307 



The Honorable Solomon P. Ortiz 

 May 10, 1W3 

 Page 7 



the following ways: 



1) to make the public notices provide more relevant information lor the public In 

 review; 



2) to provide for more time to make comment (45 days instead of 30 days, due to 

 the time lost to mail and delivery); 



3) to outline the schedule of upcoming federal and private projects in order In warn 

 the public of the work envisioned within the next fiscal year: 



4) to require the Corps to respond to public comments in a timely fashion: and 



5) to require the Corps to inform the public of final decisions within a timeh 

 fashion. 



Additionally, each District and EPA region should work together to create a process 

 by which the public has the opportunity to participate and advise the agencies on lung lenn 

 planning and decision making. This important step is frequently by-passed and allows the- 

 public to only make comment on either Public Notices or EISs. when most decisions fu\r 

 already been made. 



11. What changes to the classification process should he made? Has the (ireen 

 Book been an effective document? 



As mentioned above, the old 1^77 Green Book has not been an effective document 

 in guiding the Corps and EPA to assess contaminated sediments. The new IW| (ireen 

 Book may be more successful, however it is too soon to tell. The implementation ol (he 

 new Green Book is still underway, for each District and Region has approached it 

 differently. The consistency with which each District and Region is implementing ihe new 

 Green Book would be a worthy subject for some investigation. 



The new Green Book should increase the percent of material that is classified as 

 contaminated. When this occurs, within the next year or so. the debate as to how such 

 material should be managed will intensify. The Corps may insist that ocean disposal with 

 capping is appropriate, while the environmental community will likely advocate tor other 

 alternatives, such as decontamination. 



12. What recommendations can be made to compensate ports that would be 

 economically impacted due to reduced dredging? 



First, it may not be necessary for reduced dredging to economically deprive ports, it 

 dredging needs are prioritized. A common practice has been for applications to be 

 submitted for entire areas to be dredged, but in fact, they are not dredged as extensively 

 because the demand for it does not present itself. Frequently, the driving force behind 

 ports and others in need of dredged channels is the flexibility to quickly dredge a 

 particular channel or berth when it is needed. The permitting system needs to address 

 itself more to the prioritized needs of ports. 



