Identification of Alternatives

Framework for Dredged Material Management

May 2004

3.2.2 Determination of Availability of Alternatives and Coverage in Existing

NEPA Document

A review of the project requirements in terms of all reasonable alternatives and

the adequate coverage of these alternatives in the existing NEPA document should be

made. Supplemental NEPA documentation is required when significant changes are made

in the proposed alternative, or when significant new circumstances or information

relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its impacts

exist (40 CFR 1502.9 (c)). In particular, CWA/MPRSA alternatives analyses should be

reviewed for adequacy. Evaluations conducted for purposes of MPRSA or CWA

compliance indicating potential environmental impacts not previously considered in the

selection of an alternative may trigger the need for a supplemental EA or EIS to ensure

NEPA compliance.

3.3 Identification of Alternatives

Under the NEPA process, the potential environmental impacts of the discharge of

dredged material including confined (diked), open water (CWA and/or MPRSA sites),

and beneficial uses, must be considered, taking into consideration the nature and needs of

the dredging projects and the material to be dredged. The NEPA scoping process

encourages the identification of all potential alternatives for dredged material

management. Proposed alternatives may consist of any combination of options as

warranted by local conditions. Beneficial use of dredged material should be fully

considered to ensure that benefits are maximized.

When a large number of potential alternatives exist, a reasonable number of

examples covering the full spectrum of alternatives must be analyzed and compared in

the NEPA document (40 CFR 1502.9(c)). The NEPA document must rigorously address

reasonable alternatives that are beyond the capability of the applicant or project

proponent or are beyond the jurisdiction of the lead agency. Under CEQ regulations, the

No-Action (no dredging or continuation of an existing practice) alternative must also be

included and retained throughout the NEPA process as a basis for impact comparison.

Subsequent evaluations in the framework determine the reasonableness of alternatives

identified at this level.

3.4 Initial Screening of Alternatives

An initial screening is undertaken to eliminate from further consideration those

management alternatives that clearly are not reasonable for the specific project.

Reasonable alternatives include those that are practical or feasible from the

environmental, technical, and economic standpoint (40 CFR 1502.9 (c)), and use

common sense, rather than being simply desirable from the standpoint of the project

proponent or applicant. The screening should utilize all available information and should

consider factors such as environmental concerns (e.g., endangered species), cost,

technical feasibility (e.g., site availability and site characteristics that may be