DREDGING AND DOG RIVER

 

Ford, David Wesley   Department of Earth Sciences, University of South Alabama, Mobile AL, 36668  Email:  dwford24@hotmail.com.

An initial study by the Army Corps of Engineers showed no reason to dredge Dog River.  After the idea was repackaged as an environmental restoration project, money was allocated from Congress for the project.  My goal is to enlighten the public about this project, and let them decide if there are reasons to justify the huge price tag associated with dredging the river. 

            Keyword:  Dog River Dredging

 

Introduction

Dredging is defined as “excavating or moving soil or rock by dredger” (Bray, 1979).  The basic reasons for dredging are the following:

 

A notable example of dredging would be the case of the Great Lakes.  Approximately four million cubic yards (400,000 truckloads) of soil are removed from its channels each year.  The reason for this continued dredging is simple; economic gains result because of the tremendous amount of commercial shipping taking place (Army Corps of Engineers, 2002).

 

The dredging of Hudson River in New York stands as a case of environmental improvement.  Recently, GE has been ordered to pay nearly 2 million dollars for the removal of PCB’s, a known carcinogen, from the river bottom (Asscoiated Press, 2001).  Again, the advantages of such a project are clear.  No one wants substances detrimental to health sitting in their river. 

 

The case for dredging Dog River, AL is a controversial one.  It is not without its critics and supporters, and it is not the stereotypical situation of environmentalists vs. big money as often advertised in political cartoons.  There are environmentalists who support the project, and there are those who do not.  The same can be said of the employees of the Army Corps of Engineers; some think it is a great idea, while some see it as a waste of money.  

 

It is no secret that the Dog River Watershed has been neglected and mistreated for decades, thereby contributing to numerous problems, including the buildup of sediments on the river bottom.  Since 1950 development has claimed much of the former wetlands that once played a role in water quality of the watershed.  Precipitation was filtered by these wetlands, and they also trapped sediment.  Poor Best Management Practices by construction companies has only exasperated the problem of sedimentation, leading to the shallow waters found in many parts of Dog River proper and  its tributaries.  The Army Corps of Engineers recently began dredging the river to remove these sediments and restore the river to historic depths (Parris, 2001).

 

The Dog River dredging project was authorized by Section 518 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999.  This Act called for $1,500,000 of Federal Money to be used for the project.  On July 24, 2001 the Supplemental Appropriations Act was signed which stated ‘That using $1,900,000 of the funds appropriated herein, the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, is directed to undertake the project authorized by Section 518 of Public Law 106-53, at full Federal expense.’  The project has been undertaken with congressional approval and without a feasibility study, and also without an authorization for annual Operation and Maintenance.  It is a one-time project that is completely federally funded (Parris, 2001).

 

The scope of the dredging is as follows:  A portion of Dog River proper has been dredged with a channel of dimensions 40’ by 7’.  The channel extends for a length of 19,000’.  The mouths of Moore Creek, Halls Mill Creek, and Rabbit Creek are being dredged to dimensions of 40’ by 8’.  The length of these channels extends from 1200, 1500, and 2100 feet, respectively.  In all, it is estimated that 116,679 cubic yards of material will be collected in barges and relocated to Galliard Island, a man-made island located in Mobile Bay (Flakes, 2001).


Research Question

 

The purpose of my inquiry and investigation into this project is to shed light on the subject, and to try and determine whether the dredging of Dog River may have favorable consequences worthy of its two million dollar budget.  How long will any expected benefits wrought by this project last?  Do the pros outweigh the cons?  What are the pros and cons of this project?    


Methods

 

I have gathered information concerning the Dog River Pilot Project from several sources.  First, I have interviewed persons directly involved with the project itself, from the Engineer in charge of contracts, to the Dredgemaster overseeing the actual work.  I obtained a copy of the Engineering and Documentation Report and Environmental Assessment prepared by the Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District, as well as several other articles containing information about the controversy surrounding this topic.  I also collected sediment samples from areas both dredged and those that have not been dredged, in order to ascertain if expected changes had occurred according to the Draft Engineering Documentation Report.   


Results

 

It turns out that there are many interesting aspects to this project.  First of all, how is it that the project was given life at all?  The Army Corps of Engineers does work that is concerned mostly with flood control and navigation projects.  A prerequisite of any project is that it has economic returns (Reilly, 2001).  The Dog River Pilot project has no economic returns.  How did it get started?  The story is as follows:

 

Representative Sonny Callahan has a house on the river.  For years he listened to complaints from neighbors about the depth of the river (Kamen, 2001).  People were having trouble getting their big recreational boats into the water.  An initial study in 1997 by the Army Corps of Engineers, however, found no reason to undertake a dredging project.  After all, there is no real commercial traffic on Dog River.    After more complaints, however, many people feel like Callahan gave in to the pressure.  A loophole was found in the Corps’ statutes.  This loophole is the environment.  If the plan to dredge the river could be re-packaged as an environmental restoration project, then economic returns could be thrown out the window (Reilly, 2001).



The package was completed, and because of Callahan’s position of power, he was able to clear the next hurdle:  the hurdle being that a local sponsor was required to put up 35 percent of the cost required of all environmental restoration initiatives.  He merely erased this clause, and added the extra money with the Supplemental Appropriations Act, bringing the total to $1,900,000 (Mobile Register, 2001).

 

So what are the environmental benefits anticipated from the dredging of Dog River?  According to the Army Corps of Engineers Report, it is the following:


The report lists as “incidental” the benefit of more recreational uses by boaters of the finished project.  In my time period, I have only been able to begin the process of determining whether this project will really improve environmental conditions.  Time will tell the fuller story.  I collected sediment samples from both inside and outside of the dredged channels.  I found no significant difference between the two.  To say that this small portion of Dog River has been restored to coarser sediments would be a false statement.  Sediment samples consisted of the same clay sludge whether they were obtained from inside or out of the channels.  A worker explained to me that they dredge below the required depth, because gravity pulls sediment back down the dredged slope.  This means that the material left after the dredging is completed is the same material that was being removed.   

 

As far as increasing tidal flow and improving water quality, one needs only look at the scope of the project to have reservations.  The overall portion of Dog River that is being dredged is very small compared to the size of the river.  Further, the dredging does not extend all of the way to Mobile Bay, and is therefore very unlikely to help with any flushing action.  It appears that the best effect of the dredging project will be to have narrow channels for big boats, and shoaled areas removed. 

 

Upon interviewing workers on-site at the river, I was surprised to learn that the effects of this project will last only “a few years”.  I was told by a man who has been in the dredging industry for over 30 years that Dog River would need to be dredged again in only a few short years because of how much sediment is being drained as a result of construction around Mobile.  He pointed out that this was his favorite part of being in his business, as he does not have to worry about job security (Personal Interview, 2002).   

Discussion and Conclusions

 

The dredging of Dog River has gone forward before a plan to get to the root of the problem has been fully addressed.  The project benefits a few owners of very nice, big boats, while it takes money out of the pockets of everyone.  While it is clear that the dredging is not harming the environment in any way (such a project has to meet many qualifications from ADEM, etc.) it is also very clear that a great deal of political maneuvering was involved to get the project underway.  The case for environmental benefits require a bit of imagination.  Reading the justifications for this project is analogous to reading a study conducted by a cigarette company showing that smoking is not as bad as once thought.  It will be nice for the owners of big boats for a few years, but what then? 

 

It will be interesting to note any changes with Dog River in the next few years.  The depth of the channels can be monitored to determine how long they will actually remain at their current dredged levels.  In addition, monitors can keep an eye out for the possible reestablishment of submerged seagrass beds that the environmental initiative hopes for.   

References Cited

Army Corps of Engineers.  Great Lakes and Ohio River Division.  Available: Online www.lrd.usace.army.mil/gl/dredge.htm

 

Bray, R. N., 1979:  Dredging, A Handbook for Engineers.

 

Editorial.  Mobile Register.  10-19-01

 

Editorial.  Associated Press.  One of America’s Largest Dredging Projects.  12-06-01. Available:  Online.  www.canoe.ca/AllAboutCanoesNews/dec6_hudson-ap.html

 

Flakes, Curtis M.  Revised Joint Public Notice, Dog River Pilot Project

 

Kamen, Al.  June 29, 2001; Page A35  GOP Defection:  Nimby to Yimby Washington Post

 

Lago, Ken.  Personal Interview.  3-27-02

 

Parris, Jennifer and Rees, Susan.  April 2001.  Draft Engineering Documentation Report and Environmental Assessment

 

Rush, George.  Personal Interview.  3-21-02