17 



Mr. Saxton. Therefore, working through the Department of Inte- 

 rior which authorized through Federal law the plans for the Pine- 

 lands management plan, if the Pinelands Council decides they are 

 going to regulate wetlands in a different way, they have the right 

 to do so under the new policy? 



Mr. Davison. Yes, they would. 



Mr. Saxton. Are there minimum standards in the new policy 

 that the local regulatory agency will be required to meet? 



Mr. Wayland. The policy calls for legislative recognition of pro- 

 grammatic general permits. The Corps does intend to issue addi- 

 tional guidance and regulations on programatic general permits. 

 The law does not provide for assumptions of the program by a 

 State except on an all-activities, all-State-waters basis. 



We have suggested that Congress could allow States to ease their 

 way into this somewhat controversial program by permitting them 

 to assume jurisdiction from the Federal Government for only cer- 

 tain activities or certain waters. The safeguards, if you will, the re- 

 quirements for Federal review and oversight of the 404 assumed 

 program, are specified in Section 404(g) of the Clean Water Act. 



Mr. Saxton. Are you familiar with the assumption process that 

 is currently ongoing in New Jersey? . 



Mr. Wayland. Mr. Saxton, I am somewhat familiar with it. EPA 

 has been cooperating with New Jersey for a number of years to 

 assist in the development of the program. 



We have determined that New Jersey's application for assump- 

 tion is complete. There is a notice and review opportunity afforded 

 to the public and other Federal agencies. Because of some of the 

 issues that you have mentioned, the State has asked us not to 

 reach a final determination on whether or not assumptions should 

 proceed until December. 



The Fish and Wildlife Service has raised concerns which we are 

 pursuing with the Fish and Wildlife Service. 



Mr. Saxton. Can you explain? I believe if I said it was creating 

 controversy in New Jersey, it would be accurate. Can you tell me 

 why that controversy exists? 



Mr. Wayland. I will respond initially and then turn it over to 

 Mr. Davison. I have read the statements of the field supervisor for 

 the Fish and Wildlife Service of New Jersey and the accompanying 

 report that has been prepared. 



I think the gist of the concern is whether or not there will be 

 sufficient protection of threatened and endangered species, for 

 which Fish and Wildlife has responsibility under separate statute, 

 and whether or not in fact wetlands protection in the State is 

 better assured through the use of two programs running side by 

 side and complementing one another rather than a State program 

 operating in lieu of the Federal program. 



Mr. Saxton. So there is some limitation here on what States can 

 do. Since States don't have carte blanche to develop their own pro- 

 gram, their programs are subject to approval by the Federal agen- 

 cies. 



Mr. Wayland. If the program is to substitute for the Federal 

 program, it is subject to a determination by EPA that it is ade- 

 quate to fulfill the requirements of Section 404. 

 Mr. Studds. The gentleman from Alaska. 



