[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 11 (Tuesday, January 18, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 2808-2817]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-932]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 228
[FRL-7861-7]
Ocean Dumping; Designation of Sites Offshore Palm Beach Harbor,
FL and Offshore Port Everglades Harbor, FL
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 2809]]
SUMMARY: EPA today designates two Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Sites
(ODMDSs) in the Atlantic Ocean offshore Southeast Florida, as EPA-
approved ocean dumping sites for the disposal of suitable dredged
material. One site is located offshore Palm Beach Harbor, Florida and
the other offshore Port Everglades Harbor, Florida. This action is
necessary to provide acceptable ocean disposal sites for consideration
as an option for dredged material disposal projects in the vicinity of
Palm Beach Harbor and Port Everglades Harbor. These site designations
are for an indefinite period of time, but the sites will be subject to
continued monitoring to insure that unacceptable adverse environmental
impacts do not occur. The interim designated ocean disposal sites
located offshore Palm Beach Harbor and Port Everglades Harbor are de-
designated by this rule.
DATES: This rule is effective on February 17, 2005.
ADDRESSES: The administrative record for this action is available for
public inspection at the following location: EPA Region 4, Sam Nunn
Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher J. McArthur, Ocean Dumping
Program Coordinator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4,
Coastal Section, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, GA 30303, telephone:
(404)562-9391, e-mail: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Background
Section 102(c) of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries
Act (MPRSA) of 1972, as amended, 33 U.S.C. 1401 et seq., gives the
Administrator of EPA the authority to designate sites where ocean
disposal may be permitted. On October 1, 1986, the Administrator
delegated the authority to designate ocean disposal sites to the
Regional Administrator of the Region in which the sites are located.
These designations are being made pursuant to that authority.
A list of ``Approved Interim and Final Ocean Dumping Sites'' was
published on January 11, 1977 (42 FR 2461 et seq.). That list
established the Palm Beach Harbor West, Palm Beach Harbor East and Port
Everglades Harbor, FL ODMDSs on an interim basis. Due to the proximity
of the interim sites to shore, the potential for adverse impacts to
nearby coral reefs and the documented impacts at the Port Everglades
Harbor interim ODMDS, these interim sites are no longer being used,
were not considered for final designation and are being de-designated
by this rule. The Palm Beach Harbor and Port Everglades Harbor ODMDS
designations are being published as final rulemaking in accordance with
Sec. 228.4(e) of the Ocean Dumping Regulations, which permits the
designation of ocean disposal sites for dredged material.
B. Regulated Entities
Entities potentially affected by this action are persons,
organizations, or government bodies seeking to dispose of dredged
material into ocean waters offshore Port Everglades Harbor and Palm
Beach Harbor, Florida, under the MPRSA and its implementing
regulations. This final rule is expected to be primarily of relevance
to (a) parties seeking permits from the COE to transport dredged
material for the purpose of disposal into ocean waters and (b) to the
COE itself for its own dredged material disposal projects. Potentially
regulated categories and entities that may seek to use the proposed
dredged material disposal sites may include:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of potentially
Category regulated entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Government..................... U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Civil Works Projects, U.S.
Navy, 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 for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. To determine whether your organization is affected by this
action, you should carefully consider whether your organization is
subject to the requirement to obtain an MPRSA permit in accordance with
Section 103 of the MPRSA and the applicable regulations at 40 CFR Parts
220 and 225, and whether you wish to use the sites subject to today's
action. EPA notes that nothing in this final rule alters the
jurisdiction or authority of EPA or the types of entities regulated
under the MPRSA. Questions regarding the applicability of this final
rule to a particular entity should be directed to the contact person
listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
C. EIS Development
Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
of 1969, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., requires that federal
agencies prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on proposals
for legislation and other major federal actions significantly affecting
the quality of the human environment. The object of NEPA is to build
into the Agency decision making process careful consideration of all
environmental aspects of proposed actions. While NEPA does not apply to
EPA activities of this type, EPA has voluntarily committed to prepare
NEPA documents in connection with ocean disposal site designations.(See
63 FR 58045 [October 29, 1998], ``Notice of Policy and Procedures for
Voluntary Preparation of National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
Documents.'').
EPA, in cooperation with the COE, has prepared a Final EIS (FEIS)
entitled ``Final Environmental Impact Statement for Designation of the
Palm Beach Harbor Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site and the Port
Everglades Harbor Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site.'' On August 27,
2004, the Notice of Availability (NOA) of the FEIS was published in the
Federal Register (69 FR 52668 [August 27,2004]). Anyone desiring a copy
of the FEIS may obtain one from the addresses given above. The wait
period on the FEIS closed on September 27, 2004.
EPA received eight comment letters on the FEIS. Six letters were
supportive of the Port Everglades Harbor ODMDS designation based on
need for the disposal site. The remaining two letters were from the
State of Florida (the State) and the National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS). The State's comments are discussed in the following paragraph
[[Page 2810]]
and the NMFS letter noted that the Essential Fish Habitat (EFH)
consultation process was ongoing. No letters were critical of the FEIS.
Pursuant to an Office of Water policy memorandum dated October 23,
1989, EPA has evaluated the proposed site designations for consistency
with the State's approved coastal management program. EPA has
determined that the designation of the proposed sites is consistent to
the maximum extent practicable with the State coastal management
program, and submitted this determination to the State for review in
accordance with EPA policy. In a letter dated October 22, 2004, the
State concurred with this determination. In addition, as part of the
NEPA process, EPA has consulted with the State regarding the effects of
the dumping at the proposed sites on the State's coastal zone. EPA has
taken the State's comments into account in preparing the FEIS for the
sites, in determining whether the proposed sites should be designated,
and in determining whether restrictions or limitations should be placed
on the use of the sites. There were six main concerns raised by the
State during consultation: (1) Placement of beach quality sand in the
ODMDS; (2) the volume of material to be disposed and number of projects
to use the sites; (3) the adequacy and recency of the data on the
benthic habitat within and near the ODMDSs; (4) cumulative impacts of
activities in the area; (5) potential adverse impacts to essential fish
habitat and in particular the habitat of the blue-line tilefish; and
(6) the potential of Florida Current spin-off eddies to transport
disposed dredged material to important marine habitats. Concerns raised
regarding use of suitable material for beach nourishment and other
beneficial uses, were addressed in the FEIS. EPA concurs with the State
regarding the use of suitable material for beach nourishment and other
beneficial uses, in circumstances where this use is practical. The
dredging projects currently proposed as well as potential future
projects were discussed in more detail in the FEIS including a detailed
discussion of anticipated project disposal volumes. Projects in excess
of 500,000 cubic yards are not permitted at either ODMDS until
additional capacity studies have been completed. The State was provided
additional information on the benthic habitats within and adjacent to
the ODMDSs including a copy of the video taken at the Port Everglades
Harbor ODMDS and quantification of the habitat types within each ODMDS.
A pre-disposal high resolution bathymetry requirement was added to the
Site Management and Monitoring Plan (SMMP) to address the State's
concerns regarding recency of data. The discussion of cumulative
impacts was expanded in the FEIS including discussions of additional
activities in the area as requested by the State. EFH concerns were
addressed by EPA through the development of an EFH Assessment for each
ODMDS. The EFH Assessments were coordinated with the NMFS and the State
and were included as part of the FEIS. EPA concluded that the
designations will not have a substantial individual or cumulative
adverse impact on the EFH of managed species including tilefish. The
State's concerns regarding the potential of Florida Current spin-off
eddies to transport disposed dredged material to important marine
habitats have been addressed through modeling of the disposal plumes by
the COE. The State was involved in selecting input parameters for the
model and in reviewing the draft results. In addition, EPA has an
ongoing effort at the nearby Miami ODMDS to address concerns regarding
the potential of Florida Current spin-off eddies to transport disposed
dredged material to important near-shore marine habitats.
In a letter dated June 7, 2004, the Florida Department of State
agreed that it is unlikely that the proposed designations will affect
any archaeological or historic resources listed, or eligible for
listing, in the National Register of Historic Places, or otherwise of
significance in accordance with the National Preservation Act of 1966
(Pub. L. 89-6654), as amended.
The action discussed in the FEIS is the permanent designation for
continuing use of ocean disposal sites offshore Palm Beach Harbor and
Port Everglades Harbor, Florida. The purpose of the action is to
provide an environmentally acceptable option for the ocean disposal of
dredged material. The need for the permanent designation of the ODMDSs
is based on a demonstrated COE need for ocean disposal of maintenance
dredged material from the Federal navigation projects in the Palm Beach
Harbor and Port Everglades Harbor areas. The need for ocean disposal
for these and other projects, and the suitability of the material for
ocean disposal, will be determined on a case-by-case basis as part of
the COE's process of issuing permits for ocean disposal and a public
review process for its own actions. This will include an evaluation of
disposal alternatives.
For the ODMDSs, the COE and EPA would evaluate all federal dredged
material disposal projects pursuant to the EPA criteria set forth in
the Ocean Dumping Regulations (40 CFR 220-229) and the COE regulations
(33 CFR 209.120 and 335-338). The COE issues MPRSA permits to
applicants for the transport of dredged material intended for disposal
after compliance with regulations is determined. EPA has the right to
disapprove any ocean disposal project if, in its judgment, all
provisions of MPRSA and the associated implementing regulations have
not been met.
The FEIS discusses the need for these site designations and
examines ocean disposal site alternatives to the proposed actions. Non-
ocean disposal options have also been examined in the Disposal Area
Studies for Palm Beach Harbor and Port Everglades Harbor, prepared by
the COE and included as appendices to the FEIS. Alternatives to ocean
disposal may include upland disposal within the port areas, or
utilization of dredged material for beneficial use such as beach
nourishment. The studies concluded that upland disposal in the
intensively developed port areas is not feasible. Undeveloped areas
within cost-effective haul distances are environmentally valuable in
their own right. Beach placement is limited to predominately sandy
material.
The following ocean disposal alternatives were evaluated in the
FEIS:
1. Alternative Sites on the Continental Shelf
The continental shelf is narrow in the project area with a width of
about 0.63 nautical mile (nmi). In the Palm Beach Harbor and Port
Everglades Harbor nearshore area, hardgrounds supporting coral and
algal communities are concentrated on the continental shelf. Disposal
operations on the shelf could adversely impact this reef habitat.
Therefore, following discussions with the State, a zone of siting
feasibility for alternative ODMDSs was established eliminating from
consideration any areas within 3 nmi of shore to avoid impact to
natural reefs in the area. Consequently, no alternatives on the
continental shelf were considered in the FEIS.
2. Designated Interim Sites
Two interim sites were designated for Palm Beach Harbor, one of
which is located nearshore at the port entrance and the other is
located approximately 2.9 nmi (4.5 km) offshore. Following discussions
with the State of Florida, a zone of siting feasibility was
established, eliminating from consideration any areas within 3 nautical
miles of shore to avoid direct
[[Page 2811]]
impact to natural reefs in the area. As a result, both Palm Beach
Harbor interim sites were not considered further.
The interim site for Port Everglades is located 1.7 nmi (3.2 km)
offshore. A 1984 survey conducted by the EPA indicated that some damage
to nearby inshore, hard bottom areas may have occurred due to the
movement of fine grained material associated with disposed dredged
material. In light of the survey findings, disposal at the Port
Everglades interim site was discontinued and the site was eliminated
from further consideration.
3. Alternative Sites Beyond the Continental Shelf
Alternative sites beyond the continental shelf considered for Palm
Beach Harbor include the 3 mile site, the 4.5 mile site and the 9 mile
site. The 4.5 mile site is approximately one square mile in size and is
located within the eastern portion of the 3 mile site. The 3 mile site
is four square miles in size. The 3 mile site was dropped from further
consideration in favor of the 4.5 mile site as it was determined that a
site four square miles in size was not necessary at the depths at this
location. The 9 mile site is 4 square miles in size. The deeper depths
at the 9 mile site result in a larger disposal footprint, due to
greater dispersion, necessitating a larger 4 square mile disposal site.
Both the 4.5 mile site and the 9 mile site were considered in the FEIS.
Alternative sites beyond the continental shelf considered for the
Port Everglades Harbor include the 4 mile site and the 7 mile site. The
4 mile site is approximately one square mile in size whereas the 7 mile
site is two square miles in size. The deeper depths at the 7 mile site
result in a larger disposal footprint necessitating a larger 4 square
mile disposal site. Both the 4 mile site and the 7 mile site were
considered in the FEIS.
4. No Action
The No-Action Alternative would not provide acceptable EPA-
designated ocean disposal sites for use by the COE or other entities
for the disposal of dredged material. Without final-designated disposal
sites, the maintenance of the existing Federal Navigation Projects at
Palm Beach Harbor and Port Everglades Harbor would be adversely
impacted with subsequent effects upon the local and regional economies.
Interim designated ODMDSs are not available. Alternative dredged
material disposal methods would be required or the dredging and dredged
material disposal discontinued. In the absence of an EPA designated
ocean dredged material disposal site, the COE could select an
alternative pursuant to section 103 of MPRSA. In such cases, the ocean
site selected for disposal would be evaluated according to the criteria
specified in section 102(a) of MPRSA and EPA's Ocean Dumping Regulation
and Criteria 40 CFR part 228, and EPA concurrence is required. A site
so selected can be used for five years without EPA designation, and can
continue to be used for another five years under limited conditions.
Accordingly, the No-Action alternative would not provide a long-term
management option for dredged material disposal.
5. Preferred Alternative
The site near Palm Beach Harbor selected for ODMDS designation is
an area approximately 1 square nautical mile (nmi2) located
east northeast of the Lake Worth Inlet and approximately 4.5 nmi
offshore. The site at Port Everglades Harbor selected for ODMDS
designation is an area approximately 1 nmi2 located east
northeast of Port Everglades and approximately 4 nmi offshore. These
sites were found to comply with the criteria for evaluation of ocean
disposal sites established in 40 CFR Sections 228.5 and 228.6 of EPA's
Ocean Dumping Regulations. No significant impacts to critical resource
areas are expected to result from designation of either of these sites.
Similar types of impacts are expected from use of these sites as
impacts from use of the alternative sites located further offshore.
However, use of these sites is expected to result in less area being
impacted as a result of their shallower depth. The selected sites would
require significantly less consumption of resources and would result in
significantly less air emissions than the offshore sites. In addition,
monitoring of the selected sites would be less costly to the federal
government and less difficult than the offshore sites. Therefore, these
sites were selected as the preferred alternatives.
The FEIS presents the information needed to evaluate the
suitability of ocean disposal areas for final designation use and is
based on a series of disposal site environmental studies. The
environmental studies and final designation are being conducted in
accordance with the requirements of MPRSA, the Ocean Dumping
Regulations, and other applicable Federal statutory provisions.
This final rulemaking notice fills the same role as the Record of
Decision required under regulations promulgated by the Council on
Environmental Quality for agencies subject to NEPA.
D. Site Designations
On July 30, 2004, EPA proposed designation of two sites for
continuing disposal of dredged materials from Palm Beach Harbor and
Port Everglades Harbor, Florida. The public comment period on this
proposed action closed on September 13, 2004. Six letters of comment
were received. All six letters were supportive of the Port Everglades
Harbor ODMDS designation based on the need for alternatives to upland
disposal for maintenance and construction dredged material from the
port. No comment letters were received for the Palm Beach Harbor ODMDS.
The ODMDS for Palm Beach Harbor is located east of Palm Beach,
Florida, the western boundary being 4.3 nmi offshore. The ODMDS
occupies an area of about 1 nmi\2\, in the configuration of an
approximate 1 nmi by 1 nmi square. Water depths within the area range
from 525 to 625 feet. The coordinates of the Palm Beach Harbor ODMDS
are as follows:
26[deg]47'30'' N 79[deg]57'09'' W;
26[deg]47'30'' N 79[deg]56'02'' W;
26[deg]46'30'' N 79[deg]57'09'' W;
26[deg]46'30'' N 79[deg]56'02'' W;
Center coordinates are 26[deg]47'00'' N and 79[deg]56'35'' W.
The ODMDS for Port Everglades Harbor is located east of Fort
Lauderdale, Florida, the western boundary being 3.8 nmi offshore. The
ODMDS occupies an area of about 1 nmi \2\, in the configuration of an
approximate 1 nmi by 1 nmi square. Water depths within the area range
from 640 to 705 feet. The coordinates of the Port Everglades Harbor
ODMDS designation are as follows:
26[deg]07'30'' N 80[deg]02'00'' W;
26[deg]07'30'' N 80[deg]01'00'' W;
26[deg]06'30'' N 80[deg]01'00'' W;
26[deg]06'30'' N 80[deg]01'00'' W;
Center coordinates are 26[deg]07'00'' N and 80[deg]01'30'' W. All
coordinates utilize the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83).
[[Page 2812]]
E. Analysis of Criteria Pursuant to the Ocean Dumping Act Regulatory
Requirements
Five general criteria are used in the selection and approval for
continuing use of ocean disposal sites. Sites are selected so as to
minimize interference with other marine activities, to prevent any
temporary perturbations associated with the disposal from causing
impacts outside the disposal site, and to permit effective monitoring
to detect any adverse impacts at an early stage. Where feasible,
locations off the Continental Shelf and other sites that have been
historically used are to be chosen. If, at any time, disposal
operations at a site cause unacceptable adverse impacts, further use of
the site can be restricted or terminated by EPA. The general criteria
are given in Sec. 228.5 of the EPA Ocean Dumping Regulations, and
Sec. 228.6 lists eleven specific factors used in evaluating a disposal
site to assure that the general criteria are met. The sites, as
discussed below under the eleven specific factors, are acceptable under
the five general criteria.
The characteristics of the sites are reviewed below in terms of
these eleven criteria (the FEIS may be consulted for additional
information).
1. Geographical Position, Depth of Water, Bottom Topography, and
Distance From Coast (40 CFR 228.6(a)(1))
The ODMDS for Palm Beach Harbor is located east of Palm Beach,
Florida, the western boundary being 4.3 nmi offshore. Water depths
within the area range from 525 to 625 feet with depth contours parallel
to the coastline. The coordinates of the Palm Beach Harbor ODMDS are as
follows:
26[deg]47'30'' N 79[deg]57'09'' W;
26[deg]47'30'' N 79[deg]56'02'' W;
26[deg]46'30'' N 79[deg]57'09'' W; and
26[deg]46'30'' N 79[deg]56'02'' W;
Center coordinates are 26[deg]47'00'' N and 79[deg]56'35'' W.
The ODMDS for Port Everglades Harbor is located east of Fort
Lauderdale, Florida, the western boundary being 3.8 nmi offshore. Water
depths within the area range from 640 to 705 feet with depth contours
parallel to the coastline. The coordinates of the Port Everglades
Harbor ODMDS designation are as follows:
26[deg]07'30'' N 80[deg]02'00'' W;
26[deg]06'30'' N 80[deg]01'00'' W;
26[deg]06'30'' N 80[deg]02'00'' W; and
26[deg]06'30'' N 80[deg]01'00'' W;
Center coordinates are 26[deg]07'00'' N and 80[deg]01'30'' W. All
coordinates utilize the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83).
2. Location in Relation to Breeding, Spawning, Nursery, Feeding, or
Passage Areas of Living Resources in Adult or Juvenile Phases (40 CFR
228.6(a)(2))
The most active breeding and nursery areas are located in inshore
waters, along adjacent beaches, or in nearshore reef areas. While
breeding, spawning, and feeding activities may take place near the
ODMDSs, these activities are not believed to be confined to, or
concentrated in, these areas. While many marine species may pass
through the ODMDSs, passage is not geographically restricted to these
areas.
EPA initially coordinated with the National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS) regarding the Endangered Species Act (ESA) on March 24,
2004. At that time, EPA sent NMFS a copy of the Draft EIS, which
included two Appendices, each entitled Biological Assessment. Those
Assessments evaluated the potential impacts from the site designations
to Federally listed threatened and endangered species. In its letter,
EPA referenced the Assessments, which concluded that the site
designations ``will not adversely affect'' any listed species or
critical habitat. While the letter stated that EPA concluded the action
``will not affect'' any listed species, EPA informally consulted with
NMFS and sought comments from the NMFS on the proposed site
designations with the March 2004 letter. In a May 24, 2004 letter of
response, NMFS concluded that adverse effects on whales are unlikely to
occur from this project and no effects to the shortnose sturgeon or
smalltooth sawfish are likely to occur from this project.
On March 24, 2004, EPA also consulted with NMFS pursuant to Section
305 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
(MSFCMA) 16 U.S.C. 1855, and the applicable implementing regulations.
At that time, EPA sent NMFS a copy of the Draft EIS which included an
Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Assessment within the body of the
document. In a May 6, 2004 letter of response, NMFS requested a stand
alone EFH Assessment that specifically addressed potential impacts to
deepwater habitats, such as black corals and Oculina, and potential
impacts to deepwater managed species including tilefish. The EFH
Assessments were provided to NMFS on July 15, 2004 and included as
appendices to the FEIS. Based on comments received from NMFS, EPA
revised the EFH Assessments. Revised EFH Assessments for designation of
the Palm Beach Harbor ODMDS and the Port Everglades Harbor ODMDS were
provided to NMFS on September 22, 2004 and October 12, 2004,
respectively. The Assessments set forth EPA's determination that the
site designation of the Palm Beach Harbor ODMDS and Port Everglades
Harbor ODMDS will not have a substantial individual or cumulative
adverse impact on the EFH of managed species. In letters dated October
19, 2004 and October 20, 2004, NMFS concluded that the fishery
conservation requirements of the MSFCMA were completed for the Palm
Beach Harbor ODMDS and the Port Everglades Harbor ODMDS, respectively.
3. Location in Relation to Beaches and Other Amenity Areas (40 CFR
228.6(a)(3))
The disposal sites for Palm Beach Harbor and Port Everglades Harbor
are located approximately 4.5 nmi and 4.0 nmi offshore, respectively.
The nearest beaches are located on the shorelines west of the sites.
Because of the distance of the sites from the shoreline, the
predominate northerly directed current, and the expected localized
effects at the disposal sites, it is unlikely that dredged material
disposal at either of the sites would adversely affect coastal beaches.
Amenity areas in the vicinity of the sites include artificial and
natural reefs. Both sites are located at least 2.3 nmi from the nearest
artificial reef. From West Palm Beach to the Florida Keys, there are
generally three separate series of reefs or hard bottoms. The disposal
sites for Palm Beach Harbor and Port Everglades Harbor are located
approximately 2.6 nmi and 3.0 nmi from the outer of these reef series,
respectively. In addition, colonies of the deepwater coral Oculina
varicosa extend north from Palm Beach Harbor and parallel the break
between the edge of the continental shelf and the Florida-Hatteras
slope. The Palm Beach Harbor ODMDS is located approximately 1.7 nmi
east of the nearest observed deepwater corals. Currents in the vicinity
trend alongshore in a general north-south orientation. Modeling
performed by the COE indicates that disposed material will not impact
these natural areas.
4. Types and Quantities of Wastes Proposed To Be Disposed of, and
Proposed Methods of Release, Including Methods of Packing the Waste, if
Any (40 CFR 228(a)(4))
The only material to be placed at the ODMDSs will be dredged
material that meets the EPA Ocean Dumping Criteria in 40 CFR Parts 220
through 229. The sites are expected to be used for routine maintenance
of the respective harbor projects. Annual average disposal
[[Page 2813]]
volumes of 30,000 cubic yards of material are expected at each site
with disposal occurring every three years. Dredged material from Port
Everglades Harbor is expected to have a solids content of 60 to 70
percent solids by weight with a grain size of 38 to 5 percent of the
grains finer than sand by weight. Dredged material from Palm Beach
Harbor is expected to have solids content of 80 to 85 percent solids by
weight with a grain size of 6 percent finer than sand. It has been
demonstrated by the COE that the most cost effective method of dredging
is clamshell/barge dredging for Palm Beach Harbor and hopper dredging
for Port Everglades Harbor. Additional foreseen use of the Port
Everglades Harbor site could be the Federal Port Everglades Deepening
Project or use by the U.S. Navy in Port Everglades. The Deepening
Project has not yet been authorized and there are no currently planned
Navy projects. The disposal of dredge material at the proposed sites
will be conducted using a near instantaneous dumping type barge or
scow.
5. Feasibility of Surveillance and Monitoring (40 CFR 228.6(a)(5))
Surveillance and monitoring of the proposed sites is feasible.
Survey vessels, aircraft overflights, or automated Geographic
Positioning Systems (GPS) surveillance systems are feasible
surveillance methods. The depths at these sites make conventional ODMDS
monitoring techniques difficult to utilize. A draft Site Management and
Monitoring Plan (SMMP) for each ODMDS was developed and included in an
appendix in the FEIS. The SMMPs were finalized by EPA and the COE in
November, 2004. The SMMPs establish a sequence of monitoring surveys to
be undertaken to determine any impacts resulting from disposal
activities. The SMMPs may be reviewed and revised by EPA.
6. Dispersal, Horizontal Transport and Vertical Mixing Characteristics
of the Area Including Prevailing Current Direction and Velocity, if Any
(40 CFR 228.6(a)(6))
Prevailing currents parallel the coast and are generally oriented
along a north-south axis. Northerly flow predominates. Mean surface
currents range from 10 to 100 cm/sec depending on direction with
maximum velocities up to 530 cm/sec. Current speeds are lower and
current reversals more common in near-bottom waters. Mean velocities of
20 cm/sec and maximum velocities of 130 cm/sec have been measured for
near-bottom waters in the area. Dredged material dispersion studies
conducted by the COE for both short (hours) and long-term (months)
transport of material disposed at the Palm Beach Harbor and Port
Everglades Harbor sites indicate little possibility of disposed
material affecting near-shore reefs or other amenities in the areas of
the disposal sites.
7. Existence and Effects of Current and Previous Discharges and Dumping
in the Area (Including Cumulative Effects) (40 CFR 228.6(a)(7))
There are no current or previous discharges within the ODMDSs.
There are two interim-designated ODMDSs near Palm Beach Harbor. The
disposal of 5.2 million cubic yards of dredged material from Palm Beach
Harbor occurred between 1950 and 1983 in the interim sites. The
characteristics of the dredged material were poorly graded sand with
traces of shell fragments.
An interim-designated ODMDS at Port Everglades Harbor is located
approximately 2.5 nmi west-southwest of the Port Everglades Harbor
ODMDS. The disposal of 220,000 cubic yards of dredged material occurred
in this interim ODMDS between 1952 and 1982. The characteristics of the
disposed dredged material were organic silt with some clay. A 1984
survey conducted by EPA indicated that some damage to nearby inshore,
hard bottom areas may have occurred because of the movement of fine
material associated with the disposal of dredged material at the site.
In light of the survey findings, disposal at the Port Everglades
interim site was discontinued after 1984.
There are two wastewater ocean outfall discharges in the vicinity
of each proposed ODMDS. The nearest outfall to either of the proposed
sites is 11 miles. The effluent from wastewater outfalls has undergone
secondary treatment and chlorination. Significant adverse impacts to
the marine environment have not been documented in association with
either of these offshore wastewater outfalls. Any effects from these
discharges would be local and predominately in a north-south direction
due to prevailing currents. Therefore, these discharges should not have
any effect within the sites.
8. Interference With Shipping, Fishing, Recreation, Mineral Extraction,
Desalination, Fish and Shellfish Culture, Areas of Special Scientific
Importance and Other Legitimate Uses of the Ocean (40 CFR 228.6(a)(8))
The infrequent use of the proposed sites should not significantly
disrupt either commercial shipping or recreational boating. Commercial
and recreational fishing activities are concentrated in inshore and
nearshore waters. No mineral extraction, desalination, or mariculture
activities occur in the immediate area. Scientific resources present
near the Port Everglades Harbor site include the South Florida Ocean
Measurement Center (SFOMC, formerly the South Florida Testing
Facility). The SFOMC is located 1.5 nmi south of the ODMDS.
Interference with activities at the SFOMC is not expected.
9. The Existing Water Quality and Ecology of the Site as Determined by
Available Data or by Trend Assessment or Baseline Surveys (40 CFR
228.6(a)(9))
Baseline surveys conducted for the Palm Beach Harbor and the Port
Everglades Harbor ODMDSs show the water quality and other environmental
characteristics of the proposed ODMDSs to be typical of the Atlantic
Ocean. Salinity, dissolved oxygen, and transmissivity (water clarity)
data indicated water masses over the sites were similar to water masses
in open ocean waters and deviated little between sites. Macroinfaunal
samples were dominated in numbers by annelids and arthropods. Water
quality at the proposed ODMDSs is variable and is influenced by
frequent Florida Current intrusions of offshore oceanic waters, and
periodic up welling of deep ocean waters. The proposed disposal sites
lie on the continental slope in an area traversed by the western edge
of the Florida Current. The location of the western edge of the current
determines to a large extent whether waters at the site are
predominantly coastal or oceanic. Frequent intrusions or eddies of the
Florida Current transport oceanic waters over the continental shelf in
the vicinity of the ODMDSs. Periodic up welling/down welling events
associated with wind stress also influence waters in the area.
No critical habitat or unique ecological communities have been
identified within or adjacent to the ODMDSs.
10. Potentiality for the Development or Recruitment of Nuisance Species
in the Disposal Site (40 CFR 228.6(a)(10)).
The disposal of dredged materials should not attract or promote the
development of nuisance species. No nuisance species have been reported
to occur at previously utilized disposal sites in the vicinity of
either ODMDSs.
[[Page 2814]]
11. Existence at or in Close Proximity to the Site of Any Significant
Natural or Cultural Features of Historical Importance (40 CFR
228.6(a)(11))
Due to the proximity of ODMDSs to entrance channels, the cultural
resource that has the greatest potential for impact would be
shipwrecks. Sidescan sonar surveys of the sites were conducted which
should have identified any potential shipwrecks. No such features were
noted within the disposal sites in the sidescan sonar surveys of the
disposal sites. No natural or cultural features of historical
importance have been identified at either site. The Florida Department
of State Division of Historical Resources was consulted and they
determined that it is unlikely that designation of the ODMDSs would
affect archaeological or historical resources eligible for listing in
the National Register of Historic Places, or otherwise of significance.
F. Site Management
Site management of the ODMDSs is the responsibility of EPA in
cooperation with the COE. The COE issues permits to private applicants
for ocean disposal; however, EPA Region 4 assumes overall
responsibility for site management. Development of Site Management
Plans is required by the MPRSA prior to final designation. A Site
Management and Monitoring Plan (SMMP) for each ODMDS was developed as a
part of the process of completing the FEIS. The SMMPs were finalized by
EPA and the COE in November, 2004. The plans provide procedures for
both site management and for the monitoring of effects of disposal
activities. The SMMPs are intended to be flexible and may be reviewed
and revised by the EPA.
G. Action
The FEIS concludes that the sites may appropriately be designated
for use. The sites are also consistent with the five general criteria
and eleven specific factors in the Ocean Dumping Regulations used for
site evaluation.
The designation of the Palm Beach Harbor and Port Everglades Harbor
sites as EPA-approved ODMDSs is being published as final rulemaking.
Overall management of these sites is the responsibility of the Regional
Administrator of EPA Region 4.
It should be emphasized that, if an ODMDS is designated, such a
site designation does not constitute EPA's approval of actual disposal
of material at sea. Before ocean disposal of dredged material at the
site may commence, the COE must evaluate a permit application according
to EPA's Ocean Dumping Criteria (40 CFR part 227) and authorize
disposal. EPA has the right to disapprove the actual disposal if it
determines that environmental concerns under MPRSA have not been met.
H. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
1. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant''
and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the
Executive Order. The Order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as
one that is likely to result in 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 entitlement, 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.
EPA has determined that this action does not meet the definition of
a ``significant regulatory action'' under E.O. 12866 as described above
and is therefore not subject to OMB review.
2. Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq., is intended
to minimize the reporting and record-keeping burden on the regulated
community, as well as to minimize the 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 OPM. Since this rule does not establish or modify any information or
record-keeping requirements, it is not subject to the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act.
3. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.
The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any
other statute, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. For the purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on
small entities, a small entity is defined as: (1) A small business
based on the Small Business Administration's (SBA) size standards; (2)
a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city,
county, town, school district or special district with a population of
less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-
profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field. EPA has determined that this action will not
have a significant economic impact on small entities. The ocean
disposal site designations will only have the effect of providing a
long term, environmentally acceptable disposal option for dredged
material. This action will help to facilitate the maintenance of safe
navigation on a continuing basis. After considering the economic
impacts of today's final action on small entities, I certify that this
action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
4. The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and Executive Order 12875
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA), Public Law
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. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal Mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt
the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation of why that
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA
[[Page 2815]]
establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it
must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government
agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected
small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to
have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory
proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and
informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with
the regulatory requirements.
EPA has determined that this action contains no Federal mandates
(under the regulatory provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State,
local and tribal governments or the private sector. It imposes no new
enforceable duty on any State, local or tribal governments or the
private sector. Thus, the requirements of section 202 and section 205
of the UMRA do not apply to this final rule. Similarly, EPA has also
determined that this action contains no 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. This final rule addresses the
designation and de-designation of ocean disposal sites for the
potential disposal of dredged materials. This action neither creates
new obligations nor alters existing authorizations of any State, local
or other governmental entities. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not
apply to this rule. However, EPA did consult with State and local
government representatives in the development of the FEIS and through
solicitation of comments on the Draft and Final EIS. In addition, in
the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and EPA policy to promote
communications between EPA and State and local governments, EPA
specifically solicited comment on the proposed rule from State and
local officials.
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 6, 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.'' ``Policies that have Tribal
implications'' are defined in the Executive Order to include
regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more
Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal government and
the Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal government and Indian Tribes.''
This action does not have Tribal implications. This action will not
have substantial direct effects on Tribal governments, on the
relationship between the Federal government and Indian Tribes, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
government and Indian Tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175.
This final rule designates ocean dredged material disposal sites and
does not establish any regulatory policy with tribal implications.
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.
7. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045 (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 might have a
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets
both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health and
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 the Agency. This final
rule is not an economically significant rule as defined under Executive
Order 12866 and does not concern an environmental health or safety risk
that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on
children. Therefore, it is not subject to Executive Order 13045.
8. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use
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.
9. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note), directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its
regulatory activities unless doing so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide
Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. This final rule
does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA did not consider
the use of any voluntary consensus standards.
Although EPA stated that the proposed action did not directly
involve technical standards, the proposed action and today's final
action include environmental monitoring and measurement as described in
EPA's SMMPs. EPA will not require the use of specific, prescribed
analytic methods for monitoring and managing the designated sites.
Rather, the Agency plans to allow the use of any method, whether it
constitutes a voluntary consensus standard or not, that meets the
monitoring and measurement criteria discussed in the SMMP.
10. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
Executive Order 12898 requires that, to the greatest extent
practicable and permitted by law, each Federal agency must make
achieving environmental justice part of its mission. Executive Order
12898 provides that each Federal
[[Page 2816]]
agency must conduct its programs, policies, and activities that
substantially affect human health or the environment in a manner that
ensures that such programs, policies, and activities do not have the
effect of excluding persons (including populations) from participation
in, denying persons (including populations) the benefits of, or
subjecting persons (including populations) to discrimination under such
programs, policies, and activities because of their race, color, or
national origin.
Because this action addresses ocean disposal site designations
(away from inhabited land areas), no significant adverse human health
or environmental effects are anticipated. Therefore, no action from
this final rule would have a disproportionately high and adverse human
health and environmental effect on any particular segment of the
population. In addition, this rule does not impose substantial direct
compliance costs on those communities. Accordingly, the requirements of
Executive Order 12898 do not apply.
11. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule as
defined in 5 U.S.C. 804(2) cannot take effect until 60 days after it is
published in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule''
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule will be effective February 17,
2005.
12. The Endangered Species Act
Under section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), 16
U.S.C. 1536(a)(2), federal agencies are required to ``insure that any
action authorized, funded, or carried on by such agency * * * is not
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or
threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification
of habitat of such species * * *.'' Under regulations implementing the
ESA, a Federal agency is required to consult with either the FWS or the
NMFS (depending on the species involved) if the agency's action ``may
affect'' endangered or threatened species or their critical habitat.
See, 50 CFR 402.14(a).
EPA initially coordinated with the National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS) regarding the Endangered Species Act (ESA) on March 24,
2004. At that time, EPA sent NMFS a copy of the Draft EIS, which
included two Appendices, each entitled Biological Assessment. Those
Assessments evaluated the potential impacts from the site designations
to federally listed threatened and endangered species. In its letter,
EPA referenced the Assessments, which concluded that the site
designations ``will not adversely affect'' any listed species or
critical habitat. While the letter stated that EPA concluded the action
``will not affect'' any listed species, EPA informally consulted with
NMFS and sought comments from the NMFS on the proposed site
designations with the March 2004 letter. In a May 24, 2004 letter of
response, NMFS concluded that adverse effects on whales are unlikely to
occur from this project and no effects to the shortnose sturgeon or
smalltooth sawfish are likely to occur from this project.
13. Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSFCMA)
The 1996 Sustainable Fisheries Act amendments to the MSFCMA require
the designation of EFH for Federally managed species of fish and
shellfish. Pursuant to section 305(b)(2) of the MSFCMA, Federal
agencies are required to consult with the NMFS regarding any action
they authorize, fund, or undertake that may adversely affect EFH. An
adverse effect has been defined by the Act as follows: ``Any impact
which reduces the quality and/or quantity of EFH. Adverse effects may
include direct (e.g., contamination or physical disruption), indirect
(e.g., loss of prey, reduction in species' fecundity), site-specific or
habitat-wide impacts, including individual, cumulative, or synergistic
consequences of actions.''
On March 24, 2004, EPA consulted with NMFS pursuant to Section 305
of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
(MSFCMA) 16 U.S.C. 1855, and the applicable implementing regulations.
At that time, EPA sent NMFS a copy of the Draft EIS which included an
EFH Assessment within the body of the document. In a May 6, 2004 letter
of response, NMFS requested a stand alone EFH Assessment that
specifically addressed potential impacts to deepwater habitats, such as
black corals and Oculina, and potential impacts to deepwater managed
species including tilefish. The EFH Assessments were provided to NMFS
on July 15, 2004 and included as appendices to the FEIS. Based on
comments received from NMFS, EPA revised the EFH Assessments. Revised
EFH Assessments for designation of the Palm Beach Harbor ODMDS and the
Port Everglades Harbor ODMDS were provided to NMFS on September 22,
2004 and October 12, 2004, respectively. The Assessments set forth
EPA's determination that the site designation of the Palm Beach Harbor
ODMDS and Port Everglades Harbor ODMDS will not have a substantial
individual or cumulative adverse impact on the EFH of managed species.
In letters dated October 19, 2004 and October 20, 2004, NMFS concluded
that the fishery conservation requirements of the MSFCMA were completed
for the Palm Beach Harbor ODMDS and the Port Everglades Harbor ODMDS,
respectively.
14. Executive Order 13089: Coral Reef Protection
Executive Order 13089 (63 FR 32701, June 16, 1998) on Coral Reef
Protection recognizes the significant ecological, social, and economic
values provided by the Nation's coral reefs and the critical need to
ensure that Federal agencies are implementing their authorities to
protect these valuable ecosystems. Executive Order 13089 directs
Federal agencies, including EPA and the COE whose actions may affect
U.S. coral reef ecosystems, to take the following steps: 1. Identify
their actions that may affect U.S. coral reef ecosystems; 2. Utilize
their programs and authorities to protect and enhance the conditions of
such ecosystems; and 3. To the extent permitted by law, ensure that any
actions they authorize, fund, or carry out will not degrade the
conditions of such ecosystems. It is the policy of EPA and the COE to
apply their authorities under the MPRSA to avoid adverse impacts on
coral reefs. Protection of coral reefs has been carefully addressed
through the application the site designation criteria which require
consideration of the potential site's location in relation to breeding,
spawning, nursery, feeding, and passage areas of living marine
resources and amenity areas, interference with recreation and areas of
special scientific importance, and existence of any significant natural
or cultural features at or in close proximity to the site (see E.
Analysis of Criteria Pursuant to the Ocean Dumping Act Regulatory
Requirements). Based on application of these criteria, the
[[Page 2817]]
proposed disposal sites should not have adverse effects on coral reefs.
15. Executive Order 13158: Marine Protected Areas
Executive Order 13158 (65 FR 34909, May 31, 2000) requires that
each Federal agency whose actions affect the natural or cultural
resources that are protected by an Marine Protected Area (MPA) shall
identify such actions and shall avoid harm to the natural and cultural
resources that are protected by an MPA. The purpose of the Executive
Order is to protect the significant natural and cultural resources
within the marine environment, which means ``those areas of coastal and
ocean waters, the Great Lakes and their connecting waters, and
submerged lands thereunder, over which the United States exercises
jurisdiction, consistent with international law.''
EPA has reviewed the Marine Managed Areas Inventory maintained by
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the U.S.
Department of Commerce. The nearest MPA to either ODMDS is Biscayne
National Park which is located greater than 20 nmi from the Port
Everglades Harbor ODMDS and greater than 40 nmi from the Palm Beach
Harbor ODMDS. Therefore, EPA has determined that no MPAs will be
affected by this action.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 228
Environmental protection, Water pollution control.
Dated: January 4, 2005.
J.I. Palmer, Jr.,
Regional Administrator for Region 4.
0
In consideration of the foregoing, subchapter H of chapter I of title
40 is amended as set forth below:
PART 228--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 228 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1412 and 1418.
Sec. 228.14 [Amended]
0
2. Section 228.14 is amended by removing and reserving paragraphs
(h)(3), (h)(4), and (h)(5).
0
3. Section 228.15 is amended by adding paragraphs (h)(21) and (h)(22)
to read as follows:
Sec. 228.15 Dumping sites designated on a final basis.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
(21) Palm Beach Harbor, FL Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site.
(i) Location (NAD83): 26[deg]47'30'' N., 79[deg]57'09'' W.;
26[deg]47'30'' N., 79[deg]56'02'' W.; 26[deg]46'30'' N., 79[deg]57'09''
W.; 26[deg]46'30'' N., 79[deg]56'02'' W. Center coordinates are
26[deg]47'00'' N and 79[deg]56'35'' W.
(ii) Size: Approximately 1 square nautical mile.
(iii) Depth: Ranges from 525 to 625 feet.
(iv) Primary use: Dredged material.
(v) Period of use: Continuing use.
(vi) Restriction: Disposal shall be limited to suitable dredged
material. Disposal shall comply with conditions set forth in the most
recent approved Site Management and Monitoring Plan.
(22) Port Everglades Harbor, FL Ocean Dredged Material Disposal
Site.
(i) Location (NAD83): 26[deg]07'30'' N., 80[deg]02'00'' W.;
26[deg]07'30'' N., 80[deg]01'00'' W.; 26[deg]06'30'' N., 80[deg]02'00''
W.; 26[deg]06'30'' N., 80[deg]01'00'' W. Center coordinates are
26[deg]07'00'' N and 80[deg]01'30'' W.
(ii) Size: Approximately 1 square nautical mile.
(iii) Depth: Ranges from 640 to 705 feet.
(iv) Primary use: Dredged material.
(v) Period of use: Continuing use.
(vi) Restriction: Disposal shall be limited to suitable dredged
material. Disposal shall comply with conditions set forth in the most
recent approved Site Management and Monitoring Plan.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 05-932 Filed 1-14-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P