Environmentally Preferred Alternative(s)

Framework for Dredged Material Management

May 2004

preferred alternative(s)) may be pursued in such studies, assuming that they can be

incrementally justified, and, in turn, approved and authorized by Congress.

For existing projects requiring periodic maintenance, project benefits/purposes

have previously been established by Congress. With few exceptions, the USACE cannot

unilaterally change or add to these project-specific purposes and benefits. As such,

USACE policy is to maintain these established project purposes(s) and benefits in the

least-cost and environmentally acceptable manner. As discussed in Chapter 1, compliance

with the MPRSA Criteria and/or CWA Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines is a major factor in

arriving at a decision of "environmental acceptability."

7.1.2 Environmentally Preferred Alternative(s)

Technically, no one management option can be considered a panacea for dredged

material nor can it be ruled out a priori in project-specific evaluations other than for

sound economic, environmental, or engineering reasons. Thus, unless specifically

prohibited by Federal environmental statute, the intention of this document is to

encourage full and balanced consideration of all practicable alternatives for the

management of dredged material.

CEQ NEPA regulations (40 CFR 1505.2) require that the Record of Decision

(ROD) for an EIS specifically identify, where applicable, the alternative or alternatives

that were considered to be environmentally preferable. These regulations further require

the ROD to identify and discuss relevant economic and technical issues and agency

statutory missions, including any essential considerations of national policy that were

balanced by the agency in making its alternative(s) selection. All other factors being

equal, the environmentally preferable alternative should also be the

preferred/recommended alternative.

Unfortunately, hard and fast guidelines for identifying the alternative that is

preferable from an environmental standpoint would be difficult to develop and apply.

Such guidelines would require objective criteria or standards for comparing

environmental impacts and/or the value of resources in aquatic, upland, and wetland

environments. In some cases, such environmental impacts/benefits can be quantified

(e.g., impacts to commercially important shellfish beds). In many other cases, however,

the relative environmental costs of adverse impacts and the relative environmental value

of resources and environmental enhancements in various environments are largely

subjective.

Subjective comparison between alternatives found to be environmentally

acceptable is possible. Further, it is likely that one alternative would be clearly preferable

from an environmental standpoint. Environmental preferability may be based on lesser

adverse impacts or on greater environmental benefits, perhaps in the form of beneficial

use of dredged material. For example, if a clean sand is to be dredged, beach nourishment

is clearly an environmentally preferable alternative as compared with open-water or

confined disposal, assuming that there are beach nourishment needs. Or, if