213 
vailing condition of the Mud Dump Site, the environmental im- 
plications of continued dumping activities and the feasibility 
of alternative disposal sites. 
Areas outside the Apex were considered by the EPA but 
rejected for several reasons. Meencions further out to sea 
present possible conflicts with biotic resources, such as fish 
and shellfish and with mineral resources, such as oil and gas. 
In short, they require added economic and energy costs to trans- 
port material out to sea without providing significant environ- 
mental benefits. Transportation to sites outside the Apex would 
add from $48 to $68 million a year to the cost of disposing 
dredged material. 
The EPA concludes by recommending that the Mud Dump Site re- 
ceive final designation as an approved site for dredged material 
in accordance with the Act and with EPA regulations. The EPA 
has selected continued use of the Mud Dump Site because it 
appears to be the most environmentally sound disposal alternative. 
In addition, there are other studies referenced in technical 
attachment C, that conclude that the ocean may be the preferred 
disposal medium for dredged material. These studies include 
volumes of scientific data indicating that the ocean is the proper 
disposal medium for dredged material and the Mud Dump Site the 
proper location. 
Upland disposal alternatives are out of the question. In 
Sie 
