Environmental Coordination/Documentation/Recommended Alternative

Framework for Dredged Material Management

May 2004

simultaneously, although this is unusual. The draft NEPA document, as well as public

and agency comments used in making that selection, is circulated prior to the selection of

a recommended alternative. Specific evaluations of the 404(b)(1) Guidelines and the 103

Criteria must be made and are typically prepared as appendices to the NEPA document

and circulated concurrently. For construction projects, this process may take place

months or years before actual project construction begins. In such cases, another Public

Notice is often issued immediately prior to when the actual dredging and disposal are to

begin to ensure appropriate coordination.

USEPA's environmental review program is conducted pursuant to Section

102(2)(c) of NEPA and Section 309 of the Clean Air Act. These laws establish USEPA's

responsibility to review and comment upon the "environmental impact of any matter

relating to USEPA's duties and responsibilities." Under this authority, USEPA may

choose to review and comment on EISs, EAs, and other proposed Federal actions.

USEPA comments on NEPA documents are advisory, but by USACE policy are given

great weight. In cases where USEPA and the USACE cannot resolve differences, the

dispute may be referred by USEPA to CEQ.

Section 309 of the Clean Air Act also establishes that when the Administrator

determines that any legislation proposed by a federal agency, action or regulation falling

under the purview of the Administrator's review responsibilities is "unsatisfactory from

the standpoint of public health or welfare or environmental quality, he shall publish his

determination and the matter shall be referred to the Council on Environmental Quality."

Under CWA and MPRSA, Public Notices are the formal mechanism by which

USEPA concurs or does not concur with a recommended action, whether it is a proposed

permit or USACE activity. In addition, under the CWA, a 404(q) elevation and/or a

404(c) veto of a permit may be undertaken by USEPA if differences between the

agencies cannot be resolved at an earlier stage. Under the MPRSA, if USEPA determines

that the Criteria are not met, the proposed action cannot proceed unless a waiver is

granted by USEPA.

NEPA review staff and CWA and/or MPRSA program staff are separate offices in

some USEPA regions; therefore, care should be taken to ensure that NEPA documents,

when prepared, are furnished to the appropriate program office for review as well as to

the NEPA review office. Within USEPA, NEPA reviewers and 404/103 staff also should

be coordinating closely. Often, the NEPA evaluation of the overall project may be

adequate, but program-specific information (e.g., sediment testing results and site

monitoring results) may need updating. Such updates may be accomplished by an EA and

Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) and/or by revision of the 404(b)(1) or 103

evaluation, rather than reopening the original EIS. It is recommended that these revisions

always be coordinated with USEPA.