Eliminate Unreasonable Alternatives

Framework for Dredged Material Management

May 2004

incompatible with dredged sediment volume or characteristics or available dredging

plant), and legal considerations.

All potential alternatives are evaluated with respect to the availability of the

required site(s) and the likelihood that the site can be used. If there are no existing sites

available, then a determination is made as to whether a site(s) can be designated and/or

selected after taking into consideration the reasonableness of doing so for the project in

question. For example, the time frame for designating an ocean site under MPRSA or

selecting a CWA open-water site would have to be factored into this determination. In

those cases where site designation by USEPA under Section 102 of MPRSA is required,

the NEPA process for site designation and for the dredging project may be performed

jointly or concurrently.

Consideration must also be given to design limitations of the project, climatic

conditions, dredging equipment availability, physical and chemical aspects of the

material to be dredged, local interests, public concerns, and known environmental and

economic constraints. Maintenance history of the project in question or projects in the

general area and the experience and knowledge of the public and resource agencies

provide a basis for the screening process.

3.4.1 Eliminate Unreasonable Alternatives

Although the identification of innovative solutions is encouraged, the nature and

needs of the dredging project must be considered in determining the reasonableness of

alternatives. Alternatives that require sites that are not available, conflict with other site

uses, violate applicable environmental regulations, or are found to be clearly technically

or economically infeasible during the screening process, are eliminated from further

detailed consideration. An alternative may be considered unreasonable and therefore

eliminated from further consideration if the scoping process has determined it to be

unreasonable. The rationale for eliminating alternatives should be clearly documented in

the NEPA document. After application of these considerations by the lead agency6, those

alternatives that remain are scrutinized further for environmental, technical, and

economic feasibility.

3.4.2 Retain Reasonable Alternative(s)

The above evaluation will result in an identification of alternatives that are

reasonable from an environmental, technical, and economic standpoint. Each remaining

option is then carried forward for detailed evaluation via the NEPA/CWA/MPRSA

process. The final outcome of the detailed evaluation could be that the No-Action

alternative is selected or the project not continued.

See Guidance in 33 CFR 335-338 and ER 1105-2-100 and NEPA Regulations to define lead agency roles

and responsibilities.