
ports. Additional time evaluated includes time spent entering and exiting a port, waiting
for pilotage, waiting for a berth, docking and undocking, and general port congestion.
Due to different levels of port development throughout the world, total time spent in
port varies at the different countries with which Baltimore does trade. Estimates for
this additional time f or each country, ranged f rom 24 to 72 hours per round-trip. For
trades that use the Panama Canal, 24 hours per transit, or 48 hours total round-trip was
added.

78. In addition to the hourly operating costs@ many additional costs.are incUrred by a
vessel on a round-trip voyage. For Baltimore, these costs include canal tolls, pilotage
charges f rom the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay to Baltimore Harbor, towing in the
harbor f or docking and undocking, dockage, wharfage, stevedoring, agency and
attendance fees, and many other miscellaneous charges such as bunkering, water and
electricity charges. Charges such as wharfage and stevedoring, because they relate
directly to tons of cargo and would not affect unit savings, were not included in the
calculation of total transportation costs.

UNIT TRANSPORTATION COSTS

79. Total voyage transportation costs were calculated for the range of vessel sizes
expected in each commodity trade f or each of those major countries and geographic
areas mentioned previously. Unit transportation costs for both the existing and improved
channels were calculated as the total voyage costs divided by the net cargo tonnage a
ship can carry over these channel depths. A ship's carrying capacity may be restricted by
controlling depths at Baltimore Harbor, at the f oreign ports, or in some cases the
Panama Canal. An example of the meth 'od used to calculate round-trip and unit
transportation costs is presented in Table P-43. By being able to fully load this vessel on
a 50-f oot channel, a savings of $2.66 per ton ($14.95 - $12.29) can be realized.

80. Table P-44 presents a sample computation of average transportation costs and
savings per ton for the entire vessel fleet projected to transport iron ore from Brazil for
both 42 and 50-f oot channel depths. Unit costs f or each size ship are weighted by the
percent of commerce to be moved by that ship size category to give average unit '
shipping costs f or that trade. The diff erence between the costs f or the 42 and 50-f oot
channels is the unit savings. Table P-45 presents the results of this analysi's for each of
the major trades considered.

P-50

TABLE P-42

ROUND TRIP DISTANCES
(nautical miles)

IMPORTS

IRON ORE.

Canada 29700
Brazil 59600
Liberia .99300

PETROLEUM

Caribbean 39500

SUGAR

Americas 49,800
Other World 21t200

EXPORTS

COAL
Japan 209200
Europe 89100

GRAIN

W. Europe 80000
E. Europe 119300
Mid-East 109800
Asia 229800

F-51

TABLE P-43
UNIT COST CALCULATION
60,000 DWT Bulk Carrier - Tubarao, Brazil to Baltimore

Round-trip costs

1. Time at sea - 10,600 nautical miles round-trip at 15.5 knots 684 hours
2. Cost at sea, 684 hours at $1,094/hr $748@296
3. Cost in port, 73. hours at $736/hr $53,728

4. Additional costs $ 91100

5. Vessel round-trip costs $8119124

Unit cargo costs

1. Capacity (fuel, stores, bunkers, cargo) 67,200 tons

2. Fully-loaded draft, fresh water 43 f eet

3. Bunkers, 2.95 tons/hr fuel x 342 hours 1,010 tons

4. Ton per inch imm ersi on factor 178 tons

5. Draft reduc ti on f or bunkers at Baltimore 6 inches

6. Maximum draft at Baltimore. 42 f eet, 6 inches

7. Reser ve f uel, 10 000 m il es at 5.5 knots and
2.95 tons/hr 190 tons

S. Cargo capacity at Baltimore, fully loaded 66, 000 tons

9. Cost per ton, fully loaded
$8119124/669000 $12.29

10. Shut-out tonnage - 42 f t channel with
5 f t cl ear ance = 4 21611 - (421 -51)
66 inches x 178 tons 11,748 tons

11. cost per ton, light-loaded
$8119124/(669000-119748) @14.95

P-52

TABLE P-44

UNIT SAVINGS COMPUTATIONS
1RON ORE FROM' TUBARAO, BRAZIL

Existing Channel Depth 42 ft. Authorized Channel Depth 50 ft.
Fleet Size Unit Weighted Fleet - Size Unit Weighted
D.W.T Distributim cost Unit Cost' Distribution Cost Unit Cost
(1000 Tons)

-30 0 0 0 0

30-40 5 17.35 0.87 0 17.35 0

40-60 40 15.43 6.17 15 13.54 2.03

60-80 30 15.07 4.52 35 11.90 4.17

80-10.0 15.10 0.76 1.0 11.46 1.15

100-1.50 15 15.22 .2.28 30 11.57 3.47

150+ 5 16.42 0.82 10 12.39 1.24

Total 100 15.42 100 12.06

Total weighted unit cost for existing channel $ 15.42

Total weighted unit cost f or, authorized channel 12.06
Unit savings $3.36

P-53

TABLE P-45

SUMMARY OF TRANSPORTATION COST ANALYSIS
Costs/Ton Savings/Ton
Existing Improved

IMPORTS

Iron Ore 421. 501
Canada $ 4e40 .53.49 $0.91,
Brazil 15.42 12.06 3.36
Liberia 12.47 11.09 1.38
Petroleum 391 491
Caribbean 56.83 $V.61 $ 2.22
Sugar 321 401
Americas 519.94 $14.80 $5.14
Other Vorld 70.43 53.50 16.93

EXPORTS

Coal .421 501
Japan 533.55 $28.41 $5.14
Europe 12.11 9.45 2.66
Grain 351 401
W. Europe 518.96 514.24 $4.72
E. Europe 26.48 20.74 5.74
Mid-East 26.78 21.58 5.20
Asia 50.92 39.22 11.70

P-54

ESTIMATES OF BENEFITS

81. Estimates of transportation savings f orthe proposed channel improvements are
derived by comparing transportation costs on deepened channels with transportation
costs on the existing project channels. The average cost savings per cargo ton, as
calculated above, is multiplied by prospective commerce over the 50-year project life
and discounted at the Federal interest rate of 7-3/8 percent to determine average annual
savings. Table P-46 presents the average annual savings f or commodities and trades
expected to benefit f rorn deepening Baltimore Harbor's shipping channels to their
authorized depths. Benefits for the export commodities, coal and grain, far outweigh the
benefits f or imports, $135,338,DOO to $20,618, 060. Transportation savings for coal
exports ($125,795, 000) account f or about 80 percent of the total project'benef its of
$156,456,000. Iron ore imports and grain exports account f or about seven percent each.
Table P-47 separates the average annual savings by commodity for each of the major
channel segments. Benefits for grain, petroleum, and sugar accrue at single locations in
the Northwest Branch. Benefits f or coal exports and iron ore imports'will accrue at
scattered locations throughout the port, all with direct access to the f if ty-f oot water
depth of the main channels and the Curtis Bay Channel.

82. The. above analyses exclude potential benefits in transportation savings f or
commerce induced to move through Baltimore as a result of the channel improvements.
As mentioned previously, industry officials have estimated that as much as Iwo million
tons annually of iron ore may be diverted to Baltimore Harbor from Philadelphia for
transshipment to inland steel plants. The benefits f or this commerce is measured as the
dif f erence in transportation costs between shipping over to 50-f oot channel at Baltimore
and the authorized 40 f eet at Philadelphia. Table P-48 presents a summary of the
benefit analysis f or the estimated two million tons of induced iron ore.

83. Nearly f our million dollars in water transportation savings could be realized by
diverting this tonnage through Baltimore. However, there is a high degree of uncertainty
regarding the future rail rate structure f rom 'East Coast ports to inland locations, a
factor, which would have direct influence on any decision by importers to divert traffic.
For this reason, the estimate of induced commerce is highly speculative and benefits for
this commerce, therefore, are not included in the project justification.

P-55

TABLE P-46

AVERAGE ANNUAL SAVINGS
(by commodity)
Unit Savings Undiscounted Savings ($1,000) Average Annual Savings
$/ton 1986 2000 2036 ($1,000)

IMPORTS

Iron Ore
Canada $0.91 $4,027 $4,027 $4,027 $4,027
Brazil 3.36 2,379 2,379 2,379 2,379
Liberia 1.38 4 152 4 152 4,152 4,152
Total $10,'558 $10,'558 10,558 10,558
Petroleum $ 2.22 $4,063' $4,551 $ 1,887 $4,036

Sugar
Americas $ 5.14 $ 29128 $2,308 $2,570 $ 2,276.'
Other World 16.93 3 505 -3' 809 4,249 3 748
Total $62117 $6,819
TOTALIMPORTS $20,254 $ 21,226 $19,264 $20,618

EXPORTS

Coal
Japan $5.14 15,420' _$ 12,850 $ 12,850 $ 14,375
Europe 2.66 91,50-4- 136,990 136,990 111,;420
Total $106,924 5149,840 5149,840 $125,795

Grain
W. Europe $4.72 $ 3,965 $ 4,640 $ 6,849 $ 416,11.
E. Europe 5.74 1,733 2,038 2,996 .2,015
Mid-East 5.20 1,056 1,399 2,834 1,405
Asia 11.70 2,012 2,012 2012 2012
Total 5 8,766. $ 10,089
TOTAL EXPORTS $115,690 $159,929 $164,531 $135,838
TOTAL COMMERCE $135,944 $181,155 $183,795 $156,456

TABLE P-47
AVERAGE ANNUAL SAVINGS BY CHANNEL SEGMENT
(thousands of dollars)

Main Channel and Curtis Bay
Iron Ore $10,558
Coal .$125,795
Total "5-136,353

Northwest Branch-East Channel
Petroleum $ 49036

Northwest Branch-West Channel
Grain $ 10,043
Sugar $ 6,024
Total $716,067

TOTAL PROJECT $156,456

TABLE P-48

AVERAGE ANNUAL SAVINGS
IRON ORE DIVERTED FROM PHILADELPHIA

Cost/Ton Total
Country 401 @ Phil. 501 @ Balto. Savings/Ton. Annual Savings

Canada $ 4.75 $3.49 $1,26 $1,260,000

Liberia 13.62 11.09 2.53 1,720,400

Brazil 16.76 12.06 4.70 752,000

TOTAL $3p7329400

P-57

SECTION Q

COST ALLOCATION AND APPORTIONMENT

ALLOCATION OF COSTS AMONG PURPOSES

1. Cost allocation involves the division of total project costs among various project
purposes (i.e., flood control, navigation, shore. erosion). The planned improvements
described in Section E will serve the needs of navigation only and no other water use or
purpose will be served. Accordingly, cost allocation is not warranted since all costs
accrue to navigation.

APPORTIONMENT OF COSTS AMONG INTERESTS

2. Cost apportionment (cost sharing) refers to the division of purpose costs between
Federal and non-Federal interests. Since only, one purpose exists, this section entails the
division of the total project costs.

3. Federal participation in navigation project costs is limited to sharing costs for the
general navigation features such as entrance and primary access channels, turning basins,
and anchorage areas. Non-Federal interests are responsible for and bear costs of
terminal facilities, dredging in berthing areaA and interior access channels, acquisition of
the necessary lands, easements, rights-of -way, and dredge material disposal areas with
retaining dikes. They must also relocate and alter affected 'utilities, pipelines, cables,
and sewer outlets.

4. For commerical navigation projects such as Baltimore Harbor, the Federal
Government bears all costs of project construction operation and maintenance because
of the general or widespread nature of the benefits. The Federal Government maintains
these waterway improvements to assure their continued transit availability. Non-Federal
interests will maintain access channels, berthing areas, and provide suitable disposal
areas including retaining dikes, if necessary.

5. Table Q-1 presents the apportionment of first costs between Federal and non-
Federal. Project first costs are presented in Section 0, "Cost Estimate."

TABLE Q-1

APPORTIONMENT OF FIRST COSTS BETWEEN
FEDERAL AND NON-FEDERAL
($1,000 - February 1981 price level)

FEDERAL COSTS

Corps of Engineers
Channel Dredging $188,600.0
Contingencies 22,6OO.O
Engineering and Design 9,800.0
(includes $3,500 for monitoring program)
Supervision and Administration 11,700.0

SUB-TOTAL $232,700.0

Coast Guard
Aids to Navigation $ 150.0

SUB-TOTAL $150.0

TOTAL $232,850.0,

NON-FEDERAL COSTS
Private Channel Dredging $8,58O.O
Contingencies 1,000.0
Engineering and Design 300.0
Supervision and Administration 600.0
Disposal of Dredged Material
Diked Area 33,800.0
Operations and Maintenance for
Diked Disposal Area 22,400.0
Utility Relocation
Electrical Cable 2,OOO.O

TOTAL $68,680.0
TOTAL PROJECT COST $301,530.0

Q-2

SECTION R

LOCAL COOPERATION

1. Construction of the authorized 50-f oot project for Baltimore Harbor and Channels,
Maryland and Virginia, will allow for deeper draft navigation into the port of Baltimore
and produce savings in the transportation of bulk commodities. In accordance with
established pro4tedure@ the State of Maryland and the Commonwealth of Virginia have
been requested to provide the local cooperation for the project. The overall terms of
local cooperation f or the Baltimore Harbor and Channels,,50-f oot-project, required by the
River and Harbor Act of 1970 and other, legislation, require that local interests must:

a. Provide wit 'hout cost to the United States all lands, easements, and rights-of-way
required for construction and subsequent maintenance of the project and for aids to
navigation upon the request of the Chief of Engineers, including suitable areas
determined by the Chief of Engineers to be required in the general public interest for
initial and subsequent disposal of dredged material and necessary retaining dikes,
bulkheads, and embankments therefor, or the costs of such retaining works;

b. Hold.. and save the United States f ree f rom damages that may result from the
construction and maintenance of the project, except damages due to the fault-or
negligence of the United States or its contractors;

c. Provide and maintain at local expense, adequate public terminal and transfer
facilities opento all on equal terms, and depths in berthi'ng area's and local access
channels serving terminals commensurate with the depth pro'vided:in the @elated project
areas;

d. Accomplish without cost to the United States such utility and o ther relocations
or alteratibns'as'necessary for project purposes;

e. Prohibit erection of any structure within 125 feet of the project channel or
turning basin;

f. Establis'h..regulations prohibiti ng'dis charge of pollutants into waters of the
channels and harbor by users thereof, which regulations shall be in accordance with
applicable laws or regulations of Federal, State, and local authorities responsible for
pollution prevention and control;

.g. Comply with the Unif orm Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition
Policies Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-646, 84 Stat. 1894) and implementing regulations;

h. Comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 196.4 (P.L. 88-352, 78 Stat. 241).

R-1

2. The letter of intent from Maryland is included in Addendum 11, also included are letters
from the Commonwealth of Virginia to the State of Maryland designating sites for
placement of dredged material in Virginia and agreeing -to provide items f and h of the local
cooperation for the Virginia portion of the project. A copy of the draft agreement for
Maryland is included at the end of this section.

3. As discussed in Section L, the State of Maryland has'purchased Hart and Miller Islands
for development of a contained dredged material placement. This facility will
accommodate the initial quantity of mat6rial to be dredged from the Maryland channels. In
addition, a long-term dredged material management plan has been developed for the State
of Maryland by the Water Resources Administration, Maryland Department of - Natural
Resources which will promote maintenance for the life of the project. These activities
indicate compliance with item a of the -letter of intent for the Maryland portion of the
project.

4. As discussed in Section L, the Commonwealth of Virginia has designated dredged
material placement sites to accommodate the initial and maintenance quantities of
material to be dredged. This activity indicates compliance with item a of the letter of
intent for the Virginia portion of the project.

R-2

AGREEMENT BETWEEN

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

AND

THE STATE OF MARYLAND

FOR LOCAL COOPERATION

AT THE BALTMORE HARBOR AND CHANNELS (FIFTY FOOT) PROJECT

MARYLAND AND VIRGINIA

THIS, AGREEM ENT,' entered into this day of 9 19819 by and
between the. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Th-ereinaf ter called the "Government")
represented by@ the Contracting Officer executing this agreement, and the STATE OF
MARYLAND (hereinafter called the "State");

WITNESSETH THAT:

WHEREAS, the Baltimore Harbor and Channels project modification was authorized
by Section 101 of the River and Harbor Act approved December 31, 1970,(Public Law 91-.
611, 84 Stat. 1818) in accordance with plans recommended in Chief of Engineers report
dated September 21, 1970 and also contained in'House Document Number 94-181, 94th
Congress, First Session; and

WHEREAS, the State hereby represents that it has the authority and capability to
furnish the non-Federal cooperation required by the authorizing documents and by other
applicable law;

NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:

1. The State agrees that, if the Government constructs the Project substantially in
accordance with Federal legislation authorizing the Project, the State shall, in
consideration of the Governm ent constructing the Project, f ulf ill the applicable
requirements of non-Federal cooperation, to wit

a. Provide without cost to the United States all land, easements, and rights-
of -way required for construction and subsequent maintenance of the Project and for aids
to navigation upon the request of the Chief of Engineers, including suitable areas
determined by the Chief of Engineers to be required in the general public interest for
initial and subsequent disposal of dredged material and necesary retaining dikes,
bulkheads, and embankments therefor, or the costs of such retaining works; and

b. Hold and save the United States f ree f rom damages that may result f rom
the construction and maintenance of the project, except damages due to the fault or
negligence of the United States or its contractors;

R-3

c. Provide and maintain a@t local expense adequate public terminal and
transfer facilities open to all on equal terms, and depths in berthing areas and local
access channels serving terminals commensurate with the depth provided in the related
project areas;

d. Accomplish without cost to the United States such utility and other
relocations or alterations as necessary for project purposes;

e. Prohibit.erection of any structure within 125 feet of the project channel or
turning basis;

f. Establish regulations prohibiting discharge of pollutants into waters of the
channels and harbor by users thereof, which regulations shall be in accordance with
applicable laws or regulations of Federal, State, and local authorities responsible for
pollution prevention and control;

9
Comply -with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property
Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-646, 84 Stat. 1894) and implementing-
regulations;

h. Comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (P.L. 88-352, 78 Stat.
241).

2. The State hereby gives the Government a right to enter upon, at reasonable
times and in a reasonable manner, lands which the State owns or controls, for access to
the Project for the purpose of inspection, and for the purpose of operating and
maintaining the Project, if such inspection shows that the State f or any reason is failing
to operate and maintain the Project in accordance with the assurances hereunder and has
persisted in such failure after a reasonable notice in writing by the Government delivered
to the Governor of the State of Maryland. No operation and maintenance by the
Government in such event shall operate to relieve the State of responsibility to meet its
obligations as set forth in paragraph 1. of this Agreement, or to preclude the Government
f rorn pursuing any other remedy at law or equity.

3. This Agreement is subject to the approval of the Secretary of the Army.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the
day and year first above written.

R-4

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA THE STATE OF MARYLAND

Colonel, -Corps of Engineers
District Engineer
Contracting Officer

DATE:

APPROVED:

Secretary of the Army

R-5

CERTIFICATE

I, Stephen H. Sachs, Attorney General of the State of Maryland, do hereby certify
that I am the principal legal officer of'the State of Maryland, that Maryland is a legally
constituted public body. with f ull authority and capability to perf Orm -the terms of the
agreement between the United States of@ America and the State of Maryland in
connection with the construction of the Baltimore Harbor and Channels (Fifty Foot)
Project, Maryland, and to pay damages, if necessary, in the event of the failure to
perf orm, in accordance with Section 221 of Public Law 91-611, and that the persons who
have executed the contract on behalf of the State of Maryland have acted within their
statutory authority.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF9 I have made and executed this Certificate this day
1991.
of

STEPHEN H. SACHS
Attorney General
State of Maryland

R-6

SECTION S

REAL ESTATE REQUIREMENTS

1. Real Estate investigations to date indicate that the State of Maryland has purchased
the required lands, easements, and rights-6f-way necessary for initial construction of the
project; that other lands, easements, and rights-of -way will be available for continued
maintenance of the project when needed; and that all lands,. easements, and rights-of-
way f or disposal of material f rorn the Virginia channels should be available.at no cost.
No other real estate requirements are envisioned.

S-1

SECTION T

DEPARTURES FROM THE PROJECT DOCUMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

1. The authorized plan of improvement is presented in Section E, "Authorized Plan."
The economic analysis presented in Section P, "Benefits," shows- that the authorized plan
of improvement is still justified and accordingly, no changes in the authorized plan are
indicated.

2. In addition to the authorized plan of improvements, the Project Document
recommended that a single inbound lane of 50-f oot depth be dredged as the initial stage
ot construction. This recommendation was the subject of considerable investigation and
coordination. In the early 1970's, the import/export makeup of the port was such that
the major portion of the deep draft traffic passing through the port was foreign
imports. This domination by the import traf f ic was the basis f or the "single inbound lane
construction concept." In recent years, the import/export makeup of the port has
changed to the point where neither dominates. Under current conditions, less benefits
would be derived by dredging a single lane (inbound or outbound) channel first. The costs
involved with additional aids to navigation, vessel traffic control.systems, regulation and
policing which would be required by a single lane channel do not warrant the benefits t6
be derived. Also, the Coast Guard has adamantly opposed the operation of a single lane
channel and the Maryland Pilots have cited numerous safety problems involved with
operation of such a system.

3. Consequently, the construction schedule, as shown in Section M, will provide a full
width 50-f oot channel with project completion schedule f or 1986.

T-1

SECTION U

PUBLIC LAW 92-500

1. Section 404 (r) of Public Law 92-500, as amended, provides that an. Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) may be submitted tothe Congress evaluating the discharge of
dredged or fill material into waters of the United States through the authorization or
appropriation processes f or those projects specifically authorized by Act of Congress.
Further, the evaluation of the discharge is to be accomplished through the application of
guidelines contained. in Section 404 (b) (1) of the Law.

2. Accordingly, a 1.140411 evaluation has been performed for the proposed action described
by this report and is contained in the project EIS f or submittal to the Congress,

U-1

SECTION V

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. It is recommended that the project plan submitted in this. Combined Phase I - Phase 11
General Design Memorandum be approved as the basis for construction of the deepening
of the Baltimore Harbor and Channels, Maryland and Virginia. The authorized plan of
improvement consists of:

a. Deepening the Cape Henry Channel to 50 feet at the existing width.of 1,000 feet,
with widening at bends.

b. T)eepening the York Spit rhannel to 50 feet at the existing width of 1,000 feet,
with widening at bends.

c. Enlargement of the Rappahannock Shoat Channel to a depth of 50 feet and width
of 1,000 feet.

d. T)eepening them*ain ship channel from Chesapeake Bay to Fort McHenry to a
depth of 50 feet at the existing width of 800 feet, with widening at bends and at the
Craighill Entrance.

e. r)eepening the Curtis Bay !-hannel to a depth of 50 feet at the existing width of
600 feet, and'deepening of the 950-f oot wide and 980-f oot long turning basin at the head
of channel to the same depth.

f. Deepening the Northwest Branch-East Channel to a depth of 49 feet from the
depth existing at the time of construction at a width of 600 feet, and deepening of the
950-foot wide and 950-foot long turning basin at the head of the channel to the same
depth..

g. Deepening and extension of the Northwest Branch-West Channel to a depth of. 40
feet from the depth existing at the time of construction, at a width of 600 feet, and with
an irregularly shaped turning basin at the head of the channel 40 feet deep and 2,000 feet
long with a maximum width of 1150 f eet.

V-1

ADDENDUMI

AN OVERVIEW OF DREDGED
MATERIAL MANAGEMENT
IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY

1. The long history of the development of navigational improvements in the Nation's
waterways has evolved a specific relationship between the Federal Govemmentand non-
Federal sponsor pertaining to financial cost-sharing and other matters. In this regar",.it.
has become established policy, with few exceptions, for the non-Federal sponsor to
"provide without cost to the United States all lands, easements, and rights-of -way
required for construction and subsequent maintenance of the Project ... including
suitable areas determined by the Chief of Engineers to be'required in the general public
interest for initial and subsequent disposal of dredged material and necessary retaining
dikes, bulkheads, and embankments therefor, or the costs of such. retaining works." The
Baltimore Harbor and Channels, Maryland and, Virginia, requires that non-Federal
interests "provide without cost to the.United States all lands,. easements, and rights-of-
way required for construction and subsequent maintenance of the pro*t and for aids to
navigation upon the request of the Chief of Engineers to be required in the general public
interest for initial and subsequent disposal of spoil, and also necessary retaining dikes,
bulkheads, and embankments therefor, or -the cost of such retaining works."

2. In recent years, the Federal and non-Federal community directly involved with
&edging and disposal programs have become increasingly aware of the need to plan more
comprehensively for disposal needs as traditional methods of disposal become inadequate
for Various reasons, to current and future needs. Within the Chesapeake Bay area, the
State of Maryland and Commonwealth of Virginia have actively engaged in dredged
material management programs. At the Federal level, the Corps of Engineers (COE),
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency
(NOAA) have been actively involved in questions related to dredged material
management in the Chesapeake Bay for the purpose of understanding the factors
currently affecting disposal options within theBay for deepening of the Baltimore Harbor
Channels, and the investigations performed to assure. a cceptability within the meaning of
the authorizing language.

DEVELOPMENT OF MARYLAND's DISPOSAL PROGRAM

3. Traditionally, dredged material from the various navigation projects in Maryland has
been placed into open water sites within the State of Ma 'ryland. The Maryland. Board of
Public Works has had the. responsibility for. designating such sites. Oppositionby
watermen to the open water disposal of sediment has existed from the turn of the
century to th6 present day. In 1968, the Board recommended that the State provide
funds for the study, design, and construction of a suitable facility for the disposal of
dredged material. The 1969 General Assembly authorized $13 million for the,
construction of this diked area. In 1970, the'State's consultant issued a. report selecting
the Hart-Miller Islands site as the most suitable for a containment facility. In 1975, a
lawwas passed by the Maryland General Assembly'(annotated Code of Maryland, Natural
Resources Article, Sections 8-1601-1605) declaring all bottom material lying upriver of
line drawn across the Patapsco from Rock Point to North Point .to be contaminated, and
making it illegal to dispose of this material into the open water of the Chesapeake Bay.

4. The. selection of the Hart-Miller Islands site was made after a detailed study of
various disposal methods. The only feasible solution at that time, based upon the need in
Maryland, was the construction of 'a contained disposal site. Seventy' possible ,
containment sites were evaluated. The results of the evaluation are shown in Table'l,
which Is reprinted from the 1970 report. Subsequently, the State requested a permit
from the Corps. of Engineers for the. construction of the Hart-M iller Islands site. An
Environmental Impact Statement was prepared by the Corps for the permit action and a
permit was granted by the Corps of Engineers on 22 November 1976 following rigorous
coordination and review by others. However, much opposition to the Hart-Miller Islands
site arose and opponents sought alternatives to the use of Hart-Miller Islands.'A
discussion of these alternatives.and their feasibility follows.

ON-LAND DISPOSAL

3. The State of Maryland investigated this possibility in their,1970 site selection study.
They found certain disadvantages to this alternative,'assuming sites could be found with
sufficient capacity. Transportation to the site would be by truck, which means increased
vehicular traffic. The spoil material being in a more or less soupy condition would likely
result in water leaking from the trucks. The spoil could be placed on land near the road
network and be allowed to drain somewhat before rehandling. Additional costs would be
expected due to rehandling. Since much of the material is contaminated,, adequate
controls would be necessary to preclude the possibility that leaching or drainage from
such a disposal. area might carry hazardous concentrations. Since the fill material would
in effect act like a reservoir of water, a containment structure on dry land would have to
be built with consideration to foundation preparations, site clearing, etc., normally
experienced with construction of an, aquatic reservoir project.

6. An alternative to the use of water-oriented containment sites is the use of areas such
as inactive rock quarriers or sand and gravel pits. Consideration included all possible
modes of transportation of dredged material. Dredged material can be transported by
pipelines if the problems of pipeline right-of-way can be solved. The possibility of
leakage and seepage into groundwater supplies could present a serious drawback. There
are no local quarriers; that will individually accommodate even a small fraction of 50
million cubic yards of material. Even the sum capacity of many small inactive quarries
that could be filled one at a time is,far less than the required volume, assuming that
right-of -way and environmental considerations could be met.

UTILIZATION OF DREDGED MATERIAL TO RECLAIM STRIP MINES

7. In the Hart-Miller Islands EIS, utilization of dredged material to reclaim strip mines
was investigated as an alternative to the Hart-Miller Islands site. While costs would be
high, benefits of this method would be rehabilitation of barren strip mine lands.
However, there is a potential for contamination of groundwater from placement of the
dredged material and high transportation costs. In order to prevent groundwater
contamination, contaminated -material would have. t6 be separated out. This method is
not presently feasible.

TABLE
EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL SITES
#1 112 #3 #6 //7 //8 #9 #iu 1112 #13 1/0114
D1ST. FROM OVER- -
CAPACITY AREA CHART RlDlNG
.NO NAME BALTO. HARBOR LATITUDE LONGITUDE * 6 3 6 NO. ADV. DISADV. FACTORS METHOD TYPE REC.
(14 ALIT. MILES) YD3xlO YD i1o
@dv_j Dis-
a kb
I SuL;q. 11. Delta 39 39*-30'N- 76*-03'W 70 11-52 572 ABCN AEBC I AF IDike Mud No
Flat
Old Woinanla. G t; 1. 9 2 -4 5" N 76*-O()'W 22.@f 3.?8 572 ABC ACFG Fa ]Marsh Marsh No
3 Taylor Inland @c)1_24,N 76* - 10 30" W .7.? 57P AC AFCG F Marsh M a r r, hNo

4 Abbey Pt. to 25 39*-22,N 760-131W 13.2 2.2 572 AC AFCG F Marsh Marsh No
Locust Pt.
Lj 2 Lego Pt. 23 39'-201-30"M 760-16,w 8.64 1.44 572 AC FG Marsh MarshjNo
6 Hawthorne Cove 19 39*-19'N 761-211W 41.4 6.9 549 ACDE FC C Marsh Marsh No
F
7 Gunpowder Ncck 17 39*-18,-30"N 760-?l,W 20 3.9 549 ACDF CFTJK JK Marsh Marsh No
G
.8 Pooles' Island 16.5 39'-17@N 76*-15'-30"W 75-100@ 10.08 549 DHB JGMIL HB LE Dike Water Marg.
EC & Isl
9 Worton Pt. 20.5 390-191N 760-101-.50"W 20 3.24 549 AD GNMFA NG IM.r.h Marsh No
10 Back River .19 39-18-30"N 760-31'W 6 1.0 549 CFA FNB FB' JMar,h Marsh W.
11 Muddy Gut -16 39*-17'-20"N 760-?6,w 6 1.0 549 AE NCFB F Marsh Marsh No
&Cove
12 Hart-Miller Isl 11 39*-15,N 766-22--30"W 100-200 26 549 ABDF NM BDJ Dike Isl.& Yes
IKJP Water
13 Black Marsh 9 39*-13'-30"N .76--25'W 41 5.7 549 ABCD NGM BQJ N Dike & Marsh Yes
Marsh WaterlCond.
14 Pata nco River 3.3 390-14"N '16@-37-30"W 15 2.5 549 'ADCE CFN QD N Marsh Marsh Cond.
Mar,P1
ML
15 Thomas Cove 1.5 139!-12 1-30"N 76 1 0-33"d D.64 549 ADJM FN Marsh No
&C ov e.

TABLE L

EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL SITEr,

#2 #3 #4 #5 #il 10

W '15 N Marsh Marsh No
16 11 awk ins Pt. 2 39--12'N 76- -321 - 11Y' 2.56 13,49 ADIA, FN Water
_IL? 6-7-9 Ft Knolls 9 391-91N _760-251-I511W 100-250 2@. 18 549 ABDI E1.41-IN BD L N Dike WateriCond.
1
18 Swan Pt. kr-91-201114 76-15'-30-'W 9 1.5 549 D FGD F Marsh MarshlNo
19 Eastern Neck 21 390-021-50"N 76-13'-2011W 48 8 5i 49 B ADGJM JG Marsh Ma rsh No
Island
20 Piney Pt. 1 2), 139--02- -401114 76-101-4011W 6 1 549 ABFDG F Marsh Marsh No
lill _-an !1,j Pt 16 15'r-01 w .76 a-24,W_ 1 0.2 549 _A.PuL FN 114arsh Marsh No
(b)
22 Nortli-Sotith I
16 to 33 381--?2,N 760-24,w 200+ 50 550 !LFOB MOPQ ILB OQ Open ;Water Cond.
Treni.;h Dump t
2 3 Kent Narrows 20 38,-58,rl 760-14,W 36 6 55U !I ACGII1. DH Dike & Marsh No
Area Mill-:0) Wit I (w
24 Poplar 11n. 30 380-46114 ?6--2?--4O"W 12 2-P5 ACDFII'
Group 550 IC DY IMarsh 'Marsh No
I. M
25 North-South 33 to 41 38-41IN 760-251-30"Wi 100+ 16 551 FDLOB AHOPQ LB OQ j0pen 'Water Cond.
Trench I I
I i . IDump
26 Deep Water Holej 44 38*-33,N 760-261W 4 1.4 551 FLOP A"JOPQ F IOpen Water No
IDump
27 Deep 'dater Hole I
44 38*-33'-30"N 76*-;->3'-20"W 16 4 551 FLOP AFDMOP. FD !Open Water No
Dump
28 James island 117 38*-3l'IT 760-201-30"W 21 3 551 CF1 ACDFO DF iMarsh Marsh No
29 Deep Water Hole 41 38o-,Ag,N 760-18,-30"W 24-70 2.9 551 BFLOP ADELO DQL-10pen Water No
PQ 1 DiOl
30 Choptank Deep 47 389-38114 766-io,w 8 2 551 FLOP ADFOPQ DF 10pen Water No.
Holle Dump
3L Ifills P'.. Cove It 6 38o-34,N ?60-18,w 13. o@ r,51 CGI AGDFII DF M-.11%th Mar.-At No
& Dike &Covel
32 W00.1r.ord Neck .58 54, -20"N 760-1.3' _5LN,qW 9 .5 551 F GI FD Marsh
IG G_ I ABCDF MarshlNo,

TABLE

EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL SITES
#A #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 1 #R #9 #10 #11, #1_1 #1-, f#.L4
33 North-South 48 to 64 380-23'N 760-201V 4oo-8oo 41.6 553 ABFL AOPQ BL AO Open Water Cond.
Trench OP Dump
34 Slaughter Creek 53 380w-27'-4011N ?6*-15'-30"W 12, 6 2.1 553 CP ABCFG' FB Marsh Marsh No
Marsh H
35 Moneystump '56 380-261-300-N ?6--13'W 50 9.25 553 BC ABCG GB Marsh Marsh No
Swamp . I I I1 1
36 Barren Is1knd 6o 38,-2o,-3U'N 76,-15'-30"w 40 6.5 553 B ACD!II. AD Dike Marsh No
Area I M Waterl
37 Huoper 1:31und 65 380-17' -30"N 760-11-W A 4 554 C ACDFG AD Marsh Cove& No
Marshea If Marsh
38 Deep Trench 60 to 70 38*_13,N ?6, -w W '100 @20 554 ABFI, AMOPQ Aq Open Water No
OP Dump I
39 Deep Trench 70 to 82 38*-og,N .76o-14,w 50 24, 557 ABFL AMOPQ AQ Open Water No
OP Dump
Ln 40 Bloodsworth 65 38*-10,N 76-031W 100-270 45 555 BC ACDGH AH Marsh Marsh No
Island M
41 South Marsh 70 380-061N 76o-o2,w 100-150 25 555 BC ACDGII AD Marsh Marsh No
Island M
42 Holes off James 77 380-OOIN 750-541-30"W 100 10 555 BILO ADERP AQ Open Water No
Island Q Dump f
I. =a tb)
43 Roach Pt. 42 380-221-30"N 76*-58'W 9 3.6 572 AFIC ABF FA Dike Water No
.(Elk Neck) P
)I h Camp Rodney 110 39*-3.1'N 76-001W 1@ 3.85 5'12 ACi ABY FA Di ke Water No
(Elk Neck)
45 Rocky Pt. 38 390-29'N 76*-Oi,w 38 7.74 572 ACFI ACFB AD Dike Water No
(Elk Neck)
46 Carpenter Pt. 42 390-321-io,,w 76*-00#-3()" 7 ?.75 57P AP ABEF F Dike Water No
4? Boat 110 (S. Ga- 40 390-31'N 76-061W 24 8.6 572 AJG ABEFI. AB Dike Water No
ble) Havre de N
Gra ce
4@ Turkey Pt. 36, @9*-27'-30'111 760-021-4211 41 6.82 572 ACIJ FAEB AF IDike Water No
44 Speautie Is. 36 3Q--26--25"N 76--041-201-W 10 2.42 1-572 AIJ AFB AF IDike Water No

TABLF I

EVAILyknot, OF POTENTIAL SITE-

#6 #7
?L) - -1 --. /I/ 1 1
5Sassafras Neck =7 -71) 1 N 76--Ol 4.84 Aj(-,qy-i AFE AF Dike lWater No
'1.4 -V I A-tiii-ql AC
Shad Battery 39*-21,N '?6-- LI, W o4 It Dike er
Shoat
511 Lego Pt. to 26 390-191-J10"N 760-16-W 2;' '?4 AFGJll AFBIJ AJF Dike Water No
Ford Pt. EG
1; 1' Worton Pt. ;3 11 i?, -40"N ?6o - i i, - i.v, w 20 8 5119 FGIJ ADGE i AFD Dike Water No
@11 r@wan rt. to 17.5 .9*-08'N 760-iOw 5" 9 IQ DAGLF DG Marsh Marsh No
Crk. & Dike lWater
@'9-1'@.-4011N 6'-30"W 18 4.62 151,() lACDF Ck,I,JK JKA Marrh Marsh No
G & Dike Water
M@d Channel 13. - N ?-G 20 W 54 6.75 549 1 DGI. LDFC I LD Dike Water No
Ca U-1 3011 N '761 W 71 110 511@) A13 I A1,C131 BC Dike Water No
South)

Hawk Cove LC 7 6, 3c.,, w 4
-15' -50"N 2.8 1 549 AIDGF! FNB FN Dike WaterINO
5) M i tche L 1. 1 s - 14, - 2,,,, 1.11 76* - 1.61 1.4 65 F, . o 549, FGID DFC D Dike Water No
B. uff Buoy

9.0
6@)@ Cutoff allelf- 12.1 - N -/6'-' - 1 5`49
I I .9-P511W 85 BD.1 CDEL B DE Dike Water Marg.
Browerton-
ITolchesi.er
6, LIIlan-O-War 7 39o-101-30"N 76- -23.' W 75-100 13.3 549 BDEH CDEL BD EL IDike Water Marg.
Shoals NQ
6.1P a t a 1):-, c o R iv 1. 3 . 5 -li'N '76- -28 - -30"W 75-100 10.7 549 NQBDE C BD D .ike lWatcr or,
mouth HIFG
3-9 W a r. Pt. to 17-5 3q- -05 11 ?6.-15'W 549 DEBGL DG Marsh Water No
@.aslern Neck i P, 1) ike Mar:;h
61, Swan Pt. Chan- i.4.,@, 39- -05 - 30"N 76@-191-10"W 1R 10.14 549 BD CDE -BD C Dike Water Marg.
nel Anj@,Le
b)
C5 Bodkin IBDI DEIILMN N Dike, Shore No
lWaterl
Neck to 12.5 39'@051N ?G'-?-4- 0" W 54c)
SDndy PL.
H
DG

C
7-

TABLE I
EVALUATION.OF POTENTIAL SITES

@2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 Ao #.II #12 #13 #14
UiCraighill 15 390-03'-110"N 76*-2i-4o,,w 124 9.1 549 6DFJ CDEM B CD Dike Water Marg.
Ent ran cc
67 Belvidere Shual 12- 39'-06'N 760-221-3V'W 100-150 14 549 BDFGI CD BD Dike Water Yes

6!'_@ Cutoff Angle 12 390-07@N 760-201W 153 13.5 549 BDF1 CDB BD C -Dike Water Marg.
(South)
67@Kerit lr,. (West 19 390-OOIN CDG11M
76o-211W .550 J DG Dike Shore No
Iside) Water
70 @;edar Hurst 33 38'-49,-3U'N ?6,-291-3U'W 1225 i ADEFN Dike Water No

The f ollowing is an explanation of columnar entries in Table 1:

Column I -Numerical Listing.

Column 2-Identif ying Name of Area. Either the appropriate name of the area
or the name of the nearest prominent land or landmark.

Column 3-Distance.from Baltimore Harbor. Distance in nautical miles from the
Fort McHenry light. Numbers indicate approximate distances to the spoil
areas by the nearest water route.

Column 4-Latitude. . Approximate latitudinal position of the centroid of.the
indicated spoil area.

Column 5-Longitude, Approximate longitudinal position of the centroid of the
indicated spoil area.

Column 6-Capacity in Cubic Yards. Capacityis approximate and is based on
multiplication of the estimated area by.the assumed depth of spoil in
yards. For the purposes of estimation, the depth of spoil has been taken to
be average depth below mean low water plus 18 f ee't above mean low
water. Actual capacitites will vary depending on dike or area configuration
and height above@mean low water to which spoil is to be deposited.

Column 7-Area in Square Yards. Approximate usable area which has been
considered. Actual area will depend on chosen configuration.

Column 8-Chart Number. The number of the Coast & Geodetic Survey Chart on
which the area can be located.

Column 9-Advanta es. Lett ers indicate. advantages of area for use as spoil
2 T
disposal Meanings of letters are..shown in "Advantages" key which
f on ows.)

Column 10-Dis advantages. Letters indicate disadvantages of area for use as
spoil disposal. (Meanings of letters are shown in "Disadvantages" key which
follows.)

Column I I-Overriding Factors. In Column Ila (advantage's).and/or I lb
(disadvantages) are shown the factors which are considered to be overruling
in deciding whether to,accept or reject the area in question for
consideration as an area f or spoil disposal. Areas with entries in both
columns indicate'those considered to be worth further consideration but
marginal, depending on condition of use.

Column 12-Method. Indicates method of use as spoil disposal area as follows:
0 Dike Diked disposal area
0 Marsh. Land disposal area which will require method
f or. unloading and distributing spoil over the
m airsh area.

0 Dike Marsh. Use of a combination of offshore dike and
disposal over surf ace.of marsh.
0 Open Dump Dispos al of spoil directly overboard with no
articifical enclosure to contain spoil.

"ADVANTAGES" KEY-EXPLANATION OF LETTERS.

A-Not Near Oyster Beds. Indicates. that the area in question is f ar enough away
from -a usable, healthy oyster bed so that there should be no question of oyster bed
pollution.

B-Usef ul Size. Indicates that the area in question: is capable of handling at least
20 million.cubic yards of spoil.

C-Low Use Area. Generally applied to land or marsh areas being considered,
indicates that the area has only occasional use, is closed to.the public, has
very low popluation density, or is not suitable for residential or commercial
use.

D-Close to Dredging'Areas. Indicates that the area is in the immediate vicinity
of Baltimore Harbor or its dredged approach channels, thus requiring very
little transportation for dredged spoil.

E-Not a Wildlife Area..Refers to fast land or wetlands which are not considered
to be wildlif e ref uges, or breeding grounds.

F-Not a Navigational Obstruction. Indicates that use of the area would not
interfere with present ship or boat channels or the use of *navigational aids
and would not. present a hazard to waterborne traffic on the Bay.

G.-m-Non-interference with Water Flow. Indicates that the area is sufficiently
removed from the main Bay and river currents that its use would cause no-
appreciable change in normal water circulation.

H-Presently Used As a Spoil Area.

1--Diking Feasibility. Indicates that the area could be used as a diked disposal
area within reasonable economic limits. Includes short channel requirements,
reasonable water depths, availability of nearby diking material, and reasonable
access for work.

3 High Use Value as Reclaimed Lands. Accessibility is significant in this
category.

K-Reasonably Acceptable to Conservationists. No appreciable ecological damage.

L-No Construction Necessary. . Ref ers to area which could be used as open water
du ping area, eliminating use of dikes, sheet pilings or access facilities.

M-Low Value Wetlands. Indicates marshy areas which are not suitable f or wild-
life or are only marginally suitable--generally due to proximity to heavily
populated or industrial areas.

N--Probably Already Polluted. Indicates areas which probably have been damaged
already by pollution so that use as spoil area is not likely to cause signifi-
cant degradation of their use value.

0--Familiar Methodology. Indicates areas in which traditional methods of spoil
handling can be used with no change in techniques or facilities.
P-Fairly Economical. Indicates area where low cost or no facilities would be
required-generally applied to open water dumping areas.

Q-Good Accessibility. Indicates that the area can be used either with no addi-
tional channel,Fr with only a short channel; that the area is easily accessible,
for needed construction work; that reclaimed land could be easily reached and/or
spoil could. be transported to the immediate vicinity by a direct route.

"DISADVANTAGES" KEY-EXPLANATION OF LETTERS

A-Distance Too Great. Indicates that the distance from the Baltimore Harbor
dredging area to the disposal site is considered to be too great f or prac-
tical, economical use.

B-Difficult Access. Indicates that the area would be difficult or impossible
to reach with a hopper dredge, would require use of an extremely long pipe-
line, 6r would require a long circuitous route to reach the area.

C--Expensive Develo2ment. Indicates that use of the area would require expen-
sive dike configurations, long channels, impoundment areas, long pipelines,
and expensive spoil distribution and/or handling systems.

D--Proximity to Oyster Areas, Indicates that the area is close enough to healthy
oyster beds so that its use woul8 be likely to damage the oyster beds.

.E-Disturbance of Water Flow. Indicates that use of the area would be likely to
seriously interfere with the normal water circulation patterns in the Bay or in
adjacent waterways.

F-Insufficient Size. Indicates that the area is too small to be of any practical,
use as a spoil disposal area for the Baltimore Harbor proje ct.

G--Valuable Wildlife Area. Usually pertains to wetlands thought to be of high
value by authorities.

H--Valuable Crabbing Bottoms.

1--Undetonated Shells Present. Indicates that past use of the area. as an ordnance
impact area has led to the likelihood of spoil disposal operations or construc-
tion of sites being in danger from unexploded ordnance devices.

J-U.S. Government Owned Land. Indicates that ownership by the Federal Govern-
ment is likely to make the area unobtainable for use as a spoil disposal area.

K-Ordnance Impact Area. Indicates present use of area as a target for ordnance
testing, thus creating subsequent danger to spoil disposal operations.

L-Obstruction or Danger to Navigation Indicates that use of the area as a diked
disposal area would either obstruct channels presently used by waterborne craft
or would under some circumstances constitute a danger to ships or boats.

M--Disturbance of Fishing Areas. Indicates that use of the area for spoil disposal
will interfere with or prevent use of popular sport f Ming areas, move or damage
commercial fishing areas, or endanger fish spawning areas.

N--Conflicting Present or Intended Land Use. Indicates that the area in question is
being used or proposed for purposes of sufficient magnitude or importance either
to cause the land or water to be unavailable or to create a great deal of contro-
versy about its proposed use as A spoil area.

0--Spread of Spoil Outside of Designated Area. Applies to undiked areas in which
the spoil is likely to spread to considerable distance outside the intended spoil
area boundaries.

P-Sentiment Against Open Dumping.

Q-Possible Danger to Bay Ecology. Indicates that use of the area for spoil disposal
can reasonably be supposed to have a marked disturbing effect on the ecology of
the Chesapeake Bay.

USE OF DREDGED MATERIAL FOR BENEFICIAL PRODUCTS

8. In 1973, the State of Maryland contracted with Roy F. Weston, Incorporated, to
study the feasibility of producing beneficial products from Baltimore Harbor dredged
material. Consideration was given to natural aggregate, synthetic aggregate, lime,
bricks and, related clay products, and rock or mineral wool. Of the productive uses
investigated, the only one that was technically and economically viable was the
manufacture of synthetic aggregate. However, the high energy requirements of the
process and the long lead time until,production Q years) would still require the
identification of interim alternative disposal methods.

OPEN WATER DISPOSrltL IN THE ATLANTIC OCEAN

9. This disposal option was evaluated in the COE EIS for Hart-Miller Islands. It is
assumed that ocean disposal of dredged material could have'similar or less
environmental impacts to open water disposal in Chesapeake Bays Howeverp costs
for ocean disposal would be much greater.

FURTHER STUDIES

10. Subsequent to coordination of the Hart-Miller Islands DEIS, the Maryland
Department of Natural Resource accomplished further State-level review of Hart-
Miller Islands and alternatives for dredged material disposal. In 1975, Roy Mann
Associates was contracted to perform this review. The study reviewed the previous-
ly discussed alternative methods of disposal. This review concluded, "To date, no
alternative means of dredged material disposal have been shown to be free of
potentially serious environmental or economic difficulties."

11. In 1977, the State of Maryland prepared a report entitled, Management
Alternatives for Dredging and Disposal Activities in Maryland Waters. The report is
an analysis of the present disposal situation and suggestions for dealing with the
problems. The report describes various beneficial uses of dredged material such as
beach nourishment, marsh creation, land fill, lightweight aggregate, and land
reclamation. However, it appears that while these methods will bereceivingmore
consideration in the futurep these methods are not presently feasible.

12. Currently, the Maryland Department of Natural Resources is monitoring current
COE maintenance dredging operations in an effort to determine the effects of
overboard disposal on the Chesapeake.

DREDGE MATERIAL MANAGEMENT EFFORTS IN THE COMMONWEALTH OF
VIRGINIA

INTRODUCTION

13. From the year 1607 when the Godspeed, the Discovery, and the
Susan B. Constan' I)rought the Jamestown settlers through Tidewater to the banks of
the James River, the link Virginia has had with the sea has always been close. Safe
natural harbors and good access to the sea via rivers and the Chesapeake Bay have
greatly added to the prosperity and development of the Commonwealth. It is not
surprising that Cape Henry was the site of the. first Federally constructed lighthouse

.to guide ships safely into the rapidly developing Hampton Roads Harbor. This area
made up of Norfolk, Portsmouth, Chesapeake, Newport News, and Hampton has some
of -the finest and best known deep-draft ports in the world for both commercial and
naval shipping. Although Hampton Roads is a good. natural harbor, the,dynamics of
shifting currents and flowing bays and rivers deposit sand and mud that if allowed to
permanently accumulate would seriously hinder the ability of the harbor to provide
safe navigation for -the largest. of ocean vessels. The, Commonwealth of Virginia has
other. harbors that suf f er f rom the effects of water-borne sediment transport;
howeveri the magnitude of this problem shrinks rapidly when compared to the
problems with providing safe navigation in HamptonRoads through periodic dredging
0
and safe and economical spoil disposl.

14. Historically, shipping has relied on maintenance of sufficent channel depths to
ensure safe and efficient vessel movement. Such. maintenance requires periodic and
regular removal.of several million cubic yards of spoil material. This massive
dredging operation often. requires extraordinary efforts to. locate, construct, and
manage suitable spoil disposal sites. In many instances, years of minimum concern
for water quality has resulted in contaminated bottom sediments that further
complicates the disposal problem and necessitates careful measures to preserve
environmental quality.

THE NEED FOR SPOIL DISPOSAL

15. in the earliest. days of dredging, open-water disposal was the common practice.
Sites in the Hampton Roads Harbor were used. By the turnof the century, the
quantity-of material being dredged had increased, and a disposal site outside the
Hampton Roads Harbor was utilized.. Later, and with -bulkheading, more extensive
use was made of the original harbor disposal area. Other sites were developed near
the Lynnhaven River and north of Thimble Shoal channel, and used until security
reasons and Amphibious activities during World War 11 curtailed disposal here.
Dredging continued during the war and material "*as deposited in two areas west of
the entrance, to Hampton Roads (opposite Newport News-Hampton). However, these
areas were filled by@ the war's end.

16. Near the end of World War 11. (1944), the Congress authorized a study to
determine a more permanent and lasting means for disposing of. dredged material
from Hampton Roads. As a, result, development of a disposal area at Craney Island
was recommended and approved by the Congress. Actual'construction of the area
was completed in 1957. The initial capacity for storage of dredged material was
originally estimated to be-about 100 million cubic yards based on an assumed final
elevation of +18.feet: mean low,water (MLW). Over 130 million cubic yards have
been placed in Craney Island to date with the proposed raising of levees to +30 feet
MLW and use of other management practices such as dewatering, Craney Island will
serve as a disposal area for years to come,

STATUS OF HARBOR DEVELOPMENT AND NEED FOR SPOIL DISPOSAL

17. The first Federal project in Hampton Roads was adopted in 1907 providing for
navi-ational improvements to a depth of 25 feet in the Elizabeth River and portions
of the Eastern and Southern Branches. Since this first Federal project, the Congress
has authorized numerous other improvements, including periodic maintenance of
project depths. The existing project, authorized by the River and-Harbor Act of
1965, provides for a main channel depth of 45 feet to the major port facilities of
both Norfolk and Newport News. A feasibility study recommending deepening
certain channels in Hampton Roads to 551 has recently been completed by the
Norfolk District recommending dredged material to be placed in an ocean site and in
Craney Island.

18. Since its completion in 1957, Craney Island has received the spoil generated by
maintenance, private, and permit dredging activities in Hampton Roads. In 1974 the
Norfolk District, Corps of Engineers, estimated that the area had 5 and 6 years of
useful capacity before'being completely filled. The Waterways Experiment Station
(w8s) recently conducted a management study for Craney Island. Based on
maintaining harbor conditions as theyare, the study indicates that Craney Island
could be used for 19 years with current disposal methods and raising levees (+30
MLW). By utilizing other management practices, such as dewatering, the Craney
Is land site could be used for 36 years. The necessity for maintaining a disposal area
has been expressed by various public and private interests, particularly those engaged
in the protection and the enhancement of the port economy'and Virginia's marine
environment. Recognizing the importance of the Craney Island Disposal Area and
the need for a sui'table. replacement, the Committee on Public Works of the U.S.
House of Representatives adopted a resolution on 3 October 1968 requesting a study-
be completed on alternatives on dredge spoil disposal in Hampton Roads. A
feasibility report on the Norfolk Harbor and Channels, Virginia, deepening and
disposal was prepared in July, 1980, which presented dredging and spoil needs for
channels and anchorages in the Hampton Roads area. However, the choices of
alternative disposal sites was not restricted to the immediate area, or to sites that
would accommodate spoil disposal f rom current dredging methods. A number of
dredging and disposal plans were considered. Several of them were discarded early
having been found to be seriously deficient on either economic or environmental
grounds or both. Detailed analysis of the. remaining plans was accomplished with a
view to the technical, economic, environmental, and social needs of the study area.

THE PLAN

19. Formulation -of a plan to functionally supplement the Craney Island Disposal
Area involved consideration of a number of alternatives. Each. plan was considered
on the basis of its costs, benefits, environmental and social factors, and ability to
respond best to the dredging and disposal needs of the study area and considered the
following objectives:

- Provide a disposal area to rece 'ive dredged material from maintenance and new
work dredging activities in Hampton Roads,! for a period of 50 years, commencing at
the time when Craney Island Disposal Area is filled to design capacity.

Minimize the destruction of bottomlands, wetlands, coastal zones, and marine
lif eresources in the Hampton Roads area.
20'. It was necessary that the report recornmend the alternative that was in the best
overall public interest, considering the planning objectives, the benefits and costs,
and signif icant.economic, social, and environmental effects. In this regard, a set of
criteria were developed in an effort to assure that a fair and objective appraisal of
the merits and disadvantages of thevarious alternatives could be accomplished.

21. The criteria by which all alternative plans were evaluated were as follows:

- The plan should be capable of handling all types of dredged material, in small or
large quantities, and be able to accommodate all. types of dredging equipment.

- The system should function effectively in adverse weather conditions, be
capable of continued operation if a portion of the system is damaged, and if located
in overboard areas have levee construction to a height sufficient to withstand storm
tides and wave action.

The plan should have a useful life of at least 50 years.

The plan should be publicly acceptable, be adaptable to public needs, and exhibit
salvage or land reclamation benefits.

The plan should possess minimal adverse environmental e ffects, conform to.
existing public health standards, be safe with respect to operations on or adjacent
thereto, and be asaesthetically pleasing as possible.
The plan should minimize the commitment of natural resources and avoid
damage or destruction of important historic or cultural resources.

The plan should be consistent with local, regional, state, and national plans for
port and.industrial growth, land use, solid waste management, water andpollution
abatement, transportation, and recreation.

The selected plan should be competitive with other plans regarding the total
cost, operation and maintenance, replacement, a rapid cutback in costs if the load is
reduced, and the overall economic impact on the surrounding area.

22. rertainly no plan could be expected to satisfy fully all criteria stated. The
overall favorable response to application of criteria was thought to be a measure of
each plan's merit. Selection of the best plan (or plans) emphasizes optimization in
terms of technical, cost-per form ance, environmental, and social parameters.

23. Possible solutions to the problem of spoil disposal in Hampton Roads incl uded:

Reducing the amount of material to be dredged.

C onventional dredging with open-water disposal, or confinement within an area
similar to the present site.

RecYc li ng m ater ial to land f ro rn whence it originated.

- Reclamation of marginally useful !and.

- rommercial usage.
24. it was not.econ.omically feasible.or practical to appreciably reduce or stop
dredging in Hampton Roads. Certainly maintenance dredging could be, reduced at the
expense of losing some cargo trade. However, the existing project dimensions must
be maintained in the interest of national defense to accommodate large naval
vessels.
25. The possibility of reducing the. required 'rate of maintenance dredging by
reducing the rate of shoaling would require extensive knowledge of the source of the
ihoal material or the mechanism of its transport'and deposit.

26. In Hampton Roads, conventional means of dredging include hopper, hydraulic
pipeline, and bucket and scow dredging. For many years a conventional means of
disposal has been in open water. Knowledge that much of the spoil. in Hampton
Roads is polluted and could adversely affect the environment of open-water areas
would prohibit unrestricted use of this means of disposal in the future. It is assumed
that ocean disposal of good quality (non-polluted) material, as that which'comes from
Thimble Shoat Channel, can be continued. Approximately 80% of Norfolk Harbor
material meets EPA/COE guidelines for ocean dumping. Therefore. the current goal
is ocean disposal for suitable material and confinement in C rianey Island for material
which does not meet ocean disposal criteria. In addition, the Norfolk District is
looking into removing material from Craney Island which meets ocean disposal
criteria to increase capacity of Craney Island for material not suited for ocean
disposal. With regard to pollution abatement, the better solution to ihe proble 'M, of
spoil disposal is in using an area such as the existing Craney Island Disposal Area. At
such a site, spillways or. sluices are used to control effluent density and effect a
more positive retention of all material.

27. Another possible solution for disposal of dredged material is to seek some means
for its beneficial use rather than characterizing it as a "waste to be disposed of."
Some possible uses in this manner would include 9a) agricultural, construction,
lowland, or topsoil f iffi, N creation of marshland; (c) rehabilitation of blighted areas
such as strip mines, eroded are"as, borrow pits, and gravel pits; (d) creation of hills.or
islands for aesthetics, recreation, residential-industrial-or commercial development,
and others. The greatest drawback to this solution is in developing a technically
possible and economically feasible plan or combinations of plans, whose useful life
would amount to at least 50 years, and whose capacity could accommodate an
estimated annual input of several million cubic yards of dredged material.

28. The following plans were considered for. disposal of dredged material from
Hampton Roads (refer to Figure):

'Raising the existing levees at-Craney Island.

Westward extension of the existing Craney Island with levees to 17 feet msl.

Westward extension of the existing Craney Island with levees to 29 feet msL

Willoughby Bay.

Ocean View Area.

- Hampton flats.

- Ragged Island.
Horseshoe Area off Buckroe:Beach.

Chesapeake Bay.

Nansemond County.

Nsposal at sea.

Truck haul to abandoned borrow pits.

Inland, disposal by rail haul.

r)o nothing.

29. Table 2 summarizes the major features of the 14,plan alternatives studies plus
two additional alternatives for at-sea disposat.

nRET)GEn MATERIAL RESEARCH PROGRAM

30. The nredged Material Research Program (DMRP) was administered by the Corps
of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station and islessentially complete. It was a 5
year program authorized to address the. quest ions.of why, and under what
circumstances does the disposal of dredged material produce adverse environmental
impacts, To date, it has produced more than 100 technical reports that have been
widely distributed within and outside-the Corps of Engineers. Among these are
reports that address the dynamics of -open water disposal, the management of
containment facilities, and the p6ssible beneficial uses for dredged material. A
summary of the results of this. program. is presented in this section.

OPEN WATER T)ISP0SkT_

31. Witli f ew. exceptions, the, physical ef f ects-:-the logical and easily predicted
physical eff ects-are more important than chemical or biological effects. By
physical eff ects- it is meant the smothering of a clarnbed, the,ftruption of a flow
pattern, a change in salinity, or a similar effect6 'These possible consequences of
disposal operations.4re. persistent, often irreversible,and co pounding. However,
they*are infrequent and can be avoided with the judiclousapplication of available
evaluative procedures. The T)MRP has achieved results from theoretical, laboratory,
and fieldinvestigations in inland and coastal waters that soundly substantiate that
most fears over the short-term release of contaminants to the disposal site waters'
are unfounded. As. long as th e geoche.mi.cal environment is not basically changed, as

TABLE 2

Comparison of Alternatives f or- Dredged Material
Disposal for Hampton Road Harbor

t useful lonjoi gommismost "110 t 10 IW
Alternative of romeove*4 PAJOT Saws"Ofts PAIDT AIGS&VqAtems

A- Into* OxIsAag
love@ 1.03 It Ile Additional law C"tiessamisece Share lies Detailed study 1.3.4 over 5

b- westward extension 1.30 30 2.360 acne of sort" cose/comweetafte social Impact Detailed stud 1.2.4 beer M
bottom

C_ Wastwacd "teasion. 1.05 12 No additional low cost/cOar"Ience &oclot Impact Detailed steel 3.3.4 "or 3
raised

D- Willoughby Day 1.40 16 1.300 merge of out" Coot fteer lifelsawer* WOO 3.3.2 ever 4
bottom social Impact

It- atexa, View 2.20 19 4.30 ecrea of "rim Vestal lift Operstlegual seem- Need, 3.1.5 over 4
bottom Weald"Wiestiftelal
&wee

IN Sampten flat* 1.10 24 1.600 befog *1 merino cow"aleft* Cause adverso Circa- IN" 3.2 over 4
bottom I'll I" of CUTFOoto
6 OWL*ntatioa

C- Rallod Island 1.60 17 2.300 acres of votlaud Cost Resource commiterst ftes S oor 4

a- nucltro* Saach 2.70 49 6.100 acres of series Useful lite Need model tootlas Detailed study 5.4 *.or 3.1
bottom

I- Chosapeok* bay 3.00 37 2.1144 acres of satin@ coffol lite access- Need swat tootlaxi Detailed study 5.4 ever I.I(c)
bottom lbility Cost

j- manneftood 2.20 63 5.000 acres of swamp 0@6101 lifelcon- potential for astfue Detailed s"y 4 ever.S.3
forest habitat Wastafte comcaminatias of
ground dater aquifer

9- Sea by hopper 2.90 Unlimited Now Useful lite Need testing for Poo- Detailed study 4,15.3 over I
died$* otble adverse effects
go marine "Wiroln"t

L- Sea by barge from 3.00 ' UNIJOICOd None useful lite No" tied study &J.I 4wev 1
cramay Island sibi -tl;g be,&
t
so "it" environment

16- sea by PIPOLANO 2.60 Uallatted none Useful lite Oned testing for Von- Detailed study 4.3.3 over I
ethic a a
GO,

W Sea by special 1.70 Uslimited No" useful lift - Need tooting for Poo- Detailed otude
Dredge ethic o*vvroo effects
sorlso sovirommost

O@ 7Wwc11 MO to 3.20 short lite pao* Reclamation of boi- Useful lifoltoteatial none 5.1 ever 4
Oandofted borrow raw pit for *Aine costmolea-
pit* ties of Ormad water
aquifer

F_ Inland diapseal by 4.30 50(s) ftso 2"Ismottes of C09411otouttal for ft" I'S Ower 2.6
call I-awl strip otmoo/ww- "It" contamIN&U06
lot It(*. of ground water
aquifer
0- Do bothlas 0 U&IL@Itod None No resource loc room* unit ship- sm.* 5 ever 4.3
comst@t IN$ costelleopardive
sattmat fares** Poo-
rule

do! Numbers represent the peramotev for each alternative: I.#. go. 4 r*prowats -major bd,.Sales*.
(b) Numbere to Matlassl#" appear is order of might Isfulsoctoa decision.
It) This plan woo originally rejected for reemes. of cost bad Moll d *rutting of correct movements withts Chesapeake ley. Since It cam be "do
"I ad when &be Chesapeake may "del to completed. this Via& due vocals" for further study &I %hr re"Ot of the re altb *I
A **Orel III@ of 94 years woo aosamod for tooilrd purposed, In reality. total useful capacity within a reasonable Artois& distance is moll.
40) W-y#or lite asommd for testing purposes.

is the case with open water disposal, most contaminants are not released from the
sediment particles to the water. Some nutrients such as ammonium and manganese
and iron are released, but in most cases, enough mixing is present to rapidly dilute
these to harmless concentrations.

(70NFINET)* D ISPOSAL

32. Next to open water disposal, confined containment of 'dredged material as a
conventional alternative has been the most extensively investigated under the
TWRP. ronfining contaminated material on land or in shallow water next to land
can be an environmentally sound and preferred alternative, but not inherently better
than open water disposal. If a confined disposal site is to be effective from ari
environmental protection standpoint, it must be efficient in retaining a high
percentage of the finer soil particles for it is the clays and silts that carry the
contaminants. These are admittedly the materials most difficult to retain in an
area, but if they can be, the effluents should be essentially nontoxic except for
occasional situations where nutrient levels and oxygen depletion may be excessive.
However, there are cases where sites are simply incapable of providing adequate
retention. Addressing these situations, DMRP studies have found that coagulants and
flocculents can be quite effective for effluent treatment, and treatment system
design and operation guidelines are being developed based on actual field tests.

33. In terms of time., effort, and cost ., the most expensive aspect of confined
dredged material disposal can be the land acquisition. Moreover, available land
certainly will continue to become scarcer and scarcer. The DMRP has included
studies aimed at alleviating. or, I e ssening this problem. These have dealt,with
methods to increase the storage capacity of existing sites and/or concepts for
making existing sites reusable. Extensive DMRP field tests have proven that it is
possible to dewater even some of the more dif f icult types of dredged material so
that disposal sites can store more sediment and less water. A side benefit of this
dewatering is improved engineering characteristics of the densified material.

BENEFICIAL USE OF nRET).GET) MATERIAL

34. r)redged material, particularly dewatered dredged material, is not a substance
without value for landfilling or in construction. Every cubic yard that can be
removed f rom a containment area and used, donated, or sold of f site f or any -purpose
is a cubic yard of new storage capacity gained. Numerous possibilities exist for
separating and handling materials in, a site and actual field situations have
demonstrated that use is possible within the site for purposes such as haul road
construction and dike raising. Oredged material is also a substance that can be used
to create or improve wildlife habitat--examples of this already exist in nearly every
Corps nistrict in the co 'untry. Small islands created by dredged material disposal in
inland waterways and coastal.bays and estuaries are a special, type of upland habitat,
development. Several'reg lona I surveys sponsored.by the T)MR.P have shown that
there are more than 2,000 of these Corps-built islands that have become extremely
valuable wildlife habitat. In fact, a majority of the total U.S. population of several
colonial nesting birds such as sea gulls, terns, and herons are dependent upon islands
of this type for their survival.

35. Marsh creation using dredged material is nIow a proven, viable alternative that
can be designed and implemented as reliably as any other alternative. Also, certain
misconceptions about this alternative, can be firmly dispelled. in particular, it can be
easily demonstrated that marsh development does not necessarily eventually
preclude the disposal of material from subsequent maintenance dredging projects.
There are examples where phased marsh development, with or without other disposal
alternatives, has been planned in such a way asto accommodate maintenance,
dredging for periods of 50 years or more. While marsh development is a field tested
and proven alternative, it is not a simple one and it is not inexpensive. However,
costwise, it is definitely with other alternatives and less expensive than some.

36. Another major part of the T)MRP has been.the development and testing of
concepts for non-wildlife oriented beneficial or productive -uses of either dredged
material itself or disposal sites. The DMRP found that, perhaps more than in any
other alternative, successful use of the material or the sites as a natural resource
requires favorable and often fortuitous circumstances, but these do occur. Non- '
technical factors outweigh technical ones more as a rule than as an exception and
requirements for coordination and cooperation in land use planning are exceptional.
Many products such as aggregate and bricks have been made using dredged material,
sometimes successfully, and the ootential for new concepts is unlimited. However,
very few are likely to ever succeed in view of the.quality and undependability of the
supply of the raw material, the requirements for capital investment, and especially
the need for favorable market conditions. The only@concept with apparent potential
for at least regional application field tested by the nMRP was the use of
conventional disposal sites for the mariculture of shrimp.

37. r
.onsidering productive uses of dredged material, the T)MRP has not overlooked
the value of the land created when a disposal site reaches capacity. Most disposal
sites filled with the fine-grained materials from maintenance dredging are not
suitable for industrial or commerical development f r6m a foundation engineering
point of view, but they can be ideally suited for recreational development. While it
is not the present policy of the rorps, to expand its role in recreation to include
navigation projects, there is a need for recreational facilities in this context and
many non-Federal groups are interested. One DMRP study has pointed out the issues
related to such use of disposal sites, including funding available, maintenance
responsibility, and guarantees of public land use. Another has analyzed case histories
in an attempt to find out why certain productive land uses@ have succeeded and others
have failed. These include but are not limited just to recreational uses. Other
studies are evaluating laws and regulations at all levels impacting on land uses and
are determining the land values and associated benefits created by disposal sites.

OCEAN r)ISPOSAL

38. Disposal of materials dredged from the Chesapeake Bay into the ocean environ-
mental has occurred in the past at several locations. Environmental Protection
Agency ocean dumping regulations and criteria promulgated January 11, 19779
.however, identified one of these previously utilized areas, i.e., Dam Neck, as the
interim ocean dumping site for this geographic area. Interim sites such as Dam Neck
were to remain valid for a period not to exceed 3 years from promulgation pending
completion of baseline or trend assessment surveys and designation for continuing

use or termination of use. Thenarn ,Neck ocean disposal area was to be discontinued
by January @980, however, its use was extended by the EPA until a.pproval of the
current Norfolk ocean disposal site investigations have been completed. Currentlyt
the EPA,:NOAA, and 10ie COE are cooperating in an ocean site designation program
for the rhesapeake Bay region..

39. 'in discharging the.Federal responsibility to assess the suitability of the disposal
areas provided for the Baltimore Harbor Channels deepening, certain technical
investigations were performed at these areas as well as at several additional sites.
In all, one cont@ined site, two wetland creation sites, one sand stockpiling site, one
ocean disposal site, and five Bay open water disposal sites'were examined.
Evajuation of study data resulted in the rejection of two sites based on excessive.
transportation costs for one site, and probable adverse environmental impacts at the
other site. Additionally, two sites studied in Maryland were not offered by,the non-
Federal sponsor, and the ocean,disposal site pends designation by EPA (refer to
Ocean Disposal, page 23). A summary of the evaluation program Is contained In
Table 3.

TABLE,3

DISPOSAL AREAS EVALUATION SUMMARY

FIGURE GDM
SITE LOCATION NUMBER TYPEI/ INVESTIGATIONS 2/ STATUS REMARKS

Hart & Miller Upper Chesa- L-4 Contained None Selected Subject of EIS prepared
Islands peake Bay for regulatory permit and
(UCB) identified by non-Federal
sponsor.
Kent Island UCB None Open water 1. Bulk chemical Not off ered Historically utilized dis-
2. Elutriate by non-Fed. posal area.
3. Sediment type sponsor.

Patapsco River UCB None Open water 1. Bulk chemical Not offered Historically and currently
Neck 2. Elutriate by non-Fed. utilized disposal area.
3. Sediment type sponsor.

Smith Island UCB None Wetland 1. Cultural recon Rejected Rejected on basis of
creation 2. Feasibility excessive transportation
analysis costs.

Tangier Island Lower Chesa- L-2&3 Wetland 1. Cultural recon Not identified Subject to Commonwealth of
peake Bay creation 2. Cultural survey by non-Fed Virginia interest (refer
(LCB) 3. Feasiblity sponsor to Section Q. Excessive
analysis construction costs.

Rappahannock LCB L-2 Open water 1. Bulk chemical Selected Historically utilized
Shoal Deep 2. Elutriate disposal area.
3. Sediment type
4. Cultural recon,

Wolf Trap LCB L-1 Open water 1. Bulk chemical Selected Historically utilized
2. Elutriate disposal area.
3. Sediment type
4. Cultural recon
5. Cultural survey

TABLE 3 (continued)

DISPOSAL AREAS EVALUATION SUMMARY

FIGURE GDM
SITE LOCATION NUMBER TYPE I/ INVESTIGATIONS 2/ STATUS REMARKS

Cape Charles LCB None Open water 1. Bulk chemical Rejected Results of biological survey
Deep (or Old 2. Elutriate -- indicate relatively high
Plantation 3. Sediment type diversity and abundance of
Flats) 4. Cultural recon fish and invertebrate spe-
5. Biolo$ical survey cies. Community was addi-
tionally evaluated as highly
susceptible to disposal impacts.

Fort Story Virginia Beach None Stockpile Literature Standby Subject to participation by
Virginia review non-Federal interest (refer to
Section Q.

Dam Neck Atlantic Ocean L-1 Open water I.; Bulk chemical Undeter- Interim ocean disposal site
.2. Elutriate mined designation expires Jan 80.
3. Sediment type This or other site to be,
4. Cultural recon designated by EPA in the future.
Refer to Section K for details.

Norf olk Atlantic Ocean L-I Open water Literature Standby Ocean disposal site designated by
review EPA and the Norfolk District,
Corps of Engineers.

I/ Wetland creation sites were investigated under the authority of Section 150 of the Water Resources Development Act
of 1976. This authority is subject to a limit of $400,000 per site and assumes that benefits are equal to costs.
Ref er to Section L f or more detailed discussion.

2/ Bulk chemical, elutriate, and sediment type investigations may be found in Appendix D of the GDM; refer to Section K
for cultural reconnaissance and survey discussions; refer to Section L for w6tiand creation feasibility analysis and
stockpiling discussions.

FINAL

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Proposed Plan for I)eepening the Existing Baltimore Harbor and Channels Project,
Maryland and Virginia.

The responsible lead agency is the U.S. Army Engineer District, Baltimore.

Abstract: The Baltimore District has investigated public concerns to deepen the existing
channels and approaches to Baltimore Harbor to meet the existing and prospective needs
of navigation. Since the depth for the channel has been determined, only alternative
locations and methods for placement dredged material were investigated.

The project consists of dredging in Maryland and Virginia waters. The dredged material
from the Maryland channels will be placed in a confined disposal site in the Bay,
therefore the disposal alternatives are limited to dredging of the Virginia Channels.
Methods of placement of dredged material consist of wetland creation, stockpiling,
placing overboard in the ocean, placing overboard in the bay, or anycombination. The
selected disposal method is a combination of placing material overboard in the ocean and
bay with selected material to be stockpiled for beneficial reuse.

If you would like further information on this
statement, please contact:
Mr. Robert N. Blama
U.S. Army Engineer District, Baltimore
P.O. Box 1715
Baltimore, Maryland 21203
Commercial Telephone: (301) 962-2558
FTS Telephone: 922-2558

NOTE: Information, displays, maps, etc. discussed
in the Baltimore Harbor and Channels, Maryland
and Virginia Main Report are incorporated by
reference in the EIS.

SUMMARY

Major (7-onclusions and Findings

The Baltimore Harbor and Channels, Maryland and Virginia (501 project) was authorized
by (7ongress in 1970 on the basis of a Review Report completed in June 1969. The June
1969 Review Report developed costs and benefits for increasing channel depths from 42
to 50 feet in the main channel and to various other depths in the side channels. Benefits
were maximized for the main channel at the 50 foot depth. Advanced Engineering and
I)esign studies (AF&D) were initiated in 1976 to affirm the need for the study, update
costs and benefits and accomplish engineering and design of the project sufficient to
support Congressional funding for construction. Since this is an affirmation study, no
additional depths have been investigated, however various locations and methods for
placement of dredged material have been further defined.

Material from the Maryland channels will be placed in the confined H-art-Miller Island
site. The three Virginia channels in the bay to be dredged are the Cape Henry Channel,
near the confluence of the bay and the ocean, the York Spit Channel near the York River
and the Rappahannock Shoal rhannel near the Rappahannock River. Disposal options
under consideration for Virginia channels were wetland creation at Smith and/or Tangier
Islands in the rhesapeake Bay, stockpiling sand at Fort Story near Virginia Beach, and
various ocean and bay disposal areas.

Material from the r@ape Henry 17hannel will be placed at the proposed Norfolk District
Corps of Engineer's designated Norfolk Ocean Site about 17 miles offshore or at the
existing ocean site Oam Neck). Placement in either ocean site was chosen due to the
close proximity of the channel and these sites. Selected material suitable for beneficial
reuse will be placed from this channel at Fort Story. N4aterial from the York Spit
r@hannel will be placed overboard in the Wolf Trap disposal site located about 3 miles
northwest of the channel. This site was chosen due to the close proximity to the channel
and since this is a currently used disposal area. The dredging in the Rappahannock Shoal
r7hannel will be placed overboard in the Rappahannock Shoal disposal area located about
8 miles northwest of the channel. Similarily, this site was chosen for its closeness to the
channel and its previous use as an area for placement of dredged material.
Wetlands will not be eliminated during dredging or deposhion of the dredged material
with implementation of the project and the project is therefore in compliance with EO
11990, Protection of Wetlands. A 404(b)(1) evaluation was performed and concluded that
no major adverse environmental impacts would occur from the placement of dredged
material. Also, since plan implementation will not occur within the 100-year floodplain,
the proposed project is in compliance with EO 11988 Floodplain Management.

F-I S-2

Areas of Controversy

One area of controversy during the planning process, although not as a part of the
authorized deepening project, was the use of Hart-Miller Islands, by Maryland, as a site
for placing material dredged from the Maryland portion of the project. An
environmental impact statement concerning the permit for Hart-Miller Island
containment area was filed by the Corps of Engineers with EPA in 1974 and a permit was
granted in 1976 to construct the site. Opponents to the containment area claimed the
Environmental Impact Statement was inadequate and the permit was improperly issued
since the structure that would contain the fill would require congressional approval under
the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. A Federal district court ruled that the Corps erred
in issuing the permit, however, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that
decision. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court which declined to hear the
arguments on 17 November 1980, thereby letting the Appeals Court decision stand and
requiring the District Court to decide the remaining issues. The District Court ruled on
these issues 24 December 1980 in favor of the government. Subsequently, Maryland has
reiterated its assurances and restated that the disposal site for dredged material in
Maryland is Hart-Miller Islands.

Unresolved Issues

There are no major unresolved issues concerning the Baltimore Harbor and Channels
project at this time.

Relationship to Environmental Requirements

Certain environmental requirements, executive orders, and other policies of the Federal,
State, or local governments must be met in order to implement the project. Table EIS-1
presents these concerns and their relationship to various aspects of the plans.

El S- 3

TABLE - EIS I

RELATIONSHIP OF PLAN TO ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS

Proposed Plan
Federal Statutes

Archeological and Historical Full Compliance
Preservation Act, as amended

Clean Air Act, as amended Full Compliance

Clean Water Act of 1977 Full Compliance

Coastal Zone Management Act of Full Compliance
1972, as amended

Endangered Species Act of 1973, Full Compliance
as amended

EstuarV Protection Act Full Compliance

Federal Water Project N/A
Recreation Act, as amended

Land and Water Conservation NIA
Fund Act, as amended

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Full Compliance
Act

Marine Protection, Research Full Compliance
and Sanctuaries Act

National Historic Preservation Full Compliance
Act, as amended

National Environment Policy Full Compliance
Act as amended

Rivers and Harbors Act Full Compliance

Watershed Protection and N/A
Flood Prevention Act

EIS-4

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, N/A
as amended

Executive Orders, Memorandum, etc.

EO 11988 Floodpl'ain Management Full Compliance

EO 11990 Protection of Wetlands Full Compliance

EO 12114 Environmental Effects Full Compliance
of Major Federal Actions

Analysis of Impacts on Prime and N/A
Unique Farmlands

State and Local Policies

Coastal Area Management Amendments Full Compliance
1974

NOTES: - The compliance categories used in this table were assigned based on the
following definitions:

Full - All requirements of the statute, E.O., or other policy and related
regulations have been met.
Partial - Some requirements of the statute, E.O., or other policy and
related regulations remain to be met.
Noncompliance - None of the requirements of the statute, E.O.,,or other
policy and related regulations have been met.
N/A - Statute, E.O., or other policy not applicable.

EIS-5

BALTIMORE HARBOR AND CHANNELS, MARYLAND AND VIRGINIA

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Page

COVER SHEET EIS-1
SUMMARY EIS-2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section

1. NEEDS AND OBJECTIVES OF ACTION EIS-7
a. Study Authority EIS-7
b. Public Concerns EIS-9
c. Planning Objectives EIS-10

2. ALTERNATIVES EIS-10
a. Plans Eliminated from Further Study EIS-10
b. Without Condition (No Action) EIS-11
c. Plans Considered in Detail EIS-12
d. Comparative Impacts EIS-13

3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT EIS-13
a. Environmental Conditions EIS-13
b. Signif icant Resources EIS-16

4. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS EIS-23
a. Hydrodynamic & Hydrologic Effects EIS-23
b. Water Ouality Effects EIS-24
c. Threatened and Endangered Species EIS-27

5. LIST OF PREPARERS EIS-29

6. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT EIS-29
a. Public Involvement Program EIS-29
b. Required Coordination EIS-29
c. Statement Recipients EIS-29
d. Public Views and Responses EIS-30

7. INDEX, REFERENCES AND APPENDICES EIS-31

8. SECTION 404(b) EVALUATION EIS-34

EIS-6

1. NF-EDS AND 0133ECTIVES OF ACTION

a. Study Authority

1.01 The Baltimore Harbor and Channels Maryland and Virginia project modification,
were authorized by Section 101 of the River and Harbor Act, dated 31 December 1970,
Public Law 91-6tl, which states:

"The following works of improvements of rivers and harbors...are hereby adopted
and authorized to be prosecuted by the Secretary of the Army, acting through the
Chief of Engineers, in accordance with the plans and subject to the conditions
recommended by the Chief of Engineers in the respective reports hereinafter
designated.

Baltimore Harbor and Channels, Maryland and Virginia: Chief of Engineers report
dated September 21, 1970, except that not to exceed $40,000,000 is authorized for
initiation and partial accomplishment of such project, and except that construction
shall not be initiated until approved by the Secretary of the Army and the
President."

1.02 The existing project for Baltimore Harbor and Channels was adopted by the River
and Harbor Act approved 8 August 1917 and provided for additions to the project existing
at that time and for the inclusion of all Federal river and harbor works in the Patapsco
River, its tributaries, and approaches into one project. Adopted by the Act of 1917, and
modified by the River and Harbor Acts approved 21 January 1927, 3 July 1930,
17 October 1940, 2 March 1945, and 3 July 1958. The authorized project as of 1958
consisted of:

(1) A uniform main channel 42 feet deep, between the Virginia Capes and
Fort McHenry at Baltimore, Maryland, with dimensions as follows:

(a) Cape Henry Channel: 42 feet deep and 1,000 feet wide from the 42-
foot depth curve in tfie Atlantic Ocean to that depth in Chesapeake Bay, a distance of
1.0 miles.

.(b) York Spit Channel: 42 feet deep and 1,000 feet wide connecting the
42-foot depth curves in Chesapeake Bay near York Spit, a distance of 10.4 miles.

(c) Rappahannock Shoal Channel: 42 feet deep and 800 feet wide
connecting the 42-foot depth curves in the Chesapeake Bay opposite the Rappahannock
River, a distance of 5.3 miles.

(d) Baltimore Harbor Approach Channels: 42 feet deep and generally
800 feet wide, widened at the approach and bends, from the 42-f oot depth curve in
Chesapeake Bay opposite the mouth of the Magothy River to Fort McHenry on the
Patapsco River, a distance of about 20 miles.

EIS-7

(2) Branch channels with dimensions as follows:

(a) Connecting Channel to Cheseapeake and Delaware Canal Approach
Channel: 35 feet deep, 600 feet wide, and 13.0 miles long from the Cutoff -Brewerton
Angle in the main channel to the 35-foot depth curves in the natural channel on the east
side of Chesapeake Bay which is part of the inland waterway f rom Delaware River to
(@hesapeake Bay. The channel includes the Brewerton Extension and Swan Point and
Tolchester Sections.

(b) Curtis Bay 42 feet deep, 600 feet wide, and 2.2 miles long from
the main channel to and including a turning basin at the head of Curtis Bay.

- A channel, 35 feet deep and 200 feet wide, from the 42-foot channel
in Curtis Bay to 750 feet downstream of the Pennington Avenue Bridge.

-A channel, 22 feet deep and generally 200 feet wide, from the 35-foot
channel. to and along the marginal wharf of the Curtis Bay Ordnance Depot.

- An irregulary shaped, 3-acre basin, with a depth of 18 feet, adjacent
to the head of the 22-foot channel.

- A basin, 15 feet deep and 450 feet wide, f ro m the end of the 22-foot
channel to the end of the marginal wharf.

A channel, 22 feet deep and 200 feet wide, from the 22-f oot channel
south of the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Bridge to the vicinity of Arundel Cove, a
distance of 4800 feet, thence 100 feet wide in Arundel Cove for a distance of 2,100 feet,
with an anchorage basin, adjacent to the channel and southwest of the wharf of the Coast
Guard Depot at Curtis Bay.

(d) Middle Branch:

- Ferry Bar East Section: A channel, 42 feet deep and 600 feet wide,
from the main channel at Fort McHenry to Ferry Bar, a distance of 1.4 miles.

Ferry Bar West Section: A channel, 35 feet deep and 400 feet wide,
from the Ferry Bdr East Section to Ferry Bar, a distance of 0.8 mile.

Spring Garden Section: A channel, 27 feet deep and 250 feet wide,
from Ferry Bar to and including a turning and anchorage basin immediately below the
Western Maryland Railway Bridge, a distance of 1.0 miles.

(e) Northwest Branch:

- East Channel: 950 feet wide and 39 feet deep.

- West Channel: 650 feet wide and 35 feet deep.

EIS-8

- Federal maintenance of 39-foot or 35-foot deep channels after either
depth has been provided by local interests.

(3) Anchorages with dimensions as follows:

(a) Riverview Anchorage No. 1: 35 feet deep, 4f500 feet long, and
1,500 feet wide.

(b) Riverview Anchorage No. 2: 30 feet deep and 2,400 feet long, and
1,200 feet wide.

(d) Ouarantine Anchorage: 3,500 feet long, 600 feet wide and 35 feet
deep.

1.03 The 31 December 1970 authorized modification for Baltimore Harbor and Channels,
as shown in Figures I through 3 provides for:

a. Deepening the Cape Henry Channel from 42 feet to 50 feet and extension to
50-f oot depth curves.

b. Deepening the York Spit Channel from 42 feet to 50 feet and extension to 50-
foot depth curves.

c. Deepening the Rappahannock Shoal Channel from 42 feet to 50 feet, widening
f rorn 800 f eet to 1,000 f eet, and extension to 50-f oot depth curves.

d. r)ee pen ing the Main Ship Channe I f ro rn 42 f eet to 50 f eet and extension to 50-
foot depth curves.

e. Deepening the Curtis Bay Channel from 42 feet to 50 feet.

f. Deepening the Northwest Branch-East Channel to 49 feet deep and limiting the
width to 600 feet, with a turning basin at the head of the channel from that depth
existing at the time of construction.

g. Deepening the Northwest Branch-West Channel to 40 feet deep and limiting
the width to 600 feet, with a turning basin at the head of the channel from that depth
existing at the time of construction.

b. Public Concerns

1.04 Baltimore Harbor has historically ranked as one of the leading ports in the nation
and the world both in terms of tonnage and dollar value. The rapid growth of
international bulk trade during the past two decades and the concurrent expansion of the
world bulk fleet, both in terms of number of vessels and their size, have led to a
considerable expansion and improvement of port facilities worldwide. Most of this
development has been directed towards providing deep water and cargo handling

EIS-9

facilities to accommodate large bulk carriers safely and efficiently, such vessels offering
the most efficient means of transporting large volumes of commodities. Currently, over
seventy 100,000+ deadweight ton (T)WT) terminals are scheduled to become operational.
With current depth restrictions at Baltimore Harbor, the larger bulk carriers calling on
the Port in increasing numbers every year cannot load to their capacity, making water
transportation of Baltimore Harbor less efficient. As Baltimore Harbor is primarily a
bulk cargo port, economical water transportation afforded by deep shipping channels is
paramount in keeping Baltimore active and contributive to other United States and world
ports.

1.05 The water depths in the ship channels in and leading to Baltimore Harbor are
presently inadequate to accommodate the existing and future large bulk cargo carriers in
the world fleet. Currently, a significant number of vessels in Baltimore Harbor's major
bulk trades cannot load to capacity due to the 42-foot water depth restrictions. This
situation is likely to worsen in the future as volumes of commerce at Baltimore and ship
sizes in the world fleet increase. Further information may be found in Section F of the
General r)esign Memorandum (GDM).

1.06 The public has expressed some concerns with the actual construction of the
project. The type of dredging to be used and the resulting effect on the hydrologic
salinity and water quality regimes have been identified as problems. The identification
of Hart-Miller as the site for placement of dredged material, the safety of the
containment site and effects upon water quality f ro m the Hart-Miller containment area
have been areas the public has expressed concern about.

. c. Planning Objectives

1.07 Prior to initiation of the General Design Memorandum (GDM), the findings of the
most recent investigations of the project were contained in the Review Report,
Baltimore Harbor and Channels June 1969, which was subsequently supplemented by a
report entitled, Baltimore Harbor and Channels, Maryland and Virginia - Supplemental
Information Requested by the Office of Management and Budget to June 1969 Review
Report, 19 July 1974. The purpose of these prior reports was to evaluate the need for,
and advisability of, deepening the existing channels and approaches to Baltimore Harbor
in order to meet the existing and prospective needs of navigation.

1.08 The purpose of the GDM (an advanced engineering and design document) is to
affirm the authorized plan of improvement; taking into account environmental and
technical considerations, economic feasibility, social impact, public involvement-, and
refine the design, construction schedule, and operation /maintenance plan for the
authorized improvements.

2. ALTERNATIVES

a. Plans Eliminated From Further Study

2.01. The June 1969 Review Report considered plans of improvement for channels
ranging from 43 feet to 50 feet. Economic studies were undertaken to determine
potential transportation savings to shippers resulting from the use of larger, deeper-draft
vessels in the ore, coal, petroleum, sugar, and general cargo trades. Benefits and costs

E I S - 10

were calculated for deepening to channel depths ranging f rom 42 to 50 feet in the main
ship channels and the Curtis Bay Channel, from 35 to 50 feet in the Northwest Branch-
East Channel and from 28 to 40 feet in the Northwest Branch-West Channel.

2.02 Benefits for deepening the main channels, including the Northwest Branch-East
Channel, from 42 feet were maximized between 49 and 50 feet (See Table H-2 Main
Report). Fifty feet was the selected optimum depth, with a corresponding benefit-cost
ratio of 1.26 to 1. The Northwest Branch-East Channel was selected for a depth of 49
feet since no additional benefits accrued for 50 feet. Net benefits from deepening the
Northwest Branch-West Channel from 28 feet were maximized to 40 feet, with a
corresponding benefit-cost ratio of 26.9 to 1.

2.03 The 1974 Supplement to the Project Document, presented an updated economic
analysis for the project and evaluated the feasibility of deepening only the inbound
portion of the channels to 50 feet. Although the inbound-only channel was found to have
a higher benef it-cost ratio, the 50-f oot inbound and outbound channel was recommended
due to safety reasons.

2.04 The Middle Branch of the Patapsco River, which consists of Ferry Bar East, Ferry
Bar West and Spring Garden channels, will remain at present depths and not be
deepened. Increasing the depth in these channels was not recommended since the local
interests did not express an interest in deepening these channels because the type of
vessels utilizing the channels do not require increased depths.

2.05 (-onsideration was given for increased anchorages in the Patapsco River, however in
view of modern communication systems and the availability of deep water South of the
William Preston Lane, 1r. Memorial Bridge, it was found that additional anchorages
facilities were not needed. The area south of the bridge is currently used as an
anchorage and modern communications make it possible for ships to leave this anchorage
and arrive at a berth when it is vacant with practically no delay.

b. No Action

2.06 Without the implementation of the authorized improvements for the Baltimore
Harbor channels the maximum draft of vessel using the port would be limited to the draft
now accommodated. Constriction of larger ships in bulk trade fleet and improvements to
other United States and foreign ports to accommodate larger ships could reduce the
economic efficiency of the port and this region, particularly in the area of bulk
commodities. A very high percentage of the port's commerce consists of bulk
commodities which are moved most efficiently in large carriers, and the trend towards
such carriers is clearly evident in the Port of Baltimore.

2.07 Use of large carriers at the Port of Baltimore will require the inef f iciencies and
economic disadvantages of light-loading to insure safe navigation. As the Port is
Maryland's single most important economic asset loss of commerce would have a
significant effect on the State's economic and social well-being.

ETS-11

c. Plans Considered in Detail

2.08 Since this study is an affirmation of the authorized plan of improvement, no
additional plans were considered. The plan considered in detail in this study is the
authorized modification for Baltimore Harbor and Channels as described previously.

2.09 T)eepening the existing Federal channels and approaches to the Port of Baltimore
involves the dredging and placement of approximately 71.8 million cubic yards (mcy) of
material. The navigation improvements to the channels in Maryland waters requires the
dredging and disposal of about 41.2 mcy of material while deepening the Virginia
channels involves dredging and deposition of about 30.6 mcy of material.

2.10 In addition, non-Federal interests have to agree to deepen any private channels, at
their own expense, which would lead to the Federal channel. The estimated quantity of
material from private channels is 2.5 mcy of material 0 98 1) at a cost of $10.5 million
dollars (1981 price levels).

2.11 Following authorization of the project (1970), plans for placement of the dredged
material have proceeded, both prior to and during the course of the General Design
Memorandum (GT)M). The project document reflects a requirement that non-Federal
interests identify and provide all lands, easements and rights-of-way required for
construction and subsequent maintenance, including suitable areas for initial and
subsequent disposal of dredged material and any necessary retaining dikes. Areas
considered for placement of dredged material are presented as follows:

HATZT_MTLLER

2.12 In order to provide for an acceptable disposal area, the State of Maryland initiated
a study which looked for adequate areas in the bay for placement of dredged material.
Among approximately 70 different sites which were studied, the State identified Hart-
Miller Islands as the most suitable site. (See Figure L-4). Consideration was given from
an engineering, economic, and ecological perspective. Opposition to the use of Hart-
Miller resulted in lengthy litigation (see Areas of Controversy, page F-IS-2). The use of
this area for placement of dredged material from the Maryland channels has been
reconfirmed by the State of Maryland.

2.13 T)redged material placement for the Virginia channels has been further studied in
Advanced Engineering and T)esign (AE&r)). Plans which have been studied in some detail
include overboard disposal, stockpiling, and wetland creation. In the Virginia section of
the project, the dredged material will be placed overboard in various sites. The York
Spit material will be placed overboard in the Wolf Trap Disposal site (Figure L-0, and
Rappahannock Shoal material be placed in the Rappahannock Shoal Disposal site (Figure L-2).
The (7ape Henry material be placed, at the Norfolk Disposal site in the ocean, (Figure L-5),
or at the existing ocean site Mam Neck). Also, suitable material from the Cape Henry
channel will be placed at Fort Story for beneficial uses. Besides these disposal areas,
other sites were considered for disposal and are as follows:

(-APIE CHARLES

2.14 rape r@harles, also known as Old Plantation Flats is a deep trench lying within a
long trough. The salinities in this area range from 24.0 - 29.3 ppt and have depths down
to 155 feet. This site is located west of Cape Charles City and has never been used as a

ET S- 12

disposal site. Results of Biological surveys indicate relatively high diversity and
abundance of fish and invertebrates, This site also includes a number of exotic or
incidental species (i.e. two species"of coral).. The biological community was additionally
evaluated as highly susceptible to disposal impacts. For these reasons, this site was
eliminated from further study.

TANGIER ISLAND

2.15 Tangier Island is the most southerly of a series of marshy islands separating
Chesapeake Bay and Tangier Sound. It is located about 65 miles north of Norfolk,
Virginia, and 15 miles southwest of Crisfield, Maryland. The island is about 5 miles long
and 1.5 miles wide. The western shore of the island is undergoing erosion problem with
the shoreline receding approximately 20 feet per year.

SMITH ISLAND

2.16 Smith Island is also a marsh island separating Chesapeake Bay and Tangier Sound.
It is located about 10 miles west of Crisfield, Maryland (Figure L-2). The island is
approximately 8 miles long and 4 miles wide. As with Tangier Island, the western shore
of Smith Island is undergoing severe erosion with the shoreline receding about 8 feet per
year. Biological surveys by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 1978 showed the benthic
fauna in the area of erosion as quite limited. However, due to excessive transportation
costs, this site was rejected.

2.17 Further information on the type, status, and studies performed on these areas may
be found in Table 1-4 of the main report.

2.18 It is clear that selection of locations of dredged material sites are greatly
influenced by economic costs of transporting and placing dredged material. The plan of
using the Norfolk Disposal Site for Cape Henry material, the Wolf Trap site for York Spit
material and Rappahannock Shoat site for the Rappahannock Shoal Channel material is
the most cost effective. Taking all the dredged material to the Norfolk Disposal Site,
while it would eliminate any impacts from placement of material in the Bay, would be
much more expensive.

d. Comparative Impacts of Altematives

2.19 Impacts on significant resources and plan economic characteristics are displayed in
Table EIS-2. Since the Old Plantation Flats site was eliminated for environmental
concerns and detailed costs were not developed, it is not displayed in the table.

3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

a. Environmental Conditions

GENERAL DESCRIPTION

3.01 Chesapeake Bay is the largest estuary on the Atlantic Coast of the United Staes
and it lies entirely within the Atlantic Coastal Plain. Its main axis is oriented in a north-
south direction, roughly parallel to the Atlantic Coast. It has a free connection with the
waters of the Atlantic Ocean at its southern extreme. The tidal shore line is about 4,600
miles in length, of which 3,400 miles are in Maryland and 1,200 miles in Virginia. The

El S- 13

TABLE - ELS-2

Comparative Impacts of Alternatives

Effects on Cultural Amount.of Material
Disposal Sites Fin and Shellfish Resources Site Can Accommodate Wetlands Economics

Rappahannock Shoal Minor, Temporary None All material from N/A
Rappahannock Shoal Channel.

Wolf Trap Minor, Temporary None All material from York N/A
Spit Channel.

Norfolk Site Minor, Temporary None All material from all N/A
channels.
w Dam Neck Minor, Temporary None Material from Cape
Henry Channel. N/A

Fort Story N/A N/A About 500,000 to 750,000
cy of sand from the Cape
Henry Channel. N/A

Tangier Island Minor, Temporary None About 15,000 cy of sand Will be
from the Rappahannock created.
Shoal Channel.

Bay is about 200 miles in length and varies in width from 4 miles near Annapolis and the
William Preston Lane, Jr. Memorial Bridge to about 30 miles at its widest point near the
mouth of the Potomac River.

3.02 The Bay proper has a mean depth of less than 28 feet; the entire system including
tributaries to the head of tide, averages about 21 feet deep. There are deep areas which
occur as long narrow troughs. These troughs are thought to be remnants of the ancient
Susquehanna River valley which have not been filled by post- Pleistocene sediments. The
deepest of these holes (about 174 feet) occurs off Kent Island where the Bay is at its
narrowest. Additionally, many navigation channels lead to Baltimore (42 feet with
Congressional authorization to deepen to 50 feet), and to Hampton Roads, near Norfolk,
Virginia (45 feet).

REGIONAL GEOLOGY

3.03 The Coastal Plain in the Cheseapeake Bay region is underlain by a thick, wedge-
shaped series of sedimentary formations which strike northeast and dip gently toward the
southeast. These "soft" rocks are composed -of mostly unconsolidated beds of sands,
clays, marls, and gravels, which range f rorn Lower Cretaceous to Recent in age. The
thin edge of the wedge lies along the inner westernmost portion of the Coastal Plain
while the thick portion underlies the Atlantic Coast where information from deep drilling
in the vicinity of Ocean C Nty, Maryland, shows the Coastal Plain sediments to be in
excess of 7,500 feet thick. The basement upon which these sedimentary formations rest
is composed of very ancient, predominantly pre-Cambrian, crystalline rocks upon which a
prolonged pre-Cretaceous erosion cycle produced a peneplained surface. Along the inner
edge of the Coastal Plain the crystalline rocks emerge from beneath the overlapping
unconsolidated formations along a line of demarcation known as the "Fall Line', which
marks the head of navigation on such major tributaries to Chesapeake Bay as the
Patapsco River at Baltimore, the Potomac River at Washington, and the Rappahannock
River at Fredericksburg, Virginia. The Fall Line also marks a topographic change
westward, from the f [at or gently rolling low elevations of the Coastal Plain to the
higher elevated, bolder relief of the Piedmont Plateau.

HY11RODYNAMIC ANT) HYDROLOGIC CHARACTERISTICS

3.04 Chesapeake Bay is a complex, dynamic system. The ebb and flood of the tides and
the incessant action of the waves are the most readily perceptible water movements in
the Bay. The mean tidal fluctuation in C hesapeake Bay is small, generally between I and
2 feet. The mean range of tide is 2.8 feet at the Cape Henry Channel, 2.3 feet at the
York Spit Channel, 1.4 feet at the Rappahannock Shoal Channel, 0.8 foot at the Craighill
Entrance, 0.9 f oot in the rutoff Section, 1. 1 f eet at Fort McHenry, and 1.2 f eet at
Poole's Island in the upper Chesapeake Bay. Fluctuations in the water surface elevation
in Baltimore Harbor caused by lunar tides are insignificant when compared with
fluctuations from weather conditions. Average maximum tidal currents range from 0.5
knots to over 2 knots (I knot equals I nautical miles or 6,076 feet per hour). Except
during periods of unusually high winds, waves in the Bay are relatively small, generally
less than 3 feet in height. The mixing in the estuary of sea water and freshwater creates
salinity variations within the system. In Chesapeake Bay, salinities range from 33 parts
per thousand at the mouth of the Bay near the ocean to near zero at the north end of the
Bay and at the heads of the embayments tributary to the Bay. Generally speaking, the
annual temperature range in Chesapeake Bay is between 0 degrees Centigrade and 29
degrees Centigrade. Because the mouth of the estuary is close to the sea, it has a

El S- 15

relatively stable temperature as compared with the upper reaches. Dissolved oxygen
levels vary considerably both seasonally and according to depth. During the winter, the.
Bay is high in dissolved oxygen content. With spring and higher water temperatures, the
dissolved oxygen content decreases. While warmer surface waters stay near saturation,
in deeper waters the dissolved oxygen content becomes significantly less. Through the
summer, the waters below 30 feet become oxygen deficient.

WATER OUALITY

3.05 Water quality conditions in the Chesapeake Bay Area vary widely due to a variety
of factors, e.g., proximity to urban areas, type and extent of industrial activity, -
streamf low characteristics, amount and type of upstream land and water usage. A
blanket statement would probably conclude that the water quality of the Bay itself is
good, with most of the severe problems occurring in the tributaries 'especially near areas
of high population concentrations.

ECOLOGY

Finfish and Shellfish

3.06 The Chesapeake Bay serves as a nursery and spawning ground for fish of both sport
and commercial importance. The most productive Bay waters are located in areas of low
salinity in the Upper Bay and corresponding portions of the major tributaries. The
northern part of the Chesapeake Bay, including the C&D Canal, is probably the largest of
all spawning areas in the Bay. This area plus the upper tidal portions of the Potomac,
York, Rappahannock, James, and Patuxent Rivers, represent about 90 percent of the
anadromous fish spawning grounds. The utilization of Baltimore Harbor as spawning
habitat is very limited. The Harbor is, however, used as a nursery and feeding ground by
several fish species, white perch being the most abundant.

3.07 The most economically important species of shellfish are the oyster, blue crab and
the softshell clam. Virginia is the nation's leading producer of blue crabs and Maryland
leads the nation in the production of softshell clams and oysters.

Waterfowl

3.08 The numerous productive areas located around the Bay are valuable as feeding and
resting areas for the numerous flocks of ducks and geese that travel the Atlantic
Flyway. Also, the abundance of upland areas scattered around the Bay is valuable for the
development of nesting colonies as well as'an area for resident and migrating songbirds.

b. Significant Resources

HYDRODYNAMIC AND HYDROLOGIC CHARACTERISTICS

Salinity

3.09 The salinity of Chesapeake Bay ranges from slightly below that of the open ocean
at the Virginia rapes to f reshwater at the Susquehanna f lats in the upper bay. At
Baltimore, the surface salinity varies from an average of 5 parts per thousand in the
f all. At the mouth of the Potomac River the surf ace salinity varies f rorn I I to 18 parts
per thousand, while at Cape Henry it varies f rorn 23 to 29 parts per thousand.

EI S- 16

3.10 Within the Bay proper, and its major tributaries, there is super-imposed on the tidal
currents a less obvious, non-tidal, two layered circulation pattern that provides a net
seaward flow of lighter, lower salinity water in the upper layer and a flow up the estuary
of heavier, higher salinity waters in the deeper layer. The tidal currents provide some of
the energy necessary for the mixing of the two layers.

3. 11 The Baltimore Harbor Channels in Maryland are located in the mesoholine
ecological zone (5-18 ppt salinity) near its transition with the oligohaline (0.5-5 ppt
salinity) zone. There is a longitudinal salinity gradient which may undergo significant
variations dependent on the amount of freshwater inflow from the Susquehanna River.
During periods of high freshwater inflow the salinity at the Patapsco River and the Bay
Bridge may be 3 ppt and 6 ppt respectively. During dry periods the salinity may increase
to 8 ppt at the mouth of the Patapsco River to 13 ppt at the Bay Bridge.

3.12 The three Virginia channels are located in the polyhaline zone of the Bay (18-30 ppt
salinity). This ranges from about 19 ppt at Rappahannock Shoal Channel to 30 ppt at
Cape Henry. During periods of high freshwater inflow the salinities in the upper waters
may drop as much as 5 ppt.

Currents

3.13 Average maximum tidal currents range from 0.5 knots to over 2.0 knots. The
velocity of the flood current varies in strength from about 1.0 knot at the entrance to
Chesapeake Bay to about 0.6 knots at the Craighill Entrance Channel. The velocity of
the ebb current varies from about 1.5 knots at the entrance to the bay to 0.7 knots in the
Craighill Entrance.

3.14 T)uring 1972, the Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences (VIMS) performed an
intensive sediment sampling and analysis study of the Baltimore Harbor Channels in
Virginia under contract to the Norfolk District of the United States Army Corps of
Engineers. The results of that study may be found in Appendix C. During 1977 and 1978,
VIMS performed a similar study under contract to the Baltimore District (Appendix D).
This later study included sampling in the new channel areas and potential overboard
disposal areas - areas not investigated in 1972. While repeating parameters from the
earlier study, new parameters were added by suggestion of the Technical Advisory
Group. Both studies included surface sampling and sampling beyond project depth by
vibracore borings. The 1978 study also included both deep and surface sampling from the
project channels in Maryland, and elutriate analysis for all proposed overboard disposal
areas.

WATER QUALITY

3.15 Water quality as a whole in Chesapeake Bay is considered good. In the upper
portion of the Bay, nutrients carried by Susquehanna River waters, largely as a result of
runoff from extensive fertilized agricultural areas and the wastewater discharges appear
to be the major problem. Depression of dissolved oxygen (DO) concentrations below
ronowingo Dam, located near the mouth of the Susquehanna River, following late
summer deep water discharges, causes occasional fish kills.

3.16 In the Patapsco River and especially the Baltimore Harbor Area, analysis of the
water quality has indicated'that many sources of pollution exist. Among these are
wastewater discharges, direct industrial discharges, sewerage overflows and leaks into

EI S- 17

the harbor tributaries, urban runoff, and spills of hazardous substances from vessels and
dockside facilities. Major problems include low dissolved oxygen contents, high bacterial
concentrations and undesirable levels of other pollutants such as heavy metals and oil. In
the middle and lower Chesapeake Bay, water quality is good with most of the problems
occurring in the tributaries and near areas of high population concentration.

3.17 Material to be dredged f rom project channels in Virginia have been found to contain
low levels of all parameters tested when compared with guideline levels recommended by
the Spoil Disposal Criteria C ommittee, a group established by the State of Maryland, to
identify dredged material potentially unsuitable for overboard disposal. The Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 111, recognizes these guideline levels as reasonable and adequate
when applied to placement of dredged materials in the waters of the Chesapeake Bay.
Results of elutriate analyses performed for the dredging and disposal areas showed little
affect upon ambient water quality.

3.18 Borings taken by Ocean /Siesmic /Survey, Incorporated, in 1977, indicate that soils in
the Maryland channels are all hard or very compact silty to clayey sands. The interpre-
tation of the generalized soils profile indicates that harbor bottom deposits of varying
thickness are underlain by estaurine deposits across the width of the harbor. The harbor
bottom deposits contain decomposed organics and petroleum residue, while the estuarine
deposits are soft to stiff organic clayey silts or organic sandy silts. Underlying these
materials is a stratum of compact to very compact silty sand to gravelly sand. Sediments in
Maryland waters tested by VIMS during 1978 revealed the pattern demonstrated by a study
of Baltimore Harbor sediments conducted by the Environmental Protection Agency during
197 1, and by the yearly testing performed by Maryland Department of Natural Resources on
the approach channels to the harbor prior to maintenance dredging. This pattern consists
of a grossly polluted surface layer of sediments within the inner harbor, diminishing in level
of contamination as the harbor mouth is approached, and finding sediments in the project
channels in the Bay suitable for open water disposal.

ECOLOGY

3.19 Within the Bay, the three main sources of primary production are phytoplankton,
submerged aquatic vegetation, and wetland vegetation. These are limited to relatively
shallow areas where light can penetrate to the bottom. The Chesapeake Bay is one of the
most highly productive estuarine systems in the world. The Bay serves as nursery and
spawning grounds for a variety of different species.

3.20 Benthic invertebrates of the polyhaline zone in the lower Bay exhibit a high diversity
and a distribution pattern which is largely determined by the patterns in bottom sediment
type. The benthic invertebrates play an essential role in the aquatic food web by serving as
food sources for a large variety of species in higher trophic levels. Among the
invertebrates of particular interest are the commercially harvested species.
3.21 in the lower Bay, the largest commercial fishery is for blue crabs (Callinectes
sapidus . Harvesting occurs on a year round basis and includes a winter dredging fleet.
Female crabs migrate south during the late summer and fall to the higher salinity water's of
the lower Bay. The adult females pass the winter in the deeper portion of the lower Bay, an
area which includes the York Spit and Cape Henry channels. During the spring, the crabs
move into shallower water, where they will spawn in late spring and summer. After
hatching, the zoeae larval stage remains planktonic for about 6 weeks. The greatest
concentrations'of zoeae occur between Cape Charles and Cape Henry in the upper water

ETS-18

levels in the vicinity of the channel, with lesser numbers up-Bay and seaward. As they pass
through the megalops stage and into the young crab stage, they settle to the bottom and
migrate up-Bay.

3.22 There is a very minor commercial fishery during the winter for rock crabs Cancer
irroratus). Rock crabs move into the lower Bay f rom the Ocean in mid-November and
depart in April. They are found east of the Bay Bridge-Tunnel -and the lower York Spit.
3.23 Commerical harvesting of hard clams ( 'Mercenaria mercenaria) is centered primarily in
the Bay tributaries. Although the clams occur throughout the lower Bay, their
concentrations are apparently only high enough to support a modest commercial f ishery
there. There are likely to be scattered populations of hard clams in the Virginia channels,
particularly in Cape Henry and York Spit and possibly in the disposal sites. The records of
commercial harvest of soft clams from the Bay waters in the vicinity of the Baltimore
approach channel are shown in Section 10. In general, most soft clams are found in waters
less than 20 feet deep. Oysters (Crassostrea virginica) are abundant in many parts of the
estuary and comprise an important commercial fishery in.Mlaryland and Virginia. The
numerous small bays, coves, and inlets between the Chester and Nanticoke Rivers along the
Eastern Shore and the lower portions of the Patuxent, Potomac, York, Rappahannock, and
1ames Rivers account for approximately 90 percent of the annual harvest of oysters in the
Bay. Since oysters are most abundant in waters less than 25 feet deep and occur
infrequently in waters greater than 35 feet deep, productive oyster bars are not located
close to the Virginia channels or deep water disposal sites. Chartered oyster bars in the
vicinity of the Baltimore approach channel are shown in Figures K-3 and K-4 of the main
report. Although all these bars are open to public harvest, some are no longer productive.

3.24 In 1972, J. A. Musick (VIMS) listed about 285 species of fish known to occur in the
Bay. A great majority of these species range in both the upper and lower reaches of the
Bay. Some of the fish that use the Bay as a nursery include the striped bass, weakfish, shad,
alewife, blueback herring, croaker, menhaden, and kingf ish. A variety of prominent
freshwater and marine finfish in the Bay include such species as the spot, seatrout,
flounders, yellow perch, white perch, catfish, and sunfish. A large number of desirable
sport fish species are found in the Bay at various times and places, with about a dozen being
of principle interest. There is virtually no tidewater zone that does not have an abundance
of some sought-after species. Types of fishing range from dip netting for river herring at
the head of the Bay to deep fishing for large drum in the southern section. The upper Bay is
known for its spring run of anadromous (American shad, alewife, blueback herring, hickory
shad, and striped bass) and semi-anadromus (white perch and yellow perch) fish to their
spawning grounds in the upper reaches of the tributaries.

3.25 The distribution and abundance of fauna in Baltimore Harbor is quite distinct from that
of the Bay due to the impact from the large Harbor industrial complex. The Harbor may be
divided into three zones: The semi-healthy zone which extends f rom the mouth to Fort
Carroll; the serni-polluted zone which lies between Fort Carroll and Fort McHenry; and the
polluted zone which is composed of the inner harbors and tributaries. This survey 5 evealed
31 invertebrate speciesin t? Harbor. Benthic biomass was low wit only 2.9 g/m in the
semi-healthy zone, 1.7 g/m in the semi-polluted zo es, and 0.2 g/m in the polluted zone.
These values are significantly less than the 19.6 g/m found at the Chester River reference
station. The principal reason for the paucity of benthos is the fact that the sediments are
grossly contaminated with a number of pollutants. In addition to the large amount of
chemical pollutants, the Harbor also has high concentrations of coliform bacteria and
associated organisms. A new species of amoeba, Acanthamoeba hatchetti, which causes
death in laboratory animals, has recently been isolated from Harbor sediments.

El S- 19

3.26 The utilization of Baltimore Harbor as spawning habitat is very limited. The
Harbor is, however, used as a nursery and f eeding ground f or several f ish species, white
perch being the most abundant, although many show signs of stress. Several bottom
dwelling species are conspicuously absent, probably due to the polluted nature of the
bottom sediments.

DRET)GED MATERIAL AREAS

3.27 The following areas were identified as potential sites to be used for placement of
dredged material. These sites are presented here as to their resource conditions from an
ecological viewpoint.

Dam Neck

3.28 The Dam Neck disposal site is a previously used interim site which is approved by
EPA for the disposal of dredged material which satisfies their criteria for ocean dumping
(EPA, 1970). At this time, there is no information on the benthic community. This site
ties within the migratory route of many fish species, such as spot, weakf ish, croaker,
rockfish, and summer flounder. Bottom sediments are predominantly mud according to
1978 grab samples (see Appendix D of the GDM). This site is scheduled to be closed for
disposal when the *Norfolk Disposal Site is approved by EPA, however the Norfolk
District, Corps of Engineers is looking into extending the use of Dam Neck for placement
of clean sand suitable for beach nourishment.

Norfolk Disposal Site

3.29 This site is located approximately 17 miles offshore of the mouth of Chesapeake
Bay. It is a circular site with a radius of about 4 nautical miles. Sediments in the site
consist of fine to medium grain sand. Benthic sampling has been performed. and no
important commercial species are available in harvestable quantities. Further
information may be obtained from the DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
entitled Norfolk Disposal Site, being prepared by the Norfolk District Corps of Engineers.

Fort Story

3.30 Fort Story is a military reservation located adjacent to Virginia Beach and on Cape
Henry. A 30-acre site consisting of wide, flat beach fronting a high dunal system,
followed by a heavily vegetated and natural bottom land was identified for the storage of
sand. This area has been used to stockpile sand for potential beachf ill at Virginia
'Beach. This area has previously been used for storing sand from the Thimble Shoal
Channel. The storage capacity at this site is approximately 500,000-750,000 cubic yards.

Tangier Island

3.31 Tangier Island was investigated as a potential location for placement of dredged
material for erosion control. Erosion on the western shore of the Island is a severe
problem, with the shoreline receding approximately 20 feet per year. It was considered
that placement of spoil material along the shoreline in the sublittoral zone, protected by
a submerged dike, could protect the existing shoreline from erosion.

F-I S-20

3.32 A Virginia State Task Force consisting of State, local, and Federal agencies was
formed to study the erosion problem at Tangier Island and recommend possible solutions.
VIMS, as part of the State Task Force study, conducted a survey of the benthic species
along the western shore in 1976. They found that the area was surprisingly productive with
60 species of invertebrates identified and a faunal density of approximately 4,000
individuals per square meter. The major groups were: polychaetes (36 percent by number,
25 species), molluscs (39 percent by number, 9 species),'amphipods (16 percent by number, 6
species), isopods (5.7 percent by number, 5 species), miscellaneous (3.3 per cent by number,
15 species). No grass beds or significant concentrations of commercially harvested species
were identified in their report.

Hart and Miller Islands

3.33 Hart Island and Miller Island are located in the Upper Chesapeake Bay, north of the
mouth of the Patapsco River. The site is approximately 13 miles due east of Baltimore
City, near the mouth of Back River in Baltimore County. The islands are adjacent to one
another, once having been a single land mass with sediments composed primarily of sand
with an underlying clay bottom. There are wetlands on both islands and a significant
portion of Hart Island is forested. The State of Maryland will construct a diked disposal
area adjacent to the island to contain bottom sediments dredged from Baltimore Harbor and
its approach channels. The containment area will be located on the eastern or bayward side
of Miller and Hart Islands at the mouth of Back River about one mile from the nearest point
on the mainland. The 19 100 acre enclosure will contain 52 million cubic yards of sediment
when filled to its capacity of 18 feet above mean low water (mlw).

Rappahannock Shoat

3.34 This disposal site, located approximately 8 miles north of the Rappahannock Shoal
Channel, was studied by VIMS during 1961-1964. The benthos was characterized by large,
apparently natural fluctuations in numbers and, to some extent, species composition.
Typical species found in the sampling included Enis (razor clam), Mullinia (little surf clam)
and Molgula (sea squirt). The disposal area is approximately 2.75 square miles. Initial
dredging for the 42 foot project was placed in this area and since that time maintenance
dredging has not been required. Sampling then, and in 1978 (see Appendix D of the GDM),
indicates that bottom sediments are predominantly clay silt. This area was investigated by
an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS-1976) prepared for consideration of permit
application. Further information concerning this site can be found in that EIS.

Wolf Trap

3.35 The Wolf Trap site is a previously used open water disposal area approximately 3.97
square miles in size. Dredging f or the 42 foot project and subsequent maintenance '
dredgings have been placed here. To accommodate spoil from the 50-f6ot deepening, it has
been proposed that the disposal area be expanded approximately 1,500 yards eastward.
Unfortunately, there has been no monitoring to assess the biological impacts of the previous
disposal operations. Consequently, prediction of the impacts of disposal in the extended
.area is difficult. The previously used area will be utilized before extending the spoil
dumping into new areas. It appears that there are no important commercially harvested
shellfish concentrations in close proximity to the Wolf Trap site. Blue crabs may
averwinter in this area, although the major concentrations occur southward. Bottom
sediments are predominantly mud.

ETS-21

THREATENED ANY) ENDANGERED SPECIES

3.36 Species of plants or animals which are endangered of becoming extinct or are
considered rare, and any habitat considered critical for these species survival, are to be
protected to the extent practicable in accordance with the Endangered Species Act of 1973.

3.37 C urrent ly, there are two threatened and I I endangered species which occur or
possibly occur in the Chesapeake Bay area. A complete list may be found in Section K of
the GT)M.

CULTURAL

3.38 The Corps of Engineers is required by the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (Public Law 91-190), Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (Public
Law 89-665), and Executive Order 11593 (Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural
Environment) to identify all sites and properties within a project's potential
environmental impact that are eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic
Places. To comply with these laws, a cultural resources reconnaissance of the Baltimore
Harbor and C hannels, channel extensions, and overboard disposal areas was prepared by,
the Karell Institute, Arlington, Virginia, underwater cultural specialists, in the summer
of 1978.

3.39 The cultural resources reconnaissance (Mueser et, al 1978) consisted of a
documentary literature search and evaluation of the side scan sonar geophysical survey
data to locate and identify shipwrecks and other submerged anomalies in the Baltimore
Harbor and Channels. Nine potential shipwreck anomalies and thirty five smaller targets
including scattered iron debris, oil drums, chains and lost anchors were located in the
navigation channels. It was recommended that an Intensive Survey be undertaken to
obtain a closer look at the suspected cultural resource anomalies along with undertaking
a proton magnetometer survey of the Baltimore Harbor and Channels.

3.40 A marine intensive survey was conducted by J. Joseph -Murphy and Associates in
1979. This consisted of proton magnetometer and side scan sonar surveys in areas not
covered by Mueser and physical (hands on) observations by divers.

3.41 A number of magnetic anomalies were recorded and interpreted as being widely
scattered debris. No significant cultural targets or submerged sites wer "e found during
the Intensive Survey. Three potentially significant cultural targets were located through
Remote Sensing and Navigation Chart data. One target was identified. as a large
mushroom type mooring anchor. A second target, a sunken ship, was located 1/4 mile
west of the York Spit Channel. The third object, another. sunken ship, was apparently
removed in the mid-1970's by the U.S. Coast Guard as an obstacle to shipping. In
addition, two unidentified anomalies were located and dived on in the York Spit
Channel. A large cement mooring block and a large mushroom type anchoring were
located. Both of these objects are above the 50-foot depth and may be obstacles to
dredging. Their removal prior to channel dredging, is recommended. No additional
investigations in the project channel areas are recommended. For additional details, see
Section K of the Main Report.

EIS-22

4. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

a. Hydrodynamic and Hydrologic Effects

4.01 As part of investigations for the General Design Memorandum, tests on salinity and
velocity were performed on the Chesapeake Bay Hydraulic Model in regard to the
Baltimore Harbor and Channels AE&D study. Salinities were recorded for surface, mid
depth and bottom waters. Results of the model tests have indicated that some salinity
differences are associated with deepening the channels.

4.02 Surface waters in Chesapeake Bay south of Tangier Island generally tend to become
more saline, while surface waters up bay from Tangier generally become somewhat less
saline. Mid depth and bottom waters generally became more saline in the bay during the
test. Test results at the mouth of the James and York Rivers indicate a reduced salinity
intrusion with fresher deep water.

4.03 The increase in salinity at the bottom depths was greatest in the deeper channels
rather than the shallower adjacent areas. This was expected to occur since saline water
is more dense than freshwater and the deeper an area is the more saline it usually
becomes. The majority of increases based on seasonal averages and reflected by the
model tests were in the range of 0 to 2 ppt dif f erence. In general, salinity dif f erences
attenuate with distance f rorn the deepened channel and at shallow water stations. Since
organisms within the bay usually live within a range of salinities and since salinity
distribution varies from year to year, the small salinity increases should not adversely
affect the biota. If salinity is criticat to certain organisms survival their distribution
may be shifted to adjust for any salinity changes which may occur.

4.04 The increase of freshwater at the mouth of the James and York Rivers could cause
a shift in biota distribution if the freshwater increase continues up the tributary.
rertain organisms living at the extreme ends.of their 'salinity tolerance may have to
redistribute. Areas which were non-productive for oysters may now become productive
while other oyster areas may become degraded. The presence of the oyster drill, MSX,
and other pathogens and predators may be forced out of existing areas. The changes in
salinity appear.to be small enough not to significantly impact the overall ecosystem of
the tributaries.

4.05 The greatest salinity dif f erence indicated by the model tests were . in the Patapsco
River where a majority of the results were greater than 5 ppt saltier. Stations in
nondeepened side channels within the Patapsco River and the main bay connecting
channel leading to the C&D Canal indicate a somewhat reduced salinity response
compared with adjacent main channel stations. Differences at shallow-water stations
within the Patapsco River indicate a much reduced salinity sensitivity to channel
deepening. Since the salinity differences seem to be greatest in the channel of the
Patapsco River, organisms within the channel will be affected the most. The benthic
community within the river may be altered; however, due to contaminated sediments this
community is extremely limited. Motile species will avoid the channel if salinities
surpass their tolerance level.

4.06 In addition to salinity, the Chesapeake Bay Model test also monitored velocity. In
general, only subtle differences were indicated for test comparisons of amplitude, offset,
maximum flood, and maximum ebb values with existing conditions. Over 90 percent of
these comparison for each of the parameters were within the error band for these
measurements.

ETS-23

4.07 Although no major velocity variations were indicated as a result of channel
deepening, slight trends in velocity characteristics may indicate subtle variations in the
hydrodynamics of the system. The overall reduced velocity (amplitude) at each depth
during the plan tests is consistent with increased cross-sectional area associated with
channel deepening. The slight trend of increased flood dominance (higher flood and lower
ebb velocities) at the lower bay stations indicates the possibility of additional salt
intrusion into the main estuary along the deepened channel. A return flow of estuarine
water may exist in the shallower nonsampled areas.

4.08 In general, the examination of the current velocity information obtained during the
Baltimore Harbor Study on the hydraulic model of Chesapeake Bay has shown that
current velocity changes in the model resulting from the enlargement of the navigation
channels are relatively small. Since this was expected to occur, no additional
investigations are anticipated in this area.

b. Water Quality Effects

4.09 The results of chemical testing of the sediments (both bulk analysis and elutriate
testing) to be dredged f rorn the Virginia channel sections indicate that these materials
have constitutent levels characteristic of "clean" sediments. Unconfined disposal of this
material should not have any major adverse impacts on the water column. Turbidity
plumes at the dredging sites, and disposal area in open water are expected to be short
term and minor due to the nature of the material. Dissolved oxygen concentrations may
be expected to depress slightly for a few hours following dredging and disposal at the
immediate site. T)redging will cause the water column to become turbid, thereby,
reducing light transmission and creating an aesthetically displeasing environment. This.
may cause a temporary reduction in primary productivity from phytoplankton. In
addition, the results of lengthy study by the United States Army Engineer Waterways
Experiment Station Dredged Material Research Program (WES/r)MRP) regarding
characteristics of the sediment load released during open water disposal operations by a
bottom dump hopper dredge, the expected dredging method for the Virginia channel
sections, indicates that the, "material partitions into a main cloud that descends
vertically and a turbidity cloud that is spun off during the dumping and descending
phases. The main cloud appears to descend at a high velocity-and then collapse onto the
bottom. The main cloud should experience negligible effects due to ambient water
currents and variations in water density. The turbidity cloud will most probably be
moved out of the general dump site area by even the smallest currents. Compared to the
main cloud which descends to the bottom, the turbidity cloud is very small'in terms of
total solids."

4.10 Dredging operations in Maryland are expected to occur with bucket and scow which
may cause more turbidity than hopper dredges. However, impacts to the water column
should be minor, localized, and temporary. The Dredged Material Research Program also
reports that metals and other chemical substances may be released to the water column
during disposal operation; however, the releases were of small magnitude and short
duration, and the pelagic community did not appear to be adversely affected. No adverse
water quality effects are expected to occur from disposal operations in Hart-Miller and
to insure acceptable water quality, the State of Maryland will have a monitoring plan to
confirm and to manage disposal operations.

4.11 Results of grain size analysis in the Virginia channels have indicated that the
sediment in the Rappahannock Shoal Channel is composed of silts, clays, and organics,
and the York Spit Channel is mostly sandy silt and clay. When placed overboard, this

I S - 2 4

material will be exposed to bottom currents and other erosional forces. An analysis of
the fate of the dredged material is dependent on the dredging material and disposal
operation, the nature of the dredged material, and the energy regime and bottom
sedimentology of the disposal area.

4.12 The material Will settle through the water columns as a cloud rather than as
individual particulars. Ibis cloud will flatten out as it strikes the bottom with a small
verticle dimension usually ranging from 3 to 6 inches. Current and transportational
forces will start to effect the flattened mound.

4.13 nue to the depth of 80 feet at the Rappahannock Shoal Disposal Site, wave induced
bottom velocities will be negligible. The primary energy source for sediment movement
would be tidal currents. Data from the Chesapeake Bay Model test concerning velocities
and the size of the material in the channel indicate that the material being placed in the
Rappahannock Shoal Nsposal Area will tend to leave the site and move in a northern
direction or locally into deeper parts of the bay floor where currents are reduced. This
analysis seems to concur with a study by VIMS in 1976 in this same area which concluded
that dredged material placed there would move out of the area and in a northern
direction.

4.14 For the Wolf Trap Disposal Area, the material from the York Spit Channel is
susceptible to erosion. Wave induced bottom velocities could add to the ambient bottom
currents in this area on a periodic basis. Similar to the material from the Rappahannock
Shoal T)isposal Area, material eroded out of the Wolf Trap Site would also be expected to
move northward in the bay or locally to deeper parts of the bay floor. A more detailed
analysis of the fate of dredged material may be found in Section K of the Main Report.

.4.15 To help control any adverse effects of sediment dispersion, there will be controlled
placement of the material by the contractor so the material can be contained within the
site as much as possible. The Corps and members of the Technical Advisory Group (see
Section H) are developing a monitoring plan which will include monitoring the fate of the
dredged material as to its initial impacts on the bottom and the flattening out over a
designated area.

4.16 Material from the Maryland channels will be pdaced into a confined disposal facility
at Hart-Miller Islands. The sediments will be contained in the site with constant
monitoring to meet State Water Ouality Standards.

F-cologicat Effects

4.17 The ecological effects of dredging and disposal should be basically the same for the
Virginia channels and disposal areas, and the Maryland channels. The individual channels
and disposal areas will not be presented here; however, the overall effect of dredging and
disposal will be presented.

4. 18 The finfish within the immediate project area may be disturbed by the mechanical
action of the dredge, the noise of the dredge, and the localized turbidity resulting from
the dredging operation and subsequent disposal. Adult finfish should be able to avoid
being impacted during the dredging and disposal operation, but species which feed on
benthic invertebrates may be affected by a temporary lack of forage species in the
channel and disposal area. This impact should not be severe, since the dredged areas and
disposal areas are relatively small in comparison to the area of the bay.

EIS-25

4.19 There are no commercial shellfish beds in the vicinity of the dredging areas in the
Virginia portion of the project; however, blue crabs congregate in the lower, deep water
portion of Virginia (York Spit and Cape Henry) to overwinter. To avoid impacts to these
organisms, dredging will not be perf ormed from 15 November to 15 March in any
dredging year in those channels. The channel in Maryland passes in the vicinity of
chartered oyster bars. The fact that these oyster bars are located in much shallower
water than the channel should help to lessen the possibility of impact. The State of
Maryland has monitored maintenance dredging activities and associated open water
disposal from the channels in Maryland for the period 1975-1978 and has found no
significant impacts (MD DNR, 1975, 19769 1977, 1978).

4.20 The dredging of the channels will eliminate the existing benthic organisms present
within the channels. The channels will repopulate with benthic organisms which will be
constantly disturbed by action of passing ships. This will be a minor impact since this
action is existing at the present depths.

4.21 An additional portion of the benthic community.may be covered by sediment
deposition resulting from dredging or economic loading. Economic loading is generally
defined as the practice of increasing the percent of solids per load for a hopper dredge by
allowing the hopper or scow to overflow while additional solids settle out of suspension.
The additional yardage per load is balanced against the cost of the plant for the time
overflow is taking place to determine when plant cost is exceeding the benefits derived
from the added payload. This overflow carries a percentage of finer sediments which
eventually settle out in the immediate vicinity of the channel. The potential effect on
benthics is of most concern in the Rappahannock Shoal Channel due to the fine grain
material being dredged. As part of a proposed monitoring plan, the area adjacent to the
York Spit and Rappahannock Shoal Channels will be monitored as to the effect on the
adjacent benthic communities.

4.22 Deposition of the dredged material will cover existing benthic organisms in the
proposed disposal areas. Repopulation of these sites will start to occur after disposal
activities have ceased. Recovery studies performed in the bay have shown that
repopulation occurs within 1-2 years subsequent to disposal (Schubel 1980). Since the
Wolf Trap, Rappahannock Shoal, and Dam Neck areas were previously used for deposition
of dredged material, the biological community which will repopulate should basically
remain the same as existing populations. The entire Norfolk Disposal Site has not been
used for disposal, as of yet; however, portions of the site have been used intermittently
from around 1900 to 1965. Repopulation should occur from within the disposal area
between disposal operations and subsequent to the cessation of disposal operations in a
designated area. The introduction of dredged material into the site may cause an
increase in species diversity depending on the characteristics of the material being
placed there and the existing sediments.

4.23 Since the disposal sites are located in an erosional area, the dredged material, as
previously mentioned, will probably leave the site. This may also have a potential effect
on the benthic communities outside the designated disposal sites. As part of the
proposed monitoring plan, baseline conditions will be examined in the disposal sites. In
addition, baseline monitoring will occur in alternative disposal sites which may be used if
significant impacts occur at the identified sites during disposal activities.

EIS-26

4.24 The Fort Story disposal site is a previously used upt and area which would be used
for sand storage f rom the Cape Henry channel, for beneficial uses in Virginia.
Environmental impacts to the site should be minor, localized and temporary. Any
existing vegetation in the area may be disturbed with disposal; however, this should be
minimal. The disposal area can accommodate approximately 500,000 to 750,000 cubic
yards of material. Some escape of finer sediments from actual operations on the beach
can be expected, but will probably be reintroduced into the nearshore environment.

4.25 Placement of dredged material within the Hart-Miller containment site will cover
any existing benthic organisms. The additive effects of covering benthics from that
already resulting from construction will be negligible. This site has been designated by
the State of Maryland as a contained site for placement of dredged material and has been
investigated in the Final Environmental Impact Statement, February 1976, it will not be
discussed further.

C. Threatened and Endangered Species

4.26 Project activities are not expected to adversely affect any threatened or endangered
species likely to be found in the project area. Of the species listed in Section K, page K-18,
the green, loggerhead, the Kemp's Ridley, Leatherback, and Hawkshill Turtles, and the
Shortnose Sturgeon may potentially be found near construction areas. Additionally, no
critical habitat necessary for those turtles is located within the Bay area and their
preferred range encompasses warmer waters.

EIS-27

5. LIST OF PREPARERS

5.01 The following people were primarily responsible for preparing this Environmental
Impact Statement:
PROFESSIONAL
NAME EXPERTISE EXPERIENCE DISCIPLINE

Mr. Stuart Appelbaum Engineer 3 yrs. Feasibility Studies Civil Engineer
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Mr. Robert Blama Generalist 3 1/2 yrs. EIS Studies Biologist
MIS Coordinator) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(Project Manager)

Mr. 71. Michael Coleman Engineer 3 112 yrs. Feasibility Studies Civil Engineer
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Mr. Stephen Israel Archeology 11 yrs. Field Experience Archeologist
4 yrs. EIS Studies
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Mr. Steve Wilson Economist 5 yrs. Economic Studies Regional
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Economist

F-I S-28

6. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

a. Public Involvement Program
40 6.01 Public involvement, as discussed in Section J of the main report of the General
Design Memorandum, has been important to the study in regard to identification of
publicly perceived problems and desires and obtaining information. The components of
the public involvement program and their results are summarized here. Early in the
study, letters were sent to Congressional, Federal, State, and local entities to inform
them of study initiation and to request their input. A technical advisory group was
formed in 1976 to assist in the identification of existing information sources, remaining
information needs, means of data collection, specific concerns, and to provide timely
contributions to and review of the study documents. Coordination of a specific nature
involved publication of a Notice of Intent to Prepare a Draft EIS in the Federal Register
of 24 February 1981 and continued involvement of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in
compliance with the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act. Of a general nature, all
appropriate Federal, State and local resource agencies have been involved by providing
requested information, review and comments of technical material and with discussions
on specific issues. The draft report and DEIS were circulated to the pub 'tic and a public
meeting was held on 24 June 1981. Future public involvement activities include
distribution of a final report and final EIS.

b. Required Coordination

6.02 Throughout the study, coordination has been maintained with appropriate Federal,
State, and local agencies and interests. Following review of the Draft report and EIS by
the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), they will prepare a FWS Coordination Act Report to
comply with the Coordination Act. This report is presented in Addendum 11. Required
coordination remaining to be done include distributionof a final report and EIS.

c. Statement Recipients

6.03 The following list indicates the State and Federal agencies with which the Main
Report/DEIS was coordinated.

Federal Agencies

Department of Interior
Department of Commerce
Department of Energy
nepartment of Transportation
Environmental Protection Agency
Department of Agriculture
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Department of Health and Human Services
U.S. Coast Guard

EIS-29

State Agencies

Maryland (through the Maryland State Clearinghouse)

Department of Agriculture
Department of Economic and Community Development
Department of Health and Mental Hygiene
Department of Natural Resources
Department of State Planning
Department of Transportation
(Maryland Port Administration)
Soil (@onservation Service
State Extension Service
State Historic Preservation Office

Virginia (through the Virginia State Clearinghouse)

Department of Commerce and Resources
Department of Agriculture and Commerce
Department of Conservation and Economic Development
Department of Health
Historic Landmarks Commission
Transportation and Public Safety
Virginia Port Authority

Other interested Parties - A mailing list of local agencies, organizations and individuals
expressing interest in this or related projects in the past has been compiled. The mailing
list is available for review at U.S. Army Engineer District, P.O. Box 1715, Baltimore,
Maryland 21203. A Notice of Availability of the DEIS was mailed to organizations and
individuals on the mailing list in conjunction with the Notice for the Public Meeting. 'The
final report and EIS will be sent to parties known to have an interest in the study.

d. Public Views and Responses

6.04 The views of the public have been expressed through correspondence and direct
communication with the Baltimore District. A public meeting was held in Baltimore,
Maryland on 25 May 1966 to obtain information as to the improvements desired by local
interests. The Project Document was fully documented with concerned Federal, State,
and local agencies and local interests. Several meetings were held with non-Federal
interests during the preparation of the supplemental information requested by the Office
of Management and Budget in 1973. The draft supplemental information was coordinated
with various public and private interests. The Plan of Study for the GDM was provided to
Federal and State agencies in 1977 for their information. A public meeting was held on
24 June 1981 to present the findings and recommendations of the study.

6.05 Written comments were received throughout the study from the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (F&WS), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and are shown
in Appendix E of the Technical Appendices.

ETS-30

6.06 The F&WS commented on the need for time of year restrictions on project dredging
in order to minimize environmental impacts. They also commented on the need for a
monitoring program during project construction to assess environmental effects. As
presented in discussion in the Main Report and EIS, both of these concerns have been
incorporated into the plan.

6.07 The EPA indicated that the material dredged from the Cape Henry and part of the
York Spit channels appeared to be acceptable for open water disposal. EPA also
requested coordination of selection of ocean disposal sites with the Corps. The plan will
use the EPA designated ocean disposal site as explained in the Main Report and EIS.

6.08 Following public review of the DEIS, comments were received. These comments
and responses to these are presented in Addendum 11.

7. INDEXES, REFEREWES, AN n- APPENT)IXES

7.01 , A list of pertinent subjects and where they are located are presented in Table F-IS-3.

TABLE EIS-3 - Index, References and Appendices

Environmental
Subject Impact Statement Main Report

Affected Environment pp. EIS 13-22 pp. K-1 - K-29
para. 3.01-3.41 para. 1-108
Alternatives pp. EIS 10-13 pp. I-1 - I-11
para. 2.01-2.19 paxa. 1-22
Areas of Controversy p. EIS-3
Comparative Impacts of p. EIS-13 pp. I-'l - I-11
Alternatives paxa.:.2.19 para. 1-22
Cover 8heet p. EIS-1
Cultural Resources pp. EIS-13-27 pp. K-1 - K-29
para. 3.01-4.26 para. 1-108
Dredged Material PlacEment pp. EIS 13-27 pp. K-1 - K-29
Sites para. 3.01-4.26 para. 1-108
Environmental Conditions pp. pp. EIS-13-22 pp. K-1 - K-29
para. 3.01-3.41 para. 1-108
Environmental Effects pp. EIS-13-27 pp. K-1 - K-29
para. 3.01-4.26 para. 1-108
Ecological Effects pp. EIS-13-27 pp. K-l-K-29
para. 3.01-4.26 para. 1-108
Finfish and Shellfish pp. EIS-13-26 pp. K-1 - K-29
para. 3.01-4.26 para. 1-108
Hydrodynamics & Hydrology pp. EIS-13-36 pp. K-1 - K-29
para. 3.01-4.26 para. 1-108
List of Preparers p. EIS-28
para. 5.01
Major Conclusions and p. EIS-2 pp. K-1 - K-29
Findings para. 1-108
Need For and Objectives pp. EIS-7-10 pp. V-1 - V-2
of Action para. 1.01-1.06 para..1-4

EIS-31

TABLE EIS-3 - Index, References and Appendices (con't)

Environmental
Subject Impact Statement Main Report

Planning Objectives p. EIS-10 pp. F-1 - F-10
para. 1.06 para. 1-14
Plans Considered in Detail pp. EIS-11-13 pp. L-1 - L-20
para. 2.08-2.18 para. 1-24
Plans Eliminated fram pp. EIS-10-11 pp. L-1 - L-20
Further Study para. 2.01-2.05 para. 1-24
Public Concerns pp. EIS-9-10 pp. J-1 - J-5
para. 1.04-1.05 para. 1-22
Public Involvement pp. EIS-29-31 pp., J-1 - J-5
para. 6.01-6.08 para. 1-22
Public InvolvEment Program p. EIS-29 pp. J-1 - J-5
para. 6.01 para. 1-22
Public Views and Responses pp. EIS-30-31 pp. J-1 - J-5
para. 6.04-6.08 para. 1-22
Relationships to Environ- p. EIS-3 pp. K-1 - K-29
mental Requirements para. 1-108
Required Coordination p. EIS-29 pp. J-1 - J-5
para. 6.02 para. 1-22
Section 404 (b)(1) pp. EIS-34-43 --
Evaluation para. 1-7
Significant Resources pp. EIS-16-22 pp. K-1 - K-29
para. 3.09-3.41 para. 1-108
StatEment Recipients pp. EIS-29-30 pp. J-1 - J-5
para. 6.03 para. 1-22
Summary pp. EIS-2-3 p. i
Table of Contents p. EIS-6 pp. ii-vi
Threatened & Endangered p. EIS-22 pp. K-1 - K-29
Species para. 3.37 para. 1-108
Unresolved Issues p. EIS-3
Water Quality Effects pp. EIS-24-26 pp. K-6 - K-7
para. 4.09-4.25 para. 21-25
Without Conditions p. EIS-11 pp. K-18 - K-19
(no action) para. 2.06-2.07 para. 67-68

References:

Marine Sciences Research Center, State University of New York, "A General
Assessment of Selected Dredging/Disposal Options for Three Federal Dredging
Projects in Upper Chesapeake Bay", 1980.

Maryland Department of Natural Resources, "Management Alternatives for Dredging
and Disposal Activities in Maryland Waters", 1977.

Mueser, Rutledge, Wentworth and Johnston Consulting Engineers and Ocean Seismic
Survey, Inc., "Baltimore Harbor and Channels, 50-Foot Project, Geophysical
Foundation Exploration Report", 1978.

EIS-32

TABLE EIS-3 - Index, References and Appendices (con't)

References (con't):

Murphy, J.R., Murphy Archeological Reseaxch Services, Inc., '%xine Intensive
Survey and Evaluation Investigations for the Baltimore Harbor and Channels",
1980.

U.S. Amy Engineer District, Baltimore, "Review Report, Baltimore Harbor and
Channels", 1969.

U.S. Army Engineer District, Baltimore, "Baltimre Harbor and Channels,
Maryland and Virginia - Supplemental Information Requested by the Office of
Management and Budget to June 1,969 Review Report", 1974.

U.S. Army Engineer District, Baltimore, "Final Environmental Impact Statement,
Hart and Miller Islands", 1976.

U.S. Amy Engineer District, Norfolk, "Draft Environmental Impact Statement,
Norfolk Disposal Site", 1981.

U.S. Army Engineer, Waterways Experiment Station, "Baltimore Harbor and Channels
Deepening Study - Chesapeake Bay Hydraulic Model Investigation", 1981.

IT.S. Army Engineer, Waterways Experiment Station, "The Dredged Material.Research
Program Synthesis Report Series No. DS-78-1 through DS-78-21", 1978.

Virginia Institute of.Marine Science, "Baltimore Harbor and Channels: Surface
Sediments in Virginia Channels", 1978.

Virginia Institute of Marine Science, "Biological Description of Old Plantation
Flats, Deep Trough: A Proposed Dredged Disposal Site", 1979.

Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Special Scientific Report, Musick, "A
Checklist of the Files of Chesapeake Bay and Adjacent Coastal Plains in a
Checklist of the Biota of-Chesapeake Bay and Adjacent Virginia Seas", Vol. 65,
pp 175-212, 1972.

Virginia Institute of Marine Science, "A Study of the Effects of Dredging and
Dredge Spoil Disposal on the Marine Environment", 1967.

Virginia Institute of Marine Science, "Shore Erosion at Tangier Island", 1976.

Virginia Institute of Marine Science, "Study of Channel Sediments - Baltimre
Harbor, lbrfolk Harbor, York Entrance Channel", 1972.

EIS-33

Section 404(b;Xl) Evaluation

The purpose of the 404 Evaluation is to comply with the provisions of Section 404 of the
rlean Water Act of 1977 (33 U.S.C. 1344(r)).

1. Project Description

a. T)escription of the proposed discharge of dredged or fill materials

(1) General characteristics of material

In the Maryland portion of the project the materials consist of sands,
gravels, silts, and clays. Chemical analysis of these materials indicate that some of the
material is contaminated with heavy metals while other material meets overboard
criteria for placement in open water of the Bay. This material will be placed in a
confined disposal area in order to comply with 404(b)(1) guidelines. The effluent
returning to the waterway is also subject to these guidelines. This effluent will meet
water quality standards set by the State of Maryland.

The channels in the Virginia portion of the project consists of some sand,
mostly sandy silts, and clays. Chemical analysis of this material indicates clean
sediments whichmeet overboard criteria for placement in the Bay.

(2) Quantity of material proposed for discharge

The quantity of material being dredged is approximately 72 million cubic
yards (mcy). This includes about 41 mcy in Maryland channels and 31 mcy in Virginia
channels.

(3) Source of material

The source of the dredged material will be from the three channels in
Virginia waters and the various channels in the Maryland waters.

b. Description of the proposed discharge sites(s) for dredged or fill material

(1) Location and areal extent (include map)

The proposed discharge site for material from the Maryland channels in
Hart Miller Island, which is located at the mouth of ;@ack River. (See Figure L-4 in Main
Report). The material from the Virginia channels will be placed overboard at the
following locations: material from Cape Henry will be overboarded in the Ocean and
placed in an upland site at Cape Henry (Figure L- 1). Material from the York Spit channel
will be placed at the Wolf Trap disposal site (Figure L-2) and the material from
Rappahannock Shoat channel will be placed in the Rappahannock Shoal disposal area.
(Figure L-3)

EIS-34

(2) Type of discharge site(s)

The Hart-Miller Island complex is a confined open water disposal site and
will receive all of Maryland's disposal material. The dredged material from the Virginia
channels will be placed unconfined and overboard in the bay and ocean, and some
material being stockpiled at Fort Story.

(3) Method of discharge

The method of discharge will be decided by the contractor at the time of
construction. However, it appears at present that the most likely method of discharge
will be by hopper dredge in Virginia and by bucket and pumped from scows in Maryland.

(4) When will discharge occur?

It is estimated that total construction will take approximately 3 years. In
the Maryland channels dredging for this project can occur anytime during the year. In
Virginia, the dredging in the Cape Henry channel and York Spit channel will not be
performed during 15 November through 15 March to avoid disruption to overwintering
blue crabs. The Rappahannock shoal channel does not have a restricted dredging period.

(5) Projected life of discharge site(s)

Hart-Miller Island will receive all the initial dredging and 10 years of
maintenance dredging. Other sites will have to be identified to accommodate further
maintenance. The open water sites in the ocean and the bay are expected to be available
for the project life of 50 years.

(6) Bathymetry (if open water discharge)

Changes in bathymetry are expected to occur at the sites as a result of
placement; however, investigations have shown that at least some portion of the material
is likely to leave the sites in the Bay over time. In addition, part of the monitoring plan
will attempt to ascertain the degree and significance of the movement.

2. Physical Effects

a. Will wetlands be lost'?

No wetlands should be affected due to dredging or disposal operations.

(1) How productive are the wetlands'? NIA

(2) What do the wetlands produce? N/A

(3) Are the wetlands important for: N/A

(a) Food chain production N/A

(b) General habitat N!A

E IS-35

(d) Spawning N/A

(e) Rearing N/A

(f) Resting N/A

(4) If wetlands will be lost, quantify the losses indicated relative to that of
the remaining contiguous wetlands. NIA

(3) Are the wetlands set aside:

(a) for study of the aquatic environment? N/A

(b) as a sanctuary or refuge? N/A

(6) Will the characteristics of contiguous wetlands be changed? N/A

(a) natural drainage N/A

(b) sedimentation NIA

(d) f lushing N/A

(e) current NIA

(f) other NIA

(7) T)o affected wetlands significantly shield other areas from:

(a) wave action NIA

(b) erosion N/A

(d) If so, how will the shielding effect be changed? N/A

(8) Are the wetlands prime natural recharge areas? If so, what is the relative
importance7 NIA

EIS-36

b. What will be the effects on the water column as to:.

(1) light transmission

No affect from disposal in Maryland waters due to placement in contained
disposal area. nredging,.if done by bucket and scow may cause minor turbidity. In Bay
area turbidity resulting from disposal will result in minor and temporary reduction in
light transmission.

(2) aesthetic values

Turbidity plume resulting from construction will present a temporary
adverse aesthetics effect in the immediate vicinity of the dredging, and in the case of
Virginia, with the overboard disposal sites.

(3) direct effects on

(a) Nekton

Potential entrainment of small organisms and minor effects resulting from
physical abrasion during construction. Disposal could cause the burial of some organisms;
however, construction activities will have more of an effect upon nekton distribution
than temporary water quality changes. Most nektonic organisms should avoid the area.

(b) Plankton

Placement of dredged material should have a minor affect on plankton
resulting f rorn burial by siltation in the overboard sites. Productivity may temporarily
decrease as a result from the increase in turbidity.

c. What will be the significance in covering the benthos as to:

(1) relative extent of loss

The benthos in the channels will be removed during the dredging process
and the benthos in the disposal site will be buried during placement of the dredged
material. Areas adjacent to the channels may have minor affects due to siltation. The
area north of the disposal areas may be affected by migration of material after
deposition.

(2) time required for repopulation

Repopulation will start to occur in the channels and disposal sites
immediately after dredging and disposal respectively and should recover within 1 - 2
years. Repopulation in the dredged material p1cement sites in Virginia will be monitored
to determine how quick these areas will recover.

E IS-37

(3) change in benthic community

There should not be an overall change in the benthic community as a
result of construction activities. Dredged material migrating from the disposal areas
may cause habitat changes, and subsequent benthic community changes; however, the
degree of impact cannot be determined at this time. OMRP studies have shown that
recolonization of a disturbed area is accomplished by benthos burrowing up through the
dredged material or migrating into the area or by reproduction and/or recruitment of
benthos from outside the affected area. Recolonization is expected from recruitment
outside the affected area. This will be delayed since the disposal operation will occur
over a three-year period. The benthic community in the disposal area and adjacent areas
will be monitored.

(4) affect on other species which are dependent upon the benthos

Minor and short term losses of potential food sources to f ish are likely.
These organisms may be forced to seek food from other areas.

d. What will be the change in:

(1) bottom geometry

The channels will be deepened and widened to project specifications (see
Section r of GDM). T)eposition will cause a change in bathymetry which should be
affected when subjected to erosional forces in the area which will cause some of the
material to move out of the area. This will also be included in the monitoring plan.

(2) substrate composition

Desposition into the proposed overboard disposal sites should not alter the
substrate composition significantly from that which is present. The sites have had
similar materials placed there in the past. it is known that portions of the material
migrates from these areas, but it appears the material to be placed as a function of this
work is not significantly different from existing material. This will be more carefully
determined during baseline monitoring.

(3) salinity gradients

Results of the model tests have indicated that some salinity differences
are associated with deepening the channels. Salinity gradients within the bay are not
expected to change significantly. Surface waters in Chesapeake Bay south of Tangier
Island generally become somewhat less saline. Mid depth and bottom waters generally
became more saline in the bay during the test. However, test results at the mouth of the
James and York Rivers indicate a reduced salinity intrusion with f resher deep water.
The greatest salinity change is expected in the channel of the Patapsco River.

(4) alteration of biological communities due to exchange of constituents
between sediments and overlying water?

No long term alteration of biological communities is anticipated with
construction of the project.

E IS-38
Is

3. 0emical - Biological Interactive Effects
a. Ooes the material meet the exclusion criteria? (If so, state the rationale.)

All material anticipated for open water disposal meet the exclusion criteria,
however all of this material was chemically tested. Samples were taken in the dredging
and disposal areas, and results indicate sands, silts, and clays. The Virginia channels and
part of the Maryland channels are away f rom a point source of pollution, and have no
history of outside contamination, chemical testing, therefore, -was not needed, however
was performed (Appendix C ). A portion of the materials in the Maryland channels, inside
Baltimore Harbor, is considered polluted and was tested by VIMS in 1978. Since
overboard disposal was anticipated for the Virginia channels and the uncontaminated
Maryland material has been investigated in the past for uses other than confined disposal,
all material for the project were chemically tested. Results of sediment sampling
(Appendix C - Technical Appendixes) in the Virginia channels show low levels of all
parameters tested when compared with guideline levels recommended by the Spoil
Disposal Criteria Committee. Results of elutriate analysis performed for the dredging
and disposal areas showed little affect upon ambient water quality. Sediments tested in
Maryland waters indicated a grossly polluted surface layer of sediments within the inner
harbor, diminishing in level of contamination as the harbor mouth is approached, and
finding sediments in the project channels in the Bay, suitable for open water disposal.
The material from the Cape Henry channel will be placed overboard in the ocean and
according to EPA the material meets the exclusion criteria for ocean disposal.

*Note that if the material meets the exclusion criteria no further testing under 40 CFR
230 is required.

h. Water column ef f ects of chemical constituents. Are contaminants released? If
so, at what levels?

No contaminant release is anticipated with disposal activities. Some potential
contaminants could be released during dredging operations in the Inner Harbor dredging,
however, these are anticipated to be negligible. Effluent from Hart-Miller Islands will be
managed to insure compliance with State Water Quality Standards.

c. Effects of chemical constituents on benthos

No adverse affect is anticipated with disposal operations.

4. Description of site comparison

'The disposal site for the Maryland channel dredging was identified by the State and
found to be acceptable. The State of Maryland initiated a study which looked for
adequate sites in the Chesapeake Bay for placement of dredged material. An evaluation
of potential sites investigated can be found in Addendum I of the main report. The
disposal sites for the Virginia channels were chosen since they were previously used
sites. Other areas were investigated and the results can be found in Section K of the
main report and the EIS. The State of Virginia can identify areas other than the selected
sites for an acceptability analysis for use as an alternative site.

a. Total sediment analysis

EIS-39

Analysis comparing the disposal sites investigated can be found in the GDM and
EIS.

b. Biological community structure analysis (40 CFR 230.4-1(c)(2))

Analysis comparing the disposal sites investigated can be found in the GDM and
EIS.

5. Review Applicable Water Quality Standards
I

a. Compare constituent concentrations - Placement of dredged material will
conform to Applicable Water Quality Standards since sediments from the dredging and
disposal areas in the Virginia portion comply to criteria set by the Spoil Disposal Criteria
Committee in 1975. Some of the material being placed in the Hart-Miller Island site is
contaminated. Ef fluent standards of 4 grams per liter of sediment, will be met at the
site. Since contaminants adhere to the sediments, the release of pollutants into the Bay
should be minimal. Also the Corps of Engineers permit for Hart-Miller states that,
"The permittee will proceed in a manner that will insure compliance with and
achievement of the objectives contained in the guidelines promulgated by the
Environmental Protection Agency under Section 404(b) of the Federal Water Pollution
r,ontrol Act. Amendments of 1972 (40 CFR 230).

b. ronsider mixing zone - N/A as placement of dredged material will conform to
Applicable Water Ouality Standards as well as effluent from Hart-Miller Islands confined
disposal site.

c. Based on a and b above will disposal operation be compatible with applicable
standards? Disposal will conf orm to Applicable Standards

6. Selection of Discharge Sites for Dredged or Fill F&terial

a. Need for the proposed activity

Dredging for deepening of navigation channels

b. Alternatives sites and, methods of discharge considered

Alternative sites were investigated and the analysis can be found in the EIS.
The selected sites were identified by the State or are previously used areas. The method
of discharge will differ depending on the channel being dredged and the location and type
of disposal area. The actual method of discharge will be a responsibility of the
contractor.

c. Objectives to be considered in discharge determination:

(1) Impacts on chemical, physical, and biological integrity of aquatic
ecosystem

Overall impacts should be minor when compared to the Bay. Localized
impacts will occur at the disposal sites but should be minor and temporary. Impacts such
as salinity changes are anticipated to be generally limited to the channels.

EIS-40

(2) Impacts on food'chain

This impact should be minor, localized and temporary

(3) Impact on diversity of plan and animal species

This also should be minor and localized

(4) impact on movement into and out of feeding, spawning, breeding and
.nursery areas

This impact should be minor and temporary due to the size of the Bay.
Also to avoid disruption to overwintering blue crabs dredging in the Cape Henry and York
Spit channels will be restricted between 15 November and 15 March.

(5) Impact on wetland areas having significant functions of water qual ity
maintenance - N/A No wetlands to be affected.

(6) impact on areas that serve to retain natural high waters or flood waters - N/A

(7) Methods to minimize turbidity

The diked disposal area at Hart-Miller Islands will allow for retention of
material and effluent will be in accordance with water quality standards. Overboard
disposal in Virginia is not anticipated to cause significant turbidity.

(8) Methods to minimize degradation of aesthetic, recreational, and economic
values

Construction will be adhere to applicable standards. Channels in Maryland
and Virginia will be dredged simultaneously to shorten the construction time.

(9) -Threatened and endangered species

No threatened or endangered species are expected to be affected with
project construction.

(10) investigate other measures that avoid degradation of aesthetic,
recreational, and'economic values of navigable waters

Other methods of dredging were investigated as a part of the economic
analysis to reduce costs. This would have conceivably reduced the expected minor
environmental impacts further. However, these were determined not to be feasible (i.e. -
one way channel for safety reasons).

d. Impacts on water uses at proposed discharged site

(1) Municipal water supply intakes - N-A

(2) Shellfish - Minor and temporary impacts resulting from turbidity and
siltation.* Overwintering blue crabs adjacent to the Cape Henry and York
Spit Channels will be avoided by not dredging between November and
March.

EIS-41

(3) Fisheries

Impacts upon the fisheries are anticipated to be minor as these animals
are likely to avoid the area of construction. The impacts upon their habitat and
hence indirectly upon the fisheries themselves are also expected to be minor.

(4) Wildlife - minor effects due to the type and location of the project.

(5) Recreation activities - minor effects due to construction activities.

(6) Threatened and endangered species - no effect anticipated.

(7) Benthic life

There will be a complete loss of the existing benthos inhabiting the
discharge sites, and possibly some affect to adjacent areas, however repopulation should
occur in these areas.

(8) Wetlands NIA

(9) Submersed vegetation - no submerged vegetation in area of disposal
operation.

(10) Size of disposal site

The sizes of the proposed disposal areas are as follows: Norfolk disposal
site in the ocean is 50.24 square miles, Wolf Trap disposal area in the bay is 3.97 square
mites, Rappahannock Shoal area in the bay is 2.75 square miles. The Hart-Miller complex
in the bay is an 1, 100 acre enclosure.

e. Considerations to minimize harmful effects

(1) Water quality criteria

The disposal operation will conform to applicable water quality standards.

(2) Investigate alternatives to open water disposal

Considering the location of the channels to be dredged, open water disposal
is the most economically feasible as wett as being the most logistical.

(3) Investigate physical characteristics of alternative disposal sites

The physical characteristics of all disposal areas investigated can be found
in the GT)M and EIS.

(4) Ocean dumping

Ocean dumping will occur with the material dredged from the Cape Henry
Channel.

E IS-42

(5) There possible, investigate covering contaminated dredged material with
cleaner material

The areas designated for overboard disposal and the general location of the
channels are f ree f rom point sources of pollution. Contaminated material f rom
Baltimore Harbor will be placed in the confined disposal area and then covered with
cleaner material.

(6) Investigate methods to minimize effect of runoff from confined areas on
the aquatic environment

The only confined area is the Hart-Millet disposal site. Operation of the
site will be under management of the State of Maryland. Water quality standards for
discharge will be met by the State.

(7) Coordinate potential monitoring activities at discharge site with EPA

As a member of the Technical Advisory Group (TAG) for the project, EPA
has had the opportunity to assist in creating an approved monitoring plan. This
opportunity will continue as the monitoring plan is refined, conducted and results
reviewed.

7. Statement as to contamination of fill material if from a land source - N/A

8. Conclusions and determinations.

a. An ecological evaluation has been made following the evaluation guidance in 40
(-FP, 230.4.

b. Appropriate measures have been identified and incorporated in the proposed plan
to minimize adverse effects on the aquatic environment as a result of placement of
dredged material.

c. Consideration has been given to the need for the proposed activity, the
availability of alternative sites and methods of disposal that are less damaging to the
environment and such water quality standards as are appropriate and applicable by law.

9. Findings

The findings has been made that the discharge site for deepening of the Baltimore
Harbor and Channels project has been specified through the application of the Section
404 (b)(1) guidelines. The placement of any fill material will conform to applicable
Water Quality Standards so as to minimize any adverse impacts upon the aquatic
ecosystem.

E IS-43

AEDENDTP.1 I I

PUBLIC VIOVS AND COVIUM

BadKground Correspondence

1 The Secretary of the AMryland Department of Transportation, in conjunc-
tion with the Commonwealth of Virginia, has provided the assurances for all
item of required local cooperation discussed in the %in Report. Pertinent
correspondence relating to these assurances.is included among the corres-,
pondence in the Addendum.

2. A discussion of the Public Meeting and a list of State and Federal
agencies which received the draft report and EIS can be.found in Section J
(Public Views and Responses) of the Main Repor@, and the Public Involvement
section of@the EIS.

3. Comments and responses on the draft report and draft EIS have been
incorporated into the final report and.can be found in,this Addendum.

LETIERS

LOCAL ASSURANCES.

Harry Hughes
Governor
The Secretary's Office James J. O'Donnell
Secretary

April 28# 1981

Colonel James W. Peck
Baltimore District
corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 1715
Baltimore# Maryland 21203

Dear Colonel Peck:

Attached are three letters which I understand
should complete the documentation of local
assurances which you need in order to proceed with
the Baltimore Harbor and Channels 501 project.-

The first is a revised and updated letter from.
the State of Maryland to the Corps of Engineers
which states our intent to provide local coopera-
tion for the entire Baltimore Harbor and.Channels
501 project# regardless of location.

The second is a letter from the Comonwealth of
Virginia to the State of Maryland which designates
dredged material disposal sites for use by the
Corps of Engineers when constructing the Baltimore
501 channel project in Virginia waters. MarylanWis
attached letter of intent passes this designation
on to the Corps of Engineers*

The third in a letter from the.commonwealth of
Virginia to the State of Maryland which certifies
that (1) the Commonwealth has in-place a water
control agency with the necessary legal authorization
to establish standards to regulate water quality
for control of pollution in Virginia waters; and (2),
that the Commonwealth will comply with Title V1 of
the civil Rights Act of 1964. MarylandIs letter of
intent to the Corps of Engineers recognizes Virginia's
jurisdiction and authority in these matters for that

My telephone number is (301) - 787-7397

Post Office Box 8755, Baltimore-Washington International Airport, Maryland 21240

Colonel James W. Peck
April 28, 1981
Page Two

portion of the Baltimore 50' project located in
Virginia waters.

Again, it in my understanding that these three
documents and Maryland's letter of January 12,
1981, which designated the Hart-Miller site for
project use in Maryland waters, provide you with
all the local assurances necessary to proceed full
speed with the Baltimore 50' Channel project. If
you have any thoughts or concerns on this matter,
please do not hesitate to contact me or my staff
at the Maryland Port Administration.

Sincerely,

James J. O'Donnell
Secretary

JJO'D:drb
Enclosure

Harry Hughes
Na0andDepatmentofflanspoaaeon Governor
The Secretar,/s Office James J. O'Donnell
Secretary

April 280 1981

Colonel James W. Peck
Baltimore District
Corps of Engineers
P,O* Box 1715
Baltimore* Maryland 21203

Ret The Baltimore Harbor and
Channels Sol Project

Dear Colonel Peck:

It is the intent of the State of Maryland to
provide the local cooperation for the entire
&atimore Harbor and Channels 501 projecti, regardless.
of location of work activities# and in.accordance.
with Section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1970#
PL.91-6110 and Section 221 of the Flood Control Act
of 1970& PL 91-611. ' At the of construc
tion of this project* the State o Maryland shall:

a. Provide without cost to the United States all
land* easementse and rights-of-way" required
.for construction and subsequent maintenance of
the Project and for aids to navigation upon
the.request of the Chief of Engineers.'including
suitable areas determined by the Chief of
Engineers to be required in the general public
interest for initial and subsequent disposal of
dredged.material.and necessary retaining dikes*
bulkheads* and embankments thereforp or the costs
of'such retaining works; and

b. Hold and save the United States free from
damages that may result from the construction
and maintenance of the projectp except damages
due to the fault or negligence of the United
States or its contractors;

c. Provide and maintain at local expense adequate
public terminal and transfer facilities open
to all on equal terms# and depths in berthing
areas and local access channels serving terminals

My telephone number is (301) -787-7397

Post Office Box $755, Baltimore-Washington International Airport, Maryland 21240

Colonel James W. Peck
April 28, 1981
Page TWo

commensurate with the depth provided in the
related project areas;

d. Accomplish without cost to the United States
such utility and other relocations or
alterations as necessary for project -purposes;

e. Prohibit erection of any structure within
125 feet of the project channel or turning
basin;

f. Establish regulations prohibiting discharge
of pollutants into waters of the channels and
harbor by users thereof# which regulations
shall be in accordance with.applicable laws
or regulations of Federal* States and local
authorities responsible for pollution
prevention and control-,

g. Comply with the Uniform Relocation Assistance
and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of
1970 (P.Lo 91-646s 84 Stat. 1894) and implementing
regulatio no;

h. Comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of
1964 (P.L. 88-352# 78 Stat. 241).

For the Virginia portion of the Baltimore Harbor
Channels 501 project, provision of item "a" above
by the.State of Maryland is given in compliance with
conditions as specified in the April 24, 1981 letter of
designation, Maurice B. Rowe and George M. Walters to
James J. O'Donnellg attached. Provision of items "f*
and Oh" for the Virginia portion of this.project is
given in recognition of the jurisdiction and authority
of the Commonwealth of Virginia, as evidenced in the
April 24, 1981 letter of certification# Maurice B. Rowe
and George M. Walters, to James J. O'Donnell# attached.

An unsigned copy of the standard Corps of Engineers
221 Agreement is attached. The State of Maryland will
conclude a 221 Agreement# substantially in this forme with
the Corps of Engineers prior to the start of construction
of the Baltimore Harbor and Channels 509 project.
S.@ncerely,
//"J) a J@.,-O'Donnell
Secretary
JJOtD:drb
Enclosure

April 24, 1581

The Honorable James'J. O'Donnell
Secretary, Maryland Department of
Transportation
Post Office Box 8755
Baltimore Washington International Airport
Maryland 21240

Dear Secretary O'Donnell:

The Commonwealth of Virginia is pleased to submit this
letter providing for the designation of disposal sites for that
part of Baltimore's 501 Channel project located in Virginia waters.

Section 101 of the River and Harbor Act, December 31, 1970,
PL91-611, authorizes construction of the Baltimore 50' Channel pro-
ject, and requires local assurances from nonfederal interests.
Item "a" of those requirements calls for the affected nonfederal
interests, in this case the Commonwealth of Virginia, to provide
the federal@government with suitable sites for placement of dredged
material resulting from the initial dredging and subsequent main-
tenance of the project.

In response to that requirement,-.the Commonwealth of Virginia
agrees to the following.-'

1. Ocean disposal of dredged material from the initial
dredging and subsequent maintenance of the Cape
Henry Channel section and stockpiling of acceptable
material at the Ft. Story or an acceptable alternate
site for.future use by the Commonwealth.

2. In the Chesapeake Bay, the use of the Rappahannock
Shoal Deep and the Wolf Trap disposal sites for the
placement of dredged material from the initial dredging
and subsequent maintenance will be permitted only if all
conditions in paragraph 1 below are met.

The Honorable James J. O'Donnell
April 24, 19.81
Page Two

It is understood that the use of the disposal,sites in the
Chesapeake Bay,.'as described above, is contingent upon satisfaction
of the following conditions:

1. That the Corps of Engineers', in concert with the
Commonwealth, will continue to work to develop a
satisfactory monitoring program which 'includes the
spoil disposal sites for the Baltimore 501 Channel
project,that will serve to protect and preserve
the interests of the.Commonwealth of Virginia and
its*citizens. This monitoring program will be
developed and initiated prior to any.actual place-
ment of dredged material, in order to establish
an existing baseline condition in the disposal
areas. A portion of, the monitoring may be appli-
cation.of sediment dispersion modeling developed
by waterways Experiment Station (WES) as appropriate.
2. That the Commonwealth prior to or during the course
of construction of the ptoject-may designate alter-
native disposal sites in the Bay of similar costs,
capacities and convenience as the agreedsites.
The Commonwealth will designate these alternate
sites in sufficient time to allow for baseline
monitoring and evaluation and not delay the
dredging of the project.

The Commonwealth of Virginia agrees to these actions which
will be accomplished.without cost to the Commonwealth. Any claims'.
resulting from this construction will not be borne by the Common-
wealth of Virginia.

It is also requested that once the project is under con-
struction any. contestable issue would result.in immediate contact
with the.Commbnwealth.

Sincerely,
Maurice B. Rowe Geo e M.- Ylt/er's
secretary of Commerce"& Resources Sec etary of Transportation

:cc:. The Honorable John N. Dalton
Colonel Douglas Haller
Mr.' James Moore
Geo e
ti
Sec Fe

COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
Office of the Governor
Maurice B Rowe
Secretary of Commerce and Resources Richmond 23219

April 24, 1981

The Honorable James J. O'Donnell
Secretary, Maryland Department of
Transportation
Post Office Box-8755
Baltimore Washington International Airport
Maryland 21240

Dear Secretary O'Donnell:

Previous correspondence has provided the Common-
wealth of Virginia's commitment to items of local cooperation
with the State of Maryland as set forth in Section 101 of
Public Law 91-611 except the following:

f. The Code of Virginia, 1950, 62.1-44.15(3)
authorizes the State water Control Board
to "establish such standards of quality
and policies for any State waters consistent
with the general policy set forth in this
chapter ...."

The State Water Control Board adopted
Standards for Water Quality in April and
June 1970 and added several amendments in
subsequent years to apply to all State
waters which include the Chesapeake Bay.

h. The Commonwealth of Virginia agrees to
comply with Title VI of Civil Rights
Act of 1964 (PL88-852, 78 Stat. 241).

Sincerely,

Maurice B. Rowe George M. Walters
Secretary of Commerce & Resources Secetary of Transportation

cc: The Honorable John N. Dalton
Robert V. Davis

Harry Hughes
MOOO)7dDepoMMO#7totTianspo#BtlO#7 Governor
The Secretary's Office James J. O'Donnell
Secretary

January 12, 1981

Colonel James W, Peck
Baltimore District
Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 1715
Baltimore, Maryland 21203

Re: Designation of Disposal Areas
for the Baltimore Fifty Foot
Cha el Project

Dear Colonel

The Baltimore * rbor-and Channels project
modification, as authorized by Section 101 of the
River and Harbor Act, December 31# 19700 PL 91-611,
requires that eight items of local cooperation be
met by local govermnent(s) prior to initiation of
the Baltimore Fifty Foot.Channel Project by the
Corps of Engineers. From the early projectpl4nning
stages, the State of Maryland has indicated a
willingness-to furnish these items of local
cooperation for the Maryland portion of this project,
and provided the Corps of Engineers with a letter of
intent to do so on June 12, 1978 (Secretary Intemann
to Colonel withers) copy attached.

Item "a" of.the requirements for local cooperation
stipulates that the United States will be provided
with all lands, easementsand rights of way required
for project-construction and subsequent maintenance,
including suitable areas for "initial and subsequent
disposal of dredged material and necessary retaining
dikes, bulkheads and embankments therefor,, or the
costs of such retaining works".

in response to this requiremente,th6 State of
Maryland herein certifies that it will provide a
diked containment facility located at Hart-Miller
Islands in the Chesapeake Bay, as authorized by Corps
of Engineers Permit NABOP-F/2 (Maryland General
Services) 2, @2 November 1976, for disposal of
dredged material generated by all Fifty Foot Channel
modification work in Maryland waters, and for 10 years*
c

ore r

My telephone number Is (301) - 787-7397

Colonel James W, Peck
January 12, 1981
Page 2

of subsequent dredging maintenance for the Maryland
portion of the completed Fifty Foot Baltimore
.Channel. Disposal of maintenance material from
this project beyond the specified 10 years will be
provided by the Maryland Port Administration"s
recently implemented Dredged Material Management
Program.

The designated Hart-Miller Islands facility will
have a containment capacity of 52 million cubic yards.
That capacity is rore than adequate to accommodate
the 47.5 mcy of dredged material which the Baltimore
Fifty Foot Channel Project will produce in Maryland
waters; 41.2 mcy of material resulting from new work
in the main ship channels and branch channels* and.
6.3 mcy of material produced by 10 years of subsequent
project maintenance dredging.

In addition to the Baltimore Fifty Foot Channel
.Project and the Hart-Miller Islands containment site,,
the MPA's Dredged Material Management Program is
currently evaluating a range of options for disposal
of dredged material. These options are being
considered for the disposal of material presently
being produced by projects other than the Baltimore
Channel modification# and for the future disposal of
Fifty Foot Channel Project maintenance material once
the Hart-Miller Islands facility is full.

However, if these evaluations should-indicate that
some .of the material scheduled to be dredged for the-
.channel modification project could be conveniently
disposed somewhere other than-Hart-Miller,.the state
may choose to exercise.that option and thus extend
the useful operational life span of the Hart-Miller
facility. It is important to note that-the.state is
merely reserving for itself the flexibility to proceed
with more than one disposal option at a time. It
.is not our intention to repcind this designation of the
Hart-Miller site for use by the channel modification
project, now or in the'future.

it is my understanding that with this designation of
the Hart-Miller containment facility. the State of
Maryland has completed and satisfied all items for local
cooperation required from the state in support of.that.
portion of the Fifty Foot Channel Project located in
Maryland waters. We are also in contact with our
counterparts in the Commonwealth of Virginia* and are

Colonel James W. Peck
January 12, 1981
Page 3

actively exploring all avenues to enable Virginia to
provides with all possible expediencys the necessary.
local assurances-for that portion of the Baltimore
Fifty Foot Channel Project which is located in
Virginia waters, We will,keep you advised of any
and all developments*,

if you have any questions concerning this
designations please do not hesitate to contact me@
Port Administrator Halpin or his staff..

Sincerelyg

J a J. 0 nnell
S cretaryf

JJOID:drb

C,c, Mr, W. Gregory Halpin

Enclosure
0 n
S C.

Hermann K. Intemann
Secretary
ftoandDeflaflmenrof Awnspoflation Joseph L. Stanton
Administrator
Maryland Port Administration

June 12, 1978

Colonel G. K. Withers
District Engineer
Corps of Engineers
U. S.,Army Engineers District Baltimore
Post@Office Box 1715
Baltimore, Maryland 21203.

..Dear Colonel Withers:
ln*accordance with Section 101 of the River and
Harbor Act of 1970, PL 91-611, and Section 221 of the Flood
Control Act of 1970, PL 91-611,,,it is the intent of the State
of Maryland.that, if construction of the Baltimore Harbor and
Ch *els (501) Project is commenced, the State shall:
arm
a. Provide without cost to the*13nited States all
lands, easementsi.and rights-of.-way required for construction
and subsequent maintenance of the Project and for aids to
navigation.upon the request of the Chief of Engineers, including
suitable areas determined by the.Chief of Engineers to. be required
in the general public interest for initial and subsequent disposal
of dredged material and necessary retaining dikes, bulkheads, and
empa*ments therefor', or the costs of such retaining works;
b. Hold and.save the United States free from damages
that may result from the construction and.maintenance of the
project, except,damages due to the fault of negligence of the
.-United States or its contractors;
c. Provide and maintain at local expense adequate
public terminal and transfer facilities open to all on equal terms,
and depths,in berthingareas and local access channels s 'erving
terminals commensurate with the depth provided in the related
project areas;
d. Accomplish without cost to the United States such
utility andother relocations or alterations as necessary for
project purposes;
e. Prohibit erection of any structure within 125 feet
of the project channelor turning basin;.

The World Trade Center Baltimore, Baltimore,, Maryland 21202, Telephone: (30i) 383-5700

Colonel G. K. Withers
Page 2

f. Establish regulations prohibiting discharge of
pollutants into waters of the channels and harbor by users thereof,
which regulations shall be in accordance with applicable laws or
regulations of Federal,'State.and local authorities responsible for
pollution prevention and control;

g. Comply with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and
Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (PL 91-646, 84 Stat.
1894) and implementing regulations; and

h. Comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
(PL 88 352, 78 Stat. 241).

Since ely,

Hermann K. Intemank
Secretary.

HKI:des

CrM=M AND RESPQNSM

ODWM@T AND RESPONSE

A draft of this report, including the Main Report, EIS, and Technical Appen-
dices, was coordinated with the public and Federal, State, and local govern-
ment agencies. Following is a list of the comments received during the review
process with the accompanying response. Letters from the non-Federal sponsor,
the State of Maryland, were received frm Office of the Governor and from the
11aryland Department of Transportation. The remainder of the letters are
Presented in the order of Federal, State, and local agencies and public caTmnts.

State ofMaryland - Executive Office

09VM: Representatives of the Department of Natural Resources have for-
warded to you Maxyland's comments. At the same time, let me assure you of
our emphatic support of this project and our willingness to provide you any
information you feel may be necessary to get this proposal underway.

RESPONSE: No response is required.

Maryland Department of Transportation

CONUM: In brief, we find that the report is comprehensive and well presented,
and we offer our unqualified endorsement of this document.

The importance of the 50-foot channel project to the future of the Port of
Baltimre could hardly be exaggerated if one tried. Its timely completion
will. represent one of the lar est steps forward to occur within the recent
history of the Port, enabling us to better serve the expanding economic
interests of Baltimore and its surrounding areas as well as the maritime
industry. We look forward to the early completion of this project.

RESPONSE: No response is required.

National Marine Fisheries Service

COMM: In reading Secretary O'Donnell's letter of 12 January 1981, and after
discussion with Department of Transportation and Department of Natural Resources
personnel, it appears there is the distinct possibility that the State of Mary-
land may propose to place approximately 27 million cubic yards of spoil material
overboard. We are concerned that the DEIS has not discussed this alternative.

RESPONSE: The 1,14aryland Department of Transportation has the responsibility of
identifying an acceptable site for placement of dredged material from deepening
the Maryland channels. Hart-Miller Islands have been identified and found to
be acceptable. If the State proposes to use different or additional sites for
deposition of material resulting frcrn the deepening, then that site/sites would
have to be analyzed, results coordinated, and determined to be acceptable.
Appropriate environmental analysis and documentation would have to be pre-
pared concerning any impacts which my occur.

COMENT: The National Marine Fisheries Services (NMFS) was consulted during
the planning stages of the pr'oposed,project. Resources for which NMFS bears
a responsibility and alternatives.to reduce adverse impacts on these resources
have been addressed to our satisfaction in the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (DEIS).

FOR30NSE: No. response is required.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

The Fish and Wildlife Service (FYIS) has provided the Corps with a Fish and
Wildlife CDordination Act Report, as required by provisions of the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act, P.L. 85-624, Section 2(b). The report, which can
be found in this Addendum, contains extensive discussion on the project.
The two recammendations in the report are presented as follows.

CONUM: The Corps should require the State of Maryland to develop a plan
for spoil disposal over the 50 year project life. In order'for the plan to
be realistic, it should recognize that demands for spoil disposal sites will
come not only from the main.ship channel, but also from- other Federal, State,'
and private dredging projects in the vicinity of Baltimore Harbor. In addition,
alternative disposal methods for the relatively clean material from the
deepening-of the approach channel should be examined.

RESPONSE: The State of Maryland has the requirement to-provide disposal areas
for the project life. The State has identified Hart-Miller Islands as the
site for placement of the initial dredged material from the Maryland channels,
and for a period of maintenance. In accordance with Corps' requirements,,the
State, which is aware of its responsibility to develop a program for disposal,
is examining alternative disposal sites foracceptance of maintenance dredging.
Maryland is aware of the need for dredged material placement from other Federal,
State, and private dredging projects a.9 well and is currently planning for these
needs. Should Maryland identify alternative disposal methods for clean materials
from deepening the approach channels, those plans would be reviewed and appro-
priate supplemental information developed. See response to National. Marine
Fisheries comment.

CaMM: The Corps should fund studies to monitor the effects of the project.
In the near future, we will be reviewing a program proposed by the Virginia
Institute of Maxine Science for the Virginia channels. The State of Maryland
has been developing their own monitoring plan for the Hart-11iller disposal
area.

RESPONSE: The Corps of Engineers, in-conjunction with the Technical Advisory
Group, is refining a plan which will monitor the effects of the project in
Virginia. The total project cost reflects the costs of this Mnitoring funds
as presented in Section 0, Table 0-8. The %xyland Department of Natural
Resources, under Maryland legislation, is responsible 'for monitoring of
dredging operations in Maryland. Department of Natural Resources, in con-
junction with Maryland Department of Transportation, is developing.a moni-
toring plan for construction and operation of Hart-Miller Islands.

U.S. Enviromental Protection Agency

The-Envirorffnental Protection Agency,provided a generalletter and detailed
comments. The letter may be found in this Addendm and the.detailed conments
and responses are provided here.

MSOU: Baltimore Haxbor, according to DEIS page 23 there would be a change
in the Patapsco River salinity of greater than 5 ppt. 'A worst case scenario
should be prepared which identifies what this means to the environment.. This
should include but not be limited'to the following:

a. The impact of zoography (i,e., fish migration, boring and fouling
-organisms, shellfish).

b. The-impact of submergent and emergent aquatic vegetation.

c. The potential release of pollutants fran contaminated sediments.

d. Impacts to groundwater and surface water hydrology.

R_F,SPCVSE: The discussion of salinity changes has been elaborated upon in
Section K of the Main Report and-the FEIS. As mentioned in the FEIS, the
salinity differences seem greatest (5 ppt) in the channel of the Patapsco.
There is a reduced salinity response in the non-deepened side channels and,
adi acent axeas.

While the greatest salinity increases are expected in the inner Baltimore
Harbor, there is no.spawning there and the fauna, especially the benthos
is poorly developed. The deepened channels are where the major changes
occur and these areas develop anaerobic conditions in the summer and con-
sequently support a limited bc-nthic cammunity. Also, the channels are not
located near suhnerged or miergent aquatic vegetation.

During the actual dredging process, sediments will be disturbed and suspended
into the water column. The U.S. Army Waterways Experiment Station (VES) has
investigated dredging.and disposal operations for a number of-years under the
Dredged Material Research Program (IAMP). Results of the program have indi-
cated that water colum turbidity generated by dredging operations is usually
restricted to the vicinity of the operation and decreases rapidly with in-
creasing distance fran the operation due to settling and horizontal dispersion
of the suspended material. The main concern with the harbor dredging is not
the resultant turbidity but the. release of toxic material into the water
column. The UM research'indicates long-tenn impacts* of dred@ged matk-xial
on water quality have generally been slight. Very little net mass release of
heavy metals into the water column was observed regardless of the composition
of the sediments. Even during open water disposal operations, it,was observed
that there were essentially no uptake of metals or PCB's by fish or most
invertebrates.

Chemical testing in the Baltimore Harbor shows that the portions of.the sediments
contaminated with the most polluted material to be in the inner harbor. The
sediments become less contaminated as you approach the mouth of the Patapsco
River. This contamination is substantially ex)nfined to the upper 10 centi-
meters of the sediment. The. bulk of the dredged material will be undisturbed,

clean material which results from deepening the channels - Dredging operations
will remve most.rraterial, however, some sediment will be suspended into the
'water column. Since the most polluted material is in the inner harbor, any
suspended material will have a longer time to settlebut before it reaches
the open bay. As dredging occurs closer to the mouth of the river, the
settling time for suspended sediments'before reachi _ng.the bay is shorter,
however, the material being dredged is less contaminated. In addition, the
material within the channels is probably less contaminated than material
elsewhere in the harbor due.to the fact that the channels have been deepened
and maintained in the past. Also, the low velocities in the i:mner harbor
sanewhat limit the transport of the sediment. The amount of-contaminated
material being carried to the bay as a result of &edging operations is not
expected to be significant.

Recent Envirorffnental Protection Agency testing (1981) has shown an area adja-
cent to the mouth of the Patapsco River to contain contaminated material and
is limited in its benthic diversity. Any suspended material resulting from
dredging, which make it to the bay, my settle out in this area. If so,
the overall impact to the area should not be significant.

The @1aryland Department of Transportation, in regards to the study of the
1-95 Tunnel, has determined that the groundwater in the harbor region is
currently polluted with a salt water intrusion. Therefore, deepening the
channels should not adversely affect any groundwater.' Also, according to
Dr. Boycourt's numerical model of the Baltimore Harbor (see Section K f 'or
further detail), deepening of the Baltimore Harbor and channels should not
.affect the fact that there is a three layered systEm. Overall velocities
and salinities may increase somewhati however,. these should not affect the
nature of the system. Also, Dr. Boycourt's model has shown that there will
not be a significant increase in circulation or in-sediment transport.as a
result of channel deepening.

OCAIPM: The model also predicted lower velocities on page 23 within the
Patapsco River. How was it detemined.that there would not be an ine'reased
need for maintenance dredging on page L-11?

RE SPONSE: The determination that there imuld not be an increased need for
maintenance dredging was based on past shoaling rates. Also, page 25 of the
EIS does not predict lower velocities within the Patapsco River but does con-
clude that no major velocity variations were indicated as a result of channel
deepening. Since there are no projected major'variations in velocity occurring,
it can be concluded that there would not be an increased need for maintenance
dredging.

CWMT: James and York Rivers, according to page 23 there would be a decrease
in salinity*. The impact of such a change should be identified.

a. The impact of zoography.

b. The impact of submergent and emergent vegetation.

c. The potential release of kepone in the James River..

RESPONSE: According to the model test results, the salinity decrease in the
York and James Rivers were found at the mouth'only and only at one of the two
monitoring stations (see Section K, paragraph 102). If a change does occur,
the effect on biota should not be significant. (See response to Cbmmonwealth
of Virginia - Council on the Environment). Also, according to tests performed
by Virginia Institute of Marine Science, salinity changes do not affect the
release of kepone.

WMWT: The Hampton Roads is expected to'be deepened to 55 feet. What
effect will this channel deepening have upon the 50-foot'channel to Baltimore,
i.e., will it exacerbate potential salinity problEms?

RESPUITSE
. The deepening of the Hampton Roads Channels will be analyzed by
the Norfolk District of the Corps of Engineers. Tests are planned to be
conducted using the Chesapeake Bay Hydraulic Model to show the effects of
deepening the Hampton Roads Channel. It is not known at this time whether
the Hampton Roads deepening will accentuate or diminish any potential salinity
changes that occur as a result of the Baltimore 50-foot deepening.

COW=: The Port of Baltimore is a major ccepetition of Norfolk. Would
this Federally supported project provide any unfair econanic burden for one
Port over another?

RESP(24SE: The benefits of deepening of Baltimore's shipping channels are
savings in efficiency for shipping that presently occurs or is projected to
occur without deepening the project. For further explanation of benefits
derived frm' the project, see Section P of the Main Report.

CUTMT: The DEIS does not adequately address the 50 year maintenance problEm.
The Maryland report identified on page L-11 is outdated. At present with
Faxt-114iller Islands, a 50 year disposal site is available. A management
program to maximize the use of Hart-Miller Islands must be developed. This
would include the possible use of clean sand from the channels for industrial
use and possible overboard disposal of the Craighill Sections where overboard
sites are available and the materials meet the criteria.

RESPONSE: Although the report is outdated, it reflects a process to develop
plans for'identification and management of disposal axeas. The State has
identified Hart-Miller Islands as the site for placerwnt of the initial
dredged material fran the Maryland channels and for a period of maintenance.
The State has the responsibility to develop a program for disposal and is
examining alternative disposal sites for acceptance of maintenance dredging.

OCIMM: The DEIS does not provide any details on the monitoring ofthe
channel deepening. It is our understanding that the Virginia channels will
be monitored under contract to Virginia Institute of.@Iarine Science. We
request that the Enviromental Protection Agency be involved in the prepara-
tion of the monitoring plan and receive a copy of the monitoring reports.
On the Maryland channels, the State will be conducting all monitoring. Again,
we request the opportunity to participate in the monitoring program design
and to receive copies of the reports.

RESPONSE: The details of the monitoring program are still being developed
through the Technical Advisory Group of which the Environmental Protection
Agency is a mernber. Determination as to contracting for monitoring has not
been made at this time. The Environmental Protection Agency will continue to
berequested to participate in the development of the monitoring program.
The monitoring program for Maryland is being, developed through the Department
of Transportation and the Department of Natural Resources. The monitoring
program will meet all conditions stipulated in all permits and certifications
for the project. Any desire to help design the program will have to be
coordinated with the State.

CUMT: Two ocean dump sites have been identified. The Dam Neck site is
the only approved site and is proposed to be phased out when the Norfolk
site EIS is approved. The Environmental Protection Agency has recommended
to the Office of the Chief of Engineers that'both sites be approved for
long-term disposal. The Dam Neck site would be used strictly for clean sand
and the Norfolk Ocean site for all the other spoils which meet criteria.
During the dredging of the Cape Henry and York Spit Channels., all clean sand
should be dumped at the Dam Neck site.

RESPONSE: The Dam Neck site is currently being investigated to be used for
a long-term disposal site for clean material (see Addendum II).

M-207r: In those sections using a hopper dredge, no economic loading should
be done. This will minimize the in4)acts at the dredging site.

RESPONSE: Continuing investigations of economic loading and potential impacts
are being conducted. Economic loading is anticipated in the Virginia channels
with potential impacts in the York and Rappahannock Channels being analyzed
as part of the monitoring program.

U.S. Department of Agriculture

OCKn7r: We have reviewed the Main Report and Draft Environmental Impact
StatEment for Baltimore Harbor and Channels, Maryland and Virginia, and have
no substantive coaments to make at this time. Thank you for the opportunity
to review this draft EIS.

FTMMSE: No response is required.

Federal Emergency Management Agency
O(Xfv=: We have reviewed the above referenced report and have found no need
to comment.

RESPONSE: No response is required.

Federal Ener Regulatory Conmission

CUAMT: I am replying to your request on 29 May 1981 to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Comission for comments on the Draft Environmental IMpact Statement
for the Baltimore Harbor and Channels 50-Foot Project, Maryland and Virginia.
This Draft EIS has been reviewed byappropriate FERC staff components upon
whose evaluation this response is based.

This staff concentrates its review on other agencies' environmental impact
statements basically on those areas of the electric power, natural gas, and
oil pipeline industries for which the Commission has jurisdiction by law,
or where staffhas special expertise in evaluating environmental impacts
involved with the proposed action. It does not appear that there would be
-nificant impacts in these areas of concern nor serious conflicts with
any sip,
this dgency's responsibilities should this action be undertaken.

RF,%_@ONSE: No response is required.

Commonwealth of Virginia - Council on the Environment

Comments from the following agencies were received through and summarized
by the Commonwealth of Virginia Clearinghouse (Council on the Environment).

Commission of Came and Inland Fisheries
Commission of Outdoor Recreation
Department 'of Conservation and Economic Development
Department of Health
Department of Highways and Transportation
Division of Industrial Development
Marine Resources Commission
State Air Pollution Control Board
State Water Control Board
Offiee of Fmrgency and Energy Services
Virginia Port Authority

COPOM: (As reflected by Virginia Port Authority)

The Commonwealth has a number of suggestions and concerns with respect to
monitoring and testing needs, uses of the dredged material, and other aspects
of the project. Basically, we will insist upon implementation and enforcement
of the monitoring program outlined in the'Commonwealth's letter, dated 24 April
1981,. to the 1-bnorable James T. O'Donnell, Maryland Secretary of Transportation
(reprinted in Addendum II of the @.,Iain Report and Environmental Statement).

RESPONSE: A monitoring program is currently being developed through the
Technical Advisory Group of which the State of Virginia is represented. An
acceptable monitoring plan will be implementedprior to, during, and after
disposaloperations.

CM.09T: (As reflected by Virginia Marine Resources Commission)

The Commonwealth is concerned about the project's effects on Virginia's ful-
fillment of its water quality responsibilities. Since the project is statu-
torily exempt from the regulatory authority of the Marine Resources Commission
and the Norfolk District of the Corps has waived interest, the only legal
mechanism for protection of Virginia's interests will be the "401 Certification"
issued by the State Water Control Board. Without the "401 Certification",
Virginia's interests will be unprotected.

RESR%ZTi: Section,404(R) of the Clean Water Act of 1977 provides that is a
404(b)(1) evaluation of the effects of the discharge of dredged or fill
material into the waters of the United States has been performed, as in the
case of this EIS, that Congress could consider the effects of the discharge
of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States through the
authorization or appropriation processes for those projects specifically
authorized by Act of Congress. Once the requirements of this option are
met, the discharge is no longer subject to regulation under Section 301, 402,
and 404 of the Clean Water Act, unless the location or method of discharge
changes. If the 404(b)(1) evaluation is submitted to Congress for review,
the requirement to obtain a State Water Quality Certificate, under Section
401 of the Clean Water Act is not applicable.

CUDMIr: (As reflected by Virginia State Water Control Board and the Office
of Health Protection and Envirorffnental Management)

With respect to, monitoring needs, it is by no means certain that previous
use of the disposal areas of Wolf Trap, Rappahannock Shoal, and Dam Neck
precludes changes in the biological communities fran new dredging and use
(Section 4.22, page 26 of EIS). This project will double the annual main-
tenance requirements in the Virginia channels; close monitoring of the
effects of dredge spoil disposal will be necessaxy throughout the project.
Monitoring should include consideration of water quality as well as bio-
.logical ccummities; the program under development by the Technical Advisory
Committee did not, according to the documents, include wuter quality. An
additional reason for--monitoring the disposal of dredged materials in
Virginia waters is the increased maintenance requirement cited above.

Also, the following comment was received from the Virginia State Water Control
Board.

CU-.2ENT: A strong effort should be made to monitor the fate of the dredged
materials placed in Virginia waters. Should this dredging be determined to
increase the frequency of maintenance dredging in other channels or harbors,
a system of compensation should be axranged to mitigate the resultant additional
expenses to the local sponsors and the Norfolk, District, Corps of Engineers.

R
TNIUM: As stated previously, the Technical Advisory Group is currently
developing an acceptable monitoring plan. Discussions are taking place to
detennine the specific parameters which will be monitored and the magnitude
of the monitoring. Consideration is being given to the monitoring of certain
vater quality parameters. Another aspect.of the monitoring plan being dis-
cussed is the fate of the dredged material. In addition to the placement of*
dredged material frcm initial construction, there will be an approximate
doubling of materials frcm periodic maintenance. A significant portion of
be to baseline the biological conditions of the
the monitoring program wi
disposal areas, monitor the immediate and mid-term fate of dred@ged material,
determine the impact upon the biological value of the disposal area. It is
not anticipated that the movement of dredged material will increase the
frequency of maintenance dredging in9ther channels or harbors.

C=Mlr: (As reflected by coments from State Water Control Board and from
the Marine Resources Commission)

The Comonwealth hopes for further expansion of the model testing for salinity
differences associated with the.Baltimore Channel deepening. We are con-
cerned that a shift in the average salinity in either the Bay or its tribu-
taries could adversely affect the living resources.

RESPUM: A further explanation of the model test.for salinity can be found
in Section K, paragraph 99-104.

OMMT: (As reflected by the Virginia ?1arine Resources Conmission and the
D
I
epartment of Highways and Transportation)

Some of the dredged material might be put to practical use instead of being
dunped overboard. The Department of Highways and Transportation should be
contacted (see attached letter) if the idea of using dredged material as fill
for its Route 664 (Hampton Roads) tunnel islands appears feasible to the Corps;.
the Department wishes to conduct tests on the material. Some of the dredged
material might be used'as beach nourishment. Disposal of material from the
Cape Henry Channel should be coordinated with that of material from the
Norfolk project if possible.

RESPONSE: The Carmnwealth of Virginia has identified the stockpiling of
acceptable material at the Ft. Story disposal site or an acceptable alternate
in the designation of disposal sites for material from the Virginia channels.
The use of Ft. Story for this purpose is reflected in the EIS. Coordination
is currently underway with the Department of Highmnays and Transportation
for their use,of material in the Route 664 tunnel islands. The results of
investigations for other uses for the dredged material, such as wetland
creation, has been discussed in Sections I and K of the @,1ain Report and also
in the EIS.

M.94m: Page K-9, paragraph 71 -The justification given to'minimize the
apparent impact seems specious. It would be more valid to compare the area
disturbed to the area of the appropriate ecological zone of the Bay instead of
the entire Chesapeake Bay.

RESPONSE: This paragraph is used as a comparison of the bay versus the new
channel areas and not as a justification to minimize the apparent irrpact. It
is recognized that three square miles of new bottom will be deepened; however,
repopulation will occur which will lessen these in-pacts. The paragraph reflects
maintenance dredging in the channel and recognizes that the channel area has
lower productivity than in shallow areas. Since channel extensions do not
pass through any critical habitat, submerged aquatic vegetation areas or
coirmercial benthic areas, making a comparison to a more specific ecological
zone is inappropriate.

W.B0,71: Page K-20, paragraph 73 - The seasonal restriction to protect the
blue crabs seems to be a reasonable precaution.

RESPONSE: The.seasonal restriction is to protect overwintering blue crabs
adjacent to the channels from sedimentation resulting from dredging. If it
can be shown-.that dredging does not impact these crabs, the restriction may
be eliminated.

Virginia Office'of Health Protection and Environmental Managewnt

OMSM: The primary concerns of this bureau are in regard to the overboard
discharge of dredged material into the Wolf Trap and Rappahannock sites. It
is urged that close monitoring of the effects of dredged material disposal
in these sites be carried out,during all aspects of the project.

RESPONSE: See camient on monitoring fran the Cam)onwealth of Virginia -
Council on the Environment.

Virginia Marine Resources Ccmmission

C019MU: Any significant shift in the average salinity regime in either the
tributaries or the Bay itself (is of concern). Such a shift could impact
adversely the living resources over which managewnt responsibility is exer-
cised by this agency.

RESPCNSE: The shift of average salinity in the bay proper And-the tributaries
is not considered significant. Although any shift may impact the living resources,
the impact may be beneficial to sane species, i.e., increased salinities may
cause better oyster spat setting, and decreased salinities my restrict the
oyster drill, MSX, and other pathogens.

Virginia Port Authority

CQEENT: The date shown on the first line of page 14 of Addendum I should be
1876 not 1976.

RESPORSE: -The date has been changed to reflect the correct year which is 1907.

Virginia Conservation and Econanic Developnent

CUSM: Frorn a geological standpoint, the report is well prepared and addresses
all the pertinent geologic aspects. The disposal site for the Cape Henry Channel
my be the same as proposed for the Norfolk-Hampton Road project. Disposal of
dredged material fran both of these projects should be coordinated.

RESPONSE: Coordination with the Norfolk District is on-going and will continue
through the design and construction phases.

City of Virginia Beach

COMMERr: The City of Virginia Beach strongly supports the concept of placing
as much of the suitable dredged material as possible at Fort Story for use in
the City's continuing beach nourislinent program as discussed on pages L-6-
through Ir-8 of the report. Even though the es'timated grain size may not be
ideal, it would no doubt be as good as, or better than, much of the material
placed on the beach fran inland borrow Pits in recent years.

Accordingly, it is requested that you give favorable consideration to the
use of Fort Story a.� a disposal/stockPile area for the material to be dredged
fran the Cape Henry Channel. Suitable nourishment material is difficult
to obtain even when it is available. Consequen@ly, it would be a shame not
to take advantage of this opportunity to obtain a substantial supply.

RESPONSE: Consideration for tne use of Fort Story as a disposal/stockpile
area for any acceptable material will continue.

Maryland Regional Planning Council

Note: Coordination by the Regional Planning Commission included coordination
with Anne Arundel County, Baltimore City, Baltimore County, Carroll County,
Harford County, and Howard County.

CWMU: The board members recognized the economic importance of this project
as evidenced by the very favorable cost/benefit ratio, They believe; however,
that environmental risks-associated with bucket and scow dredging of materials
fran Baltimore Harbor Channels should be avoided. Bucket and scow dredging
currently underway in the Harbor should be studied, and its effects on water
quality carefully considered before contractors bid on the dredging project.
The costs of a cleaner dredging method should also be figured into an alter-.
native cost/benefit ratio. If a more expensive method results in.a still
favorable cost/benefit ratio, user fees should be instituted to cover the
additional cost. Regardless of the method chosen, careful monitoring and the
willingness to interrupt dredging should water quality problem develop are
very important.

RESPONSE: The options for method of dredging and placement of the dredged
material at Hart-Miller Islands will be specificallydetermined during the
development of plans and specifications. Within the options allowed, actual
method of dredging will be determined by contract bids. Consideration will
not preclude the use of hydraulic dredging, hopper dredges, or any other
practicable means of dredging. The current cost estimates are based on
bucket and scow since the depths near Hart--Miller prevent using hopper dredges
as a sole method and the distance to Hart-Miller complicates hydraulic dredging.
The effects of dredging on the water column has been further explained in
Section K of the Main Report. Significant impacts are not anticipated with a
bucket and scow operation. While turbidity at the actual dredging site is
increased somewhat in emparison to other techniques, bucket and scow has the
benefit of minimizing the incorporation,of high water content and thereby can
improve the management of the material at the disposal site. The State of
Maryland has the responsibility for past operations, as well as research
conducted by Waterways Experiment Station, indicates that disturbed sediments
settle quickly and that little impact on water quality is distinguishable.
In addition, velocities in the harbor area in particular are quite low and
materials are unlikely to be moved from the site. Final specifications of
the monitoring will be discussed between the 11bxyland Department of Ti-ansportation.
and the Maryland Department of Natural Resources.

CC"MiT: The Advisory Board members also requested that more detail be provided
regarding how the increased dredging rate will.affect the use of the Hart-
Miller Islands disposal site, what standards will be used to determine effluent
limitations if water is discharged, and what authority the Department of
Natural Resources will have to stop any part of the operation if standards
areviolated.

RESPCNSE: According to the Maryland Department-of Transportation, the Hart-
Miller Islands disposal site can handle the increased dredging rate and still
.assure proper water quality standards of the effluent. The Department of
Natural Resources' Water Quality Certification, issued to the State for Hart-
Miller Islands indicates that the Water Resources Administration shall moni-
tor water quality before, during, and after construction of the spoil disposal
facility. Although no adverse effects are expected, if any do occur or if
any State water quality standards are violated, the Water Resources Adminis-
tration shall initiate an investigation to determine cause and undertake
immediate enforcement actions.

Detailed monitoring plans are presently being developed by the State of
Maryland and will be available to the public.

b1aryland Department of State Planning

00t&MV: The State Clearinghouse has reviewed the above project. In accor-
dance with the procedures established by the Office of Management and Budget
Circular A-95, the State Clearinghouse received comments from the following:

Department of Transportation, Department of Agriculture, Department of Economic
and Community Development including their Historical Trust Section, Kent County
and Owen Anne's County noted that the statement appears to adequately cover
those areas of interest to their agencies.

RESPONSE: No response is required.

CCNROU: Office of Environmental Program noted (copy attached) that they
have some concerns regarding the public necessity of the project since pre-
vious testimony indicates that a lack of onshore coal facilities is con-
sidered the major obstacle to the increase of coal shipments and since pre-
vious investigations raise questions as to the impact of the proposal on the
water quality of the Bay. The Office recommended that the final EIS contain
sufficient information to show that thebenefit derived from the proposal
compensate for the losses attributable to the changes in water quality..

RESPCNSE: Benefits for the project are derived from the savings in efficiency
for shipping that presently occurs or is projected. If coal shipments would
remain at present levels, the project would still be economically justified.
For further explanation, see Section P of the Main Report. Further information
concerning impacts to water quality of the Bay from deepening the project may
be found in Section K of the Main Report and in the FEIS under "Significant
Resources".

Maryland Department of Natural Resources

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers draft report,, "Main Report and Environmental
Statement, Baltimore Harbor and Channels, Maryland and Virginia,"May 1981,
has been reviewed by appropriate agencies of the Maryland Department of Natural
Resources. Among the issues addressed were the predicted change in salinity
and resultant ecological changes caused by the channel deepening. Based on
our review, it is concluded that the projected changes pose no serious problem
for the ecosystem of Chesapeake Bay or the Patapsco sub-estuary. In gi@-h-eral,
any environmental impacts associated with the project appear tenWrary in
nature.

There are several areas of inquiry that should be clarified in the Main
Report and Environmental Statement.

OOMMMr: The DEIS is weak in its discussion of &edging methodologies.
It states that dredging operations in -Maryland are expected to occur with
bucket and scow. However, there is no'definitive statement on this matter;
in fact, there is suggestion that &edging methodology will.be decided by
the contractor.

This point is,raised because in a project of this magnitude, the &edging
contractors may bid on "econanic load' considerations. Impacts associat6d
with sane dredging methods may prove detrimental to both water quality and
habitat. This issue should be addressed in the EIS.

RESPCUSE: A discussion of the use of the bucket and scow may be found In
the reponse to Maryland Regional.Planning Council and expanded on in Section
K of the Main Report.. Also, the State of Maryland has not allowed econcmic
loading to take place in State waters in.the past. The cost estimates in
the report are not based on econcmic loading. Contract specifications will
make clear to bidders the conditions for acccmplishing the work.

CMt=: The report states that bulk chemical analyses, elutriate tests,
and sediment analyses have been performed. The only information given in
the report involves 15 sanples analyzed by Virginia Institute of Marine
Science in 1978. The EIS should include all sediment analysis used in the
formulation of the report.

RESP@SE: Although only 15 sediment analyses are shown in the Technical
Appendix as well as sane elutriate tests, other sources were used to deter-
mine the degree of sediment contamination. Samples fram a 1971 Environmental
Protection Agency study indicated polluted sediments. Yearly testing of
the approach channels to the harbor prior to maintenance &edging were also
Z
used to determine degree of contamination. These ccniparisons were considered
adequate enough to determine the degree of contaminants in these sediments.

CaSM: Although not specifically stated in the supporting document, informal
information indicates thatthere are plans to "fast track" the dredging of
Baltimore channels at a rate of 16-18 million cubic,yards per' year. At that
rate, it is likely that the sluice gates will be needed to accommodate over-
..flow. Therefore, the method of overflow treatment must be identified and
a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit must be cbtained
within the first two or three years of operation.

RESPO@ZT-: The General Design Memorandum and Environmental Impact Statement
are based on construction of the project in an approximate three year time
schedule. C(:)ordination with the Maryland Port Administration indicates
water quality control can be achieved on that schedule. Since operation of

the Hart-Miller 'disposal area is the responsibility of the State of Maryland,.
the methods of treatment and any required permits for treatment is a matter
between departments of the State.

COMM: Page H-9 through 11. Several utilities belonging to the City of
Baltimore and the Baltimore Gas and Electric Conpany will need to be relo-
cated or deepened due to the proposed dredging. These-parties should be
apprised of the need for wetland licenses for emplacement of submarine utility
crossings and should be urged to apply for the appropriate licenses/permit@;
at the earliest opportunity.

RESPCNSE: The Baltimore Gas and Electric Ccmpany and the City of Baltimore
have been informed of the project and potential impacts to submerged equipment.
It is their responsibility to apply for the wetland licenses. Coordination
with these utility owners will be continued during preparation of plans and
specifications to insure that relocations are acccuplished in an orderly and
timely fashion.

COMM: Page K-3,,paragraph 11. The time period over which the 100 damaging
storms occurred should be stated.

RESPONSE: The time period involved is recorded time in the bay area and has
been incorporated.

OMMM: Page K-4, paragraph 13. In Baltimore Harbor, there is a three
layered circulation pattern. This should be included in the discussion.

RESPONSE: The Baltimore Harbor three layered system has been incorporated
into this paragraph.

COWMT: Page K-6, paragraph 21. Non-point sources of pollution should be
mentioned.

RESPONSE: Concur, this has been incorporated.

MOMM Page K-7, paragraph 23. One pollutant mentioned in fourth sentence
Ilethion" is not a familiar word. Ethion is an organophosphate (pesticide).

RESPONSE: Concur, this.has been incorporated.

CMENT: The existing Mg-ryland standards for DO should be sp.ecif ied

RESPONSE: Concur, this has been incorporated.

OWOM Page K-9, paragraph 41. Omit the 2nd and 3rd sentences. Suggest that
the 4th sentence be changed to read, "Relatively healthy plant populations are
found in the eastern shore tributaxies such as the Choptank, Nanticoke, and
Chester Rivers." continue as written.

RESPONSE: Concur, this has been incorporated.

COMMENT: Page K-11, paragraph 52. "Heavy" runs of American and hickory shad
are not in evidence. As A matter of fact, there is a shad harvesting prohibition
in effect.

RESPONSE: Concur, this has.been incorporated.

CCISM: Page L-11, paragraph 19. The report cited, '!Management Alternatives
for Dredging and Disposal Activities in Maryland Waters" 1977 by the Department
of Natural Resources is out of date. Some of the proposed disposal sites are
no longer under consideration.

The @Iaryland Port Administration is responsible for spoil disposal site
inventory, site capacity, and prioritization of disposal sites for future
funding for port development. Additionally, dredging and spoil disposal
requirements for port and port-related projects has been presented in a
recent 5-year dredging program.

The'Corps should contact the P,"land Port A(Iministration for the most recent
disposal site evaluations. Based on information received from the Maryland
Port Administration, this section should be rewritten.

RESPONSE: See response to Environmental Protection Agency regarding the same
subject for a more detailed explanation, however, the State has initiated
an active program to manage dredged material and identify new areas for long
range disposal options.

COM=: Page 0-3, paragraph 6. Third sentence. The figure reference is in
error, should be "Figure L-5".

RESPONSE: .0c)ncur, this correction has been incorporated.

CCMMENT: Addendum I, page 1, paragraph 3. Lines 2-3. The responsibility for
designating spoil sites for port development belongs to Maryland Department of
Transportation. The Department of Transportation investigates and reccomends
funding for the acquisition of sites. Acquisition of sites, when funding is
assured, is the responsibility of Maryland Port Administration and subject to
Board of Public'Works' approval.

RESPONSE: See comment and response from the Environmental Protection Agency
concerning same subject.

W_VMNT: Addendm I, page 17, paragraph 30. The Dredge Material Research
Program did.not study the spoil disposal problem of the Chesapeake Bay.

RESPONSE: Although the Dredge Material Research Program did not study the
spoil disposal problem of the Bay, the research coming out of the program
can be used to better manage and select disposal options for the Bay. The
purpose of this section is to explain the program and present some of its
findings.

OMENr: Page EIS-25, paragraph 4.19. While a dredging window may be:
iaccmpatible with the proposed "fast track" &edging, a schedule that would
take into account chartered oyster bars is suggested.

RESPONSE: It has been determined that deepening the channel should not
present any impacts to oyster bars. The only oyster bars in the vicinity
of the channels are near the Craighill Channel. Since the sediments are
clean and deepening should keep any turbidity and siltation confined to the
channel, it was determined that a dredging window was not appropriate.

Maryland Department of Health

CCMNT: The wor k for which this EIS was Prepared requires the issuance of
a Water Quality Certification from this Department.

A public hearing was held on 24 June 1981. Testimony was received from
various interested parties and the hearing record has been left open for
a period of 30 days. Copies of the transcript of the hearing will be
obtained for consideration by this office in the determination as to
whether or not to issue a Water Quality Certification for the project.

RESPONSE: See response to comment from Commonwealth of Virginia - Council
on the Environment, as reflected by Virginia @bxine Resources Commission.

M04ENT: A Chesapeake Bay Hydraulic Model Investigation of the impact of the
project on the Bay's hydrodynamics is currently being reviewed by the State.
This hydraulic model'study has received certain questions as to the impact
of the proposal on the water quality of the Bay.

It is r6ccmmended that the final EIS contain sufficient information showing
that the hydraulic model's findings are not valid or that the benefit derived
from the project compensAte for the losses attributable to the changes in
water quality.

RESPONSE: The Hydraulic Model indicated no major velocity changes in the Bay
and no major salinity changes in the bay proper. Salinity changes were noted
at the mouth of the York and James Rivers and in the inner harbor of Baltimore.
The discussion of salinity changes has been elaborated upon in Section K of
the Main Report and the FEIS. Also, a general discussion may be found in the.
response to Environmental Protection Agency comment'concerning this subject.

OMMU: The question of public necessity becomes germane in view of the fact
that testimony received at the hearing and at Congressional hearings indicated
that the lack of adequate coal handling facilities onshore is considered to be
the major obstacle to the increase in coal shipments from the Baltimore region.

RESPONSE: See response to comment from Office of Environmental Programs.

Citizens P=am for the Chesapeake Bay, Incorporated

CU,N=: In the sumiary of the draft Environmental Impact Statement, it is
noted that there are no major unresolved issues at this time. We believe
that the issue of sediment toxicity and the attendant requirement for a

carefully selected method of accarplishing the needed dredging is an unresolved
issue.

111F PONSE: The EIS has been revised to show sediment toxicity and method of
dredging as an area of concern.- Additional discussion has been provided in
Section K. While the exact method of dredgim',,will be determined later, the
analysis conducted to date indicates that the contaminated materials can be
safely dredged and transported to the disposal area with any of the standard
methods of dredging. The sediment in the harbor has been chemically tested and
pollutants determined. The material will be placed in a confined disposal
area which should prevent it from adversely affecting the open bay. Therefore,
this concern has not been presented as an unresolved issue.

OCAORNM: As an advisory ccnudttee to the EPA Chesapeake Bay Program, we are
aware of smx- newly developed information which ought to be considered by the
Corps in planning and carrying out the dredging project. The Chesapeake Bay
Program comissioned two studies of Baltimore Harbor sediments, the results
of which are currently available in draft form. rw. Robert Huggett, at the
Virginia Institute of Marine Science, analyzed harbor sediment, samples for
organic pollutants. Dr. George Helz, at the University of @iaryland, analyzed
sedimnt samples for trace metals. The findings of these two studies, which
are too recent to have been included in your report, suggest to us that the
dredging of Baltimore Harbor my have environmental inpacts beyond those that
are briefly alluded to in that report.

The purpose of this letter is to urge the Corps of Engineers to review the
data generated by the Chesapeake Bay Program and to be prepared to select a
dredging method - other than bucket and scow - and to develop a monitoring
Program that will be responsive to the very specialized conditions of
Baltimore Harbor. Since actual dredging will not begin until 1983, there
should be adequate time for a thorough analysis of the situation in light of
the most recent technical findings.

RESPONSE: The Corps will review the new infomation and add its findings to
our consideration in plans and specifications. Based on informtion to date,
bucket and scow is an acceptable procedure and should be allov&-d as a technique
for bidders. The development of an acceptable monitoring program is the
responsibility of the State.

The Propeller Club of the United States

OOMIENT: The Propeller Club of the United States, Port of Baltimore, on
behalf of its more than 600 indivickial members, wishes to be on record as
supporting the 50-foot channel proposed, which was the subject of a public
meeting held 24 June 1981.

REST"TSE: No response is necessary.

The Jewish Vegetarian Society

MMENT: The Jewish Vegetarian Society strongly declares its opposition to
the dunping of spoils fran bucket and scow dredgikp., of the Baltimore Harbor
onto Hart and Miller Islands in the Chesapeake Bay. We feel this will dis-
rupt the habitat of wildlife, waterfowl, and fish for many miles around the
area.

RESPONSE: The State of Maryland has identified Hart-Miller Islands as the
site for containment of material dredged from the Maryland channels. Impacts
associated with the construction and operation of the facility has been
analyzed in the Hart-Miller Environmental Impact Statement (1976). The effluent
from the site will meet State water quality standards and should not adversely
impact the Bay.

COMMENT: Various letters were received from private citizens concerning the
project. Comments were received from:

Jacquelyn E. Bader
Hazel Baure
Eric R. Carl
Alice Lagna
Bernard H. Lam ers
Henry Laque
Albert J. Mattes
Clarence and Grace Rauscher
Henry Seim
Mrs. Louis Stabb
John and Susan Steele
Audrey H. Walter
Margaret Ziemann

Concerns were directed to the use of bucket and scow for dredging in Maryland
channels and the use of Hart-Miller Islands as a disposal site.

RESPONSE: See previous comments concerning the use of bucket and scow and the
use of Hart-Miller Islands.

Department of the Interior

COMMENT: The impacts associated with the disposal of spoil from the 50-foot
channel deepening in Maryland have been largely dismissed by the statement
that the spoil will be placed in the approved Hart and Miller facility.
However, it should be pointed out that the project will result in the loss
of spoil disposal capacity which could otherwise be used to accommodate
the continuing heavy load of existing maintenance material. The 50-foot
project and channel maintenance will cause the 1100 acre Hart and Miller
facility to be filled within 13 years after the start of dredging. Since
no suitable disposal sites have been designated to handle the maintenance
dredging after Hart and Miller is filled, the project may be accelerating
the need for a new disposal site. The result may be construction of
additional containment sites with the concomitant loss of estuarine habi-
tat in order to confine the polluted harbor spoil.

RESPONSE: See response to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service comment regarding
the same topic.

COMMENT: The report has failed to present a plan for the disposal of main-
tenance dredging material generated from the Maryland channels during the
50-year project life. As a consequence, future disposal options are being
preempted. As currently proposed, Hart and Miller will be used to contain
all of the dredge spoil from the 50-foot project, including the material
from the outer approach channels which is largely uncontaminated natural
material which could be handled with other forms of disposal (e.g., marsh
creation, fill for harbor projects such as the 1-95 tunnel or the Masonville
terminal, or deposition overboard in selected areas of Chesapeake Bay). If
a 50-year disposal plan were to be prepared, the advantages of retaining
Hart and Miller for the more polluted spoils from the harbor would be more
evident.

RESPONSE: See previous response.

COMMENT: The report has not adequately addressed the potential salinity
changes which may be caused by the channel deepening. The results of the
Bay Model tests should be discussed more fully, including'quantitative
changes, limitations of the model, comparison to existing mathematical
models, and ecological implications.

RESPONSE: See response to Environmental Protection Agency comment concerning
same topic.
COMMENT: Section K, paragraph 52. :The spawning run of American shad has
been drastically reduced in recent years causing the State of Maryland to
introduce special fishery restrictions.

RESPONSE: Concur. This corrections has been incorporated.

COMMENT: Section K, paragraph 65. Although not stated, the list of
species essentially comprises those included on the Department of the
Interior list of threatened and endangered species which could occur in
the general Chesapeake Bay area. However, the bog turtle has no Federal
status as threatened or endangered.

RESPONSE: Although the bog turtle is not contained on the Federal list,
it is on the State list of threatened and endangered species.

COMMENT: Section K, paragraph 84. It should be pointed out that the Dam
Neck Disposal Area is likely to be phased out prior to the start of project
construction. It will most likely be replaced by the Norfolk Disposal Area
which is in the process of undergoing environmental baseline studies prior
to being designated acceptable ocean disposal site by the Environmental
Protection Agency.

RESPONSE: The Dam Neck Site is currently being investigated to be used
for a long-term disposal site for clean material (see Addendum II).

.COMMENT: Section L, paragraph 19. Many of the potential disposal sites
listed from the report entitled "Management Alternatives for Dredging
and Disp.osal Activities in Maryland Waters" will be unavailable for use.
Four of the sites were dropped from consideration in the early planning
stages by the State. The Colgate Creek site is being used for another
project. Use of the Masonvillesite is likely to conflict with the
proposed development of the marine terminal there.

RESPONSE: Concur. Table L-3 lists the sites which Maryland has inventoried
during their study for additional sites and does. not limit investigation
to these sites.

COMMENT: EIS, paragraph 4.23. It seems unlikely that all of the dredged
material will be transported out of the disposal sites in Virginia. This
is indicated by the fact that the Wolf Trap site will probably have to be
extended 3500 yards eastward to accommodate the accumulation of material.

RESPONSE: All of the material may not leave the site; however, this was
presented as a worst case scenario. As part of the proposed monitoring
plan, the fate of the dredged material is being investigated.

COMMENT: EIS, paragraph 4.26. Green and logerhead turtles may also occur
in the construction areas on a transitory basis.

RESPONSE: Concur. This correction Ifas been incorporated.

COMMENT: EIS, page 39. It is stated that chemical testing was not con-
ducted for the Virginia channels and a portion of the Maryland channels.
on the contrary, these channels were tested for selected chemicals as is
pointed out later in the paragraph.

RESPONSE: Concur. The paragraph has been changed to reflect this comment.

U.S. Department of Agriculture

COMMENT: The Council on Environmental Quality regulations allow for the
preparation of draft EIS's concurrently and integrated with environmental
analyses and related surveys and studies (40 CFR 1502.25) and allow for
any environmental document to be combined with any other agency document
(40 CFR 1506.4); however, the EIS must stand on its own as an analytical
document. As written, it is questionable whether or not this EIS is self-
supporting. We recommend that some of the material presented in the Main
Report be moved into the EIS, i.e., Addendum I, An Overview of Dredged
Material Management in the Chesapeake Bay; Section P, Benefits; and Section
G, Alternatives. This would strcngthen the EIS.

RESPONSE: It is felt that the present EIS is a self-supporting document.
Although the incorporation of the listed sections would strengtheift the
EIS, it is considered that this material is incorporated in the EIS by
reference.

COMMENT: The statement in the Abstract for the EIS that "Since thedepth
Tor the channel has been determined, only alternative locations and methods
for placement of dredged material were investigated," is in conflict with
the material presented under the alternatives sections that discusses the
plans for channel improvement, We recommend that the material under Section
A, Plans Eliminated from Further Study on page EIS-10 be moved to Section L,
Needs and Objectives of Action. This material could be included as a sepa-
rate subheading. It is background and informational material that is not
relevant to the title of the section where it now appears.

Another consideration regarding alternatives would be the presentation
of various methods of dredging. If this has not been previously evaluated,
it should be included as part of this statement.

RESPONSE: The statement in the Abstract refers to the investigations made
during the preparation of this General Design Memorandum. The alternative
section presents the plans investigated during the survey report, which was
completed in 1969. Also, the option for method of dredging and placement
of the dredged material will be specifically determined during the develop-
ment of plans and specifications.

COMMENT: In Table EIS-2, Comparative Impacts'of Alternatives, the column
titled Economics does not contain any data.

RESPONSE: Concur. This has been corrected.

Virginia Institute of Marine Science

COMMENT: Because of the complexity of the Chesapeake Bay system, the scope
of the proposed project and the relative paucity of information available
with which impacts may be evaluated, it is our opinion that the monitoring
program being finalized is essential to the project. In addition, flexibility

should be built into the project plans in order to respond to the results
of the monitoring if necessary.

RESPONSE: The monitoring program being developed will be implemented
prior to, during, and after project construction. The monitoring program
as well as project plans will be flexible enough so that any response
which may be needed as a result of monitoring can be undertaken with
minimal delay.

COMMENT: The potential adverse impacts to Bay biota as a result of the
model-predicted salinity changes are not adequately discussed in the report.
We.are particularly concerned about the impacts which may occur in the
middle reaches of the major tributaries inthe Virginia portions of the
'Bay. This is particularly important with regard to shellfish and anadromous
fish stocks.

RESPONSE: The report has been revised to include the potential effects of
salinity and hydrodynamic changes in the Bay (see Section K, paragraph 1.01
to 1.09 of the Main Report).

COMMENT: Our other major concern stems from results of the EPA/Bay study
which strongly suggest that the Baltimore Harbor/Patapsco systems may act
as a source for heavy metals and toxic organic compounds. For example, the
prbsence and concentrations of several polynuclear aromatics (PNA's) such
as fluoranthene, chyrsene, benzo(a)pyrene and pyrene have been documented
in surface sediments in the Maryland Bay stem and Baltimore Harbor/Patapsco.
The gradients peak at the entrance to, and within the Patapsco/Baltimore
Harbor and then taper off for the region of the Patuxent River. North of
the Patapsco River entrance for concentrations drop off and then exhibit
another peak near the C&D Canal (Huggett et al., EPA Chesapeake Bay Study).

In addition, the heavy metals on sediments as documented by Helz (EPA/Bay
Study) show gradients suggesting the Patapsco/Baltimore system as a source.

The evidence thus far available from these analyses of toxics associated
with sediments provide no basis for rejecting the hypothesis that the
Patapsco/Baltimore system does not act as a source. This being the case,
it is mandatory that the Corps of Engineers rigorously address the question,
via a comprehensive analysis., whether and to what degree the proposed
modifications in the harbor would change the sediment influx-efflux
characteristics. Such analysis should include the effects of sediment
resuspension into the water column from ships, propellors. The question Ire
should also be addressed as to whether the sediments from Baltimore Harbor
should be treated as normal dredged daterial or contaminated waste relative
to their disposal at Hart-Miller Islands.

RESPONSE: An explanation of the effects of dredging in the Patapsco River
and subsequent suspension of material can be found in the response to EPA's
comment concerning this area. Resuspension of sediment resulting from
ships' propellors is an existing occurence. Deepening of the channel should

not increase this occurence; however, after dredging the sediment being
resuspended should be less polluted than present sediments. In addition,
the Baltimore Harbor material is considered polluted and will be placed
in a confined disposal area.

Although PNA's have been found in the surface sediments of the harbor,
no guidelines have been established as to harmfull concentrations or their
effect on aquatic organisms. Also, these can be a naturally occurring
substance.

Department of Natural Resources

Comment: Issue 1. There is uncertainty as to the techniques which will
be utilized during the dredging of the Baltimore
Harbor portion of the Channel to control turbidity
and toxic materials.

The.Interstate Division for Baltimore City prepared a comprehensive (1979)
environmental assessment for the environmental impacts associated with
constructing the 1-95 Fort McHenry Tunnel. This study found that a
hydraulic cutter head dredge removing the surface sediments in the Fort
McHenry area would raise the concentrations of the following constituents
in the immediate vicinity of the cutting head by a factor of ten or more;
these constituents being suspended sediment, ammonia, phosphorus, oil and
greases, arsenic, cadmium, copper, lead, zinc, chlordane, DDT, kepone,
mirex, and PCB's. Dilution in a mixing zone of 120 meters around the
dredge resulted in concentrations within the range of ambient concentrations
except for the following constituents: chlordane, DDT, mirex and PCB's.
These four compounds are presently found in Baltimore Harbor at concen-
trations which exceed EPA water quality criteria.

The Corps' Main Report states that bucket and scow dredging techniques
are expected to be used for the Maryland portion of the 50-foot channel.
Bucket and scow operations may cause higher concentrations of suspended
sediment, heavy metals, and organic chemicals when compared to other
types of dredging operations. Because water quality criteria are already
being exceeded within Baltimore Harbor for certain potentially toxic
materials, the Department recommends that the Corps undertake an indepth
analysis of dredging methodologies and associated water'quality impacts
for that portion of the channel project within Baltimore Harbor. The
Corps should stipulate in its dredging contracts the dredging methodology
which minimizes the suspension of bottom material in the column and which
minimizes the concentrations of potentially toxic metals and organic
chemicals.

RESPONSE: Impacts associated with channel deepening with respect to
water quality has been further addressed in the Main Report and FEIS.
A discussion of the impacts can be found in the response to comments
by EPA and Maryland Regional Planning Council.

COMMENT: Issue 2. Even though there will be toxicological testing of the
sediments there is concern over the potential impact
of dredging on the biota of Baltimore Harbor.

The EPA Chesapeake Bay Program is funding bioassay studies of Baltimore
Harbor sediment. The work is currently in progress at the EPA Corvallis,
Oregon, lab and final reports are expected early this fall. In addition,
the 1-95 Fort McHenry Tunnel environmental assessment includes a literature
review of the impacts of selected trace metals, organo-chlorine compounds
and oil on representative vertebrate and invertebrate species.

The Department recommends that this information be used to.assess the
potential impact on toxic materials freed by the dredging operations on
the biota of Baltimore Harbor and that the analysis be included in the
final EIS.

RESPONSE: See response to EPA comment concerning the Patapsco River
regarding the effects of dredging the polluted sediments. Also, it has
been documented that finfish would avoid an area of disturbance, as with
dredging, so any finfish in the Harbor should not be impacted. The benthic
organisms in the Baltimore Harbor area is so depressed that no major
impacts resulting from dredging should occur. In addition, the Corps will
review the new information and consider its findings in development of
plans and specifications.

COMMENT: Issue 3. There is concern that the 50-foot Channel Project
will alter circulation and salinity patterns of
the Patapsco River.

The draft results of the Corps' "Baltimore Harbor and Channel Deepening
Study" indicated that increases of 5 to 10 parts per thousand in bottom
water salinity may accompany the 50-foot Channel Project in Baltimore
Harbor. This increase in salinity may enhance the stratification of the
Patapsco River and result in an increase in the velocity of the out-
flowing middle layer of the Baltimore Harbor's three-layered flow systems.

The Corps, physical model, which was utilized to assess the salinity change
accompanying the 50-foot Channel Project, could not accurately predict
changes in the velocities of the Harbor's three layered flow system.

Drs. Boicourt and Olson of the Johns Hopkins University have developed
a mathematical computer hydraulic model of Baltimore Harbor. This model
could be used to predict changes in velocity and flow. f

The Department recommends that the cQm uter model of Baltimore Harbor be
. p
utilized to evaluate salinity and circulation changes accompanying the
50-foot Project. If significantly large increases in outward flow are
predicted to occur, then mitigation measures could be developed to mini-
mize exports of materials into the mainstem of the Bay. For example, the
dredging schedule could be designed to complete all inner Harbor work prior
to finishing the approach channel portions.

RESPONSE: Dr. Boicourt's model has been used to evaluate the effects of
deepening the channels on salinity and velocity. This has been included in
the FEIS and Section K of the Main Report. According to Dr. Boicourt's
numerical model, the deepening should not effect the fact that there is a
three-layered system. Overall velocities and salinities may increase
somewhat; however, these should not affect the nature of the system. Also,
Dr. Boicourt's model has shown that there will not be a significant
increase in circulation or in sediment transport as a result of channel
deepening.@

7112 River Drive Road
Baltimore, M.aryland 21219
July 21, 1981

D e a r S i r ,
The Chesapeake Bay model, the Roy i'viann
report, expert witnesses, ecological
and econ6micstudies have all shown that
the proposed dike should not be built
at Hart and Miller Islands

BIG BUSINESS decided it belongs there.

So, unless the honesty and integrity
of the proponents cause them to alter
their plans, the dike will go in.
@,'Ie also know that any spills or
ruptures will ruin forever the ecosy-
stem of the Bay, a beautiful and
valuable part of Niaryland. Therefore,
the obvious conclusion is 'i,',O-,',,'EY1.

My questions are: how will property
owners in the area be compensated, who
will assume responsibility for damage,
will emergency phone numbers be
available. Have these questions
been covered? These are just a
few questions the "little people"
would like addressed.

M-r tvlrs Louis Staab
CC: Congressman Clarence Long

lovs.i. oycwwn 9. 230ALL't
1920 QViLon @Point d?oad
BaLuftw,@z, ,Vatytand 21220
P-C Ci-

Z..4r

o-r./
@v

44levnan 9.
7920 Q41dwn !Point Road
Saftimo%z, ,,Va-,ytatzJ 21220

'Oor
@-:oorz

ZZ/Z

4w
rro- T

1121@

Amj
9-1 =It
"V7--

Col. James Peck, District Engineer
U.S. Amy Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 1715
Baltimore, Maryland 21203

July 20, 1981

Dear Col. Peck:

This is written to air deep concern for the planned dLznping of spoil in dikes
at Hart &.Miller islands.

I am an engineer, small business man, and scout leader who has lived near the
islands all my life. Since I was a boy in the 40's and 501s, I have been
involved in construction projects on the -water and am familiar with the way
the elements affect marine construction here. There is no doubt in my mind; nor
that of many others; some directly involved in this proposed project; that
there will be breaks in the dike, leaks from barges and the dike, and all
manner of spillage of spoil all over the area from the harbor to the islands.
As a result of what is patently obvious to the residents of the area, my
teenage sons insist that they spend more time than usual at the islands this
year,"since this is the last year for the islands", (quote from my 12 year
old). Is there no recourse for a person being ravaged like this? How do I
answer my sons wfien they ask how this can happen, since it is so 'dell
understood by so many that this thing is folly? My boys have grown up with
this controversy hanging over the one place in this area that they hold very
dear. They've seen people they respect arguing very reasonably for an end to
this whole thing; they've been taught that this is a government of, for, and by
the people- not big business at the expense of people. The whole thing is being
handled in a shoddy manner with evident lack of concern for the very real fears
of the people involved.

A number of facets of the project raise objections which remain essentially
unpnswered:
The dike is to be, primarily, sand with some riprap covering on some faces-
this will be resting on very, very unstable sand which in no way can be
considered an appropriate foundation for such a mound. I do not believe it
is possible for the dike to hold long enough to be filled, let alone to
compact. Even if it should, by some great stroke of luck, last long enough
to fill and compact; it would certainly erode end crumble from the natural
forces at work in the region. Clearly, you intend to sacrifice the area for
posterity!

The spoil is to be lifted by a process which is very messy, namely "bucket
and scow", noone is sure what effect this will have on the whole upper bay.
What dangers exist from the great number of barge trips involved in moving
the spoil over this grceat distance from the harbor to the islands? V@hat is
the likelyhood of accidents such as barges colliding with each other, and
boats; or overturning in storms, etc.?

1,,@Jbat hazards to navigation are to be created as a result of this
transformation; not to large vessels, but the myriad of pleasure boaters
who use this area in one of the most popular areas of the bay?

Mat effects will this deepening of the harbor have on the rest of the bay?

Wbat assurance do we have that the state has the resources to.,complete this
project when the dike crumbles in some storm three years froi@ now, and the
present great danand for coal is replaced by something else,'and financial
pressures dictate a revision in priorities? We can forsee a big mess and a
lot of name calling, and some retirements and dissociation with the whole
mess when it is no longer possible to cover up the ill-conceived
"engineering" and planning of this project.

How do you explain the need to do such a thing to such an area to the people
it means so much to?

I sincerely doubt that there are answers to any of these questions, let alone
all of them. If you can't satisfy the people of the region on all these counts,
I believe you do the public you are sworn to serve, and yourself, a great
disservice. I will predict that there will be considerable tumoil and, very
likely, personal ham to some people involved in the project. Do not interpret
the calm that you see now as a sign of passivity on the part of those affected,
I feel that vigilante type justice may be thrust upon people -who :@re constantly
cheated by those who should be serving them. People have not forgotten that the
majority of voters opted against the "parallel bay bridge", which our elected
officials, in their infinite wisdom, saw fit to build anyway.

Sincerely:

Eric R. Carl
2118 Trad Avon Road
Baltimore, maryland 21221

cf:
Rep. Clarence D. Long
Sen. Charles McC. Mathias
Sen. Paull S. Sarbanes
,be Baltimore Sun
The Essex Times

pewte

&a71-1 '44@;&W&nd ll@k /Iva

04@
O-r

d4d

LIZ

Ld
to yw- qemi' L,2&

OZA Q,& At4@&
4@o Mt /mt@z@ at ha4Y-
F

Z. tA

.&xbL A-0. ao@ qoe@6 kz&JI6. ANX

We 5@ A&C s@@

/"V, Aio

147 Or

a-
United States Department of the Interior

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240
ER-81/1162 31yL 17

Lieutenant General J. K. Bratton
Chief of Engineers
Department of the Army
Washington, D.C. 20314

Dear General Bratton:

The Department of the Interior has reviewed the Main Report and
Environmental Statement for Baltimore Harbor and Channels,
Maryland and Virginia. We have the following general and specific
comments.

General Comments

The impacts associated with the disposal of spoil from the 50 foot
channel deepening in Maryland have been largely dismissed by the
statement that the spoil will be placed in the approved Hart and
Miller facility. However, it should be pointed out that the
project will result in the loss of spoil disposal capacity which
could otherwise be used to accommodate the continuing heavy load
of existing maintenance material. The 50 foot project and channel
maintenance will cause the 1100 acre Hart and Miller facility to
be filled within 13 years after the start of dredging. Since no
suitable disposal sites have been designated to handle the main-
tenance dredging after Hart and Miller is filled, the project may
be accelerating the need for a new disposal site. The result may
be construction of additional containment sites with the concom-
mitant loss of estuarine habitat in order to confine the polluted
harbor spoil.

The report has failed to present a plan for the disposal of
maintenance dredging material generated from the Maryland channels
during the 50 year project life. As a consequence, future dis-
posal options are being preempted. As currently proposed, Hart
and Miller will be used to contain all of the dredge spoil from
the 50 foot project, including the material from the outer
approach channels which is largely uncontaminated natural material
which could be handled with other forms of disposal (e.g., marsh
creation, fill for harbor projects such as the 1-95 tunnel or the
Masonville terminal, or deposition overboard in selected areas of
Chesapeake.Bay). If a 50-year disposal plan were to be prepared,
the advantages of retaining Hart and Miller for the more polluted
spoils,from the harbor would be more evident.

Lieutenant General J. K. Bratton 2

The report has not adequately addressed the potential salinity
changes which may be caused by the channel deepening. The results
of the Bay Model tests should be discussed more fully, including
quantitative changes, limitations of the model, comparison to
existing mathematical models, and ecological implications.

Specific Comments

Section K, paragraph 52. The spawning run of American shad has
been drastically reduced in recent years causing the State of
Maryland to introduce special fishery restrictions.

Section K, paragraph 65. Although not stated5, the list of species
essentially comprises those included on the Department of the
Interior list of threatened and endangered species which could
occur in the general Chesapeake Bay area. However, the bog turtle
has no Federal status as threatened or endangered.

Section K, paragraph 84. It should be pointed out that the Dam
Neck Disposal Area is likely to be phased out prior to the start
of project construction. It will most likely be replaced by the
Norfolk Disposal Area which is in the process of undergoing
environmental-baseline studies prior t'o being designated as an
acceptable ocean disposal site by the Environmental Protection
Agency.

Section L; paragraph 19. Many of the potential disposal sites
listed from the report entitled "Management Alternatives for
Dredging and Disposal Activities in Maryland Waters" will be
unavailable for use. Four of the sites were dropped from consi-
deration in the early planning stages by the State. The Colgate
Creek site is being used for another project. Use of the
Masonville site is likely to conflict with the proposed develop-
ment of a marine terminal there.

EIS, Zaragraph 4.23. It seems unlikely that all of the dredged
material will be transported out of the disposal sites in Virginia.
This is indicated by the fact that the Wolf Trap site will probably
have to be extended 3500 yards eastward to accommodate the
accumulation of material.

EIS, paragraph 4.26. Green and loggerhead turtles may also occur
in the construction areas on a transitory basis.

LieiAtenant General J. K. Bratton 3

EIS2 page 39. It is stated that chemical testing was not conducted
�dr the Virginia channels and a portion of the Maryland channels.
On the contrary, these channels were tested for selected chemicals
,as is pointed out later in the paragraph.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposal.

Sincerely

Adnj
Deputy Ass stant SECRETARY
9 st

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

FOREST SERVICE

P.O. Box 2417
Washington, D.C. 20013
1950

July 27, 1981

Mr. William E. Trieschman, Jr.
Chief, Planning Division
Corps of Engineers
Box -1715
Baltimore, MD 21203
L

Dear Mr. Trieschman:

We are submitting the following comments on the Main Report and
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Baltimore Harbor and Channels.

The Council on Environmental Quality regulations allow for the
preparation of draft EIS's concurrently and integrated with environ-
mental analyses and related surveys and studies (40 CFR 1502.25)
and allow for any environmental document to be combined with any
other agency document (40 CFR 1506.4); however, the EIS must stand
on its own as an analytical document. As written, it is questionable
whether or not this EIS is self-supporting. We recommend that some
of ths material presented in the Main Report be moved into the EIS,
i.e., Addendum I, An Overview of Dredged Material Management in the
Chesapeake Bay; Section P, Benefits; and Section G, Alternatives.
This would strengthen the EIS.

The statement in the Abstract for the EIS that "Since the depth for
the channel has been determined, only alternative locations and methods
for placement of dredged material were investigated:' is in conflict
with the material presented under the alternatives section that dis-
cusses the plans for channel improvement. We recommend that the
material under Section A, Plans Eliminated from Futher Study on page
EIS-10 be moved to Section 1, Needs and Objectives of Action. This
material could be included as a separate subheading. It is background
and informational material that is not relevant to the title of the
section where it now appears.

Another consideration regarding alternatives would be the presentation
of various methods of dredging. If this has not been previously
evaluated, it should be included as part of this statement.
OE)

In Table-EIS-2, Comparati ve Impacts of Alternatives, the column
titled Economics does not contain any data.

Thank you for the opportunity to review this Main Report and Draft
Environmental Impact Statement.

Sincerely,

DAVID E. KETCHAM
Director.of
Environmental Coordination

Lie-

COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA

J.B. JACKSON, JR. Council on the Environment 903 NINTH STREET OFFICE BUILDING
ADMINISTRATOR RICHMOND 23219
804-786-4500
July 21, 1981

Mr. William E. Trieschman, Jr.
Chief, Planning Division
Baltimore District, Army Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 1715
Baltimore, Maryland 21203

Dear Mr. Trieschman:

The Virginia Institute of Marine Science has sent cmuents on the Baltimore
Harbor and Channels 50-Foot Project vhuch did not arrive in time for inclusion in
our letter to you of July 14.

The Institute points out that the Draft Environmental Inpact Statement (Main
Report and Technical Appendices) does not adequately discuss the effects of salinity
changes attributable to the project upon Chesapeake Bay biota. Secondly, the
monitoring program being developed is essential to the project because of the projecto'
scope, the omplexity of the Bay, and the relative dearth of available information
with which to evaluate project in-pacts.

The Institute also urges riqorous analysis of the effects of the project upon
the movement of sediments, inasmuch as the EPA Chesapeake Bay Study suggests that
the Baltimore Harbor/Patapsco River system may be a source for toxic organic
ompounds and heavy metals.

Please add this letter and the enclosed letter from the Institute to the
correspondence we sent you on July 14.

Sincerely,
@-4Ln@,Jr
Enclosure
cc: The Honorable Maurice B. Pbwe, Secretary of Cmrw--rce and Resources
Mr. R. Todd Coyle, Virginia Pcrt Authority
Mr. Norman E. larsen, Marine Resources Commission
Mr. Raymond E. Bowles, State Water Control Board
Dr. Ptobert B. Stroube, Department of Health
Mt. Robert L. Hundley, Department of Highways and Transportation
Mr. Bruce B. Meador, Department of Conservation and Economic Development
Mr. Thomas A. Barnard, Jr., Virginia Institute of Marine Science

JW/CHE/all

CHARTERED 1693

COLLEGE, OF WILLIAM- AND MAR'N'

VIFiGINIA INS11TUTE OF MAFiINE SCIUXE

SCHOOL OF MAFIINE SCIENCL.
CII-)

July 161, 1981

clc,ucL@'_'r Point, Vir.-.nia _23052

Charles H. Ellis, III
Environmental Impact Statement Coordinator
Council or. the Environment
903 Ninth Street Office Building
Richmondi Virginia 23219

Re: Baltimore Earbor and Channels, Maryland and Virginia. Draft EIS.

Dear Mr. Ellis:

We have reviewed the subject document from a marine environmental
viewpoint and would like to make the following comments.

This draft report is much improved over the preliminary document which
we reviewed and commented on previously (Letter dated 2 August . 1979). We
wish to state several concerns regarding this project, some we h-ove Stated
before and one which recent investigations have only now brought to light.

Becau., of the complexity of the Chesapeake Bay system, the scope of
the propose..' project and the relative-paucity of information available with
which impacts may be evaluated, it is our opinion that the monitoring program
being finali-zed is essential to the project. In addition, flexibility should
-be built into the project plans in order to respond to the results of the
monitoring if necessary.

The potential adverse impacts to Bay biota as a result of the model-
predicted salinity changes are not adequately discussed in the report. We
are particularly concerned about the impacts which may occur in the middle
reaches of the major tributaries in the Virginia portions of the Bay. This
is particularly important with regard to shellfish and anadromous fish stocks.

Our other major concern stems from results of the EPA/Bay study which
strongly.suggest that the Baltimore Harbor/Patapsco systems may act as a
source for heavy metals and toxic organic compounds. For example, the
presence and concentrations of several polynuclear aromatics (PNA's) such
as- fluoranthene, chrysene, benzo(a)pyrene and pyrene have been documented
in surface sediments in the Maryland Bay stem and Baltimore Harbor/Patapsco.
The gradients peak at the entrance to, and within the Patapsco/Baltimore
Harbor and then taper off for the region of the Patuxent River. North of
the Patapsco River entrance the concentrations drop off and then exhibit
another peak near the C & D Canal (Huggett et al., EPA Chesapeake Bay Study).

In addition, the heavy metals on sediments as documented by Helz (EPA/
Bay Study) show gradients suggesting the PatapscolBaltimore system as a source,
XZ

Mr. Charles H. Ellis, III Page 2 July 16, 1981

The evidence thus far available from these analyses of toxics associated
with sediments provide no basis for rejecting the hypothesis that the Patapsco/
Baltimore system does act as a source. This being the case, it is mandatory
that the Corps of Engineers rigorously address the question, via a comprehensive
analysis, whether and to what degree the proposed modifications in the harbor
would change the sediment influx-efflux characteristics. Such analysis
should include the effects of sediment resuspension into the water column
from ships' propellors. The question should also be addressed as to whether
the sediments from Baltimore Harbor should be treated as normal dredged
material or contaminated waste relative to their disposal at Hart-Miller
Island.

Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this review. These
comments have been prepared by a task force of scientists at the Instititte
including Dr. Frank Perkins, Acting Director; Dr. Michael Bender, Head of
the Division of Environmental Science and Services; Dr. Robert Huggett, Head
of the Department of Ecology-Pollution; add Dr. Robert Byrne, Head of the
Department of Geological Oceanography. We will be happy to answer any
questions which may COTne Up.

Sincerely yours,

Thomas A. Barnard, Jr.
Assoc. Marine Scientist

TAB/niq

cc: Drs. Perkins
Bender
Huggett
Byrne
File

JAMES S. COULTER LOUIS N. PHIPPS, JR.
SECRETARY STATE OF MARYLAND DEPUTY SECRETARY

DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
TAWES STATE OFFICE BUILDING
ANNAPOLIS 21AOI (301) 269-3041

July 22, 1981

Colonel James W. Peck
District Engineer
P.O. Box 1715
Baltimore, Maryland ZC20

Dear Colonel Peck.

The Department has reviewed the major environmental issues raised at
the 24 June 1981 public hearing on the draft report entitled: "Main Report
and Environmental Statement, Baltimore Harbor and Channels, Maryland and
Virginia." The following comments are submitted for the record as relevant
to those issues raised which concern turbidity and toxic materials, toxico-
logical testing, and modification of the Patapsco River's circulation.

Issue 1. There is uncertainty as to the techniques which will be utilized
during the dredging of the Baltimore Harbor portion of the
Channel to control turbidity and toxic materials.

The Interstate Division for Baltimore City prepared a comprehensive
(1979) environmental assessment for the environmental impacts associated
with constructing the 1-95 Fort McHenry Tunnel. This study found that a
hydraulic cutter head dredge removing the surface sediments in the Fort
McHenry area would raise the concentrations of the following constituents
in the immediate vicinity of the cutting head by a factor of ten or more;
these constituents being suspended sediment, ammonia, phosphorus, oil and
grease, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, zinc, chlordane, DDT,
kepone, mirex and PCB's. Dilution in a mixing zone of 120 meters around
the dredge resulted in concentrations within the range of ambient concen-
trations except for the following constituents: chlordane, DDT, mirex and
PCB's. These four compounds are presently found in Baltimore Harbor at
concentrations which exceed EPA water quality criteria.

July 22, 1981 -2- Letter to Colonel Peck

exceeded within Baltimore Harbor for certain potentially toxic materials,
the Department recommends that the Corps undertake an indepth analysis of
dredging methodologies and associated water quality impacts for that
,portion of the channel project within Baltimore Harbor. The Corps should
stipulate in its dredging contracts the dredging methodology which
minimizes the suspension of bottom material in the column and which
minimizes the concentrations of potentially toxic heavy metals and organic
chemicals.

Issue 2. Even though there will be toxicological testing of the sediments
there is concern over the potential impact of dredging on the
biota of Baltimore Harbor.

The EPA Chesapeake Bay Program is funding bioassay studies of Balti-
more Harbor sediment. The work is currently in progress at the EPA
Corvallis, Oregon lab and final reports are expected early this fall. In
addition, the 1-95 Fort McHenry Tunnel environmental assessment includes a
literature review of the impacts of selected trace metals, organo-chlorine
compounds and oil on representative vertebrate and invertebrate species.

The Department recommends that this information be used to assess the
potential impact of toxic materials freed by the dredging operations on the
biota of Baltimore Harbor and that the analysis be included in the final
EIS.

Issue 3. There is concern that the 50-foot Channel Project will alter
circulation and salinity patterns of the Patapsco River.

The draft results of the Corps' "Baltimore Harbor and Channel Deepen-
ing Study" indicated that increases of 5 to 10 parts per thousand in bottom
water salinity may accompany the 50-foot Channel Project in Baltimore
Harbor. This increase in salinity may enhance the stratification of the
Patapsco River and result in an increase in the velocity of the out-flowing
middle layer of the Baltimore Harbor's three-layered flow systems.

The Corps physical model, which was utilized to assess the salinity
changes accompanying the 50-foot Channel Project, could not accurately
predict changes in the velocities of the Harbor's three layered flow
system.

Drs. Boicourt and Olson of the Johns Hopkins University have developed
a mathematical computer hydraulic model of Baltimore Harbor. This model
coulld be used to predict changes in velocity and flow.

July 22, 1981 -3- Letter to Colonel Peck

The Department recommends that the computer model of Baltimore Harbor
be utilized to evaluate salinity and circulation changes accompanying the
50-foot Project. If significantly large increases in outward flow are
predicted to occur, then mitigation measures could be developed to minimize
exports of materials into the mainstem of the Bay. For example, the
dredging schedule could be designed to complete all inner Harbor work prior
to finishing the approach channel portions.

Sincerely,
@James B.---Coulter

JBC/dlk

CMMNrS RECEIVED FROM PUMIC
0

.i 0

v
I

(A STATE OF MARYLAN D

EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT

ANNAPOLIS, MARYLAND 21404

HARRY HUGHES July 21, 1981
GOVERNOR

Colonel James W. Peck
Corps of Engineers
Department of the Army
Baltimore District
P.O. Box 1715
Baltimore, Maryland 21203

Dear Colonel Peck:

Thank you very much for your letter enclosing a copy of the
main Report, including the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
and Technical Append ices for the Baltimore Harbor and Channels
50-Foot Project, Maryland and Virginia.

Representatives of the Department of Natural Resources have
forwarded'to you Maryland's comments At the same time let me assure
you of our emphatic support for this project and our willingness
to provide you any information you feel may be necessary t o get,
this proposal underway.

Sincerely,
4
Gov nor
Gov

James J. O'Donnell
Raqland Depattment of Ransportation S-r*&Y ,
W. Gregory Halpin
Pon Admh*Vow
Maryland Port Administration

July 24, 1981

Colonel James Wo Peck
District Engineer
Baltimore District
Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 1715
Baltimore, Maryland 21203

Dear Colonel Peck:

We sincerely thank you for the opportunity
to review the "Main Report and Environmental Statement"
for the Baltimore Harbor 501 Channel project. In
brief, we find that the report is comprehensive and
well presented, and we offer our unqualified endorsement
of this document.

7rhe importance of the 501 Channel project to the
'future of the Port of Baltimore could hardly be
exaggerated if one tried. Its timely completion will
represent one of the largest steps forward to occur
within the recent history of the Port,, enabling us to
better serve the expanding economic interests of
Baltimore and its surrounding areas as well as the
maritime industry. We look forward to the early
completion of this project.

Since ely,

Gr o _#alpin
Port in strator

WGH:drb
CAP

0 a
it
G 'in @g
@'Fo- r t

My Telephone Number is (301)- 659-4500

The World Trade Center Baltimore, Baltimore, Maryland 21202

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
Services Division
Habitat Protection Branch
7 Pleasant Street
Gloucester, Massachusetts 01930

6 J U L
Col. James W. Peck
District Engineer
Department of the Army
Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 1715
Baltimore, Maryland 21203

Dear Colonel Peck:

The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has reviewed the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement -- Baltimore Harbor and Channels 50-Foot
ProJect, Maryland and Virginia.

In order 'to provide as timely'a response to your request for comments
as possible, we are submitting the enclosed comments to you directly, in
parallel with-their transmittal to the Department of Commerce for incor-
poration in the Departmental response. These comments represent the views
of the NMFS. The formal, consolidated views of the Department should reach
you shortly.

Sincerely,

Ruth 0. Rehfus
Acting Branch Chief

Enclosure
Nk

AN.

6 JUL 1981
TO: PP/EC J0 M W

FROM: F/NER54 Ruth 0. Rehfus

SUBJECT: Draft Environmental Impact Statement -- Baltimore Harbor and
Channels 50-Foot Project, Maryland and Virginia

The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) was consulted during the
planning stages of the proposed project. Resources for which NMFS bears a
responsibility and alternatives to reduce adverse impacts on these resources
have been addressed to our satisfaction in the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (DEIS).

However, in reading Secretary O'Donnell's letter of January 12, 1981,
and after discussions with Department of Transportation and Department of
Natural Resources personnel, it appears there is the distinct possibility
that th'e State of Maryland may propose to place approximately 27 million cubic
yards of spoil material overboard. We are concerned that the DEIS has not
discussed this alternative.

CLEARANCE SIGNATURE AND DATE:

F/HP:R. Smith

'41 T .1

UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

DIVISION OF ECOLOGICAL SERVICES
18258 Virginia Street
Annapolis, Maryland 21401
July 23 198f

Colonel-James W. Peck
Baltimore District,- corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 1715
Baltimore, MD 21203

Dear Colonel Peck:

This letter constitutes the report of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
on the Baltimore Harbor and Channels' 50 foot project, Maryland and Virginia.
It is submitted in accordance with provisions of the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act, P.L. 85-624 Section 2(b). We have previously provided
comments on the project by our letters of December 23, 1977, March 113, 1978,'
September 6, 1978, and September 6, 1979. We have recently.reviewed the
draft of the combined phase I and-II general design memorandum and-the
draft environmental statement and our comments will be submitted to you in
a, collective response from the Department of the Interior.

The project involves increasing from 42 to 50 feet the depth of the channel
lead ing from themouth of the Chesapeake Bay in Virginia to Baltimore Harbor in
Maryland. In the'Maryland section approximately-41 million cubic yards'(mcy) of
dredged material will be removed and placed in the Hart and Miller diked disposal
site. In the Virginia channels approximately 31 mcy of material will be dredged
and deposi.ted in two open water sites in the Chesapeake. Bay and an EPA certified
ocean disposal site.

The Chesapeake Bay is the largest estuary in the United States. It is well-
known for its bountiful production of seafood, particularly blue crabs, oysters
and clams. It provides important spawning, nursery and foraging habitat for
many species of fish. Many Atlantic Coast species of both sport and commercial
importance utilize Chesapeake Bay-waters during parts of their life cycle. The
Bay is also a major overwintering area for migratory waterfowl.

While the Bay as a whole is currently in good condition, it is being subjected
to increasing stresses exerted by an'expanding human population. Over the
last decade serious declines have been noted in the populations of striped
bass and American shad, oyster recruitment, and in the beds of submerged
aquatic vegetation. Baltimore Harbor has been badly polluted for many years.
However, in recent years water quality has noticeably improved, although the
bottom sediments remain heavily contaminated with a variety of pollutants.

The impacts of the project can be divided into two categories, dredging impacts
and disposal impacts. The most obvious dredging impact is.the loss of the
invertebrate benthic community in the channel. Repopulation should be well
under way within a year, but the species composition of the repopulated community.
may be altered, particularly in those sections of the Virginia channels which
have not been dredged before. The real value of the benthos lies in their
role as a food source*for higher organisms, especially fish, but it is not
possible to foretell if the repopulated community will more or less valuable.
Benthos adjacent to the channel could be affected by light burial by sediment
overflowing from the hopper dredges as a result of economic loading, but this
should be a relatively minor impact. The dredging in the Cape,Henry and York
Spit channels could impact blue crabs which*migrate to the lower Bay for
spawning and overwinter in the deep waters. We have recommended that no dredging
take place in the Cape Henry and York Spit channels from November 15 to March'15
in order to avoid impacting the concentrations of blue crabs which occur there
during this period. Accordingly, the Corps has incorporated this into their
dredging schedule.

In the Virginia channels the dredging will create a plume of turbid water around
the dredge. In thesurface waters this will be due to sediment laiden water
overflowing from the hopper, while in the bottom waters this will arise from the
action of the cutterhead. Although the elevated levels of suspended sediments'
may be detrimental to some sensitive organisms, the plume should be free from
any toxic chemical fractions and be relatively local in extent. Consequently,
it will probably not have much biological effect.

In Maryland previous monitoring studies have found that the turbidity plume was
accompanied by a small decrease in dissolved oyxgen, but otherwise was temporary
and without significant adverse consequence. However, unlike the sediments in
the previous studies, the sediments,in Baltimore Harbor are contaminated with a
variety of toxic pollutants. The resuspension and oxidation of the sediments
could cause some deterioration of the water quality within Baltimore Harbor. There
is also a possibility that contaminated Harbor Sediments which are disturbed during
dredging may be carried out into Chesapeake Bay. Because of the relatively
sluggish currents in Baltimore Harbor and the relatively long distance the
more polluted sediments would have to.travel before they reached the Bay, we
don't think this is a major concern. As an additional precaution consideration
might be given to starting dredging in the Inner Harbor area and progressing
down the river to the Bay. This may deter the movement of sediments down
the river and if some sediments did move down the channels, they would be
subsequently removed by.dredging anyway.

The deepening of th'e.channel has the potential to alter the salinity regime
within Chesapeake Bay. Tests conducted on the Corps Chesapeake Bay hydraulic
model have indicated that effects will be most apparent in the upper Bay,
increasing progressively up the channel into the Patapsco River. In the tests
the bottom waters became saltier with over 55% of the bottom samples in the
Patapsco River showing increases greater that Sppt after deepening. Accompanying
this is a trend for fresher water in the surface layers which intensifies the
stratification in the water column. This was most evident during simulated high
flow periods. The high elevated salinity levels and increased stratification
were largely restricted to the deepened channels and some side channels.

In Virginia waters the main bay stations did not show a clear pattern of change
although the surface layers displayed some elevated salinities after deepening.
Some stations at the mouths of the James and York Rivers were found to have a
slight reduction in the salinity of the bottom waters, No satisfactory explanation
has been advanced to account for these salinity reductions. Stations at Mobjack
Bay and the Rappahannock and Potomac river mouths showed no significant trends..

There is some uncertainty as to how accurately the model can represent the
actual conditions in'the Bay. The model can only indirectly compensate for
meteorological conditions, such as wind and temperature, and not all for other
phenomena like the movement of ships.

If we accept the basic results of the model, we can speculate on the ecological
ramifications. In Maryland where the salinity changes are the greatest, we
expect that while there may be some subtle modifications in species distributions,
there should be no drastic changes. Most of the species in this part of the
bay are estuarine organisms which are able to tolerate and are adapted to a
naturally fluctuating salinity regime. No low salinity fish spawning areas
would be affected. While the greatest salinity increases are expected in the
inner Baltimore Harbor, there is no spawning there and the fauna, especially
the benthos, is poorly developed. The model predicts that-the major changes
will occur in the deepened channels or side channels. These areas develop
anaerobic conditions in the summer and consequently support only a limited
benthic community. Since Baltimore is located near the up-bay limit for the
stinging seanettle (Crysaora quinquecirrha), this organism may become more
prevalent.

In Virginia waters we don't forsee significant biotic changes in the main
bay. In the James and York rivers a slight.(approximately lppt),reduction in
the salinity of the bottom waters at the mouth should not cause any drasti c
impacts unless.this change was carried up the river. There is no reason to
except this, but we understand that there will be continued review of the
model results and their implications.

Many of the impacts of the project will be associated with the disposal of
the dredged material. In Virginia the.dredged material will be deposited at
three open water disposal sites. Two of the disposal sites, Rappahannock Shoal
Deep and Wolf Trap, are in Chesapeake Bay and have been previously used. The
third site will be in the Atlantic Ocean. A testing program for metals, selected
pesticides, and general chemical constituents revealed that the sediments in -
the Virginia channels are relatively free from contaminants. Open water disposal
will cause an increase in the level of suspended sediment in the vicinity of the
disposal area,.but in the open bay situation the effect on the biota-in the
water column is expected to be,minor. The major impact will be the burial of the
benthos. This will not only occur within the designated-disposal area but also
in adjacent areas which may be affected by mud flows and redistribution of the
disposal material by current forces. Since the two bay disposal sites have
been previously used, we don't foresee any especially severe impacts. However,
as biological information for these areas is sparse, this aspect should be
studied in a monitoring program. Recolonization of the benthics is expected,
but it will be delayed because the disposal operation will run over a three
year period. The disposal sites will also be impacted during periodic maintenance
dredging. The ocean disposal site is currently being studied by the National
Marine Fisheries Service prior to receiving approval by EPA.

in Maryland the Corps has indicated that all of the material from the initial
dredging will.be placed in the planned Hart and Miller Island's diked. disposal
area. Since the Hart and Miller proposal has already been the subject of an
EIS and the construction permits.issued, we will 'not dwell on its impacts.
However, it should be noted that construction of this diked disposal facility
will result in the permanent loss of 1100 acres of good quality estuarine habitat
in Chesapeake Bay. The State of Maryland will be monitoring the Hart and Miller
disposal site to insure that it does not release pollutants'into the surrounding
waters.

One of the most significant impacts of the project is that it will use up most
of the remaining capacity for confined spoil disposal in the Baltimore Harbor
area. Since there is a continuing heavy load of polluted spoil from dredging
projects in the Baltimore Harbor area, there will always be a demand for spoil
containment sites. Unfortunately, acceptable sites-are in short supply. The
50 foot channel deepening project will exhaust 41 mcy of the 52 mcy capacity
of the Hart and-Miller facility and will substantially worsen the serious
problem of spoil disposal in the Baltimore Harbor area.

On of the shortcomings of the Corps study is the lack of adequate planning
to identify disposal sites for the 50 year project life. The Corps estimates
that if all the material from the channel deepening and maintenance is placed
in the Hart and Miller facility, as is currently proposed, its 52 mcy capacity
will be filled in 13 years. Actually, if it is used to contain the dredged
material from some of the other Federal, State and private projects (the
connecting channel to the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal approach channel, for
example, will yield 72mcy), it will be filled even sooner. At this point it
is unclear where the maintenance dredging material will be deposited. Although
the State of Maryland has identified some potential disposal sites in Baltimore
Harbor, additional disposal areas will certainly be required. We believe that
.it is the Corps' responsibility, in concert with the State, to see that a
50 year disposal plan is developed. Even though the 50 foot project may
not significantly increase the amount of maintenance dredging, the project
will greatly influence future maintenance cycles by using up most of the
available capacity for confined spoil disposal.

As a consequence of the failure to develop a long term disposal plan, the
Corps is following what appears to be a short-sighted policy of placing all
the material from the 50 foot deepening into the Hart and Miller containment
area even though much of the material from the approach channel is likely
to be relatively clean. It appears to us that it would be prudent to examine
other disposal alternatives, including unconfined open water disposal, for
this clean material. This would save some capacity in the Hart and Miller
facility for maintenance operations and other dredging projects in the
Baltimore Harbor area which are likely to produce spoil which is substantially
more polluted.

In.summary we have the following two recommendations which are designed to
minimize the adverse impacts of the project, both during and subsequent to
construction.

1) The Corps should require the State of Maryland to develop a plan for spoil
disposal over the 50 year project life. In order for the plan to be realistic
it should recognize that demands for spoil disposal sites will come not only
from the main ship channel, but also from other Federal, State and private
dredging projects in the vicinity of Baltimore Harbor. In addition
alternative disposal methods for the relatively clean material from the
deepening of the approach channel should be examined.

2) The Corps should fund studies to monitor the-effects of the project. In
the near future we will be reviewing a program proposed by the Virginia
Institute of Marine Science for the Virginia channels. The State of
Maryland has been developing their own monitoring plan for the Hart and
Miller disposal'area.

Please keep us* informed of any further developments in the project plan.

Sinc y yours,

John D. Gre
Area Manager
Sin urs'
0@
c

X
Jo n -.@e

United States Department of the Interior

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240

ER-81/1162 JUL 17 1981

Lieutenant General J. K. Bratton
Chief of Engineers
Department of the Army
Washington, D.C. 20314

Dear General Bratton:

The Department of the Interior has reviewed the Main Report and
Environment Statement for Baltimore Harbor and Channels,
Maryland and Virginia. We have the following general and specific
comments.

General Comments
The impacts associated with the disposal of spoil from the 50 foot
channel deepening in maryland have been largely dismissed by the
statement that the spoil will be placed in the approved Hart and
Miller facility. However, it should be pointed out that the
project will result in the loss of spoil disposal capacity which
could, otherwise be used to accommodate the continuing heavy load
of existing maintenance material. The 50 foot project and channel
maintenance will cause the 1100 acre Hart and Miller facility to
be filled within 13 years after the start of dredging. Since no
suitable disposal sites have been designated to handle the main-
tenance dredging after Hart and Miller is filled, the project may
be accelorating the need for a new disposal site. The result may
be construction of additional containment sites with the concom-
mitant loss of estuarine habitat in order to confine the polluted
harbor spoil.
The report has failed to present a plan for the disposal of
maintenance dredging material generated from the Maryland channels
during the 50 year project life. As a consequence, future dis-
posal options are being preempted. As currently proposed, Hart
and Miller will be used to contain all of the dredge spoil from
the 50 foot project, including the material from the outer
approach channels which is largely uncontaminated natural material
which could be handled with other forms of disposal (e.g., marsh
creation, fill for harbor projects such as the I-95 tunnel or the
Masonville terminal, or deposition overboard in selected areas of
Chesapeake Bay). If a 50-year disposal plan were to be prepared,
the advantages of retaining Hart and Miller for the more polluted
spoils from the harbor would be more evident.

Lieutenant General J. K. Bratton
2

Specific Comments
Section K, paragraph 52. The spawning run of American shad has
been drastically reduced in recent years causing the State of
Maryland to introduce special fishery restrictions.

Section K, paragraph 85. Although not stated, the list of species
essentially comprises those included on the Department of the
Interior list of threatened and endangered species which could
occur in the general Chesapeake Bay area. However, the bog turtle
has no Federal status as threatened or endangered.

Section K, paragraph 84. It should be pointed out that the Dam
Neck Disposal Area is likely to be phased out prior to the start
of project construction. It will most likely be replaced by the
Norfolk Disposal Area which is in the process of undergoing
environmental baseline studies prior to being designated as an
acceptable ocean disposal site by the Environmental Protection
Agency.

Section L, paragraph 19. Many of the potential disposal sites
listed from the report entitled "Management Alternatives for
Dredging and Disposal Activities in Maryland Waters" will be
unavailable for use. Four of the sites were dropped from consi-
deration in the early planning stages by the State. The Colgate
Creek site is being used for another project. Use of the
Masonville site is likely to conflict with the proposed develop-
ment of a marine terminal there.

EIS, paragraph 4.23. It seems unlikely that all of the dredged
material will be transported out of the disposal sites in Virginia.
This is indicated by the fact that the Wolf Trap site will probably
have to be extended 3500 yards eastward to accommodate the
accumulation of material.

EIS, paragraph 4.25. Green and loggerhead turtles may also occur
in the construction areas on a transitory basis.

Lieutenant General J.K. Bratton 3

EIS, page 39. It is stated that chemical testing was not conducted
for the Virginia channels and a portion of the Maryland channels.
On the contrary, these channels were tested for selected chemicals
as is pointed out later in the paragraph.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposal.
Sincerely

Acting
Deputy Assistant SECRETARY

AMA'.
MWI UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION III
44PROO(f
6TH AND WALNUT STREETS
PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA 1910.6

Mr. William.E. Trieschman, Jr.
@Chief, Planning Division,
Baltimore District
Corps of Engineers
P. 0. Box 171S
Baltimore, Maryland 2120S

NARM-@E-, DElYand Combined Phase I and II General DesignMemorandum
Baltimore Harbor and Channels-

Deat Mr. Trieschman:

The Environmental Protection Agencyls.commbnts on the Draft Environmental
Impact'Statement referenced above and dated May 29,1981, have been
classified as Category ER-2-. The EPA has serious environmental reservations
concerning the impacts of the project and further believes there is not
sufficient information to fully assess all the impacts. EPA therefore
requests that the Corps of Engineers provide.the information which is,
defined in the attached detailed comments. Theclassification and.the
date of EPA's.comments will be published in the Federal Register in
accordance with our responsibility to inform the public of our views on
proposed Federal actions under Section 309 of the Clean Air Act.

Our major concerns center around.the impacts of salinity changes.especially
@in the Patapsco,.James, and York Rivers; the former with a salinity-
increase and the1atter two.with salinity decreases. Further, the EIS
made no assessment of the possible synergistic effects.of tfie 55 foot
channel to Hampton Roads-in conjunction with its proposed channel deepening.

it is ourunderstanding that a quantitative assessment including modeling
of potential impacts to water circulation and salinity patterns has been
made. We recommend that the model results be included in the technical
appendices. Further, we would request@that we be sent a copy-of any
reports or documents pertaining to the hydraulic modelofthe Baltimore
Harbor and if available any reports-on mathematical modeling of the Harbor
and channels.

We are also concerned with the loss of Hart-Miller Island as a long-term,
disposal site should.the.50 foot channel be constructed. Without the So.
foot channel, Hart-Miller would be available to handle Maryland!s maintenance

dredging problems for 50 years. The report does not sufficiently provide
for long-term maintenance of the remaining spoils upon exhaustion of the
Hart-Miller spoils site. No mention was made of establishing a management
program similar to that in Norfolk, Virginia for spoils disposal and
handling.

In conclusion, we believe there is insufficient information to assess the
impact of the proposed channel deepenings. Without the information to
.thoroughly assess all the impacts of the proposed porJect, we believe
that the intent of the National Environmental Policy Act will not be satisfied.
Enclosed are EPA's detailed comments to the DEIS. If you have any questions
concerning our comments please contact Mr. William Muir (FTS 597-9006).

Sincerely yours,

,,John R..Pomponio
@@,Ehief
S and Wetlands Review Section

Enclosure

EPA's Comments Concerning the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
for Baltimore Harbor and Channels, Maryland and.Virginia

L Impacts of the 50 Foot Channel

Baltimore Harbor - according to DEIS pp. 23 there would be a change in.
the Patapsco River salinity of greater than 5 ppm. A worst case scenario
should be prepared which ident ifies what this means to the environment.
This should include but not'be limited to the following:

a. The impact on zoography (i.e. fish migration, boring and fouling
organisms, shellfish)..

b.' The impact on submergent and emergent aquatic vegetation.
c. The potential release of pollutants from contaminated sediments.

d. Impacts to ground water and surface water hydrology-

The model also predicted lower velocities on pp. 23 within the Patapsco
River. How was it determined that there would not be an increased need
for maintenance dredging on pp. L-11?

James and York Rivers - according to pp. 23 there would be a decrease
in salinity. The impact of such a change should be identified.

a. The impact on zoography.

b. The impact on submergent and emergent vegetation.

c. The potential release of kepone in the James River.

2. Impact of the Hampton Roads Deepening

The Hampton Roads is expected to be deepened to 55 feet. What effect
will this channel deepening have upon the 501channel to Baltimore (i.e.
Will it exacerbate potential salinity problems)?

The Port of Baltimore is a major competition of Norfolk. Would this
federally supported project provide any unfair economic burden for one
port over another?

3. Long-Term Disposal

The DEIS does not adequately address the 50 year maintenance problem.
The Maryland report identified on pp. L-11 is outdated. At present with
Hart-Miller Island., a 50 year disposal site is available. A management
program to maximize the use of Hart-Miller Island must be developed. This
would include the possible use of clean sand from the channels for industrial
uses and possible overboard disposal of the Craighill Sections where over-
board sites are available and the materials meet the criteria.

4. Monitoring

The DEIS does not provide any details on the monitoring'of the channel
deepening. It is our understanding that the Virginia channels will be
monitored under contract to Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences. We request
that the EPA be involved in the preparation of the monitoring plan and receive
a copy of the monitoring reports. On the Maryland Channels, the State will be
conducting all monitoring. Again we request the opportunity to participate
in the monitoring program design and to receive copies of the,reports.

S. Ocean Dumping

Two ocean dump sites have been identified. The Dam-Neck site is the
only approved site and is proposed to be phased out when the Norfolk site
EIS is approved. EPA has recommended to the COE that both sites be approved
for long-term disposal. The Dam Neck site would be used strictly for clean
sand and the Norfolk Ocean site for all the other spoils which meet criteria.
During the dredging of the Cape Henry and York Spit Channels all clean sand
should be dumped. at the Dam Neck site.

6. Dredging

In those sections using a hopper dredge, no economic loading should
be done. This will minimize the impacts, at the dredging site.

United States Forest Southeastern
Department of Service Area 1720 Peachtree Rd., NW
Agriculture Office Atlanta, GA 30367

Reply to:
1950

Dale:
June 30, 1981

r
Mr. William E. Trieschman, Jr.
Chief, Planning Division
Corps of Engineers
Box.1715
L Baltimore,, Maryland 21203

Dear Mr. Trieschma.n-

We have reviewed the Main Report and Draft Environmental Impact Statement

for Baltimore Harbor and Channels, Maryland-and Virginia, and have no

substantive comments to make at this time. Thank you for the opportunity to

review this draft EIS.

Sin el

BE T D S
Area Director

FS-62001-110-190)
Sin el '

S
OBE T D
Ar ea Di rector

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
REGION III
CURTIS BUILDING
Sth a.d WALNUT STREETS
PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA 19106

June 16, 1981

Mr. William E. Trieschman, Jr.
Chief, Planning Division
Baltimore District Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 1715 Re: Main Report and Draft Environ-
Baltimore, MD 21203 mental Impact Statement
Baltimore Harbor and Channels
Dear Mr. Trieschman: 50-Foot Project

We have reviewed the above referenced report and have found no need to comment.

Sincerely yours,

,4-,Walter P. Pierson
Director
Insurance and Mitigation

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

WASHINGTON 20426

IN REPLY REFER TO:

June 11, 1981

Mr. William E.,Trieschman, Jr.
Chief, Planning Division
U.S Department,of the Army
P.01 BOX 1715
Baltimore, Maryland 21203

Dear Mr. Trieschman:

I am replying to your request of May 29, 1981 to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission for comments on the Draft Environ-
mental Impact Statement for the Baltimore Harbor and Channels
50-Foot Project, Maryland and Virginia. This Draft EIS has been
rev,iewed by appropriate FERC staff component's upon whose evalua-*
tion this response is based..

This staff concentrates its review of'other agencies' en-
vironmental impact statements basically on those areas of the
electric power, natural gas, and oil pipeline industries for
which the Commission@has' jurisdiction by.law, or where staff
has special expertise in evaluating environmental impacts in-
voled with the proposed action. it does not appearthat there
would be any significant impacts.in these areas of concern not
serious conflicts with this.agency's responsibilities should
this action be undertaken.

Thank you for the opportunity.to review this-statement..

sincerely,

ac M. Heinemann
dvisor on Environmental Quality
kac*kM @He nemann@
i
d
vis@
0 on En ironmen

COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
J: B. JACKSON, JR. Coun(JI ati the b-i i-it-6111110119.03 NINTH STREET OFFICE BUILDING
ADMINISTRATOR RICHMOND 23219
804-786450a
July-14, 1981

Mr. William E. Trieschman, Jr.
Chief, Planning Division
Baltimore'District, Army Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 1715
Baltimore, Maryland 21203

Dear Mr. Trieschman:

The Commonwealth of Virginia has completed its review of the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Main Report and Technical.
Appendices) for the Baltimore Harbor and Channels 50-Foot Project.
The-Council on the Environment is responsible for coordinating the
State's review of federal environmental,documents and-for responding
to appropriate federal officials on behalf of the Commonwealth.
The following state agencies took.part in this review:

Commission of Game and Inland Fisheries
Commission of Outdoor Recreation
Department of Conservation and Economic Development
Department of Health
Department of Highways and Transportation
Division of Industrial Development
Marine Resources Commission
State Air Pollution.Control Board
State Water Control Board
Office of Emergency and Energy Services'---
Virginia Port Authority.

The commonwealth has a number of suggestions and concerns with
respect to monitoring and testing needs, uses of the dredged material,
and other aspects of the project. Basically, we will insist upon
implementation and enforcement of the monitoring program outlined in
the Commonwealth's letter, dated April 24, 1981, to 'the Honorable
James T. O'Donnell, Maryland Secretary of Transportation (reprinted
in Addendum II of the Main Report and Environmental Statement).

The Commonwealth is concerned about the project's effects on
Virginia's fulfillment of its water quality responsibilities. Since
the project is statutorily exempt from the regulatory authority of
the Marine Resources Commission and the' Norfolk District of the Corps
has waived interest, the only legal mechanism for protection of
Virginia's interests will be the 11401 Certification" issued by the
State Water Control Board. Without the "401 Certification," Virginia s@

Mr. William E. Trieschman,, Jr.
.July 14, 1981
Page 2

interests will be unprotected.

With respect to monitoring needs, it is by no me.ans'certain
that previous use of the disposal areas of Wolf Trap, Rappahannock
S.hoal,..and Dam Neck precludes-changes in the biological communities
from new dredging and use (section 4.22, page 26 of EIS). This pro-'
ject will double the annual maintenance requirement in the Virginia
channels; close monitoring of the.effects of dredge spoil disposal
will'be.n"ecessary.throughout the project.. Monitoring should include
'consideration of water-quality as well as biological communities; the
program under development by the Technical'Advisory Committee did not,
according,to the documents,,include water quality. An additional
reason for monitoring the disposal of dredged'materials.in Virginia
waters is the increased ma-intenance-,requirement cited.-above If the
frequency.of maintenance dredging.is increased.as a consequence,
:Virginia and the Norfolk District 'of the Corps should be compensated*
for the extra expenses.

The Commo.nwealth-hopes for further expansion of the model testing
for salinity differences associated with the Baltimore Channel deepening,
We areconcerned that a shift in the average salinity-in either the Bay
or its tributaries could'adversely affect the living resources.,

Some of the dredged material might be put to practical use instead
of,being..dumped overboard. The, Department.of Highways and,Transportation
should be contacted (see attached letter)' if the idea of using dredged
material as fill onits Route 664 (Hampton Roads) tunnel islands
appears feasible to the Corps; the Department wishes to conduct tests
on the material. Some of the dredged material might be used as beach
nourishment.. Disposal of material from the Cape Henry Channel should
be coordinated with that 'of material from the Norfolk project if
possible.

The State Water.Control Board would like to obtain a copy of.
Maryland's Spoil Visposal Criteria Committee's guidelines, approved'
by the EPA. This should be mailed to Mr. Raymond Bowles at,the
Board (see attached.correspondence).

Additional comments are attached. Thank you for the opportunity
to review this document.

Sincerely,

Enclosures

cc: The Honorable Maurice B. Rowe, Secretary of Commerce and,Resources

Mr. William E. Trieschman, Jr.
July-14, 19,81
Page 3

cc: Mr. R. Todd Coyle, Virginia Port Authority
Mr. Norman E. Larsen, Marine Resources Commission
Dr. Robert B. Stroube' Department of-Health
Mr. Robert L-Hundley, Department of Highways and Transportation
Mr. Bruce B. Meador, Department of Conservation and Economic
Development
Mr. Robert Burns, Virginia Institute of Marine Science
Mr. Raymond E. Bowles, State Water Control Board

JBJ/CHE/all

8. REVIEW INSTRUCTIONS:
A) Please review the document carefully. If the proposal has been
reviewed earlier (e.g., if the current document is a FINAL EIS),
please consider previous comments.
B) Prepare your agency's comments in a form which would be acceptable
for responding directly to a project sponsoring agency.
C) Use the space below for you comments. If additional space is
needed, please attach extra sheets.

Return your comments to:

Charles H. Ellis III
Environmental Impact Statement Coordinator
Council on the Environment
903 Ninth Street Office Building
Richmond, Virginia 23219

CHARLES H. ELLIS III
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT COORDINATOR

COMMENTS

The Virginia Port Authority insists that the monitoring program outlined in
the Commonwealth's April 24, 1981, response to the Honorable James J. O'Donnell
designating disposal sites in the Chesapeake Bay be implemented and enforced.

The date shown on the first line of page 14 of Addenedum I should be 1876
not 1976.

(DATE)
(SIGNED) July 2, 1981

(TITLE) Director of Planning

(AGENCY) Virginia Port Authority

COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
STATE WATER CONTROL BOARD
R. V. Davis 2111 Hamilton Street BOARD MEMBERS
Executive Secretary
R. Alton Wright
Chairman
Post Office Box 11143 William L. Tate
Richmond, Virginia 23230
(804) 257-0056 July 7, 1981 Vice Chairman
John H. Ariail Jr.
Col. J Leo Bourazus
Warren L Braun
George M. Corna
Mr. Charles H. Ellis, III Millard B. Rice,Jr.
Environmental Impact Statement Coordinator
Governor's Council on the Environment
903 Ninth Street Office Building
Richmond, Virginia 23219

Re: DEIS and Main Report - Baltimore Harbor and Channels 50-Foot Dredging Project

Dear Charlie:

We have reviewed the above-referenced documents and offer the following comments:

1. The monitoring program which is currently being developed by the Technical
Advisory Committee should have been discussed in more detail in the DEIS.
There is some discussion concerning baseline monitoring of benthic communities
in the primary disposal sites and alternative sites, but there is no dis-
cussion of water quality mon1toring. The application of an active monitor-
ing program to detect impacts on water quality and the biological communities
as the result of dredging and disposal is essential.

2. A strong effort should be made to monitor the fate of the dredged materials
placed in Virginia waters. Should this dredging be determined to increase
the frequency of maintenance dredging in other channels or harbors, a system
of compensation should be arranged to mitigate the resultant additional expenses
to the local sponsors and the Norfolk District, Corps of Engineers.

3. Section 4.22, EIS-26. The statement is made that since the Wolf Trap, Rappa-
hannock Shoal, and Dam Neck areas were previously used for disposal of dredged
material, the biological communities should remain the same. Yet, this
deepening doubles the annual maintenance requirement in the Virginia channels
and the biological communities will be disturbed more than previously.

4. The model tests concerning salinity differences associated with the channel
deepening should be expanded further. The potential long-term modifications,
as alternations in biological. communities at the mouth of the James and York
Rivers as the result of increased freshwater, are mentioned, but weakly discussed.

An Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer

July 7, 1981 -2- Mr. Charles H. Ellis,

5. Section 3.17, EIS 18. We would like to obtain a copy of Maryland's Spoil
Disposal Criteria Committee's EPA approved guidelines. Please send a
copy to us at the above address.
6. Page K-19, Paragraph 71 - The justification given to minimize the apparent
impact seems specious. It would be more valid to compare the area disturbed
to the area of the appropriate ecological zone of the Bay instead of the
entire Chesapeake Bay.

7. Page K-20, Paragraph 73 - The seasonal restriction to protect the blue crabs
seems to be a reasonabie precaution.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the documents. If you have any questions
regarding our comments, please don't hesitate to let us know.
Sincerely,

Raymond E. Bowles, P.E.
Director
Bureau of Surveillance
and Field Studies

:scc
cc: Mr. Charles Lunsford-Division of Ecological Studies
Mr. John P. Godfrey-Bureau of Surveillance & Field Studies
Mr. Ken Raum - SWCB, Tidewater Regional Offfice
EIS File

HAROLD C KIND COMMISSIONER
EUGENE M BANE, , BRISTOL DISTRICT LEO E. HUSSER,
T. GEORGE VAUGMAN JR., GALAX, SALEM DISTRICT DEPUTY COMMISSONER &CHEIF
WILLIAM R. WAT NS, SOUTH BOSTON, LYNCHBURG DISTRICT
WILLIAM F. , RICHMOND, RICHMOND DISTRICT T WARREN
RICHARD D. , VIRGINIA BEACH, SUFFOLK DISTRICT DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATION
WILLIAM T. , WEST POINT, FREDRICKSBURG DISTRICT J.M LAY, JR.
WILLIAM B. , SPRINGFIELD, CULPEPER DISTRICT DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS
H. DELMER ROBINSON JR., WINCHESTER, STAUNTON DISTRICT H JR.
T. RAY HASSELL III, CHESAPEAKE AT LARGE-URBAN DIRECTOR OF PROGRAM MANANGEMENT
CHARLES S. HOOPER JR. CREWE AT LARGE-RURAL W RITTLE, JR.
DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING
R.L. HUNDLEY
ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA OSCAR K. MABRY
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS & TRANSPORTAION DIRECTOR OF PLANNING
1221 EAST BROAD STREET H.W. WORHALL
RICHMOND, 23219 DIRECTOR OF FINANCIAL AFFAIRS
July 6, 1981
IN REPLY PLEASE REFER TO

Baltimore Harbor & Channels 50-ft
Dredging Project
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Mr. Charles Ellis
EIS Coordinator
Council on the Environment
Ninth Street Office Building
Richmond, Virginia 23219

Dear Mr. Ellis:

Thank you for allowing us to review the above cited document.

The Department would like the opportunity to conduct tests on the
material to be dredged from this project for its suitability as fill
material on the Route 664 tunnel islands.

If this idea is feasible, please advise me.

Sincerely,

R. L. Hundley
Environmental Engineer

TRANSPORTATION - AMERICA'S LIFELINES

t.T
711 1-

01 OLT

Apl@il .24, 1981

The.Honorable James J. O'Donnell
Secretary, Maryland Department of
Transportation
Post Office,Box 8755
Baltimore Washington International Airport
Maryland 21240

Dear Secretary O'Donnell:

The.Commonwealth of Virginia is pleased to submit this
letter providing for the de@ignation of disposal sites.for that
part of Baltimore's 50' Channel project.located in Virginia waters.

section 101 of the River and Harbor Act, becember 31 1.970,
PL91-611i authorizes construction of t.he Baltimore 50' Chann;l pro-
ject,.and requires local assurances from nonfederal interests.
Item "a" of those'requirements calls-for the affected nonfederal
interests, in this case the Commonwealth of Virginia, to provide.
the federal government with suitable sites for placement of.dredged
material resulting from the initial dredging and subsequent main-
tenance of the project.

In response-to that requirement,the Commonwealth'of Virginia
agrees to the following:

1. Ocean disposal of dredged material*from the initial'
dredging and 'subsequent maintenance of the Cape
Henry Channel section and stockpiling of- acceptable
.material at the Ft. Story or.an acceptable alternate
site for future use.by the Commonwealth.

2. In the Chesapeake.Bay, the use of the Rappahannock
Shoal Deep and the Wolf Trap disposal sites for the
placement of dredged material from the initial dredging
ahd subsequent maintenance will be permittedonly if all
conditions in paragraph l.below are met.
V

The Honorable James J. O'Donnell
April 24, 1981
Page Two

It is understood that the use of the disposal sites in the
Chesapeake Bay, as described above, is contingent upon satisfaction
of the following conditions:

1. That the Corps of Engineers, in concert with the
Commonwealth, will continue to work to develop a
satisfactory monitoring program which includes the
spoil disposal sites for the Baltimore 50' Channel
project that will serve to protect and preserve
the interests of the Commonwealth of Virginia and
its citizens. This monitoring program will be
developed and initiated prior to any actual place-
ment of dredged material, in order to establish
an existing baseline condition in the disposal
areas. A portion of the monitoring may be appli-
cation of sediment dispersion modeling developed
by, Waterways Experiment Station (WES) as appropriate.

2. That the Commonwealth prior to or during the course
of construction of the project may designate alter-
native disposal sites in the Bay of similar costs,
capacities and convenience as the agreed sites.
The Commonwealth will designate these altornate
sites in sufficient time to allow for baseline
monitoring and evaluation and not delay the
dredging of the project.

The Commonwealth of Virginia agrees to these actions which
will be accomplished without cost to the Commonwealth. Any claims
resulting from this construction will not be borne by the Common-
wealth of Virginia.

It is also requested that once the project is under con-
struction any contestable issue would result in immediate contact
with the Commonwealth.

Sincerely,
Maurice B. Rowe George M. Walters

Secretary of Transportation
Secretary of Commerce & Resources

cc: The Honorable John N. Dalton
Colonel Douglas Haller
Mr. James Moore

8. REVIEW INSTRUCTIONS:
A) Please review the document carefully. If the proposal has been
reviewed earlier (e.g. if the current document is a FINAL EIS),
please consider previous comments.

B) Prepare your agency's comments in a form which would be acceptable
for responding directly to a project sponsoring agency.

C) Use the space below for your comments. If additional space is
needed, please attach extra sheets.

Return your comments to:
Charles H. Ellis III
Environmental Impact Statement Coordinator
Council on the Environment
903 Ninth Street Office Building
Richmond, Virginia 23219

CHARLES H. ELLIS III
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT COORDINATOR

COMMENTS

SUBJECT: Enviromnental Review - Project No. 462 - Baltimore Harbor
and Channels 50-foot Dredging Project

From a geological standpoint, the report, is well prepared and addresses
all the pertinent geologic aspects. The disposal site for the Cape Henry
Channel may be the same as proposed for the Norfolk-Hampton Road project.
Disposal of dredge material from both of these projects should be coordinated.

EKR:sh

(SIGNED) Bruce B. Meador (DATE)

(TITLE)
(AGENCY) Conservation and Economic Development

8. REVIEW INSTRUCTION:

A) Please review the document carefully. If the proposal has been
reviewed earlier (e.g., if the current document is a FINAL EIS),
please consider previous comments.

B) Prepare your agency's comments in a form which would be acceptable
for responding directly to a project sponsoring agency.

C) Use the space below for your comments. If additional space is
needed, please attach extra sheets.

Return vour comments to:

Charles H. Ellis III
Environmental Impact Statement Coordinator
Council on the Environment
903 Ninth Street Office Building
Richmond, Virginia 23219

CHARLES H. ELLIS III
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT COORDINATOR

COMMENTS
This agency has three remaining principal areas of concern regarding the Baltimore
Harbor and Channels 50-Foot Dredging Project. In order of priority they are:
(1) Any significant shift in the average salinity regime in eith the tributaries
or the Bay itself. Such a shift could impact adversely the living rescources
over which management responsibility is exercised by this agency.
(2) Since the project is statutorily exempt from the regulatory authority of this
agency and the Norfolk District U. S. Army Corps of Engineers has waived
interest in the project, if no :401" Certificate is issued by the State
Water Control Board, there would appear to be no formal mechanism for the
protection of Virginia's interests during conduct of the project, and
(3) That maximum practical use be made of all suitable dredged material
generated in Virginia waters; particularly for beach nourishment.

(SIGNED) (DATE) June 24, 1981
Norman E. Larsen
(TITLE) Assistant Commissioner for Environment Affairs
(AGENCY) Virginia Marine Resources Commission

REVIEW INSTRUCTIONS:
A) Please review the document carefully. If the proposal has been
reviewed earlier (e.g., if the current document is a FINAL EIS
please consider previous comments.

B) Prepare your agency's comments in a fotm which would be acceptable
for respondinq directly to a project sponsoring agency.

C) Use the space below for your comments. If additional space is
needed, please attach extra sheets.

Return your comments to

Charles H. Ellis III
Environmental Impact Statement Coordinator
Council on the Environment
903 Ninth Street Office Building
Richmond, Virginia 23219

CHARLES H. ELLIS III
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT COORDINATOR

COMMENTS

The Bureau of Shellfish Sanitation has reviewed the general design memorandum
for the Baltimore Harbor and Channels 50-foot Dredging Project. The Virginia
section consists of the dredging of the Cape Henry, York Spit, and Rappahannock
Shoal Channels.

The primary concerns of this bureau are in regard to the overboard discharge of
dredged material into the Wolf Trap and Rappahannock sites. It is urged that
close monitoring of the effects of dredged material disposal in these sites be
carried out during all aspects of the project.

(SIGNED) (DATE) June 16, 1981

(TITLE) Assistant State Health Commissioner
(AGENCY) Office of Health Protection and Environmental Management

U
c>f

OP
OUR %X%@Qtk

July 14, 1981

Mr. William E. Trieschman, Jr.
Chief, Planning Division
Baltimore District, Corps of Engineers
P. 0. Box 1715
Baltimore, Maryland 21203

Re: Baltimore Harbor and Channels, Maryland
and Virginia (NABPL-E)

Dear Mr. Trieschman:

This is in reply to your notice of 29 May 1981 forwarding
the Main Report and Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the
referenced project.

The City of Virginia Beach strongly supports the concept of
placing as much of the suitable dredged material as possible at
Fort Story for use in the city's continuing beach nourishment
program as discussed on pages L-6 through L-8 of the report. Even
though the estimated grain size may not be ideal, it would no doubt
be as good as, or better than,much of the material placed on the
beach from inland borrow pits in recent years.

Accordingly, it is requested that you give favorable con-
sideration to the use of Fort Story as a disposal/stockpile area
for the material to be dredged from the Cape Henry Channel. Suitable
nourishment material is difficult to obtain even when it is available.
Consequently, it would be a shame not to take advantage of this
opportunity to obtain a substantial supply.

Mr. William E. Trieschman, Jr.
July 14, 1981
Page 2

Please let me know if I may be of any assistance in facilitating
this matter.

Very truly yours,

George L. Hanbury
City Manager

GLH/CAT/cg

cc: Col. Douglas L. Haller

Regional Planning Council
2225 North Charles Street Baltimore, Maryland 21218 (301) 383-5838
J. Hugh Nichols, Chairrmn Walterj. Kowalczyk,Jr., Executive Director

Date July 17, 1981

Mr. Robert Blama
Project Manager
U.S. Amy Corps of Engineers
Baltimore District
P.O. Box 1715
Baltimore, Maryland 21203
RE: Metropolitan Clearinghouse
Review and Referral Memorandum,
Proiect: 81--@148 Main Report &
Environmental-ILmpact Statement,
a Baltimore Harbor & Channels

State Clearinghouse Control Number 81-6-941
Dear Mr. Blar@a:

The attached'review and referral memorandum is certification that the above
referenced project has undergone review and comment by the Regional Planning
Council and a recommended action has been determined based on the Council's
findings.

Comments 6n this project were requested from: Ann e Arundel County,-Baltimore
City, Baltimore County, Carroll County, Harford County and Howard County.

Comments from the following jurisdictions are included with the Clearinghouse
review: 'Baltimore City, Baltimore County, Carroll County, Harford County and@
Howard County.

We appreciate.your attention to Metropolitan Clearinghouse procedures. If
you have any questions, please contact us at 383-7110.

Sin ely,

5tep n;@e OUAi@A, Cgordlnatpr
Metropolitan Clearinghouse

Attachment
4
in e4ly,,,,,
5tep n e !Ara, Cgordin

BaltimoreCity -Anne Arundel County BaltimoreCounty CarrollCounty HarfordCounty. HowardCounty StateofMaryland

REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL
2225 North Charles Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21218 R P C Meeting Julj 17, 1981

REVIEW AND REFERRAL MEMORANDUM

Project:. 81-148 Main Report and Environmental.Impact Statement Baltimore
Harbor and Channels.. This is a general design memorandum
regarding the proposal to deepen the,existing channels
and approaches to Baltimore Harbor in order to meet cur-
rent and projected navigation needs. The memorandum en-.
dorses the project, which was authorized via the 1970
River and,Harbor Act, and contains a Draft Environmental
Impact Statement in order to comply with the Clean Water
Act.
Applicant: U.S.. Army Corps of Engineers
Program: 06.111 Harbor Project.
05.111 EIS

COMMENT

The Coastal Zone Metropolitan Advisory Board met on
June 30, 1981 to consider the general design memorandum
and environmental impact statement. The board members
recognized the economic importance of this project as
evidenced by the very favorable cost/benefit ratio.
.They believe, however, that environmental risks associated
with bucket and scow dredging of materials from Baltimore
Harbor Channels should be avoided. Bucket and icow
dredging currently underway in the Harbor.should be
studied, and its effects on water quality carefully con-
sidered before contractors bid on the dredging project.
The costs of a cleaner dredging method should also be
figured into an alternative cost/benefit ratio. If a
more expensive method results in a still favorable cost/
benefit ratio, usei fees should be instituted to cover'
the additional cost. Regardless of the method chosen,
careful monitoring and the willingness to interrupt
dredging should water quality problems develop are very
important.

The Advisory Board members also requested that more de-
tail be provided regarding how the increased dredging
rate will affect the use of the Hart/Miller Islands
disposal site, what standards will be.used to-determine
effluent limitations if water is discharged, and what
authority the Department of Natural Resources will have
to-stop any part. of the,operation,*-if @standards are violated.

-2-

REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL
2225 North Charles Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21218 R P C Meeting July 17 1981

REVIEW AND REFERRAL MEMORANDUM

Project: 81-148 (CONTINUED)

Additionally, the Transportation Steering Committee con-
sidered this project at-its July 17, 1981 meeting and
recommended endorsement.

Recommendation: ENDORSEMENT IS RECOMMENDED SUBJECT TO THE ABOVE COMMENTS

I HEREBY CERTIFY that at its 206th meeting, held July i7, 1981, the
Regional Planning Council concurred in this Review.and Referral Memorandum
and incorporated it into the.minutes of that meeting.

WALTER I KOWALCZYKi A,
July 17i 1981
DATE .1-Yalter'Kowalczyk
Executive Director

FROM: Mr. Larry Reich, Director DATE: June 3, 1981
Department of Planning
222 E. Saratoga Street B & P Meeting:
Baltimore, Maryland 21202 R P C Meeting:, 6/26/81
Joint HPO/CMHSA Review Cycle (up to 60 days)

SUBJECT: REFERRAL COORDINATOR REVIEW SUMMARY
Applicant: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Project: Main Report & Environmental Impact Statement, Baltimore Harbor &
Channels
R & R File NO.: 81-148

Comments Should be Returned By: June 17, 1981
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This project has been forwarded to the following local departments or agencies
(Check appropriate blanks and attach comments from the reviewing agencies):

Planning Public Works

Environmental Protection Human Relations

Others (specify)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

JURISDICTION'S COMMENTS

Check One

This jurisdiction has no comments an this particular project.

This project is consistent with or contributes to the fulfillment
of local comprehensive plans, goals, and objectives.

This project raises problems concerning incompatibility with local
plans or intergovernmental, environmental or civil rights issues
and a meeting with the applicant, is requested. (attach comments).

This project raises problems concerning incompatibility with local
plans, or intergovernmental environmental or civil rights issues
however a meeting with the applicant is not requested (attach comments).

This project is generally consistent with local plans, but qualifying
comments are necessary (attach comments)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

RETURN TO: Signature
Coordinator, Metropolitan Clearinghouse
Regional Planning Council Title BALTIMORE PLANNING COMMISSION
2225 N. Charles Street DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING
Baltimore, Maryland 21218 Agency Saratoga St. Municipal Bldg.
222 Cast Saratoga St. -8th Flr.
Date Baltimore, Maryland 21202

Date: June 3, 1981
TO: Mr. Larry Reich, Director
Department of Planning
222 E. Saratoga Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21202

SUBJECT: PROJECT NOTIFICATION REVIEW

Applicant: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Project: Main Report & Environmental Impact Statement, Baltimore Harbor
& Channels
R & R File No. 81-148

Comments Should be Returned By: June 17, 1981

Check One

This agency has no comments an this particular project.

This project is consistent with or contributes to the fulfillment
of local comprehensive plans, goals and objectives.

This project raises issues concerning incompatibility with local
plans or inteqrovernmental problems and a meeting with the applicant
is requested (Specify below).

This project raises issues concerning incompatibility with local plans
or intergovernmental problems, however, a meeting with the applicant
is not requested (Specify below).

This project is generally consistent with local plans, but qualifying
comments are necessary (Specify below).

Comments

RETURN TO LOCAL REFERRAL COORDINATOR Signature
NAMED ABOVE
Title

Agency

Ms. honora M. Freeman DATE: June 3, 1981
Assistant to County Administrative
Officer B & P Meeting:
Mezzanine, Old Court House R P C Nesting: 6/26/81
Towson, Maryland 21204 Joint RPC/CMHSA Review Cycle (up to 60 days)

SUBJECT: REFERRAL COORDINATOR REVIEW SUMMARY

Applicant: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Project: Main Report & Environmental Impact Statement, Baltimore Harbor
Channels
R & R File No.: 81-148

Comments Should be Returned by: June 17, 1981
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This project has been forwarded to the following local departments or agencies
(Check appropriate blanks and attach comments from the reviewing agencies):

Planning Public Works

Environmental Protection Human Relations

Others (specify)-

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

JURISDICTION'S COMMENTS

Check One

This jurisdiction has no comments on this particular project.

This project is consistent with or contributes to the fulfillment
of local comprehensive plans, goals and objectives.

This project raises problems concerning incompatibility with local
plans, or intergovernmental, environmental or civil-rights issues
and a meeting with the applicant is requested (attach comments).

This project raises problems concerning incompatibility with local
plans, or intergovernmental, environmental or civil rights issues.
however, a meeting with the applicant is not requested (attach comments).

This project is generally consistent with local plans, but qualifying
comments are necessary (attach comments).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

RETURN TO: Signature

Coordinator, Metropolitan Clearinghouse
Regional Planning Council Title Asst. to the Adm. Officer
2225 N. Charles Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21218 Agency Administrative Office

Date 6/18

6/17/81

Date: June 3, 1981

TO: Ms. Honora M. Freeman
Assistant to County Administrative
Office
Mezzanine, Old Court House
Towson, Maryland 21204

SUBJECT: PROJECT NOTIFICATION REVIEW

Applicant: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Project: Main Report & Environmental Impact Statement, Baltimore Harbor &
Channels
R & R File No.: 81-148

Comments Should be Returned By: June 17, 1981

Check One

This agency has no comments on this particular project.

This project is consistent with or contributes to the fulfillment
of local comprehensive plans, goals and objectives.

This project raises issues concerning incompatibility with local
plans or intergovernmental problems and a meeting with the applicant
is requested (Specify below).

This project raises issues concerning incompatibility with local plans
or intergovernmental problems, however, a meeting with the applicant
is not requested (Specify below).

XXXXX This project is generally consistent with local plans, but qualifying
comments are necessary (Specify below).
Comments Water pollution problems may be intensified by the dredging

operations and spoil disposal activities. All precautions should

be taken to minimize water pollution impacts.

RETURN TO LOCAL REFERRAL COORDINATOR Signature

Title Director

Agency Bureau of Environmental Services
Baltimore County Department of Health
401 Bosley Avenue - 4th Floor
Towson, Maryland 21204

Date: June 3, 1981

TO: Ms. Honors M. Freeman
Assistant to County Administrative
Office
Mezzanine, Old Court House
Towson, Maryland 21204

SUBJECT: PROJECT NOTIFICATION REVIEW

Applicant: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Project: Main Report & Environmental Impact Statement, Baltimore Harbor &
Channels
R & R File No. 81-148

Comments Should be Returned By: June 17, 1981

Check One

This agency has no comments on this particular project.

This project is consistent with or contributes to the fulfillment
of local comprehensive plans, goals and objectives.

This project raises issues concerning incompatibility with local
plans or intergovernmental problems and a meeting with the applicant
is requested (Specify below).

This project raises issues concerning incompatibility with local plans
or intergovernmental problems however, a meeting with the applicant
is not requested (Specify below).

XXXXX This project is generally consistent with local plans, but qualifying
comments are necessary (Specify below).

Comments Water pollution problems may be intensified by the dredging

operations and spoil disposal activities. All precautions should

be taken to minimize water pollution impacts.

RETURN TO LOCAL REFERRAL COORDINATOR Signature
NAMED ABOVE
Title Director
Agency Bureau of Environmetal Services
Baltimore County Department of Health
401 Bosley Avenue - 4th Floor
Towson, Maryland 21204

Date: June 3 198

TO: Ms. Honors M. Freeman
Assistant to County Administrative
Office
Mezzanine, Old Court House
Towson9 Maryland 21204

SUBJECT: PROJECT NOTIFICATION RVIEW

Applicant: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Project: Main 'Report Environmental Impact' Statement, Baltimore'Harbor&
Channels
R & R File No.: 81-148

Comments Should be Beturned By: June 17.. 1981

Check One

'This agency has no comments on this particular project.
x This project is consistent with or contributes to the fulfillment
of local comprehensive plans, goals and objectives.

This project raises issues concerning incompatibility with local
plans or intergovernmental roblems and a meeting with the applicant
is requested (Specify below5.

This project raises issues concerning incompatibility with local plans
or intergovernmental problems, however, a meeting with-the applicant
is not requested (Specify below).

This proj ect is generally consistent with local plans, but qualifying
comments are necessary (Specify below).

Comments

V,
RETURN TO LOCAL REFEML COORDINATOR Signature
NAMED ABOVE
Title_DleeL"
Agency( a__V@ Yl

Mr. Edmund Cueman DATE: June 3, 1981
Director, Planning Commission
County Office Building B & P Meeting:
Westminster, Maryland 21157 R P C Meeting: 6/26/81
Joint RPC/CMHSA Review Cycle (up to 60 days)
REGIONAL PLANNING
SUBJECT: REFERRAL COORDINATOR REVIEW SUMMARY CO
JUN 25 1981
Applicant: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Project: Main Report & Environmental Impact Statement, Baltimore Harbor &
Channels
R & R File No.: 81-148

Comments Should be Returned By: June 17, 1981
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This project has been forwarded to the following local departments or agencies
(Check appropriate blanks and attach comments from the reviewing agencies):

Planning Public Works

Environmental Protection Human Relations

Others (specify)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

JURISDICTION'S COMMENTS

Check One

This jurisdiction has no comments on this particular project.

This project is consistent with or contributes to the fulfillment
of local comprehensive plans, goals and objectives.

This project raises problems concerning incompatibility with local
plans, or intergovernmental, environmental or civil rights issues
and a meeting with the applicant is requested (attach comments).

This project raises problems concerning incompatibility with local
plans, or intergovernmental, environmental or civil rights issues,
however, a meeting with the applicant is not requested (attach comments).

This project is generally consistent with local plans, but qualifying
comments are necessary (attach comments).
------------------------------------------------- - --- ------------------------

RETURN TO: Signature
Coordinator, Metropolitan Clearinghouse
Regional Planning Council Title Director
2225 N. Charles Street Carroll County Department of
Baltimore, Maryland 21218 Agency Planning and Development

Date June 23, 1981

FROM : Mr. Guy W. Hager DATE: June 3, 1981
Director of Planning
45 South Main Street B & P Meeting:
Bel Air, Maryland 21014 R P C Meting: 6/26/81

Joint RPC/CMHSA Review Cycle (up to 60 days)

SUBJECT: REFERRAL COORDINATOR REVIEW SUMMARY
Applicant: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Project: Main Report & Environmental Impact Statement, Baltimore Harbor &
Channels
R & R File No.: 81-148

Comments Should be Returned By: June 17, 1981
- - ------ - --- - --------- --- ---- - ---

This project has been forwarded to the following local departments or agencies
(Check appropriate blanks and attach comments from the reviewing agencies):

Planning Public Works

Environmental Protection Human Relations

Others (specify)

---------------------- ----------------- -------------------- - ---------- ----

JURISDICTION'S COMMENTS

Check One

This jurisdiction has no comments on this particular project.

This project is consistent with or contributes to the fulfillment
of local comprehensive plans, goals and objectives.

This project raises problems concerning incompatibility with locaL
plans, or intergovernmental, environmental or civil rights issues
and a meeting with the applicant is requested (attach comments).

This project is generally consistent with local plans, but qualifying
comments are necessary (attach comments).

RETURN TO: Signature
Guy W. Hager, AICP
Coordinator, Metropolitan Clearinghouse
Regional Planning Council Title Director, Planning and Zoning
2225 N. Charles Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21218 Agency Harford County

Date June 22, 1981

Date: June 3, 1981

TO: Mr. Guy W. Hager
Director of Planning
45 South Main Street
Bel Air, Maryland 21014

SUBJECT: PROJECT NOTIFICATION REVIEW

Applicant: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Project: Main Report & Environmental Impact Statement, Baltimore Harbor &
Channels
R & R File No.: 81-148
Comments Should be Returned By: june 17, 1981
Check One
This agency has no comments on this particular project.
This project is consistent with or contributes to the fulfillment
of local comprehensive plans,goals and objectives.

This project raises issues concerning incompatibility with local
plans or intergovernmental problems and a meeting with the applicant
is requested (Specify below).

This project raises issues concerning incompatibility with local plans
or intergovernmental problems, however,a meeting with the applicant
is not requested (Specify below).

This project is generally consistent with local plans, but qualifying
comments are necessary (Specify below).
Comments
This proposal will be discussed at the June 30th, 1981 meeting of the Metropolitan
Advisory Board.

RETURN TO LOCAL REFERRAL COORDINATOR Signature
NAMED ABOVE
Title Planner

Agency Harford Co. Planning Dept.

FROM: Mr. Thomas G. Harris, Jr. DATE: June 3, 1981
Director of Planning
3430 Court House Drive B & P Meeting:
Ellicott City, Maryland 21043 R P C Meeting: 6/26/81
Joint RPC/CHMSA Review Cycle (up to 60 days)
REGIONAL PLANNING
COUNCIL
SUBJECT: REFERRAl C0ORDINATOR REVIEW SUMMARY
JUN 18 1981
Applicant: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
BALTIMORE, MARYLAND
Project: Main Report & Environmental Impact Statement, Baltimore Harbor &
Channels
R & R File No.: 81-148

Comments Should be Returned By: June 17, 1981
--------------- ----- ---------------------------------------------------------------

This project has been forwarded to the following local departments or agencies
(Check appropriate blanks and attach comments from the reviewing agencies):

Planning Public Works

Environmental Protection Human Relations
Others (specify)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

JURISDICTION'S COMMENTS

Check One

This jurisdiction has no comments on this particular project.

This project is consistent with or contributes to the fulfillment
of local comprehensive plans, goals and objectives.

This project raises problems concerning incompatibility with local
plans, or intergovernmental, environmental or civil rights issues
and a meeting with the applicant is requested (attach comments).

This project raises problems concerning incompatibility-with local
plans, or intergovernmental, environmental or civil rights issues,
however, a meeting with the applicant is not requested (attach comments).

This project is generally consistent with local plans, but qualifying
comments are necessary (attach comments).
--------------------------- ------------------------------ - -- -------------- - ----

RETURN TO: Signature Thomas G. Harris
Coordinator, Metropolitan Clearinghouse
Regional Planning Council Title Referral Coordinator
2225 N. Charles Street
Agency Howard County
Baltimore, Maryland 21218

Date 6-17-81

Date: June 3, 1981

TO: Mr. Thomas G. Harris, Jr.
Director of Planning
3430 Court House Drive
Ellicott City, Maryland 21043

SUBJECT: PROJECT NOTIFICATION REVIEW

Applicant: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Project: Main Report & Environmental Impact Statement, Baltimore Harbor &
Channels
R & R File No.: 81-148

Comments Should be Returned By: June 17, 1981

Check One

x This agency has no comments on this particular project.

This project is consistent with or contributes to the fulfillment
of local comprehensive plans, goals and objectives.

This project raises issues concerning incompatibility with local
plans or intergovernmental problems and a meeting with the applicant
is requested (Specify below).

This project raises issues concerning incompatibility with local plans
or intergovernmental problems, however, a meeting with the applicant
is not requested (Specify below).

This project is generally consistent with local plans, but qualifying
comments are necessary (Specify below).

Comments

RETURN TO LOCAL REFERRAL COORDINATOR Signature
NAMED ABOVE George F. Neimeyer
Title Director

Agency Dept. of Public Works

MARYLAND
DEPARTMENT OF STATE PLANNING
TT
301 W. PRESTON STREET
BALTIMORE. MARYLAND 21201
HARRY HUGHES CONSTANCE LIEDER
GOVERNOR SECRETARY

July 22, 1981

Mr. William E. Trieschman, Jr.
Chief, Planning Division
Department of the Army
Balto. District, Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 1715
Baltimore, Maryland 21203

SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EIS) REVIEW
,Applicant: Army Corps of Engineers
Project: Draft EIS Deepening of Channels to Baltimore Harbor to 50 feet
State Clearinghouse Control Number: 81-6-941
State Clearinghouse Contact:-.James McConnaughhay (383-2467)

Dear Mr. Trieschman:

The State Clearinghouse has reviewed the above project. In accordance with the
procedures establishe&by the Office.of Management and Budget Circular A-95, the
State Clearinghouse received comments from the following:

Department of Transportation, Department of Agriculture. Department of.Economic and
Community Development including their Historical Trust section, Kent County and
Queen Anne's County noted that the statement appears to adequately cover those
areas of interest to their agencies.

Office of Environmental Programs noted (copy attached) that they have some concerns
regarding the public necessity of the project since previous testimony indicates
that a lask of on shore coal facilities is considered the major obstacle to the '
increase of coal shipments and since previous investigations raise.questions as to
the impact of the proposal on the water 'quality of the Bay. The Office recommended
that the final EIS contain sufficient information to show that the benefit derived
from the.pr6posal compensate for the losses attributable to the changes in water quality.

Department of Natural Resources 'referenced their June 23, 1981 detailed letter (copy
attached) regarding the project and indicated that the EIS is weak in its statements
on dredging methodologies, sediment analysis and overflow treatment.

The State Clearinghouse appreciates your attention to the A-95 review process and
expect that these comments will be useful in your continuing evaluation of the project
and in the preparation of the final EIS.
sincerely,

am W McConnaughhay
nn@a@hha@
J@M4-s @Wmc
JMc:BG:pm irector, State Clearinghouse
cc: Stephanie O'Hara 81-148/Robert Blamaldlyde Pyers/William, Lenton/Dennis Taylor
TELEPHONE: 301-383-24531 Lowell Frederick/Max Eisenberg/Wm. Eichbaum/Herbert.Sachs/
OFFICE OF SECRETARY Congressman Clarence Long

Date: 7/14/81
Maryland Department of State Planning DEPT. OF STATE PLANNING

State Office Building RECEIVED
301 West Preston Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21201 JUL 21 1981

SUBJECT: PROJECT SUMMARY NOTIFICATION REVIEW REVIEWED
Applicant: Army Corps of Engineers ANSWERED

Project: Draft EIS - Deepening of Channels to Baltimore Harbor

State Clearinghouse Control Number: 81-6-941

CHECK ONE

This agency has reviewed the above project and has determined that:

1. The- project is not inconsistent with this agency's plans,

programs or objectives and where applicable, with the
State approved Coastal Zone Management Program.

2. The project is not inconsistent with this agency's plans,
programs or objectves, but the attached comments are

submitted for consideration by the applicant.

3. Additional information is required before this agency
can complete its review. Information desired is
attached.

4. The project is not consistent with this agency's plans,
programs or objectives for the reasons indicated on
attachment.
Signature: Elder A. Ghigiarelli, Jr.
Title: Proj. Mgr., Project Eval.

Agency:

Address: Tawes St. Office Bldg.
Annapolis, MD

Note: the attached letter and comments were submitted directly
to the Corps at the public hearing held on June 24.

EAG

Date: July 17, 1981

Maryland.Department of State Planning
State Office Building
301 West Preston Street
Baltimore,@Maryland 21201

SUBJECT: PROJECT SUMMARY NOTIFICATION REVIEW

Applicant:
Project: DRAFT EIS Deepening of Channels to Baltimore Harbor
state Clearinghouse Control Number:. 81-.6-941

CHECK ONE

This agency has reviewed the above'project and.has determined.that:

1. The project-is not inconsistent with this agency-Is plansV
J
programs or objectives and where applicable, with the
State approved Coastal Zone Management Program.

2. The project1s. not inconsistent with this agency's plans,
programs or objectives, but the attached comments are
XX (over
Submitted forconsideration by the applicant.

3-@ Additional information is required before this agency
-can complete its review. Information desired is*
attached.

4. The project is not consistent with this agency's plans,
programs or objectives for the reasons indicated on
attachment.

Signature:
William M. Eichbaum
Title: Assistant Secretary for Environmental
Programs
Agency: Department of Health

Address:. 201 west.Preston street
Baltimore, Maryland 21201,

cc: Dr. Max Eisenberg
Mr. Donald Torres.

JAMES D. COULTER LOUIS N. PHIPPS, JR.
SECRETARY STATE OF MARYLAND DEPUTY SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
TAWES STATE OFFICE BUILDING (301) 269-3041
ANNAPOLIS 21401

June 23, 1981

Colonel James Peck, District Engineer
Baltimore District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
P.0. Box 1715
Baltimore, Maryland 21203

Dear Colonel Peck:
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers draft report, "Main Report and
Environmental Statement, Baltimore Harbor and Channels, Maryland and
Virginia," May 1981, has been reviewed by appropriate agencies of
the Maryland Department of Natural Resources. Among the issues addressed,
were the predicted change in salinity and resultant ecological changes
caused by the channel deepening. Based on our review, it is concluded
that the projected changes pose no serious problems for the ecosystem
of Chesapeake Bay or the Patapsco sub-estuary. In general, any
environmental impacts associated with the project appear temporary
in nature.

There are several areas of inquiry that should be clarified In the
Main Report and Environmental Statement.

1. The DEIS is weak in its discussion of dredging methodologies.
It states that dredging operations in Maryland are expected
to occur with bucket and scow. However, there is no definitive
statement on this matter; in.fact, there is suggestion that
dredging methodology will be decided by the contractor.

This point is raised because in a project of this magnitude,
the dredging contractors may bid based on "economic load"

considerations. Impacts associated with some dredging methods
may prove detrimental to both water quality and habitat.
This issue should be addressed In the EIS.

2. The report states that bulk chemical analyses, elutriate tests,
and sediment analyses have been performed. The only information
given in the report involves fifteen (15) samples analyzed by
VIMS in 1978. The EIS should include all sediment analysis
used in the formulation of the report.

Colonel.James Pe6k
June 23, 1981
Page Two

3. Although not specifically stated in the supporting document,
informal information indicates that there are plans to
"fast track" the dredging of Baltimore channels at a rate of
16-18 million cubic yards pet year. At that rate, it is likely
that the sluice gates will be needed to accommodate overflow.
Theref ore, the method of overf low treatment must be identif ied
and a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit
Must be' obtained within ihe first- two or thtee years of
opera-Lion.

In addition to these issues, the attached detailed comments, ref erenced
by Section and page number, are submitted on the Main Report and Environmental
Statement prepared by the Corps of Engineers.

Sincerely yours.,

James B. Coulter

JBC/I.EZ:ras
Attachment
@James B.

Department of Natural Resources
Detailed Comments on
Main Report and Environmental Statement,
Baltimore Harbor and Channels,
Maryland and Virginia
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, May 1981

SECTION H. INVESTIGATIONS

Pg. H-9 thru 11. Several utilities belonging to the City of Baltimore
and the Baltimore Gas and Electric Company will need
to be relocated or deepened due to the proposed
dredging. These parties should be apprised of the
need for wetland licenses for emplacement of submarine

utility crossings and should be urged to apply for the
appropriate licenses/permits at the earliest opportunity.

Pg. H-14, #52 It is reported that bulk chemical analyses, elutriate
tests, and sediment analyses have been performed.
Our only information concerning recent analyses
involved 15 samples analyzed by VIMS in 1978. We
would be interested to know what additional sediment
analysis data base was used in the formulation of report.

SECTION K. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

Pg. K- 3, #11 The time period over which the 100 damaging storms
occurred should be stated.
Pg. K-4, #13 In Baltimore Harbor there is athree layered circulation
pattern. This should be included in the discussion.

Pg. K- 6, #21 Non point sources of pollution should be mentioned.
Pg. K-7, #23 One pollutant mentioned in fourth sentence "ethion" is
not a familiar word. Ethion is an organophosphate

(pesticide).
The existing Maryland standards for DO should be specified.

Pg. K-9, #41 Omit the 2nd and 3rd sentences. Suggest that the 4th
sentence be changed to read, "Relatively healthy
plant populations are found in the eastern shore
tributaries such as the Choptank, Nanticoke, and
Chester Rivers." continue as written.

Pg. K-11, #52 "Heavy" runs of American and hickory shad are not in
evidence. As a matter of fact there is a shad harvesting
prohibition in effect.

SECTION L. PROJECT PLAN

Pg. L-11, #19 The report cited, "Management Alternatives for

Dredging and Disposal Activities in Maryland Waters"
1977 by the DNR is out of date. Some of the proposed
disposal sites are no longer under consideration.

The MPA is responsible for spoil disposal site inventory,
site capacity , and prioritization of disposal sites
for future funding for port development. Additionally,
dredging and spoil disposal requirements for port
and port-related projects has been presented in
a recent 5-year dredging program.

The Corps should contact NPA for the most recent
disposal site evaluations. Based on information
received from MPA this section should be rewritten.

SECTION 0. COST ESTIMATE

Pg, 0-3, #6 Third sentence. The figure reference is in error,
sbould be "Figure L-5)".

ADDENDUM I

Pg. 1, #3 Lines 2-3. The responsibility for designating
spoil sites for port development belongs to Maryland
DOT. DOT investigates and recommends funding for the
acquisition of sites. Acquisition of sites, when
funding is assured, is the responsibility of Maryland
Port Administration and subject to Board of Public
Works' approval.

Pg. 17, #30 The Dredge Material Research Program did not study
the spoil disposal problems of the Chesapeake Bay.

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (DEIS)

Pages EIS 24-EIS 26
#4.10 This paragraph and paragraph 3 of the Section 404 (b) (I)
Evaluation, state an expectation that a barge and
scow dredging operation will be used in the Maryland
portion of the project. There is no definitive

statement on this matter, in fact there is suggestion
that dredge methodology will be decided by the contractor.
We raise this point because in a project of this
magnitude dredging contractors may bid based on
"economic load" considerations. This issue should be
addressed in the Environmental Impacr Statement.

#4.19 While a dredging window may be incompatible with
the proposed "fast track" dredging, a schedule that
would take into account chartered oyster bars is
suggested.

The work for which this EIS was.prepared requires the issuance of a
Water Quality Certification from this Department.
A public hearing was heM on June 24, 1981. Testimony was received
from various interested parties and the hearing record has been left open
for a period of 30 days. Copies of the transcript of the hearing will be
obtained for consideration by this office in the determination as to whether
or not to issue a Water Quality Certification for the project.
A Chesapeake Bay Hydraulic model Investigation of the impact of the.
project on the Bay's hydrodynamics is currently being reviewed by the
State. This hydraulic model study.has raised certain questions as to the
impact of the proposal on thei water quality of the Bay.
it is recommended that.-the final EIS contain sufficient information
showing that the hydraulic model's findings are not valid or that.the benefit,
,derived from the project compensate for the losses attributable to the
changes in water quality.
The question of public*necessity becomes germane in view of the fact
Ahat testimony received at the hearing and at Congressional hearings
indicated that the lack, of adequate coal handling facilities on-shore
is considered to be the major obstacle to the increase in coal shipments
from the Baltimore region.

"Citizens Program for the Chesapeake Bay, Inc.

C@tikzclns Sieering Corn ittee July 17, 1981
m
6661.1 York Road
fia@flrnoro, Maryland 21212
il@301@ 377-6270 Col. James Peck, District Engineer
U.,.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Baltimore District
P. 0. Box -1715
Baltimore,,*Maryland 21203

t rr"@ v
6. Harris Dear CoI.,Peck,

We have reviewed.-the draft Main Report and
Environmental Sta,tement on B-=atimore Harbor
and the Maryland-and Virginia Channels. In
the summary of the draft Environmental Impact
Statement, it is noted that there are no
major unresolved issues at this time. We
believe that the issue of sediment toxicity
and the attendant requirement for a carefully
selected method of accomplishing the needed
dredging-is an unresolved issue.

As an advisory committee to the'EPA Chesapeake Bay Program, we.are.
aware of some newly developed information which ought to be consid-
ered by the Corps in planning and carrying out th( @ dredging project.
The Chesapeake Bay Program commissioned two studies of Baltimore
Harbor sediments, the results of which are currently available in
draft form. Dr. Robert Huggett,, at the Virginia Institute of marine
Science, analyzed harbor sediment samples for, organic pollutants.
Dr. George Helz, at the University of Maryland, analyzed sediment
samples for trace metals. The findings of these two.studies, which
are too recent to have been included in your report, suggest to us
that the dredging of Baltimore Harbor'may have .environmental impacts
beyond those that are briefly alluded to in that report.

The purpose of this letter is to urge the Corps of Engineers to re-
view the data generated by the Chesapeake Bay Program and be pro-
pared to select a dredging method- other than bucket and scow- and
to develop a monitoring program that will be responsive to the very
specialized conditions of Baltimore Harbor. Since actual dredging
will not begin until 1983, there should be adequate time for a
thorough analysisof the situation in light of the most recent tech-
nical findings.

We hope our comments have been helpful and look forward to your re-
sponse.

siacerely,11

Davidson J. Gill, Chairman

they shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain
THE JEWISH VEGETARIAN SOCIETY

A REGISTERED CHARITY
AFFILIATED TO THE INTERNATIONAL VEGETARIAN UNION
International H.Q.: Bet Teva, 855 Finchley Road, London, NW1 1 8LX
Telephone: 01 -455 0692

PATRONS
Rabbi Aryah Ben-Shomer(U.S.A.). Justice Zvi Sorenson (Israel). Walter Fliess,F.C.F.A.(U.K.). Rabbi Everett Gendler
(U.S.A.). Rabbi S.Herman (U.S.A.). Rabbi Joseph Indech (U.K.). Dr. Moshe Ishai (Israel). Dr. Gordon Latto (U.K.).
Joseph Leftwich (U.K.). Juliette de Bairacli Levy (Israel). Stella Lief(U.K.). Melech Ravitch (Canada). Rabbi Joseph
Rosenfeld(U.K.). Prof. S. Schwartzchild (U.S.A.). Aldous Vezza (U.K.).
*10 Valdivia Court/Apt. B - Twin Lakes
Please reply to Rockdale, Baltimore County Maryland 21207 Date 19 July 1981
..... .............. .............. ...........
REPRESENTATIVES Tel: (301) 521-3061 24 hrs. Col James Peck, Dist Eng
US Army Corps of Engineers
GREAT BRITAIN: Post Office Box No. 1715
Leeds: 188 Alwoodly Lane Baltimore, Maryland 21203
Cambridge: 6 Highfield Ave.
Southand: 29 Esplanade Gdns. Dear Col Peck,
ISRAEL: Deep in the hearts and minds of most people is an
Jerusalem: 4 Ethiopia St. abiding reservoir of compassion, and a latent desire
Tel Aviv: David Hameloch 38, to help the less fortunate - the sick, the homeless,
Hertzlia-Pituah.
Haifa: P.O.B. 27 Kiriat-Ata. and the oppressed. To many this virtue is rarely
Eilat: P.O.B. 139. extended to the lower creatures because of the inher-
AMERICA: ited and erroneous philosophy that they exist soley
New York: for the purpose of sustaining human life.
Lynbrook, 176 Union Ave. In the process of living, in the pursuit-of health
Massapequa, 8 Meadow Road.
Brooklyn, 1003 Willmohr St. and happiness, and in the scramble for economic pro-
Los Angeles: gress, slowly but unknowingly, selfishness and greed
Preuss Sta. P.O.B. 35176. tighten their grip on the individual, until with a
Berkeley, 2500 Hillegass Ave. jaundiced eye and a hardened heart, the needs of
Massachusetts:
New Bedford, 71 James St. others are relegated to the unimportant. Ingenious
CANADA: reasons form in the mind to justify this attitude;
Toronto, 1400 Weston Road. self aggrandizement replaces altruism and actions
are measured with the yardstick of personal achieve-
MEXICO:
Mexico City, Ret.27, Fray ment or power; and the authorities appeal to the
Servando 18. emotions of people when it suits their particular
Cuernavaca.
Ap. 1228, Buena Vista. purpose.
JAMAICA: The Jewish Vegetarian Society strongly declares its
Kingston, 68 Duke St. opposition to the dumping of spoils from bucket and
PORTUGAL: scow dredging of the Baltimore Harbor onto Hart and
Miller Islands in the Chesapeake Bay. We feel this
Lisbon:
R. Antonio Patrico, 22-1oD. will disrupt the habitat of wildlife, waterfowl, and
HOLLAND: fish for many miles around the area.
Eindhoven,Maastreat 25b. All who expect kindness from others should realize
GREECE: that they themselves must first be prepared to extend
Piraous,Yannoulato Bng. that quality of mercy to the weak and defenseless
ITALY: animals who are unable to plead their own cause. We
Milan, Via Cappuccio,18. therefore urge you to rule against granting permis-
AUSTRALIA: sion for this proposal.
N. Perth, 158 Chelmsford Road. To the creatures living at this moment in close prox-
SOUTH AFRICA:
Cape Town: imity to Hart and Miller Islands, the Jewish Vegetar-
610 Bordeaux Beach Road. ian Society is indeed in this instance the
Johannesburg: Voice of the Voiceless,
13 Saunders St., Yeoville.

Izak Luchinsky*
Jewish Vegetarian Society,USA
International Executive Council
cc: Congressman Long

Baltimore, Maryland
July 20, 1981

Col. James Peck, District Engineer
U.S. Army corps of Engineers

Dear Sir:

I am writing this letter in regards to the sand dike and the dumping of the

harbor sludge on Hart and Miller Islands to which I am thoroughly opposed.
I have lived for thirty years in Bowley's Quarters on the Bay front and have

seen the action of the water and wind through storm and hurricanes. I do

thoroughly agree with the two engineers (Kondnor and Wang) who have stated that

the dike in not feasible to hold this sludge. This is also endorsed by the Mann

Report.

When the Bay is subject to a storm the water becomes so rough that it destroys

everything In its path; boats, piers and hard ground is torn away. When this

condition occurs the sand will be washed away from the riprap and the contaminated

sludge will flow out and deteriorate the entire area.

When this happens the result will be that we people who have spent so many

years of our life and large sums of money in order to have a beautiful area, will

have nothing but a contaminated cesspool for the Bay.

This dumping of sludge can be handled in other ways that are safe to save the

Bay. We would certainly appreciate your concern for the Bay and check into the

dewatering process which you have used successfully in other areas.

I am sure the Coast Guard can confirm the facts about the Bay, as I have

stated, pertaining to the terrible fury that is unleashed during one of our storms.

Best Regards,

Bernard H. Lammers
3623 Bay Drive
Baltimore, Md. 21220

RT 1 BOX 97-A

MARYDEL, MARYLAND 21649

JULY 20, 1981

COL. JAMES PECK

DISTRICT ENGINEER

U.S. ARMY CORPS of ENGINEERS

P.O. BOX. 1715

BALTIM0RE, MARYLAND

BEAR COL. JAMES PECK:

IN THE DEEPENING OF THE BALTIM0RE
HARBOR, YOU HAVE SOME RULES TO COMPLY WITH. THE PEOPLE IN

THE SURROUNDING AERA, HAVE SOME COMPLAINTS TO MAKE, THAT

WILL STALL THE 0PERATION. WHERE YOU ARE SITTING THE THINGS

ARRISING SEEM INSURMOUNTABLE TO BE ABLE TO GET THE JOB DONE.

THE SIZE AND SHAPE OF THE CUTTING OF THE CHANEL CAN NOT
BE ALTURED. THE PEOPLE WILL NOT CHANGE. THE ONLY DETAIL

THAT CAN BE MOVED IS THE DISPOSAL OF THE DREDGINGS. NOW

JUST SUPOSE THE MATERIAL WAS PUT IN A HOLE 0F OVER FIFTY

(50) MILLION CUBIT FEET, BELOW LOW TIDE, UNDER WATER, WOULD

THIS SATISIFY ALL CONCERENED? THE HART-MILLER ISLAND PEOPLE
WOULD NOT BE BOTHERED, THE BOATS COULD SAIL ALONG, THE FISHER-

MEN COULD FISH, AND LAST BUT NOT LEAST, THEY WOULD BE OFF YOUR

NECK. AWAITING YOUR REPLY, I AM

SINCERELY YOURS

HENRY LAQUE

July 22, 1981

Letter to the Editor
The Avenue

Dear Sir:
I am taking the time and effort to write to Col. James Peck, District
Engr. U.S. Army Corps of Engrs. in support of Congressman Clarence Longs continued
effort to save Hart Miller Islands from becoming a dumping ground for spoils from
Baltimore harbor. I strongly urge Baltimore County residents to write to Col. Peck
on the following facts from Clarence Longs testimony.

Listed are some highlights of what Congressman Long told the Corps...

* There is still strong opposition to Hart Miller--regardless of the Governors plan
to move ahead in September with dike construction.

* Although Judge Murray dismissed our on essentially jurisidictional grounds,
he agreed with us on many facts-- such as the potential for damage to marine life
and the likely structural unsoundness of the dike.

* New dangers from scows (each carrying 2,000 cubic yards of spoil) will travel from
the main ship channel to Hart Miller round the clock every day for nearly 4 years,
over 19,000 trips in all. These scows could ram the dike, collide with pleasure
boats, or leak their toxic cargo into the shallow Bay waters, fouling even more of
the Bay bottom than will be covered by Hart Miller.

* There is great risk in expecting the State to nearly triple the pace of handling
spoil at Hart Miller. There is no money for such a speed-up, and the State's
budget doesn't allow for any added sums.

* Deeping itself could present serious new dangers to the Bay, unless carefully
controlled. Use of bucket and scow dredging as the Corps proposes could stir up
pollutants now lying on the Harbor bottom and cause them to slop out into the Bay.

Congressman Long needs our help NOW, write a letter TODAY to Col. James Peck, U.S.
Army Corps of Engrs., P.O. Box 1715, Baltimore, MD, 21203. Fight back, put People
Power to work. Hart Miller Islands are a creation of God, and Mother Nature. Help
prevent their total destruction.
Yours tyuly,

ALBERT J. MATTES
NATURE BOY

'00"

-4 a

.,Ooo,f
t

d, C9-A-A4.1.

.A
ZAo@ I

cj@

loo

From the &
A of

JACQUEL E. BADER

0. tj
Ault

L J,
t Lvl-

Frvm the'dak of
JACQUELYN E'. 'BADER

vie
co MEL %JAMEs pEdk@
CORPS aP
OF 14JELP'Leass 'CITIlElYS To PIE OR'
iskcomiE lNr-e-0-TE-P 13Y RACING
UNTAtioNATED -SlariCE) r-Rom -,-t4E
BAMMWE kfvRibop,
To l4e IN cose. PRexitimy
PO", PEOPLIeS ftf@ES. ;SthTIE,
COV$4TV At4D 0-lTy "OVIFICIALS ALL CkAit4l
-to *To. Walt TiffS
MAEL AW3) INAOMI\14 ACT, 'T4F- en.-mEws

auT lEQEPV CAR14t huAhw WitaTIE
'TO COLOWRL Peele Hit, to
STO At4j) -T o 114k la Erna P. 6PLAejNG Tha
CANTAMINhTeD tuh*.tf IN -rkis 14EAU'liy
POPOLFVri@-P AREfl. QoLot4wj. pleeie TENiev
Awl@
60'r WOO NOT TACE TWv. TV
A TTPERIN. REIVIEWN6 '180110 Oiji.L.
I-tA IF. 4L.

Frmn the. dak of

JACQUELYN Ei BADER

(t4UF3-T I QOATJ@ KOW TKIS lfoMk
CooLp AhVE OeMORRE-D, I@Cr hkWRILE,
T@E U.S. ARMy IS -Dffm)rjp4r,
kNOWLED615 Of COLON IF k. RE tl@ Is
Ae-Ti a Ws o

&t/V

6tAt

0?jo 13

july 18., 1981

Col. James PeckY District Engineer
U. S. Army Corps of Rngineers
P. 0. Box 1715
Baltimor 1203

Dear S

I ho e t a he fate of Baltimore harbor and of the Chesapeake Bay
itself will not be decided on the basis of political expediency;
and I do believe that the issue of Hart and Miller Islands has be-
come a tug of war between opposing political factions.

The'Chesapeake Bay with its estuaries and rivers is a gift of nature.
Its beauty, its abundant marine life, its recreational uses should be
treasured by the people of Maryland and by those who govern it.

I recently made a trip to Ormond Beach in Florida dnd was dismayed to
-tears to see.what unthinking commercialism has done to that magnifi-
cently unique beach which is noWnothing but a piece of shoddy real es-
tate. 'That marvelous stretch of snow white sand that I recall seeing
as A child is now little better than a city street, blackened and
used by hawkers, motor cycles and automobiles. For natural beauty,
so little appreciated in Florida., we will have to go to Burmuda where
unspoiled beaches still e.xist.

I pray that Hart and Miller Islands and the surrounding waters will not
be spoiled by the same type of unintelligent planning., by people who
care not at all about the waters of Maryland but only for winning 4 ten
year old argument. Thosexho care may lose to the locked-in thtnking
of those who will not yield up the islands even though a solution has
been presented by Aist6r_- Clarence Long;'i our elected representative.

I urge you to consider what Mr. Long has to say about the dangers of
scow dredging and the effects on Hart and Miller Islands if a dike is
erected there. His proposal for dewatering thespoil is a practical,
safe solution and should be given first consideration.

If the spoil is dewatered, I do not object to dredging the harbor, but
I do not believe that dredging the harbor justifies.spoiling a large
area of the Bay -- which is 3ust as great aB asset as the harbor
and your present plan will spoil it. I beg you, please listen to
Congressman Long.
Sincerely,
a-,
Audrey H. qalter
@
r
So qhel
e tha

.040

CM36

OUA GOVERNMENT IPRINTING OFFICE: 1981 729-465/2044 1-3

3 6668 14102 8276