board placement within the Chesapeake Bay waters, and by use of
the Hart-Miller Island containment site. Although limited over-
board placement of dredge material will continue if and where it
can be done without adversely impacting the marine environment,
this option will nevertheless provide relatively little capacity.
The remaining capacity of Hart-Miller Island is very limited.
Within a period of several years, the Port of Baltimore could ex-
haust all remaining dredge disposal capacity. In short, in order to
meet the dredging needs of the port, we must supplement these
measures with other options in the immediate future.
Working with the Corps of Engineers and other Federal and
State agencies, Maryland has developed a dredge disposal plan
which, if implemented, would address disposal needs through the
next 10 to 15 years. The plan calls for five major actions, including
a balance of open water disposal, expanded use of existing and pro-
posed containment sites and a development of a new, quote, **bene-
ficial," end of quote, dredge disposal sites.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. If I could just interrupt for one second, I
know Congressman Cardin has joined us. I don't know whether
there is a possibility of you maybe summarizing or perhaps submit-
ting for the record any particular portions that you would like to
emphasize. But I certainly would like to recognize one of our col-
leagues at some point in time.
Mr. YOSHITANI. I would be happy to do that, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Your statement, a copy of which we don't
have up here, would certainly be included in total in our transcript.
But I certainly would want —
Mr. YOSHITANI. Let me just try to summarize visually, if I may.
As I said, we have five projects that are of importance to us. Poplar
Island, which is the restoration project, this is the one that's per-
haps the most expensive from our standpoint and also from the
Federal standpoint. We have been working closely with the Office
of Management and Budget, the Assistant Secretary of the Army
Civil Works and the Corps of Engineers to secure support for this
Moving on to the Baltimore Harbor anchorage and channels, this
is another portion of our needs and we would appreciate for this
project the committee's indication of concern regarding this project
by instructing the administration to prepare its fiscal 1998 budget
to provide funds to start the project construction.
Thirdly, the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal, this is a very im-
portant issue for us, and we request that for this project $1.2 mil-
lion be included in the fiscal year 1997 appropriations bill.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. I think I may have to ask you to maybe
submit your statement in total, because some of my — some of our
congressional colleagues are here and I am not sure we are count-
ing on the equal time provision here.
Mr. YOSHITANI. Absolutely.
[The statement of Mr. Yoshitani follows:]
CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
TESTIMONY OF THE
MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MARYLAND PORT ADMINISTRATION
BEFORE THE APPROPRIATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE
ON ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT
February 28, 1996
TESTIMONY OF THE MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MARYLAND PORT ADMINISTRATION
BEFORE THE APPROPRIATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE
ON ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT
1 The Maryland Department of Transportation is pleased to present testimony regarding
2 v^ousTroposals 'related to the channel system serving the Port of Balumore. At *e ou^t
3 the Depirfient expresses its appreciation for the committee's conunuing ^^VVon of Corps of
4 Engineers activities, which are v.tai to the interests of the port, throughout the counuy.
, The Pon of Baltimore is a major factor in the economy of the Sute of Marylajid Each y^
6 the pon generates some $2 billion in statewide economic impa«. and contributes each year
7 sToO^TiUlion in United States customs receipts and approximately $25 m.ll.on to the Harbor
8 M^itSiance Trust Fund. Some 87,000 jobs are directly or indirectly related to port activity.
9 of which nearly 63,000 are located in Maryland.
10 The economic vitality of our port is in large part dependent on the ability to maintain and
U JXrZZnsllls of channels that connect it to the ocean. Ilie port is seived by a two-
' ^ . . , nu ^1, ..,k;^k Qnnmarh the Dort from thc south - ftom the
pronged channel system. Channels which approach thc port from ^'^f^" ,°^!^^,
mouSi of the Cheapeake Bay - are maintained at an authonzcd depth of fifty (50) feet
Channel Z^n^T^dfrol the north - via the Chesapealce and Delaware Canal (.he C&D
.3 S) - are m^itained at an authonzed depth of thirty-five (35) feet. The southern
16 approach is used by both deep draft bulk cargo carriers and container ''^ips; whexeasthe
17 C&D Canal system, which is in essence a shon cut to and from po.nts north, is especially
18 important for container ships carrying high value cargo.
19 The project which deepened Baltimore's southern approach channels to 50\ was the first
20 d Vdrift channel autSTrized in the nauon. (It was -^°"-^ -J„9^0^>.„?'Xtl"sL
2 1 accomplished in accordance with the cost sharing provisions of WRDA 86. with the state
2^ pa'rg $70 m.llion towards the dredging, and an additional $60 million to prov.de a dredged
23 material containment site at Hart-Miller Island.
-4 This project was a significant milestone for the Port of Baltimore. However, the need for
25 channel work did not end with this one project. A decade later, there are a number of new
26 projects, continuing requirements, and •completion of old business" for the Port that will
27 require attention.
28 Foremost among these are projects at wluch material dredged fr^m ship channels can be
29 placed. As is true for many ports, the Port of Baltimore faces a conunuous need to maintain
10 channels; in order to maintain shipping channels serving the Port of Baltimore at .Jeir
31 existing authorized depths, each year some five ntillion cubic yards of maurnal s dredged
r from the channels serving the Pon of Baltimore. If one includes dredgmg for -new work
11 proiects the total volume of material which must be disposed of in the next twenty years
1 exceeds 100 million cubic yards. In order to place the material which is dredged from the
2 channels, the State of Maryland must construct new disposal sites, some of which qualify for
^ federal funding. Without adequate support for placement of dredged material , the necessary
4 channel maintenance and improvement projecu simply cannot take place. This is an urgent
5 problem which requires immediate attention, and which constitutes the Department's top
6 priority for federal FY 97 funds.
7 Funding is also required for the Corps of Engineers' share of actual channel dredging work.
8 tn addition to the ongoing maintenance dredging, there are also numerous channel
9 improvement projects which should be undertaken in the near future. These include
10 deepening of the CSeH Canal and connecting channels within die Chesapeake Bay,
1 1 improvements to Baltimore Harbor anchorages, completion of the deepening of the
12 Brcwerton Extension Channel, and improvement to the Tolchester Channel.
1 3 These projects are described in greater detail below.
14 Poplar T.slan d Restoration Project
In the past, Maryland has been able to meet its dredge disposal needs by careful use of
overboard placement within Chesapeake Bay waters and by use of the Hart Miller Island
containment site. Although limited overboard placement of dredged material wiU be
continued - if and where it can be done without adversely impacting the marine environment
- this option will nevertheless provide relauvely Uttle capacity. The remaining capacity of
the Hart Miller Island site is very limited. Within a period of several years, the Port of
Baltimore could exhaust all remaining dredge disposal capacity. In short, in order to meet
the dredging needs of the port, we must supplement these measures with other opuons in the
24 Working with the Corps of Engineers and other federal and state agencies, Maryland has
25 developed a dredge disposal plan which, if implemented, would address disposal needs
26 through the next ten to fifteen years. The plan calls for five major actions, including a
27 balance of open water disposal, expanded use of exisung and proposed containment sites, and
28 development of new "beneficial use" dredge disposal sites.
The Poplar Island Project is one of the more significant dements of our plan and is essential
for the continued viability of the Port of Baltimore. It would provide a new placement site
for dredged material through the restoration of an eroding island. Most likely to be
undertaken in phases, the project could ultimately provide up to 38 million cubic yards of
capacity. The project is the result of a several year cooperative effort involving Maryland
Port Admmistralion, other state, federal and local agencies and the BaltiiLu/i District Corps
of Engineers, and has received unanimous support from the state and federal agencies
involved. Poplar Island would be restored to its approximate size in the mid 1800's. The
restored island would creates a significant amount of new wildlife habitat and inierlidal
tor the Phase I dike is estimated to be $44 million. Using the Section 204 program's 75%
25% funding mechanism, approximately $12 milUon in federal funds would be required in
FY 1996 and $21 million in FY 1997 for this part of the project. Additional funding would
2 Both the House and Senate Appropriations Committees in their considerauon of the Energy
? and Water Development Appropriations Act of 1996 recognized the importance of the Poplar
4 Island Project and urged the Corps to support its implementation.
5 The project report is csscntiaUy complete. Final approval by the Corps of Engineers is
6 expected shortly. The Project Cost-Sharing Agreement (PCA) is under negotiation with the
7 Corps and will be signed in time to begin construction in Summer 1996. Fiscal year 1997
8 wiU be the peak construction year for the contract under which the dike will be constructed.
9 This contract will be completed in early FY 1998.
10 Construction of the dike enclosing the island has been estimated by the Corps of Engineers to
1 1 cost $63 miUion. We intend to implement the project ui phases, with the first phase
12 encompassing approximately one half of the ultimate island configuration. _^"^t™f"o^^o*'
13 " " ■ "'
16 be required in following years for additional project acnviues.
17 We have been working closely with the Office of Management and Budget, the Assistant
18 Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) and the Corps of Engineers lo devise an acceptable plan
19 to secure the necessary funding for the project. The federal program under which the Corps
20 intends to fund the project is the Section 204 program. It is , however, currently authonzed
21 at a $15 million annual ceiling, and has in the past been funded at a much lower level. We
22 have asked the Administiation to aUocate whatever funds might be available out of FY 96
2.^ and prior appropriations. Maryland has indicated its willingness to finance both us share of
24 Phase I. and. if necessary and contingent upon an acceptable reimbursement agreement, to
25 advance a portion of the federal share of the project to assure dmely completion of the dike.
26 In order to provide funding for FY 97, we ask that the Committee appropriate the full $15
27 million currently authorized for the program.
28 Baltimore Hflrhnr Ancho rngP-S and Channels. MP
29 This project involves the enlargement and improvement of various anchorages and connecting
30 channels within the Port of Baltimore It is the result of a study which the Corps has had
31 underway for a number of years, and which will soon be ready to move into the pre-
32 construction, engineering and design (PED) phase.
33 With nearly 2,500 ships using the port facilities annually, there is an obvious need to expand
34 the existing anchorage areas, ^fany of these ships arc 900' to 1000' in length, compared
35 with 500' in length when the anchorages were designed and constructed. The cost shared
1 feasibility study which commenced in 1993 ii ncarijig completion. The anticipated favorable
2 recommendation is producixig a project with a benefit cost ratio of nearly 10 to 1. The new
3 and improved branch channels will increase the maneuverability of larger vessels, thus
4 decreasing the time required to shift to and from berthing areas.
5 In order to continue worlc on this very fevorable project, we are asking that $400,000 be
6 included in the FY 1997 Appropriations Bill for (FED). Iliis would allow the design effort
7 to commence, consistent with the Corps concept of seamless funding, while the feasibility
8 report is undergoing the Washington review and processing for authorization.
9 We would also appreciate the Committee's indication of concern regarding this project by
10 insiniciing the Administration to prepare its FY 98 budget to provide funds to start project
1 1 construction. Total project construction cost is estimated to be $32.6 million, with a federal
12 share of $24.5 million.
1 3 Chesapeake and Delaware Canal
14 Baltimore Har<)or Connectinf Channek (Deenenine). DE & MP
15 The Chesapeake and Delaware (C&D) Canal is an integral component of the Port of
16 Baltimore's ship channel system. It provides a shon cut for vessels traveling between
17 Baltimore and ports in the northeast and Europe. About half of all breakbulk and container
18 tonnage through the Port of Baltimore utilizes the Canal.
19 The present canal dimensions (35' depth) were authorized in 1954 and the connecting
20 channels were authorized in 1958. Vessel characteristics and traffic levels have substantially
2i increased since that period of time. The current study is examining the feasibility of
22 deq>ening the channel system, most likely to 40' depth. Substantial benefits from
23 improvements to the canal and connecting channels are likely to occur by transporting
24 cargoes in larger vessels or by avoiding the alternative deq)er draft route around the
25 Delmarva Peninsula, which adds up to 150 miles for each vessel trip.
26 The cost shared feasibility study commenced in 1990 and is nearing completion. Based on
27 the draft report, wc fully expect a favorable recommendation for this urgently needed
28 project. FED is scheduled to commence in October 1996, and be completed by September
29 1999. The current FED estimate (federal and state fiinds) is approximately $4,500,000.
30 We request that $1 ,200,000 be included in the FY 1997 Appropriations Bill for FED
Baltimore Harbor and Channels:
Op..r«tiftn flr "T M"'"**^"*"*'* Dredging
•3 We request an appropriation of $1 1.000.000 for maintenance dredging of channel that are
4 within the jurisdiction of the Baltimore District; i.e.. the 35' deep conn^nng channels
5 between Baltimore and Pooles Island leading toward the C&D Canal and the 50 deep
6 channels leading from Baltimore southward down the acaapcakc Bay. This funding is
7 csscnual to maintain channels at the existing authorized dq>th, and given the compeut.ve
8 nature of maritime commerce, is of vital importance for the Port of Balumore.
9 Tolchester S "nirn
The Tolchester Channel, a C&D Canal approach channel, has a significant -S-turn." Ships
change course five umes within three miles, often beginning a new turn, sometimes in the
1 2 op^site^dir^tiony b^toe'com"pleting a first turn. With ships approaching 1,000 feet m
1 1 IcnVth it .s becoming difficult to safely navigate the channel, especially ui winter months
18 $14 million.
when i)oor weather, ice, wind and tide conditions prevaU. Tlic Mainland Associauon of
Pilots indicates there have been two recent groundings in the area, and that there have been a
greater number of "near misses." The Association urges that the Tolchester Channel S-turn
be modified as soon as possible. The cost to straighten the S-Tum is approximately $12 -
IQ The Corps is nearing completion of a report on Tolchester. prepared at the direction of the
20 Committee. Preliminary discussions with the Corps suggests that the urgency of the current
21 situation, and the need for immediate action may not be fully recognized.
2^ We therefore request that the Committee direct the Corps to complete the necessary design
23 documents in FY 1997. using a portion of the $1 1 miUion in fiinds requested above for
24 operation and maintenance activities in the Baltimore Distnct. Further, we reques that the
25 Committee instruct the Corps to correct the problem at the carbest possible date. In this
26 regard we would request that the Administration be asked to budget funds for a conunuing
27 contract to construct the project in FY 98.
2g C&D Canal and Approach Channeb
29 O pt-rarion an H Maintenance Dredging
30 Funds in the amount of $1 1 .600,000. are recommended for maintenance dredging and for
31 operation of the C&D Canal and its approach channels within the Philadelphia District. This
32 funding is essential to maintain channels at the existing authonzed depth, and, given the
33 competitive nature of maritime commerce, is of vital importance for the Port ot Baa. more
34 This is especially imponant for Port of Baltimore channels within the Philadelphia District s
35 jurisdiction, inasmuch as these are subject to rapid rates of shoaling.
A portion of the recommended funds would also be used to correct a "a^^g^tional safety
pnSem at Sandy Point. A destabUired embankment at Sandy Point, loca.^ ^.^H''^
entrance to the C&D Canal, has created shoals adjacent to the shorebne which m turn arc
creating potcntiaUy dangerous cross currents within the canal. Th«e currents have msule
navigadoVof vessels at this point in the canal more difficult and. .f not corrected, "light pose
a safety project. The Association of Maryland Pilots has recommended that the embankment
be repaired as soon as possible. The Corps has reviewed the situaaon and has determined
that the work can be accomplished under the maintenance program. The Committee has
recognized the problem and in the FY 1995 Appropriations Report urged the Corps to correct
the situation using operation and maintenance funds. TTie Corps accomplish^ part of the
needed stabilization l^t year, and is monitoring and evaluating the results. We expect some
additional work will be required in FY 1997.
B^w<>rtftn Extension Channel
This project might be categorized as "completion of old business". The Brewerton Extenaon
Channel connects the channels within the Port of Baltimore to the approach channels to the
C&D Canal . It was authorized as one element of a major navigauon project, which
Congress authorized in 1958. Although the rest of the project was drcdg«l to the dimensions
authorized by Congress in 1958, the Brewcrton Channel remained at 27 for many ycan.^ In
the mid 1980-s. it was deeded to dredge the channel to .ts author red dimensions of 600
wide by 35' depth. Tn a cooperauve effort to save money, the State of M^l^d. *e Corps
of Engineers and the Association of Maryland Pilots agreed to limit the width of the
deepened section to 450'. The remaining 150' width of the channel was never deepened.
Thirdeepening preceded the enactment of WRDA '86 and was financed entirely by the
In the past decade, the ships using the Brewerton Channel have increased in size (particularly
in width and length). The 450' width .s s.gn.fvcantly less than channels at other ports which
accommodate .similar ships. The Association of Maryland Pilots has recommended
proceeding with the deepening to 35" over the remaining 150' w.dth of the channel.
Later this fiscal year, the Corps wiU complete a Limited Reevaluation Report, consistent with
funding and Con'mittee guidance provided in FY 1996. We expect favorable results based
on economic and safety ^nsiderutions. We request that the Committee instruct the Corps to
complete design work for the project in FY 97 funds, and insuruct the Admm.stration to
budget funds for construction of the project beginning in FY 98.
The toul estimated cost of the project is approximately SI4 million, with a federal share of
2 In conclusion, we express our appreciation to the Subconmnlttee for its consideration of these
^ proposals. We applaud the e^orts of the Congress to continue the much needed
4 improvement of our nations harbors and channel systems, and Maryland looks forward to
5 doing its part in this cooperative effort.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. But Congressman Cardin is here. Congress-
man Gilchrest is here and Congressman EhrUch is here. I am not
sure where in the overall scheme of things everybody's testimony
is going to fit.
Mr. Cardin. And our Secretary of Transportation is also here.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. And your name, just for the record?
Mr. WiNSTEAD. David Winstead.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you very much for being here. We
got off to a relatively fast start here. I certainly wanted to recog-
nize the Members of Congress who have taken time out of their
busy schedule to be here to make a case for, I presume, just about
all the items that are listed. Congressman Cardin.
Mr. Cardin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be very brief.
First, I want to acknowledge the presence here of Helen Bentley.
I know she has already been recognized, but Helen Bentley has
been the real champion, I think, in our country on U.S. shipping
and on dredging issues. And it is a pleasure to have her here today,
and we thank her for her past help and she is a great help to us
in the State of Maryland on this issue.
I think you will find unanimous support within our delegation for
Federal participation for use of the pilot funds for beneficial use for
the dredge spoils for the Poplar Island dredging site. It is ex-
tremely important to the competitiveness of U.S. shipping. It is ex-
tremely important to the competitiveness of our port and to the
economy of our region. We believe it is appropriate and has the
support of our entire delegation, and I am here today to emphasize
the absolute first priority of our State in Federal participation for
this extremely important project.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you, Mr. Cardin.
Mr. Gilchrest, I would just very quickly like to welcome Helen
to Washington. The Second District of Maryland is represented by
two able people, Bobby Ehrlich and Helen Bentley.
I would also like to echo the words of Ben, and I am sure Steny
earlier, and what Bobby will say, one of the major problems coastal
ports have in the United States is dredging, one; dredging toxic
material, two; and finding places, which is three, to put the stuff.
And this is a particular project.
Poplar Island is an island in th^ Chesapeake Bay that was rath-
er large and it has almost disappeared now, but it is a habitat for
migrating waterfowl and a whole host of other things. So this is an
environmental program. It is an economic program. It is a positive
program for not only the State of Maryland, but it sets a pretty
powerful precedent for future dredging needs.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you. Congressman Ehrlich. Thank
you for being with us as well.
Mr. Ehrlich. Helen, I picked up your dry cleaning today.
There is nothing that I can add that would be original. We have
the foremost expert in the country, Ms. Bentley, my predecessor,
who is just a wonderful leader on this issue. Poplar Island is the
priority for us. Working together, we all believe how important this
issue is obviously to the Port of Baltimore. You all know the facts
and we have our great Secretary of Transportation here today, as
well, to articulate our case, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you, Congressman.
Back to you, Mr. Winstead. Part of your remarks and presen-
tation, I think, have been presented by Mr. Yoshitani.
Mr. Winstead. That is correct. I want to acknowledge and say
that I appreciate at this time our distinguished delegation that is
here in support of this project and our dredging plan. We welcomed
you earlier last year, I believe, to Hart-Miller Island, which is an-
other classic project.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Fascinating. I learned a lot. Maybe we