38 



of other alternatives like the borrow-pits if that requires additional 

 public information in order for a dialog and a decision to take place 

 on that kind of solution. 



Mr. Pallone. Well, I certainly appreciate that because I do think 

 that that is the most important thing perhaps that can come out of 

 this hearing today — is if we can start looking and making progress 

 on some of these alternatives. Mr. Chairman, I had some questions 

 of Ms. Clark too, but I don't know what your procedure is. 



Mr. Green. Well, let me ask some questions. Ms. Clark, Ms. Li- 

 burdi, both of you mentioned in your testimony that there are 

 problems regarding the public's input and perception of the permit 

 process. How can the Federal or State agencies better bring the 

 permit process before the public in a manner that will allow the 

 issues to be fairly and fully deliberated? 



Ms. Clark. From my experience, I think one of the first things 

 they could do is make a better effort to educate the public about 

 the testing that is being utilized at the particular region and dis- 

 trict. What occurred with the Port Authority's project that was a 

 real disservice to the public was that there was only a very scant 

 mention of dioxin and how they were going to evaluate the levels 

 of dioxin in the sediments. And it was impossible for the public to 

 really understand what the evaluative procedure really consisted 

 of. 



The Corps and EPA need to make a more concerted effort to 

 make their testing protocol well understood, have public input and 

 review of that protocol. Right now it appears to be largely discre- 

 tionary, and public input may be considered, but it doesn't really 

 have to be necessarily responded to specifically. The corps' entire 

 public notice process could be made much more friendly to the 

 public. It is not a reader-friendly notice system at the present. 



Additionally, in every region and district, there should be an 

 idea of what kinds of projects are down the line. The present 

 system is such that if you are on the mailing list, you get a public 

 notice, and you may get one or three in a week. You have no idea 

 of what is coming up, and there should be some kind of preparation 

 by the Corps. The Corps should inform the public by saying, "We 

 expect these many permits to be processed. Here is a warning 

 about them, anticipate them, and you will be getting notices." 

 Right now the public just responds on a case-by-case basis. Second- 

 ly, with respect to how sediments are managed, agencies could do a 

 much, much better job in bringing the public in and having them 

 participate in some of the decisions. Right now it is purely a proc- 

 ess of reacting to environmental impact statements, reacting to 

 public notices. There is no proactive garnering of public input 

 before policy decisions are made. 



Ms. Liburdi. Mr. Chairman, I second many of the comments 

 Sarah has offered. I think there are a few others that would be 

 helpful as well. First of all, I would like to see the Federal agencies 

 in each process on a permit convene and agree on what the issues 

 are that they would like to look into and be clear about those 

 issues both with the applicant as well as with the interest groups 

 who are not the applicant so that everyone understands what is at 

 issue in the review. 



