[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 84 (Friday, April 30, 2004)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 23706-23715]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-9720]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 228

[FRL-7654-9]


Designation of the Rhode Island Region Dredged Material Disposal 
Site in Rhode Island Sound

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing today 
to designate the Rhode Island Sound Disposal Site (RISDS) in Rhode 
Island Sound offshore of Rhode Island. This action is necessary to 
provide a long-term dredged material disposal site for the current and 
future disposal of dredged material from Rhode Island, southeastern 
Massachusetts, and surrounding harbors (hereinafter referred to as the 
Rhode Island Region). The proposed site designation is for an 
indefinite period of time. The RISDS will be subject to continuing 
monitoring to ensure that significant unacceptable, adverse 
environmental impacts do not occur. The proposed action is described in 
the Rhode Island Region Long-Term Dredged Material Disposal Site 
Evaluation Project Draft Environmental

[[Page 23707]]

Impact Statement (DEIS), and the monitoring plan is described in the 
RISDS Site Management and Monitoring Plan (SMMP). The SMMP is provided 
as Appendix C of the DEIS. Site designation does not itself actually 
authorize the disposal of any particular dredged material at a site. 
Proposals to dispose of dredged material at a designated site are 
subject to project--specific reviews and authorization and still must 
satisfy the criteria for ocean dumping.

DATES: Comments must be received by 5 p.m. on June 21, 2004.
    Public Hearing: The public hearings are as follows:

1. June 15, 2004 at 1 p.m., Galilee, Rhode Island
2. June 15, 2004 at 7 p.m., Galilee, Rhode Island

ADDRESSES: Comments: Comments may be submitted by mail or 
electronically as follows:
    1. By mail: Submit written comments on this document to: Ms. Olga 
Guza, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency New England Region, One 
Congress Street, Suite 1100 (CWQ), Boston, MA 02114-2023. To ensure 
proper identification of your comments, include in the subject line the 
name, date and Federal Register citation of this document.
    2. Electronically: Submit your comments electronically to: [email protected]. Electronic comments must be submitted as an 
ASCII or WordPerfect file avoiding the use of special characters and 
any form of encryption. Comments will also be accepted on disks in 
WordPerfect or ASCII file format sent or delivered to the addresses 
above. All comments and data in electronic form must be identified by 
the name, date and Federal Register citation of this notice. No 
confidential business information should be sent via e-mail.
    Public Hearings: Both public hearings will take place at:
    1. Galilee, Rhode Island: Lighthouse Inn, 307 Great Island Road, 
Galilee, Rhode Island, 02882.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Olga Guza, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency New England Region, One Congress Street, Suite 1100 
(CWQ), Boston, MA 02114-2023, telephone (617) 918-1542, electronic 
mail: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: General Information:

A. Regulated Entities

    Entities potentially regulated by this action are persons, 
organizations, or government bodies seeking to dispose of dredged 
material into ocean waters of Rhode Island Sound, under the Marine 
Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act, 33 U.S.C. 1401 et seq. 
(hereinafter referred to as the MPRSA) and its implementing 
regulations. This proposed rule is expected to be primarily of 
relevance to (a) parties seeking permits from the Corps to transport 
dredged material for the purpose of disposal into the waters of Rhode 
Island Sound and (b) to the Corps itself for its own dredged material 
disposal projects. Potentially regulated categories and entities that 
may seek to use the proposed RIR dredged material disposal site may 
include:

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

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this 
action. This table lists the types of entities that could potentially 
be regulated should the proposed rule become a final rule. To determine 
whether your organization is affected by this action, you should 
carefully consider whether your organization is subject to the 
requirement to obtain an MPRSA permit in accordance with the Purpose 
and Scope of 40 CFR 220.1, and you wish to use the site subject to 
today's proposal. 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.

B. Background

    In 1972, the Congress of the United States enacted MPRSA to address 
and control the dumping of materials into ocean waters. Title I of 
MPRSA authorized EPA and the Corps to regulate dumping in ocean waters. 
Regulations implementing MPRSA are set forth at 40 CFR parts 220 to 
229. With few exceptions, the MPRSA prohibits the transportation of 
material from the United States for the purpose of ocean dumping except 
as may be authorized by a permit or authorization (in the case of Corps 
projects) issued under the MPRSA. The MPRSA divides permitting 
responsibility between EPA and the Corps. Under section 102 of the 
MPRSA, EPA has responsibility for issuing permits for all materials 
other than dredged material (e.g., vessels, fish wastes, burial at 
sea). Under section 103 of the MPRSA, the Secretary of the Army has the 
responsibility for issuing permits and authorizations (in the case of 
Corps projects) for the ocean dumping of dredged material. This 
permitting authority has been delegated to the District Engineer of the 
Corps New England District. Determinations to issue permits and 
authorizations (in the case of Corps projects) for dredged material are 
subject to EPA review and concurrence.
    Section 102(c) of the MPRSA, as amended, 33 U.S.C. 1401 et seq., 
gives the Administrator of EPA authority to designate sites and times 
where ocean disposal, also referred to interchangeably as ocean 
dumping, may be permitted. Section 103(b). Further provides that the 
Corps should use such EPA designated sites to the maximum extent 
feasible. EPA's ocean dumping regulations provide that EPA's 
designation of an ocean dumping site is accomplished by promulgation of 
a site designation in 40 CFR part 228 specifying the site. 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 RISDS site is 
located within New England (EPA New England); therefore, this action is 
being taken pursuant to the Regional Administrator's delegated 
authority. EPA regulations (40 CFR 228.4(e)(1)) promulgated under the 
MPRSA require, among other things, that EPA designate ocean dumping 
sites (ODMDS) by promulgation in 40 CFR part 228. Designated ocean 
dumping sites are codified at 40 CFR 228.15. This rule proposes to 
designate a site for open water disposal of dredged material. This site 
is currently being used under the

[[Page 23708]]

authority of MPRSA section 103 as site 69B and is located in ocean 
waters of Rhode Island Sound approximately 9 nautical miles (nmi) south 
of Point Judith, Rhode Island.
    The RISDS is being proposed in this action to provide a long-term 
disposal option for the Corps to maintain deep-draft, international 
commerce and navigation through authorized Federal navigation projects 
and to ensure safe navigation for public and private entities.
    The RISDS will be subject to continuing site management and 
monitoring to ensure that unacceptable, adverse environmental impacts 
do not occur. The management of the RISDS is further described in the 
draft SMMP (Appendix C of the DEIS). Documents being made available for 
public comment by EPA at this time include this proposed rule, DEIS, 
and Draft SMMP (Appendix C of DEIS).
    The designation is being proposed in accordance with 40 CFR 
228.4(e) of the Ocean Dumping Regulations, which allow EPA to designate 
ocean sites for disposal of dredged materials.

C. EIS Development

    Section 102(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 
1969, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., requires that Federal agencies prepare an 
environmental impact statement (EIS) on proposals for major Federal 
actions significantly affecting environmental quality. The objective of 
NEPA is to build into agency decisionmaking process careful 
consideration of all environmental aspects of proposed actions, 
including evaluation of reasonable alternatives to the proposed action. 
While NEPA does not apply to EPA activities in designating ocean 
disposal sites under the MPRSA, EPA has voluntarily agreed as a matter 
of policy to conduct a NEPA environmental review in connection with 
ocean dumping site designations. (See 63 FR 58045 (October 29, 1998), 
``Notice of Policy and Procedures for Voluntary Preparation of National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Documents.'') Consistent with this 
policy, EPA, in cooperation with the Corps, has prepared a DEIS 
entitled, ``Rhode Island Region Long-Term Dredged Material Disposal 
Site Evaluation Project'' which considers the environmental aspects of 
site designation in ocean waters of Rhode Island Sound. A Notice of 
Availability of the DEIS for public review and comment is being 
published concurrently with this proposed rule in today's Federal 
Register. Anyone wishing to review a copy of the DEIS may do so in one 
of the ways described above (see ADDRESSES). The public comment period 
for the DEIS will close on June 21, 2004. The public comment period on 
the proposed rule publication will also close on June 21, 2004. 
Comments may be submitted by one or more of the methods described 
above.
    The purpose of the proposed action is to designate an ocean 
disposal site that will meet the long-term dredged material disposal 
needs in the RIR. The appropriateness of ocean disposal for any 
specific, individual dredging project is determined on a case-by-case 
basis under the permit and authorization (in the case of Corps 
projects) process under MPRSA.
    Designation of an ocean disposal site under 40 CFR part 228 is 
essentially a preliminary, planning measure. The practical effect of 
such a designation is only to require that if future ocean disposal 
activity is permitted and/or authorized (in the case of Corps projects) 
under 40 CFR part 227, then such disposal should normally be 
consolidated at the designated sites (See 33 U.S.C. 1413(b)). 
Designation of an ocean disposal site does not authorize any actual 
disposal and does not preclude EPA or the Corps from finding available 
and environmentally preferable alternative means of managing dredged 
materials, or from finding that certain dredged material is not 
suitable for ocean disposal under the applicable regulatory criteria. 
Nevertheless, EPA has determined that it is appropriate to designate an 
ocean disposal site for dredged material in the ocean waters of Rhode 
Island Sound now, because it appears unlikely that feasible alternative 
means of managing dredged material will be available to accommodate the 
projected dredged material of this region in the future.
    Proposals for the ocean disposal of dredged materials from 
individual projects are evaluated by EPA New England and the Corps' New 
England District on a case-by-case basis, 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.
    The DEIS describes the purpose and need for the proposed action and 
evaluates a number of alternatives to this action. EPA's analysis of 
alternatives considered several different potential ocean disposal 
sites for dredged material from Rhode Island, southeastern 
Massachusetts, and surrounding harbors, as well as potential 
alternative means of managing these dredged materials other than ocean 
disposal. As described in the DEIS, the initial screening effort was 
established to consider the most environmentally sound, economically 
and operationally feasible area for site designation. Alternatives 
evaluated included various marine sites, upland disposal, beneficial 
uses, and the no action alternative.
    In addition to considering reasonable distances to transport 
dredged material, the ocean disposal analysis considered areas of 
critical resources as well as areas of incompatibility for use as a 
disposal site. This included but was not limited to such factors as the 
sensitivity and value of natural resources, geographically limited 
habitats, fisheries and shellfisheries, natural resources, shipping and 
navigation lanes, physical and environmental parameters, and economic 
and operational feasibility. The analysis was carried out in a tiered 
process. The final tier involved further analysis of the no action 
alternative and the following alternative sites: Site E and Site W (the 
proposed RISDS). These sites were evaluated and the RISDS was selected 
as the preferred alternative for potential ocean disposal site 
designation. Management strategies were developed for the preferred 
alternative and are described in the draft SMMP (Appendix C of the 
DEIS).
    To obtain public input during the process, EPA and the Corps held 
public scoping meetings, meetings with local fishermen, as well as 
convened an EIS working group. The purpose of the working group was to 
assist in identifying and prioritizing initial screening criteria that 
assisted in the evaluation of the best long-term dredged material 
disposal options for the RIR. Representatives from state, local, tribal 
and Federal agencies were invited to participate in the working group 
as well as individuals representing other interests. The working group 
assembled for a series of 7 meetings between September 26, 2002 and 
November 19, 2003. Comments received were factored into the development 
of the DEIS. The NEPA process led to the current proposal that RISDS be 
designated as an ocean dredged material disposal site.

D. Proposed Sites Description

    Today's proposal would designate the RISDS. A DEIS and draft SMMP 
have been prepared for the RISDS and are available for review and 
comment by the public. Copies may be obtained by request from the FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT listed in the introductory section to this 
proposed rule. Use of the RISDS would be subject to any restrictions 
included in the site designation and the approved SMMP. These 
restrictions will be based on a

[[Page 23709]]

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.
    The RISDS proposed for long-term designation by EPA is currently 
being used by the Corps' under their short-term site selection 
authority as Site 69B. Overall, Site 69B has received approximately 2.8 
million cubic yards since 2003. The RISDS is in the exact same location 
and the same size as Site 69B. The site is a square area, approximately 
1 nautical mile by 1 nautical mile, for a size of 1-nmi2. 
The RISDS is located approximately 9 nmi south of Point Judith, Rhode 
Island and approximately 6.5 nmi east of Block Island, Rhode Island, 
with depths from 115 to128 feet (35 to 39 m). The sediments at the site 
range from glacially derived till to soft, silty sand. The coordinates 
(North American Datum 1983: NAD 83) for the proposed RISDS site, are as 
follows: 41[deg]14'21'' N, 71[deg]23'29'' W; 41[deg]14'21'' N, 
71[deg]22'09'' W; 41[deg]13'21'' N, 71[deg]23'29''W; 41[deg]13'21'' N, 
71[deg]22'09'' W.

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

    Five general criteria are used in evaluating possible dredged 
material disposal sites for long-term use under the MPRSA (see 40 CFR 
228.5).

General Criteria (40 CFR 228.5)

    1. Minimize interference with other activities, particularly 
avoiding fishery areas or major navigation areas (40 CFR 228.5(a)). 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 over 
GIS bathymetry and disposal site locations. This process was used to 
visually determine the maximum and minimum interferences with other 
uses of the marine environment that could be expected to occur. Areas 
that would interfere with other activities, particularly fishing and 
navigation, were eliminated from further consideration. Sites E and W 
were the only areas left for consideration. The RISDS (Site W) showed 
minimum interference with other activities and was thus selected for 
this proposal. The proposed site is not in an area of distinctive 
lobster, shellfish, or finfish resources and thus will not interfere 
with lobster or fishing activities. The proposed site is not located in 
shipping lanes or major navigation areas, is not in a geographically 
limited fishery area, and has been selected to minimize interference 
with fisheries, shellfisheries and regions of commercial or 
recreational navigation.
    2. Minimize Changes in Water Quality. Temporary water quality 
perturbations (during initial mixing) caused by disposal operations 
would be reduced to normal ambient levels before reaching areas outside 
of the disposal site (40 CFR 228.5(b)). 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 site will be used only for dredged material disposal of 
suitable sediments as determined by application of MPRSA criteria. 
Based on data evaluated as part of the DEIS, disposal of either sandy 
or fine-grained material would have no long-term impact on water 
quality at the proposed site. In addition, dredged material deposited 
at the RISDS will not reach any marine sanctuary, beach, or other 
important natural resource area. Further, disposal at the RISDS will be 
managed and monitored in accordance with the SMMP (Appendix C of the 
DEIS) such that there will be no temporary perturbations in water 
quality anywhere outside the site or within the site after allowance 
for initial mixing.
    3. Interim Sites Which Do Not Meet Criteria (40 CFR 228.5 (c)). 
There are no interim sites to be considered under this criterion. The 
RISDS (formerly known as Site 69B) is not an interim site as defined 
under the Ocean Dumping regulations.
    4. Size of sites (40 CFR 228.5(d)). The fourth general criterion 
requires that the size of open water 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. For this proposed rule, EPA has determined, based on 
the information presented in the DEIS, that the RISDS (formerly known 
as Site 69B) has been sized to provide sufficient capacity to 
accommodate material dredged from within the RIR. The site management 
and monitoring plan is described in the RISDS SMMP (Appendix C of the 
DEIS).
    5. EPA must, wherever feasible, designate dumping sites beyond the 
edge of the continental shelf and where historical disposal has 
occurred (40 CFR 228.5(e)). The fifth criterion requires EPA, wherever 
feasible, to designate ocean dumping sites beyond the edge of the 
continental shelf and at other such sites that have historically been 
used. Sites beyond the edge of the continental shelf are not 
economically feasible due to the extended travel time and associated 
expense. In addition, the proposed site, if designated, encompasses the 
footprint of Site 69B, currently in use. Thus, the proposed disposal 
site is consistent with this criterion.
    As discussed briefly above, EPA has found that the RISDS satisfies 
the five general criteria described in 40 CFR 228.5 of the EPA Ocean 
Dumping Regulations. More detailed information relevant to these 
criteria can be found in the DEIS and SMMP.
    In addition to the general criteria discussed above, 40 CFR 
228.6(a) lists eleven specific factors to be used in evaluating a 
proposed disposal site under the MPRSA to assure that the five general 
criteria are met. The RISDS, as discussed below, is also acceptable 
under each of the 11 specific criteria. The evaluation of the preferred 
disposal site relevant to the 5 general and 11 specific criteria is 
discussed in substantially more detail in the DEIS and SMMP.

Specific Criteria (40 CFR 228.6)

    1. Geographical Position, Depth of Water, Bottom Topography and 
Distance From Coast (40 CFR 228.6(a)(1)). The RISDS is in the same 
location and is the same size as Site 69B. The RISDS will replace Site 
69B. The site is a square area, approximately 1 nautical mile by 1 
nautical mile, for a size of 1-nmi2. The RISDS is located 
approximately 9 nmi south of Point Judith, Rhode Island and 
approximately 6.5 nmi east of Block Island, Rhode Island, with depths 
from 115 to 128 feet (35 to 39 meters). The sediments at the site range 
from glacially derived till to soft, silty sand. Water depths in the 
surrounding areas are between 110 and 118 feet to the north, east, and 
south of the site. The southeastern portion of the site shoals more 
rapidly than the northern area. The coordinates (North American Datum 
1983: NAD 83) for the proposed RISDS site, are as follows: 41[deg] 
14'21'' N, 71[deg]23'29'' W; 41[deg] 14'21'' N, 71[deg]22'09'' W; 
41[deg]13'21'' N, 71[deg] 23'29'' W; 41[deg]13' 21'' N, 71[deg]22'09'' 
W.

[[Page 23710]]

    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 Corps and EPA initiated informal Endangered Species 
Act (ESA) and Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) consultation in January 2003 
and formal consultation with publication of the DEIS in coordination 
with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service (USFWS). Additional coordination was conducted with 
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and State of Rhode Island. Through 
these efforts, data has been obtained on current threatened or 
endangered species in the RIR. The plankton community at the RISDS 
includes zooplankton (copepods, larval forms of many species of 
invertebrates and fish, Foraminifera, and Radiolara) and phytoplankton 
(diatoms and dinoflagellates). These organisms display a range of 
abundance by season. The populations at or near the proposed site are 
not unique to the site and are present over most of the RIR. It is 
expected that although small, short-term entrainment losses may occur 
immediately following disposal, no long term, adverse impacts to 
organisms in the water column will occur.
    The benthic community at the RISDS is comprised primarily of 
Annelida, Crustacea, and Mollusca. It is expected that short-term 
reduction in abundance and diversity at the sites may occur immediately 
following disposal, but long term, adverse impacts to benthic organisms 
are not expected to occur. Recovery to levels similar to predisposal is 
expected within a few years after disposal.
    The RISDS is located in the ocean waters of Rhode Island Sound, 
which is occupied by more than 116 fish species. Seven species appear 
consistently dominant among all trawl surveys. These were scup, 
butterfish, longfin squid, little skate, winter flounder, silver hake, 
and red hake. Atlantic herring, Atlantic mackerel, and ocean pout were 
also very abundant. It is expected that impacts to finfish resources 
will consist of short-term, local disruptions and the potential loss of 
some individual fish of certain non-migratory species. Most of the 
finfish species are migratory. Several commercially harvestable species 
of shellfish occur in the RIR. They are Atlantic surf clams, blue 
mussels, lobster, northern quahogs, ocean quahogs, sea scallops, razor 
clams, and whelks. It is expected that impacts to shellfish within the 
RISDS will be short-term and associated with disposal, burial and loss 
of habitat or food. No impacts to shellfish or finfish resources are 
anticipated outside of the RISDS.
    Many different types of resident, migratory, and coastal birds may 
potentially use the RIR as a feeding habitat or resting area. Dozens of 
marine and coastal birds migrate through Rhode Island Sound annually. 
In addition, the RIR provides limited habitat for most marine mammals 
and reptiles. The species that are frequent or occasional visitors to 
the RIR are harbor porpoises, white-sided dolphins, minke whales, seals 
(harbor, hooded, and harp) and sea turtles (green, Kemp's ridley, 
loggerhead, leatherback and hawksbill).
    There are 16 federally listed threatened and endangered species and 
5 species of ``special concern'' which may occur within the area of the 
RISDS. The Threatened and endangered species are: Whales (humpback, 
fin, northern right, sperm, blue and sei), turtles (loggerhead, green, 
Kemp's ridley, leatherback, and hawksbill), birds (bald eagle, piping 
plover and roseate tern), and insects (American burying beetle and 
northeastern beach tiger beetle). The species of ``special concern'' 
are: common loon, common tern, artic tern, least tern, and Leach's 
storm-petrel. Occurrence of these species varies by season. Use of the 
site by whales and birds would be incidental. The presence of sea 
turtles may occur in the RISDS during the summer and fall. It is not 
expected that disposal activities would have any significant adverse 
effect on these species or their critical habitat. With respect to 
endangered and threatened species, informal consultation was conducted 
with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Marine 
Fisheries Service (NMFS). In 2001 EPA prepared a Biological Assessment 
(BA) for selection of Site 69B, which is in the exact same location as 
the RISDS. The USFWS and NMFS concurred with EPA's determination that 
species under its jurisdiction would not likely be adversely affected 
by the proposed action. The BA concludes that the proposed action is 
not likely to affect the threatened and endangered species. EPA 
reinitiated threatened and endangered species consultation with NMFS 
and USFWS as part of the designation process of the RISDS. NMFS 
concurred on April 8, 2004 and USFWS concurred on April 1, 2004 that 
there are unlikely to be any effects on threatened or endangered 
species or their critical habitat as a result of the proposed action. 
The BA is available upon request by contacting the person listed in the 
FOR FURTHER INIFORMATION CONTACT section.
    The RIR provides Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) for 33 finfish and 5 
invertebrate species, mostly for adults and juveniles. All of the 
species occur along the northeastern Atlantic Coast of the United 
States and have EFH designated for waters other than those within the 
RIR. In 2001, an EFH assessment was prepared for the selection of Site 
69B. The EFH assessment concludes that the proposed action is not 
likely to affect those waters and substrate necessary to fish for 
spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity. EPA reinitiated EFH 
consultation with NMFS as part of the designation process of the RISDS. 
NMFS concurred on April 8, 2004 that the proposed action is not likely 
to effect those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, 
breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity. EPA has incorporated NMFS 
recommendations into the draft SMMP (Appendix C of the DEIS). The EFH 
assessment is available upon request by contacting the person listed in 
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. The RISDS is not located 
in areas that provide limited or unique breeding, spawning, nursery, 
feeding, or passage areas.
    3. Location in Relation to Beaches and Other Amenity Areas (40 CFR 
228.6(a)(3). The RISDS is located approximately 8.3 nmi from the 
nearest beach or other amenity area. Modeling and sediment transport 
studies indicate a very low probability of that any dredged material 
remaining in the water column following disposal would be transported 
more than 1 nmi. Plumes would be reduced to background concentrations 
shortly after disposal. Given the rapid dissipation characteristics of 
dredged material plumes and that the vast majority of released 
materials settle to the bottom near the release point, dredged material 
placed at the RISDS would not adversely affect beaches or similar 
amenities. As such, it is expected that impacts would not occur to 
beaches, areas of special concern, parks, natural resources, 
sanctuaries or refuges since they are either land-based or farther than 
8.3 nmi from the proposed disposal site. There are also no marine 
sanctuaries or limited fisheries or shellfisheries at or near the 
RISDS. Therefore, EPA has determined that dredged material disposal at 
the RISDS disposal site location should not have any adverse effect on 
beaches or other amenity areas, including wildlife refuges or other 
areas of biological or recreational significance.
    4. Types and Quantities of Wastes Proposed To Be Disposed of, and 
Proposed Methods of Release, Including

[[Page 23711]]

Methods of Packing the Waste, if any (40 CFR 228.6(a)(4)). The RISDS 
has an expected capacity of approximately 20 million cubic yards. 
However, there is no disposal site capacity volume restriction. The 
composition of dredged material to be disposed at the site is expected 
to be typical estuarine sediments dredged from channels, berths, and 
marinas from harbors and Federal navigation areas within the RIR. The 
disposal of this material shall occur at designated buoys or 
coordinates and would be expected to be placed so as to concentrate 
material from each disposal. This placement is expected to help 
minimize bottom impacts to benthic organisms. EPA will make a 
suitability determination prior to the USACE issuing any MPRSA permit 
or authorization (in the case of Corps projects) for disposal at the 
RISDS. The site 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. Dredged 
material placed at the RISDS would not be containerized or packaged.
    Furthermore, it should be emphasized that the RISDS is being 
proposed for designation only to receive dredged material; disposal of 
other types of material at these sites will not be allowed. It should 
also be noted that the disposal of certain other types of material is 
expressly prohibited by the MPRSA and EPA regulations (e.g., industrial 
waste, sewage sludge, chemical warfare agents). See, e.g., 33 U.S.C. 
1414b; 40 CFR 227.5(b). 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 RISDS.
    5. Feasibility of Surveillance and Monitoring (40 CFR 228.6(a)(5)). 
Surveillance of the site can be accomplished by boat, helicopter, 
disposal inspectors aboard barges, scows, and tugboats, or through 
radar or satellite. This effort would be conducted jointly by the EPA, 
Corps-New England District, and the U.S. Coast Guard. Monitoring and 
surveillance are expected to be feasible at the RISDS. The site is 
readily accessible for bathymetric surveys and has undergone 
monitoring, including side-scan sonar. If field monitoring of the 
disposal activities is required because of a future concern for habitat 
changes or limited resources, a management decision will be made by EPA 
New England and the Corps-New England District who share the 
responsibilities of managing and monitoring the disposal sites. EPA and 
the Corps have prepared a draft RISDS SMMP (Appendix C of the DEIS). 
Once the proposed site is designated, monitoring shall be completed in 
accordance with the then-current SMMP. It is expected that revisions to 
the SMMP may be made periodically; revisions will be circulated for 
review, coordinated with the affected States and become final when 
approved by EPA New England Region in conjunction with the Corps' New 
England District. See 33 U.S.C. 1413(c)(3).
    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)). The RISDS is located within the 
ocean waters of Rhode Island Sound, a water body that is exposed to 
wind and wave energy from the northwest Atlantic Ocean. The dominant 
tidal flow directions are northwest and southeast. The amplitude of the 
tidal velocity decreases with depth (12.7 cm/s at the surface and 7 cm/
s near the bottom. The mean current velocity was 2.5 cm/s directed 
toward the west at mid-depth and 1.6 cm/s toward the west at the 
bottom. A modeling study performed as part of the Providence River and 
Harbor Maintenance Dredging Project EIS, examined the likelihood of 
erosion and transport of cohesive sediments proposed for placement at 
site 69B (the proposed RISDS), located at a depth of 128 ft. It is 
concluded that a disposal mound placed at 69B would not be dispersive 
under any conditions other than the most severe (50-year return period) 
hurricane; their results, however, were based on an assumption of 
extremely cohesive material and should therefore be viewed as 
potentially underpredicting erosion. Areas of the ZSF between 170 and 
105 ft, including the north-central portion northeast of Block Island, 
were depositional areas with some infrequent sorting and reworking by 
waves and currents. The deepest areas here were the most depositional.
    It is expected that peak wave induced bottom orbital velocities are 
not sufficient to cause significant erosion of dredged material at the 
RISDS. For these reasons, EPA has determined that the dispersal, 
transport and mixing characteristics, and current velocities and 
directions at the RISDS are appropriate for 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)). The RISDS is currently being used for disposal activity 
pursuant to the Corps' short-term site selection authority under 
section 103(b) of the MPRSA. 33 U.S.C. 1413(b) as Site 69B. This 
generally makes the RISDS preferable to more pristine sites that have 
either not been used or have been used in the more distant past. See 40 
CFR 228.5(e). Beyond this, however, EPA's evaluation of data and 
modeling results indicates that these past disposal operations have not 
resulted in unacceptable or unreasonable environmental degradation, and 
that there should be no significant adverse cumulative environmental 
effects from continuing to use the RISDS on a long-term basis.
    8. Interference With Shipping, Fishing, Recreation, Mineral 
Extraction, Desalination, Fish and Shellfish Culture, Areas of Special 
Scientific Importance and Other Legitimate Uses of the Ocean (40 CFR 
228.6(a)(8)). In evaluating whether disposal activity at the RISDS 
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 
dredged material on the ocean bottom at the proposed sites and the 
indirect effects associated with increased vessel traffic that will 
result from transportation of dredged material to the RISDS. Areas that 
concern the criteria of this section were removed from consideration 
early in the screening process for the DEIS. The RISDS is not located 
in shipping lanes and is not an area of special scientific importance, 
desalination, fish and shellfish culture or mineral extraction. 
Accordingly, depositing dredged material at the RISDS will not 
interfere with any of the activities mentioned in this criterion. 
Increased vessel traffic involved in the transportation of dredged 
material to the proposed disposal site should not impact shipping or 
activities discussed above.
    9. The Existing Water Quality and Ecology of the Sites as 
Determined by Available Data or by Trend Assessment or Baseline Surveys 
(40 CFR 228.6(a)(9)). Water and sediment quality analyses conducted in 
the site and experience with past disposal in this region have not 
identified any adverse water quality or ecological impacts from ocean 
disposal of dredged material. Baseline data are further described in 
the DEIS.
    10. Potentiality for the Development or Recruitment of Nuisance 
Species in the Disposal Sites (40 CFR 228.6(a)(10)). Based on the 
available evidence, dredged material is not a potential

[[Page 23712]]

source for the development or recruitment of nuisance species at the 
RISDS. Monitoring results and available data indicate that placement of 
dredged material at Site 69B (which is in the same exact location as 
the RISDS) has not extended the range of undesirable living organisms, 
pathogens, degraded areas, or introduced viable non-indigenous species 
into the area. Local opportunistic benthic species characteristic of 
disturbed conditions are expected to be present and abundant at any 
ocean dredged material disposal site in response to physical deposition 
of sediments. However, no recruitment of nuisance species or species 
capable of harming human health or the marine ecosystem is expected to 
occur at the site.
    11. Existence at or in Close Proximity to the Sites of any 
Significant Natural or Cultural Feature of Historical Importance (40 
CFR 228.6(a)(11)). As part of the site selection for Site 69B, the 
Corps conducted an archaeological assessment, Entitled, 
``Archaeological Assessment, Remote Sensing, and Underwater 
Archaeological Survey for the Providence River and Harbor Maintenance 
Dredging Project, Rhode Island April 12, 2001.'' The archaeological 
assessment is available upon request by contacting the person listed in 
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. The assessment determined 
that no significant sites were likely to be found within the areas of 
interest, but there was a potential for historic resources because of 
known shipwrecks in the vicinity. Additional remote sensing studies 
were conducted and no significant cultural resources were identified. 
Coordination between EPA and the Corps and the Commonwealth of 
Massachusetts and State of Rhode Island are detailed in the DEIS. The 
Narragansett Indians were included as cooperating agencies during the 
development of the DEIS. They have also not identified any natural or 
cultural features of historical significance at the RISDS.

F. Proposed Action

    The DEIS concludes that the RISDS (currently known as Site 69B) may 
appropriately be designated for long-term use as a dredged material 
ocean disposal site. The proposed site is compatible with the general 
and specific factors used for site evaluation.
    EPA is publishing this proposed rule to propose the designation of 
the RISDS as an EPA-approved dredged material ocean disposal site. The 
monitoring and management of requirements that will apply to this site 
are described in the draft SMMP (Appendix C of the DEIS). Management 
and monitoring will be carried out by EPA New England in conjunction 
with the Corps' New England District.
    It should be emphasized that, if an ocean disposal site is 
designated, such a site designation does not constitute or imply Corps 
or EPA's approval of open water disposal of dredged material from any 
specific project. Before disposal of dredged material at the site may 
commence, EPA and the Corps must evaluate the proposal according to the 
ocean dumping regulatory criteria (40 CFR part 227) and authorize 
disposal. EPA has the right to disapprove of the actual disposal, if it 
determines that environmental requirements under the MPRSA have not 
been met.
    The information generated for this project and referenced in the 
DEIS is available for review on line at the address; http://www.epa.gov/region1/eco/ridredge/index.html.
    1. Electronically. You may review and/or obtain electronic copies 
of this document and various support documents from the EPA Home page 
at the Federal Register http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/, or on the EPA New 
England Region's Home page at www.epa.gov/region1/eco/ridredge/index.html.
    2. In person. The proposed rule, the Draft Environmental Impact 
Statement (DEIS) which includes the SMMPs (Appendix C), and the 
complete administrative record for this action are available for 
inspection at the following locations: (A) EPA New England Library, 
11th Floor, One Congress Street, Suite 1100 (CWQ), Boston, MA 02114-
2023. For access to the documents, call Peg Nelson at (617) 918-1991 
between 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Monday through Thursday, excluding legal 
holidays, for an appointment. (B) EPA Atlantic Ecology Division, 
Library, 27 Tarzwell Drive, Narragansett, RI 02882. For access to the 
documents, call Mimi Johnson at (401) 782-3025 between 10 a.m and 3 
p.m. Monday through Thursday, excluding legal holidays, for an 
appointment. The EPA public information regulation (40 CFR part 2) 
provides that a reasonable fee may be charged for copying. We are also 
putting copies of the DEIS in all of the Town libraries in the coastal 
towns in RI & southeast MA.

G. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

1. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

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

2. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small Business 
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et 
seq.

    The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory 
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment 
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any 
other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
For the purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small 
entities, a small entity is defined as: (1) A small business based on 
the Small Business Administration's (SBA) size standards; (2) a small 
governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, 
school district or special district with a population of less than 
50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit 
enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not 
dominant in its field. EPA has determined that this action will not 
have a significant adverse economic impact on small entities because 
the proposed ocean disposal site designation does not regulate small 
entities. The site designation will only have the effect of providing a 
long term environmentally-acceptable disposal option for dredged 
material. This action will help to facilitate the maintenance of safe 
navigation on a continuing basis. After considering the economic 
impacts of today's proposed rule on small

[[Page 23713]]

entities, it has been determined that this action will not have a 
significant adverse economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.

3. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This proposed rule would not impose an information collection 
burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 
U.S.C. 3501, et seq.) because it would not require persons to obtain, 
maintain, retain, report, or publicly disclose information to or for a 
Federal agency.

4. The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and Executive Order 12875

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

5. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure 
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the 
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' 
``Policies that have federalism implications'' are defined in the 
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct 
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national 
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
    This 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 the various levels of government, 
as specified in Executive Order 13132. This proposed rule addresses the 
designation of an ocean disposal site in Rhode Island Sound for the 
potential disposal of dredged materials. This proposed action neither 
creates new obligations nor alters existing authorizations of any 
State, local or governmental entities. 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 addition, and consistent with Executive Order 13132 and 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 6, 2000), 
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful 
and timely input by Tribal officials in the development of regulatory 
policies that have Tribal implications.'' ``Policies that have Tribal 
implications'' are defined in the Executive Order to include 
regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more 
Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal government and 
the Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities 
between the Federal government and Indian Tribes.''
    The proposed action does not have Tribal implications. If 
finalized, the proposed action would not have substantial direct 
effects on Tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal 
government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian Tribes, as 
specified in Executive Order 13175. This proposed rule designates an 
ocean dredged material disposal site and does not establish any 
regulatory policy with tribal implications. EPA specifically solicits 
additional comment on this proposed rule from tribal officials. Thus, 
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.

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

    Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any 
rule that (1) is determined to be ``economically significant'' as 
defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental 
health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe might have a 
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets 
both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health and 
safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the 
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and 
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency. This 
proposed rule is not an economically significant rule as defined under 
Executive Order 12866 and does not concern an environmental health or 
safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate 
effect on children. Therefore, it is not subject to Executive Order 
13045.

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

    This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, 
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 1001)) because it 
is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

[[Page 23714]]

9. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer Advancement Act 
of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 
note), directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its 
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with 
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards 
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, 
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or 
adopted by voluntary consensus bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide 
Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use 
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. This proposed 
rule does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA did not 
consider the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

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

    Executive Order 12898 requires that, to the greatest extent 
practicable and permitted by law, each Federal agency must make 
achieving environmental justice part of its mission. Executive Order 
12898 provides that each Federal agency must conduct its programs, 
policies, and activities that substantially affect human health or the 
environment in a manner that ensures that such programs, policies, and 
activities do not have the effect of excluding persons (including 
populations) from participation in, denying persons (including 
populations) the benefits of, or subjecting persons (including 
populations) to discrimination under such programs, policies, and 
activities because of their race, color, or national origin.
    No action from this proposed rule would have a disproportionately 
high and adverse human health and environmental effect on any 
particular segment of the population. In addition, this rule does not 
impose substantial direct compliance costs on those communities. 
Accordingly, the requirements of Executive Order 12898 do not apply.

11. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

    Section 102(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 
section 4321 et seq, (NEPA) requires Federal agencies to prepare 
environmental impact statements (EIS) 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. 
Although EPA ocean dumping program activities have been determined to 
be ``functionally equivalent'' to NEPA, EPA has a voluntarily policy to 
follow NEPA procedures when designating ocean dumping sites. See, 63 FR 
58045 (October 29, 1998). In addition to the Notice of Intent published 
in the Federal Register on April 6, 2001 (66 FR 18244), EPA and the 
Corps published legal notices in local newspapers and issued a press 
release inviting the public to participate in DEIS scoping meetings. 
Formal scoping meetings were conducted on May 17, 2001 and May 22, 
2001. In addition EPA and the Corps have held public workshops and 
several working group meetings. As discussed above, EPA is issuing a 
DEIS for public review and comment in conjunction with publication of 
this proposed rule.
    In addition, EPA and the Corps will submit Coastal Zone Consistency 
determinations to the State of Rhode Island. Coordination efforts with 
NMFS and USFWS for ESA and EFH consultation was completed on April 8 
and April 1, respectively, during the DEIS process.

12. The Endangered Species Act

    Under section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. 
1536(a)(2), federal agencies are required to ``insure that any action 
authorized, funded, or carried on by such agency * * * is not likely to 
jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened 
species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat 
of such species * * *.'' Under regulations implementing the Endangered 
Species Act, a Federal agency is required to consult with either the U. 
S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service 
(depending on the species involved) if the agency's action ``may 
affect'' endangered or threatened species or their critical habitat. 
See, 50 CFR 402.14(a).
    In 2001, EPA prepared a BA for the selection of Site 69B, which is 
in the exact same location as the RISDS. EPA reinitiated threatened and 
endangered species consultation with NMFS and USFWS as part of the 
designation process of the RISDS. NMFS concurred on April 8, 2004, and 
USFWS concurred on April 1, 2004 that there are unlikely to be any 
effects on threatened or endangered species or their critical habitat 
as a result of the proposed action. The USFWS and NMFS concurred with 
EPA's determination that species under its jurisdiction would not 
likely be adversely affected by the proposed action. The BA concludes 
that the proposed action is not likely to affect threatened and 
endangered species. The BA is available upon request by contacting the 
person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

13. Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act

    The 1996 Sustainable Fisheries Act amendments to the Magnuson-
Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSFCMA) require the 
designation of essential fish habitat (EFH) for Federally managed 
species of fish and shellfish. Pursuant to section 305(b)(2) of the 
MSFCMA, Federal agencies are required to consult with the National 
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) regarding any action they authorize, 
fund, or undertake that may adversely affect EFH. An adverse effect has 
been defined by the Act as follows: ``Any impact which reduces the 
quality and/or quantity of EFH. Adverse effects may include direct 
(e.g., contamination or physical disruption), indirect (e.g., loss of 
prey, reduction in species' fecundity), site-specific or habitat-wide 
impacts, including individual, cumulative, or synergistic consequences 
of actions.'' In 2001, an EFH assessment was prepared for the selection 
of Site 69B (the proposed RISDS). EPA reinitiated EFH consultation with 
NMFS as part of the designation process of the RISDS. NMFS concurred on 
April 8, 2004 that the proposed action is not likely to affect those 
waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, 
or growth to maturity. EPA has incorporated NMFS recommendations into 
the draft SMMP (Appendix C of the DEIS). The EFH assessment concludes 
that the proposed action is not likely to affect those waters and 
substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth 
to maturity. The EFH assessment is available upon request by contacting 
the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

14. Plain Language Directive

    Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write all rules in 
plain language. EPA has written this proposed rule in plain language to 
make this proposed rule easier to understand.

[[Page 23715]]

15. Executive Order 13158: Marine Protected Areas

    Executive Order 13158 (65 FR 34909, May 31, 2000) requires EPA to 
``expeditiously propose new science-based regulations, as necessary, to 
ensure appropriate levels of protection for the marine environment.'' 
EPA may take action to enhance or expand protection of existing marine 
protected areas and to establish or recommend, as appropriate, new 
marine protected areas. The purpose of the Executive Order is to 
protect the significant natural and cultural resources within the 
marine environment, which means ``those areas of coastal and ocean 
waters, the Great Lakes and their connecting waters, and submerged 
lands thereunder, over which the United States exercises jurisdiction, 
consistent with international law.''
    Today's proposed rule implements section 103 of the MPRSA which 
requires that permits for dredged material are subject to EPA review 
and concurrence. The proposed rule would amend 40 CFR 228.15 by 
establishing the RISDS. As such, this proposed rule would afford 
additional protection of aquatic organisms at individual, population, 
community, or ecosystem levels of ecological structures. Therefore, EPA 
expects today's proposed rule would advance the objective of the 
Executive Order to protect marine areas.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 228

    Environmental protection, Water pollution control.

    Dated: April 16, 2004.
Robert W. Varney,
Regional Administrator, EPA New England.

    In consideration of the foregoing, EPA is proposing to amend part 
228, chapter I of title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations as 
follows:

PART 228--CRITERIA FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF DISPOSAL SITES FOR OCEAN 
DUMPING

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

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

    2. Section 228.15 is amended by removing and reserving paragraphs 
(b)(1), and (b)(2), and by adding and reserving paragraphs (b)(3) and 
(b)(4) (currently proposed for LIS Sites); and adding paragraph (b)(5) 
to read as follows:


Sec.  228.15  Dumping sites designated on a final basis.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (5) Rhode Island Sound Disposal Site (RISDS)
    (i) Location: Corner Coordinates (NAD 1983): 41[deg]14'21'' N, 
71[deg]23[min]29[sec] W; 41[deg]14[min]21[sec] N, 71[deg]22[min]09[sec] 
W; 41[deg]13[min]21[sec] N, 71[deg]23[min]29[sec] W; 
41[deg]13[min]21[sec] N, 71[deg]22[min]09[sec] W.
    (ii) Size: 1 square nautical mile.
    (iii) Depth: range from 32 to 39 meters.
    (iv) Primary use: Dredged material disposal.
    (v) Period of use: Continuing use.
    (vi) Restriction: Disposal shall be limited to dredged material.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 04-9720 Filed 4-29-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P