Site 104

U.S. Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski asked an assistant secretary of the Army yesterday to personally supervise plans to dump dredged mud into the Chesapeake Bay, saying that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers "bungled" its study of the plan's impact on the environment.The Army corps announced last week that it would conduct a new assessment of the effects that dumping at "Site 104" will have on the bay grasses and marine life, promising to review criticism offered by federal and wildlife environmental agencies.

Aquarium expansion must respect area's marine environment The National Aquarium's plan for expansion in South Baltimore is an opportunity for turning this "brownfield" area into a symbol of our city's connection with the Chesapeake Bay ("Aquarium plan may extend harbor," editorial, July 5). And, as an organization devoted to the health of the marine environment, the aquarium should demonstrate its environmental commitment by utilizing green construction for the new buildings it plans for the site.

Dredging, the environmental issue, is still being scrutinized by scientists and government agencies. Dredging, the economic issue, is still being pitched by the governor and officials in the port of Baltimore. And yesterday in the state capital in Annapolis, two blocks from where the General Assembly will convene tomorrow for its annual session of lawmaking, dredging, the political issue, was unveiled. The state's plan to dump 18 million cubic yards of mud dredged from the port of Baltimore's approach channels into a section of the Chesapeake Bay called "Site 104" will be the subject of at least three proposed laws this year.

THE SEARCH for ways to dispose of mud dredged from the port of Baltimore's shipping channels grew more difficult last week when Gov. Parris N. Glendening slammed the door on future dumping at open-water sites in the Chesapeake Bay. It was a sound decision, based on scientific findings by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers of trace amounts of toxins in dredged material. That came as a surprise, since similar tests by the corps in 1998 and 1999 had found no such dangers. This ends the bitter debate over dumping material overboard at a site north of the bay bridge known as the Kent Narrows Deep, or Site 104. But whatever new location is finally chosen by state officials will stir controversies.

IN AN ideal world, there'd be no need for open-water disposal of sediment dredged from Chesapeake ship channels. But we live in an imperfect world, where complex problems defy easy answers. That's why the state of Maryland, after exhaustive discussions, devised a plan to serve the imperatives of both the port of Baltimore and the Chesapeake Bay. The 20-year plan called for disposing of just 18 percent of the silt and mud through open-water dumping at Site 104, near the Chesapeake Bay Bridge.

THE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers was right to seek further studies before approving a controversial open-water dumping area near the Chesapeake Bay Bridge.A campaign of distortion and misinformation has inflamed the situation and imperiled the future of the port of Baltimore.Here's the situation: To keep shipping channels in the bay open, some 4 million cubic yards of material is dredged annually. Where to put this material -- nearly all of which is uncontaminated sandy fill -- is a sticky question.

The House of Delegates is preparing to vote on a bill that would impose a one-year moratorium on open-water disposal of sediment dredged from Baltimore shipping channels. The measure, due for a vote by the full House this week, appears to be mainly symbolic. The Maryland Port Administration has said it did not expect to begin dumping dredged material in a 4-mile stretch of Chesapeake Bay known as Site 104 until fall 2001 -- after the one-year ban would expire. But the bill represents a watershed, since efforts last year to derail open-bay dumping failed to get out of the House Environmental Matters Committee.

Gov. Parris N. Glendening appeared to be moving yesterday toward scuttling or significantly scaling back the state's plan to dump dredged mud into the Chesapeake Bay, because of new findings that suggest it would stir up toxins and kill fish. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers told state officials yesterday that it has found contaminants in the dredge spoil that the Maryland Port Administration wants to dump into an area of the bay called "Site 104." Because of that finding, the state cannot proceed with the dumping plan unless it first issues a permit similar to that required of industrial discharge sites.

GIVE the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers credit. It could have caved in to demands from opponents and banned dumping of dredged material at Site 104 near the bay bridge. Instead, it refused to knuckle under to the group's pressure tactics and instead announced a new delay while it studies several key environmental issues. That's a victory for basing decisions like these on sound science, not on which side shouts the loudest and exerts the most pressure. Dredging the Chesapeake Bay's shipping channels is critical for tens of thousands of jobs at the port of Baltimore.

With Baltimore's hope of becoming an East Coast hub port now dashed, Rep. Wayne T. Gilchrest called on state officials yesterday to halt plans to dump mud dredged from shipping channels into the Chesapeake Bay.In a letter to Gov. Parris N. Glendening, Gilchrest asked the state to delay plans for open-water dumping to further study its effect on the environment."

Gov. Parris N. Glendening appeared to be moving yesterday toward scuttling or significantly scaling back the state's plan to dump dredged mud into the Chesapeake Bay, because of new findings that suggest it would stir up toxins and kill fish. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers told state officials yesterday that it has found contaminants in the dredge spoil that the Maryland Port Administration wants to dump into an area of the bay called "Site 104." Because of that finding, the state cannot proceed with the dumping plan unless it first issues a permit similar to that required of industrial discharge sites.

The House of Delegates is preparing to vote on a bill that would impose a one-year moratorium on open-water disposal of sediment dredged from Baltimore shipping channels. The measure, due for a vote by the full House this week, appears to be mainly symbolic. The Maryland Port Administration has said it did not expect to begin dumping dredged material in a 4-mile stretch of Chesapeake Bay known as Site 104 until fall 2001 -- after the one-year ban would expire. But the bill represents a watershed, since efforts last year to derail open-bay dumping failed to get out of the House Environmental Matters Committee.

IN AN ideal world, there'd be no need for open-water disposal of sediment dredged from Chesapeake ship channels. But we live in an imperfect world, where complex problems defy easy answers. That's why the state of Maryland, after exhaustive discussions, devised a plan to serve the imperatives of both the port of Baltimore and the Chesapeake Bay. The 20-year plan called for disposing of just 18 percent of the silt and mud through open-water dumping at Site 104, near the Chesapeake Bay Bridge.

Armed with a rare fish tale, environmentalists and anglers urged lawmakers yesterday to derail or at least delay the state's plan to dump in Chesapeake Bay 18 million cubic yards of mud dredged from the port of Baltimore's shipping channels. State officials, however, warned that failure to go ahead with using "Site 104" as a dumping ground could cause cargo ships to bypass Baltimore and endanger thousands of port-related jobs. They asked legislators to stay out of the dispute, which is being studied by federal regulators.

LONGSHOREMEN shut down the port of New York last week to take on the environmentalists. It could happen in Baltimore, too. In both places, environmentalists and their allies are out to put an end to open-water dumping of dredged material from shipping channels. In New York, environmental groups seek to override a 4-year-old agreement worked out by Vice President Al Gore that allows dredged spoil dumping in the Atlantic Ocean. They want tougher standards than the ones agreed to by unions, port businesses, government agencies and environmentalists in 1996.

Dumping dredge into the bay is always a bad idea The Chesapeake Bay Foundation was encouraged to read that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is beginning to realize the significant impact of the proposed dredge dumping at Site 104 ("U.S. stalls dumping into bay," Jan. 13) We noted especially the remark from James White, executive director of the Maryland Port Administration: "We don' t want to press forward with this until or unless the science says it's a good idea." We can assure Mr. White that the science will never say it's a good idea to dump 18 million cubic yards of dredge spoil into the bay. Dumping dredge spoil anywhere in the bay is and always will be a bad idea, because it adds silt, releases nutrients and destroys habitat.

A congressional committee voted yesterday to ban the dumping of dredged mud at a proposed site beneath the Chesapeake Bay except as a last resort, calling on port officials to "thoroughly analyze and review all practicable alternatives."The vote, which was seen as a victory for opponents of "open-bay dumping," created a rare rift on the issue among Maryland's representatives in Congress, who suggested a battle over the matter is soon to come.Some Maryland representatives consider plans to dump 18 million cubic yards of dredged material beneath the bay near Kent Island -- an area called Site 104 -- to be a threat to the environmental health of the watershed.

STEVENSVILLE -- What do you do with the muck that must be dredged from the bottom of the Chesapeake Bay to keep shipping channels open?It's a perennial question, and the latest solution, dumping it back in the bay at a site just north of the Bay Bridge predictably has its supporters and opponents.The Army Corps of Engineers is studying whether to dump the dredge spoils at a 75-foot deep, four-mile long area know as Site 104.Research done by the Corps and the Maryland Port Authority indicates that not only is placing dredge spoils there environmentally safe, it could actually improve conditions.

GIVE the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers credit. It could have caved in to demands from opponents and banned dumping of dredged material at Site 104 near the bay bridge. Instead, it refused to knuckle under to the group's pressure tactics and instead announced a new delay while it studies several key environmental issues. That's a victory for basing decisions like these on sound science, not on which side shouts the loudest and exerts the most pressure. Dredging the Chesapeake Bay's shipping channels is critical for tens of thousands of jobs at the port of Baltimore.

Dredging, the environmental issue, is still being scrutinized by scientists and government agencies. Dredging, the economic issue, is still being pitched by the governor and officials in the port of Baltimore. And yesterday in the state capital in Annapolis, two blocks from where the General Assembly will convene tomorrow for its annual session of lawmaking, dredging, the political issue, was unveiled. The state's plan to dump 18 million cubic yards of mud dredged from the port of Baltimore's approach channels into a section of the Chesapeake Bay called "Site 104" will be the subject of at least three proposed laws this year.