[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 154 (Thursday, August 11, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-19289]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: August 11, 1994]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 228

[FRL-5028-7]

 

Ocean Dumping; Designation of Site

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA designates a deep ocean dredged material disposal site 
(SF-DODS) located off San Francisco, California, for the disposal of 
suitable dredged material removed from the San Francisco Bay region and 
other nearby harbors or dredging sites. EPA has determined that the 
site selected in the Final EIS as the preferred site will be the site 
designated as SF-DODS in this Final Rule. The center of the SF-DODS is 
located approximately 49 nautical miles (91 kilometers) west of the 
Golden Gate and occupies an area of 6.5 square nautical miles (22 
square kilometers). Water depths within the area range between 8,200 to 
9,840 feet (2,500 to 3,000 meters). The center coordinates of the oval-
shaped site are: 37 deg.39.0' North latitude by 123 deg.29.0' West 
longitude (North American Datum from 1983), with length (north-south 
axis) and width (west-east axis) dimensions of approximately 4 nautical 
miles (7.5 kilometers) and 2.5 nautical miles (4.5 kilometers), 
respectively. This action is necessary to provide an acceptable ocean 
dumping site for disposal of suitable dredged material; the suitability 
of proposed dredged material is determined by appropriate sediment 
testing protocols. The designation of SF-DODS is for a period of 50 
years, with an interim capacity of 6 million cubic yards of dredged 
material per calendar year until December 31, 1996. Site capacity 
following December 31, 1996 will be determined based on either a 
comprehensive long-term management strategy for management of dredged 
materials from San Francisco Bay or on a separate alternatives-based 
EPA evaluation of the need for ocean disposal. Disposal operations at 
the site will be prohibited if the site management and monitoring 
program is not implemented.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective September 12, 1994.

ADDRESSES: The supporting document for this designation is the Final 
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for Designation of a Deep Water 
Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site off San Francisco, California, 
August 1993, which is available for public inspection at the following 
locations:
    A. EPA Public Information Reference Unit (PIRU), Room 2904 (rear), 
401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC.
    B. EPA Region IX, Library, 75 Hawthorne Street, 13th Floor, San 
Francisco, California.
    C. ABAG/MTC Library, 101 8th Street, Oakland, California.
    D. Alameda County Library, 3121 Diablo Avenue, Hayward, California.
    E. Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley, 
California.
    F. Berkeley Public Library, 2090 Kittredge Street, Berkeley, 
California.
    G. Daly City Public Library, 40 Wembley Drive, Daly City, 
California.
    H. Environmental Information Center, San Jose State University, 125 
South 7th Street, San Jose, California.
    I. Half Moon Bay Library, 620 Correas Street, Half Moon Bay, 
California.
    J. Marin County Library, Civic Center, 3501 Civic Center Drive, San 
Rafael, California.
    K. North Bay Cooperative Library, 725 Third Street, Santa Rosa, 
California.
    L. Oakland Public Library, 125 14th Street, Oakland, California.
    M. Richmond Public Library, 325 Civic Center Plaza, Richmond, 
California.
    N. San Francisco Public Library, Civic Center, Larkin & McAllister, 
San Francisco, California.
    O. San Francisco State University Library, 1630 Holloway Avenue, 
San Francisco, California.
    P. San Mateo County Library, 25 Tower Road, San Mateo, California.
    Q. Santa Clara County Free Library, 1095 N. Seventh Street, San 
Jose, California.
    R. Santa Cruz Public Library, 224 Church Street, Santa Cruz, 
California.
    S. Sausalito Public Library, 420 Litho Street, Sausalito, 
California.
    T. Stanford University Library, Stanford, California.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Allan Ota, Ocean Disposal 
Coordinator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX (W-3-3), 
75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105, telephone (415) 
744-1980.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Background

    Section 102(c) of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries 
Act (MPRSA) of 1972, as amended, 33 U.S.C. Sections 1401 et seq., gives 
the Administrator of EPA authority to designate sites where ocean 
dumping may be permitted. On October 1, 1986 the Administrator 
delegated authority to designate ocean dredged material disposal sites 
(ODMDS) to the Regional Administrator of the EPA Region in which the 
sites are located. The SF-DODS designation action is being made 
pursuant to that authority.
    The EPA Ocean Dumping Regulations (40 CFR 228.4) state that ocean 
dumping sites will be designated by publication pursuant to 40 CFR part 
228. This site designation is 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.
    The center of the SF-DODS is located approximately 49 nautical 
miles (91 kilometers) west of the Golden Gate and occupies an area of 
approximately 6.5 square nautical miles (22 square kilometers). Water 
depths within the area range between approximately 8,200 to 9,840 feet 
(2,500 to 3,000 meters). The center coordinates of the oval-shaped site 
are: 37 deg.39.0' North latitude by 123 deg.29.0' West longitude (North 
American Datum from 1983), with length (north-south axis) and width 
(west-east axis) dimensions of approximately 4 nautical miles (7.5 
kilometers) and 2.5 nautical miles (4.5 kilometers), respectively. EPA 
Region IX now designates SF-DODS as an ocean dredged material disposal 
site for continued use for a period of 50 years, with an interim 
capacity of 6 million cubic yards of dredged material per calendar year 
until December 31, 1996.
    Site use is subject to implementation of the specific site 
management and monitoring requirements contained in this Final Rule, 
which are now identified as the Site Monitoring and Management Plan 
(SMMP) for the SF-DODS. The Proposed Rule designating the SF-DODS did 
not set forth specific management and monitoring requirements in the 
Rule itself. Instead, Region 9 had proposed that provisions concerning 
site management and monitoring would be contained in a separate Site 
Management and Monitoring Plan (SMMP) document. Though this separate 
SMMP document would not, strictly, have been part of the Rule 
designating the SF-DODS, Region 9 did signal its intent in the Preamble 
accompanying the Proposed Rule that implementation of the provisions of 
the SMMP document would have been mandatory. The Proposed Rule 
specifically would have required that the SMMP be implemented as a 
condition of site use. Comments received on the proposed Rule have 
convinced Region 9 that the mandatory nature of site management and 
monitoring would be placed on a clearer legal footing if the SMMP were 
made a part of the Rule instead of being set forth in a separate 
planning document.
    The SMMP provisions in the Final Rule are closely related to Region 
9's previous proposals on site monitoring and management. These 
proposals have been put forth for public review and comment on at least 
two occasions. First, Region 9 outlined its proposals concerning site 
monitoring and management in the Preamble accompanying the Proposed 
Rule designating the SF-DODS. Region 9 published the Proposed Rule in 
the Federal Register on February 17, 1994 (59 FR 7952), and held open a 
public comment period on the Proposed Rule until March 18, 1994. 
Second, Region 9 completed a draft of a separate SMMP document and made 
this document available for public review and comment. Region 9 
published this SMMP document as an EPA Public Notice on April 20, 1994 
and accepted comments on this document until June 6, 1994. The SMMP 
provisions in the Final Rule were drafted after considering the public 
comment received in response to the Proposed Rule Preamble and the SMMP 
document. See Responses to Comments, Section F. below.
    Region 9 is also preparing a Site Management and Monitoring Plan 
Implementation Manual (SMMP Implementation Manual). This manual will 
provide detailed guidance on practical aspects of implementing the SMMP 
provisions in the Final Rule.

B. EIS Development

    Section 102(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 
1969, 42 U.S.C. Sections 4321 et seq., requires that Federal agencies 
prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) on proposals for 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, including evaluation of reasonable alternatives to 
the proposed action.
    A Notice of Availability of the Draft EIS was published in the 
Federal Register on December 11, 1992 discussing EPA's intent to 
designate a deep water ocean dredged material disposal site off San 
Francisco (57 FR 58805). The Draft EIS, titled: Draft Environmental 
Impact Statement (EIS) for San Francisco Bay Deep Water Dredged 
Material Disposal Site Designation, evaluated a range of potential 
alternative disposal sites as summarized below. The comment period 
closed on January 25, 1993. EPA received 35 comment letters on the 
Draft EIS and incorporated changes where appropriate. On September 10, 
1993, notice of availability for public review and comment on the Final 
EIS was published in the Federal Register (58 FR 47741). The comment 
period for the Final EIS closed on October 29, 1993.

EIS Alternatives Analysis

     Several million cubic yards of dredged material are generated 
annually in the San Francisco Bay area. Traditionally, most of this 
dredged material has been disposed at sites within the San Francisco 
Bay estuary. However, existing upland and in-bay sites have limited 
capacity for disposal of large volumes of dredged material, and 
concerns about the potential environmental impacts of continued large-
scale disposal within the estuary have grown steadily in recent years.
    EPA's analysis of alternatives included detailed examination of 
several potential ocean dump sites for dredged materials from San 
Francisco Bay and a preliminary, less-detailed review of potential 
alternative means of handling these dredged materials other than 
disposal at an ocean dump site. For EPA's present purposes, a limited 
review of alternatives to ocean dumping of dredged materials was 
appropriate. EPA needed only to determine whether alternatives to ocean 
dumping now appear to offer sufficient capacity for all dredged 
material that will be generated in the future. Greater detail 
concerning alternatives to ocean dumping of dredged material is not 
necessary at this stage because designation of an ocean dumping site 
under 40 CFR part 228 is essentially a preliminary, planning-like 
measure. The practical effect of such a designation is only to require 
that if future ocean dumping activity is permitted under 40 CFR part 
227, such dumping should normally be consolidated at the designated 
site. Designation of an ocean dumping site does not authorize any 
actual dumping and does not preclude EPA or the U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers from finding that alternative means of managing dredged 
materials from San Francisco Bay are available and environmentally 
preferable.
    EPA has determined that it is appropriate to designate an ocean 
dumping site for dredged materials from San Francisco Bay site now, 
even if alternatives to ocean dumping should eventually prove to be 
available, because it appears unlikely that alternative means of 
managing dredged material will accommodate all of this dredged material 
that will be generated in the future. As discussed in the Final EIS, 
there are many substantial obstacles involved with the potential 
alternatives to ocean dumping of dredged material. As noted, one 
alternative that is currently being employed is disposal of dredged 
material within San Francisco Bay itself. Several resource and 
regulatory agencies, however, have indicated that disposal of dredged 
material within San Francisco Bay may be endangering the Bay ecosystem, 
and some of these agencies have suggested or are working towards 
setting low ceilings on the annual volume of dredged material that may 
be placed in the Bay. Disposing of dredged materials in upland 
locations or employing them for various beneficial uses are other 
alternatives which may prove feasible. Current information, however, 
which is recited in the Final EIS, suggests that it is unlikely that 
these alternatives will feasibly accommodate all dredged materials 
likely to be generated from San Francisco Bay in the future.
    EPA and several other agencies are currently participating in a 
comprehensive evaluation of management of dredged materials from San 
Francisco Bay, known as the ``Long-Term Management Strategy'' 
(``LTMS''). As part of this LTMS effort, all disposal options, 
including beneficial reuse, upland, in-bay, and ocean disposal 
alternatives, are being further evaluated in a separate LTMS Policy 
EIS/EIR. The LTMS agencies intend to set forth policies for the ongoing 
development of such alternatives, and for comprehensive management of 
all such sites, in the Policy EIS/EIR.
    EPA's site designation decision reflects this LTMS effort. Today, 
EPA is setting an interim site capacity for the SF-DODS of six million 
cubic yards of dredged material per year, which shall be in effect only 
until December 31, 1996. As the LTMS is completed, EPA will reexamine 
the appropriate site capacity for the SF-DODS and will establish in a 
separate rulemaking a capacity for the SF-DODS that reflects the LTMS 
policy. In addition, in all cases (now, and in the future under a 
comprehensive management plan for the region), the disposition of 
dredged materials from individual projects will be evaluated by EPA 
Region IX and the Corps' San Francisco District on a case-by-case basis 
and EPA, taking into account all the alternatives available at the time 
of permitting. Beneficial reuse alternatives will be preferred over 
ocean disposal whenever they are practicable and would cause less 
adverse impacts than ocean disposal.
    The following ocean disposal alternatives were evaluated in detail 
in the Final EIS:
1. No Action
    Failure to designate a permanent ocean disposal site pursuant to 
Section 102 of the MPRSA would have significant negative consequences. 
First, the continued foreseeable need to have an appropriate site for 
disposal of suitable sediments from various San Francisco Bay dredging 
projects would place pressure on the Corps and EPA to approve on a 
project-by-project basis the use of existing in-Bay or temporary ocean 
dumping locations pursuant to either Clean Water Act Section 404 or 
MPRSA Section 103. Continued, exclusive reliance on existing in-bay 
disposal sites would not address concerns about environmental impacts 
of in-bay disposal, and would not address concerns about economic 
impacts due to delays and uncertainty associated with limited capacity 
at these existing sites. Second, the Water Resources Act of 1992 
prohibits the continued use of ocean dump sites which have not been 
designated by EPA as Section 102 dump sites by the end of 1997. If EPA 
fails to designate the SF-DODS by that date, then ocean disposal of 
dredged materials taken from San Francisco Bay projects will be 
effectively precluded.
2. Deepwater Alternative Site 3
    This site is located approximately 47 nautical miles (87 
kilometers) from the Golden Gate in an area where depths range 
approximately 4,590 to 6,230 feet (1,400 to 1,900 meters). EPA has 
eliminated this site from further consideration, primarily because of 
its proximity to Pioneer Canyon and associated hardbottom areas. This 
site would have greater impacts to benthic organisms than the preferred 
alternative (Site 5), and would affect relatively scarce hardbottom 
habitats.
3. Deepwater Alternative Site 4
    This site is located approximately 50 nautical miles (93 
kilometers) from the Golden Gate in an area where depths range 
approximately from 6,230 to 6,900 feet (1,900 to 2,100 meters). EPA has 
eliminated this site from further consideration, primarily because of 
its proximity to Half Moon Bay and its high usage as commercial fishing 
grounds as compared to Alternative Site 5. This site would also have 
greater impacts to benthic organisms than the preferred alternative 
(Site 5).
4. Deepwater Alternative Site 5 (Preferred Alternative)
    The Final EIS identified this site as the preferred alternative 
based on comparison to the alternative sites listed above, and to the 
specific selection criteria listed in 40 CFR 228.6(a). Alternative Site 
5 is located furthest from the coast (approximately 49 nautical miles 
west of the Golden Gate) and in the deepest depth range (approximately 
8,200 to 9,840 feet, or 2,500 to 3,000 meters). The 6.5 square nautical 
mile site represents approximately one percent of the total area 
encompassing the slope region studied by EPA Region IX. Bathymetric and 
sediment surveys indicate Alternative Site 5 is located in a 
depositional area which, because of existing topographic containment 
features, is likely to retain dredged material which reaches the sea 
floor. No significant impacts to other resources or amenity areas, such 
as marine sanctuaries, are expected to result from designation of 
Alternative Site 5. Existing and potential fisheries resources within 
Alternative Site 5 are minimal and the site is removed from more 
important fishing grounds located closer to the other alternative 
sites. Abundances and biomass of demersal fishes and megafaunal 
invertebrates, as well as abundances and diversity of infaunal 
invertebrates, at Alternative Site 5 are lower than those at the other 
alternative sites. Conservative modeling predicted only localized 
detectable perturbations following disposal of dredged materials within 
the disposal site. Therefore, potential impacts to surface and mid-
water dwelling organisms, such as seabirds, mammals, and midwater 
fishes, are expected to be insignificant. Finally, disposal of low-
level radioactive wastes and chemical and conventional munitions 
occurred historically in the vicinity of Alternative Site 5. Disposal 
within the site has also occurred as part of a Navy MPRSA Section 103 
permit approved for up to 1.2 million cubic yards of suitable dredged 
material. Therefore, designation of this site also minimizes cumulative 
effects compared to the alternative ocean disposal sites.
    EPA has determined that Alternative Site 5, identified in the Final 
EIS as the preferred site, will be the site designated as SF-DODS in 
this Final Rule. This site represents the environmentally preferred 
alternative for designation of a deep ocean disposal site for the San 
Francisco Bay area. Its selection, along with the specific restrictions 
on site use adopted and described in this Final Rule, avoids and 
minimizes environmental harm from ocean disposal of suitable dredged 
material to the maximum extent practicable. A Record of Decision (ROD) 
will not be issued as a separate document; instead this Final Rule 
serves as the ROD for designation of the SF-DODS.

C. Regulatory Requirements

Consistency With the Coastal Zone Management Act

    EPA prepared a Coastal Consistency Determination (CCD) document 
based on the evaluations presented in the Final EIS. The CCD evaluated 
whether the proposed action--designation of Alternative Site 5 as 
described in the Final EIS as an ocean disposal site for up to 50 
years, and with an annual capacity of 6 million cubic yards of dredged 
material meeting ocean disposal criteria--would be consistent with the 
provisions of the Coastal Zone Management Act. The CCD was formally 
presented to the California Coastal Commission at their public hearing 
on April 12, 1994. The Commission staff report recommended that the 
Commission concur with EPA's CCD, and the Commission voted unanimously 
to concur on the CCD without revision.

Endangered Species Act Consultation

    During the EIS development process, EPA consulted with the National 
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
(FWS) pursuant to provisions of the Endangered Species Act, regarding 
the potential for designation and use of any of the alternative ocean 
disposal sites under study to jeopardize the continued existence of any 
federally listed threatened or endangered species. This consultation 
process is fully documented in the Final EIS. NMFS and FWS concluded 
that none of the three alternative disposal sites, including 
Alternative Site 5, if designated and used for disposal of dredged 
material meeting ocean disposal criteria as described in the EIS, would 
jeopardize the continued existence of any federally listed threatened 
or endangered species.

Compliance With Ocean Dumping Criteria

    Five general criteria are used in the selection and approval of 
ocean disposal sites for continuing use (40 CFR 228.5). First, sites 
must be selected to minimize interference with other activities, 
particularly avoiding fishery areas or major navigation areas. Second, 
sites must be situated such that temporary (during initial mixing) 
water quality perturbations caused by disposal operations would be 
reduced to normal ambient levels before reaching any beach, shoreline, 
sanctuary, or geographically limited fishery area. Third, if site 
designation studies show that any interim disposal site does not meet 
the site selection criteria, use of such site shall be terminated as 
soon as an alternate site can be designated. Fourth, disposal site size 
must be limited in order to localize for identification and control any 
immediate adverse impacts, and to facilitate effective monitoring for 
long-range effects. Fifth, EPA must, wherever feasible, designate ocean 
dumping sites beyond the edge of the continental shelf and where 
historical disposal has occurred. As described in the Final EIS, SF-
DODS was specifically selected to comply with these general criteria.
    The SF-DODS meets these 5 general criteria. First, as discussed 
further below in discussing the 11 specific site selection criteria, 
the SF-DODS is not a significant fishery area, is not a major 
navigation area and otherwise has no geographically limited resource 
values that are not abundant in other parts of this coastal region. 
Second, as also discussed further below, dredged material deposited at 
the site is not expected to reach any significant area such as a marine 
sanctuary, beach, or other important natural resource area. Third, the 
SF-DODS is not an interim disposal site. Fourth, the site has an 
appropriately limited size and has been selected to allow for effective 
monitoring. Fifth, the site is beyond the continental shelf and is 
located in an area historically used for dumping.
    In addition to the 5 general criteria, 11 specific site selection 
criteria are listed in 40 CFR 228.6(a) of the EPA Ocean Dumping 
Regulations for evaluation of all candidate disposal sites. The 5 
general criteria and the 11 specific factors overlap to a great degree. 
The SF-DODS site, as discussed below, is also acceptable under each of 
the 11 specific criteria.
1. Geographical Position, Depth of Water, Bottom Topography and 
Distance From Coast [40 CFR 228.6(a)(1).
    The center of the SF-DODS is located approximately 49 nautical 
miles (91 kilometers) west of the Golden Gate and occupies an area of 
6.5 square nautical miles (22 square kilometers). Water depths within 
the area range between 8,200 to 9,840 feet (2,500 to 3,000 meters). 
Bathymetric and sediment surveys indicate that the site is located in a 
depositional area with natural topographic containment features. The 
site's depositional nature and natural topography will minimize the 
extent of potential impacts to the benthos, and will facilitate long-
term containment of deposited material as well as site monitoring 
activities.
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 SF-DODS site provides feeding and breeding areas for common 
resident benthic species. Floating larvae and eggs of various species 
are expected to be found at and near the water surface at the site as 
well as the alternative sites evaluated. However, designation of the 
site will not affect any geographically limited (i.e., unique) 
habitats, breeding sites, or critical areas that are essential to rare 
or endangered species. Both in comparison to on-shelf areas and to the 
other alternative sites evaluated, the site has the least potential for 
adverse impact to commercially important species.
3. Location in Relation to Beaches and Other Amenity Areas [40 CFR 
228.6(a)(3)]
    The SF-DODS site is approximately 49 nautical miles (91 kilometers) 
west of the Golden Gate, 30 nautical miles (56 kilometers) from Pioneer 
Canyon, 6 nautical miles (11 kilometers) from the Gulf of the 
Farallones National Marine Sanctuary (GFNMS) boundary, and 24 nautical 
miles (45 kilometers) from the Farallon Islands. Ocean currents flow 
primarily to the northwest in the upper 2,600 to 3,000 feet (800 to 900 
meters) of the water column, although periodic reversals in flow occur. 
Currents below 3,000 feet (900 meters) are generally weaker than near-
surface currents. Therefore, any residual suspended solids from the SF-
DODS site will move primarily in the north-northwest direction. Water 
column modeling results using a conservative approach and assuming 
disposal of 6 million cubic yards of dredged sediments per year 
indicate that suspended solid levels would decrease to background 
levels by the time the plume reaches the nearest amenity area (GFNMS 
boundary). Deposition modeling using a conservative approach and 
assuming disposal of 6 million cubic yards of dredged sediments per 
year indicates that the bulk of the disposed material would be 
deposited within the disposal site. For the above reasons, EPA has 
determined that aesthetic impacts of plumes, transport of dredged 
material to any shoreline, and alteration of any habitat of special 
biological significance or marine sanctuary will not occur if this site 
is designated.
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 228.6(a)(4)]
    EPA is setting an interim site capacity for the SF-DODS of six 
million cubic yards of dredged material per calendar year, which shall 
be in effect only until December 31, 1996. As the LTMS comprehensive 
dredged material management planning effort is completed, EPA will 
reexamine the appropriate site capacity for the SF-DODS and will 
establish in a separate rulemaking a final capacity. Typical 
composition of dredged material disposed at the site is expected to 
range between two types: predominantly ``clay-silt'' versus ``mostly 
sand''. These material types are based on data from historical projects 
from the San Francisco Bay region. The expected disposal method would 
involve split-hull barges, with capacities ranging between 1,000 to 
6,000 cubic yards, which would be towed by ocean-going tugboats. 
Dredged material would not be packaged. All dredged material proposed 
for disposal at the site must be suitable for ocean disposal. This 
determination will be made by EPA Region IX and the Corps' San 
Francisco District based upon the results of physical, chemical and 
biological tests before a MPRSA Section 103 permit can be issued. 
Dumping of prohibited materials or other industrial or municipal wastes 
will not be permitted at the site [40 CFR 227.5 and 227.6(a)].
    Existing information and modeling analysis suggests that it is 
appropriate to dispose, via split hull barges, of the type of dredged 
material that will be removed from San Francisco Bay at the SF-DODS. 
The dredged material can be predicted mostly to settle rapidly to the 
ocean bottom within the dump site boundaries and not to create plumes 
which will reach significant areas such as marine sanctuaries, 
recreational areas, or geographically limited habitats at greater than 
background concentrations. Disposing dredged material at the site which 
meets regulatory criteria for ocean dumping will create some limited 
alteration or destruction of benthic habitat within site boundaries, 
but should not create substantial adverse impacts extending beyond site 
boundaries. For these reasons, no significant adverse impacts are 
expected to be associated with the types and quantities of dredged 
material that may be disposed at the site.
5. Feasibility of Surveillance and Monitoring [40 CFR 228.6(a)(5)]
    EPA Region IX and the Corps' San Francisco District share the 
responsibilities of managing and monitoring the disposal site, and, 
with the on-site assistance of the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), to enforce 
permit conditions within the limits of their jurisdiction. Although SF-
DODS would be the deepest and farthest off shore of any ocean disposal 
site so far designated in the U.S., standardized equipment and 
techniques would be used for surveillance and monitoring activities. In 
addition, recent Navy mid-project monitoring activities confirmed the 
feasibility of surveillance and monitoring at the SF-DODS. EPA has 
therefore determined that the Site Management and Monitoring provisions 
of the Final Rule are fully feasible to implement.
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)]
    Current meter studies indicate that any residual suspended solids 
from disposal operations at SF-DODS will move primarily north-
northwest, away from the continental shelf and the GFNMS. Water column 
modeling results, as indicated in the Final EIS, using a conservative 
approach (e.g., modeling parameters adjusted for worst case conditions) 
and assuming disposal of 6 million cubic yards of dredged sediments per 
year, indicate that suspended solid would decrease to background levels 
by the time the plume reaches the nearest amenity area (GFNMS 
boundary). Deposition modeling using a conservative approach and 
assuming disposal of 6 million cubic yards of dredged sediments per 
year indicate that the bulk of the disposed material would deposit 
within the disposal site. For these reasons, EPA has determined that 
the dispersal, transport and mixing characteristics of the site, and 
its current velocities and directions, are appropriate for its 
designation as a dredged material disposal site.
7. Existence and Effects of Current and Previous Discharges and Dumping 
in the Area (Including Cumulative Effects) [40 CFR 228.6(a)(7)]
    Under an MPRSA Section 103 permit, the Navy is discharging up to 
1.2 million cubic yards of dredged material at their Navy disposal site 
which is contained within the EPA-preferred Alternative Site 5. No 
other documented disposal of dredged material has occurred within the 
site. However, disposal of radioactive waste containers was conducted 
in the vicinity of Alternative Site 5 from 1951-1954. Likewise, 
chemical and conventional munitions were disposed in the general area 
from approximately 1958 to the late 1960's at the Chemical Munitions 
Disposal Area. Therefore, EPA has determined that potential cumulative 
effects of designating a dredged material disposal site are less at SF-
DODS than at the alternative sites evaluated, which did not have these 
historic impacts.
    In addition, no other discharges occur in the immediate vicinity of 
SF-DODS. The effects of municipal discharges from the San Francisco 
Southwest Ocean Outfall (5.4 nautical miles or 10.2 kilometers from 
shore), the City of Pacifica Outfall (0.4 nautical miles or 0.8 
kilometers from shore), and Northern San Mateo County Outfall (0.4 
nautical miles or 0.8 kilometers from shore) are limited to local areas 
near the outfalls and do not extend to the vicinity of the dredged 
material disposal site. Discharge of dredged sand at the Channel Bar 
ODMDS (3.0 nautical miles or 5.6 kilometers from shore) is also limited 
to that local area and is not expected to result in impacts in the 
vicinity of the SF-DODS. Therefore, EPA has determined that cumulative 
effects of dredged material disposal are minimized by designation of 
SF-DODS.
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 288.6(a)(8)]
    In evaluating whether dumping activity at the site could interfere 
with shipping, fishing, recreation, mineral extraction, desalination, 
areas of scientific importance and other legitimate uses of the ocean, 
EPA considered both the direct effects from depositing millions of 
cubic yards of dredged material on the ocean bottom within the SF-DODS 
boundaries and the indirect effects associated with increased vessel 
traffic that will result from transportation of dredged material to the 
dump site. Existing information indicates that the site is not a 
significant fisheries area, is not used for water contact recreation 
and is not otherwise a significant recreational area, contains no 
harvestable minerals, is not a potential staging ground or intake area 
for desalination activity, is not scientifically important in itself, 
and otherwise has no geographically limited resource values that are 
not abundant in other parts of this coastal region. Accordingly, 
depositing dredged material at the site will not interfere with these 
activities.
    Increased vessel traffic involved in transportation of dredged 
material to the SF-DODS should also cause no substantial interference 
with any of the activities discussed above. Even with around-the-clock 
disposal operations (assuming 3 trips in a 24-hour period), disposal 
operations would augment existing vessel traffic in the region by less 
than 2 percent. In addition, the potential interference with 
recreational and scientific boat traffic and marine resources (e.g., 
birds and mammals) near the Farallon Islands should be prevented by 
requirements that barges remain at least 3 nautical miles from the 
Islands.
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)]
    Existing information and regional studies described in the Final 
EIS provide the following determinations: Water quality at the SF-DODS 
is indistinguishable from the water quality of nearby areas. Sediments 
contain background levels or low concentrations of trace metal and 
organic contaminants. The demersal fish community within Alternative 
Site 5 has lower numbers of species and lower abundances than the other 
alternative sites. Alternative Site 5 contains moderate numbers of 
megafaunal invertebrate species (sea cucumbers, brittlestars, sea pens) 
but lower overall abundances compared to the other alternative sites. 
Infaunal invertebrates (polychaetes, amphipods, isopods, tanaids) 
within Alternative Site 5 also show lower diversity and abundance 
compared to Alternative Sites 3 and 4. Although there have been higher 
numbers of marine bird and mammal sightings, and mid-water organisms 
including juvenile rockfishes are more abundant seasonally relative to 
the other alternative sites evaluated, Alternative Site 5 is not 
considered to have geographically limited resource values that are not 
abundant in other alternative sites or other parts of this coastal 
region. Based on these Final EIS conclusions EPA has determined that, 
compared to the alternative sites evaluated, this is the 
environmentally preferred location for ocean disposal site designation.
10. Potentiality for the Development or Recruitment of Nuisance Species 
in the Disposal Site [40 CFR 228.6(a)(10)]
    Local opportunistic benthic species characteristic of disturbed 
conditions are expected to be present and abundant at any ODMDS in 
response to physical deposition of sediments. Opportunistic 
polychaetes, such as Capitella, may colonize the disposal site. 
However, these worms can become food items for local bottom-feeding 
fish and are not directly harmful to other species. No recruitment of 
species capable of harming human health or the marine ecosystem is 
expected to occur at the site. In addition, recruitment of nuisance 
species from within the dredged material disposed at the site is 
unlikely, due to significant differences in water depth and environment 
at the disposal site as compared to the relatively shallow dredging 
sites in the San Francisco Bay region.
11. Existence at or in Close Proximity to the Site of any Significant 
Natural or Cultural Feature of Historical Importance [40 CFR 
228.6(a)(11)]
    The California State Historic Preservation Officer has determined 
there are no known historic shipwrecks nor any known aboriginal 
artifacts at the SF-DODS or in the vicinity.

D. Action

    EPA Region IX has concluded that the SF-DODS may appropriately be 
designated for use over a period of 50 years, with an interim capacity 
of 6 million cubic yards of dredged material per calendar year until 
December 31, 1996. After this date, site capacity shall be reevaluated 
based on the results of comprehensive regional dredged material 
management planning underway at the time of this rulemaking, or 
independently by EPA if a comprehensive management plan is not yet 
completed. No disposal shall occur after December 31, 1996 unless and 
until EPA establishes a new site capacity.
    Designation of the SF-DODS complies with the general and specific 
criteria used for site evaluation. The designation of the SF-DODS as an 
EPA-approved Ocean Dumping Site is being published as a final 
rulemaking. Management of this site will be the responsibility of the 
Regional Administrator of EPA Region IX in cooperation with the Corps' 
South Pacific Division Engineer and the San Francisco District 
Engineer, based on requirements defined in the Final Rule. Operational 
details for carrying out the Rule's required management and monitoring 
activities will be contained in a SMMP Implementation Manual prepared 
by EPA following the opportunity for public review. Subsequent 
revisions of the SMMP Implementation Manual will also be proposed 
through separate Public Notices.
    It is emphasized that ocean dumping site designation does not 
constitute or imply EPA Region IX's or the Corps' San Francisco 
District's approval of actual ocean disposal of dredged materials. 
Before ocean dumping of dredged material at the site may begin, EPA 
Region IX and the Corps' San Francisco District must evaluate permit 
applications according to EPA's Ocean Dumping Criteria. EPA Region IX 
or the Corps' San Francisco District will deny permits if either agency 
determines that the Ocean Dumping Criteria of MPRSA have not been met. 
The requirement for compliance with the Ocean Dumping Criteria of the 
MPRSA may not be superseded by the provisions of any future 
comprehensive regional management plan for dredged material.

E. Regulatory Assessments

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, EPA is required to perform a 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for all Rules which may have a 
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. EPA has 
determined that this action will not have a significant impact on small 
entities since the site designation will only have the effect of 
providing a disposal option for dredged material. Consequently, this 
Rule does not necessitate preparation of a Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis.
    This action will not result in an annual effect on the economy of 
$100 million or more or cause any of the other effects which would 
result in its being classified by the Executive Order as a major Rule. 
Consequently, this Rule does not necessitate preparation of a 
Regulatory Impact Analysis.

F. Responses to Comments on the Site Designation Proposed Rule and 
the Proposed SMMP Public Notice

    EPA received 37 letters in support of the Proposed Rule and 14 
letters critical of the Proposed Rule. Many of these 37 letters 
contained specific comments regarding the proposed SMMP. EPA also 
received, after the close of the comment period for the site 
designation Final EIS, a mass mailing of 105 similar letters containing 
some comments relating to site designation. Finally, EPA received 11 
additional comment letters in response to the separate proposed SMMP 
Public Notice. All these comments have been carefully considered, and 
appropriate changes have been made in the Final Rule based on them. The 
comments have been grouped into similar categories for the purposes of 
preparing the following responses.

1. Site Designation Process

    Commentors participating in the mass-mailing were concerned that 
EPA was ``fast-tracking'' the designation process for the ocean 
disposal site off San Francisco.
Response
    EPA has expended considerable effort to ensure adequate 
opportunities for public input in the site designation process. This 
site designation process is now in its fifth year, as public scoping 
meetings began in 1989. The Ocean Studies Plan (OSP), which was the 
blueprint for the extensive biological and oceanographic studies that 
characterized the study region, was developed with the consensus of the 
Long Term Management Strategy (LTMS) Ocean Studies Work Group (OSWG). 
The LTMS is comprised of Federal and State agencies, regional 
scientific experts, public interest and environmental groups. Based on 
the studies performed, EPA evaluated alternative sites and selected the 
preferred alternative site with the consensus of the OSWG. The Draft 
EIS was then noticed in the Federal Register and issued for public 
comment in December, 1992. Following revisions to the EIS based on 
comments received, the Final EIS was prepared and noticed in the 
Federal Register in September, 1993. A Proposed Rule to designate the 
preferred alternative site as described in the Final EIS was noticed in 
the Federal Register and issued for public comment on February 17, 
1994. In addition, the proposed Site Management and Monitoring Plan 
(SMMP) for this ocean disposal site was issued for public comment under 
a separate EPA Public Notice on April 20, 1994. The comment period for 
this Public Notice ended on June 6, 1994. Therefore, EPA believes that 
ample opportunities have been provided for interested parties to 
comment throughout the site designation process.

2. Need for Ocean Dumping

    Several commentors stated that the proposal to designate the site 
for a 50-year period and for up to 300 million cubic yards of dredged 
material was not based on an evaluation of the actual need for ocean 
disposal based on comprehensive regional planning. Other commentors 
stated that it is unlikely that as much as 6 million cubic yards per 
year of sediments meeting ocean dumping criteria could be dredged from 
the contaminated San Francisco Bay.
Response
    The Final Rule has been significantly revised regarding site 
capacity. An interim site capacity of 6 million cubic yards per 
calendar year is being established from the date of site designation 
until December 31, 1996, only. Site capacity following December 31, 
1996 will be determined based on either a comprehensive long-term 
management strategy for management of dredged materials from San 
Francisco Bay (a Long Term Management Strategy draft EIS is currently 
under development, and is expected to be issued for public review in 
the spring of 1996) or, should a comprehensive Long Term Management 
Strategy not be available by that date, on a separate alternatives-
based EPA evaluation of the need for ocean disposal. This new site 
capacity will be established via a separate formal rulemaking process.
    The volume of sediment assumed in the site designation Final EIS 
and Proposed Rule to be dredged from San Francisco Bay over the next 50 
years (400 million cubic yards total) represents a planning estimate 
provided by the Corps. The actual volumes dredged over the next 50 
years cannot be accurately predicted because the overall need for 
dredging will depend on many factors, including: Commercial shipping 
trends (i.e., continued use of Oakland as a major cargo port); 
decisions to initiate port expansions (i.e., for larger deep-draft 
vessels); changes in the use of closing military facilities; and 
resources available to undertake these projects (i.e., availability of 
funds or Congressional authorizations for specific projects). However, 
for ocean site evaluation purposes, EPA assumed that 6 million cubic 
yards per year (which equates to 80% of the assumed dredging average of 
8 million cubic yards per year) would meet EPA Ocean Dumping criteria, 
and used this volume for modeling the fate of dredged material disposed 
at the alternative ocean disposal sites. The results indicated that 
disposal of this volume would not result in significant impacts at the 
proposed disposal site; therefore, this site is being designated with 
an interim capacity of up to 6 million cubic yards per year. Additional 
modelling would be necessary if a greater annual disposal volume were 
to be proposed.
    No matter the nominal site capacity at any time, it should be noted 
that site designation is not a blanket approval for disposal of any 
dredged material at the site. The actual need for ocean dumping is 
determined on a project-by-project basis at the time of permitting: 
Each and every project must be individually reviewed to determine both 
its need for ocean disposal and the suitability of its proposed dredged 
material for disposal.

3. Alternatives Analysis

    Several commentors stated that EPA has failed to consider a range 
of alternatives to ocean dumping of dredged material. Other commentors 
recommended that the ocean site designation be delayed until other 
disposal alternatives can be made available (e.g., via the LTMS 
process).
Response
    EPA has determined that there is an overall need to designate an 
ocean disposal site for the San Francisco Bay region at the present 
time, based on the present lack of available upland and beneficial 
reuse sites, policies of the state agencies to generally further 
restrict disposal at in-Bay sites to maintenance dredging projects, 
impending plans for large new-work dredging projects, and limited 
existing in-Bay disposal site capacity. However, as discussed above, 
the ocean site is now being designated with an interim capacity only, 
which will be reevaluated based on the results of comprehensive 
management planning efforts now underway.

4. Consistency Wth International Agreements

    Several commentors wrote that the ocean disposal site designation 
ignores the precautionary approach which the U.S. has adopted in the 
context of several international agreements, because the site 
designation is unconditional except for a very large annual dumping 
limit for the 50-year period. These commentors recommended that there 
should be precautionary conditions for site use, including: (1) A waste 
audit to evaluate all possible options to reduce the amount of dredged 
materials to be dumped at the ocean site and reduce the contamination 
of those sediments; (2) implementation of pollution prevention measures 
for San Francisco Bay and its drainage basin to guarantee that less 
contaminated sediments would be destined for the ocean site in the 
future; and (3) specific limitations on the contamination levels in 
sediments to be dumped at the site, with progressive reduction in those 
levels over 50 years so that the site will eventually only receive 
uncontaminated sediments.
Response
    The Final Rule has been revised to establish an interim site 
capacity only. In addition, even this interim annual dumping limit is 
only one of many conditions for site use. As noted above, site 
designation is not in itself a permit for ocean disposal of dredged 
material. Each project must be reviewed on a case-by-case basis to 
determine suitability of the proposed dredged material for ocean 
disposal and to determine the need for ocean dumping (including the 
availability of alternatives that reduce the amount of dredging). 
Alternatives such as beneficial use will be encouraged wherever 
practicable. This process of evaluating disposal options already occurs 
and will continue during permit reviews. Nevertheless, in addition to 
project-by-project alternatives analyses, overall dredged material 
management alternatives are being evaluated via the State/Federal LTMS 
process on a programmatic basis. The project-by- project need for ocean 
disposal will be reduced as alternatives to ocean disposal (including 
beneficial re-use sites) become available.
    Pollution prevention is an important aspect of sediment management, 
as it is for most environmental issues. A variety of federal, state, 
and local pollution prevention efforts are underway that should result 
in long-term reductions in the degree to which sediments become 
contaminated. However, sediments also act as ``sinks'' for contaminants 
discharged in the past, and dredging projects by their very nature can 
expose this historic contamination. Therefore pollution prevention 
efforts in the foreseeable future are not expected to eliminate the 
dredging of contaminated sediments. Finally, there is no need to 
systematically tighten ocean suitability criteria because existing 
criteria do not allow toxic or highly contaminated sediments to be 
disposed at the site (suitability criteria are not tied to existing 
levels of contamination in area sediments).

5. Compliance Wth Ocean Site Selection Criteria

    Two commentors disagreed with EPA's determination that the 
regulatory requirements of the MPRSA were fully satisfied by the 
proposed site designation, particularly regarding the assessment of 
impacts to existing and potential fisheries, fish habitat and marine 
sanctuaries.
Response
    EPA's determination of insignificant impacts to fisheries used 
conservative modelling of the worst case (highly dispersive) disposal 
scenarios. The evaluation indicated only localized impacts within the 
disposal site boundaries, based on: the highly mobile nature of the 
fish species present; the fact that the disposal site has relatively 
low abundances of commercially important fish species; and the fact 
that the site does not comprise unique fish habitat within the slope 
and shelf region.
    With respect to impacts to marine sanctuaries, the Final EIS 
documented that the expected increase in vessel traffic and resultant 
increased chance for accidents (i.e., dredged material spills) during 
transportation through the sanctuaries will not be significant. 
Nevertheless, specific requirements to minimize any such risks are 
incorporated in the Final Rule.

6. Requirement to Implement Site Management and Monitoring

    Several commentors were concerned that the Proposed Rule did not 
clearly state that implementation of the site management and monitoring 
provisions is a strict condition for site use.
Response
    EPA intends that full implementation of the SMMP is a strict 
requirement of site use, and revisions have been be incorporated into 
the Final Rule to emphasize this and remove any ambiguity.

7. Unique Nature of the Disposal Site

    Several commentors stated that they were not satisfied that the 
SMMP as summarized in the Proposed Rule accounts for risks associated 
with a site which is the deepest and farthest from shore of any so far 
designated in the U.S., or that there is sufficient information on how 
dredged material will behave following disposal at such a deep site.
Response
    EPA recognizes that the proposed SF-DODS, as well as the potential 
alternative ocean sites evaluated in the Final EIS, is the deepest and 
the farthest from shore of any ocean disposal site so far designated in 
the U.S. However, EPA has expended considerable effort to adequately 
characterize this previously not well-studied region of the California 
coast. Studies were conducted in accordance with an Ocean Studies Plan 
which was developed with input from Federal and State agencies as well 
as environmental and public interest groups. Because of the deep depths 
and distance from shore, EPA performed conservative (worst case) 
modeling to assess the fate of dredged material disposal at the 
alternative sites. The modeling results indicate that the bulk (75 to 
90 percent) of the dredged material would be deposited on the seafloor 
within the disposal site boundaries, and that residual suspended 
material in the water column would be dissipated to background 
concentration levels within the disposal site boundaries, as well. 
These modeling predictions were confirmed by recent monitoring of 
actual dredged material disposal in the vicinity of the SF-DODS by the 
U.S. Navy, performed as a requirement of their MPRSA Section 103 
project-specific site designation. Preliminary results of their field 
studies confirmed that plumes in the water column could be tracked 
until they dissipated to background levels, and that the plumes 
dissipated to background levels within the disposal site boundaries. 
Furthermore, their findings confirmed that the sediment deposit 
footprint on the seafloor could be mapped, and that the sediment 
deposited within the disposal site boundary as predicted by the 
modeling performed for EPA's site designation EIS. Finally, the SMMP 
was developed to address the uncertainties and risks associated with 
use of this disposal site.

8. Impacts to Nearby Marine Sanctuaries

    One commentor stated that past disposal of chemical munitions, 
explosives, radioactive materials, sulfuric acid, and oil refinery 
waste at the site or nearby locations does not justify designating a 
disposal site near federally protected marine sanctuaries such as the 
Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary and the Monterey Bay 
National Marine Sanctuary.
Response
    National marine sanctuaries are continuous along the coastline of 
the study region. The ocean disposal site is located off the 
continental shelf, at the extreme point of the Zone of Siting 
Feasibility established by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and 
several miles beyond the outer boundary of the nearest sanctuary. It is 
therefore as far removed from sanctuary boundaries as practicable. 
Furthermore, extensive oceanographic and modelling studies indicate 
that suspended sediment plumes should dissipate to background levels 
within the disposal site boundaries, and that under prevailing 
conditions (currents predominately to the north-northwest) the 
probability of any detectable sediment plumes drifting into the marine 
sanctuaries is extremely remote. The seafloor in the vicinity of the 
site has already been somewhat degraded by historic disposal of 
military munitions and other wastes so that, compared to alternative 
sites evaluated, cumulative effects to the deep benthos are minimized 
at this site. Indeed, there may even be a long-term beneficial effect 
within the disposal site as a result of cleaner (ocean suitable) 
dredged material being deposited on a previously degraded seafloor. 
Finally, designation of this site is consistent with guidance in the 
Ocean Dumping Regulations [40 CFR Sec. 228.5(e)] to locate disposal 
sites beyond the continental shelf and in areas of historical dumping 
where possible.

9. Long Term Impacts

    Several commentors noted that the Final EIS stated that significant 
long-term impacts at the proposed dump site are likely to occur from 
ocean disposal of dredged material.
Response
    The Final EIS classified physical impacts to benthos within the 
disposal site boundaries as significant (e.g., potential changes in 
sediment texture, and some smothering of infauna are unavoidable). 
Other significant (e.g., toxicological) impacts are not expected 
because of requirements for extensive pre-disposal physical, chemical, 
and biological testing of proposed dredged material. In addition, 
controls will be implemented through permit conditions and the 
provisions of the SMMP to prevent any significant impacts occurring 
outside the disposal site boundaries.

10. Exclusion From Testing

    One commentor expressed concern that certain materials, based upon 
their physical characteristics and their location in relation to 
sources of contamination, would be dumped into the ocean without 
chemical and biological testing. They also expressed concern that the 
person who determines this exclusion not be an employee of the dredging 
or dumping company.
Response
    The ocean dumping regulations [40 CFR 227.13(b)] set forth 
conditions under which dredged material may be determined to be 
suitable for ocean disposal without chemical and biological testing 
(``exclusion criteria''). The determination of exclusion from testing 
is made by EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers in accordance with these 
criteria, and not by the dredging company or the permit applicant.

11. Need for Mitigation for Disposal Site Use

    One commentor estimated, based on a draft Habitat Evaluation 
Procedure (HEP) analysis, that at least 60 acres of habitat would be 
needed to replace habitat value losses at the 6.5 square nautical mile 
ocean disposal site, and stated that EPA should consider including 
compensatory mitigation as a component of the site designation and 
monitoring process.
Response
    The commentor's draft analysis is based in part on a 
misunderstanding of the site designation EIS, and incorrectly assumes 
that significant impacts will occur well beyond the boundaries of the 
disposal site. EPA does not share the commentor's conclusion that 
compensatory mitigation is needed for use of the ocean disposal site in 
part because: (1) The site location has been selected specifically to 
minimize any off-site impacts due to disposal of dredged material, as 
documented in the Final EIS; (2) only suitable non-toxic sediments may 
be disposed at the site, in accordance with EPA's Ocean Dumping 
Criteria; (3) unlike upland or wetland ``fills,'' disposed sediments 
will not alter the site's basic habitat type (e.g., disposal of 
suitable dredged material at the site is not the same as permanently 
changing a wetland into an upland, or a seasonal wetland into a tidal 
wetland); and (4) ongoing site monitoring, and management actions as 
necessary, will ensure that no significant off-site adverse impacts 
will occur or persist during the 50-year period of site use.

12. Sea Surface Microlayer

    Several commentors stated that EPA has ignored concerns raised 
about contamination of the sea surface microlayer as a result of 
dredged material disposal at the site, and has missed opportunities to 
resolve this issue through field studies.
Response
    EPA has fully considered comments regarding potential contamination 
of the sea surface microlayer. In addition, EPA consulted with the LTMS 
technical review panel (see listing in Table 5.2-1 of the Final EIS) on 
this issue. Based on the available information regarding the sea 
surface microlayer, EPA has determined that the potential for 
significant contamination of or impacts to the sea surface microlayer 
as a result of disposal site use is not significant. The specific 
characteristics of this deep ocean disposal site (including its 
location in a turbulent open ocean environment approximately 50 miles 
offshore), and the characteristics of the dredged material that is 
expected to be disposed there (suitability for ocean disposal 
established by extensive physical, chemical, and biological testing), 
support this conclusion. The LTMS technical review panel view was 
consistent with EPA's determination. Consequently, monitoring of the 
sea surface microlayer is not included in the SMMP at this time. 
However, EPA does not discourage independent sampling in the vicinity 
or submission of any data collected in or near the site.

13. Discussion of ``Alternative Site 2''

    One commentor recommended that EPA emphasize that significant 
commercial fish abundances and fish habitats exist in this area which 
would have precluded designation of a site in this area, even if the 
Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary did not exist.
Response
    The site designation Final EIS describes the greater importance of 
the continental shelf, including Study Area 2, for commercially 
important fish species relative to SF-DODS and the other off-shelf 
alternative sites. The Final EIS also notes that since Study Area 2 is 
within the boundaries of the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary, it 
would not comply with EPA's site designation criteria and therefore 
could not be designated.

14. Inclusion of SMMP in the Site Designation Rule

    Several commentors recommended that the entire SMMP be included as 
part of the regulation designating the site.
Response
    The Final Rule has been revised to include specific provisions 
governing site monitoring and site management. These provisions 
establish the legal basis for requiring site monitoring and site 
management and establish the basic criteria for adequate site 
monitoring and management measures. These provisions further establish 
the basic criteria for using site monitoring data to make adjustments 
to site management or site use. The provisions of the Final Rule are 
sufficient, in EPA's view, to create environmentally appropriate and 
legally enforceable site monitoring and site management regimes.
    On April 20, 1994, EPA published a Public Notice in the Federal 
Register indicating the availability of a proposed SF-DODS Site 
Monitoring and Management Plan (``SMMP'') and soliciting public comment 
on the SMMP. As noted above, EPA has now incorporated the major aspects 
of the proposed SMMP directly into the Rule. In addition, EPA will 
publish the ``SMMP Implementation Manual'' based upon the SMMP. The 
SMMP Implementation Manual will provide operational details concerning 
site monitoring and management measures that are not necessary or 
appropriate for inclusion in EPA's Final Rule designating the SF-DODS 
(also see response to comment number 25, below). The SMMP 
Implementation Manual will serve to document EPA's interpretation of 
the specific measures that are appropriate for implementing the 
provisions required in the Final Rule. EPA intends to notify the public 
and solicit public comments if any future changes are made to the SMMP 
Implementation Manual.

15. Feasibility and Validity of the Site Monitoring

    Several commentors wrote that the details of the SMMP should be 
known before the Final Rule is issued in order to assess its scientific 
validity and the feasibility of surveillance and monitoring.
Response
    In the Public Notice accompanying the Proposed Rule designating the 
SF-DODS, EPA discussed the broad outlines of site surveillance and 
monitoring envisioned by EPA. EPA subsequently supplemented this step 
by making available for public review and comment the proposed SMMP 
(see response above), and by incorporating many specific site 
management and monitoring requirements into the Final Rule itself as 
requested by several commentors. In EPA's view, the public has had 
ample opportunity to comment upon the scientific validity and the 
feasibility of EPA's proposed site surveillance and monitoring 
measures, and as a result these measures have been strengthened.
    In EPA's view, the surveillance and monitoring measures that EPA 
will require for the SF-DODS are feasible and will provide the 
necessary scrutiny of site use for a full evaluation of the potential 
for adverse environmental impacts. The monitoring and surveillance 
measures for the SF-DODS are based upon successful measures taken at 
other designated disposal sites in Region 9 and other parts of the 
United States, including those required by EPA to be implemented by the 
U.S. Navy on a project involving the disposal of dredged sediments at a 
temporary dump site in the vicinity of the SF-DODS. The monitoring 
measures for the SF-DODS were further developed with the benefit of 
conservative (environmentally protective) modeling of post-disposal 
dispersion of dredged sediments at the site. This modeling, discussed 
in the Final EIS, has been demonstrated at other ocean disposal sites 
to have a high degree of accuracy in predicting dispersion of dumped 
sediments.

16. Management Action Trigger Levels and Significance Criteria

    Several commentors stated that the trigger levels or criteria for 
determining when site use can be modified or terminated were 
inappropriate or too vague in the site designation Proposed Rule, and 
appear to limit EPA's ability to take action to restrict ocean dumping 
until significant adverse impacts have already occurred.
Response
    EPA's authority to protect marine resources in the vicinity of a 
disposal site is described in the Ocean Dumping regulations at 40 CFR 
220.4, 228.3, 228.7, 228.8, 228.9, 228.10, and 228.11. EPA can require 
that site use be modified or terminated based on several factors, 
including: (1) exceedance of Federal water quality criteria after 
disposal within the site or beyond the SF-DODS boundary; (2) 
significant movement of disposed material toward important biological 
resource areas or marine sanctuaries; (3) significant adverse changes 
in the structure of the benthic community outside the disposal site 
boundary; (4) significant adverse bioaccumulation in organisms 
collected from the disposal site or areas adjacent to the site 
boundary, compared to the reference site; and (5) significant adverse 
impacts upon commercial or recreational fisheries resources near the 
site. EPA can take action based on these criteria at any time; the site 
designation Rule in no way restricts EPA's authorities in this regard.
    In addition to these existing authorities, the Final Rule now 
includes additional authority for determining management actions, such 
as site use modifications or even site use termination, as warranted by 
site monitoring results. For example, clarifications have been made to 
how sediment chemistry monitoring results would ``trigger'' management 
actions.
    With respect to EPA taking actions before significant adverse 
impacts have occurred, monitoring data will be collected periodically 
(i.e., there will be annual sampling of monitoring stations) and any 
corrective management action taken following an annual review of 
monitoring data could therefore occur after some impacts have already 
occurred. However, because of extensive physical, chemical, and 
biological testing of the sediments proposed for ocean disposal, 
potential adverse impacts, if any, are expected to be physical in 
nature (i.e., sediment textural changes and smothering of some infauna) 
and confined within the boundaries of the disposal site. Furthermore, 
if warranted by onboard observations (i.e., direct observations of 
significant disturbance of marine birds and mammals near disposal 
operations) more immediate action can be taken.

17. Frequency of Monitoring

    One commentor wrote that the proposed frequency of monitoring 
(after a period of one year or after 6 million cubic yards have been 
dumped), is not adequate and that monitoring should be more frequent to 
determine seasonal differences in the plume and sediment footprint.
Response
    EPA's conservative modeling of the fate of dredged material 
disposed at the alternative sites utilized current meter data from a 
full year's deployment. Seasonal variability of oceanographic 
conditions is therefore generally known, and was considered in the site 
designation Final EIS and in development of the SMMP. The existing 
seasonal data, together with the monitoring requirements of the Final 
Rule, are adequate to address seasonal variation in oceanographic 
conditions.

18. Need for Periodic Review

    Several commentors objected to the designation of the site for a 
full 50 years without any stringent requirement for periodic review.
Response
    The Final Rule now more clearly states that there will be periodic 
review of monitoring data to determine if the site is performing as 
predicted (i.e., no significant adverse impacts outside of the disposal 
site boundaries), if site modifications are necessary, or if site use 
should be terminated. Necessary changes in site management can be made 
based on any of these reviews. Site monitoring will be a strict 
requirement of site use. If site monitoring is not implemented, 
disposal of dredged material will be prohibited at the ocean site.

19. Baseline Data

    Several commentors wrote that the proposed SMMP, as summarized in 
the Proposed Rule, is flawed because of inadequate baseline data. These 
commentors urged a rigorous monitoring program during the first year of 
dumping in order to develop a more scientifically sound baseline for 
the site.
Response
    Although the site designation studies were broad in geographic 
scope, the data collected in these studies serve as an appropriate 
baseline given the variability of biological parameters which is 
typical of this oceanic area. The region, overall, is significantly 
affected by many factors, including: interannual changes in regional 
climate; climate-induced variability in abundance and spatial 
distribution of biological populations, and human-induced impacts such 
as heavy vessel traffic and substantial commercial and recreational 
fishing. A focussed, localized one-year study of the site itself 
ignores the temporal and spatial complexity of the area, and would not 
produce a meaningful ``baseline'' for the site.

20. Preliminary Drafts of the Proposed SMMP

    One commentor stated that the Proposed Rule does not reflect 
comments received by the agency on various preliminary drafts of the 
SMMP.
Response
    As indicated above, on April 20, 1994, EPA issued a Public Notice 
soliciting comment on its proposed SMMP which set forth proposed 
monitoring and management measures for the SF-DODS. In addition, the 
Public Notice accompanying the Proposed Rule designating the SF-DODS 
broadly outlined EPA's proposed site monitoring and management measures 
for the SF-DODS. The provisions in the Final Rule setting forth site 
monitoring and management requirements for the SF-DODS now being 
promulgated by EPA reflect the public comments received in response to 
these two Public Notices, as well as all other comments EPA previously 
received concerning preliminary drafts of the SMMP.

21. Enforceability of the Proposed SMMP

    One commentor stated that both permit conditions and the site 
management and monitoring provisions themselves must be enforceable not 
only by EPA, but by members of the public with standing to represent 
the marine resources at risk.
Response
    As indicated above, the Final Rule has been revised to include 
specific provisions governing site monitoring and site management. 
These provisions establish the legal basis for requiring site 
monitoring and site management and establish the basic criteria for 
adequate site monitoring and management measures. These provisions will 
be enforceable by EPA as well as by citizens who meet the requirements 
for filing suit under MPRSA section 105(g), 33 U.S.C. 1415(g).

22. Performance of Site Monitoring Field Work

    Some commentors were concerned that reliable information may not be 
collected if site monitoring field work could be conducted by the 
permittee or, for federal projects, by the Corps of Engineers. These 
commentors recommended that all site monitoring work be conducted by 
EPA and/or by independent third parties.
Response
    The Final Rule has been revised to clarify that monitoring 
information required to be submitted by permittees must be collected 
and/or certified as being accurate by independent Quality Control 
contractors, who are not employees of the permittee. However, the Corps 
of Engineers shares site management and enforcement authority with EPA 
and, for disposal operations conducted by or for the Corps of 
Engineers, the Corps of Engineers may directly collect and submit the 
required information. EPA and the Corps of Engineers retain the 
authority to independently monitor, and conduct surveillance and 
enforcement operations on, all permitted disposal operations at the 
site. In addition, EPA may independently monitor Corps of Engineers 
disposal operations.

23. Relevance of Navy Monitoring Data

    One commentor recommended that the U.S. Navy mid-point monitoring 
data should not be used or cited because a final report has not yet 
been received on this monitoring.
Response
    References to the Navy mid-point monitoring have been retained, 
since this work entails the only monitoring of actual dredged material 
disposal to date in the vicinity of the SF-DODS. Given concerns 
expressed in public comments about the actual (versus modeled) behavior 
of disposed dredged material at what will be the deepest ocean disposal 
site so far designated in the U.S., EPA believes that the information 
is very relevant. Although the Navy's final monitoring report has not 
yet been received, the results contained in the preliminary reports 
reviewed by EPA are adequate to reach basic conclusions about site 
performance regarding plume behavior and deposition of dredged material 
on the bottom.

24. Corps of Engineers Site Designation Authority

    One commentor requested that the Final Rule include more specific 
and accurate language regarding the responsibilities of the Army Corps 
of Engineers in issuing permits for dredging projects and managing the 
disposal site, and questioned whether the prohibition on site use (if 
the site management and monitoring provisions are not implemented) 
affects the Army Corps of Engineers' independent authority to designate 
temporary (project-specific) disposal sites under Section 103 of the 
MPRSA.
Response
    Nothing in the Rule affects the independent authorities of other 
agencies. The Corps' authority to issue permits for ocean disposal is 
fully described in 40 CFR part 225. Also, under Section 103 of the 
MPRSA, the Army Corps of Engineers may designate temporary, project-
specific ocean disposal sites if an EPA-designated (Section 102) ocean 
disposal site is unavailable. If, due to a lack of funding to implement 
the site management and monitoring provisions required in the Final 
Rule, EPA's SF-DODS site were technically ``unavailable'' for use, the 
Army Corps of Engineers could propose to designate a temporary site. 
However, under these circumstances, it is likely that the SF-DODS site 
itself is the only location that could be justified or designated for 
temporary use, since EPA's Final EIS identified it as the best overall 
location for disposal. Proposed use of any other location would likely 
require the collection of substantial supplemental data, and could 
result in greater cumulative impacts than continued use of SF-DODS. It 
is EPA's position that responsibility to implement all monitoring 
requirements for use of a temporary Corps-designated site would rest 
with the Corps, and that temporary designation of the SF-DODS site by 
the Corps would require them to fully implement the site's existing 
monitoring requirements.

25. Detailed Comments on the Proposed SMMP

    Several comments were received regarding specific details of the 
proposed SMMP as summarized in the site designation Proposed Rule. 
These included comments regarding methods for monitoring impacts to 
particular marine resources, and specific methods (including specific 
instrumentation) for tracking the dispersal and migration of sediments 
suspended in the water column.
Response
    The SMMP included in the Final Rule incorporates overall 
requirements for site monitoring and management. However, all the 
operational details for achieving the SMMP requirements are not 
included in the Rule itself. This is because there are in many cases 
more than one methodology or technology that could be used to achieve 
the SMMP goals. It would be unreasonable to require more specific 
methodologies in the Rule itself, since the ability to select alternate 
approaches that may be more effective or efficient would be restricted 
by the requirement to first go through formal rulemaking. EPA believes 
that the degree of specificity in the SMMP is appropriate for the Final 
Rule. In addition, particular technologies and methodologies to be used 
at any time will be specified in the separate SMMP Implementation 
Manual, which will be subject to ongoing public review (also see 
response to comment number 14, above).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 228

    Environmental protection, Water Pollution Control.

    Dated: July 15, 1994.
Nora L. McGee,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX.

    In consideration of the foregoing, subchapter H of chapter I of 
title 40 is amended as set forth below.

PART 228--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 228 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. Sections 1412 and 1418.

    2. Section 228.12 is amended by adding paragraph (b)(70) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 228.12  Delegation of management authority for ocean dumping 
sites.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (70) San Francisco Deepwater Ocean Site (SF-DODS) Ocean Dredged 
Material Disposal Site--Region IX.
    Location: Center coordinates of the oval-shaped site are: 37 deg. 
39.0' North latitude by 123 deg. 29.0' West longitude (North American 
Datum from 1983), with length (north-south axis) and width (west-east 
axis) dimensions of approximately 4 nautical miles (7.5 kilometers) and 
2.5 nautical miles (4.5 kilometers), respectively.
    Size: 6.5 square nautical miles (22 square kilometers).
    Depth: 8,200 to 9,840 feet (2,500 to 3,000 meters).
    Use Restricted to Disposal of: Dredged materials.
    Period of Use: Continuing use over 50 years from date of site 
designation, subject to restrictions and provisions set forth below.
    Restrictions/Provisions: The remainder of this Rule constitutes the 
required Site Management and Monitoring Plan (SMMP) for the SF-DODS. 
This SMMP shall be supplemented by a Site Management and Monitoring 
Plan Implementation Manual (SMMP Implementation Manual) containing more 
detailed operational guidance. The SMMP Implementation Manual may be 
periodically revised as necessary; proposed revisions to the SMMP 
Implementation Manual shall be made following opportunity for public 
review and comment. SF-DODS use shall be subject to the following 
restrictions and provisions:
    (i) Type and capacity of disposed materials. The interim site 
disposal capacity shall be 6 million cubic yards of suitable dredged 
material per year until December 31, 1996. Thereafter, the capacity of 
the SF-DODS shall be set in a separate rulemaking based on either a 
comprehensive long-term management strategy for management of dredged 
materials from San Francisco Bay (reflected in an EPA-prepared dredged 
material management planning document) or a separate alternatives- 
based EPA evaluation of the need for ocean disposal. This separate 
rulemaking will identify the appropriate site capacity for the 
remaining life of this site designation. No disposal at the SF-DODS may 
occur after December 31, 1996 without subsequent promulgation by Rule 
of appropriate annual site disposal capacity.
    (ii) Permit/project conditions. Paragraph (b)(70)(ii)(A) of this 
section sets forth requirements for inclusion in permits to use the SF-
DODS, and in all Army Corps of Engineers federal project 
authorizations. Paragraph (b)(70)(ii)(B) of this section describes 
additional project-specific conditions that will be required of 
disposal permits and operations as appropriate. Paragraph 
(b)(70)(ii)(C) of this section describes how alternative permit 
conditions may be authorized by EPA and the Corps of Engineers. All 
references to ``permittees'' shall be deemed to include the Army Corps 
of Engineers when implementing a federal dredging project.
    (A) Mandatory Conditions. All permits or federal project 
authorizations authorizing use of the SF-DODS shall include the 
following conditions, unless approval for an alternative permit 
condition is sought and granted pursuant to paragraph (b)(70)(ii)(C) of 
this section:
    (1) Transportation of dredged material to the SF-DODS shall only be 
allowed when weather and sea state conditions will not interfere with 
safe transportation and will not create risk of spillage, leak or other 
loss of dredged material in transit to the SF-DODS. No disposal vessel 
trips shall be initiated when the National Weather Service has 
predicted combined seas in excess of eighteen feet or has issued a gale 
warning for local waters during the time period necessary for the 
disposal vessel to complete dumping operations.
    (2) All vessels used for dredged material transportation and 
disposal must be load-lined at a level at which dredged material is not 
expected to be spilled in transit under anticipated sea state 
conditions. Disposal vessels shall not be filled above their load 
limitations. Before any disposal vessel departs for the SF-DODS, an 
independent quality control inspector must certify that it is filled 
correctly. For purposes of paragraph (b)(70)(ii) of this section, 
``independent'' means not an employee of the permittee; however, the 
Corps of Engineers may provide inspectors for Corps of Engineers 
disposal operations.
    (3) Dredged material shall not be leaked or spilled from disposal 
vessels during transit to the SF-DODS.
    (4) Disposal vessels in transit to and from the SF-DODS shall 
remain at least three nautical miles from the Farallon Islands at all 
times.
    (5) When dredged material is discharged within the SF-DODS, no 
portion of the vessel from which materials are released (for example, a 
hopper dredge vessel or a towed barge) can be further than 3,200 feet 
from the center of the target area, centered at 37 deg.39'N, 
123 deg.29'W.
    (6) No more than one disposal vessel may be present within the 
permissible dumping target area referred to in paragraph 
(b)(70)(ii)(A)(5) of this section at any time.
    (7) Disposal vessels shall use an appropriate navigation system 
capable of indicating the position of the vessel carrying dredged 
material (for example, a hopper dredge vessel or a towed barge) with a 
minimum accuracy and precision of 100 feet during all disposal 
operations. If the positioning system fails, all disposal operations 
must cease until the navigational capabilities are restored.
    (8) The permittee shall maintain daily records of the amount of 
material dredged and loaded into barges for disposal, the times that 
disposal vessel depart for, arrive at and return from the SF-DODS, the 
exact locations and times of disposal, and the volumes of material 
disposed at the SF-DODS during each vessel trip. The permittee shall 
further record wind and sea state observations at intervals to be 
established in the permit.
    (9) For each disposal vessel trip, the permittee shall maintain a 
computer printout from a Global Positioning System or other acceptable 
navigation system showing transit routes and disposal coordinates, 
including the time and position of the disposal vessel when dumping was 
commenced and completed.
    (10) An independent quality control inspector (as defined in 
paragraph (b)(70)(ii)(A)(2) of this section) shall observe all dredging 
and disposal operations. The inspector shall verify the information 
required in paragraphs (b)(70)(ii)(A)(8) of this section and (9). The 
inspector shall promptly inform permittees of any inaccuracies or 
discrepancies concerning this information and shall prepare summary 
reports, which summarize all such inaccuracies and discrepancies, from 
time to time as shall be specified in permits. Such summary reports 
shall be sent by the permittee to the District Engineer and the 
Regional Administrator within a time interval that shall be specified 
in the permit.
    (11) The permittee shall report any anticipated or actual permit 
violations to the District Engineer and the Regional Administrator 
within 24 hours of discovering such violations. In addition, the 
permittee shall prepare and submit reports, certified accurate by the 
independent quality control inspector, on a frequency that shall be 
specified in permits, to the District Engineer and the Regional 
Administrator setting forth the information required by paragraphs 
(b)(70)(ii)(A)(8) and (9).
    (12) Permittees shall allow observers from the Point Reyes Bird 
Observatory or other appropriate independent observers as specified in 
permits to be present on disposal vessels on all trips to the SF-DODS 
for the purpose of conducting shipboard surveys of seabirds and marine 
mammals. In addition, permittees shall ensure that independent 
observers are present on a sufficient number of vessel trips to 
characterize fully the potential impact of disposal site use on 
seabirds and marine mammals, taking into account, to the extent 
feasible, seasonal variations in such potential impacts. At a minimum, 
permittees shall ensure that independent observers are present on at 
least one disposal trip in any calendar month in which a disposal trip 
to the SF-DODS is made.
    (13) At the completion of short-term dredging projects or annually 
for on-going projects, permittees shall prepare and submit to the 
District Engineer and the Regional Administrator complete pre-dredging 
and post-dredging bathymetric surveys showing the depth of all areas 
dredged, including side slope areas, before and after dredging. 
Permittees shall include a report indicating whether any dredged 
material was dredged outside of areas authorized for dredging or was 
dredged within project boundaries at depths deeper than authorized for 
dredging by their permits.
    (B) Project-specific conditions. Permits or federal project 
authorizations authorizing use of the SF-DODS may include the following 
conditions, if EPA determines these conditions are necessary to 
facilitate safe use of the SF-DODS, the prevention of potential harm to 
the environment or accurate monitoring of site use:
    (1) Permittees may be required to limit the speed of disposal 
vessels in transit to the SF-DODS to a rate that is safe under the 
circumstances and will prevent the spillage of dredged materials.
    (2) Permittees may be required to use automated data logging 
systems for recording navigation and disposal coordinates and/or load 
levels throughout disposal trips when such systems are feasible and 
represent an improvement over manual recording methodologies.
    (3) Any other conditions that EPA or the Corps of Engineers 
determine to be necessary or appropriate to facilitate compliance with 
the requirements of the MPRSA and this Rule may be included in site use 
permits.
    (C) Alternative permit/project conditions. Alternatives to the 
permit conditions specified in paragraph (b)(70)(ii) of this section in 
a permit or federal project authorization may be authorized if the 
permittee demonstrates to the District Engineer and the Regional 
Administrator that the alternative conditions are sufficient to 
accomplish the specific intended purpose of the permit condition in 
issue and further demonstrates that the waiver will not increase the 
risk of harm to the environment, the health or safety of persons, nor 
will impede monitoring of compliance with the MPRSA, regulations 
promulgated under the MPRSA, or any permit issued under the MPRSA.
    (iii) Site monitoring. Data shall be collected in accordance with a 
three-tiered site monitoring program which consists of three 
interdependent types of monitoring for each tier: physical, chemical 
and biological. In addition, periodic confirmatory monitoring 
concerning potential site contamination shall be performed.
    Specific guidance for site monitoring tasks required by this 
paragraph shall be described in a Site Management and Monitoring 
Implementation Manual (SMMP Implementation Manual) developed by EPA. 
The SMMP Implementation Manual shall be reviewed periodically and any 
necessary revisions to the Manual will be issued for public review 
under an EPA Public Notice.
    (A) Tier 1 monitoring activities. Tier 1 monitoring activities 
shall consist of the following:
    (1) Physical monitoring. Tier 1 Physical Monitoring shall consist 
of a physical survey to map the area on the seafloor within and in the 
vicinity of the disposal site where dredged material has been deposited 
(the footprint). Such a survey shall use appropriate technology (for 
example, sediment profile photography) to determine the areal extent 
and thickness of the disposed dredged material, and to determine if any 
dredged material has deposited outside of the disposal site boundary.
    (2) Chemical monitoring. Tier 1 Chemical Monitoring shall consist 
of collecting, processing, and preserving boxscore samples of sediments 
so that such sediments could be subjected to sediment chemistry 
analysis in the appropriate tier. Samples shall be collected within the 
dredged material footprint, outside of the dredged material footprint, 
and outside of the disposal site boundaries. Samples within the 
footprint shall be subjected to chemical analysis in annual Tier 1 
activity. Samples from outside of the footprint and outside of the 
disposal site boundaries shall be archived and analyzed only when the 
criteria requiring Tier 2 as specified in paragraph (b)(70)(iv) are 
met. A sufficient number of samples shall be collected so that the 
potential for adverse impacts due to elevated chemistry can be assessed 
with an appropriate time-series or ordinal technique.
    (3) Biological monitoring. Tier 1 Biological Monitoring shall have 
two components: monitoring of pelagic communities and monitoring of 
benthic communities.
    (i) Pelagic communities. Tier 1 Biological Monitoring shall include 
regional surveys of seabirds, marine mammals and mid water column fish 
populations appropriate for evaluating how these populations might be 
affected by disposal site use. A combination of annual regional and 
periodic (random) shipboard surveys of seabirds and marine mammals will 
be used. The regional survey designs for each category of biota shall 
be similar to that used for the regional characterization studies 
referenced in the Final Environmental Impact Statement for Designation 
of a Deep Water Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site off San Francisco, 
California (August 1993) with appropriate realignments to accommodate 
transects within and in the vicinity of the SF-DODS. The periodic 
shipboard surveys shall be performed from vessels involved in dredged 
material disposal operations at the SF-DODS as specified in permit 
conditions imposed pursuant to paragraph (b)(70)(ii)(A)(12). The 
minimum number of surveys must be sufficient to characterize the 
disposal operations for each project, and, as practicable, provide 
seasonal data for an assessment of the potential for adverse impacts 
for the one-year period. An appropriate time-series (ordinal) and 
community analysis shall be performed using data collected during the 
current year and previous years.
    (ii) Benthic communities. Tier 1 Biological Monitoring shall 
include collection and preservation of boxscore samples of benthic 
communities so that such samples could be analyzed as a Tier 2 
activity.
    (4) Annual reporting. The results of the annual Tier 1 studies 
shall be compiled in an annual report which will be available for 
public review.
    (B) Tier 2 monitoring activities. Tier 2 monitoring activities 
shall consist of the following:
    (1) Physical monitoring. Tier 2 Physical Monitoring shall consist 
of oceanographic studies conducted to validate and/or improve the 
models used to predict the dispersion in the water column and 
deposition of dredged material on the seafloor at the SF-DODS. The 
appropriate physical oceanographic studies may include: the collection 
of additional current meter data, deployment of sediment traps, and 
deployment of surface and subsurface drifters.
    (2) Chemical monitoring. Tier 2 Chemical Monitoring shall consist 
of performing sediment chemistry analysis on samples collected and 
preserved in Tier 1 from outside of the footprint and outside of the 
disposal site boundaries.
    (3) Biological monitoring. Tier 2 Biological Monitoring shall 
involve monitoring of pelagic communities and monitoring of benthic 
communities.
    (i) Pelagic communities. Tier 2 Biological Monitoring for pelagic 
communities shall include supplemental surveys of similar type to those 
in Tier 1, or other surveys as appropriate.
    (ii) Benthic communities. Tier 2 Biological Monitoring for benthic 
communities shall include a comparison of the benthic community within 
the dredged material footprint to benthic communities in adjacent areas 
outside of the dredged material footprint. An appropriate time-series 
(ordinal) and community analysis shall be performed using data 
collected during the current year and previous years to determine 
whether there are adverse changes in the benthic populations outside of 
the disposal site which may endanger the marine environment.
    (4) Annual reporting. The results of any required Tier 2 studies 
shall be compiled in an annual report which will be available for 
public review.
    (C) Tier 3 monitoring activities. Tier 3 monitoring activities 
shall consist of the following:
    (1) Physical monitoring. Tier 3 physical monitoring shall consist 
of advanced oceanographic studies to study the dispersion of dredged 
material in the water column and the deposition of dredged material on 
the seafloor in the vicinity of the SF-DODS. Such physical monitoring 
may include additional, intensified studies involving the collection of 
additional current meter data, deployment of sediment traps, and 
deployment of surface and subsurface drifters. Such studies may include 
additional sampling stations, greater frequency of sampling, more 
advanced sampling methodologies or equipment, or other additional 
increased study measures compared to similar studies conducted in Tiers 
1 or 2.
    (2) Chemical monitoring. Tier 3 Chemical Monitoring shall consist 
of analysis of tissues of appropriate field-collected benthic and/or 
epifaunal organisms to determine bioaccumulation of contaminants that 
may be associated with dredged materials deposited at the SF-DODS. 
Sampling and analysis shall be designed and implemented to determine 
whether the SF-DODS is a source of adverse bioaccumulation in the 
tissues of benthic species collected at or outside the SF-DODS, 
compared to adjacent unimpacted areas, which may endanger the marine 
environment. Appropriate sampling methodologies for these tests will be 
determined and the appropriate analyses will involve the assessment of 
benthic body burdens of contaminants and correlation with comparison of 
the benthic communities inside and outside of the sediment footprint.
    (3) Biological monitoring. Tier 3 biological monitoring shall have 
two components: Monitoring of pelagic communities and monitoring of 
benthic communities.
    (i) Pelagic communities. Tier 3 Biological Monitoring shall include 
advanced studies of seabirds, marine mammals and mid water column fish 
to evaluate how these populations might be affected by disposal site 
use. Such studies may include additional sampling stations, greater 
frequency of sampling, more advanced sampling methodologies or 
equipment, or other additional increased study measures compared to 
similar studies conducted in Tiers 1 or 2. Studies may include 
evaluation of sub-lethal changes in the health of pelagic organisms, 
such as the development of lesions, tumors, developmental abnormality, 
decreased fecundity or other adverse sub-lethal effect.
    (ii) Benthic communities. Tier 3 Biological Monitoring shall 
include advanced studies of benthic communities to evaluate how these 
populations might be affected by disposal site use. Such studies may 
include additional sampling stations, greater frequency of sampling, 
more advanced sampling methodologies or equipment, or other additional 
increased study measures compared to similar studies conducted in Tier 
2. Studies may include evaluation of sub-lethal changes in the health 
of benthic organisms, such as the development of lesions, tumors, 
developmental abnormality, decreased fecundity or other adverse sub-
lethal effect.
    (4) Reporting. The results of any required Tier 3 studies shall be 
compiled in a report which will be available for public review.
    (D) Periodic confirmatory monitoring. At least once every three 
years, the following confirmatory monitoring activities will be 
conducted and results compiled in a report which will be available for 
public review: Samples of sediments taken from the dredged material 
footprint shall be subjected to bioassay testing using one or more 
appropriate sensitive marine species consistent with applicable ocean 
disposal testing guidance (``Green Book'' or related Regional 
Implementation Agreements), as determined by the Regional 
Administrator, to confirm whether contaminated sediments are being 
deposited at the SF-DODS despite extensive pre-disposal testing. In 
addition, near-surface arrays of appropriate filter-feeding organisms 
(such as mussels) shall be deployed in at least three locations in and 
around the disposal site for at least one month during active site use, 
to confirm whether substantial bioaccumulation of contaminants may be 
associated with exposure to suspended sediment plumes from multiple 
disposal events. One array must be deployed outside the influence of 
any expected plumes to serve as a baseline reference.
    (iv) Site management actions. Once disposal operations at the site 
begin, the three-tier monitoring program described in paragraphs 
(b)(70)(iii) (A) through (C) of this section shall be implemented on an 
annual basis, through December 31, 1996, independent of the actual 
volumes disposed at the site. Thereafter, the Regional Administrator 
may establish a minimum annual disposal volume (not to exceed 10 
percent of the designated site capacity at any time) below which this 
monitoring program need not be fully implemented. The Regional 
Administrator shall promptly review monitoring reports for the SF-DODS 
along with any other information available to the Regional 
Administrator concerning site monitoring activities. If the information 
gathered from monitoring at a given monitoring tier is not sufficient 
for the Regional Administrator to base reasonable conclusions as to 
whether disposal at the SF-DODS might be endangering the marine 
ecosystem, then the Regional Administrator shall require intensified 
monitoring at a higher tier. If monitoring at a given tier establishes 
that disposal at the SF-DODS is endangering the marine ecosystem, then 
the Regional Administrator shall require modification, suspension or 
termination of site use.
    (A) Selection of site monitoring tiers.
    (1) Physical monitoring. Physical monitoring shall remain limited 
to Tier 1 monitoring when Tier 1 monitoring establishes that no 
significant amount of dredged material has been deposited or 
transported outside of the site boundaries. Tier 2 monitoring shall be 
employed when Tier 1 monitoring is insufficient to conclude that a 
significant amount of dredged material as defined in paragraph 
(b)(70)(iv)(A)(4) of this section has not been deposited or transported 
outside of the site boundaries.
    (2) Chemical monitoring. (i) Chemical monitoring shall remain 
limited to Tier 1 Chemical Monitoring when the results of Physical 
Monitoring indicate that a significant amount of dredged material as 
defined in paragraph (b)(70)(iv)(A)(4) of this section has not been 
deposited or transported off-site, and Tier 1 Chemical Monitoring 
establishes that dredged sediments deposited at the disposal site do 
not contain levels of chemical contaminants that are significantly 
elevated above the range of chemical contaminant levels in dredged 
sediments that the Regional Administrator and the District Engineer 
found to be suitable for disposal at the SF-DODS pursuant to 40 CFR 
part 227.
    (ii) Tier 2 monitoring shall be employed when the results of 
Physical Monitoring indicate that a significant amount of dredged 
material as defined in paragraph (b)(70)(iv)(A)(4) of this section has 
been deposited off-site, and Tier 1 Chemical Monitoring is insufficient 
to establish that dredged sediments deposited at the disposal site do 
not contain levels of chemical contaminants that are significantly 
elevated above the range of chemical contaminant levels in dredged 
sediments that the Regional Administrator and the District Engineer 
found to be suitable for disposal at the SF-DODS pursuant to 40 CFR 
part 227. The Regional Administrator may employ Tier 2 monitoring when 
available evidence indicates that a significant amount of dredged 
material as defined in paragraph (b)(70)(iv)(A)(4) of this section has 
been deposited near the SF-DODS site boundary.
    (iii) Tier 3 monitoring shall be employed within and outside the 
dredged material footprint when Tier 2 Chemical Monitoring is 
insufficient to establish that dredged sediments deposited at the 
disposal site do not contain levels of chemical contaminants that are 
significantly elevated above the range of chemical contaminant levels 
in dredged sediments that the Regional Administrator and the District 
Engineer found to be suitable for disposal at the SF-DODS pursuant to 
40 CFR part 227.
    (3) Biological monitoring.
    (i) Pelagic communities. Biological monitoring for pelagic 
communities shall remain limited to Tier 1 monitoring when Tier 1 
monitoring establishes that disposal at the SF-DODS has not endangered 
the monitored pelagic communities. When Tier 1 monitoring is 
insufficient to make reasonable conclusions whether disposal at the 
site has endangered the monitored pelagic communities, then Tier 2 
monitoring of pelagic communities shall be employed. When Tier 2 
monitoring is insufficient to make reasonable conclusions whether 
disposal at the site has endangered the monitored pelagic communities, 
then Tier 3 monitoring of pelagic communities shall be employed.
    (ii) Benthic communities. Biological monitoring for benthic 
communities shall remain limited to Tier 1 monitoring when physical 
monitoring establishes that a significant amount of dredged material 
has not been deposited outside of the site boundaries. If physical 
monitoring indicates that a significant amount of dredged material has 
been deposited or transported outside of the site boundaries, then Tier 
2 analysis of benthic communities shall be performed. If Chemical 
Monitoring establishes that there is significant bioaccumulation of 
contaminants in organisms sampled from the within or outside the 
dredged material footprint, then Tier 3 Biological Monitoring of the 
disposal site shall be employed. Tier 3 Biological Monitoring may 
replace Tier 3 Chemical Monitoring if observed biological effects are 
established as surrogate indicators for bioaccumulation of chemical 
contaminants in sampled organisms.
    (4) Definition of significant dredged material accumulation. For 
purposes of this paragraph (b)(70)(iv)(A) of this section, dredged 
material accumulation on the ocean bottom to a thickness of five 
centimeters shall be considered to be a significant amount of dredged 
material. The Regional Administrator may determine that a lesser amount 
of accumulation is significant if available evidence indicates that a 
lesser amount of off-site accumulation could endanger marine resources.
    (B) Modification, suspension or termination of site use.
    (1) If the results of site monitoring or other information indicate 
that any of the following are occurring as a result of disposal at the 
SF-DODS, then the Regional Administrator shall modify, suspend, or 
terminate site use overall, or for individual projects as appropriate:
    (i) Exceedance of Federal marine water quality criteria within the 
SF-DODS following initial mixing as defined in 40 CFR 227.29(a) or 
beyond the site boundary at any time;
    (ii) Placement or movement of significant quantities of disposed 
material outside of site boundaries near or toward significant 
biological resource areas or marine sanctuaries;
    (iii) Endangerment of the marine environment related to potentially 
significant adverse changes in the structure of the benthic community 
outside the disposal site boundary;
    (iv) Endangerment to the health, welfare, or livelihood of persons 
or to the environment related to potentially significant adverse 
bioaccumulation in organisms collected from the disposal site or areas 
adjacent to the site boundary compared to the reference site;
    (v) Endangerment to the health, welfare, or livelihood of persons 
related to potentially significant adverse impacts upon commercial or 
recreational fisheries resources near the site; or
    (vi) Endangerment to the health, welfare, or livelihood of persons 
or to the environment related to any other potentially significant 
adverse environmental impacts.
    (2) The Regional Administrator shall modify site use, rather than 
suspend or terminate site use, when site use modification will be 
sufficient to eliminate the adverse environmental impacts referred to 
in paragraphs (b)(70)(iv)(B)(1)(i) or (ii) of this section or the 
endangerment to human health, welfare or livelihood to the environment 
referred to in paragraphs (b)(70)(iv)(B)(1)(iii) through (vi) of this 
section. Notwithstanding the provisions of any permit or federal 
project authorization authorizing site use, the Regional Administrator 
shall order, following opportunity for public comment, any of the 
following modifications to site use that he or she deems necessary to 
eliminate the adverse environmental effect or endangerment to human 
health, welfare, or livelihood or to the environment:
    (i) Change or additional restrictions upon the permissible times, 
rates and total volume of disposal of dredged material at the SF-DODS;
    (ii) Change or additional restrictions upon the method of disposal 
or transportation of dredged materials for disposal; or
    (iii) Change or additional limitations upon the type or quality of 
dredged materials according to chemical, physical, bioassay toxicity, 
or bioaccumulation characteristics.
    (3) The Regional Administrator shall suspend site use when site use 
suspension is both necessary and sufficient to eliminate any adverse 
environmental effect or endangerment to human health, welfare, or 
livelihood or to the environment referred to in paragraph 
(b)(70)(iv)(B)(1) of this section. Notwithstanding the provisions of 
any permit or federal project authorization authorizing site use, the 
Regional Administrator shall order, following opportunity for public 
comment, site use suspension until an appropriate management action is 
identified or for a time period that will eliminate the adverse 
environmental effect or endangerment to human health, welfare, or 
livelihood or to the environment.
    (4) Notwithstanding the provisions of any permit or federal project 
authorization authorizing site use, the Regional Administrator shall 
order, following opportunity for public comment, site use permanently 
terminated if this is the only means for eliminating the adverse 
environmental impacts referred to in paragraphs (b)(70)(iv)(B)(1)(i) or 
(ii) of this section or the endangerment to human health, welfare or 
livelihood to the environment referred to in paragraphs 
(b)(70)(iv)(B)(1)(iii) through (vi).
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 94-19289 Filed 8-10-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-M