199 



Mr. DixGELL, Then I am rather curious, we seem to be getting our- 

 selves in a situation where tliere is a potentiality for two permits, 

 possibly three permits in these matters. 



Is that really desirable ? 



Mr. Train, Well, I do not suppose it is desirable, although there are 

 many cases wherein both State and Federal permits are required, but 

 insofar as multiple Federal permits, that certainly is not desirable. 



Mr, DiNGELL. Of course, it is clear the Refuse Act permit system now 

 under the corps is beginning to work rather well ; is that correct ? 



Mr. Traix. It is a little early to say. It has just gotten underway, 

 and the regulation will be issued this Aveek, but I am hopeful it will be 

 working well, 



Mr, DiNGELL. The indications are that it will be working well, and 

 it includes requirements of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, 

 and an agreement between the Interior and the corps. 



Would the legislation before us be subject to the same limitation, 

 that is, the requirement of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, 

 and also the requirement of the agreement between Interior and the 

 corps, with regard to fish and wildlife values and dumping? 



Mr. Train. As I said, this legislation requires consideration of fish 

 and wildlife values. 



It requires this consideration not only within the territorial limits 

 with regard to the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, but also to the 

 high seas, where it does not extend. 



Mr. DiNGELL. Now, on page 6, Imes 6 to 9 — and I would hope 

 that you would refer to those sections, Mr. Train — the statute refers to 

 the following language. 



It says, and I quote : 



In reviewing applications for permits, the Administrator shall make such provi- 

 sion for consultation with interested Federal and State agencies as he deems 

 useful or necessary. 



I know we have gone over this ground a couple of times, but vrould 

 you tell us again, does this amend the Fish and Wildlife Coordination 

 Act in any fashion ? 



Mr. Train. 'Not to my knowledge. 



Mr. DiNGELL. Now, this does trouble me greatly. 



There are no provisions in the bill for public participation, or in 

 consideration of permit applications, such as notice in public hearings. 



Can jv'ou tell us why that requirement was excluded from the bill ? 



Mr, Train. I suppose we thought it was not necessary. I have no 

 doubt that permit applications and all of the data that is part of the 

 application will be made available to the public as a matter of course 

 under the regulations of the Admmistrator. 



That is done under the permit authority. 



_Mr. DiNGELL. Let's suppose the Administrator of EPA was deter- 

 mined to set up a dumping ground right in the midst of the best oyster 

 beds off the U.S. coast. 



Under this bill, there is no requirement in the legislation before we 

 hold hearings. 



^Vliat would a citizen do if he were a shell fisherman, or something 

 of that kind, to protest if he felt under the particular circumstances 

 that the bill provides no relief to him ? 



