GLDT Home GLDT Update
Top Navigator Bar Site Index About GLDT Links Publications Get Involved The Scoop Home GLDT
Beneficial Use
Case Studies
Contaminated Sediments
Dredging Around the Great Lakes
Dredged Material Management
Navigation Depths and Lake Levels
Research & Development/Technologies
Soil Erosion & Sedimentation
 
Attachment B
 
Dredged Materials Management Decision Making
Process Summary of Suggestions for Improvement
March 1999

Public Participation Input
Local authorities should host a meeting very early in the process. Focus should be on understanding the process, schedule, and what to expect. The Great Lake Dredging Team outreach materials, process chart and white paper may be used to help everyone understand the process. Agencies with jurisdiction should be identified and perhaps some type of partnering agreements drawn up. Cost share possibilities should also be discussed if applicable. Local management goals for the harbor should be discussed and incorporated into project development later in the process if feasible.

Determine Beneficial Use Possibilities
Potential beneficial re-use projects such as beach nourishment, habitat creation, soil manufacturing, site remediation, construction fill should be identified early in the process. This would allow more time to develop ideas, identify barriers, and find collaborators. Examples of successful beneficial re-use projects should be made available though outreach materials, invited speakers, or visits to other harbors.

Sediment Testing Plan
It is important that technical staff at the USCOE and local agencies discuss and agree on an appropriate sediment testing plan based on the Inland Testing Manual. Professional judgment on where to test, how many samples to take, what parameters to test, what detection limits to use and how to statistically analyze the data is still needed. These should be discussed in advance of the field work. When possible, local field staff may want to help, serving as local guides.

EIS
How to distinguish from "viable" and "non-viable" can be problematic and confusing. Environmental review processes require an evaluation of all alternatives considered. At this point in the process, several steps including an "Initial Screening of Alternatives" has been completed and possibly could serve this purpose. It seems rational that the focus should be on the projects that are reasonably "viable". Fatally flawed project ideas should be eliminated by this point (or at least identified as such with rationale). back to top
 

 
 
Last Modified: November 04, 2002
Copyright © 1998-2012