25 



Mr. Rees. Well, I will defer to Mike Davis, our assistant for Reg- 

 ulatory Affairs. 



Mr. Davis. I think it is important to perhaps step back a little bit 

 if we are going to talk about the endangered species issue. When 

 the New York District of the Corps first advertised this project 

 with the public notice, they solicited the comments of all the Feder- 

 al and State resource agencies. At that time, the National Marine 

 Fisheries Service wrote a letter and basically said they believe that 

 this project would not have an impact on endangered species. This 

 was during the normal review process. After the Corps decided to 

 issue the permit and in light of the increased quantities of sedi- 

 ment to be dredged, the National Marine Fisheries Service wrote a 

 subsequent letter and said that, "Perhaps we need to take another 

 look at this. There may be some issues we need to address." 



As Mr. Davies indicated, we are now in the process of discussions 

 with the National Marine Fisheries Service. I would not character- 

 ize this as a formal consultation process. We are in discussions 

 with the service now to determine if our action may affect an en- 

 dangered species. If we have a major effect, then we would enter 

 into a formal consultation process. The district is certainly very in- 

 terested in what NMFS has to say, and, at this time, they are 

 having discussions on what the issues really are. 



Mr. Pallone. At what point will we know whether they are 

 going to essentially require you to do something anytime? 



Mr. Davis. Perhaps within a week or so. 



Mr. Pallone. OK. 



Mr. Saxton. Will the gentleman yield on this? 



Mr. Pallone. Certainly. 



Mr. Saxton. I am curious. When you indicated that NMFS ini- 

 tially expressed no interest or had no objection, can you specify 

 what permits that was relevant to? The reason I am asking this 

 question is that my understanding is that at the point that they 

 made their expression of lack of interest for lack of a better way of 

 putting it, my understanding is that under consideration were 

 dredging permits, not dumping permits. 



Mr. Davis. Actually, I wouldn't characterize it as a lack of inter- 

 est on the part of the NMFS. They commented on a project that 

 they believed consisted of dredging and disposing of approximately 

 200,000 cubic yards. Based on that particular project, they in- 

 formed the Corps that consultation on endangered species was not 

 necessary. After the quantity increased, perhaps up to 500,000 

 cubic yards, NMFS asked to reevaluate that issue and take another 

 look at it. That is what we are doing now. 



Mr. Pallone. So, in other words, they could still take action and 

 say you are not allowed to go ahead without certain conditions 

 being met, but you don't know if they are going to do that, essen- 

 tially? 



Mr. Davis. It is ultimately up to the Federal action agency to 

 make the decision as to whether the project may affect a species. 



Mr. Pallone. All right. Let me ask one other thing about this 

 standard that was used. My understanding is that the Environmen- 

 tal Defense Fund came up with a standard of four parts per trillion 

 as opposed to the standard that you are using. I don't understand 

 the difference and why a more lenient standard was used in this 



