[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 47 (Tuesday, March 11, 2003)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 11488-11501]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-5743]



[[Page 11488]]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 228

[FRL-7464-4]


Ocean Dumping; Proposed De-designation of Sites and Proposed 
Designation of New Sites at the Mouth of the Columbia River, Oregon and 
Washington

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA today proposes to de-designate four existing ocean dredged 
material disposal sites located off the mouth of the Columbia River 
near the states of Oregon and Washington, and to designate two new 
sites for the ocean disposal of dredged material. The two new sites are 
needed for long-term use by authorized Columbia River navigation 
projects and may be available for use by others meeting the criteria 
for ocean dumping of dredged material. The designation of new ocean 
disposal sites by EPA is necessary to provide acceptable sites for 
current and future dredged material disposal needs. The proposed site 
designations will be for an indefinite period of time. The sites will 
be subject to continuing monitoring and management to ensure that 
unacceptable, adverse environmental impacts do not occur. The de-
designation of existing sites is necessary to discontinue the use of 
designated sites where the impact of disposal has resulted in changed 
site conditions.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 25, 2003.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on this proposed rule should be sent on or 
before 5 p.m. of the 45th day from the date of this publication in the 
Federal Register to: John Malek, Dredging and Ocean Dumping 
Coordinator, EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, ECO-083, Seattle, WA 
98101-1128.
    The file supporting these proposed designations and de-designations 
is available for inspection at the following locations:

EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Northwestern Division, U.S. Customs 
House, 220 Northwest Eighth, Portland, Oregon.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Portland District, Robert Duncan Plaza, 
333 S.W. First Avenue, Portland, Oregon.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Malek, Ocean Dumping Coordinator, 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region X (ECO-083), 1200 Sixth 
Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101-1128, telephone (206) 553-1286, e-mail: 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Background

    Section 102(c) of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries 
Act (MPRSA) of 1972, as amended, 33 U.S.C. 1401, et seq., gives the 
Administrator of EPA the authority to designate sites where ocean 
disposal, also referred to interchangeably as ocean dumping, may be 
permitted. On December 23, 1986, the Administrator delegated the 
authority to designate ocean disposal sites to the Regional 
Administrator of the Region in which the site is located. The proposed 
site designations and de-designations, located at the mouth of the 
Columbia River, are within Region 10 and these actions are being taken 
pursuant to the Regional Administrator's delegated authority.
    The EPA Ocean Dumping Regulations promulgated under the MPRSA 
require, among other things, that ocean dumping sites be designated by 
promulgation in 40 CFR part 228. See 40 CFR 228.4. Designated ocean 
dumping sites are codified at 40 CFR 228.14 and 228.15. A total of four 
ocean dumping sites (Site A, Site B, Site E, and Site F) off of the 
mouth of the Columbia River were designated in August 1986 (51 FR 
29923) (Figure 1) to be used as disposal sites for dredged materials 
from Columbia River navigation projects. Sites A, B and F have, over 
time, proven to be inadequate to handle long term disposal of dredged 
material from the Columbia River navigation projects without the 
creation of adverse wave conditions at the disposal sites. This rule 
proposes to de-designate Sites A, B and F. Site E, because its size as 
currently designated inhibits the ability to minimize interference with 
other activities in the marine environment, needs to be modified to 
allow for changed circumstances concerning the use of the site. This 
rule proposes to designate a new site, the Shallow Water site, which 
incorporates the 1986-designated Site E but appreciably expands it to 
provide sufficient space to spread dredged materials so as to avoid the 
creation of conditions that would interfere with navigation safety. 
Dredged material disposed of at the proposed site is expected to 
contribute material to the littoral zone. This rule also proposes a 
completely new site, the Deep Water site, which would be located 
approximately 4.5 to 6 nautical miles from the mouth of the Columbia 
River off the State of Oregon. The Deep Water site would provide 
capacity for dredged materials from Columbia River navigation projects 
that cannot be accommodated in the nearshore zone. The Deep Water site 
would also be available for use by the United States Army Corps of 
Engineers (Corps) when storm events preclude the use of nearshore 
disposal locations. In inclement weather, conditions nearer the shore 
and the nearer to the jetties (i.e., at the Shallow Water and North 
Jetty sites) are more dangerous than conditions at the Deep Water site. 
Visibility is impaired and winds and currents can broadside a vessel 
and push it into shallow water at the North Jetty and Peacock Spit, or 
onto the jetty itself. Waves also can build up in shallow water and 
between the jetties during an ebb tide during which time navigation 
across the entrance bar can be closed by the United States Coast Guard.
    The availability of ocean dredged materials disposal sites (ODMDSs) 
in the vicinity of the mouth of the Columbia River is necessary to 
provide disposal options for the Corps to maintain deep-draft, 
international commerce and navigation through authorized federal 
navigation channels. Three of the existing ODMDSs designated in 1986, 
Sites A, B and F, have experienced mounding, generating a potentially 
hazardous navigation safety condition. The developing mounds at Sites 
A, B, and F threatened to create hazardous conditions for large ships 
and small craft due to waves refracting from and breaking over the 
mounds. Commercial shippers, crab fishermen, and the U.S. Coast Guard 
expressed concern over this situation to both the Corps and EPA. 
Efforts were undertaken by the federal government to temporarily expand 
the existing sites in 1993 and 1997 and to manage distribution of the 
dredged material within the available site capacities while seeking a 
more permanent management solution. Circumstances at sites A, B and F 
necessitate de-designation of the sites so that no further use is made 
of them. Conditions at site E are changed such that modification of the 
site to withdraw designation of its current configuration to allow for 
a permanent expansion to a larger site, the Shallow Water site, is 
proposed. Designating the Shallow Water site and a new Deep Water site 
is part of the permanent management solution for handling dredged 
materials from Columbia River navigation projects. These designations 
are being proposed in accordance with Sec.

[[Page 11489]]

228.4(e) of the Ocean Dumping Regulations, which allow EPA to designate 
ocean disposal sites for dredged materials.

B. Regulated Entities

    Entities potentially regulated by the proposed rule are persons, 
organizations, or government bodies seeking to dispose of dredged 
material in ocean waters at the Mouth of the Columbia River ODMDS, 
under the MPRSA, 33 U.S.C. 1413, and its implementing regulations. This 
proposed rule is expected to be primarily of relevance to parties near 
the Mouth of the Columbia River seeking permits from the Corps to 
transport dredged material for the purpose of disposal into ocean 
waters at the MCR ODMDS, as well as the Corps itself. Potentially 
regulated categories and entities who may seek to use the proposed new 
ODMDS and would be subject to this Rule may include:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Examples of potentially
                Category                        regulated entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Government.....................  U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
                                          Civil Works Projects, Other
                                          Federal Agencies.
Industry and General Public............  Port Authorities, Marinas and
                                          Harbors, Shipyards and Marine
                                          Repair Facilities, Berth
                                          Owners.
State, local and tribal governments....  Governments owning and/or
                                          responsible for ports,
                                          harbors, and /or berths,
                                          Government agencies requiring
                                          disposal of dredged material
                                          associated with public works
                                          projects.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This table lists the types of entities that could potentially be 
regulated should the proposed rule become a final rule. EPA notes that 
nothing in this proposed rule alters the jurisdiction or authority of 
EPA or the types of entities regulated under the MPRSA. Questions 
regarding the applicability of this proposed rule to a particular 
entity should be directed to the contact person listed in the preceding 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. EPA anticipates that the Corps 
will be the primary, if not the only, user of the proposed ODMDS which 
are the subject of this rule.

C. Evaluation of Alternatives To Propose as New ODMDSs Through 
Voluntary EIS Development

    Section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 
U.S.C. 4321, et seq., (NEPA) requires that Federal agencies prepare an 
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on proposals for legislation and 
other major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the 
human environment. The object of NEPA is to build into agency decision-
making processes careful consideration of all environmental aspects of 
proposed actions. While NEPA does not apply to EPA activities in 
designating ocean disposal sites under the MPRSA, EPA voluntarily 
prepared a joint EIS with the Corps. (See 63 FR 58045 (October 29, 
1998), ``Notice of Policy and Procedures for Voluntary Preparation of 
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Documents.'') The Integrated 
Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact Statement for Columbia 
River Channel Improvements, dated August 1999 (Final IFR/EIS, 1999), 
considered the environmental aspects of new ODMDS site designations and 
improvements to the Mouth of the Columbia River (MCR) Project and the 
Columbia River navigation channel. The Final IFR/EIS (1999) resulted in 
selection of preferred alternative sites to propose for designation 
(see below). EPA also voluntarily joined with the Corps to prepare a 
Supplement to the Final IFR/EIS (SEIS) that was released in 2003. The 
SEIS addressed proposed changes in the Corp's Columbia River navigation 
channel improvements project, which could reduce the volume of material 
going to the ocean for that project, and describes ocean surveys 
conducted by the Corps and EPA since the Final IFR/EIS. These voluntary 
analyses have been beneficial in improving coordination with the Corps 
on related Columbia River navigation issues and in expanding public 
involvement on issues related to the siting and management of new 
ODMDS.
    The federally authorized navigation projects for the Columbia River 
include maintenance of the MCR project (Final Environmental Impact 
Statement, Navigation Channel Improvements, Columbia River at the 
Mouth, Oregon and Washington, dated 1983), maintenance of the existing 
40-foot navigation channel (Final Dredged Material Management Plan and 
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, dated 1998), and the 
potential construction and maintenance of the proposed navigation 
channel improvements as described in the Final IFR/EIS (1999). The 
navigation channel improvements project has been authorized and funded 
by the Congress.
    The voluntary NEPA process followed by the EPA generally conformed 
to the guidelines developed by a joint task force of EPA and Corps 
personnel, the General Approach to Designation Studies for Ocean 
Dredged Material Disposal Sites (1984). A hierarchical framework that 
initially established the broadest economically and operationally 
feasible area of consideration for site location was utilized. A step-
by-step sequence of activities was then conducted to screen possible 
sites. Evaluation of alternative sites (candidate sites) was based on 
factors such as the sensitivity and value of critical resources or uses 
at risk, and potential for unreasonable adverse impact presented by the 
dredged material to be disposed. The site-designation criteria, 40 CFR 
228.5 and 228.6, were applied to the information assembled in this 
process, and sites were selected for consideration as preferred 
alternatives.
    The process was structured into three major phases. Phase I 
included the delineation of the general area under consideration for 
locating a site and the identification and collection of the necessary 
information on critical resources, uses and physical and environmental 
parameters for the areas under consideration. After considering a 
reasonable distance of haul (the physical distance from the point an 
operating dredge picks up a load of material to the point where the 
material is disposed), a preliminary analysis, based on available data, 
was applied to identify and map areas of critical resources as well as 
areas of incompatibility for use as a disposal site. Such critical 
areas and resources included clustered areas of geographically limited 
habitats, fisheries and shellfisheries, navigation lanes, beaches, and 
marine sanctuaries. Phase II involved the elimination of sensitive and 
incompatible areas, the determination of additional data needs, and 
identification of candidate sites within the area based on the 
information collected and processed in Phase I. In Phase III the 
candidate sites were evaluated and sites were selected

[[Page 11490]]

as preferred alternatives to propose for site designation. Management 
strategies were developed for the sites selected as preferred 
alternatives.
    To provide input to the process, the Corps and EPA convened a 
facilitated Ocean Disposal Site Designation Working Group (Working 
Group). The purpose of the Working Group was to assist in identifying 
and evaluating the best long-term ocean option for the MCR and the 
existing Columbia River channel and proposed channel improvements 
projects. Representatives from state, local, and federal agencies 
participated in the Working Group as well as individuals representing 
the crab fishing industry and other interests. The Working Group 
assembled for a series of eight meetings between July 1997 and August 
1998 and provided information for EPA and the Corps to consider in 
evaluating preferred alternative ODMDS. The Corps and EPA considered 
the information gathered by the Working Group, as well as new 
information gathered during the 5-year feasibility study for channel 
improvements, and historical information to identify three proposed 
sites in the Draft IFR/EIS (1998). The configurations of the sites 
included relatively shallow, high-energy areas deemed well-suited for 
active sediment movement away from deposition areas and back into 
coastal beach zones.
    Numerous comments were received on the Draft IFR/EIS and the Corps 
and EPA sought additional input from the Working Group in meetings to 
discuss further refinements to the alternative site locations. Further 
discussion and meetings led to an evaluation for designation of a 
single shallow-water site and a single deep-water site to be used and 
managed in conjunction with a Clean Water Act Section 404 disposal site 
(North Jetty) in the area of the mouth of the Columbia River (Figure 
2). These discussions were factored into the NEPA process. The NEPA 
process led to the current proposal that the four ODMDS sites 
designated in 1986 be proposed for de-designation and that the Shallow 
Water site and the Deep Water site be proposed for designation.
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

[[Page 11491]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11MR03.006

BILLING CODE 6560-50-C

[[Page 11492]]

D. Proposed De-Designated Sites

    Modification in ODMDS use is governed by the Ocean Dumping 
Regulations at 40 CFR 228.11. Modifications which involve the 
withdrawal of designated sites from use are made through the 
promulgation of an amendment to the disposal site designation based on 
an evaluation of disposal impacts or upon changed circumstances 
concerning the use of the site. 40 CFR 228.11(a). By 1992, developing 
mounds created as a result of disposal actions at designated Sites A 
and B threatened to create hazardous conditions for large and small 
craft due to waves refracting from and breaking over and around the 
mounds. Discussions between EPA and the Corps concluded that an interim 
solution was needed that would allow the Columbia River federal 
navigation channel to remain open while studies were conducted to 
ascertain the extent of the problem, to develop and evaluate 
alternative solutions, and to prepare a longer term response. An 
interim plan was created, described in an environmental assessment 
(EA), supporting the temporary expansion of Sites A, B, and F under the 
Corps' Section 103 MPRSA authority while the Corps and EPA investigated 
a more permanent solution. In addition, EPA initiated a rulemaking 
process to modify the three sites and Site E to change the management 
at each site to restrict site use under Section 102 authority. A 
proposed rule was published in the Federal Register on September 21, 
1992, at which time EPA stated: ``While the current situation does not 
constitute an imminent hazard to life and property which would warrant 
an emergency response, EPA and the Corps are in agreement that prudent 
management action is required now in order to prevent such a situation 
from developing.'' (57 FR 43428, September 21, 1992). EPA did not 
publish a final rule as changing conditions and new information 
regarding the sites indicated the need for further study and 
evaluation. Sites A, B, and F were temporarily expanded using Section 
103 effective June 1, 1993, with EPA concurrence.
    By 1995, Corps and EPA monitoring of disposal at the expanded Site 
F confirmed the agencies' suspicions that the site did not possess the 
capacity hoped for and possibly created new navigation conflicts with 
ocean vessel traffic. In addition, existing mounds at Sites A and B 
remained relatively stable rather than continuing to erode. Through 
1996, EPA and the Corps re-evaluated the 1992 plan and ultimately 
developed a new approach that was presented in a 1997 EA. The new 
approach supported maximizing disposals at an Expanded Site E and a 
further expansion of Site B. The Corps temporarily expanded Site E and 
Site B under Section 103 MPRSA authority on June 19, 1997, with the 
concurrence of EPA. These expansions were immediately challenged by the 
Columbia River Crab Fishing Association (CRCFA) in a lawsuit which 
enjoined the use of Expanded Site B and resulted in a settlement 
agreement in 1998 disallowing the use of Expanded Site B and 
temporarily limiting the use of Expanded Site E. The limitation of use 
at Expanded Site E was based on CRCFA concerns that late summer 
disposal impacted ``soft-shelled'' crab (i.e., individuals that had 
molted their old shell and were buried up while the new shell hardens) 
in the westernmost third of the expanded site.
    EPA observes that past activities at Sites A, B, and F place the 
sites in Impact Category II (40 CFR 228.10(c)(2) effects not 
categorized in impact category I). The size of the three sites renders 
impracticable the option of continuing even limited use of Sites A, B, 
and F and permanent expansion of the sites generates problems in terms 
of adverse wave conditions and conflicts with marine traffic. The 
determination of whether to terminate the use of a disposal site is 
based on the impact of disposal at the site itself and the Criteria for 
the management of disposal sites for ocean dumping. 40 CFR 228.11(d). 
Based on these factors, EPA proposes to de-designate Sites A, B, and F. 
Site E is proposed for modification through a de-designation of the 
existing site and a proposed designation of a new site, the Shallow 
Water site, which incorporates the existing site into a larger 
footprint. Site E is also placed in Impact Category II (other) based on 
its limited size, but not based on adverse wave conditions resulting 
from disposal or on conflicts with marine traffic.
    The coordinates (North American Datum 1927: NAD 27) of the three 
existing EPA-designated sites proposed for de-designation (Figure 1) 
are as follows:

Site A

Corner Coordinates

46[deg]13[min]03[sec] N, 124[deg]06[min]17[sec] W
46[deg]12[min]50[sec] N, 124[deg]05[min]55[sec] W
46[deg]12[min]13[sec] N, 124[deg]06[min]43[sec] W
46[deg]12[min]26[sec] N, 124[deg]07[min]05[sec] W

Site B

Corner Coordinates

46[deg]14[min]37[sec] N, 124[deg]10[min]34[sec] W
46[deg]13[min]53[sec] N, 124[deg]10[min]01[sec] W
46[deg]13[min]43[sec] N, 124[deg]10[min]26[sec] W
46[deg]14[min]28[sec] N, 124[deg]10[min]59[sec] W

Site F

Corner Coordinates

46[deg]12[min]12[sec] N, 124[deg]09[min]00[sec] W
46[deg]12[min]00[sec] N, 124[deg]08[min]42[sec] W
46[deg]11[min]48[sec] N, 124[deg]09[min]00[sec] W
46[deg]12[min]00[sec] N, 124[deg]09[min]18[sec] W

    The coordinates (NAD 27) of the one existing EPA-designated site 
proposed for modification through new designation is as follows:

Site E

Corner Coordinates

46[deg]15[min]43[sec] N, 124[deg]05[min]21[sec] W
46[deg]15[min]36[sec] N, 124[deg]05[min]11[sec] W
46[deg]15[min]11[sec] N, 124[deg]05[min]53[sec] W
46[deg]15[min]18[sec] N, 124[deg]06[min]03[sec] W

E. Proposed Sites Descriptions

    Two sites, the Deep Water and Shallow Water sites, are proposed for 
designation (Figure 2). A draft Site Management and Monitoring Plan 
(SMMP) has been prepared for the two proposed ODMDS sites and is 
available for review and comment by the public. (Copies may be obtained 
by request from the Further Information Contact listed in the 
introductory section to this proposed rule.) Use of newly-designated 
ODMDS would be subject to any restrictions included in the approved 
SMMP. Use restrictions will be based on a thorough evaluation of the 
proposed sites pursuant to the Ocean Dumping Regulations and potential 
disposal activity as well as consideration of public review and 
comment.
    Deep Water Site. The proposed Deep Water site is a non-dispersive 
site (material placed at the site remains at the site) which consists 
of an inner ``Placement Area'' and a surrounding buffer. The overall 
site (Placement Area and buffer) has a rectangular dimension of 17,000 
feet by 23,000 feet and occupies approximately 8,976 acres or 10.5 
square nautical miles (sq nmi). The Placement Area (the inner box) has 
a rectangular dimension of 11,000 feet by 17,000 feet, occupying an 
area of approximately 4,293 acres or 5.0 sq nmi, which is surrounded by 
a 3,000-foot buffer zone. Direct disposal of dredged material would be 
allowed only within the Placement Area using ``Drop Zones'' specified 
in a SMMP. Material placed at the Deep Water site is expected to remain 
on site, eventually creating a fairly uniform mound approximately 40 
feet in height. The coordinates (North American Datum 1983: NAD 83), 
dimensions, and depth of water of the proposed Section 102 site are as 
follows:

[[Page 11493]]



               Deep Water Disposal Site (Including Buffer)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Corner coordinates                       Dimensions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
46[deg]11[min]03.03[sec] N,                 17,000 feet wide by 23,000
 124[deg]10[min]01.30[sec] W                 feet long.
46[deg]13[min]09.78[sec] N,                 Depth 180 feet to 310 feet.
 124[deg]12[min]39.67[sec] W                Buffer 3,000 feet wide.
46[deg]10[min]40.88[sec] N,
 124[deg]16[min]46.48[sec] W
46[deg]08[min]34.22[sec] N,
 124[deg]14[min]08.07[sec] W
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                        Deep Water Placement Area
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Corner coordinates                       Dimensions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
46[deg]11[min]06.00[sec] N,                 11,000 feet wide by 17,000
 124[deg]11[min]05.99[sec] W                 feet long.
46[deg]12[min]28.01[sec] N,                 Depth 190 feet to 290 feet.
 124[deg]12[min]48.48[sec] W                [Surrounded by 3,000 ft-wide
46[deg]10[min]37.96[sec] N,                  buffer].
 124[deg]15[min]50.91[sec] W
46[deg]09[min]15.99[sec]N,
 124[deg]14[min]08.40[sec] W
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Shallow Water site. The proposed Shallow Water site is a dispersive 
site (material placed at the site leaves the site) and consists of a 
Placement Area on the sea bottom and a smaller, specified ``Drop Zone'' 
for dredged material disposal. Because the proposed site is dispersive, 
no buffer zone is specified for the Shallow Water site. The proposed 
Shallow Water site integrates the existing designated Site E, and 
expands the width and length of the site as described below. The 
Shallow Water Drop Zone is proposed to occupy the same location, with 
the same dimensions, as Expanded Site E and occupies approximately 531 
acres or 0.626 sq nmi. The overall site and Placement Area occupies 
approximately 1,198 acres or 1.4 sq nmi. Site monitoring since 1997 
demonstrated that material released within the boundaries of ``Expanded 
Site E'' temporarily deposited on the sea bottom as a truncated mound 
that was larger than the release area. While some of the placed 
material was dispersed out of the site and into the littoral system 
during direct disposal, the majority was eroded away to the north and 
northwest following the summer dredging season by the stronger winter 
waves and currents. Material placed at the Shallow Water site is 
expected to be transported out of the site during and following the 
dredging season and dispersed by natural ocean forces to the north and 
northwest and augment the littoral system. The coordinates (NAD 83), 
dimensions, and depth of water of the proposed Section 102 site are as 
follows:

             Shallow Water Placement Area and Disposal Site
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Corner coordinates                       Dimensions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
46[deg]15[min]31.64[sec] N,                 3,100 to 5,600 feet width by
 124[deg]05[min]09.72[sec] W                 11,500 feet long.
46[deg]14[min]17.66[sec] N,                 Azimuth (long axis):
 124[deg]07[min]14.54[sec] W                 229[deg] T.
46[deg]15[min]02.87[sec] N,                 Depth: 45 feet to 75 feet.
 124[deg]08[min]11.47[sec] W                No Buffer.
46[deg]15[min]52.77[sec] N,
 124[deg]05[min]42.92[sec] W
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                         Shallow Water Drop Zone
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Corner coordinates                       Dimensions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
46[deg]15[min]35.36[sec] N,                 1,054 feet to 3,600 feet
 124[deg]05[min]15.55[sec] W                 width by 10,000 feet long.
46[deg]14[min]31.07[sec] N,                 Depth 45 feet to 75 feet.
 124[deg]07[min]03.25[sec] W
46[deg]14[min]58.83[sec] N,
 124[deg]07[min]36.89[sec] W
46[deg]15[min]42.38[sec] N,
 124[deg]05[min]26.55[sec] W
------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Analysis of Criteria Pursuant to the Ocean Dumping Act Regulatory 
Requirements

    Five general regulatory criteria are used in the selection and 
approval of ocean disposal sites for continuing use. See 40 CFR 228.5. 
Sites are selected so as to: minimize interference with other marine 
activities; keep temporary perturbations in water quality or other 
environmental conditions during initial mixing caused by disposal 
operations anywhere within the site to be reduced to normal or 
undetectable concentrations or effects before reaching beaches, 
shorelines, marine sanctuaries or known geographically limited 
fisheries or shellfisheries; terminate use as soon as a suitable 
alternate site can be designated if at any time disposal operations at 
a site cause unacceptable adverse impacts; limit the size of the site 
to localize for identification and to control any immediate adverse 
impacts and permit the implementation of effective monitoring and 
surveillance to prevent adverse long-range impacts; and wherever 
feasible to designate sites beyond the edge of the continental shelf 
and other such sites that have been historically used. Eleven specific 
criteria are used in evaluating a proposed disposal site to assure that 
the general criteria are met. See 40 CFR 228.6. The evaluations of the 
general and specific criteria, provided below, are based on information 
published in the 1983 and 1999 EISs and the 2003 Final SEIS, Corps and 
EPA Environmental Assessments for 103 Site expansions in 1993 and 1997, 
monitoring studies, data provided by fishery industry groups, crab data 
collected and evaluated by the Corps and EPA as part of the EIS and 
SEIS processes, a report produced by the Corps in studying potential 
wave-related effects at the proposed Shallow

[[Page 11494]]

Water site, and supporting documentation.

General Criteria (40 CFR 228.5)

1. Minimal Interference With Other Activities

    The first of the five general criteria requires that a 
determination be made as to whether the site or its use will minimize 
interference with other uses of the marine environment. For this 
proposed rule, a determination was made to overlay individual uses and 
resources presented in the technical exhibits to the EIS and SEIS onto 
a base map containing the bathymetry and location of the proposed 
disposal sites. For purposes of assessing this criterion, EPA assumed 
that the more interactions between various uses and limited resources, 
the more critical the area's potential for interference. The overlay 
process was used to visually determine where maximum and minimum 
interferences with other uses of the marine environment could be 
expected to occur. The Shallow Water site and Deep Water site viewed 
against this criterion showed minimum interference with other 
activities. Both proposed sites avoid areas intensively utilized by the 
Dungeness crab fishery.

2. Minimize Changes in Water Quality

    The second of the five general criteria requires that locations and 
boundaries of disposal sites be selected so that temporary changes in 
water quality or other environmental conditions during initial mixing 
caused by disposal operations anywhere within a site can be expected to 
be reduced to normal ambient seawater levels or to undetectable 
contaminant concentrations or effects before reaching beaches, 
shorelines, sanctuaries, or geographically-limited fisheries or 
shellfisheries. The proposed sites will be used for dredged material 
disposal of suitable sediments as determined by application of national 
and regional testing protocols (e.g., then-current Dredged Material 
Evaluation Framework). No significant contaminant or suspended solids 
releases are expected. Based on previous sediment testing and 
evaluations at the MCR by the Corps and EPA, disposal of either sandy 
or fine-grained material would not have any long-term impact on the 
water quality. No water quality perturbations will occur that could 
reach any beach, shoreline, marine sanctuary, or known geographically-
limited fishery or shellfishery. Bottom movement of material deposited 
at the Shallow Water site is generally expected to show a net 
alongshore movement and will contribute to the existing littoral 
system. Material deposited at the Deep Water site is expected to stay 
in the Placement Area.

3. Interim Sites Which Do Not Meet Criteria

    There are no interim sites to be considered under this criterion. 
Sites A, B, E, and F were designated on a final basis in 1986. The 
proposed Shallow Water and Deep Water sites are not interim sites as 
defined under the Ocean Dumping regulations.

4. Size of Sites

    The fourth general criterion requires that the sizes of ocean 
disposal sites be limited to localize for identification and control 
any immediate adverse impacts and to permit the implementation of 
effective monitoring and surveillance programs to prevent adverse long-
range impacts. Size, configuration and location is to be determined as 
part of the disposal site evaluation or designation study. For this 
proposed rule, the IFR/EIS and SEIS were relied upon to determine size, 
configuration and location of the ODMDS to propose. The proposed 
Shallow Water and Deep Water sites have been sized to provide 
sufficient capacity to accommodate material dredged from the MCR 
federal project as well as future material from the improved Columbia 
River navigational channel. The sizing of the proposed sites has 
factored in the ability to implement effective monitoring and 
surveillance programs, among other things, to prevent mounding of 
dredged material which could result in adverse wave conditions as has 
been experienced at the originally designated sites and to ensure that 
navigational safety will not be compromised. Bathymetric surveys are 
planned as an important component of the SMMP. The results will be used 
to document the fate of the dredged material and provide information 
for management in the future to prevent adverse long-range impacts.

5. Sites Off the Continental Shelf

    The fifth general criterion requires EPA, wherever feasible, to 
designate ocean dumping sites beyond the edge of the continental shelf 
and other such sites that have historically used. Potential disposal 
areas located off the continental shelf are at least 20 nautical miles 
offshore in water depths of 600 feet or greater, with the exception of 
the Astoria Canyon, which is 11 nautical miles offshore. The haul 
distance to an ``off-shelf'' disposal site is much greater than the 4.5 
nautical mile average operational limit of the MCR project, making an 
off-shelf site not feasible for maintenance of the MCR project. The 
proposed Shallow Water site, if designated, will encompass the 
footprint of the historically used Site E, however, continued disposal 
in this area is desirable because the dredged materials are place into 
the nearshore littoral transport system, a system that functions with 
largely non-renewable quantities of sand in Oregon and Washington.

Specific Criteria (40 CFR 228.6)

1. Geographical Position, Depth of Water, Bottom Topography, and 
Distance From the Coast

    The proposed Shallow Water site would incorporate and appreciably 
expand the existing EPA-designated Site E and would include the Corps' 
1997 selected Section 103 ``Expanded Site E.'' The site is located off 
the end of the North Jetty and would be 11,500 feet long and expand in 
width from 3,100 feet to 5,600 feet wide, encompassing a total area of 
1,198 acres. The proposed site is located to the north of the Columbia 
River channel. The bottom topography slopes from the north to the south 
along the south side of Peacock Spit. Water depths in the proposed site 
range from 45 to 75 feet. Material placed at the Shallow Water site is 
expected to erode out, move north and northwest, and feed Peacock Spit.
    The proposed Deep Water site would be located about 4.5 miles west 
of the entrance to the Columbia River navigation channel and extend 
westerly to about 7 miles west of the entrance. The bottom topography 
is featureless and gently slopes away from shore. Water depths at the 
proposed site range from about 180 feet to about 310 feet. Overall site 
dimensions proposed are 17,000 feet by 23,000 feet as an outer boundary 
(the Disposal Site including Buffer), that consists of an inner 
rectangle that measures 11,000 feet by 17,000 feet (the Placement Area) 
and which is surrounded on all sides by a 3,000-foot Buffer. The 
proposed site would encompass a total of 8,976 acres or 10.5 sq nmi. 
Disposal of dredged material would only be allowed within the inner 
rectangle (Placement Area), which has a total area of 4,293 acres or 
5.0 sq nmi. EPA anticipates that material placed at this site would 
raise a stable mound approximately 40 feet high over the estimated 50 
+/- year life of the site. No direct disposal of dredged material would 
be allowed anywhere in the Buffer; however, dredged material sloughing 
off the developing mound or drifting during placement may extend into 
the Buffer zone. The Buffer zone

[[Page 11495]]

will also serve as the ``reference area'' for site monitoring.

2. Location in Relation to Breeding, Spawning, Nursery, Feeding, or 
Passage Areas in Adult and Juvenile Phases

    Many open-ocean nearshore organisms occur in the water column over 
the proposed Shallow Water site. These organisms include zooplankton 
(copepods, euphausiids, pteropods, and chaetognaths) and meroplankton 
(fish, crab and other invertebrate larvae). These organisms display a 
normal range of change in abundance by season. The populations at or 
near the proposed Shallow Water site are not unique to the proposed 
site. They are present over most of the coast. Overall coastal 
populations are not dependent on those located near the MCR. Based on 
zooplankton and larval fish studies, it appears that there will be no 
impacts to organisms in the water column.
    Offshore areas (beyond the 200-foot depth contour) including the 
proposed Deep Water site, have consistently higher densities and 
numbers of benthic species (diversity) than nearshore shallower areas 
such as the proposed Shallow Water site. Therefore, placement of 
dredged material in the Deep Water site would be expected to have a 
greater impact to the benthic infaunal community than placement of 
dredged material in nearshore locations.
    The proposed sites are located in an area off the mouth of the 
Columbia River which supports a variety of pelagic and demersal fish 
species as well as shellfish including Dungeness crab. Pelagic species 
include anadromous salmon, steelhead, cutthroat trout, striped bass, 
lamprey, smelt, herring, sturgeon, and shad that migrate through the 
estuary to upriver spawning areas. Juveniles of these species are 
present in the area following their migration out of the river or 
estuary into the ocean. Some remain in the nearshore area for various 
periods of time feeding and rearing, while others move directly 
offshore. Other pelagic species include the Pacific herring, anchovy, 
surf smelt, and sea perch. Surf smelt are in nearshore areas and in the 
estuary in large numbers during the summer. Demersal species present in 
the nearshore area include juvenile flatfish which rear in the area. 
Resident species occur in the offshore area throughout the year with 
many using the estuary as a rearing and nursery area. Species present 
include various flatfish, rockfish and other demersal fish.
    Potentially, 30 cetacean species can occur along the coast although 
their numbers are generally limited. Harbor porpoises and gray whales 
are prevalent in shelf waters less than 600 feet deep. The larger 
cetaceans (whales) typically occur as migrants in the spring and fall, 
such as the California gray whale. Smaller cetaceans, principally 
dolphins, porpoises, and some small whales are also present. Five 
species of pinnipeds are known to occur along the coast: northern sea 
lion, California sea lion, harbor seal, northern elephant seal and 
northern fur seal. Harbor seals are resident whereas the four other 
species of pinnipeds are more transient in nature. Harbor seals and 
California/northern sea lions are the principal species observed in the 
estuary. All three species are known to forage within the estuary and 
adjacent ocean waters.
    Four species of marine turtles (loggerhead, green, Pacific ridley, 
and Pacific leatherback) have been recorded from strandings along the 
coastline since 1982. Marine turtles are unusual in their occurrence 
along the Pacific Coast as they are typically associated with warmer 
marine waters.
    Pelagic birds are extremely numerous in the offshore area. Studies 
have found that seabird populations were most densely concentrated over 
the continental shelf (less than 600 feet in depth). Shearwaters, storm 
petrels, gulls, common murres and Cassin's auklets numerically 
dominated the pelagic bird fauna from late spring through late summer. 
Phalaropes, fulmars, and California gulls are important constituents of 
the fall pelagic bird flocks. The principal species in the winter are 
phaloropes, California gulls, fulmars, other gulls, murres, auklets, 
and kittiwakes. Red-throated, Pacific and common loons occur as spring 
and fall migrants. Western, red-necked, horned, and eared grebes also 
occur in the area. Brown pelicans occur from late spring to mid-fall 
along the coast. This species forages in nearshore waters of the 
Pacific Ocean and estuarine waters of the Columbia River. 
Concentrations of up to 1,000 birds have been reported. Three species 
of cormorants and three species of terns occur and forage in nearshore 
Pacific Ocean waters and the estuary.
    The federally listed threatened and endangered species which may 
occur within the area of the proposed sites include: listed salmon and 
steelhead stocks; blue, finback, sei, right, humpbacked and sperm 
whales; loggerhead, green, Pacific ridley, and Pacific leatherback sea 
turtles; northern (Steller) sea lion; marbled murrelet; bald eagle; 
Aleutian Canada goose; peregrine falcon; and brown pelicans. Occurrence 
of these species varies by season and location in the offshore area.
    Disposal at both of the proposed sites is expected to result in the 
mortality of benthic organisms and some crabs as an immediate result of 
material burying organisms as it hits the ocean floor. Recolonization 
near the burial sites is expected. Disposal at the proposed Deep Water 
site is expected to have a greater, but not unacceptable, negative 
impact to the benthic community because of its higher benthic infaunal 
density and diversity relative to the proposed Shallow Water site. The 
density and diversity of benthic organisms at the proposed Deep Water 
site is expected to be changed by the point-dump disposals that will 
ultimately create the 40-foot mound. With respect to the other living 
resources that use the proposed Shallow Water and Deep Water sites, the 
sites are not being located in areas that are limited or that are 
unique breeding, spawning, nursery, feeding, or passage areas.

3. Location in Relation to Beaches and Other Amenity Areas

    The proposed Shallow Water site would be located on the north side 
of the entrance channel in 45 feet to 75 feet of water. Most of the 
dredged material to be placed in the Shallow Water site is expected to 
move north onto Peacock Spit. Some material can be expected to move 
toward Benson Beach, or possibly back into the entrance channel. The 
Shallow Water site, as a dispersive site, has the potential to feed 
sand into the littoral system that nourishes the beaches. Material 
placed at the Shallow Water site probably does not directly nourish the 
beaches. The shoreward edge of the proposed Deep Water site would be 
located about 4.5 nautical miles off the beaches of Oregon and 
Washington in about 200 feet of water. Material placed at the Deep 
Water site is expected to create a mound of material that is not 
available to the littoral system and is lost to the beaches.

4. Types and Quantities of Wastes Produced To Be Disposed of, and 
Proposed Methods of Release, Including Methods of Packing the Waste, If 
Any

    The sites that are proposed to be designated will receive dredged 
materials determined to be suitable for ocean disposal that are 
transported by either government or private contractor hopper dredges 
or ocean-going bottom-dump barges towed by tugboat. Both types of 
equipment release the material at or very near the surface. The 
majority of material expected to be disposed in the proposed sites is 
anticipated to come from Corps maintenance dredging of shoals in the 
MCR entrance channel federal project. These sediments consist

[[Page 11496]]

primarily of marine sands transported into the entrance. The material 
is clean, contains no contaminants of concern in excess levels, is far 
removed from known sources of contaminants, and is suitable for open-
water disposal. In the 1999 IFR/EIS, a smaller volume of material was 
anticipated to be dredged from the Columbia River navigation channel 
(RMs 3 to 29) for operation and maintenance purposes and the then-
proposed channel improvements project and disposed in the ocean. That 
material was also evaluated and found suitable for unconfined open-
water disposal. These sediments consist of sands with low percent of 
silts and clays or organic material. Modifications to the channel 
improvements project (identified and assessed in the SEIS, 2003) 
propose to beneficially use those sediments for Ecosystem Restoration 
projects within the estuary for approximately the first 20 years 
following construction of the improved channel. Should the Ecosystem 
Restoration projects identified not be built, those sediments would be 
proposed for ocean disposal. In addition, some fine-grained material 
from side channels or backwater areas may be placed offshore in the 
future which will require testing and evaluation and perhaps regulatory 
permitting.
    Material to be disposed at the Shallow Water site is expected to be 
placed to promote dispersion and subsequent erosion back into the 
littoral system without generating mounds or other features which could 
interfere with navigation or reduce navigation safety. Site monitoring 
and management will be focused on that objective.
    Material to be disposed of at the Deep Water site is expected to be 
point-dumped within Drop Zones so as to concentrate material 
(individually and cumulatively) from each dump. This placement is 
expected to help minimize bottom impacts to benthic organisms. However, 
placement at the Deep Water site is expected to result in the formation 
of an underwater mound that is different from the flat, gently-sloping 
bottom that presently exists. When the placement zone of the site is 
filled to capacity, it is expected to resemble an approximately 
trapezoidal mound about 40 feet high. Some material is expected to 
slump into the buffer zone from the created mound.
    Current hopper dredges or ocean-going, bottom-dump barges available 
for use along the west coast dredging have capacities ranging from 800 
to 6,000 cubic yards (cy). This would be the likely volume range of 
dredged material deposited in any one dredging-and-placement cycle. 
Clamshell dredges placing material into bottom-dump barges for 
transport to the ocean can work within the estuary and river, but not 
at the MCR project. Hopper dredges can and do work sections of the 
existing river navigation channel. The approximately 4.5 million cubic 
yards (mcy) estimated to be removed annually from the MCR, and 0.6 mcy 
of the improved Columbia River channel maintenance should channel 
materials be proposed for ocean disposal, can be placed at the sites in 
one dredging season by any combination of private and government 
dredges. The dredges or barges would be under power and moving during 
disposal, allowing the maintenance of steerage. The slurried dredged 
material is expected to exit from the hoppers within several minutes 
and rapidly descend to the seafloor where it will impact with the 
bottom and spread radially. Dredged material released at the Shallow 
Water site should reach the bottom within 10 minutes. Material released 
at the Deep Water site should reach the bottom in about 35 minutes.

5. Feasibility of Surveillance and Monitoring

    Monitoring and surveillance are expected to be feasible at both 
proposed sites. The proposed Shallow Water site, in the nearshore zone, 
is readily accessible for bathymetric surveys. The proposed Deep Water 
site, 4.5 miles offshore and between 200 and 300 feet deep, has 
undergone monitoring, including side-scan sonar. If actual field 
monitoring of the disposal activities is required because of a future 
concern for habitat changes or limited resources, several research 
groups are available in the area to perform any required work. Most 
monitoring work for the proposed Shallow Water site can be performed 
from small, surface research vessels at a reasonable cost. Monitoring 
at the Deep Water site may be more complex than monitoring at the 
proposed Shallow Water site and is likely to require a medium or large 
vessel at greater cost.
    Once the proposed sites are designated, monitoring shall be in 
accordance with the then-current SMMP. Revisions to the SMMP are 
expected; revisions will be circulated for public review, coordinated 
specifically with the affected States, and become final when approved 
by EPA Region 10. At a minimum, annual bathymetric surveys will be 
conducted in areas that receive dredged material. More frequent 
compliance surveys will be conducted during placement at the Shallow 
Water site to assure uniform placement is occurring. It is expected 
that off-site monitoring will be necessary at the proposed Shallow 
Water site, at least in the initial years of use. Routine monitoring 
for management purposes at the proposed Deep Water site are expected 
and will likely focus on determining how to concentrate single year 
disposals in the site and on verification that material is not placed 
in the buffer zone or escaping outside of the overall site. No routine 
off-site monitoring is anticipated for the Deep Water site.

6. Dispersal, Horizontal Transport and Vertical Mixing Characteristics 
of the Area, Including Prevailing Current Direction and Velocity

    The ocean entrance at MCR (including Peacock Spit to the north) is 
characterized by large waves and strong currents and is considered one 
of the world's most hazardous coastal inlets. The interactions of 
bathymetry, wind-generated waves, and ocean and river currents, are 
complex and the transition from coastal regime to oceanic is abrupt. 
The sea state at the river entrance during storm conditions is 
characterized by high swell incident from the northwest to southwest 
combined with locally-generated wind-waves from the south to southwest. 
During October-April, average wind-wave height is 9 feet and wave 
period is 12 seconds. During intense winter storms, however, waves can 
exceed 30 feet. During May-September, average wind-wave height is 5 
feet and wave period is 9 seconds. Tides at MCR are mixed semi-diurnal, 
with a diurnal range of 8.5 feet. Currents, especially during ebb tidal 
flow cycles, can significantly worsen the hazardous wave climate even 
during low to moderate wind-wave conditions. At given locations, the 
velocity of the current has the greatest effect on wave height and wave 
steepness. This naturally dynamic condition enhances dispersal, 
horizontal transport and vertical mixing of the sediments as well as 
the water. This makes the area ideal for a dispersive disposal site, 
but extremely challenging to dredge and maintain navigation structures 
and for navigation of all sized vessels and craft.
    The Columbia River estuary (from MCR to the Astoria Bridge) is a 
sink for marine (ocean) sediments, which enter through the mouth of the 
Columbia River. The estuary also effectively traps virtually all of the 
coarser fluvial (river) sediments. Finer fluvial sediments held in 
suspension are passed through the estuary to the ocean. ODMDSs for the 
MCR dredged material must be located to prevent the dredged material 
placed at the sites from returning directly into the entrance channel. 
This requires

[[Page 11497]]

knowledge about the direction and rate of longshore transport as well 
as onshore/offshore transport.
    Sediment movement in the marine littoral zone consists of two 
mechanisms that depend on sediment size. Sediments finer than sand 
remain in suspension in the water and are removed relatively quickly 
offshore. The almost total lack of clays and silts within the Columbia 
River mouth proper and the lower reaches of the Columbia River 
navigation channel attest to the efficiency of this mechanism. 
Sediments, sand size or coarser, may occasionally be suspended by wave 
action near the bottom, and are moved by bottom currents or directly as 
bedload. Tidal, wind and wave forces contribute to generating bottom 
currents that act in relation to the sediment grain size and water 
depth to produce sediment transport. Net transport for sand-sized 
material along the Oregon and Washington coast is to the north and 
northwest at a very slow rate. Sand placed in depths less than 60 feet 
can be mobilized by the combined forces of wave action and current and 
be transported within the littoral system.
    Data available on prevailing current direction indicates that the 
prevailing current at the MCR is to the north and northwest. Current 
velocity varies seasonally and is greatest during ebb tide conditions. 
Sediments placed in the nearshore area, such as at the proposed Shallow 
Water site, appear to mix into the existing substrate. Movement of this 
material is expected to be in the direction of the prevailing current, 
to the north and northwest. This conclusion seems to be verified by 
monitoring conducted at the proposed Shallow Water site since 1997 and 
recent Corps' modeling studies.
    The proposed Deep Water site is less influenced by the many dynamic 
interactions at MCR. Located at its closest point 4.5 miles from the 
entrance, dredged material placed on the sea bottom is at a depth where 
the prevailing currents are not expected to have any significant 
effects. Over time, as the mound accumulates, ocean currents, sloughing 
and consolidation of the material will tend to flatten the mound and 
distribute some of the placed material into the margins of the buffer. 
Sediments placed at Deep Water site are lost to the littoral system.

7. Existence and Effects of Current and Previous Discharges and Dumping 
in the Area (Including Cumulative Effects)

    The proposed Deep Water site has not been used for disposal of 
dredged material. Designated Site E and Expanded Site E, which this 
rule proposes to incorporate into the footprint of the proposed Shallow 
Water site, have received varying quantities of dredged material, 
averaging about 3.5 mcy annually. Over the years, crab fishermen have 
reported some reduced harvest of crabs and loss of equipment at all 
designated ODMDS, including Site E, and expressed concern that disposal 
at Expanded Site E could contribute to adverse wave conditions. EPA and 
the Corps have studied the Site E and Expanded E in considerable 
detail. Recent computer modeling has not substantiated crab fishermen 
concerns relative to adverse wave conditions. Crab studies suggest that 
some crab mortality occurs as a direct result of the inability of a 
limited number of crabs to dig out from a burial by dredged materials. 
This effect is minimal relative to the crab resource and fishery at the 
MCR. Additional sampling of both the Deep Water Site and the Shallow 
Water Site was done in the late spring/early summer and fall of 2002. 
Preliminary results from these surveys are supportive of the earlier 
resource assessments (IFR/EIS 1999).
    The historic record for the MCR suggests that between 1905 and 1940 
approximately 8 mcy of sediment was dredged from the MCR bar and placed 
in open water by hopper dredge. Between 1945 and 1955, a total of 
approximately 13 mcy was dredged; while between 1956 and 1998, a total 
of 184 mcy has been dredged and placed in-water. The total volume of 
material dredged from the MCR channel between 1904 and 1998 is 
approximately 206 mcy. Beginning in 1977, placement of dredged 
materials from the MCR bar was limited to EPA designated ``interim 
sites,'' including Site E, which became ``final sites'' in 1986. 
Disposal was further limited as the final sites were used and effects 
were observed. The most pronounced cumulative effect of past disposal 
has been the development of mounds at designated Sites A and B. 
Mounding altered the bathymetry at these sites to the point that the 
wave climate in the area was affected.
    Monitoring of benthic infauna has generally not shown any long-term 
effects due to the dredged material disposal. Oceanographic conditions 
are the driving factor in benthic infaunal productivity and diversity. 
The exception to this is lowered productivity on the crest of the mound 
in designated site B. Crab fishermen have also reported lower crab 
yields in the area of the mound at site B, which may be due to reduced 
productivity or the more difficult conditions for setting and 
retrieving crab pots. Crab pots have been buried or lost during dredged 
material disposal operations. Crab pot loss is not considered a 
cumulative, or significant, effect of disposal in the area.

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

    Commercial and Recreational Fishing. Major commercial and 
recreational fishing occur in the offshore area. The predominant 
commercial fisheries are for salmon, Dungeness crab, bottomfish and 
pink shrimp. Salmon trolling and crab fishing are done over much of the 
nearshore area. The actual location and effort, however, varies from 
year to year depending on the abundance of fish or crabs, and resulting 
seasonal restrictions.
    The principal recreational fishing occurring off the MCR is for 
salmon and bottom fish. Salmon fishing is done by charter boat and 
private boat and occurs near the same areas as commercial fishing, but 
generally closer to shore. Bottom fishing is conducted by charter and 
private boat for halibut, rockfish, and lingcod, which are generally 
associated with rocky areas. Other recreational activities include 
clamming in the bay and along the beach and fishing off the jetties. 
Dredging operations have not been identified as impacting any of these 
fishing activities. Crab fishermen have stated that disposal of 
material at the existing ODMDS, Site E, has affected their fishery by 
creating mounds which affect small boat navigation, or create a soft 
bottom condition which lets crab pots sink into the sediments making 
removal difficult, expensive or impossible. Crab pots have been damaged 
or lost due to burial when dredged material was placed on them or by 
the dredges snagging the buoy lines. The Corps has been and will 
continue to coordinate with the fishermen to minimize this impact. Crab 
fishermen have also expressed the concern that disposal kills crabs by 
smothering them or by changing the bottom habitat which may reduce the 
number of crabs available to catch.
    In order to evaluate the impacts to individual crabs by dredged 
material disposal, the Corps contracted with Battelle NW Laboratories 
in Sequim, Washington and Scripps Institute of Oceanography in La 
Jolla, California. Because assessing these impacts during an actual 
disposal event could not be done in the ocean, it was decided to 
simulate disposal conditions in the laboratory. The tests at the 
Battelle Lab were done with recently molted soft-shelled crabs, which 
have the greatest

[[Page 11498]]

potential for mechanical damage during a disposal event. The tests at 
the Scripps Lab were done using hard shell crab, since soft-shell crabs 
were not available.
    Results of the limited testing are inconclusive. In all the tests 
done, no crabs appeared to be killed or injured by mechanical damage 
(all crabs removed from the sand mass were alive). The only mortality 
occurred when they did not dig out of the sand mass. Whether or not 
this behavior is typical of what occurs in nature is unknown. It seems 
unlikely, however, that organisms that live in an environment where 
they are constantly being buried under sand, such as at the mouth of 
the Columbia River, would have evolved a behavior that would result in 
their mortality. It seems more likely that the mortality associated 
with this behavior is an artifact of the testing and that the tests do 
not accurately represent the conditions that crabs experience in 
nature.
    Crab population levels are affected by a variety of environmental 
and human factors, including but not limited to: upwelling patterns, 
onshore currents, wind and commercial fishing. Any of these conditions 
can have a devastating effect on population numbers in any year. 
Changes in oceanographic conditions during the larval stage can 
dramatically reduce survival and the number of adults. While some 
mortality of crabs could occur during an individual disposal event, 
only a small percentage of the population present and habitat available 
at the MCR would be affected by an individual disposal or repetitive 
disposal events. These mortalities and changes in habitat would be 
significantly less than mortalities and habitat changes which occur 
naturally. Additional sampling of both the Deep Water Site and the 
Shallow Water Site was done in the late spring/early summer and fall of 
2002. Preliminary results from these surveys are supportive of the 
earlier resource assessments (IFR/EIS 1999).
    Bathymetric monitoring will be done at and in the vicinity of the 
proposed Shallow Water site if it is designated. This information will 
be used by the Corps and EPA to manage placement of dredged material 
into the site. The proposed Shallow Water site would be located in an 
area that is dispersive, so while material will accumulate during 
active disposal, it is expected to be dispersed out of the site by the 
next dredging season (see also specific criteria 6). Disposal at the 
proposed Deep Water site will create a permanent mound; however, a 
mound height restriction and site monitoring and management will 
preclude interference with small and large vessel operation. The 
proposed Deep Water site is primarily within the towboat lane and 
should receive very limited commercial or recreational fishing use.
    Dungeness crab are widely distributed throughout the nearshore area 
and fishing occurs in most areas north and south of the Columbia River 
mouth and out into deep ocean water (300+ feet). Throughout the site 
selection process, the crab fishermen identified specific areas that 
produce more income for their crab fishing effort. While these areas 
may not represent the cross-section of all fishermen operating out of 
the Columbia River, these identified areas were avoided to the extent 
practicable in the EPA's configuration of the proposed sites.
    Mineral Extraction. There are known metallic mineral deposits in 
the area, principally black sands. While commercial extraction has been 
proposed and attempted in the past there are no known current proposals 
to mine offshore. There have been no exploratory wells drilled offshore 
near the mouth of the Columbia River. Clear conflicts with navigation 
and endangered species make it unlikely that production facilities 
would be permitted near the river's mouth or at any proposed site.
    Desalination. There are no desalination plants in the area of the 
mouth of the Columbia River.
    Fish and Shellfish Culture. There are no fish or shellfish culture 
operations in the area of the mouth of the Columbia River that would be 
affected by disposal of dredged material at any of the proposed sites.
    Shipping and Other Legitimate Uses. Conflicts with commercial 
navigation traffic have been reported at the four 102/103 sites. In the 
past, disposal operations at Site F, where there was the greatest 
potential for conflict, were closely coordinated with the bar pilots. 
Similar coordination is expected to occur if the Deep Water site is 
used. The proposed Deep Water site is located in the towboat lanes and 
offshore of the Columbia Bar Pilots' exchange point. The potential for 
conflict with dredges and tug and barges transiting to the site are 
recognized but can be managed through coordination with the pilots, the 
Coast Guard, and others. While commercial navigation traffic is not an 
issue for the proposed Shallow Water site, placement at the site would 
be managed to avoid the creation of potential adverse wave impacts 
resulting from disposal operations, which could affect smaller boats 
transiting through the area. The proposed site would be located in an 
area immediately adjacent to an area that is subject to shoaling and 
breaking waves. Navigation in this area is known to be hazardous at all 
times based on natural conditions. Management at the proposed site 
would be focussed on not worsening the conditions at this naturally 
hazardous area.
    Special Scientific Importance. There are no known transects or 
other scientific study locations that would be impacted by disposal at 
any proposed site.

9. The Existing Water Quality and Ecology of the Site as Determined by 
Available Data or by Trend Assessment or Baseline Survey

    Water and sediment quality analyses conducted in the study area and 
experience with past disposals in this region have not identified any 
adverse water quality impacts from ocean disposal of dredged material. 
The ecology of the nearshore and offshore areas is a Northeast Pacific 
mobile sand community. Neither the pelagic (mobile) or benthic (non-
mobile) communities should sustain irreparable harm due to their 
widespread occurrence off the Oregon and Washington coasts.

10. Potentiality for the Development or Recruitment of Nuisance Species 
in the Disposal Site

    Nuisance species are considered to be any undesirable organism not 
previously existing at the disposal site. They are either transported 
to or recruited to the site because the disposal of dredged material 
creates an environment where they can establish. It is highly unlikely 
that any nuisance species could be established at the proposed Shallow 
Water site given the dynamic energy at the site which is expected to 
discourage the establishment of species not currently adapted to high-
energy conditions. Habitat conditions are expected to change somewhat 
at the proposed Deep Water site because it is expected that disposal of 
coarser materials will impact limited sections of the benthic 
communities currently established at the site. While it can be expected 
that organisms will become established at the site which were not there 
previously, it is unlikely that this new community would be regarded as 
a nuisance, or ``undesirable,'' community.

11. Existence at or in Close Proximity to the Site of any Significant 
Natural or Cultural Features of Historical Significance

    Due to the proximity of the proposed Shallow Water site to the 
Columbia River channel, the cultural resource that

[[Page 11499]]

has the greatest potential for impact would be shipwrecks. The most 
likely areas for shipwrecks would be in the shallow breaker zone and 
the mouth of the Columbia River entrance. Wrecks within these areas 
would likely have been torn apart due to the high-energy climate. At or 
near the proposed Deep Water site wrecks are less likely; however, the 
deeper water would buffer the high-energy wave climate and thus make 
shipwrecks there less prone to damage. Shipwrecks in deeper water would 
tend to have more cultural value than shipwrecks nearshore. 
Undiscovered wrecks could occur in the area. Sidescan sonar surveys of 
the Deep Water Site have been conducted which should have identified 
any potential shipwrecks. None were identified. As additional sidescan 
sonar surveys are conducted in the future, and if potential shipwrecks 
are identified, EPA will require or undertake appropriate follow up 
action. No natural or cultural features of historical significance have 
been identified at either site proposed for designation in this rule.

G. Proposed Action--Proposal to De-Designate Existing ODMDS and 
Proposal to Designate Ocean Disposal Sites

    The proposed action evaluated through this proposal is the proposed 
designation under Section 102(c) of the MPRSA of the Shallow Water and 
Deep Water sites. The primary purpose of the proposed designations is 
to provide environmentally acceptable locations for ocean disposal of 
dredged materials from Columbia River navigation projects. The 
evaluative processes, voluntary NEPA and an analysis of site 
suitability based on an assessment of the regulatory criteria, provide 
a thorough and objective evaluation and the information necessary to 
determine the suitability of an ocean disposal area for site 
designation. EPA's proposed site designation is being conducted in 
accordance with the MPRSA, the Ocean Dumping Regulations, and other 
applicable Federal environmental legislation and policy.
    Ocean disposal site designation does not constitute or imply EPA's 
or the Corps' approval of ocean disposal of dredged material from any 
project. Before disposal of any dredged material at newly designated 
ODMDS may occur, EPA and the Corps must evaluate the proposed project 
according to the ocean dumping regulatory criteria (40 CFR part 227). 
EPA and the Corps will not allow ocean disposal of dredged material at 
newly designated ODMDS if either agency determines that the dredged 
material does not meet the ocean dumping regulatory criteria. The Corps 
is required to evaluate all proposed dredging projects associated with 
Columbia River dredged materials in accordance with all applicable 
Federal law, e.g., the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 
Management Act, the Coastal Zone Management Act, and the Endangered 
Species Act.
    This proposed action also proposes to de-designate, pursuant to 40 
CFR 228.11, three ODMDS, Sites A, B and F, originally designated by EPA 
in 1986. The sites are proposed for de-designation because use of the 
sites for disposal of dredged materials resulted in mounding of 
disposal materials. The resulting mounds threatened to create hazardous 
conditions for large ships and small craft due to waves refracting from 
and breaking over the mounds. A fourth ODMDS, Site E, as currently 
designated, inhibits the ability to minimize interference with other 
activities in the marine environment. This rule proposes to modify Site 
E pursuant to 40 CFR 228.11 by designating a new site, the Shallow 
Water site which would incorporate the 1986-designated Site E and 
appreciably expand it. This rule does not propose to impact sites 
selected by the Corps under the authority of Section 103 of the MPRSA. 
Those sites will terminate based on the requirements of Section 103.

H. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

1. Executive Order 12866

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4,1993), the 
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'', 
and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the 
Executive Order. The Order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as 
one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, 
or adversely affect in a material way, the economy, a sector of the 
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety, or State, local or tribal governments or communities;
    (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, 
user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligations of 
recipients thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in 
the Executive Order.
    It has been determined that this proposed action is not a 
``significant regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive Order 
12866 and is therefore not subject to OMB review.

2. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq., is intended 
to minimize the reporting and record-keeping burden on the regulated 
community, as well as to minimize the cost of Federal information 
collection and dissemination. In general, the Act requires that 
information requests and record-keeping requirements affecting ten or 
more non-Federal respondents be approved by OPM. Since the proposed 
Rule does not establish or modify any information or record-keeping 
requirements, it is not subject to the provisions of the Paperwork 
Reduction Act.

3. Regulatory Flexibility

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small 
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA), ), 5 U.S.C. 601 
et seq., generally requires Federal agencies to prepare a regulatory 
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment 
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any 
other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small 
governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of 
today's rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small 
business, as codified in the Small Business Size Regulations at 13 CFR 
part 121; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of 
a city, county, town, school district or special district with a 
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is 
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated 
and is not dominant in its field. EPA has determined that this action 
will not have a significant impact on small entities because the 
proposed ocean disposal site dd-designations and designations will only 
have the effect of providing environmentally-acceptable and safe for 
marine traffic disposal options for dredged materials on a continuing 
basis. After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule 
on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

[[Page 11500]]

    Although this proposed rule will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities, EPA nonetheless has 
tried to reduce the impact of this rule on small entities. EPA's 
proposed ocean disposal site designation considered input from small 
entities in determining where to propose site locations and in sizing 
sites to reduce any potential impacts. We continue to be interested in 
the potential impacts of the proposed rule on small entities and 
welcome comments on issues related to such impacts.

4. Unfunded Mandates

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) of 1995 (Pub. 
L. 104-4) establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the 
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local and tribal 
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA 
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit 
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that 
may result in expenditures to State, local and tribal governments, in 
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any 
year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is 
needed, Section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and 
consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the 
least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that 
achieves the objectives of the rule, the provisions of section 205 do 
not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, 
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least 
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the 
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why the 
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory 
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under 
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must 
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling 
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely 
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant 
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and 
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory 
requirements.
    This proposed rule contains no Federal mandates (under the 
regulatory provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local or 
tribal governments or the private sector. It imposes no new enforceable 
duty on any State, local or tribal governments or the private sector. 
Similarly, EPA has also determined that this proposed rule contains no 
regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect 
small government entities. Thus, the requirements of section 203 of the 
UMRA do not apply to this rule.

5. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure 
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the 
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' 
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the 
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct 
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national 
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among various levels of government.''
    This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will 
not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship 
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution 
of power and responsibilities among various levels of government, as 
specified in Executive Order 13132. This proposed rule addresses the 
designation of sites near the Columbia River suitable for disposal of 
dredged materials. Once designated, persons seeking to use the sites 
must obtain a permit. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to 
this rule. Although Section 6 of the Executive Order 13132 does not 
apply to this proposed rule, EPA did consult with representatives of 
State and local governments in developing this rule.
    In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA 
policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local 
governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed rule 
from State and local officials.

6. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination 
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), 
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful 
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory 
policies that have tribal implications.'' This proposed rule does not 
have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. The 
rule proposes to designate ocean disposal sites pursuant to section 102 
(c) of the MPRSA for use as dredged material sites and does not 
establish any regulatory policy with tribal implications. Thus, 
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this proposed rule. EPA 
specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed rule from 
tribal officials.

7. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health and Safety Risks

    Executive Order 13045 applies to any rule that: (1) Is determined 
to be ``economically significant'' as defined under Executive Order 
12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA 
has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. 
If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate 
the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on 
children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other 
potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered 
by the Agency.
    This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because 
it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866 
and because the Agency does not have reason to believe the 
environmental health or safety risks addressed by this proposed action 
present a disproportionate risk to children. The proposed rule concerns 
the designation of ocean disposal sites and would only have the effect 
of providing designated locations to use for ocean disposal of dredged 
material pursuant to section 102 (c) of the MPRSA.

8. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions 
Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a 
``significant regulatory action'' as defined under Executive Order 
12866.

9. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (``NTAA''), Public Law No. 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272) 
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory 
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or 
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical 
standards (e.g.,

[[Page 11501]]

materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and 
business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary 
consensus bodies. The NTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through the 
OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and 
applicable voluntary consensus standards. This proposed rulemaking does 
not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA is not considering the 
use of any voluntary consensus standards. EPA welcomes comments on this 
aspect of the proposed rulemaking and, specifically, invites the public 
to identify potentially-applicable voluntary consensus standards and to 
explain why such standards should be used in this regulation.

10. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations

    To the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, and 
consistent with the principles set forth in the report on the National 
Performance Review, each Federal agency must make achieving 
environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and 
addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human 
health and environmental effects of its programs, policies, and 
activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the 
United States and its territories and possessions, the District of 
Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the Commonwealth of the 
Mariana Islands. Because this proposed rule addresses ocean dumping 
(away from inhabited land areas), with no anticipated significant 
adverse human health or environmental effects, the rule is not subject 
to Executive Order 12898.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 228

    Environmental Protection, Water Pollution Control.

    Dated: March 4, 2003.
John Iani,
Regional Administrator for Region X.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, chapter I of title 40 of 
the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be 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. 1412 and 1418.

    2. Section 228.15 is amended by removing and reserving paragraphs 
(n) (6), (n) (7), and (n) (9), and revising paragraph (n)(8) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  228.15  Dumping sites designated on a final basis.

* * * * *
    (n) * * *
    (6) [Reserved]
    (7) [Reserved]
    (8) (i) Mouth of the Columbia River, OR/WA Dredged Material Shallow 
Water site
    (A) Location: Overall Site Coordinates/Site Placement Area: 
46[deg]15'31.64'' N, 124[deg]05'09.72'' W; 46[deg]14'17.66'' N, 
124[deg]07'14.54'' W; 46[deg]15'02.87'' N, 124[deg]08'11.47'' W; 
46[deg]15'52.77'' N, 124[deg]05'42.92'' W; Site Drop Zone: 
46[deg]15'35.36'' N, 124[deg]05'15.55'' W; 46[deg]14'31.07'' N, 
124[deg]07'03.25'' W; 46[deg]14'58.83'' N, 124[deg]07'36.89'' W; 
46[deg]15'42.38'' N, 124[deg]05'26.55'' W (All NAD 83).
    (B) Size: 3.50 kilometers long and 0.94 to 1.71 kilometers wide; 
0.626 square nautical miles.
    (C) Depth: Ranges from 14 to 23 meters.
    (D) Primary Use: Dredged Material determined to be suitable for 
ocean disposal.
    (E) Period of Use: Continuing Use.
    (F) Restrictions: (i) Disposal shall be limited to dredged material 
determined to be suitable for unconfined disposal; (ii) Disposal shall 
be limited by site restrictions and requirements contained in the then 
currently-approved Site Management and Monitoring Plan (SMMP); (iii) An 
Annual Use Plan (AUP) must be prepared and approved by EPA before 
disposal may occur in any year.
    (ii) Mouth of the Columbia River, OR/WA Dredged Material Deep Water 
site.
    (A) Location: Overall Site Coordinates: 46[deg]11'03.03'' N, 
124[deg]10'01.30'' W; 46[deg]13'09.78'' N, 124[deg]12'39.67'' W; 
46[deg]10'40.88'' N, 124[deg]16'46.48'' W; 46[deg]08'34.22'' N, 
124[deg]14'08.07'' W (which includes a 3,000-foot buffer on all sides); 
Site Placement Area: 46[deg]11'06.00'' N, 124[deg]11'05.99'' W; 
46[deg]12'28.01'' N, 124[deg]12'48.48'' W; 46[deg]10'37.96'' N, 
124[deg]15'50.91'' W; 46[deg]09'15.99'' N, 124[deg]14' 08.40'' W (All 
NAD, 83).
    (B) Size: 7.01 kilometers long by 5.18 kilometers wide; 5 square 
nautical miles.
    (C) Depth: Ranges from 55 to 94 meters.
    (D) Primary Use: Dredged material determined to be suitable for 
ocean disposal.
    (E) Period of Use: Continuing Use (subject to restriction 8) or 
until placed material has mounded to an average height of 40 feet 
within the placement area (see restriction 6 below).
    (F) Restrictions: (i) Disposal shall be limited to dredged material 
determined to be suitable for unconfined disposal; (ii) Disposal shall 
be limited by site restrictions and requirements contained in the then 
currently-approved Site Management and Monitoring Plan (SMMP); (iii) An 
Annual Use Plan (AUP) must be prepared and approved by EPA before 
disposal may occur in any year; (iv) A Drop Zone or Zones will be 
specified in the AUP for disposal, pursuant to restrictions and 
requirements contained in the then currently-approved SMMP; (v) Direct 
disposal of dredged material into the identified buffer zone is 
prohibited; (vi) The Corps and/or EPA shall undertake specific re-
evaluation of site capacity once the site is used and an average mound 
height of 30 feet has accumulated throughout the Placement Area. This 
evaluation will either confirm the original 40-foot height restriction, 
or recommend a more technically appropriate one; (vii) Use of the Deep 
Water Site during the first three years following final designation is 
limited as follows subject to completion of baseline and other special 
studies identified in the 2003 Site Management and Monitoring Plan: (a) 
Drop Zones specified must correspond to locations where 2001-2002 
physical and biological characterizations have occurred, and (b) 
Disposals will be required to minimize the spread of material on the 
sea floor within the placement area; (viii) Site use is automatically 
prohibited at the end of year three following final designation if, for 
any reason, baseline and other special studies identified in the 2003 
SMMP have not been completed and accepted by EPA. Site use will remain 
prohibited until this condition is satisfied.
    (9) [Reserved]
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 03-5743 Filed 3-10-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P