19 



Mr. Saxton. Is it also true that you were not part of the process 

 of issuing the permit in question off New Jersey or consideration of 

 it? 



Mr. Davies. We were consulted on developments with the 

 permit, but the responsibility for review of the permit is delegated 

 to our regional office in New York. 



Mr. Saxton. And are you familiar with the process that they 

 used to investigate the advisability of issuing the permit and subse- 

 quent issuance of the permit? 



Mr. Davies. Yes, sir. 



Mr. Saxton. I find it unusual, and I wonder if you do, that this 

 permit apparently has been conditionally issued or objection has 

 been conditionally withdrawn or withheld subsequent to further in- 

 formation and further study specifically with the National Marine 

 Fisheries Service? 



Mr. Davies. No. I think that condition is very appropriate. The 

 National Marine Fisheries wrote to EPA and asked that we enter 

 into consultation with them because there was concern about 

 marine mammals at the dump site, and in most cases, we have had 

 some consultation with National Marine Fisheries on-site-designa- 

 tion issues and also on permit issuance. 



Usually we find that we come to a scientific conclusion that 

 there is a no-effect determination, and we go through informal con- 

 sultation with them under the Endangered Species Act, and they 

 concur with our determination. There have been cases where they 

 haven't, and I think it is very appropriate in this circumstance 

 that since they have asked for consultation that we go through full 

 consultation with the National Marine Fisheries, and I believe that 

 they are preparing a biological opinion based upon the Corps of En- 

 gineers' finding of no-effect at this point. 



Mr. Saxton. Has the approval been made pursuant to the proc- 

 ess and contingent upon approval by NMFS? 



Mr. Davies. I think the process is partly concurrence with the 

 no-effect opinion, and if they have an opinion that there are some 

 mitigating measures that should be taken, then those would be ap- 

 propriately discussed in a final permit. But I think we have to go 

 through this consultation process before the permit can be fully de- 

 fined. 



Mr. Saxton. So the permit has not been issued, has not been 

 issued contingent upon anything. We are still in the permitting 

 process, and final disposition of the permit, whether or not it is 

 even going to be issued, is still off somewhere in the future? 



Mr. Davies. The permit is issued by the Corps of Engineers. We 

 have been in consultation with them. We have reviewed the techni- 

 cal data, and the letter that you saw or you quoted from, the Re- 

 gional Administrator, sets specific conditions that should be insert- 

 ed into the permit. And I think close to the end of that letter is a 

 paragraph that required or requested that the — I am not sure pre- 

 cisely what the word is — but I think it requires the Corps to go 

 through consultation as appropriate under the Endangered Species 

 Act, Section 7, with the National Marine Fisheries. 



Mr. Saxton. So you have a significant enough concern about the 

 Endangered Species Act and whales and turtles and other types of 

 creatures that might be affected to still have concerns about that? 



