Overview of CWA

Framework for Dredged Material Management

May 2004

of the Criteria by USEPA [40 CFR 225.2 (e)]. In addition, USEPA has authority under

Section 102 to designate ocean-disposal sites. The USACE is required to use such sites

for ocean disposal to the extent feasible. Section 103 does authorize the USACE, where

use of a USEPA-designated site is not feasible or a site has not been designated by

USEPA, to select ocean-disposal sites for project(s)-specific use. In exercising this

authority, the USACE utilizes the USEPA site-selection criteria (40 CFR 228), and the

site selection is subject to USEPA review as part of its permit review responsibilities.

1.4.3 Overview of CWA

Section 404 of the CWA requires USEPA, in conjunction with the USACE, to

promulgate Guidelines3 for the discharge of dredged or fill material to ensure that such

proposed discharge will not result in unacceptable adverse environmental impacts to

waters of the United States. Section 404 assigns to the USACE the responsibility for

authorizing all such proposed discharges, and requires application of the Guidelines in

assessing the environmental acceptability of the proposed action. Under the Guidelines,

the USACE is also required to examine practicable alternatives to the proposed

discharge, including alternatives to disposal in waters of the United States and

alternatives with potentially less damaging consequences. The USACE and USEPA also

have authority under Section 230.80 to identify, in advance, sites that are either suitable

or unsuitable for the discharge of dredged or fill material in waters of the United States.

USEPA is responsible for general environmental oversight under Section 404 and,

pursuant to Section 404(c), retains permit veto authority. In addition, Section 401

provides the States a certification role as to project compliance with applicable State

water quality standards.

1.4.4 Overview of NEPA

Dredged material disposal activities must comply with the applicable NEPA

requirements regarding identification and evaluation of alternatives. The basic NEPA

process discussed in this framework is that specifically associated with the dredging

project (as opposed to other related actions such as ocean-site designation which may

require an entirely separate NEPA process).

Section 102(2) of NEPA requires the examination of reasonable4 alternatives to

the action proposed by the lead agency. The alternatives analyzed in an Environmental

Assessment (EA) or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) must include not only all

reasonable alternatives but also those that were eliminated from further study (Part

1502.14) by the agency responsible for the final decision. The NEPA document must

rigorously address reasonable alternatives that are beyond the capability of the applicant

For purposes of this report, Guidelines (capitalized) refer to the CWA Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines.

The terms practicable (CWA), feasible (MPRSA), and reasonable (NEPA) all have specific regulatory

meaning. However, in this document, the term reasonable is used generically and not in a strict regulatory

sense. Reasonable is herein defined as practical or feasible from the technical and economic standpoint and

using common sense, rather than simply desirable from the standpoint of the project proponent or applicant.