The Corps' draft environmental study was released in February. Its conclusion that the use of Site 104 would cause no serious environmental problems and suggestion that the placement of materials there would even produce some benefits created a storm of controversy. The report was criticized by environmental and local activists, and federal agencies as incomplete and based on poor science. In July, Col. Bruce Berwick, commander of the Corps' Baltimore district, announced plans to issue a revised study later this year. The state's congressional delegation is sharply divided on the issue.
Nutrients can spur algae blooms which block sunlight to valuable underwater grasses.
When the algae die, they sink to the bottom and decompose in a process that depletes the water of oxygen. In fact, little phosphorus is expected to leak at all, because it is so tightly bound with sediment particles. By changing the dredging techniques used, they said the amount of nitrogen released could be reduced below the Corps' estimate of 0.11 pounds of nitrogen per cubic yard dredged. While the Baywide impact is small, they agreed with critics that the amount of nutrients released at the site was large relative to discharges from individual wastewater treatment plants. But because the dredging would take place mostly during the winter when there is little algae growth, they said the likelihood of stimulating blooms is small.