Ocean Dumping; Designation of Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site Offshore of the Rogue River, OR, 17406-17414 [E9-8660]
Download as PDF
17406
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 15, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
electronically through the EPA Internet
under the ‘‘Federal Register’’ listings at
https://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr. You may
also access a frequently updated
electronic version of 40 CFR part 180
through the Government Printing
Office’s pilot e-CFR site at https://
www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr.
II. Prior Diazinon Tolerance
Rulemaking
On May 21, 2008 (73 FR 29456) (FRL–
8362–1), EPA proposed the revocation
of the tolerance for residues of diazinon,
O, O-diethyl O-[6-methyl-2-(1methylethyl)-4pyrimidinyl]phosphorothioate; (CAS
Reg. No. 333–41–5), in or on the food
commodity grape at 0.75 parts per
million (ppm) in 40 CFR 180.153(a)
because the use on grapes had been
canceled. The proposal neither
discussed nor took into account the fact
that an existing stocks provision in the
cancellations allowed continued use of
existing diazinon stocks until December
2008. No comments were received in
response to the proposal expressing
objections to the revocation of the
diazinon tolerance on grapes. EPA
published a final rulemaking on
September 10, 2008 (73 FR 52607)
(FRL–8379–3) revoking the diazinon
tolerance on grapes.
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
III. The California Grape and Tree
Fruit League Objection
On November 10, 2008, the California
Grape and Tree Fruit League filed an
objection to the tolerance rulemaking
pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 346a(g)(2)(A),
objecting to the revocation of the
diazinon tolerance on grapes. The basis
of the California Grape and Tree Fruit
League objection is that although the
use on grapes has been canceled the
tolerance is ‘‘still necessary to allow for
the orderly exhaustion of existing
stocks.’’ The California Grape and Tree
Fruit League argued that a tolerance is
therefore required for grapes treated
with existing stocks of diazinon to allow
the legally treated commodity to clear
the channels of trade and preventing
seizure of the treated grapes by the Food
and Drug Administration.
IV. Order on Objection
Despite the fact that the California
Grape and Tree Fruit League did not
comment on this issue with respect to
the proposed rule, because the proposal
erroneously failed to take into account
the existing stock provision, EPA in its
discretion has considered the objection
and found it to be sound. Accordingly,
EPA, by this rule and order, and
pursuant to section 408(g)(2)(C) of the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:06 Apr 14, 2009
Jkt 217001
(FFDCA), is amending the diazinon
tolerance in 40 CFR 180.153(a) to add a
tolerance for grape at at 0.75 ppm. The
tolerance will remain in effect until
September 10, 2010. The Agency
anticipates this should allow a
reasonable period of time for the
depletion of existing diazinon stocks
and the clearance of diazinon treated
grapes from the channels of trade.
V. Conclusion
Therefore, pursuant to section
408(g)(2)(C) of FFDCA, a tolerance for
the residues of diazinon, O, O-diethyl
O-[6-methyl-2-(1-methylethyl)-4pyrimidinyl]phosphorothioate; (CAS
Reg. No. 333–41–5), in or on the food
commodity grapes is added at 0.75 ppm
until September 10, 2010.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
EPA included the required statutory
discussion in the September 10, 2008
final rule (72 FR 52610).
VII. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801 et seq., generally provides
that before a rule may take effect, the
Agency promulgating the rule must
submit a rule report to each House of
the Congress and the Comptroller
General of the United States. EPA will
submit a report containing this rule and
other required information to the U.S.
Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller
General of the United States prior to
publication of the rule in the Federal
Register. This rule is not a ‘‘major rule’’
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180
Environmental protection,
Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides
and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: April 2, 2009.
Debra Edwards,
Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is
amended as follows:
■
PART 180—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 180
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
2. In § 180.153, is amended by
alphabetically adding the commodity to
the table in paragraph (a) to read as
follows:
■
§ 180.153 Diazinon; tolerances for
residues.
PO 00000
(a) General. *
Frm 00036
*
Fmt 4700
*
Sfmt 4700
Commodity
Parts per million
*
*
*
Grape2 ............................
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
0.75
*
[FR Doc. E9–8117 Filed 4–14–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–S
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 228
[EPA–R10–OW–2008–0745; FRL–8791–2]
Ocean Dumping; Designation of Ocean
Dredged Material Disposal Site
Offshore of the Rogue River, OR
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: On October 14, 2008, EPA
published a proposed rule at 73 FR
60662 to designate an ocean dredged
material disposal site located offshore of
the Rogue River, Oregon, and
simultaneously withdrew an earlier
proposal. EPA observed a typographical
error in the proposed rule as published.
In proposed rule, FR Doc. EPA–R10–
OW–2008–0745, on page 60670 in the
issue of October 14, 2008, in the first
column, the very first coordinate was
published as 42°24′5.40″ N, but should
have been published as 42°24′15.40″ N.
The coordinate was published correctly
on page 60664 in the first column as
42°24′15.40″ N. EPA received no
comments on the proposed rule. EPA
did receive one letter, dated November
12, 2008, from the Department of the
Interior (DOI) stating that DOI had no
comments. This action finalizes the
designation of the Rogue River ocean
dredged material disposal site, with the
correct coordinates, pursuant to the
Marine Protection, Research, and
Sanctuaries Act, as amended (MPRSA),
33 U.S.C. 1401 to 1445. The new site is
needed primarily to serve as a long-term
location for the disposal of material
dredged from the Rogue River
navigation channel. The new site will
also serve to provide a location for the
disposal of dredged material for persons
who have received a permit for such
disposal. The newly designated site will
be subject to ongoing monitoring and
management as specified in this rule
and in the Site Management and
Monitoring Plan, which is also finalized
as part of this action. The monitoring
and management requirements will help
to ensure continued protection of the
marine environment.
E:\FR\FM\15APR1.SGM
15APR1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 15, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
DATES: Effective Date: This final rule
will be effective May 15, 2009.
ADDRESSES: For more information on
this final rule, Docket ID No. EPA–R10–
OW–2008–0745, use one of the
following methods:
• https://www.regulations.gov: Follow
the on-line instructions for accessing the
docket and materials related to the final
rule.
• E-mail:
Freedman.Jonathan@epa.gov
• Mail: Jonathan Freedman, US
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 10, Office of Ecosystems, Tribal
and Public Affairs (ETPA–083), Aquatic
Resources Unit, 1200 Sixth Avenue,
Suite 900, Seattle, Washington 98101.
Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically in https://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy
during normal business hours at the US
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 10, Library, 10th Floor, 1200
Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle,
Washington 98101. For access to the
documents at the Region 10 Library,
contact the Region 10 Library Reference
Desk at (206) 553–1289, between the
hours of 9 a.m. to 11:30 a.m., and
between the hours of 1 p.m. to 4 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays, for an appointment.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jonathan Freedman, US Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 10, Office of
Ecosystems, Tribal and Public Affairs
(ETPA–083), Aquatic Resources Unit,
1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle,
Washington 98101, phone number:
(206) 553–0266, e-mail:
freedman.jonathan@epa.gov, or contact
Jessica Winkler, US Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 10, Office of
Ecosystems, Tribal and Public Affairs
(ETPA–083), Aquatic Resources Unit,
1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle,
17407
Washington 98101, phone number:
(206) 553–7369, e-mail:
winkler.jessica@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
1. Potentially Affected Persons
Persons potentially affected by this
final action include those who seek or
might seek permits or approval by EPA
to dispose of dredged material into
ocean waters pursuant to the Marine
Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries
Act, as amended (MPRSA), 33 U.S.C.
sections 1401 to 1445. EPA’s action is
relevant to persons, including
organizations and government bodies,
seeking to dispose of dredged material
in ocean waters offshore of the Rogue
River, Oregon. Currently, the US Army
Corps of Engineers (Corps) will be most
impacted by this final action.
Potentially affected categories and
persons include:
Category
Examples of potentially regulated persons
Federal Government ...........................................
Industry and General Public ...............................
State, local and tribal governments ....................
US Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works Projects, and other Federal Agencies
Port Authorities, Marinas and Harbors, Shipyards and Marine Repair Facilities, Berth Owners
Governments owning and/or responsible for ports, harbors, and/or berths, Government agencies requiring disposal of dredged material associated with public works projects
This table is not intended to be
exhaustive, but rather provides a guide
for readers regarding persons likely to
be affected by this action. For any
questions regarding the applicability of
this action to a particular person, please
refer to the contact person listed in the
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section.
2. Background
a. History of Disposal Site Offshore of
the Rogue River, Oregon
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
The final Rogue River ocean dredged
material disposal site, or areas in the
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:06 Apr 14, 2009
Jkt 217001
same vicinity, were used by the Corps
beginning in 1962. When the MPRSA
was enacted, the site became an
‘‘interim’’ site under the ocean dumping
regulations, a status superseded by later
statutory changes to the MPRSA. The
site was selected for use by the Corps
under Section 103 of the MPRSA. That
authority allows the Corps to select a
site for disposal when a site has not
been designated. EPA concurred on that
selection and in 2003 approved the
Corps’ request to continue to use the site
through the end of the 2008 dredging
season.
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
From 1986 through 2006, over 1.1
million cubic yards (cy) of dredged
material were placed at the Rogue River
site. A uniform placement strategy,
rather than point dumping, was applied
to the disposal of material at the site and
regular bathymetric surveys were
conducted. Data collected from those
surveys showed that persistent
mounding did not occur within the site
or in the vicinity of the site. Over the
long-term, site capacity appears to be
unconstrained based on the historical
and anticipated disposal volumes
because material placed redistributes
out of the site, feeding the littoral cell.
E:\FR\FM\15APR1.SGM
15APR1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 15, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
b. Location and Configuration of Final
Rogue River Ocean Dredged Material
Disposal Site
Figure 1, above, shows the Rogue
River ocean dredged material disposal
site (Rogue River ODMDS or Site) EPA
designates in this action. The Site’s
configuration is expected to allow
dredged material disposed in shallower
portions of the Site to naturally disperse
into the littoral zone without creating
mounding conditions that could
contribute to adverse impacts to
navigation. This final Site configuration
will allow EPA to ensure that disposal
of dredged material into the Site will be
managed so that as much material as
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:06 Apr 14, 2009
Jkt 217001
possible is retained in the active littoral
drift area to augment shoreline building
processes.
The coordinates for the Rogue River
ODMDS as finalized in this action are,
in North American Datum 83 (NAD 83):
42°24′15.40″ N, 124°26′52.39″ W
42°24′03.40″ N, 124°26′39.39″ W
42°23′39.40″ N, 124°27′17.40″ W
42°23′51.40″ N, 124°27′30.40″ W
The Site occupies approximately 116
acres. The Site’s final dimensions are:
1,400-feet wide by 3,600-feet long, with
Site depth ranging from approximately
50 to 90 feet. The Site generally lies on
bottom contours sloping at a rate of 8/
1000 feet to the west-southwest. The
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
disposal area, placement area, and drop
zone for the Site are identical.
c. Management and Monitoring of the
Final Site
The final Rogue River ODMDS is
expected to receive sediments dredged
by the Corps to maintain the federally
authorized navigation project at the
Rogue River, Oregon, and dredged
material from other persons who have
obtained a permit for the disposal of
dredged material at the Site. The ocean
dumping regulations do not require a
modification of any existing permits
issued before this final action. All
persons using the Site are required to
follow the final Site Management and
E:\FR\FM\15APR1.SGM
15APR1
ER15AP09.008
17408
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 15, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
regulations at 40 CFR 227.13 and
guidance developed by EPA and the
Corps. In general, dredged material
which meets the criteria under 40 CFR
227.13(b) is deemed environmentally
acceptable for ocean dumping without
further testing. Dredged material which
does not meet the criteria of 40 CFR
227.13(b), must be further tested as
required by 40 CFR 227.13(c). Suitable
material can be disposed of at the Site.
Modeling work performed by the Corps
d. MPRSA Criteria
at the Umpqua River, demonstrates that
EPA assessed this final action against
water column turbidity, a temporary
the criteria of the MPRSA, with
perturbation during disposal, would
particular emphasis on the general and
dissipate for an anticipated 97% of
specific regulatory criteria of 40 CFR
coarser material within a few minutes of
Part 228, and determined that the final
disposal. The remaining 3% of the
site designation satisfies those criteria.
material, which would be classified as
fine-grained, would dissipate within a
General Criteria (40 CFR 228.5)
half hour. Over time, some of the
(1) Sites must be selected to minimize suitable disposed material would be
interference with other activities in the
expected to migrate into the active
marine environment, particularly
littoral drift system.
avoiding areas of existing fisheries or
(3) If Site designation studies show
shellfisheries, and regions of heavy
that any interim disposal sites do not
commercial or recreational navigation
meet the site selection criteria, use of
(40 CFR 228.5(a)).
such sites shall be terminated as soon as
EPA’s assessment of information
any alternate site can be designated (40
available at the time of this final rule
CFR 228.5(c)).
included a review of the potential for
EPA’s recent final rule at 73 FR 74983
interference with navigation, recreation, (December 10, 2008) repealed obsolete
shellfisheries, aquatic resources,
regulations under the MPRSA regarding
commercial fisheries, protected geologic interim ocean dumping sites and
features, and cultural and/or historically interim ocean dumping criteria. EPA
significant areas. While limited overlap
stated in the proposed rule that there are
was found to exist between disposal
no interim sites near the Rogue Site,
operations and salmon fishing, no
however, the category of ‘‘interim site’’
observable conflicts were identified. No has since been removed from the ocean
evidence was found to suggest that the
dumping criteria.
final Site would cause interference with
(4) The sizes of disposal sites will be
fisheries or with navigation in the Rogue limited in order to localize for
River navigation channel. The final Site identification and control of any
immediate adverse impacts, and to
has been used over the past decades for
dredged material disposal, most recently permit the implementation of effective
monitoring and surveillance to prevent
pursuant to Section 103 of the MPRSA,
adverse long-range impacts. Size,
as a site selected by the Corps with
configuration, and location are to be
EPA’s concurrence. Mariners in this
determined as part of the disposal site
area are accustomed to Site use.
(2) Sites must be situated such that
evaluation (40 CFR 228.5(d)).
EPA sized the final Site to meet this
temporary perturbations to water quality
criterion. The final Site tends to be
or other environmental conditions
during initial mixing caused by disposal moderately dispersive in the near-shore
area and tends to be less dispersive
operations would be reduced to normal
farther from shore. The overall stability
ambient levels or undetectable
of the Site, as indicated by the lack of
contaminant concentrations or effects
adverse mounding, is a significant
before reaching any beach, shoreline,
component of the justification for the
marine sanctuary, or known
size of the Site. Data collected by the
geographically limited fishery or
Corps through bathymetric monitoring
shellfishery (40 CFR 228.5(b)).
show the spread and movement of
Based on EPA’s review of modeling,
material after placement. The data
monitoring data and history of use,
establish that material from the Site
there is no indication that detectable
eventually disperses over the footprint
contaminant concentrations or water
of the site and with seasonal movement
quality effects would reach any beach,
disperses into the littoral system.
shoreline, or other area outside of the
Monitoring of the final Site is required
final Site. All dredged material
in the SMMP and effective monitoring
proposed for disposal will be evaluated
of the Site is anticipated based on past
according to the ocean dumping
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Monitoring Plan (SMMP) for the Rogue
River ODMDS which is available to the
public as part of this action. The SMMP
includes management and monitoring
requirements to ensure that dredged
materials disposed at the Site are
suitable for disposal in the ocean. The
final SMMP addresses the timing of
disposal events to minimize interference
with other uses of ocean waters in the
vicinity of the Site.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:06 Apr 14, 2009
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
17409
practice and current ability to monitor
the location and conduct surveillance.
(5) EPA will, wherever feasible,
designate ocean dumping sites beyond
the edge of the continental shelf and
other such sites where historical
disposal has occurred (40 CFR 228.5(e)).
The final Site is located where
historic disposal occurred with a history
of minimal impact to the environment,
and minimal impact to other uses and
amenities. Locations off the continental
shelf in the Pacific Ocean are generally
inhabited by stable benthic and pelagic
ecosystems on steeper gradients that are
not well adapted to frequent disturbance
events such as occur with the disposal
of dredged material. Monitoring and
surveillance of the final Site do not pose
the challenges inherent in a site located
beyond the edge of the continental shelf.
Material disposed beyond the edge of
the continental shelf would not be
available to the littoral system.
Specific Criteria (40 CFR 228.6)
(1) Geographical Position, Depth of
Water, Bottom Topography and
Distance from Coast (40 CFR
228.6(a)(1)).
Based on the data available, the
geographical position, including the
depth of the final Site, bottom
topography and distance from the
coastline in the vicinity of the final Site,
indicates that designation of the final
Site will not cause adverse effects to the
marine environment. EPA understands
that the currents at the final Site and
their influence on the movement of
material in the area suggest there is a
high likelihood that much of the
material disposed at the Site will be
transported to the littoral sediment
circulation system. Limited onshore
transport of material disposed of at the
Site is not expected because of the
nature of the prevailing currents and
because wave transport in the vicinity of
the Site trends alongshore. Net
predicted material transport at the Site
is southward in the summer months and
northward during the remainder of the
year. These transport mechanisms are
expected to move material into the
active littoral drift area. This movement
is expected to allow for long-term
disposal without creation of adverse
mounding conditions.
(2) Location in Relation to Breeding,
Spawning, Nursery, Feeding, or Passage
Areas of Living Resources in Adult or
Juvenile Phases (40 CFR 228.6(a)(2)).
The final Site is not located in
exclusive breeding, spawning, nursery
or feeding areas for adult or juvenile
phases of living resources. Modeling of
the water column, which indicates that
turbidity from a disposal event would
E:\FR\FM\15APR1.SGM
15APR1
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
17410
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 15, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
be expected to dissipate fairly rapidly,
indicates that avoidance behavior by
any species at the final Site would be
short-term.
(3) Location in Relation to Beaches
and Other Amenity Areas (40 CFR
228.6(a)(3)).
The final Site, although located in
close proximity to the Rogue River
navigation channel, is located a
sufficient distance offshore to avoid
adverse impacts to beaches and other
amenity areas. Transportation of
dredges or barges to and from the final
Site to dispose of dredged material is
expected to be coordinated so as to
avoid disturbance of other activities
near the Rogue River entrance channel.
(4) Types and Quantities of Wastes
Final to be Disposed of, and Final
Methods of Release, including Methods
of Packing the Waste, if any (40 CFR
228.6(a)(4)).
Dredged material characterized by
chemical and biological testing and
found suitable for disposal into ocean
waters will be the only material allowed
to be disposed of at the final Site. No
material defined as ‘‘waste’’ under the
MPRSA will be allowed to be disposed
of at the final Site. The dredged material
expected to be disposed of at the Site
will be predominantly marine sand, far
removed from known sources of
contamination.
With respect to final methods of
releasing material at the final Site,
material will be released just below the
surface from dredges while the dredges
are under power and slowly transiting
the final Site. This method of release is
expected to spread material at the Site
to minimize mounding and to minimize
impacts to the benthic community and
other species in, or near, the Site at the
time of a disposal event.
(5) Feasibility of Surveillance and
Monitoring (40 CFR 228.6(a)(5)).
Monitoring and surveillance at the
final Site are expected to be feasible and
easily performed from small surface
research vessels. The final Site is
accessible for bathymetric and side-scan
sonar surveys. At a minimum, annual
bathymetric surveys will be conducted
at the final Site to confirm that no
unacceptable mounding is taking place
within the Site or its immediate
vicinity. Routine monitoring is expected
to concentrate on examining how the
distribution of material in the nearshore portions of the Site augment
littoral processes and how distribution
of material in the deeper portions of the
Site avoid or minimize mounding.
(6) Dispersal, Horizontal Transport
and Vertical Mixing Characteristics of
the Area, Including Prevailing Current
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:06 Apr 14, 2009
Jkt 217001
Direction and Velocity, if any (40 CFR
228.6(a)(6)).
Dispersal, horizontal transport and
vertical mixing characteristics of the
area at and in the vicinity of the final
Site are complex. This complexity is
partly a result of rocky reefs to the north
of the final Site which appear to
influence mass transport, and in part the
complexity can be attributed to
prevailing wave-induced motion and
currents moving towards the north
during much of the year. Wave-induced
motion appears to cause near-constant
mobilization of bottom sediment. The
overall regional mass transport trend
suggests that net littoral transport of
material is to the north from the final
Site. That overall littoral transport
appears to be balanced by offshore
transport from the mouth of the Rogue
River to the north of the final Site such
that there is shoreline accretion to the
north and relative equilibrium of the
shoreline to the south.
(7) Existence and Effects of Current
and Previous Discharges and Dumping
in the Area (including Cumulative
Effects) (40 CFR 228.6(a)(7)).
The approximate annual loading
volume of dredged material placed at
the final Site is expected to equal 54,000
cubic yards (cy) of material. This
average was calculated by averaging
seasonal material placement over
disposal seasons from the time the site
became a selected site. Annual
monitoring of the Site is required in the
final SMMP for the Site. The final
SMMP includes requirements for
managing the Site to address mounding
issues if mounding occurs.
(8) Interference with Shipping,
Fishing, Recreation, Mineral Extraction,
Desalination, Fish and Shellfish
Culture, Areas of Special Scientific
Importance and Other Legitimate Uses
of the Ocean (40 CFR 228.6(a)(8)).
Disposals at the final Site will be
managed through the SMMP to
minimize interference with other
legitimate uses of the ocean through
careful timing and staggering of
disposals in the near-shore and deeper
portions of the final Site.
(9) The Existing Water Quality and
Ecology of the Sites as Determined by
Available Data or Trend Assessment of
Baseline Surveys (40 CFR 228.6(a)(9)).
EPA did not identify any adverse
water quality impacts or adverse
impacts to overall ecology from the
historic use of the final Site.
(10) Potentiality for the Development
or Recruitment of Nuisance Species in
the Disposal Site (40 CFR 228.6(a)(10)).
Nuisance species, considered as any
undesirable organism not previously
existing at a location, have not been
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
observed at, or in the vicinity of, the
final Site. The final SMMP includes
specific biological monitoring
requirements, which would act to
identify any nuisance species, and
management requirements, which
would allow EPA to direct special
studies and/or operational changes to
address nuisance species.
(11) Existence at or in Close Proximity
to the Site of any Significant Natural or
Cultural Feature of Historical
Importance (40 CFR 228.6(a)(11)).
The final Site is located about two
nautical miles south-southeast of the
Rogue Reef complex, an ecologically
unique feature among a system of neritic
reefs off the Oregon coast. Dredged
material disposed at the final Site is
generally expected to settle to the
seafloor quickly. Naturally occurring
littoral transport, which would not be
expected to adversely affect aquatic
communities in the reef areas, is
anticipated on a small scale. No
significant cultural features were
identified at, or in the vicinity of, the
final Site. As discussed below, EPA
coordinated with Oregon’s State
Historic Preservation Officer and with
Tribes in the vicinity of the final Site to
identify any cultural features. None
were identified. No shipwrecks were
observed or documented within the
final Site or its immediate vicinity.
e. National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA); Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA);
Marine Mammal Protection Act
(MMPA); Coastal Zone Management Act
(CZMA); Endangered Species Act (ESA);
National Historic Preservation Act
(NHPA)
(1) NEPA
Section 102 of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as
amended (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 to
4370f, requires Federal agencies to
prepare an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) for major federal actions
significantly affecting the quality of the
human environment. EPA’s NEPA
regulations are found at 40 CFR Part 6.
NEPA does not apply to EPA
designations of ocean disposal sites
because the courts have exempted EPA’s
actions under the MPRSA from the
procedural requirements of NEPA
through application of the functional
equivalence doctrine. EPA has, by
policy, determined that the preparation
of non-EIS NEPA documents for certain
EPA regulatory actions, including
actions under the MPRSA, is
appropriate. EPA’s ‘‘Notice of Policy
and Procedures for Voluntary
Preparation of NEPA Documents,’’
(Voluntary NEPA Policy), 63 FR 58045,
E:\FR\FM\15APR1.SGM
15APR1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 15, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
(October 29, 1998), sets out both the
policy and procedures EPA uses when
preparing such environmental review
documents. EPA’s 2007 revisions to 40
CFR Part 6 provided the framework EPA
used to prepare the voluntary NEPA
documents for this final action.
EPA’s primary voluntary NEPA
document for designating the final Site
is the Rogue River, Oregon Ocean
Dredged Material Disposal Site
Evaluation Study and Environmental
Assessment, 2009 (EA), jointly prepared
by EPA and the Corps. The final EA and
its Technical Appendices, are part of the
docket for this final action, and provide
the threshold environmental review for
the Site designation. The information
from the final EA is used extensively,
above, in the discussion of the ocean
dumping criteria.
(2) MSA and MMPA
In the spring of 2008, EPA initiated
consultation with the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS) concerning
essential fish habitat and protected
marine mammals. EPA prepared an
essential fish habitat (EFH) assessment
pursuant to section 305(b) of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act, as amended
(MSA), 16 U.S.C. 1801 to 1891d. NMFS
reviewed EPA’s EFH assessment and
ESA Biological Assessment for purposes
of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of
1972, as amended (MMPA), 16 U.S.C.
1361 to 1389.
With respect to marine mammals,
NMFS found that all potential adverse
effects to ESA-listed marine mammals
are discountable or insignificant. Those
findings are documented in Appendix
A. Marine Mammal Determinations of
the Biological Opinion issued by NMFS
to EPA on March 19, 2009. With respect
to EFH, NMFS found that disposal of
dredge material, an indirect effect of
EPA’s action to designate the Rogue
River ODMDS, will not alter the habitat
value of the designated EFH at and in
the vicinity of the Site. NMFS also
concluded that impacts to forage base
would be highly localized and any
potential decrease in forage abundance
is considered insignificant to the total
food resources available to EFH
management species. Finally, NMFS
concluded that the safe passage of the
EFH managed species will not be
functionally changed by EPA’s Site
designation and the subsequent disposal
of dredged material. Those findings are
documented in the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management
Act section of the NMFS Biological
Opinion. NMFS included a
‘‘conservation recommendation’’ to
study fish behavior and interactions
with disposed material at the Site. EPA
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:06 Apr 14, 2009
Jkt 217001
will respond in a separate written
response to NMFS’ recommendation.
(3) CZMA
EPA initiated consultation with the
state of Oregon on coastal zone
management issues in summer of 2008.
EPA prepared a consistency
determination for the Oregon Ocean and
Coastal Management Program (OCMP)
to meet the requirements of the Coastal
Zone Management Act, as amended,
(CZMA), 16 U.S.C. 1451 to 1465, and
submitted that determination formally
to the Oregon Department of Land
Conservation and Development (DLCD)
in November. DLCD publicly noticed
EPA’s consistency determination and
took comments on the action until
January 2, 2009. DLCD received one
comment from the Oregon Department
of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) expressing
support for the designation of the Rogue
River Site and supporting ocean
disposal of dredged material as the best
alternative. ODFW also characterized
disposal of material in the littoral zone
as a beneficial use. ODFW did express
concern with the relationship of the Site
to rocky terrain and with the potential
impacts of uniform disposal.
DLCD concurred on EPA’s
determination of consistency with one
condition. The condition calls for the
SMMP to assure that monitoring
measures for the Rogue River Site are
reasonably likely to identify significant
unanticipated adverse effects on
renewable marine resources, biological
diversity of marine life and the
functional integrity of the marine
ecosystem at the site, and further asks
that the SMMP include adaptive
management measures to avoid
significant impairment of the Site and
significant decreases in abundance of
commercial or recreational caught
species from direct or indirect effects on
important or essential habitat at the Site.
DLCD responded to the concerns
expressed by ODFW by including the
condition, above, in its consistency
concurrence. DLCD also recommended
that EPA and ODFW coordinate on
issues that might involve adjustments in
Site management to avoid unanticipated
adverse effects on important habitat and
renewable marine resources. The final
SMMP in this final designation provides
the assurance and adaptive management
measures requested.
(4) ESA
EPA initiated informal consultation in
the spring of 2008 with NMFS and the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service pursuant
to section 7(a)(2) of the ESA on EPA’s
action to designate the Rogue River
ODMDS. EPA prepared a Biological
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
17411
Assessment to assess the potential
effects of the Site designation on aquatic
and wildlife species. EPA found that its
action would not be likely to adversely
affect (NLAA) aquatic or wildlife
species listed as endangered or
threatened pursuant to the Endangered
Species Act, as amended (ESA), 16
U.S.C. 1531 to 1544, or the critical
habitat of such species. EPA found that
site designation does not have a direct
impact on any of the identified ESA
species but also found that indirect
impacts associated with reasonably
foreseeable future disposal activities
had to be considered.
The US Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) concurred with EPA’s finding
that EPA’s action to designate the final
Rogue River ODMDS would not likely
adversely affect listed species or critical
habitat. Consultation with the USFWS
for this final action was completed on
July 29, 2008.
The National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS) did not concur on EPA’s NLAA
finding and subsequently prepared a
Biological Opinion (BO), issued March
19, 2009. NMFS concluded that EPA’s
site designation is not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of
Southern Oregon/Northern California
Coasts (SONCC) coho salmon or
southern Distinct Population Segment
(DPS) green sturgeon and is not likely to
destroy or adversely modify SONCC
coho salmon designated critical habitat
or proposed southern DPS green
sturgeon habitat. However, NMFS found
that the indirect effects of the Site
designation related to the exposure fish
could experience from the disposal of
dredged material could have
consequences for listed fish. Based on
NMFS’ estimate of ensuing indirect
effects of the Site designation, NMFS
estimated that injury and death of as
many as 476 yearling SONCC coho
salmon and a smaller number of small
sub-adult southern DPS green sturgeon
could occur. For Steller sea lions, blue
whales, fin whales, humpback whales,
and Southern Resident Killer whales,
NMFS concurred in the BO with EPA’s
determination of ‘‘may affect, not likely
to adversely affect.’’ For four species of
sea turtles, sperm whales, and sei
whales, assessed by EPA in its
determination of NLAA, NMFS found
no effect because NMFS did not
anticipate the species would be present
in the action area.
NMFS acknowledged in the BO that
EPA’s action, the Site designation, does
not authorize and will not itself result
in disposal of dredged material. NMFS
stated that it does not anticipate any
take will be caused by the Site
designation and adoption of the SMMP.
E:\FR\FM\15APR1.SGM
15APR1
17412
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 15, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Consequently, NMFS did not include an
incidental take statement in the BO.
Rather, NMFS stated that any further
analysis of the effects of disposal of
dredged material at the disposal site and
issuance of an incidental take statement
with reasonable and prudent measures
and non-discretionary terms and
conditions to minimize take would be
prepared when a disposal permit is
requested by the action agency. NMFS
did include one discretionary
conservation recommendation in the BO
seeking a study of fish interactions with
disposed material. Such
recommendations are purely advisory in
nature. While EPA appreciates that such
a study might be beneficial to the
scientific knowledge base, EPA believes
that such a study would be most helpful
if carried out by NMFS, the expert
Federal agency on fish behavior.
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
(5) NHPA
EPA initiated consultation with the
State of Oregon’s Historic Preservation
Officer (SHPO) to address the National
Historic Preservation Act, as amended
(NHPA), 16 U.S.C. 470 to 470a–2. The
NHPA requires Federal agencies to take
into account the effect of their actions
on districts, sites, buildings, structures,
or objects, included in, or eligible for
inclusion in the National Register. EPA
determined that no historic properties
were affected, or would be affected, by
the final designation of the Site. EPA
did not find any historic properties
within the geographic area of the final
Site. This determination was based on
an extensive review of the National
Register of Historic Districts in Oregon,
the Oregon National Register list and an
assessment of cultural resources near
the final Site. Side scan sonar of the
final Site did not reveal the presence of
any shipwrecks or other cultural or
historic properties. The SHPO
responded to EPA’s determination on
September 11, 2008, without objection
and clarified on October 13, 2008 that
the Site designation did not require
further archeological investigation to
proceed.
f. Action
EPA designates the Rogue River
ODMDS as an EPA-approved dredged
material ocean disposal Site in this
action. The monitoring and management
requirements that will apply to this site
are described in the final SMMP. EPA
received no comments on the proposed
rule other than one letter, dated
November 12, 2008, from the
Department of the Interior (DOI) stating
that DOI had no comments. It should be
emphasized that an ocean disposal site
designation does not constitute or imply
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:06 Apr 14, 2009
Jkt 217001
Corps or EPA approval of open water
disposal of dredged material from any
specific project. Before disposal of
dredged material at the site may
commence by any person, EPA and the
Corps must evaluate the proposal
according to the ocean dumping
regulatory criteria (40 CFR part 227) and
authorize disposal. EPA independently
evaluates proposed dumping in
accordance with those criteria pursuant
to 40 CFR part 225. EPA has the right
to disapprove of the actual disposal of
dredged material if EPA determines that
environmental requirements under the
MPRSA have not been met.
3. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
This final rule designating the Rogue
River ODMDS pursuant to Section 102
of the MPRSA complies with applicable
executive orders and statutory
provisions as follows:
(1) Executive Order 12866
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR
51735), the Agency must determine
whether the regulatory action is
‘‘significant,’’ and therefore subject to
OMB review and the requirements of
the Executive Order. The Executive
Order defines ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ as one that is likely to result in
a rule that may: (1) Have an annual
effect on the economy of $100 million
or more, or adversely affect in a material
way, the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition,
jobs, the environment, public health or
safety, or State, local, or tribal
governments or communities; (2) create
a serious inconsistency or otherwise
interfere with an action taken or
planned by another agency; (3)
materially alter the budgetary impact of
entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan
programs, or the rights and obligations
of recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel
legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President’s priorities, or
the principles set forth in the Executive
Order. EPA determined that this final
rule is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ under the terms of Executive
Order 12866 and is therefore not subject
to OMB review.
(2) Paperwork Reduction Act
This final action does not impose an
information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction
Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., because this
final rule does not establish or modify
any information or recordkeeping
requirements for the regulated
community.
Burden means the total time, effort, or
financial resources expended by persons
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose
or provide information to or for a
Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop,
acquire, install, and utilize technology
and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying
information, processing, and
maintaining information, and disclosing
and providing information; adjust the
existing ways to comply with any
previously applicable instructions and
requirements; train personnel to be able
to respond to a collection of
information; search data sources;
complete and review the collection of
information; and transmit or otherwise
disclose the information.
An agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number. The OMB control
numbers for EPA’s regulations in Title
40 of the CFR are listed in 40 CFR
Part 9.
(3) Regulatory Flexibility
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
generally requires Federal agencies to
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis
of any rule subject to notice and
comment rulemaking requirements
under the Administrative Procedure Act
or any other statute unless the agency
certifies that the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
Small entities include small businesses,
small organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions. For
purposes of assessing the impacts of this
rule on small entities, small entity is
defined as: (1) A small business defined
by the Small Business Administration’s
size regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2)
a small governmental jurisdiction that is
a government of a city, county, town,
school district, or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and (3)
a small organization that is any not-forprofit enterprise which is independently
owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field. EPA determined
that this final action will not have a
significant economic impact on small
entities because the final rule only has
the effect of regulating the location of a
site to be used for the disposal of
dredged material in ocean waters. After
considering the economic impacts of
this rule, I certify that this action will
not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small
entities.
(4) Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
This action contains no Federal
mandates under the provisions of Title
E:\FR\FM\15APR1.SGM
15APR1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 15, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act (UMRA) of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1531 to
1538, for State, local, or tribal
governments or the private sector. This
action imposes no new enforceable duty
on any State, local, or tribal government
or the private sector. Therefore, this
action is not subject to the requirements
of sections 202 or 205 of the UMRA.
This action is also not subject to the
requirements of section 203 of the
UMRA because it contains no regulatory
requirements that might significantly or
uniquely affect small government
entities. Those entities are already
subject to existing permitting
requirements for the disposal of dredged
material in ocean waters.
(5) Executive Order 13132: Federalism
Executive Order 13132, entitled
‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255), requires
EPA to develop an accountable process
to ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input
by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that
have federalism implications.’’ ‘‘Policies
that have federalism implications’’ are
defined in the Executive Order to
include regulations that have
‘‘substantial direct effects on the States,
on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among various levels of
government.’’ This rule does not have
federalism implications. It does not
have substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the
national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among various levels of
government, as specified in Executive
Order 13132. Thus, Executive Order
13132 does not apply to this rule.
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
(6) Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
This final rule does not have tribal
implications, as specified in Executive
Order 13175 because the designation of
this dredged material disposal Site will
not have a direct effect on Indian Tribes,
on the relationship between the federal
government and Indian Tribes, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities between the federal
government and Indian tribes. Thus,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply
to this rule. Although Executive Order
13175 does not apply to this final rule,
EPA consulted with tribal officials in
the development of this rule,
particularly as it relates to potential
impacts to historic or cultural resources.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:06 Apr 14, 2009
Jkt 217001
(7) Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
and Safety Risks
EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR
19885) as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern health or
safety risks, such that the analysis
required under section 5–501 of the EO
has the potential to influence the
regulation. This action is not subject to
EO 13045 because it does not establish
an environmental standard intended to
mitigate health or safety risks. The final
action concerns the designation of an
ocean disposal Site for dredged material
and provides a designated location to
use for ocean disposal of dredged
material pursuant to section 102 (c) of
the MPRSA.
(8) Executive Order 13211: Actions That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
This action is not subject to Executive
Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning
Regulations that Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66
FR 28355) because it is not a
‘‘significant regulatory action’’ as
defined under Executive Order 12866.
(9) National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law
104–113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272), directs
EPA to use voluntary consensus
standards in its regulatory activities
unless to do so would be inconsistent
with applicable law or otherwise
impractical. Voluntary consensus
standards are technical standards (e.g.,
materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, and business
practices) that are developed or adopted
by voluntary consensus bodies. The
NTTAA directs EPA to provide
Congress, through OMB, explanations
when the Agency decides not to use
available and applicable voluntary
consensus standards. The final action
includes environmental monitoring and
measurement as described in EPA’s
final SMMP. EPA will not require the
use of specific, prescribed analytic
methods for monitoring and managing
the final Site once designated. The
Agency will allow the use of any
method, whether it constitutes a
voluntary consensus standard or not,
that meets the monitoring and
measurement criteria discussed in the
final SMMP.
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
17413
(10) Executive Order 12898: Federal
Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low
Income Populations
Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR
7629) establishes federal executive
policy on environmental justice. Its
main provision directs federal agencies,
to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make
environmental justice part of their
mission by identifying and addressing,
as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or
environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority
populations and low-income
populations in the United States. EPA
determined that this final rule will not
have disproportionately high and
adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income
populations because it does not affect
the level of protection provided to
human health or the environment. EPA
assessed the overall protectiveness of
designating the final disposal Site
against the criteria established pursuant
to the MPRSA to ensure that any
adverse impact on the environment will
be mitigated to the greatest extent
practicable.
(11) Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act (CRA),
5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides
that before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must
submit a rule report, which includes a
copy of the rule, to each House of the
Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. EPA will submit a
report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United
States prior to publication of the rule in
the Federal Register. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it
is published in the Federal Register.
This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule
will be effective thirty days from the
date of publication in the Federal
Register.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 228
Environmental protection, Water
pollution control.
Authority: This action is issued under the
authority of Section 102 of the Marine
Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act, as
amended, 33 U.S.C. 1401, 1411, 1412.
E:\FR\FM\15APR1.SGM
15APR1
17414
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 15, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Dated: April 3, 2009.
Michelle L. Pirzadeh,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, chapter I of title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as set forth below:
■
PART 228—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 228
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 33 U.S.C. Sections 1412 and
1418
2. Section 228.15 is amended by
adding paragraph (n)(6) to read as
follows:
■
§ 228.15 Dumping sites designated on a
final basis.
*
*
*
*
*
(n) * * *
(6) Rogue River, OR—Dredged
Material Site
(i) Location: 42° 24′15.40″ N, 124°
26′52.39″ W; 42° 24′03.40″ N, 124°
26′39.39″ W; 42° 23′39.40″ N, 124°
27′17.40″ W; 42° 23′51.40″ N, 124°
27′30.40″ W (NAD 83)
(ii) Size: Approximately 1.1
kilometers long and 0.4 kilometers wide
(iii) Depth: Ranges from
approximately 15 to 27 meters
(iv) Primary Use: Dredged material
(v) Period of Use: Continuing Use
(vi) Restrictions: (A) Disposal shall be
limited to dredged material determined
to be suitable for ocean disposal
according to 40 CFR 227.13, from the
Rogue River navigation channel and
adjacent areas;
(B) Disposal shall be managed by the
restrictions and requirements contained
in the currently-approved Site
Management and Monitoring Plan
(SMMP);
(C) Monitoring, as specified in the
SMMP, is required.
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. E9–8660 Filed 4–14–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 261
[EPA–R06–RCRA–2008–0456; SW–FRL–
8787–9]
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Hazardous Waste Management
System; Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste; Final Exclusion
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is granting a petition
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:06 Apr 14, 2009
Jkt 217001
submitted by BAE Systems, Inc. (BAE)
to exclude (or delist) the waste filter
cake from its waste water treatment
plant generated by BAE Sealy, Texas
from the lists of hazardous wastes. This
final rule responds to the petition
submitted by BAE to delist F019 waste
filter cake generated from the facility’s
waste water treatment plant. After
careful analysis and use of the Delisting
Risk Assessment Software (DRAS), EPA
has concluded the petitioned waste is
not hazardous waste. This exclusion
applies to 1,200 cubic yards per year of
the F019 waste filter cake. Accordingly,
this final rule excludes the petitioned
waste from the requirements of
hazardous waste regulations under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) when it is disposed in a
Subtitle D Landfill.
DATES: Effective Date: April 15, 2009.
ADDRESSES: The public docket for this
final rule is located at the
Environmental Protection Agency
Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas,
Texas 75202, and is available for
viewing in EPA Freedom of Information
Act review room on the 7th floor from
8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding Federal holidays. Call
(214) 665–6444 for appointments. The
reference number for this docket is
EPA–R06–RCRA–2008–0456. The
public may copy material from any
regulatory docket at no cost for the first
100 pages and at a cost of $0.15 per page
for additional copies.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ben
Banipal, Section Chief of the Corrective
Action and Waste Minimization
Section, Multimedia Planning and
Permitting Division (6PD–C),
Environmental Protection Agency
Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas,
Texas 75202. For technical information
concerning this notice, contact Wendy
Jacques, Environmental Protection
Agency Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue,
(6PD–F), Dallas, Texas 75202, at (214)
665–7395, or jacques.wendy@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The information in this section is
organized as follows:
I. Overview Information
A. What action is EPA finalizing?
B. Why is EPA approving this action?
C. What are the limits of this exclusion?
D. How will BAE manage the waste if it is
delisted?
E. When is the final delisting exclusion
effective?
F. How does this final rule affect states?
II. Background
A. What is a delisting?
B. What regulations allow facilities to
delist a waste?
C. What information must the generator
supply?
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
III. EPA’s Evaluation of the Waste
Information and Data
A. What waste did BAE petition EPA to
delist?
B. How much waste did BAE propose to
delist?
C. How did BAE sample and analyze the
waste data in this petition?
IV. Public Comments Received on the
Proposed Exclusion
A. Who submitted comments on the
proposed rule?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Overview Information
A. What action is EPA finalizing?
After evaluating the petition, EPA
proposed, on September 23, 2008, to
exclude the waste filter cake from the
lists of hazardous waste under 40 CFR
261.31 and 261.32 (see 73 FR 54760).
EPA is finalizing the decision to grant
BAE’s delisting petition to have its
waste filter cake managed and disposed
as non-hazardous waste provided
certain verification and monitoring
conditions are met.
B. Why is EPA approving this action?
BAE’s petition requests a delisting
from the F019 waste listing under 40
CFR 260.20 and 260.22. BAE does not
believe that the petitioned waste meets
the criteria for which EPA listed it. BAE
also believes no additional constituents
or factors could cause the waste to be
hazardous. EPA’s review of this petition
included consideration of the original
listing criteria and the additional factors
required by the Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments of 1984. See section
3001(f) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6921(f), and
40 CFR 260.22 (d)(1)–(4) (hereinafter all
sectional references are to 40 CFR
unless otherwise indicated). In making
the final delisting determination, EPA
evaluated the petitioned waste against
the listing criteria and factors cited in
§ 261.11(a)(2) and (a)(3). Based on this
review, EPA agrees with the petitioner
that the waste is non-hazardous with
respect to the original listing criteria. If
EPA had found, based on this review,
that the waste remained hazardous
based on the factors for which the waste
as originally listed, EPA would have
proposed to deny the petition. EPA
evaluated the waste with respect to
other factors or criteria to assess
whether there is a reasonable basis to
believe that such additional factors
could cause the waste to be hazardous.
EPA considered whether the waste is
acutely toxic, the concentration of the
constituents in the waste, their tendency
to migrate and to bioaccumulate, their
persistence in the environment once
released from the waste, plausible and
specific types of management of the
petitioned waste, the quantities of waste
E:\FR\FM\15APR1.SGM
15APR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 71 (Wednesday, April 15, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17406-17414]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-8660]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 228
[EPA-R10-OW-2008-0745; FRL-8791-2]
Ocean Dumping; Designation of Ocean Dredged Material Disposal
Site Offshore of the Rogue River, OR
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On October 14, 2008, EPA published a proposed rule at 73 FR
60662 to designate an ocean dredged material disposal site located
offshore of the Rogue River, Oregon, and simultaneously withdrew an
earlier proposal. EPA observed a typographical error in the proposed
rule as published. In proposed rule, FR Doc. EPA-R10-OW-2008-0745, on
page 60670 in the issue of October 14, 2008, in the first column, the
very first coordinate was published as 42[deg]24'5.40'' N, but should
have been published as 42[deg]24'15.40'' N. The coordinate was
published correctly on page 60664 in the first column as
42[deg]24'15.40'' N. EPA received no comments on the proposed rule. EPA
did receive one letter, dated November 12, 2008, from the Department of
the Interior (DOI) stating that DOI had no comments. This action
finalizes the designation of the Rogue River ocean dredged material
disposal site, with the correct coordinates, pursuant to the Marine
Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act, as amended (MPRSA), 33
U.S.C. 1401 to 1445. The new site is needed primarily to serve as a
long-term location for the disposal of material dredged from the Rogue
River navigation channel. The new site will also serve to provide a
location for the disposal of dredged material for persons who have
received a permit for such disposal. The newly designated site will be
subject to ongoing monitoring and management as specified in this rule
and in the Site Management and Monitoring Plan, which is also finalized
as part of this action. The monitoring and management requirements will
help to ensure continued protection of the marine environment.
[[Page 17407]]
DATES: Effective Date: This final rule will be effective May 15, 2009.
ADDRESSES: For more information on this final rule, Docket ID No. EPA-
R10-OW-2008-0745, use one of the following methods:
https://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line
instructions for accessing the docket and materials related to the
final rule.
E-mail: Freedman.Jonathan@epa.gov
Mail: Jonathan Freedman, US Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 10, Office of Ecosystems, Tribal and Public Affairs
(ETPA-083), Aquatic Resources Unit, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900,
Seattle, Washington 98101.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in https://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy during normal business
hours at the US Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Library,
10th Floor, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, Washington 98101.
For access to the documents at the Region 10 Library, contact the
Region 10 Library Reference Desk at (206) 553-1289, between the hours
of 9 a.m. to 11:30 a.m., and between the hours of 1 p.m. to 4 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays, for an appointment.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jonathan Freedman, US Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 10, Office of Ecosystems, Tribal and Public
Affairs (ETPA-083), Aquatic Resources Unit, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite
900, Seattle, Washington 98101, phone number: (206) 553-0266, e-mail:
freedman.jonathan@epa.gov, or contact Jessica Winkler, US Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 10, Office of Ecosystems, Tribal and Public
Affairs (ETPA-083), Aquatic Resources Unit, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite
900, Seattle, Washington 98101, phone number: (206) 553-7369, e-mail:
winkler.jessica@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
1. Potentially Affected Persons
Persons potentially affected by this final action include those who
seek or might seek permits or approval by EPA to dispose of dredged
material into ocean waters pursuant to the Marine Protection, Research,
and Sanctuaries Act, as amended (MPRSA), 33 U.S.C. sections 1401 to
1445. EPA's action is relevant to persons, including organizations and
government bodies, seeking to dispose of dredged material in ocean
waters offshore of the Rogue River, Oregon. Currently, the US Army
Corps of Engineers (Corps) will be most impacted by this final action.
Potentially affected categories and persons include:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Examples of potentially regulated persons
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Government........... US Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works
Projects, and other Federal Agencies
Industry and General Public.. Port Authorities, Marinas and Harbors,
Shipyards and Marine Repair Facilities,
Berth Owners
State, local and tribal Governments owning and/or responsible for
governments. ports, harbors, and/or berths,
Government agencies requiring disposal
of dredged material associated with
public works projects
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding persons likely to be affected by this
action. For any questions regarding the applicability of this action to
a particular person, please refer to the contact person listed in the
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
2. Background
a. History of Disposal Site Offshore of the Rogue River, Oregon
The final Rogue River ocean dredged material disposal site, or
areas in the same vicinity, were used by the Corps beginning in 1962.
When the MPRSA was enacted, the site became an ``interim'' site under
the ocean dumping regulations, a status superseded by later statutory
changes to the MPRSA. The site was selected for use by the Corps under
Section 103 of the MPRSA. That authority allows the Corps to select a
site for disposal when a site has not been designated. EPA concurred on
that selection and in 2003 approved the Corps' request to continue to
use the site through the end of the 2008 dredging season.
From 1986 through 2006, over 1.1 million cubic yards (cy) of
dredged material were placed at the Rogue River site. A uniform
placement strategy, rather than point dumping, was applied to the
disposal of material at the site and regular bathymetric surveys were
conducted. Data collected from those surveys showed that persistent
mounding did not occur within the site or in the vicinity of the site.
Over the long-term, site capacity appears to be unconstrained based on
the historical and anticipated disposal volumes because material placed
redistributes out of the site, feeding the littoral cell.
[[Page 17408]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15AP09.008
b. Location and Configuration of Final Rogue River Ocean Dredged
Material Disposal Site
Figure 1, above, shows the Rogue River ocean dredged material
disposal site (Rogue River ODMDS or Site) EPA designates in this
action. The Site's configuration is expected to allow dredged material
disposed in shallower portions of the Site to naturally disperse into
the littoral zone without creating mounding conditions that could
contribute to adverse impacts to navigation. This final Site
configuration will allow EPA to ensure that disposal of dredged
material into the Site will be managed so that as much material as
possible is retained in the active littoral drift area to augment
shoreline building processes.
The coordinates for the Rogue River ODMDS as finalized in this
action are, in North American Datum 83 (NAD 83):
42[deg]24'15.40'' N, 124[deg]26'52.39'' W
42[deg]24'03.40'' N, 124[deg]26'39.39'' W
42[deg]23'39.40'' N, 124[deg]27'17.40'' W
42[deg]23'51.40'' N, 124[deg]27'30.40'' W
The Site occupies approximately 116 acres. The Site's final
dimensions are: 1,400-feet wide by 3,600-feet long, with Site depth
ranging from approximately 50 to 90 feet. The Site generally lies on
bottom contours sloping at a rate of 8/1000 feet to the west-southwest.
The disposal area, placement area, and drop zone for the Site are
identical.
c. Management and Monitoring of the Final Site
The final Rogue River ODMDS is expected to receive sediments
dredged by the Corps to maintain the federally authorized navigation
project at the Rogue River, Oregon, and dredged material from other
persons who have obtained a permit for the disposal of dredged material
at the Site. The ocean dumping regulations do not require a
modification of any existing permits issued before this final action.
All persons using the Site are required to follow the final Site
Management and
[[Page 17409]]
Monitoring Plan (SMMP) for the Rogue River ODMDS which is available to
the public as part of this action. The SMMP includes management and
monitoring requirements to ensure that dredged materials disposed at
the Site are suitable for disposal in the ocean. The final SMMP
addresses the timing of disposal events to minimize interference with
other uses of ocean waters in the vicinity of the Site.
d. MPRSA Criteria
EPA assessed this final action against the criteria of the MPRSA,
with particular emphasis on the general and specific regulatory
criteria of 40 CFR Part 228, and determined that the final site
designation satisfies those criteria.
General Criteria (40 CFR 228.5)
(1) Sites must be selected to minimize interference with other
activities in the marine environment, particularly avoiding areas of
existing fisheries or shellfisheries, and regions of heavy commercial
or recreational navigation (40 CFR 228.5(a)).
EPA's assessment of information available at the time of this final
rule included a review of the potential for interference with
navigation, recreation, shellfisheries, aquatic resources, commercial
fisheries, protected geologic features, and cultural and/or
historically significant areas. While limited overlap was found to
exist between disposal operations and salmon fishing, no observable
conflicts were identified. No evidence was found to suggest that the
final Site would cause interference with fisheries or with navigation
in the Rogue River navigation channel. The final Site has been used
over the past decades for dredged material disposal, most recently
pursuant to Section 103 of the MPRSA, as a site selected by the Corps
with EPA's concurrence. Mariners in this area are accustomed to Site
use.
(2) Sites must be situated such that temporary perturbations to
water quality or other environmental conditions during initial mixing
caused by disposal operations would be reduced to normal ambient levels
or undetectable contaminant concentrations or effects before reaching
any beach, shoreline, marine sanctuary, or known geographically limited
fishery or shellfishery (40 CFR 228.5(b)).
Based on EPA's review of modeling, monitoring data and history of
use, there is no indication that detectable contaminant concentrations
or water quality effects would reach any beach, shoreline, or other
area outside of the final Site. All dredged material proposed for
disposal will be evaluated according to the ocean dumping regulations
at 40 CFR 227.13 and guidance developed by EPA and the Corps. In
general, dredged material which meets the criteria under 40 CFR
227.13(b) is deemed environmentally acceptable for ocean dumping
without further testing. Dredged material which does not meet the
criteria of 40 CFR 227.13(b), must be further tested as required by 40
CFR 227.13(c). Suitable material can be disposed of at the Site.
Modeling work performed by the Corps at the Umpqua River, demonstrates
that water column turbidity, a temporary perturbation during disposal,
would dissipate for an anticipated 97% of coarser material within a few
minutes of disposal. The remaining 3% of the material, which would be
classified as fine-grained, would dissipate within a half hour. Over
time, some of the suitable disposed material would be expected to
migrate into the active littoral drift system.
(3) If Site designation studies show that any interim disposal
sites do not meet the site selection criteria, use of such sites shall
be terminated as soon as any alternate site can be designated (40 CFR
228.5(c)).
EPA's recent final rule at 73 FR 74983 (December 10, 2008) repealed
obsolete regulations under the MPRSA regarding interim ocean dumping
sites and interim ocean dumping criteria. EPA stated in the proposed
rule that there are no interim sites near the Rogue Site, however, the
category of ``interim site'' has since been removed from the ocean
dumping criteria.
(4) The sizes of disposal sites will be limited in order to
localize for identification and control of any immediate adverse
impacts, and to permit the implementation of effective monitoring and
surveillance to prevent adverse long-range impacts. Size,
configuration, and location are to be determined as part of the
disposal site evaluation (40 CFR 228.5(d)).
EPA sized the final Site to meet this criterion. The final Site
tends to be moderately dispersive in the near-shore area and tends to
be less dispersive farther from shore. The overall stability of the
Site, as indicated by the lack of adverse mounding, is a significant
component of the justification for the size of the Site. Data collected
by the Corps through bathymetric monitoring show the spread and
movement of material after placement. The data establish that material
from the Site eventually disperses over the footprint of the site and
with seasonal movement disperses into the littoral system. Monitoring
of the final Site is required in the SMMP and effective monitoring of
the Site is anticipated based on past practice and current ability to
monitor the location and conduct surveillance.
(5) EPA will, wherever feasible, designate ocean dumping sites
beyond the edge of the continental shelf and other such sites where
historical disposal has occurred (40 CFR 228.5(e)).
The final Site is located where historic disposal occurred with a
history of minimal impact to the environment, and minimal impact to
other uses and amenities. Locations off the continental shelf in the
Pacific Ocean are generally inhabited by stable benthic and pelagic
ecosystems on steeper gradients that are not well adapted to frequent
disturbance events such as occur with the disposal of dredged material.
Monitoring and surveillance of the final Site do not pose the
challenges inherent in a site located beyond the edge of the
continental shelf. Material disposed beyond the edge of the continental
shelf would not be available to the littoral system.
Specific Criteria (40 CFR 228.6)
(1) Geographical Position, Depth of Water, Bottom Topography and
Distance from Coast (40 CFR 228.6(a)(1)).
Based on the data available, the geographical position, including
the depth of the final Site, bottom topography and distance from the
coastline in the vicinity of the final Site, indicates that designation
of the final Site will not cause adverse effects to the marine
environment. EPA understands that the currents at the final Site and
their influence on the movement of material in the area suggest there
is a high likelihood that much of the material disposed at the Site
will be transported to the littoral sediment circulation system.
Limited onshore transport of material disposed of at the Site is not
expected because of the nature of the prevailing currents and because
wave transport in the vicinity of the Site trends alongshore. Net
predicted material transport at the Site is southward in the summer
months and northward during the remainder of the year. These transport
mechanisms are expected to move material into the active littoral drift
area. This movement is expected to allow for long-term disposal without
creation of adverse mounding conditions.
(2) Location in Relation to Breeding, Spawning, Nursery, Feeding,
or Passage Areas of Living Resources in Adult or Juvenile Phases (40
CFR 228.6(a)(2)).
The final Site is not located in exclusive breeding, spawning,
nursery or feeding areas for adult or juvenile phases of living
resources. Modeling of the water column, which indicates that turbidity
from a disposal event would
[[Page 17410]]
be expected to dissipate fairly rapidly, indicates that avoidance
behavior by any species at the final Site would be short-term.
(3) Location in Relation to Beaches and Other Amenity Areas (40 CFR
228.6(a)(3)).
The final Site, although located in close proximity to the Rogue
River navigation channel, is located a sufficient distance offshore to
avoid adverse impacts to beaches and other amenity areas.
Transportation of dredges or barges to and from the final Site to
dispose of dredged material is expected to be coordinated so as to
avoid disturbance of other activities near the Rogue River entrance
channel.
(4) Types and Quantities of Wastes Final to be Disposed of, and
Final Methods of Release, including Methods of Packing the Waste, if
any (40 CFR 228.6(a)(4)).
Dredged material characterized by chemical and biological testing
and found suitable for disposal into ocean waters will be the only
material allowed to be disposed of at the final Site. No material
defined as ``waste'' under the MPRSA will be allowed to be disposed of
at the final Site. The dredged material expected to be disposed of at
the Site will be predominantly marine sand, far removed from known
sources of contamination.
With respect to final methods of releasing material at the final
Site, material will be released just below the surface from dredges
while the dredges are under power and slowly transiting the final Site.
This method of release is expected to spread material at the Site to
minimize mounding and to minimize impacts to the benthic community and
other species in, or near, the Site at the time of a disposal event.
(5) Feasibility of Surveillance and Monitoring (40 CFR
228.6(a)(5)).
Monitoring and surveillance at the final Site are expected to be
feasible and easily performed from small surface research vessels. The
final Site is accessible for bathymetric and side-scan sonar surveys.
At a minimum, annual bathymetric surveys will be conducted at the final
Site to confirm that no unacceptable mounding is taking place within
the Site or its immediate vicinity. Routine monitoring is expected to
concentrate on examining how the distribution of material in the near-
shore portions of the Site augment littoral processes and how
distribution of material in the deeper portions of the Site avoid or
minimize mounding.
(6) Dispersal, Horizontal Transport and Vertical Mixing
Characteristics of the Area, Including Prevailing Current Direction and
Velocity, if any (40 CFR 228.6(a)(6)).
Dispersal, horizontal transport and vertical mixing characteristics
of the area at and in the vicinity of the final Site are complex. This
complexity is partly a result of rocky reefs to the north of the final
Site which appear to influence mass transport, and in part the
complexity can be attributed to prevailing wave-induced motion and
currents moving towards the north during much of the year. Wave-induced
motion appears to cause near-constant mobilization of bottom sediment.
The overall regional mass transport trend suggests that net littoral
transport of material is to the north from the final Site. That overall
littoral transport appears to be balanced by offshore transport from
the mouth of the Rogue River to the north of the final Site such that
there is shoreline accretion to the north and relative equilibrium of
the shoreline to the south.
(7) Existence and Effects of Current and Previous Discharges and
Dumping in the Area (including Cumulative Effects) (40 CFR
228.6(a)(7)).
The approximate annual loading volume of dredged material placed at
the final Site is expected to equal 54,000 cubic yards (cy) of
material. This average was calculated by averaging seasonal material
placement over disposal seasons from the time the site became a
selected site. Annual monitoring of the Site is required in the final
SMMP for the Site. The final SMMP includes requirements for managing
the Site to address mounding issues if mounding occurs.
(8) Interference with Shipping, Fishing, Recreation, Mineral
Extraction, Desalination, Fish and Shellfish Culture, Areas of Special
Scientific Importance and Other Legitimate Uses of the Ocean (40 CFR
228.6(a)(8)).
Disposals at the final Site will be managed through the SMMP to
minimize interference with other legitimate uses of the ocean through
careful timing and staggering of disposals in the near-shore and deeper
portions of the final Site.
(9) The Existing Water Quality and Ecology of the Sites as
Determined by Available Data or Trend Assessment of Baseline Surveys
(40 CFR 228.6(a)(9)).
EPA did not identify any adverse water quality impacts or adverse
impacts to overall ecology from the historic use of the final Site.
(10) Potentiality for the Development or Recruitment of Nuisance
Species in the Disposal Site (40 CFR 228.6(a)(10)).
Nuisance species, considered as any undesirable organism not
previously existing at a location, have not been observed at, or in the
vicinity of, the final Site. The final SMMP includes specific
biological monitoring requirements, which would act to identify any
nuisance species, and management requirements, which would allow EPA to
direct special studies and/or operational changes to address nuisance
species.
(11) Existence at or in Close Proximity to the Site of any
Significant Natural or Cultural Feature of Historical Importance (40
CFR 228.6(a)(11)).
The final Site is located about two nautical miles south-southeast
of the Rogue Reef complex, an ecologically unique feature among a
system of neritic reefs off the Oregon coast. Dredged material disposed
at the final Site is generally expected to settle to the seafloor
quickly. Naturally occurring littoral transport, which would not be
expected to adversely affect aquatic communities in the reef areas, is
anticipated on a small scale. No significant cultural features were
identified at, or in the vicinity of, the final Site. As discussed
below, EPA coordinated with Oregon's State Historic Preservation
Officer and with Tribes in the vicinity of the final Site to identify
any cultural features. None were identified. No shipwrecks were
observed or documented within the final Site or its immediate vicinity.
e. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA); Magnuson-Stevens Act
(MSA); Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA); Coastal Zone Management Act
(CZMA); Endangered Species Act (ESA); National Historic Preservation
Act (NHPA)
(1) NEPA
Section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as
amended (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 to 4370f, requires Federal agencies to
prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for major federal
actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.
EPA's NEPA regulations are found at 40 CFR Part 6. NEPA does not apply
to EPA designations of ocean disposal sites because the courts have
exempted EPA's actions under the MPRSA from the procedural requirements
of NEPA through application of the functional equivalence doctrine. EPA
has, by policy, determined that the preparation of non-EIS NEPA
documents for certain EPA regulatory actions, including actions under
the MPRSA, is appropriate. EPA's ``Notice of Policy and Procedures for
Voluntary Preparation of NEPA Documents,'' (Voluntary NEPA Policy), 63
FR 58045,
[[Page 17411]]
(October 29, 1998), sets out both the policy and procedures EPA uses
when preparing such environmental review documents. EPA's 2007
revisions to 40 CFR Part 6 provided the framework EPA used to prepare
the voluntary NEPA documents for this final action.
EPA's primary voluntary NEPA document for designating the final
Site is the Rogue River, Oregon Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site
Evaluation Study and Environmental Assessment, 2009 (EA), jointly
prepared by EPA and the Corps. The final EA and its Technical
Appendices, are part of the docket for this final action, and provide
the threshold environmental review for the Site designation. The
information from the final EA is used extensively, above, in the
discussion of the ocean dumping criteria.
(2) MSA and MMPA
In the spring of 2008, EPA initiated consultation with the National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) concerning essential fish habitat and
protected marine mammals. EPA prepared an essential fish habitat (EFH)
assessment pursuant to section 305(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, as
amended (MSA), 16 U.S.C. 1801 to 1891d. NMFS reviewed EPA's EFH
assessment and ESA Biological Assessment for purposes of the Marine
Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (MMPA), 16 U.S.C. 1361 to
1389.
With respect to marine mammals, NMFS found that all potential
adverse effects to ESA-listed marine mammals are discountable or
insignificant. Those findings are documented in Appendix A. Marine
Mammal Determinations of the Biological Opinion issued by NMFS to EPA
on March 19, 2009. With respect to EFH, NMFS found that disposal of
dredge material, an indirect effect of EPA's action to designate the
Rogue River ODMDS, will not alter the habitat value of the designated
EFH at and in the vicinity of the Site. NMFS also concluded that
impacts to forage base would be highly localized and any potential
decrease in forage abundance is considered insignificant to the total
food resources available to EFH management species. Finally, NMFS
concluded that the safe passage of the EFH managed species will not be
functionally changed by EPA's Site designation and the subsequent
disposal of dredged material. Those findings are documented in the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act section of the
NMFS Biological Opinion. NMFS included a ``conservation
recommendation'' to study fish behavior and interactions with disposed
material at the Site. EPA will respond in a separate written response
to NMFS' recommendation.
(3) CZMA
EPA initiated consultation with the state of Oregon on coastal zone
management issues in summer of 2008. EPA prepared a consistency
determination for the Oregon Ocean and Coastal Management Program
(OCMP) to meet the requirements of the Coastal Zone Management Act, as
amended, (CZMA), 16 U.S.C. 1451 to 1465, and submitted that
determination formally to the Oregon Department of Land Conservation
and Development (DLCD) in November. DLCD publicly noticed EPA's
consistency determination and took comments on the action until January
2, 2009. DLCD received one comment from the Oregon Department of Fish
and Wildlife (ODFW) expressing support for the designation of the Rogue
River Site and supporting ocean disposal of dredged material as the
best alternative. ODFW also characterized disposal of material in the
littoral zone as a beneficial use. ODFW did express concern with the
relationship of the Site to rocky terrain and with the potential
impacts of uniform disposal.
DLCD concurred on EPA's determination of consistency with one
condition. The condition calls for the SMMP to assure that monitoring
measures for the Rogue River Site are reasonably likely to identify
significant unanticipated adverse effects on renewable marine
resources, biological diversity of marine life and the functional
integrity of the marine ecosystem at the site, and further asks that
the SMMP include adaptive management measures to avoid significant
impairment of the Site and significant decreases in abundance of
commercial or recreational caught species from direct or indirect
effects on important or essential habitat at the Site. DLCD responded
to the concerns expressed by ODFW by including the condition, above, in
its consistency concurrence. DLCD also recommended that EPA and ODFW
coordinate on issues that might involve adjustments in Site management
to avoid unanticipated adverse effects on important habitat and
renewable marine resources. The final SMMP in this final designation
provides the assurance and adaptive management measures requested.
(4) ESA
EPA initiated informal consultation in the spring of 2008 with NMFS
and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service pursuant to section 7(a)(2) of
the ESA on EPA's action to designate the Rogue River ODMDS. EPA
prepared a Biological Assessment to assess the potential effects of the
Site designation on aquatic and wildlife species. EPA found that its
action would not be likely to adversely affect (NLAA) aquatic or
wildlife species listed as endangered or threatened pursuant to the
Endangered Species Act, as amended (ESA), 16 U.S.C. 1531 to 1544, or
the critical habitat of such species. EPA found that site designation
does not have a direct impact on any of the identified ESA species but
also found that indirect impacts associated with reasonably foreseeable
future disposal activities had to be considered.
The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) concurred with EPA's
finding that EPA's action to designate the final Rogue River ODMDS
would not likely adversely affect listed species or critical habitat.
Consultation with the USFWS for this final action was completed on July
29, 2008.
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) did not concur on
EPA's NLAA finding and subsequently prepared a Biological Opinion (BO),
issued March 19, 2009. NMFS concluded that EPA's site designation is
not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of Southern Oregon/
Northern California Coasts (SONCC) coho salmon or southern Distinct
Population Segment (DPS) green sturgeon and is not likely to destroy or
adversely modify SONCC coho salmon designated critical habitat or
proposed southern DPS green sturgeon habitat. However, NMFS found that
the indirect effects of the Site designation related to the exposure
fish could experience from the disposal of dredged material could have
consequences for listed fish. Based on NMFS' estimate of ensuing
indirect effects of the Site designation, NMFS estimated that injury
and death of as many as 476 yearling SONCC coho salmon and a smaller
number of small sub-adult southern DPS green sturgeon could occur. For
Steller sea lions, blue whales, fin whales, humpback whales, and
Southern Resident Killer whales, NMFS concurred in the BO with EPA's
determination of ``may affect, not likely to adversely affect.'' For
four species of sea turtles, sperm whales, and sei whales, assessed by
EPA in its determination of NLAA, NMFS found no effect because NMFS did
not anticipate the species would be present in the action area.
NMFS acknowledged in the BO that EPA's action, the Site
designation, does not authorize and will not itself result in disposal
of dredged material. NMFS stated that it does not anticipate any take
will be caused by the Site designation and adoption of the SMMP.
[[Page 17412]]
Consequently, NMFS did not include an incidental take statement in the
BO. Rather, NMFS stated that any further analysis of the effects of
disposal of dredged material at the disposal site and issuance of an
incidental take statement with reasonable and prudent measures and non-
discretionary terms and conditions to minimize take would be prepared
when a disposal permit is requested by the action agency. NMFS did
include one discretionary conservation recommendation in the BO seeking
a study of fish interactions with disposed material. Such
recommendations are purely advisory in nature. While EPA appreciates
that such a study might be beneficial to the scientific knowledge base,
EPA believes that such a study would be most helpful if carried out by
NMFS, the expert Federal agency on fish behavior.
(5) NHPA
EPA initiated consultation with the State of Oregon's Historic
Preservation Officer (SHPO) to address the National Historic
Preservation Act, as amended (NHPA), 16 U.S.C. 470 to 470a-2. The NHPA
requires Federal agencies to take into account the effect of their
actions on districts, sites, buildings, structures, or objects,
included in, or eligible for inclusion in the National Register. EPA
determined that no historic properties were affected, or would be
affected, by the final designation of the Site. EPA did not find any
historic properties within the geographic area of the final Site. This
determination was based on an extensive review of the National Register
of Historic Districts in Oregon, the Oregon National Register list and
an assessment of cultural resources near the final Site. Side scan
sonar of the final Site did not reveal the presence of any shipwrecks
or other cultural or historic properties. The SHPO responded to EPA's
determination on September 11, 2008, without objection and clarified on
October 13, 2008 that the Site designation did not require further
archeological investigation to proceed.
f. Action
EPA designates the Rogue River ODMDS as an EPA-approved dredged
material ocean disposal Site in this action. The monitoring and
management requirements that will apply to this site are described in
the final SMMP. EPA received no comments on the proposed rule other
than one letter, dated November 12, 2008, from the Department of the
Interior (DOI) stating that DOI had no comments. It should be
emphasized that an ocean disposal site designation does not constitute
or imply Corps or EPA approval of open water disposal of dredged
material from any specific project. Before disposal of dredged material
at the site may commence by any person, EPA and the Corps must evaluate
the proposal according to the ocean dumping regulatory criteria (40 CFR
part 227) and authorize disposal. EPA independently evaluates proposed
dumping in accordance with those criteria pursuant to 40 CFR part 225.
EPA has the right to disapprove of the actual disposal of dredged
material if EPA determines that environmental requirements under the
MPRSA have not been met.
3. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
This final rule designating the Rogue River ODMDS pursuant to
Section 102 of the MPRSA complies with applicable executive orders and
statutory provisions as follows:
(1) Executive Order 12866
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735), the Agency must
determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant,'' and
therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the Executive
Order. The Executive Order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as
one that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an annual
effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely affect in a
material way, the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity,
competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State,
local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) create a serious
inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by
another agency; (3) materially alter the budgetary impact of
entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and
obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel legal or policy
issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or
the principles set forth in the Executive Order. EPA determined that
this final rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the
terms of Executive Order 12866 and is therefore not subject to OMB
review.
(2) Paperwork Reduction Act
This final action does not impose an information collection burden
under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq., because this final rule does not establish or modify any
information or recordkeeping requirements for the regulated community.
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing, and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information;
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in Title 40 of the CFR are listed in 40 CFR Part 9.
(3) Regulatory Flexibility
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires Federal
agencies to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule
subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the
Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency
certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small
businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of this rule on small entities,
small entity is defined as: (1) A small business defined by the Small
Business Administration's size regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a
small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county,
town, school district, or special district with a population of less
than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit
enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field. EPA determined that this final action will not
have a significant economic impact on small entities because the final
rule only has the effect of regulating the location of a site to be
used for the disposal of dredged material in ocean waters. After
considering the economic impacts of this rule, I certify that this
action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
(4) Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
This action contains no Federal mandates under the provisions of
Title
[[Page 17413]]
II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1531 to
1538, for State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector.
This action imposes no new enforceable duty on any State, local, or
tribal government or the private sector. Therefore, this action is not
subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of the UMRA. This
action is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of the
UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small government entities. Those
entities are already subject to existing permitting requirements for
the disposal of dredged material in ocean waters.
(5) Executive Order 13132: Federalism
Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by State and local officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies
that have federalism implications'' are defined in the Executive Order
to include regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the national government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among
various levels of government.'' This rule does not have federalism
implications. It does not have substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the national government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132.
Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule.
(6) Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
This final rule does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175 because the designation of this dredged material
disposal Site will not have a direct effect on Indian Tribes, on the
relationship between the federal government and Indian Tribes, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the federal
government and Indian tribes. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not
apply to this rule. Although Executive Order 13175 does not apply to
this final rule, EPA consulted with tribal officials in the development
of this rule, particularly as it relates to potential impacts to
historic or cultural resources.
(7) Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks
EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR 19885) as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks, such that the
analysis required under section 5-501 of the EO has the potential to
influence the regulation. This action is not subject to EO 13045
because it does not establish an environmental standard intended to
mitigate health or safety risks. The final action concerns the
designation of an ocean disposal Site for dredged material and provides
a designated location to use for ocean disposal of dredged material
pursuant to section 102 (c) of the MPRSA.
(8) Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions
Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355) because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' as defined under Executive Order 12866.
(9) National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272),
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress,
through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available
and applicable voluntary consensus standards. The final action includes
environmental monitoring and measurement as described in EPA's final
SMMP. EPA will not require the use of specific, prescribed analytic
methods for monitoring and managing the final Site once designated. The
Agency will allow the use of any method, whether it constitutes a
voluntary consensus standard or not, that meets the monitoring and
measurement criteria discussed in the final SMMP.
(10) Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations
Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629) establishes federal
executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs
federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by
law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying
and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and
activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the
United States. EPA determined that this final rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not
affect the level of protection provided to human health or the
environment. EPA assessed the overall protectiveness of designating the
final disposal Site against the criteria established pursuant to the
MPRSA to ensure that any adverse impact on the environment will be
mitigated to the greatest extent practicable.
(11) Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act (CRA), 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added
by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996,
generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency
promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy
of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller
General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this
rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House
of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States
prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2). This rule will be effective thirty days from the date of
publication in the Federal Register.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 228
Environmental protection, Water pollution control.
Authority: This action is issued under the authority of Section
102 of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act, as
amended, 33 U.S.C. 1401, 1411, 1412.
[[Page 17414]]
Dated: April 3, 2009.
Michelle L. Pirzadeh,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10.
0
For the reasons set out in the preamble, chapter I of title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended as set forth below:
PART 228--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 228 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. Sections 1412 and 1418
0
2. Section 228.15 is amended by adding paragraph (n)(6) to read as
follows:
Sec. 228.15 Dumping sites designated on a final basis.
* * * * *
(n) * * *
(6) Rogue River, OR--Dredged Material Site
(i) Location: 42[deg] 24'15.40'' N, 124[deg] 26'52.39'' W; 42[deg]
24'03.40'' N, 124[deg] 26'39.39'' W; 42[deg] 23'39.40'' N, 124[deg]
27'17.40'' W; 42[deg] 23'51.40'' N, 124[deg] 27'30.40'' W (NAD 83)
(ii) Size: Approximately 1.1 kilometers long and 0.4 kilometers
wide
(iii) Depth: Ranges from approximately 15 to 27 meters
(iv) Primary Use: Dredged material
(v) Period of Use: Continuing Use
(vi) Restrictions: (A) Disposal shall be limited to dredged
material determined to be suitable for ocean disposal according to 40
CFR 227.13, from the Rogue River navigation channel and adjacent areas;
(B) Disposal shall be managed by the restrictions and requirements
contained in the currently-approved Site Management and Monitoring Plan
(SMMP);
(C) Monitoring, as specified in the SMMP, is required.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. E9-8660 Filed 4-14-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P