Ocean Dumping; Sabine-Neches Waterway (SNWW) Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site Designation, 73097-73104 [2013-28808]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 234 / Thursday, December 5, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
PART 7—SPECIAL REGULATIONS,
AREAS OF THE NATIONAL PARK
SYSTEM
1. The authority citation for Part 7
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1, 3, 9a, 462(k); Sec.
7.96 also issued under D.C. Code 10–137
(2001) and D.C. Code 50–2201 (2001).
2. In § 7.89 add paragraph (b) to read
as follows:
■
§ 7.89
New River Gorge National River.
*
*
*
*
(b) Bicycling. (1) Where may I ride a
bicycle within New River Gorge National
River? Bicycle use is allowed:
(i) On park roads and in parking areas;
and
(ii) On administrative roads and trails
authorized for bicycle use as listed in
the following table.
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
*
Administrative Roads and Trails
Authorized for Bicycle Use—North to
South
Hawks Nest Connector Trail
Fayetteville Trail
Park Loop Trail
Timber Ridge Trail
Kaymoor Trail
Craig Branch Trail
Arrowhead Trail
Long Point Trail (except 0.2 miles
closest to Long Point Vista)
Keeneys Creek Rail Trail
Headhouse Trail
Tipple Trail
Seldom Seen Trail
Nuttallburg Town Loop Connector Trail
Brooklyn Mine Trail
Brooklyn Miner’s Connector Trail
Southside Trail
Rend Trail
Stone Cliff Trail
Terry Top Trail
Garden Ground Stacked Loop Trail
Little Laurel Trail
Mud Turn Trail
Glade Creek Trail
Panther Branch Connector Trail
(2) How will I know where these
administrative roads and trails are
located in the park? The administrative
roads and trails where bicycle use is
authorized are identified on maps
located in the Superintendent’s office, at
park visitor centers, at interpretive
kiosks, and on the park’s Web site.
Additional information about bicycling
will also be posted at appropriate
trailheads and other locations.
(3) What requirements must I meet to
ride a bicycle within New River Gorge
National River? (i) In addition to the
applicable provisions in 36 CFR part 4,
all bicyclists must yield to other trail
users in the following manner:
(A) A bicyclist must yield to an
equestrian;
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:56 Dec 04, 2013
Jkt 232001
(B) A bicyclist must yield to a
pedestrian; and
(C) A bicyclist travelling downhill
must yield to a bicyclist travelling
uphill.
(ii) Yielding the right of way requires
slowing down to a safe speed, being
prepared to stop, establishing
communication, and passing safely.
(iii) Failure to yield is prohibited.
(4) How will the Superintendent
manage bicycle use where it is
authorized? The Superintendent may
close park and administrative roads,
parking areas and trails, or portions
thereof, reopen the same, or impose
conditions or restrictions for bicycle use
after taking into consideration public
health and safety, natural and cultural
resource protection, and other
management activities and objectives.
(i) The Superintendent will provide
public notice of all such actions through
one or more of the methods listed in
§ 1.7 of this chapter.
(ii) Violating a closure, condition, or
restriction is prohibited.
Dated: November 20, 2013.
Rachel Jacobson,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish
and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 2013–29087 Filed 12–4–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4312–EJ–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 228
[EPA–R06–OW–2011–0712; FRL–9903–26–
Region–6]
Ocean Dumping; Sabine-Neches
Waterway (SNWW) Ocean Dredged
Material Disposal Site Designation
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
The EPA today designates
four new Ocean Dredged Material
Disposal Sites (ODMDS) located
offshore of Texas for the disposal of
dredged material from the SabineNeches Waterway (SNWW) Channel
Improvement Project (CIP), which
includes an extension of the Entrance
Channel into the Gulf of Mexico,
pursuant to the Marine Protection,
Research and Sanctuaries Act, as
amended (MPRSA). The designation of
these four disposal sites does not by
itself authorize the disposal of dredged
material, but makes these sites available
for use for dredged material from the
CIP if no environmentally preferable,
practicable alternative for managing that
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
73097
dredged material exists, and if analysis
of the dredged material indicates that it
is suitable for open-water disposal. This
action is to designate adequate,
environmentally-acceptable ocean
disposal site capacity for suitable
dredged material generated from new
work (construction) and future
maintenance dredging from the SNWW
CIP.
DATES: This rule is effective on January
6, 2014.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jessica Franks, Ph.D., Marine and
Coastal Section (6WQ–EC),
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite
1200, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733,
telephone (214) 665–8335, fax number
(214) 665–6689; email address
franks.jessica@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
A. Potentially Affected Entities
B. Background
C. Site Location
D. Disposal Volume Limit
E. Site Management and Monitoring Plan
F. Ocean Dumping Site Designation
Criteria
General Selection Criteria
Specific Selection Criteria
G. Responses to Comments
1. Concerns About Minimizing Ocean
Disposal by Maximizing Beneficial Reuse
2. Concerns About a Consistency
Determination
3. Question on the Designation Process
H. Regulatory Requirements
National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA)
Endangered Species Act Consultation
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation
and Management Act of 1996
Coastal Zone Management Act
Coastal Barrier Improvement Act of 1990
Administrative Review
Executive Order 12886
Paperwork Reduction Act
Regulatory Flexibility Act, as Amended
by the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
Unfunded Mandates
Executive Order 13132: Federalism
Executive Order 13175: Consultation and
Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13211: Actions That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use Compliance With
Administrative Procedure Act
National Technology Transfer
Advancement Act
Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions
To Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Populations and Low Income
Populations
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 228
E:\FR\FM\05DER1.SGM
05DER1
73098
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 234 / Thursday, December 5, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
The supporting document for these
site designations is the Final
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
for the Sabine-Neches Waterway
Channel Improvement Project:
Southeast Texas and Southwest
Louisiana (SNWW CIP) dated March
2011, prepared by the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers (also Corps or USACE).
Appendix B of Volume III contains the
Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Sites
Final Environmental Impact Statement.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Final
EIS for the SNWW CIP was published in
the Federal Register (FR) April 4, 2011
(Vol. 76, Nos. 43). That document is
available for public inspection at the
following locations:
1. Environmental Protection Agency,
1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas,
Texas 75202–2733
2. Federal e-Rulemaking Portal:
https://www.regulations.gov.
A. Potentially Affected Entities
Entities potentially affected by this
action are persons, organizations, or
government bodies seeking to dispose of
dredged material in ocean waters
offshore of Texas for the disposal of
dredged material from the SabineNeches Waterway, under the Marine
Protection Research and Sanctuaries
Act, 33 U.S.C. 1401 et seq. The Final
Rule would be primarily of relevance to
the US Army Corps of Engineers when
proposing to dispose of dredged
material from the Sabine-Neches
Waterway. Potentially affected
categories and entities include:
Category
Examples of potentially affected entities
Federal government .....................................................
Industry and general public .........................................
U.S. 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.
State, local and tribal governments .............................
This table is not intended to be
exhaustive, but rather provides a guide
regarding entities likely to be affected by
this action. For questions regarding the
applicability of this action to a
particular entity, please refer to the
contact person listed in the preceding
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
B. Background
Ocean disposal of dredged materials
is regulated under Title I of the Marine
Protection, Research and Sanctuaries
Act, 33 U.S.C. 1401 et seq. (MPRSA).
The EPA and the USACE share
responsibility for the management of
ocean disposal of dredged material.
Under Section 102 of MPRSA, EPA is
responsible for designating an
acceptable location for the ocean
dredged material disposal sites
(ODMDS). With concurrence from EPA,
the USACE issues permits under
MPRSA Section 103 for ocean disposal
of dredged material deemed suitable
according to EPA criteria in MPRSA
Section 102 and EPA regulations in 40
CFR part 227.
Pursuant to its voluntary NEPA
policy, published at 63 FR 58045
(October 29, 1998), EPA typically relies
on the EIS process to enhance public
participation on the Final designation of
an ODMDS. A site designation EIS
evaluates alternative sites and examines
the potential environmental impacts
associated with disposal of dredged
material at various locations. Such an
EIS first demonstrates the need for the
ODMDS designation action (40 CFR
6.203(a) and 40 CFR 1502.13) by
describing available or potential aquatic
and non-aquatic (i.e., land-based)
alternatives and the consequences of not
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:56 Dec 04, 2013
Jkt 232001
designating a site—the No Action
Alternative. Once the need for an ocean
disposal site is established, potential
sites are screened for feasibility through
a Zone of Siting Feasibility (ZSF)
process. Potential alternative sites are
then evaluated using EPA’s ocean
disposal criteria at 40 CFR part 228 and
compared in the EIS. Of the sites that
satisfy these criteria, the site that best
complies is selected as the preferred
alternative for designation through a
rulemaking process published in the
Federal Register (FR).
Formal designation of an ODMDS in
the Federal Register and codification in
the Code of Federal Regulations does
not constitute approval of dredged
material for ocean disposal. Site
designation merely identifies a suitable
ocean location in the event that dredged
material is later approved for ocean
disposal. Designation of an ODMDS
provides an ocean disposal alternative
for consideration in the review of each
proposed dredging project. Before any
ocean disposal may take place, the
dredging project proponent must
demonstrate a need for ocean disposal,
including consideration of alternatives.
Alternatives to ocean disposal,
including the option for beneficial reuse of dredged material, are evaluated
for each dredging project that may result
in the ocean disposal of dredged
materials from such project. Ocean
disposal of dredged material is only
allowed after both EPA and USACE
determine that the proposed activity is
environmentally acceptable under
criteria codified at 40 CFR part 227 and
33 CFR part 336, respectively. In
addition, ongoing management of these
ODMDS would be subject to Site
Management and Monitoring Plan(s)
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
(SMMP) required by MPRSA section
102(c)(3)(F) and (c)(4), which are
discussed more fully below.
Decisions to allow ocean disposal are
made on a case-by-case basis through
the MPRSA Section 103 permitting
process, resulting in a USACE permit or
its equivalent process for USACE’s Civil
Works projects. Material proposed for
disposal at a designated ODMDS must
conform to EPA’s permitting criteria for
acceptable quality (40 CFR parts 225
and 227), as determined from physical,
chemical, and bioassay/
bioaccumulation tests prescribed by
national sediment testing protocols
(EPA and USACE 1991). Only clean
non-toxic dredged material is acceptable
for ocean disposal. The newly
designated sites will be subject to
ongoing monitoring and management to
ensure continued protection of the
marine environment.
Evaluation of the ODMDS under
EPA’s general and specific criteria is
described in the March 2011 ‘‘Final
Environmental Impact Statement for
Sabine-Neches Waterway Channel
Improvement Project Southeast Texas
and Southwest Louisiana, Appendix B.’’
The Final Rule provides adequate,
environmentally-acceptable ocean
disposal site capacity for suitable
dredged material generated from new
work (construction) and future
maintenance dredging along the SNWW
Entrance Channel 13.2-mile extension
by formally designating the SNWW A–
D sites as acceptable ocean disposal
locations for dredged material meeting
applicable requirements.
The proposed rule for designation was
published in the Federal Register on
June 27, 2013, as docket number EPA–
R06–OW–2011–0712. The comment
E:\FR\FM\05DER1.SGM
05DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 234 / Thursday, December 5, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
period closed on August 12, 2013.
Comments received are addressed in
section G., below. Under NEPA, federal
agencies prepare a public record of
decision (ROD) at the time of their
decision on any action for which an
FEIS has been prepared. This final
rulemaking notice serves the same
purpose as a ROD required under
regulations promulgated by the Council
on Environmental Quality for federal
agencies subject to NEPA (CEQ
Regulations 40 CFR 1505.2
C. Location
As identified in Appendix B of the
FEIS, the environmentally preferred
sites which EPA now designates are
SNWW–A, which is located 21 miles
from shore, SNWW–B, which is located
24 miles from shore, SNWW–C, which
is located 27 miles from shore, and
SNWW–D, which is located 30 miles
from shore. Each of the ODMDS
occupies an area of 5.3 square statute
miles, with depths ranging from 44 to 46
feet. The bottom topography is flat.
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
D. Disposal Volume Limit
The action designates the SNWW A–
D for a one-time placement of
approximately 18,737,000 cubic yards
(cy) of new work (construction) material
plus approximately 37,725,000 cubic
yards of maintenance material over a 50year period. The need for ongoing ocean
disposal capacity is based on modeling
in the USACE SNWW CIP Engineering
Appendix.
E. Site Management and Monitoring
Plan (SMMP)
Continuing use of the sites requires
verification that significant impacts do
not occur outside of the disposal site
boundaries through implementation of
the SMMP developed as part of the
Final EIS for the Sabine-Neches
Waterway Project. The SMMP provides
a structured framework to ensure that
dredged material disposal activities will
not unreasonably degrade or endanger
human health, welfare, the marine
environment, or economic potentialities
(Section 103(a) of the MPRSA). Two
main objectives for management of
SNWW A–D are: (1) To ensure that only
dredged material that satisfies the
criteria set forth in 40 CFR part 227,
subparts B, C, D, E, and G and § 228.4(e)
and is suitable for unrestricted
placement at the ODMDS is, in fact,
disposed at the sites, and; (2) to avoid
excessive mounding, either within the
site boundaries or in areas adjacent to
the sites, as a direct result of placement
operations.
The EPA and USACE Galveston
District personnel will achieve SMMP
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:56 Dec 04, 2013
Jkt 232001
objectives by jointly administering the
following activities in accordance with
MPRSA section 102(c)(3): (1) A baseline
assessment of conditions at the sites; (2)
a program for monitoring the sites; (3)
special management conditions or
practices to be implemented at the sites
that are necessary for protection of the
environment; (4) consideration of the
quantity of dredged material to be
discharged at the sites, and the
presence, nature, and bioavailability of
the contaminants in the material; (5)
consideration of the anticipated use of
the sites over the long term, including
the anticipated closure date for the sites,
if applicable, and any need for
management of the sites after the
closure; and (6) a schedule for review
and revision of the SMMP.
The SMMP requires periodic physical
monitoring to confirm that disposal
material is deposited within the seafloor
disposal boundary, as well as
bathymetric surveys to confirm that
there is no excessive mounding or shortterm transport of material beyond the
limits of the ODMDS. The SMMP
describes physical and chemical
sediment and biological monitoring
requirements. Monitoring activities are
required to be conducted based on the
Evaluation of Dredged Material
Proposed for Ocean Disposal Testing
Manual, EPA 503/8–91/001 and the
Joint EPA–USACE Regional
Implementation Agreement (RIA)
procedures. Results will be used to
confirm that dredged material actually
disposed at the sites satisfies the criteria
set forth in 40 CFR part 227, subparts B,
C, D, E, and G, and § 228.4(e) and is
suitable for unrestricted ocean disposal.
Other activities implemented through
the SMMP to achieve these objectives
include: (1) Regulating quantities and
types of material to be disposed,
including the time, rates, and methods
of disposal; and (2) recommending
changes to site use requirements,
including disposal amounts or timing,
based on periodic evaluation of site
monitoring results.
E. Ocean Dumping Site Designation
Criteria
Five general criteria and 11 specific
site selection criteria are used in the
selection and approval of ocean disposal
sites for continued use (40 CFR 228.5
and 40 CFR 228.6(a)).
General Selection Criteria
1. The dumping of materials into the
ocean will be permitted only at sites or
in areas selected to minimize the
interference of disposal activities with
other activities in the marine
environment, particularly avoiding
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
73099
areas of existing fisheries or
shellfisheries, and regions of heavy
commercial or recreational navigation.
The EPA selected SNWW A–D,
including appropriate buffer zones, to
avoid sport and commercial fishing
activities, as well as other areas of
biological sensitivity. The preferred
ODMDS are outside the channel,
including the navigation channel buffer
zone, and safety fairways, and avoid
known navigational obstructions,
although they do infringe on two
Fairway Anchorage areas.
2. Locations and boundaries of
disposal sites will be so chosen that
temporary perturbations in water
quality or other environmental
conditions during initial mixing caused
by disposal operations anywhere within
the site can be expected to be reduced
to normal ambient seawater levels or to
undetectable contaminant
concentrations or effects before reaching
any beach, shoreline, marine sanctuary,
or known geographically limited fishery
or shellfishery.
The sizes for the buffer zones and for
the SNWW A–D sites are based on
sediment transport modeling and the
physical oceanographic characterization
of the Sabine Pass area. Modeling and
characterization, combined with the
information on the expected quality of
the material to be dredged, ensures that
perturbations caused by placement are
reduced to ambient conditions at the
boundaries of the site. Reports of the
modeling and characterization are
included in the administrative record
for this action.
3. If at any time during or after
disposal site evaluation studies, it is
determined that existing disposal sites
presently approved on an interim basis
for ocean dumping do not meet the
criteria for site selection set forth in
Sections 228.5 through 228.6, the use of
such sites will be terminated as soon as
suitable alternate disposal sites can be
designated.
This criterion does not apply to the
Final Site designations because they are
not existing sites that had previously
been approved on an interim basis.
4. The sizes of the ocean disposal sites
will be limited in order to localize for
identification and control any
immediate adverse impacts and permit
the implementation of effective
monitoring and surveillance programs
to prevent adverse long-range impacts.
The size, configuration, and location of
any disposal site will be determined as
a part of the disposal site evaluation or
designation study.
The sizes of the Final Sites are as
small as possible to reasonably meet the
criteria stated in 40 CFR 228.5 and 40
E:\FR\FM\05DER1.SGM
05DER1
73100
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 234 / Thursday, December 5, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
CFR 228.6(a). The size for each Final
ODMDS is 5.32 square statute miles
(4.02 square nautical miles). The
SMMPs were designed to provide
adequate surveillance to prevent
adverse long-range impacts.
5. The EPA will, wherever feasible,
designate ocean dumping sites beyond
the edge of the continental shelf and
other such sites that have been
historically used.
Cost, safety, and time factors plus
difficulties with monitoring and
surveillance preclude the designation of
any ODMDS beyond the edge of the
Continental Shelf off Sabine Pass (and
the Gulf of Mexico generally).
Additionally, uncertainty about the
resilience of the deep-ocean benthic
community indicates that an off-shelf
disposal site could threaten severe
adverse impacts to that off-shelf benthic
community. The EPA did not identify
an environmental advantage to an offshelf site designation, whereas possible
adverse impacts to the human
environment could be more easily
monitored at a nearshore site. The
existing ODMDS that have been used
historically, while large enough to
accommodate future maintenance
material, are cost prohibitive with
regard to disposal of dredged material
from the channel extension. Without
designation of the four new ODMDS,
this material would need to be
transported to the existing maintenance
ODMDS
B
ODMDS
C
ODMDS
D
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
A
ODMDS
The water depth at the SNWW A–D
sites ranges from 44 to 46 feet and the
bottom topography is flat. SNWW–A is
located 21 miles from shore, SNWW–B
is located 24 miles from shore, SNWW–
C is located 27 miles from shore and
SNWW–D is located 30 miles from
shore.
2. Location in relation to breeding,
spawning, nursery, feeding, or passage
areas of living resources in adult or
juvenile phases.
Due to the marine open water locale
of the SNWW A–D sites, the presence of
aerial, pelagic, or benthic living
resources is likely within the area of the
sites. The location of the ODMDS is
between the principal spawning areas
and the estuarine nursery areas. The
water column and benthic effects
associated with ocean disposal of
dredged material at the ODMDS would
not adversely affect the passage of
organisms to and from the spawningnursery areas through the waters above
the disposal sites. Localized and
intermittent dredged material disposal
operations are unlikely to adversely
affect migration, feeding, or nesting of
marine mammals and sea turtles.
3. Location in relation to beaches and
other amenity areas.
The SNWW A–D sites are over 21
miles from any beach and Sabine Bank
is at least 1.7 miles from the nearest of
the ODMDS. According to the dredged
material transport model (available in
the administrative record), the
maximum distance for the mounded
dredged material to reach ambient depth
is 1,081 feet. Doubling this distance
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:56 Dec 04, 2013
Jkt 232001
29°24′47″
29°22′48″
29°21′59″
29°20′00″
29°19′11″
29°17′12″
29°16′22″
29°14′24″
N,
N,
N,
N,
N,
N,
N,
N,
93°43′29″
93°41′09″
93°43′29″
93°41′09″
93°43′29″
93°41′09″
93°43′29″
93°44′10″
W;
W;
W;
W;
W;
W;
W;
W;
29°24′47″
29°22′49″
29°21′59″
29°20′00″
29°19′11″
29°17′12″
29°16′22″
29°14′24″
N,
N,
N,
N,
N,
N,
N,
N,
Frm 00022
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Specific Selection Criteria
1. Geographical position, depth of
water, bottom topography, and distance
from the coast.
The four new ODMDS sites are
bounded by the following coordinates
(Location North American Datum from
1983):
93°41′08″
93°43′29″
93°41′08″
93°43′29″
93°41′09″
93°43′29″
93°41′10″
93°43′29″
would provide a buffer of 0.4 mile, only
a fraction of the 1.7 miles to Sabine
Bank.
4. Types and quantities of wastes
proposed to be disposed of, and
proposed methods of release, including
methods of packaging the waste, if any.
Only suitable dredged material from
the SNWW Entrance Channel 13.2 mile
extension may be disposed at the sites.
Dredged material proposed for ocean
disposal is subject to strict testing
requirements established by the EPA
and USACE, and only clean (non-toxic)
dredged materials from the SNWW
Entrance Channel 13.2 mile extension
would be allowed to be disposed of at
the SNWW A–D sites. Approximately
18.7 mcy of new work material will be
dredged during the construction of
13.2-mile extension of the Entrance
Channel. Maintenance material per
dredging cycle is estimated at three mcy
for a total of 37.7 mcy over a period of
50 years. Dredged material is expected
to be released from hopper dredges.
5. Feasibility of surveillance and
monitoring.
Surveillance and monitoring are
feasible at the SNWW A–D sites. The
SMMP prepared for the sites consists of
(1) a method for recording the location
of each discharge; (2) bathymetric
surveys; and, (3) grain-size analysis,
sediment chemistry characterization,
and benthic infaunal analysis at selected
stations.
6. Dispersal, horizontal transport, and
vertical mixing characteristics of the
area, including prevailing current
direction and velocity, if any.
PO 00000
ODMDS. The end of the existing
channel is roughly 13 miles from the
end of the proposed extension, resulting
in an increased travel distance of 26
miles for each load of dredged material
from the extension work. Construction
costs are expected to double under this
scenario, making it impossible to
economically justify the SNWW CIP.
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
These three physical oceanographic
parameters were used by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers to develop the
necessary buffer zones for the exclusion
analysis and to determine the adequacy
of size of the SNWW A–D sites.
Predominant longshore currents, and
thus predominant longshore transport,
are to the west. Long-term mounding
has not historically occurred in the
existing nearby ODMDS. Therefore,
steady longshore transport and
occasional storms, including hurricanes,
are expected to remove the disposed
material from the sites through
dispersal, horizontal transport, and
vertical mixing.
7. Existence and effects of current and
previous discharges and dumping in the
area (including cumulative effects).
The Final Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) discusses the results of
chemical and bioassay testing of
samples collected to support the
proposed Waterway Extension and
surrounds, and concluded that there
were no indications of water or
sediment quality problems in the ZSF,
including the proposed disposal sites.
Testing of dredged material collected
and tested from past maintenance
dredging indicates that the material
dredged from the channel was
acceptable for ocean disposal according
to the evaluation criteria published at 40
CFR part 227. Based on current
direction and modeling of the new work
and maintenance material, the SNWW
A–D sites are situated to prevent
discharged material from reentering the
E:\FR\FM\05DER1.SGM
05DER1
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 234 / Thursday, December 5, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
channel and to ensure that any
mounding poses no obstruction to
navigation. No cumulative mounding
has been detected at the existing
ODMDS and there is no reason to expect
any at the SNWW A–D ODMDS.
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.
The interference considerations that
are pertinent to the present situation are
shipping, mineral extraction,
commercial and recreational fishing,
and recreational areas. The SNWW
A–D ODMDS will not interfere with
these or other legitimate uses of the
ocean because the exclusion processes
used to identify the sites was designed
to prevent the selection of sites that
would cause any such interference.
Ocean disposal of dredged material in
the past has not interfered with other
uses.
9. Existing water quality and ecology
of the site as determined by available
data or by trend assessment or baseline
surveys.
The FEIS to support the proposed
Waterway Extension project cited a
baseline study, which used sediment
samples from the area of the proposed
Extension and the ZSF. No adverse
water or sediment quality concerns were
indicated. Sampled and characterized,
benthos of the area, is dominated by
polychaetes (57.7%) and included
abundant populations of malacostracans
(18.3%) and bivalves (7.7%). Density
ranged from 4,055 organisms/square
foot at Station 3 (north of ODMDS A) up
to 30,265 organisms/square foot at
Station 26 (center of ODMDS B). Areas
of moderately high sand content (68 to
91%) supported the highest densities,
located near ODMDS B and ODMDS C,
near the center of the ZSF. In general,
the water and sediment quality is good
throughout the ZSF and in the existing
(historically used) ODMDS. There have
been no long-term adverse impacts on
water and sediment quality or benthos
at the existing ODMDS, and none are
expected with use of the SNWW A–D
sites.
10. Potentiality for the development
or recruitment of nuisance species in
the disposal site.
With disturbances to any benthic
community, opportunistic species
would initially recolonize the area. At
this location, however, these species
would not be nuisance species, i.e., they
would not interfere with other
legitimate uses of the ocean, they would
not be human pathogens, and they
would not be non-indigenous species.
The placement of dredged material in
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:56 Dec 04, 2013
Jkt 232001
the past has not attracted or promoted
development or recruitment of nuisance
species, and the placement of the
dredged material from new work and
future maintenance dredged material
should not attract or promote the
development or recruitment of nuisance
species.
11. Existence at or in close proximity
to the site of any significant natural or
cultural features of historical
importance.
Historic records generated by the
former Minerals Management Service
(MMS) indicate that no historic
shipwrecks are mapped within the
limits of the SNWW A–D ODMDS, but
remote-sensing surveys have not been
conducted. Ocean disposal of dredged
material is not expected to adversely
affect any unrecorded wrecks given the
depth of water through which the
material would settle and the expected
depth of burial at the time of disposal,
particularly given the dispersive nature
of the seabed environment in this
portion of the Gulf. The distribution,
depth, and dispersion of dredged
material within these ODMDS have
been evaluated by numerical modeling
(PBS&J, 2006). Hopper dredges would
drop dredged material onto the ODMDS,
forming mound fields with individual
mounds totaling no more than five feet
in height. The effects of the deposition
of material on any undiscovered feature
would be cushioned by settling through
water depths ranging from 30 to 45 feet.
Previous monitoring of existing
placement areas and studies of bottom
ocean currents has shown that the
material would disperse between
channel maintenance cycles and not
accumulate. The SNWW A–D ODMDS
are located in Federal waters (i.e.,
outside of adjacent State jurisdiction).
G. Responses to Comments
The proposed rule for designation was
published in the Federal Register on
June 27, 2013, as docket number EPA–
R06–OW–2011–0712. The comment
period closed on August 12, 2013. The
EPA received four comments on the
proposed rule from three entities and
one individual. These comments are
responded to here.
1. Concerns About Minimizing Ocean
Disposal by Maximizing Beneficial
Re-Use
Two commenters expressed concerns
about using new dredged material for
beneficial use instead of placement in
the ODMDS SNWW A–D designated
areas. The Louisiana Department of
Wildlife and Fisheries recommended
using new work material beneficially.
An individual commenter expressed
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
73101
concern that disposal of dredged
material would increase hypoxia in the
Gulf of Mexico and recommended
beneficial use of dredged material.
Disposal or re-use placement
alternatives that could practicably meet
the purpose and need of a dredging
project must be evaluated at the time of
project-specific permitting. Timing and
logistics can affect the practicability of
dredged material disposal or beneficial
use alternatives. For an individual
project, ocean disposal is permitted only
when other alternatives are not
practicable. However, determining the
availability of alternatives for individual
dredging projects is independent of this
ODMDS designation action, and such
comments are not further addressed
here.
2. Concerns About a Consistency
Determination
The Louisiana Department of Natural
Resources (LDNR), Office of Coastal
Management, commented that this
designation action ‘‘will require the
preparation of a consistency
determination in accordance with
section 307(c) of the Coastal Zone
Management Act.’’ Pursuant to section
307(c)(1) of the Coastal Zone
Management Act, federal activities that
affect a state’s coastal zone must be
consistent to the maximum extent
practicable with the enforceable policies
of the state’s approved coastal zone
management program. To implement
that requirement, federal agencies
prepare coastal consistency
determinations and submit them to the
appropriate state agencies, which may
concur in or object to a consistency
determination. In connection with its
preparation of the EIS on the SabineNeches Waterway Channel
Improvement Project, the Corps of
Engineers prepared a coastal
consistency determination on its
proposed navigation projects and the
ODMDS designation, which it submitted
to the Louisiana Department of Natural
Resources (LDNR) and the Texas
General Land Office (TGLO), the
agencies implementing approved coastal
zone management plans for their
respective states. On March 30, 2010,
TGLO concurred in the Corps
consistency determination. By letter of
March 31, 2010, LDNR concurred on
condition that the Corps submit a
supplemental consistency
determination to LDNR after the project
planning and design process, which
results in a more detailed description of
project features. The LDNR’s letter also
generally opposed EPA’s ODMDS
designation, noting that the designation
would provide the Corps an option
E:\FR\FM\05DER1.SGM
05DER1
73102
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 234 / Thursday, December 5, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
other than beneficial use for disposal of
dredged material. More detailed plans
and descriptions of the proposed
navigation projects may be needed for
LDNR and the Corps to resolve potential
issues on the practicability of beneficial
use of dredged materials in Louisiana’s
coastal zone. However, such issues are
independent of EPA’s proposed ODMDS
designations, which only make an
offshore disposal option available when
the Corps deems beneficial use that
might otherwise be required by a state
CZM program impracticable. The EPA
supports beneficial use of dredged
material, but ODMDS designations do
not in any way require that the Corps
forego beneficial use in favor of ocean
disposal.
Moreover, the closest of any of the
four ODMDS is approximately 20 miles
off the Texas coast at its nearest point.
Predominant longshore currents in the
ODMDS locations flow from east to west
and dredged material transport
modeling shows that any dredged
materials discharged to them will not
thus enter or otherwise affect
Louisiana’s coastal zone. Because this
ODMDS designation will not affect any
land or water use or natural resource of
Louisiana’s coastal zone, no coastal
consistency determination need be
prepared for this action.
3. Question on the Designation Process
One commenter from the U.S. Coast
Guard asked for clarification on the
Rule-Making process for the designation
of the ODMDS A–D sites. The EPA
provided clarification to the commenter.
G. Regulatory Requirements
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
1. National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA)
Pursuant to section 102(2)(C) of the
National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (NEPA), federal agencies are
generally required to prepare an
environmental impact statement (EIS)
on major federal actions significantly
affecting the quality of the human
environment. Under the doctrine of
functional equivalency, EPA
designations of ODMDS under MPRSA
are not subject to NEPA requirements.
The EPA believes the NEPA process
enhances public participation on such
designations and the potential effects of
these designations were fully analyzed
in an EIS on the Sabine-Neches
Waterway Channel Improvement
Project: Southeast Texas and Southwest
Louisiana (SNWW CIP). The Corps of
Engineers was the lead agency on that
EIS and EPA was a cooperating agency.
Notice of the draft EIS was published
in the Federal Register on December 24,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:56 Dec 04, 2013
Jkt 232001
2009, and the document was available
for review and comment through March
10, 2010. In addition, public meetings
on the EIS were held in Beaumont,
Texas and Lake Charles, Louisiana.
Comments included concerns on
pipeline relocation, marsh ecology,
beneficial use of dredged material, and
increased danger from storms. Few
comments were received on designation
of the ODMDS. Detailed responses to
comments were published in Appendix
A of the final EIS, notice of which was
published in the Federal Register on
March 4, 2012. The EPA has relied on
information from the EIS and its
technical appendices in its
consideration and application of ocean
dumping criteria to the four ODMDS
this Rule designates.
2. Endangered Species Act Consultation
During development of the SNWW
CIP project EIS referenced above,
USACE and EPA consulted with the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
and the National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS) pursuant to the
provisions of the Endangered Species
Act (ESA), regarding the potential for
designation and use of the ocean
disposal sites to jeopardize the
continued existence of any Federallylisted species. The consultation process
is documented in the EIS.
Of the Threatened or Endangered
Species noted in the biological
assessment for the SNWW CIP, only sea
turtles and whales are found as far
offshore as the SNWW A–D ODMDS.
The NMFS issued a biological opinion
on August 13, 2007, that site
designation is not likely to jeopardize
the continued existence of any
Federally-listed species.
3. Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act of
1996
The designation of the SNWW A–D
ODMDS will not adversely affect
essential fish habitat. By letter dated
March 8, 2010, the National Marine
Fisheries Service concurred with the
USACE findings that beneficial features
associated with the project would offset
any adverse impacts of the Waterway
Expansion project.
4. Coastal Zone Management Act
Pursuant to section 307(c)(1) of the
Coastal Zone Management Act, federal
activities that affect a state’s coastal
zone must be consistent to the
maximum extent practicable with the
enforceable policies of the state’s
approved Coastal Zone Management
(CZM) program. To implement that
requirement, federal agencies prepare
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
coastal consistency determinations and
submit them to the appropriate state
agencies, which may concur in or object
to a consistency determination.
In connection with its preparation of
the EIS on the Sabine-Neches Waterway
Channel Improvement Project, the Corps
prepared a coastal consistency
determination on its proposed
navigation projects and the ODMDS
designation, which it submitted to the
Louisiana Department of Natural
Resources (LDNR) and the Texas
General Land Office (TGLO), the
agencies implementing approved coastal
zone management plans for their
respective states. On March 30, 2010,
TGLO concurred in the Corps
consistency determination. By letter of
March 31, 2010, LDNR concurred on
condition that the Corps submit a
supplemental consistency
determination to LDNR after the project
planning and design process, resulting
in a more detailed description of project
features. The LDNR’s letter also
generally opposed EPA’s ODMDS
designation, claiming it would provide
the Corps an option other than
beneficial use for disposal of dredged
material.
More detailed plans and descriptions
of the proposed navigation projects may
be needed for LDNR and the Corps to
resolve potential issues on the
practicability of beneficial use of
dredged materials in Louisiana’s coastal
zone. Such issues are independent of
EPA’s proposed ODMDS designations,
however, which only make an offshore
disposal option available when the
Corps deems beneficial use that might
otherwise be required by a state CZM
program impracticable. The EPA
supports beneficial use of dredged
material, but ODMDS designations do
not in any way require that the Corps
forego beneficial use in favor of ocean
disposal.
Moreover, the closest of any of the
four SNWW A–D ODMDS is
approximately 20 miles off the Texas
coast at its nearest point. Predominant
longshore currents in the SNWW A–D
ODMDS locations flow from east to
west. Dredged material transport
modeling shows that any dredged
materials discharged to the SNWW
A–D ODMDS will not thus enter or
otherwise affect Louisiana’s coastal
zone. Because the SNWW A–D ODMDS
designations will not affect any land or
water use or natural resource of
Louisiana’s coastal zone, a coastal
consistency determination is not
needed.
E:\FR\FM\05DER1.SGM
05DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 234 / Thursday, December 5, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
5. Coastal Barrier Improvement Act of
1990
regulatory action’’ under the terms of
Executive Order 12866.
The Coastal Barrier Improvement Act
is intended to protect fish and wildlife
resources and habitat, prevent loss of
human life, and preclude the
expenditure of Federal funds that may
induce development on coastal barrier
islands and adjacent nearshore areas.
The Coastal Barrier Improvement Act of
1990 was enacted to reauthorize the
Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) of
1982. Exceptions to the Federal
expenditure restrictions include
maintenance or constructed
improvement(s) to existing Federal
navigational channels and related
structures (e.g., jetties), including the
disposal of dredged materials related to
maintenance and construction;
therefore, project activities related to
disposal are exempt from the
prohibitions set forth in this act, as
noted in the Final EIS for the SNWW
CIP, Vol. II.
2. Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act, 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq., is intended to
minimize the reporting and
recordkeeping burden on the regulated
community, as well as to minimize the
cost of Federal information collection
and dissemination. In general, the Act
requires that information requests and
record-keeping requirements affecting
ten or more non-Federal respondents be
approved by OMB. Since the Final Rule
would not establish or modify any
information or recordkeeping
requirements, but only clarifies existing
requirements, it is not subject to the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction
Act.
H. Administrative Review
This rule designates ocean dredged
material disposal sites pursuant to
Section 102 of the MPRSA. This action
complies with applicable executive
orders and statutory provisions as
follows:
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
1. Executive Order 12866
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993) EPA must
determine whether the regulatory action
is ‘‘significant,’’ and therefore subject to
office of Management and Budget
(OMB) review and other requirements of
the Executive Order. The Order defines
‘‘significant regulatory action’’ as one
that is likely to lead to a rule that may:
(a) 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;
(b) Create a serious inconsistency or
otherwise interfere with an action taken
or planned by another agency;
(c) Materially alter the budgetary
impact of entitlements, grants, user fees,
or loan programs, or the rights and
obligations of recipients thereof: Or
(d) Raise novel legal or policy issues
arising out of legal mandates, the
President’s priorities, or the principles
set forth in the Executive Order.
This Final Rule should have minimal
impact on State, local, or Tribal
governments or communities.
Consequently, EPA has determined that
this Final Rule is not a ‘‘significant
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:56 Dec 04, 2013
Jkt 232001
3. Regulatory Flexibility Act, as
Amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
provides that whenever an agency
promulgates a final rule under 5 U.S.C.
553, the agency must prepare a
regulatory flexibility analysis (RFA)
unless the head of the agency certifies
that the final rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities (5
U.S.C. 604 and 605). The site
designation and management actions
would only have the effect of setting
maximum annual disposal volume and
providing a continuing disposal option
for dredged material. Consequently,
EPA’s action will not impose any
additional economic burden on small
entities. For this reason, the Regional
Administrator certifies, pursuant to
section 605(b) of the RFA, that the Final
Rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
4. Unfunded Mandates
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act (UMRA) of 1995 (Pub. L.
104–4) establishes requirements for
Federal agencies to assess the effects of
their regulatory actions on State, local,
and Tribal governments and the private
sector. This Final Rule contains no
Federal mandates (under the regulatory
provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for
State, local or Tribal governments or the
private sector that may result in
estimated costs of $100 million or more
in any year. It imposes no new
enforceable duty on any State, local or
Tribal governments or the private sector
nor does it contain any regulatory
requirements that might significantly or
uniquely affect small government
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
73103
entities. Thus, the requirements of
section 203 of the UMRA do not apply
to this Final Rule.
5. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
Executive Order 13132, entitled
‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999), 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 the
various levels of government.’’
This Final Rule does not have
federalism implications. It will 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 the various
levels of government, as specified in
Executive Order 13132.
6. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
Executive Order 13175, entitled
‘‘Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA
to develop an accountable process to
ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by
Tribal officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have Tribal
implications.’’ This Final Rule does not
have Tribal implications, as defined in
Executive Order 13175.
7. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
and Safety Risks
This Executive Order (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that:
(1) Is determined to be ‘‘economically
significant’’ as defined under Executive
Order 12866, and (2) concerns an
environmental health or safety risk that
EPA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If
the regulatory action meets both criteria,
EPA must evaluate the environmental
health or safety effects of the planned
rule on children, and explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to other
potentially effective and reasonably
feasible alternatives considered by EPA.
This Final Rule is not subject to the
Executive Order because it is not
economically significant as defined in
Executive Order 12866, and because
EPA does not have reason to believe the
E:\FR\FM\05DER1.SGM
05DER1
73104
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 234 / Thursday, December 5, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1412 and 1418.
environmental health or safety risks
addressed by this action present a
disproportionate risk to children.
■
8. Executive Order 13211: Actions That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use Compliance With
Administrative Procedure Act
§ 228.15 Dumping sites designated on a
final basis.
This Final Rule is not subject to
Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355 (May
22, 2001)) because it is not a significant
regulatory action under Executive Order
12866. The Final Rule would only have
the effect of setting maximum annual
disposal volumes and providing a
continuing disposal option for dredged
material. Thus, EPA concluded that this
Final Rule is not likely to have any
adverse energy effects.
9. National Technology Transfer
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 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus
standards in its regulatory activities
unless to do so would be inconsistent
with applicable law or otherwise
impractical. This Final Rule does not
involve technical standards. Therefore,
EPA is not considering the use of any
voluntary consensus standards.
10. Executive Order 12898: Federal
Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low
Income Populations
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629)
directs Federal agencies to determine
whether the Final Rule would have a
disproportionate adverse impact on
minority or low-income population
groups within the project area. The
Final Rule would not significantly affect
any low-income or minority population.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 228
Environmental protection, Water
pollution control.
Dated: October 31, 2013.
Ron Curry,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
In consideration of the foregoing, EPA
amends part 228, chapter I of title 40 of
the Code of Federal Regulations as
follows:
PART 228—CRITERIA FOR THE
MANAGEMENT OF DISPOSAL SITES
FOR OCEAN DUMPING
1. The authority citation for part 228
continues to read as follows:
■
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:56 Dec 04, 2013
Jkt 232001
2. Section 228.15 is amended by
adding paragraphs (j)(22) through (25) to
read as follows:
*
*
*
*
*
(j) * * *
(22) Sabine-Neches, TX Dredged
Material Site A.
(i) Location: 29°24′47″ N., 93°43′29″
W.; 29°24′47″ N., 93°41′08″ W.;
29°22′48″ N., 93°41′09″ W.; 29°22′49″
N., 93°43′29″ W.; thence to point of
beginning.
(ii) Size: approximately 5.3 square
miles.
(iii) Depth: Ranges from 44 to 46 feet.
(iv) Primary Use: Dredged material.
(v) Period of Use: Continuing use.
(vi) Restrictions: Disposal shall be
limited to dredged material from the
Sabine-Neches 13.2 mile Extension
Channel that complies with EPA’s
Ocean Dumping Regulations. Dredged
material that does not meet the criteria
set forth in 40 CFR part 227 shall not be
placed at the site. Disposal operations
shall be conducted in accordance with
requirements specified in a Site
Management and Monitoring Plan
developed by EPA and USACE, to be
reviewed periodically, at least every 10
years.
(23) Sabine-Neches, TX Dredged
Material Site B.
(i) Location: 29°21′59″ N., 93°43′29″
W.; 29°21′59″ N., 93°41′08″ W.;
29°20′00″ N., 93°41′09″ W.; 29°20′00″
N., 93°43′29″ W.; thence to point of
beginning.
(ii) Size: approximately 5.3 square
miles.
(iii) Depth: Ranges from 44 to 46 feet.
(iv) Primary Use: Dredged material.
(v) Period of Use: Continuing use.
(vi) Restrictions: Disposal shall be
limited to dredged material from the
Sabine-Neches 13.2 mile Extension
Channel that complies with EPA’s
Ocean Dumping Regulations. Dredged
material that does not meet the criteria
set forth in 40 CFR part 227 shall not be
placed at the site. Disposal operations
shall be conducted in accordance with
requirements specified in a Site
Management and Monitoring Plan
developed by EPA and USACE, to be
reviewed periodically, at least every 10
years.
(24) Sabine-Neches, TX Dredged
Material Site C.
(i) Location: 29°19′11″ N., 93°43′29″
W.; 29°19′11″ N, 93°41′09″ W.;
29°17′12″ N., 93°41′09″ W.; 29°17′12″
N., 93°43′29″ W.; thence to point of
beginning.
(ii) Size: approximately 5.3 square
miles.
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
(iii) Depth: Ranges from 44 to 46 feet.
(iv) Primary Use: Dredged material.
(v) Period of Use: Continuing use.
(vi) Restrictions: Disposal shall be
limited to dredged material from the
Sabine-Neches 13.2 mile Extension
Channel that complies with EPA’s
Ocean Dumping Regulations. Dredged
material that does not meet the criteria
set forth in 40 CFR part 227 shall not be
placed at the site. Disposal operations
shall be conducted in accordance with
requirements specified in a Site
Management and Monitoring Plan
developed by EPA and USACE, to be
reviewed periodically, at least every 10
years.
(25) Sabine-Neches, TX Dredged
Material Site D.
(i) Location: 29°16′22″ N., 93°43′29″
W.; 29°16′22″ N., 93°41′10″ W.;
29°14′24″ N., 93°44′10″ W.; 29°14′24″
N., 93°43′29″ W.; thence to point of
beginning.
(ii) Size: approximately 5.3 square
miles.
(iii) Depth: Ranges from 44 to 46 feet.
(iv) Primary Use: Dredged material.
(v) Period of Use: Continuing use.
(vi) Restrictions: Disposal shall be
limited to dredged material from the
Sabine-Neches 13.2 mile Extension
Channel that complies with EPA’s
Ocean Dumping Regulations. Dredged
material that does not meet the criteria
set forth in 40 CFR part 227 shall not be
placed at the site. Disposal operations
shall be conducted in accordance with
requirements specified in a Site
Management and Monitoring Plan
developed by EPA and USACE, to be
reviewed periodically, at least every 10
years.
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2013–28808 Filed 12–4–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
GENERAL SERVICES
ADMINISTRATION
41 CFR Part 303–70
[FTR Amendment 2013–02; FTR Case 2013–
302; Docket Number 2013–0010,
Sequence 1]
RIN 3090–AJ37
Federal Travel Regulation (FTR);
Agency Requirements for Payment of
Expenses Connected With the Death of
Certain Employees and Family
Members
Office of Governmentwide
Policy, U.S. General Services
Administration (GSA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\05DER1.SGM
05DER1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 234 (Thursday, December 5, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 73097-73104]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-28808]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 228
[EPA-R06-OW-2011-0712; FRL-9903-26-Region-6]
Ocean Dumping; Sabine-Neches Waterway (SNWW) Ocean Dredged
Material Disposal Site Designation
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The EPA today designates four new Ocean Dredged Material
Disposal Sites (ODMDS) located offshore of Texas for the disposal of
dredged material from the Sabine-Neches Waterway (SNWW) Channel
Improvement Project (CIP), which includes an extension of the Entrance
Channel into the Gulf of Mexico, pursuant to the Marine Protection,
Research and Sanctuaries Act, as amended (MPRSA). The designation of
these four disposal sites does not by itself authorize the disposal of
dredged material, but makes these sites available for use for dredged
material from the CIP if no environmentally preferable, practicable
alternative for managing that dredged material exists, and if analysis
of the dredged material indicates that it is suitable for open-water
disposal. This action is to designate adequate, environmentally-
acceptable ocean disposal site capacity for suitable dredged material
generated from new work (construction) and future maintenance dredging
from the SNWW CIP.
DATES: This rule is effective on January 6, 2014.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jessica Franks, Ph.D., Marine and
Coastal Section (6WQ-EC), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6,
1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, telephone (214)
665-8335, fax number (214) 665-6689; email address
franks.jessica@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
A. Potentially Affected Entities
B. Background
C. Site Location
D. Disposal Volume Limit
E. Site Management and Monitoring Plan
F. Ocean Dumping Site Designation Criteria
General Selection Criteria
Specific Selection Criteria
G. Responses to Comments
1. Concerns About Minimizing Ocean Disposal by
Maximizing Beneficial Re-use
2. Concerns About a Consistency Determination
3. Question on the Designation Process
H. Regulatory Requirements
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
Endangered Species Act Consultation
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management
Act of 1996
Coastal Zone Management Act
Coastal Barrier Improvement Act of 1990
Administrative Review
Executive Order 12886
Paperwork Reduction Act
Regulatory Flexibility Act, as Amended by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
Unfunded Mandates
Executive Order 13132: Federalism
Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination
With Indian Tribal Governments
Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly
Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use Compliance With
Administrative Procedure Act
National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income
Populations
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 228
[[Page 73098]]
The supporting document for these site designations is the Final
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Sabine-Neches Waterway
Channel Improvement Project: Southeast Texas and Southwest Louisiana
(SNWW CIP) dated March 2011, prepared by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (also Corps or USACE). Appendix B of Volume III contains the
Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Sites Final Environmental Impact
Statement. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Final EIS for the SNWW CIP
was published in the Federal Register (FR) April 4, 2011 (Vol. 76, Nos.
43). That document is available for public inspection at the following
locations:
1. Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200,
Dallas, Texas 75202-2733
2. Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
A. Potentially Affected Entities
Entities potentially affected by this action are persons,
organizations, or government bodies seeking to dispose of dredged
material in ocean waters offshore of Texas for the disposal of dredged
material from the Sabine-Neches Waterway, under the Marine Protection
Research and Sanctuaries Act, 33 U.S.C. 1401 et seq. The Final Rule
would be primarily of relevance to the US Army Corps of Engineers when
proposing to dispose of dredged material from the Sabine-Neches
Waterway. Potentially affected categories and entities include:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of potentially
Category affected entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal government..................... U.S. 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.... 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 regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. For
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, please refer to the contact person listed in the preceding FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
B. Background
Ocean disposal of dredged materials is regulated under Title I of
the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act, 33 U.S.C. 1401 et
seq. (MPRSA). The EPA and the USACE share responsibility for the
management of ocean disposal of dredged material. Under Section 102 of
MPRSA, EPA is responsible for designating an acceptable location for
the ocean dredged material disposal sites (ODMDS). With concurrence
from EPA, the USACE issues permits under MPRSA Section 103 for ocean
disposal of dredged material deemed suitable according to EPA criteria
in MPRSA Section 102 and EPA regulations in 40 CFR part 227.
Pursuant to its voluntary NEPA policy, published at 63 FR 58045
(October 29, 1998), EPA typically relies on the EIS process to enhance
public participation on the Final designation of an ODMDS. A site
designation EIS evaluates alternative sites and examines the potential
environmental impacts associated with disposal of dredged material at
various locations. Such an EIS first demonstrates the need for the
ODMDS designation action (40 CFR 6.203(a) and 40 CFR 1502.13) by
describing available or potential aquatic and non-aquatic (i.e., land-
based) alternatives and the consequences of not designating a site--the
No Action Alternative. Once the need for an ocean disposal site is
established, potential sites are screened for feasibility through a
Zone of Siting Feasibility (ZSF) process. Potential alternative sites
are then evaluated using EPA's ocean disposal criteria at 40 CFR part
228 and compared in the EIS. Of the sites that satisfy these criteria,
the site that best complies is selected as the preferred alternative
for designation through a rulemaking process published in the Federal
Register (FR).
Formal designation of an ODMDS in the Federal Register and
codification in the Code of Federal Regulations does not constitute
approval of dredged material for ocean disposal. Site designation
merely identifies a suitable ocean location in the event that dredged
material is later approved for ocean disposal. Designation of an ODMDS
provides an ocean disposal alternative for consideration in the review
of each proposed dredging project. Before any ocean disposal may take
place, the dredging project proponent must demonstrate a need for ocean
disposal, including consideration of alternatives. Alternatives to
ocean disposal, including the option for beneficial re-use of dredged
material, are evaluated for each dredging project that may result in
the ocean disposal of dredged materials from such project. Ocean
disposal of dredged material is only allowed after both EPA and USACE
determine that the proposed activity is environmentally acceptable
under criteria codified at 40 CFR part 227 and 33 CFR part 336,
respectively. In addition, ongoing management of these ODMDS would be
subject to Site Management and Monitoring Plan(s) (SMMP) required by
MPRSA section 102(c)(3)(F) and (c)(4), which are discussed more fully
below.
Decisions to allow ocean disposal are made on a case-by-case basis
through the MPRSA Section 103 permitting process, resulting in a USACE
permit or its equivalent process for USACE's Civil Works projects.
Material proposed for disposal at a designated ODMDS must conform to
EPA's permitting criteria for acceptable quality (40 CFR parts 225 and
227), as determined from physical, chemical, and bioassay/
bioaccumulation tests prescribed by national sediment testing protocols
(EPA and USACE 1991). Only clean non-toxic dredged material is
acceptable for ocean disposal. The newly designated sites will be
subject to ongoing monitoring and management to ensure continued
protection of the marine environment.
Evaluation of the ODMDS under EPA's general and specific criteria
is described in the March 2011 ``Final Environmental Impact Statement
for Sabine-Neches Waterway Channel Improvement Project Southeast Texas
and Southwest Louisiana, Appendix B.'' The Final Rule provides
adequate, environmentally-acceptable ocean disposal site capacity for
suitable dredged material generated from new work (construction) and
future maintenance dredging along the SNWW Entrance Channel 13.2-mile
extension by formally designating the SNWW A-D sites as acceptable
ocean disposal locations for dredged material meeting applicable
requirements.
The proposed rule for designation was published in the Federal
Register on June 27, 2013, as docket number EPA-R06-OW-2011-0712. The
comment
[[Page 73099]]
period closed on August 12, 2013. Comments received are addressed in
section G., below. Under NEPA, federal agencies prepare a public record
of decision (ROD) at the time of their decision on any action for which
an FEIS has been prepared. This final rulemaking notice serves the same
purpose as a ROD required under regulations promulgated by the Council
on Environmental Quality for federal agencies subject to NEPA (CEQ
Regulations 40 CFR 1505.2
C. Location
As identified in Appendix B of the FEIS, the environmentally
preferred sites which EPA now designates are SNWW-A, which is located
21 miles from shore, SNWW-B, which is located 24 miles from shore,
SNWW-C, which is located 27 miles from shore, and SNWW-D, which is
located 30 miles from shore. Each of the ODMDS occupies an area of 5.3
square statute miles, with depths ranging from 44 to 46 feet. The
bottom topography is flat.
D. Disposal Volume Limit
The action designates the SNWW A-D for a one-time placement of
approximately 18,737,000 cubic yards (cy) of new work (construction)
material plus approximately 37,725,000 cubic yards of maintenance
material over a 50-year period. The need for ongoing ocean disposal
capacity is based on modeling in the USACE SNWW CIP Engineering
Appendix.
E. Site Management and Monitoring Plan (SMMP)
Continuing use of the sites requires verification that significant
impacts do not occur outside of the disposal site boundaries through
implementation of the SMMP developed as part of the Final EIS for the
Sabine-Neches Waterway Project. The SMMP provides a structured
framework to ensure that dredged material disposal activities will not
unreasonably degrade or endanger human health, welfare, the marine
environment, or economic potentialities (Section 103(a) of the MPRSA).
Two main objectives for management of SNWW A-D are: (1) To ensure that
only dredged material that satisfies the criteria set forth in 40 CFR
part 227, subparts B, C, D, E, and G and Sec. 228.4(e) and is suitable
for unrestricted placement at the ODMDS is, in fact, disposed at the
sites, and; (2) to avoid excessive mounding, either within the site
boundaries or in areas adjacent to the sites, as a direct result of
placement operations.
The EPA and USACE Galveston District personnel will achieve SMMP
objectives by jointly administering the following activities in
accordance with MPRSA section 102(c)(3): (1) A baseline assessment of
conditions at the sites; (2) a program for monitoring the sites; (3)
special management conditions or practices to be implemented at the
sites that are necessary for protection of the environment; (4)
consideration of the quantity of dredged material to be discharged at
the sites, and the presence, nature, and bioavailability of the
contaminants in the material; (5) consideration of the anticipated use
of the sites over the long term, including the anticipated closure date
for the sites, if applicable, and any need for management of the sites
after the closure; and (6) a schedule for review and revision of the
SMMP.
The SMMP requires periodic physical monitoring to confirm that
disposal material is deposited within the seafloor disposal boundary,
as well as bathymetric surveys to confirm that there is no excessive
mounding or short-term transport of material beyond the limits of the
ODMDS. The SMMP describes physical and chemical sediment and biological
monitoring requirements. Monitoring activities are required to be
conducted based on the Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for
Ocean Disposal Testing Manual, EPA 503/8-91/001 and the Joint EPA-USACE
Regional Implementation Agreement (RIA) procedures. Results will be
used to confirm that dredged material actually disposed at the sites
satisfies the criteria set forth in 40 CFR part 227, subparts B, C, D,
E, and G, and Sec. 228.4(e) and is suitable for unrestricted ocean
disposal. Other activities implemented through the SMMP to achieve
these objectives include: (1) Regulating quantities and types of
material to be disposed, including the time, rates, and methods of
disposal; and (2) recommending changes to site use requirements,
including disposal amounts or timing, based on periodic evaluation of
site monitoring results.
E. Ocean Dumping Site Designation Criteria
Five general criteria and 11 specific site selection criteria are
used in the selection and approval of ocean disposal sites for
continued use (40 CFR 228.5 and 40 CFR 228.6(a)).
General Selection Criteria
1. The dumping of materials into the ocean will be permitted only
at sites or in areas selected to minimize the interference of disposal
activities with other activities in the marine environment,
particularly avoiding areas of existing fisheries or shellfisheries,
and regions of heavy commercial or recreational navigation.
The EPA selected SNWW A-D, including appropriate buffer zones, to
avoid sport and commercial fishing activities, as well as other areas
of biological sensitivity. The preferred ODMDS are outside the channel,
including the navigation channel buffer zone, and safety fairways, and
avoid known navigational obstructions, although they do infringe on two
Fairway Anchorage areas.
2. Locations and boundaries of disposal sites will be so chosen
that temporary perturbations in water quality or other environmental
conditions during initial mixing caused by disposal operations anywhere
within the site can be expected to be reduced to normal ambient
seawater levels or to undetectable contaminant concentrations or
effects before reaching any beach, shoreline, marine sanctuary, or
known geographically limited fishery or shellfishery.
The sizes for the buffer zones and for the SNWW A-D sites are based
on sediment transport modeling and the physical oceanographic
characterization of the Sabine Pass area. Modeling and
characterization, combined with the information on the expected quality
of the material to be dredged, ensures that perturbations caused by
placement are reduced to ambient conditions at the boundaries of the
site. Reports of the modeling and characterization are included in the
administrative record for this action.
3. If at any time during or after disposal site evaluation studies,
it is determined that existing disposal sites presently approved on an
interim basis for ocean dumping do not meet the criteria for site
selection set forth in Sections 228.5 through 228.6, the use of such
sites will be terminated as soon as suitable alternate disposal sites
can be designated.
This criterion does not apply to the Final Site designations
because they are not existing sites that had previously been approved
on an interim basis.
4. The sizes of the ocean disposal sites will be limited in order
to localize for identification and control any immediate adverse
impacts and permit the implementation of effective monitoring and
surveillance programs to prevent adverse long-range impacts. The size,
configuration, and location of any disposal site will be determined as
a part of the disposal site evaluation or designation study.
The sizes of the Final Sites are as small as possible to reasonably
meet the criteria stated in 40 CFR 228.5 and 40
[[Page 73100]]
CFR 228.6(a). The size for each Final ODMDS is 5.32 square statute
miles (4.02 square nautical miles). The SMMPs were designed to provide
adequate surveillance to prevent adverse long-range impacts.
5. The EPA will, wherever feasible, designate ocean dumping sites
beyond the edge of the continental shelf and other such sites that have
been historically used.
Cost, safety, and time factors plus difficulties with monitoring
and surveillance preclude the designation of any ODMDS beyond the edge
of the Continental Shelf off Sabine Pass (and the Gulf of Mexico
generally). Additionally, uncertainty about the resilience of the deep-
ocean benthic community indicates that an off-shelf disposal site could
threaten severe adverse impacts to that off-shelf benthic community.
The EPA did not identify an environmental advantage to an off-shelf
site designation, whereas possible adverse impacts to the human
environment could be more easily monitored at a nearshore site. The
existing ODMDS that have been used historically, while large enough to
accommodate future maintenance material, are cost prohibitive with
regard to disposal of dredged material from the channel extension.
Without designation of the four new ODMDS, this material would need to
be transported to the existing maintenance ODMDS. The end of the
existing channel is roughly 13 miles from the end of the proposed
extension, resulting in an increased travel distance of 26 miles for
each load of dredged material from the extension work. Construction
costs are expected to double under this scenario, making it impossible
to economically justify the SNWW CIP.
Specific Selection Criteria
1. Geographical position, depth of water, bottom topography, and
distance from the coast.
The four new ODMDS sites are bounded by the following coordinates
(Location North American Datum from 1983):
A ODMDS 29[deg]24'47'' N, 93[deg]43'29'' W; 29[deg]24'47'' N, 93[deg]41'08'' W
29[deg]22'48'' N, 93[deg]41'09'' W; 29[deg]22'49'' N, 93[deg]43'29'' W
B ODMDS 29[deg]21'59'' N, 93[deg]43'29'' W; 29[deg]21'59'' N, 93[deg]41'08'' W
29[deg]20'00'' N, 93[deg]41'09'' W; 29[deg]20'00'' N, 93[deg]43'29'' W
C ODMDS 29[deg]19'11'' N, 93[deg]43'29'' W; 29[deg]19'11'' N, 93[deg]41'09'' W
29[deg]17'12'' N, 93[deg]41'09'' W; 29[deg]17'12'' N, 93[deg]43'29'' W
D ODMDS 29[deg]16'22'' N, 93[deg]43'29'' W; 29[deg]16'22'' N, 93[deg]41'10'' W
29[deg]14'24'' N, 93[deg]44'10'' W; 29[deg]14'24'' N, 93[deg]43'29'' W
The water depth at the SNWW A-D sites ranges from 44 to 46 feet and
the bottom topography is flat. SNWW-A is located 21 miles from shore,
SNWW-B is located 24 miles from shore, SNWW-C is located 27 miles from
shore and SNWW-D is located 30 miles from shore.
2. Location in relation to breeding, spawning, nursery, feeding, or
passage areas of living resources in adult or juvenile phases.
Due to the marine open water locale of the SNWW A-D sites, the
presence of aerial, pelagic, or benthic living resources is likely
within the area of the sites. The location of the ODMDS is between the
principal spawning areas and the estuarine nursery areas. The water
column and benthic effects associated with ocean disposal of dredged
material at the ODMDS would not adversely affect the passage of
organisms to and from the spawning-nursery areas through the waters
above the disposal sites. Localized and intermittent dredged material
disposal operations are unlikely to adversely affect migration,
feeding, or nesting of marine mammals and sea turtles.
3. Location in relation to beaches and other amenity areas.
The SNWW A-D sites are over 21 miles from any beach and Sabine Bank
is at least 1.7 miles from the nearest of the ODMDS. According to the
dredged material transport model (available in the administrative
record), the maximum distance for the mounded dredged material to reach
ambient depth is 1,081 feet. Doubling this distance would provide a
buffer of 0.4 mile, only a fraction of the 1.7 miles to Sabine Bank.
4. Types and quantities of wastes proposed to be disposed of, and
proposed methods of release, including methods of packaging the waste,
if any.
Only suitable dredged material from the SNWW Entrance Channel 13.2
mile extension may be disposed at the sites. Dredged material proposed
for ocean disposal is subject to strict testing requirements
established by the EPA and USACE, and only clean (non-toxic) dredged
materials from the SNWW Entrance Channel 13.2 mile extension would be
allowed to be disposed of at the SNWW A-D sites. Approximately 18.7 mcy
of new work material will be dredged during the construction of 13.2-
mile extension of the Entrance Channel. Maintenance material per
dredging cycle is estimated at three mcy for a total of 37.7 mcy over a
period of 50 years. Dredged material is expected to be released from
hopper dredges.
5. Feasibility of surveillance and monitoring.
Surveillance and monitoring are feasible at the SNWW A-D sites. The
SMMP prepared for the sites consists of (1) a method for recording the
location of each discharge; (2) bathymetric surveys; and, (3) grain-
size analysis, sediment chemistry characterization, and benthic
infaunal analysis at selected stations.
6. Dispersal, horizontal transport, and vertical mixing
characteristics of the area, including prevailing current direction and
velocity, if any.
These three physical oceanographic parameters were used by the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers to develop the necessary buffer zones for the
exclusion analysis and to determine the adequacy of size of the SNWW A-
D sites. Predominant longshore currents, and thus predominant longshore
transport, are to the west. Long-term mounding has not historically
occurred in the existing nearby ODMDS. Therefore, steady longshore
transport and occasional storms, including hurricanes, are expected to
remove the disposed material from the sites through dispersal,
horizontal transport, and vertical mixing.
7. Existence and effects of current and previous discharges and
dumping in the area (including cumulative effects).
The Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) discusses the
results of chemical and bioassay testing of samples collected to
support the proposed Waterway Extension and surrounds, and concluded
that there were no indications of water or sediment quality problems in
the ZSF, including the proposed disposal sites. Testing of dredged
material collected and tested from past maintenance dredging indicates
that the material dredged from the channel was acceptable for ocean
disposal according to the evaluation criteria published at 40 CFR part
227. Based on current direction and modeling of the new work and
maintenance material, the SNWW A-D sites are situated to prevent
discharged material from reentering the
[[Page 73101]]
channel and to ensure that any mounding poses no obstruction to
navigation. No cumulative mounding has been detected at the existing
ODMDS and there is no reason to expect any at the SNWW A-D ODMDS.
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.
The interference considerations that are pertinent to the present
situation are shipping, mineral extraction, commercial and recreational
fishing, and recreational areas. The SNWW A-D ODMDS will not interfere
with these or other legitimate uses of the ocean because the exclusion
processes used to identify the sites was designed to prevent the
selection of sites that would cause any such interference. Ocean
disposal of dredged material in the past has not interfered with other
uses.
9. Existing water quality and ecology of the site as determined by
available data or by trend assessment or baseline surveys.
The FEIS to support the proposed Waterway Extension project cited a
baseline study, which used sediment samples from the area of the
proposed Extension and the ZSF. No adverse water or sediment quality
concerns were indicated. Sampled and characterized, benthos of the
area, is dominated by polychaetes (57.7%) and included abundant
populations of malacostracans (18.3%) and bivalves (7.7%). Density
ranged from 4,055 organisms/square foot at Station 3 (north of ODMDS A)
up to 30,265 organisms/square foot at Station 26 (center of ODMDS B).
Areas of moderately high sand content (68 to 91%) supported the highest
densities, located near ODMDS B and ODMDS C, near the center of the
ZSF. In general, the water and sediment quality is good throughout the
ZSF and in the existing (historically used) ODMDS. There have been no
long-term adverse impacts on water and sediment quality or benthos at
the existing ODMDS, and none are expected with use of the SNWW A-D
sites.
10. Potentiality for the development or recruitment of nuisance
species in the disposal site.
With disturbances to any benthic community, opportunistic species
would initially recolonize the area. At this location, however, these
species would not be nuisance species, i.e., they would not interfere
with other legitimate uses of the ocean, they would not be human
pathogens, and they would not be non-indigenous species. The placement
of dredged material in the past has not attracted or promoted
development or recruitment of nuisance species, and the placement of
the dredged material from new work and future maintenance dredged
material should not attract or promote the development or recruitment
of nuisance species.
11. Existence at or in close proximity to the site of any
significant natural or cultural features of historical importance.
Historic records generated by the former Minerals Management
Service (MMS) indicate that no historic shipwrecks are mapped within
the limits of the SNWW A-D ODMDS, but remote-sensing surveys have not
been conducted. Ocean disposal of dredged material is not expected to
adversely affect any unrecorded wrecks given the depth of water through
which the material would settle and the expected depth of burial at the
time of disposal, particularly given the dispersive nature of the
seabed environment in this portion of the Gulf. The distribution,
depth, and dispersion of dredged material within these ODMDS have been
evaluated by numerical modeling (PBS&J, 2006). Hopper dredges would
drop dredged material onto the ODMDS, forming mound fields with
individual mounds totaling no more than five feet in height. The
effects of the deposition of material on any undiscovered feature would
be cushioned by settling through water depths ranging from 30 to 45
feet. Previous monitoring of existing placement areas and studies of
bottom ocean currents has shown that the material would disperse
between channel maintenance cycles and not accumulate. The SNWW A-D
ODMDS are located in Federal waters (i.e., outside of adjacent State
jurisdiction).
G. Responses to Comments
The proposed rule for designation was published in the Federal
Register on June 27, 2013, as docket number EPA-R06-OW-2011-0712. The
comment period closed on August 12, 2013. The EPA received four
comments on the proposed rule from three entities and one individual.
These comments are responded to here.
1. Concerns About Minimizing Ocean Disposal by Maximizing Beneficial
Re-Use
Two commenters expressed concerns about using new dredged material
for beneficial use instead of placement in the ODMDS SNWW A-D
designated areas. The Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries
recommended using new work material beneficially. An individual
commenter expressed concern that disposal of dredged material would
increase hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico and recommended beneficial use
of dredged material.
Disposal or re-use placement alternatives that could practicably
meet the purpose and need of a dredging project must be evaluated at
the time of project-specific permitting. Timing and logistics can
affect the practicability of dredged material disposal or beneficial
use alternatives. For an individual project, ocean disposal is
permitted only when other alternatives are not practicable. However,
determining the availability of alternatives for individual dredging
projects is independent of this ODMDS designation action, and such
comments are not further addressed here.
2. Concerns About a Consistency Determination
The Louisiana Department of Natural Resources (LDNR), Office of
Coastal Management, commented that this designation action ``will
require the preparation of a consistency determination in accordance
with section 307(c) of the Coastal Zone Management Act.'' Pursuant to
section 307(c)(1) of the Coastal Zone Management Act, federal
activities that affect a state's coastal zone must be consistent to the
maximum extent practicable with the enforceable policies of the state's
approved coastal zone management program. To implement that
requirement, federal agencies prepare coastal consistency
determinations and submit them to the appropriate state agencies, which
may concur in or object to a consistency determination. In connection
with its preparation of the EIS on the Sabine-Neches Waterway Channel
Improvement Project, the Corps of Engineers prepared a coastal
consistency determination on its proposed navigation projects and the
ODMDS designation, which it submitted to the Louisiana Department of
Natural Resources (LDNR) and the Texas General Land Office (TGLO), the
agencies implementing approved coastal zone management plans for their
respective states. On March 30, 2010, TGLO concurred in the Corps
consistency determination. By letter of March 31, 2010, LDNR concurred
on condition that the Corps submit a supplemental consistency
determination to LDNR after the project planning and design process,
which results in a more detailed description of project features. The
LDNR's letter also generally opposed EPA's ODMDS designation, noting
that the designation would provide the Corps an option
[[Page 73102]]
other than beneficial use for disposal of dredged material. More
detailed plans and descriptions of the proposed navigation projects may
be needed for LDNR and the Corps to resolve potential issues on the
practicability of beneficial use of dredged materials in Louisiana's
coastal zone. However, such issues are independent of EPA's proposed
ODMDS designations, which only make an offshore disposal option
available when the Corps deems beneficial use that might otherwise be
required by a state CZM program impracticable. The EPA supports
beneficial use of dredged material, but ODMDS designations do not in
any way require that the Corps forego beneficial use in favor of ocean
disposal.
Moreover, the closest of any of the four ODMDS is approximately 20
miles off the Texas coast at its nearest point. Predominant longshore
currents in the ODMDS locations flow from east to west and dredged
material transport modeling shows that any dredged materials discharged
to them will not thus enter or otherwise affect Louisiana's coastal
zone. Because this ODMDS designation will not affect any land or water
use or natural resource of Louisiana's coastal zone, no coastal
consistency determination need be prepared for this action.
3. Question on the Designation Process
One commenter from the U.S. Coast Guard asked for clarification on
the Rule-Making process for the designation of the ODMDS A-D sites. The
EPA provided clarification to the commenter.
G. Regulatory Requirements
1. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
Pursuant to section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969 (NEPA), federal agencies are generally required to prepare
an environmental impact statement (EIS) on major federal actions
significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. Under the
doctrine of functional equivalency, EPA designations of ODMDS under
MPRSA are not subject to NEPA requirements. The EPA believes the NEPA
process enhances public participation on such designations and the
potential effects of these designations were fully analyzed in an EIS
on the Sabine-Neches Waterway Channel Improvement Project: Southeast
Texas and Southwest Louisiana (SNWW CIP). The Corps of Engineers was
the lead agency on that EIS and EPA was a cooperating agency.
Notice of the draft EIS was published in the Federal Register on
December 24, 2009, and the document was available for review and
comment through March 10, 2010. In addition, public meetings on the EIS
were held in Beaumont, Texas and Lake Charles, Louisiana. Comments
included concerns on pipeline relocation, marsh ecology, beneficial use
of dredged material, and increased danger from storms. Few comments
were received on designation of the ODMDS. Detailed responses to
comments were published in Appendix A of the final EIS, notice of which
was published in the Federal Register on March 4, 2012. The EPA has
relied on information from the EIS and its technical appendices in its
consideration and application of ocean dumping criteria to the four
ODMDS this Rule designates.
2. Endangered Species Act Consultation
During development of the SNWW CIP project EIS referenced above,
USACE and EPA consulted with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) pursuant to the
provisions of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), regarding the potential
for designation and use of the ocean disposal sites to jeopardize the
continued existence of any Federally-listed species. The consultation
process is documented in the EIS.
Of the Threatened or Endangered Species noted in the biological
assessment for the SNWW CIP, only sea turtles and whales are found as
far offshore as the SNWW A-D ODMDS. The NMFS issued a biological
opinion on August 13, 2007, that site designation is not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of any Federally-listed species.
3. Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1996
The designation of the SNWW A-D ODMDS will not adversely affect
essential fish habitat. By letter dated March 8, 2010, the National
Marine Fisheries Service concurred with the USACE findings that
beneficial features associated with the project would offset any
adverse impacts of the Waterway Expansion project.
4. Coastal Zone Management Act
Pursuant to section 307(c)(1) of the Coastal Zone Management Act,
federal activities that affect a state's coastal zone must be
consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable
policies of the state's approved Coastal Zone Management (CZM) program.
To implement that requirement, federal agencies prepare coastal
consistency determinations and submit them to the appropriate state
agencies, which may concur in or object to a consistency determination.
In connection with its preparation of the EIS on the Sabine-Neches
Waterway Channel Improvement Project, the Corps prepared a coastal
consistency determination on its proposed navigation projects and the
ODMDS designation, which it submitted to the Louisiana Department of
Natural Resources (LDNR) and the Texas General Land Office (TGLO), the
agencies implementing approved coastal zone management plans for their
respective states. On March 30, 2010, TGLO concurred in the Corps
consistency determination. By letter of March 31, 2010, LDNR concurred
on condition that the Corps submit a supplemental consistency
determination to LDNR after the project planning and design process,
resulting in a more detailed description of project features. The
LDNR's letter also generally opposed EPA's ODMDS designation, claiming
it would provide the Corps an option other than beneficial use for
disposal of dredged material.
More detailed plans and descriptions of the proposed navigation
projects may be needed for LDNR and the Corps to resolve potential
issues on the practicability of beneficial use of dredged materials in
Louisiana's coastal zone. Such issues are independent of EPA's proposed
ODMDS designations, however, which only make an offshore disposal
option available when the Corps deems beneficial use that might
otherwise be required by a state CZM program impracticable. The EPA
supports beneficial use of dredged material, but ODMDS designations do
not in any way require that the Corps forego beneficial use in favor of
ocean disposal.
Moreover, the closest of any of the four SNWW A-D ODMDS is
approximately 20 miles off the Texas coast at its nearest point.
Predominant longshore currents in the SNWW A-D ODMDS locations flow
from east to west. Dredged material transport modeling shows that any
dredged materials discharged to the SNWW A-D ODMDS will not thus enter
or otherwise affect Louisiana's coastal zone. Because the SNWW A-D
ODMDS designations will not affect any land or water use or natural
resource of Louisiana's coastal zone, a coastal consistency
determination is not needed.
[[Page 73103]]
5. Coastal Barrier Improvement Act of 1990
The Coastal Barrier Improvement Act is intended to protect fish and
wildlife resources and habitat, prevent loss of human life, and
preclude the expenditure of Federal funds that may induce development
on coastal barrier islands and adjacent nearshore areas. The Coastal
Barrier Improvement Act of 1990 was enacted to reauthorize the Coastal
Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) of 1982. Exceptions to the Federal
expenditure restrictions include maintenance or constructed
improvement(s) to existing Federal navigational channels and related
structures (e.g., jetties), including the disposal of dredged materials
related to maintenance and construction; therefore, project activities
related to disposal are exempt from the prohibitions set forth in this
act, as noted in the Final EIS for the SNWW CIP, Vol. II.
H. Administrative Review
This rule designates ocean dredged material disposal sites pursuant
to Section 102 of the MPRSA. This action complies with applicable
executive orders and statutory provisions as follows:
1. Executive Order 12866
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) EPA must
determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant,'' and
therefore subject to office of Management and Budget (OMB) review and
other requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines
``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to lead to a
rule that may:
(a) 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;
(b) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(c) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligations of
recipients thereof: Or
(d) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
This Final Rule should have minimal impact on State, local, or
Tribal governments or communities. Consequently, EPA has determined
that this Final Rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
the terms of Executive Order 12866.
2. Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., is intended to
minimize the reporting and recordkeeping burden on the regulated
community, as well as to minimize the cost of Federal information
collection and dissemination. In general, the Act requires that
information requests and record-keeping requirements affecting ten or
more non-Federal respondents be approved by OMB. Since the Final Rule
would not establish or modify any information or recordkeeping
requirements, but only clarifies existing requirements, it is not
subject to the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
3. Regulatory Flexibility Act, as Amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) provides that whenever an
agency promulgates a final rule under 5 U.S.C. 553, the agency must
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis (RFA) unless the head of the
agency certifies that the final rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities (5 U.S.C. 604
and 605). The site designation and management actions would only have
the effect of setting maximum annual disposal volume and providing a
continuing disposal option for dredged material. Consequently, EPA's
action will not impose any additional economic burden on small
entities. For this reason, the Regional Administrator certifies,
pursuant to section 605(b) of the RFA, that the Final Rule will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
4. Unfunded Mandates
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) of 1995 (Pub.
L. 104-4) establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal
governments and the private sector. This Final Rule contains no Federal
mandates (under the regulatory provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for
State, local or Tribal governments or the private sector that may
result in estimated costs of $100 million or more in any year. It
imposes no new enforceable duty on any State, local or Tribal
governments or the private sector nor does it contain any regulatory
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small
government entities. Thus, the requirements of section 203 of the UMRA
do not apply to this Final Rule.
5. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), 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 the various levels of government.''
This Final Rule does not have federalism implications. It will 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 the various levels of government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132.
6. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by Tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have Tribal implications.'' This Final Rule does not have
Tribal implications, as defined in Executive Order 13175.
7. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks
This Executive Order (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any
rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant'' as
defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental
health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets
both criteria, EPA must evaluate the environmental health or safety
effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned
regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably
feasible alternatives considered by EPA. This Final Rule is not subject
to the Executive Order because it is not economically significant as
defined in Executive Order 12866, and because EPA does not have reason
to believe the
[[Page 73104]]
environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a
disproportionate risk to children.
8. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use Compliance With Administrative Procedure
Act
This Final Rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)) because it is not a
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. The Final
Rule would only have the effect of setting maximum annual disposal
volumes and providing a continuing disposal option for dredged
material. Thus, EPA concluded that this Final Rule is not likely to
have any adverse energy effects.
9. National Technology Transfer 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 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. This Final Rule does not involve technical
standards. Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary
consensus standards.
10. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629) directs Federal agencies to
determine whether the Final Rule would have a disproportionate adverse
impact on minority or low-income population groups within the project
area. The Final Rule would not significantly affect any low-income or
minority population.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 228
Environmental protection, Water pollution control.
Dated: October 31, 2013.
Ron Curry,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
In consideration of the foregoing, EPA amends part 228, chapter I
of title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
PART 228--CRITERIA FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF DISPOSAL SITES FOR OCEAN
DUMPING
0
1. The authority citation for part 228 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1412 and 1418.
0
2. Section 228.15 is amended by adding paragraphs (j)(22) through (25)
to read as follows:
Sec. 228.15 Dumping sites designated on a final basis.
* * * * *
(j) * * *
(22) Sabine-Neches, TX Dredged Material Site A.
(i) Location: 29[deg]24'47'' N., 93[deg]43'29'' W.; 29[deg]24'47''
N., 93[deg]41'08'' W.; 29[deg]22'48'' N., 93[deg]41'09'' W.;
29[deg]22'49'' N., 93[deg]43'29'' W.; thence to point of beginning.
(ii) Size: approximately 5.3 square miles.
(iii) Depth: Ranges from 44 to 46 feet.
(iv) Primary Use: Dredged material.
(v) Period of Use: Continuing use.
(vi) Restrictions: Disposal shall be limited to dredged material
from the Sabine-Neches 13.2 mile Extension Channel that complies with
EPA's Ocean Dumping Regulations. Dredged material that does not meet
the criteria set forth in 40 CFR part 227 shall not be placed at the
site. Disposal operations shall be conducted in accordance with
requirements specified in a Site Management and Monitoring Plan
developed by EPA and USACE, to be reviewed periodically, at least every
10 years.
(23) Sabine-Neches, TX Dredged Material Site B.
(i) Location: 29[deg]21'59'' N., 93[deg]43'29'' W.; 29[deg]21'59''
N., 93[deg]41'08'' W.; 29[deg]20'00'' N., 93[deg]41'09'' W.;
29[deg]20'00'' N., 93[deg]43'29'' W.; thence to point of beginning.
(ii) Size: approximately 5.3 square miles.
(iii) Depth: Ranges from 44 to 46 feet.
(iv) Primary Use: Dredged material.
(v) Period of Use: Continuing use.
(vi) Restrictions: Disposal shall be limited to dredged material
from the Sabine-Neches 13.2 mile Extension Channel that complies with
EPA's Ocean Dumping Regulations. Dredged material that does not meet
the criteria set forth in 40 CFR part 227 shall not be placed at the
site. Disposal operations shall be conducted in accordance with
requirements specified in a Site Management and Monitoring Plan
developed by EPA and USACE, to be reviewed periodically, at least every
10 years.
(24) Sabine-Neches, TX Dredged Material Site C.
(i) Location: 29[deg]19'11'' N., 93[deg]43'29'' W.; 29[deg]19'11''
N, 93[deg]41'09'' W.; 29[deg]17'12'' N., 93[deg]41'09'' W.;
29[deg]17'12'' N., 93[deg]43'29'' W.; thence to point of beginning.
(ii) Size: approximately 5.3 square miles.
(iii) Depth: Ranges from 44 to 46 feet.
(iv) Primary Use: Dredged material.
(v) Period of Use: Continuing use.
(vi) Restrictions: Disposal shall be limited to dredged material
from the Sabine-Neches 13.2 mile Extension Channel that complies with
EPA's Ocean Dumping Regulations. Dredged material that does not meet
the criteria set forth in 40 CFR part 227 shall not be placed at the
site. Disposal operations shall be conducted in accordance with
requirements specified in a Site Management and Monitoring Plan
developed by EPA and USACE, to be reviewed periodically, at least every
10 years.
(25) Sabine-Neches, TX Dredged Material Site D.
(i) Location: 29[deg]16'22'' N., 93[deg]43'29'' W.; 29[deg]16'22''
N., 93[deg]41'10'' W.; 29[deg]14'24'' N., 93[deg]44'10'' W.;
29[deg]14'24'' N., 93[deg]43'29'' W.; thence to point of beginning.
(ii) Size: approximately 5.3 square miles.
(iii) Depth: Ranges from 44 to 46 feet.
(iv) Primary Use: Dredged material.
(v) Period of Use: Continuing use.
(vi) Restrictions: Disposal shall be limited to dredged material
from the Sabine-Neches 13.2 mile Extension Channel that complies with
EPA's Ocean Dumping Regulations. Dredged material that does not meet
the criteria set forth in 40 CFR part 227 shall not be placed at the
site. Disposal operations shall be conducted in accordance with
requirements specified in a Site Management and Monitoring Plan
developed by EPA and USACE, to be reviewed periodically, at least every
10 years.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2013-28808 Filed 12-4-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P