been a big supporter of our beach replenishment project as well as
some of the other things that I am about to mention here today.
Just let me say I am 100 percent behind what you mentioned,
Frelinghuysen, about the Army Corps' role. I am starting to
hear the same thing again. I don't know if the administration's pol-
icy request is going to be exactly the same as last year, but I am
hearing that they will try to change the Army Corps' role and that
may mean that they are not supportive of the same level of Federal
involvement in shore protection, navigation, dredging, whatever. I
am fully prepared to fight that to the hilt as we did last year.
You are circulating a letter. Certainly, we are all going to sign
it. We also have started a Coastal Caucus on a bipartisan basis,
and one of the purposes of the Coastal Caucus is going to be to
make sure that the coastal States, if you will, weigh in, as well as
all 50 States that are impacted by these Army Corps projects, to
weigh in to make sure that the President and the Congress knows
that we want the traditional role of the Army Corps to continue
with these various dredging, shore protection, flood control activi-
ties. And so we will continue to fight that.
In terms of ongoing projects, I am going to try to be brief but I
did want to say that, if anything, the beach replenishment that
goes from Sandy Hook down to Barnegat Inlet is really an excellent
example not only of this committee's Support but why we can't have
the Army Corps' role changed. We know for sure that if it wasn't
for the fact that the Federal Government contributed the amount
of dollars that they did, and the expertise that they provide with
their engineering, et cetera, that it would not be possible for the
State of New Jersey or local municipalities to come up with their
Right now they complain about the fact that the State has to put
up the money that it does based on the existing formula, and cer-
tainly the local municipalities say the same thing. If it were not for
the fact that the Federal Government was contributing as much as
it was to the beach replenishment project, it would not happen. Not
any sand at all would be placed on the beaches. So thank you for
This year I am asking for $24 million to continue construction
from Sandy Hook down to Manasquan Inlet. Basically that com-
pletes the northern phase of the project, starts the Long Branch
phase of the project, begins the project from Manasquan to Shark
River Inlet and also provides funds to continue the completion of
the project through the next fiscal year.
At the same time, you have been very generous in providing
funding to do the reconnaissance and now the feasibility study for
the Raritan Bay and Sandy Hook Bay. This is another flood control
project that is in the northern part of my district. We are asking
for $700,000 to continue the feasibility phase of this in fiscal 1997.
We are asking for $350,000 to actually begin plans and specifica-
tions for beach renourishment extensions in Old Bridge, Keansburg
and North Middletown. This is a core project already on the books
that we would like to see renewed.
I have some navigation projects that we would like to have carry
over funding in the Shark River and Cheesequake Creek. In the
South River, we have a levee protection program that you helped
fund last year and we want to continue.
I wanted to mention two other things and then I will stop.
The Continuing Authorities Program, as you know, was cut back
somewhat last year but this is very important to my district, to the
State as well as to the Nation as a whole, and I hope that we can
see the Continuing Authorities Program fully funded this year.
I have some small flood control projects that are in my district,
and Mr. Zimmer's, that were not funded through the Continuing
Authorities Program this year because you didn't have enough
money for it, and I hope that you will fully fund that program and
you can continue those projects.
The last thing is contaminated dredge material disposal. As you
know, we continue to dump contaminated dredge materials at the
Mud Dump Site right off the coast of my district. We have been
looking, both our delegation on a bipartisan basis as well as our
State legislators, for alternatives to ocean disposal of this dredge
material and we are hoping that we can get authorization this
year, as Mrs. Roukema said, in the Water Resources Development
bill in the Transportation Committee to have some sort of author-
ization for a State-Federal match disposal program. If that does
happen, I would hope at some point in this fiscal year you would
consider some funding for those disposal alternatives because it is
very important to our State.
Thank you very much, Rodney.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you, Frank.
We have, somewhat, time constraints here and everjrthing will be
included in the public record.
[The statement of Mr. Pallone follows:!
REPRESENTATIVE FRANK PALLONE, JR.
SIXTH DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY A^D WATER DEVELOPMENT
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
REVISED MARCH 6, 1996
OPPOSITION TO PROPOSED ARMY CORPS POLICY
FISCAL YEAR 1997 PROJECT FUNDING REQUESTS
Sandy Hook to Manasquan Inlet
Raritan Bay and Sandy Hook Bay
Raritan Bay and Sandy Hook Bay
CONTINUING AUTHORITIES PROGRAM: SUPPORT AND
FISCAL YEAR 1997 FUNDING REQUESTS
COST SHARING FOR CONTAMINATED DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL
Mr. Chairman, thank you for giving me and the New Jersey Delegation this
opportunity to testify before the Subcommittee. This subcommittee has always been very
generous to our state, and I think we have worked well together to elevate the quality of life
of New Jersey residents. I look forward to working with you and your members once again
during this most unprecedented fiscal year.
I am here to make appropriations requests for Fiscal Year 1997 that are critical to
protecting our coastal environment as well as the health and safety of the people who live in
Central New Jersey.
Like last year, I would like to voice my strong opposition to any modification to the
Army Corps of Engineers historical participation in flood control, shore protection, and
shallow draft navigation projects. In addition, I would like to make specific appropriations
requests for ongoing projects taking place in my district. Finally, I would like to briefly
discuss the need for disposal alternatives for contaminated dredged materials.
THE PROPOSED NEW ROLE OF THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
Once again, I must vehementlv oppose any alteration to the Army Corps of
Engineers's historical role in flood control, shore protection, and navigation projects.
Although the Administration's FY 1996 proposal was wisely rejected by both the House and
the Senate, it is my understanding that some change in policy is still being adhered to by the
Administration for Fiscal Year 1997.
Changing the Army Corps's role would be devastating to communities nationwide,
particularly along our nation's coasts where the majority of the U.S. population resides.
Without continued federal support, most projects currently being conducted by the Army
Corps would simply not be done because States, including New Jersey, do not have the
wherewithal to carry them out. States do not have the money to incur the full costs of
current Army Corps Projects, nor do they possess the engineering and infrastructure
knowledge that belongs to the Corps.
Unfortunately, should the Army Corps's ability to participate in much needed flood
control and shore protection projects continue to be hindered, the costs resulting from the
absence of these projects will far outweigh any estimated budgetary savings from down-
grading the role of the Army Corps.
Rather than basing the significance of projects on arbitrary policies and proposals,
decisions on Federal participation in flood control, shore protection, and navigation should
continue to be based on project benefits as compared to project costs.
ONGOING DISTRICT PROJECTS
Several projects are ongoing in my district that are crucial to the health and safety of
New Jersey's shoreline, its residents, and its many visitors. I would like to thank the
Subcommittee and the Committee for their continued funding and support for these projects.
The timely appropriation of adequate funds has served
greatly to keep these vital projects on track, providing invaluable protection for our beaches
and our beach residents. This subcommittee should be lauded for its successful performance
last year during a very difficult appropriations process.
In order to recognize the beneficial work that is being done by the Army Corps in my
district, I would like to briefly address each of the projects that is ongoing in my district and
to request the necessary appropriations so that the Corps can continue this invaluable work in
Fiscal Year 1997.
Sandy Hook to Manasquan Inlet. NJ (Beach ErOsion)
I am particularly pleased with the Subcommittee and Committee support for this much
needed, comprehensive beach erosion project.
A lack of sand along this area of the New Jersey coastline has left a significant
number of towns in my district extremely vulnerable to damage from northeastern storms and
hurricanes. Beach erosion has become so severe that in several cases, the ocean actually laps
against buildings at several points along the shore.
To date, the Sandy Hook to Manasquan Inlet beach erosion project has placed much
needed sand on beaches from Sea Bright to Monmouth Beach. Despite several storms this
fall and the blizzard last month, the new beaches have sustained little erosion. In fact, these
new beaches have performed their job extremely well- effectively protecting property and
residents along the shore during these storm events.
The project is making great progress. Replenishment activities at Sea Bright will be
completed by this fall, and sand placement will begin on the Long Branch and the
Manasquan north to Belmar portions of the project this spring.
I respectfully request a Fiscal Year 1997 appropriation for this project of $26 million
to continue construction. FY97 funds will be used to continue placing sand on beaches in the
Long Branch and the Manasquan to Belmar sections, as well as to begin construction on the
remaining sections of beach from Elberon to Loch Arbour and from Asbury Park to Belmar.
Raritan Bay and Sandy Hook Bay, NJ (Shore Protection)
Several Bayshore communities remain unprotected against storm inundation, wave
attack, and coastal erosion. I therefore respectfully request $700,000 to continue the
feasibility phase of this study in Fiscal Year 1997 to investigate storm damage protection
alternatives for this area, including Clilfwood Beach. Port Monmouth, Union Beach, and
Raritan Bay and Sandy Hook Bay. NJ (Beach Nourishment Extension)
The Corps previously constructed beach berins and levees in the areas of Old Bridge
Township, Keansburg, and North Middletown. Erosion of the beach fill placed by the Corps
many years ago in these areas has, however, increased the potential for flooding due to
coastal storm inundation.
These areas do not need to be mcluded in the feasibility study for the new Bayshore
project mentioned above. Rather, pursuant to Section 934 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986, I would like to request $350,000 in plans and specification funds
for FY 1997 to provide sand for pre-existing projects in Old Bridge Township, Keansburg,
and North Middletown. This new beach nourishment will alleviate the flooding problem and
effectively extend the economic life of these Army Corps projects.
South River (Flood Control)
Not only does the South River have a history of flooding, but recent storms such as
Hurricane Gloria in 1985 and a substantial storm in December of 1992 have threatened lives
and caused extensive flood damage to residential and commercial property in Middlesex
County, New Jersey.
This project would involve a system of levees for the protection of the towns of South
River and Sayreville as well as ecoloeical restoratum for the Washington Canal and the South
I respectfully request that the fiscal year 1997 appropriation for this project be
$275,000, in order to continue the feasibility phase of this project.
Shark River, NJ (Navigation)
This existing project, adopted in 1945, provides needed access to the Belmar
Municipal Boat Basin. Maintenance dredging of this project, however, has not been
conducted since 1981.
Funds for maintenance dredging were appropriated in FY96 at a level of $1.19
million. I respectfully request that those FY96 funds not spent for this purpose during FY96
be carried over, and that an additional $400,000 be appropriated to complete this project in
Cheesequake Creek, NJ (Navigation)
The east jetty at Cheesequake Creek has deteriorated to such an extent that it is
currently submerged at high tide, causing a severe navigational hazard.
Funds for rehabilitation of this jetty to its original height and configuration were
appropriated in FY96 at a level of S2.59 million. 1 respectfully request that those FY96
funds that were not able to be spent for this purpose during FY96 be carried over for the
completion of this project in FY97, tliereby restoring the safe use of this harbor to small
craft in the area.
THE CONTINUING AUTHORITIES PROGRAM
As I did last year, I would like to voice my strong support for continuation of the
Corps of Engineers Continuing Authorities Programs (CAP). The CAP has been very
successful in providing significant benefits at a fairly modest monetary cost, particularly to
smaller communities. 1 again endorse this program and request that it be funded at the
highest allowable level.
As you are well aware, the Administration had proposed terminating the CAP — a
proposal that was wisely rejected in last year's Energy and Water Development Conference
Although this termination proposal was successfully rejected, it was unfortunate tliat
the CAP was not funded at a level comparable to that requested in the President's budget for
Fiscal Year 1996. As a result of this cut, many projects funded by the CAP were put in a
"holding p.^ttem." In other words, these projects \>.ere not able to move forward, or were
significantly slowed or delayed, during FY 1996.
Two such CAP projects that ucre stalled during FY 1996 are located in my district.
I would therefore like to request that the CAP be fully funded in FY 1997 and that language
be included to designate the Mill Brook and Poplar Brook flood control projects for funding.
Mill Brook. Highland Park. NJ (Flood Control)
A persistent flooding problem along Mill Brook in Highland Park, New Jersey, has
subjected the affected area to inundation and structural damage from an increase in water
surface elevation as well as extreme erosion due to increased flows. Over 200 strucmres lie
within the affected area.
I therefore respectfully request that language be included in the bill to designate
$135,000 from the Continuing Authorities Program for continuation of the Mill Brook
feasibility study in FY 1997. State funds are available to support this project.
Poplar Brook. Monmouth County. NJ (Flood Control)
Poplar Brook in Monmouth County, New Jeisey, regularly overflows. Flooding from
the brook forces senior citizens from their homes at the Poplar Village retirement apartments,
threatens a sewage treatment plant in Ocean Township, and regularly fills streets in
I therefore respectfully request that language be included in the bill to designate
$150,(X)0 from the Continuing Authorities Program for the Poplar Brook feasibility smdy in
FY 1997. State funds are available to support this project.
CONTAMINATED DREDGKD MATERIAL DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES
Cost-Sharing for Contaminated Dredged Material Disposal
The Port of New York/New .Icrsey is in dire need of contaminated dredged material
disposal alternatives. This material is categorized as Category I, II, or III as the level of
contaminants becomes more severe. Currently, the only disposal option for Category I and
II sediments is the Mud Dump Site which is rapidly nearing capacity, and there are no
disposal options for Category 111.
Despite the high cost, local authorities now shoulder full financial responsibility for
disposal projects even though the federal government often conducts a significant percentage
of dredging activities. To remedy this situation, 1 am seeking authorization this year for
federal cost sharing of confined disposal facilities, decontamination, and pollution reduction
projects. I would urge the Subcoinmittee to consider appropriations for such disposal
Wednesday, February 28, 1996.
NEW JERSEY PROJECTS
HON. FRANK LoBIONDO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. Frelinghuysen. I would like to recognize Frank LoBiondo,
to be followed by Congressman Dick Zimmer.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Bevill. We
very much appreciate the subcommittee's time and effort in this
The Army Corps of Engineers conducts a wide range of projects
in southern New Jersey, and their assistance in harbor dredging
and beach replenishment over the years has proven invaluable in
the effort to counter erosion and water encroachment, as well as
making navigation through the inlets far less dangerous for both
recreational and commercial fishermen.
In light of several storms that have battered the eastern sea-
board, the Corps of Engineers' work in southern New Jersey is crit-
ical, and I believe that the New Jersey coast has more than its fair
share of natural abuse.
I was sorry, like my colleagues, to learn the administration has
again apparently embarked on a policy that does not recognize the
importance of many of these projects. I think this short-sighted ap-
proach will be countered by those who understand the complexity
of the problem and what needs to be done.
Let me point out, Mr. Chairman, as some of my colleagues have,
an important statistic: The New Jersey shore generated half of the
State's $23 billion tourism industry. This is not about people get-
ting a sun tan. This is about jobs and the economy and as the fiscal
year 1997 budget moves forward, I would like to submit before the
subcommittee a list of planning, construction and maintenance
projects to be undertaken by the Corps of Engineers. In the inter-
ests of time, Rodney, I will just submit this to the subcommittee,
and thank you very much for your consideration and help with our
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you for your testimony and what
you have submitted will be included as part of the record.
[The statement of Mr. LoBiondo follows:]
FRANK A. LoBIONDO
E Ones BuiLDiNa
Congresifi of tfjc Winittii States;
^auit of Eeprcsientatibeg
llasrtjington, ©£ 20515-3002
Statement of Rep. Frank A. LoBiondo (NJ-02)
before the Energy and Water Subcommittee,
Committee on Appropriations
February 28, 1996
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to testify, and I thank the members of the
subcommittee for their time and attention.
As you may know, the Army Corps of Engineers conducts a wide range of projects in
southern New Jersey. Their assistance in harbor dredging and beach replenishment over the
years has proven invaluable in the effort to counter erosion and water encroachment, as well
as making navigation Jirough inlets far less dangerous for both recreational boaters and
In light of several stoims that have battered the eastern seaboard, the Corps of Engineers'
work in southern New Jersey is critical. I believe the New Jersey coast has had more than
its fair share of natural abuse.
I am sony to learn, however, that the Administration has again chosen to ignore these facts
and omitted fimding for new beach replenishment and harbor dredging projects in the Coips
of Engineers budget in Fiscal Year 1997. This is a short-sighted approach that met with
overvdielming opposition from Members on both sides of the aisle during last year's budget
debate. I do not understand why the Administration would continue with this misguided
policy. Qearly, it is.a detnment and hindrance to business and tourism along the New Jersey
Mr. Chairman, let me point out an important statistic here: the New Jersey shore alone
generated half of the state's $23 billion dollar tourism industry in 1994.
As the Fiscal Year 1997 budget process moves forward, I would like to submit before the
subcommittee a list of planning, construction, and maintenance projects to be imdertaken by
the Corps of Engineers. Mr. Chairman, I would first like to go on record in support of all
ongoing projects. Second, 1 am respectfully requesting from the Energy and Water
Subcommittee that funding be appropriated for three new Corps of Engineers planning
studies that will most likely not be included in the budget submitted by the Administration.
The three planning study projects are as follows: (1) an interim Preconstruction, Engineering
and Design Study from Brigantine Inlet to Great Egg Harbor Inlet/Absecon Island, at
$950,000; (2) a Feasibility Study from Great Egg Harbor Inlet to Townsends Inlet, at
$500,000; and (3) a Preconstraction, Engineering and Design Study from Townsends Inlet
to Cape May Inlet, at $500,000.
Mr. Chairman, I fully support these planning studies because of their potential value to
commerce, both large and small, in southern New Jersey. 1 have spoken to oJG&cials in the
municipalities affected by the Corps of Engineers projects, and their message is clear.
Without beach replenishment, property damage due to erosion will be impossible to repair.
And without tiie beaches to attract die wide variety of seasonal visitors who converge on the
New Jersey shore each year, the prospects for thousands of small business owners will be
grim at best
The same can be said for harbor dredging. Erosion patterns have formed shoals in inlets,
making navigation considerably difficult for recreational and commercial fishermen. Mr.
commercial fishing represents a $100 million industry in New Jerse>'. Simply
halting Corps of Engineers acti\-ities around the second largest commercial port on die
Eastern Seaboani - Cape May - would be devastating. Dredging projects will also preserve
the S3 S million dollar charter and party boat industry, as well as die salt water recreational
fishing industn,- - which accounts for close to $450 million in retail sales armually.
In conclusion, Mr Chainnan. continued fundmg for the Corps of Engineers projects
represents an in>estment in small busmess and tourism, as well as a comimCment to safe
navigation for those who routmeU access the Atlannc Ocean for work or pleasure.
Thank \\>u for this opportumtN to testit> . and for your eft'orts to aid the New Jerse>' shore in
the past. 1 ask permission to submit a detailed statement for the record.
Corpi of Eogincars Projects, Second Congrcuional District
PROJECT 1 ESTIMATED FY 97 FUNDING | COMMENTS
Planning Studies (GI)
Gicat Egg Hsrtwr Inlet to
New Stan (A<ld)
Lower Cipe May M«s<lowi -
Cspe Miy Point FwsibUify
Dd Bsy Coastline, DE A NJ
Btiganune Inlet to Great Egg
Inlet FeasibOity Study
Brigantine Inlet to Great Egg
Inlet - Absecon Island Intanm
PED New Start (Aild>
Towni«ids Inlet to Cape May
Inlet FeaaiWity Study
Townsends Inlet to Cape May
Inlet - PED
PED Nw Start (Kdd)
Delaware Rjver Main Channel
r»cw Jcfscy Intracoutal
Waterway Dredged Matvial
&. Env RejtoritJon -