Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 29687 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the Commonwealth, and EPA 

notes that it will not impose substantial 

direct costs on tribal governments or 

preempt tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 

oxides. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Dated: May 9, 2013. 

A. Stanley Meiburg, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2013–12088 Filed 5–20–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 228 

[EPA–R06–OW–2013–0221; FRL–9814–7] 

Ocean Dumping; Atchafalaya-West 

Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site 

Designation 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to redesignate the existing Marine 

Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries 

Act of 1972 (MPRSA) Section 103(b) 

Atchafalaya-West Ocean Disposal Site 

(ODMDS-West) as a permanent MPRSA 

Section 102(c) ocean dredged material 

disposal site (ODMDS) located adjacent 

to and west of the Atchafalaya River Bar 

Channel (ARBC) of Louisiana. The 

approval for the ODMDS-West use 

expired in August 2012; therefore, the 

site can no longer accept shoal material 

dredged from the ARBC unless it is redesignated as a MPRSA Section 102(c) 

site by EPA. Studies have shown that 

use of the ODMDS-West reduces the 

amount and rate of shoal material 

runback into the ARBC, and thus, 

decreases the overall annual 

maintenance dredging effort needed for 

the ARBC while providing vessels with 

a longer period of safe navigation access 

prior to a maintenance dredging event. 

Therefore, there is a need to designate 

a permanent ODMDS on the west side 

of the ARBC. Approximately 10.8 

million cubic yards will be placed every 

7 months and must be conducted in 

accordance with the Site Management 

and Monitoring Plan. The proposed 

ODMDS will be monitored periodically 

to ensure that the site operates as 

expected. 

DATES: Comments. Comments on this 

proposed rule and draft Environmental 

Impact Statement must be received on 

or before July 5, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket No. EPA–R06– 

OW–2013–0221, by one of the following 

methods: 

• Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov; follow the online 

instruction for submitting comments. 

• Email: Dr. Jessica Franks at 

franks.jessica@epa.gov. 

• Fax: Dr. Jessica Franks, Marine and 

Coastal Section (6WQ–EC) at fax 

number 214–665–6689. 

• Mail: Dr. Jessica Franks, Marine and 

Coastal Section (6WQ–EC), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Mailcode: (6WQ–EC), 1445 Ross 

Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 

75202–2733. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket No.EPA–R06–OW–2013–0221. 

EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or email. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through www.regulations.gov your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the www.regulations.gov 

index. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., CBI or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically in 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Marine and Coastal Section (6WQ– 

EC), Environmental Protection Agency, 

1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, 

Texas 75202–2733. The file will be 

made available by appointment for 

public inspection in the Region 6 FOIA 

Review Room between the hours of 8:30 

a.m. and 4:30 p.m. weekdays except for 

legal holidays. Contact the person listed 

in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT paragraph below. If possible, 

please make the appointment at least 

two working days in advance of your 

visit. There will be a 15 cent per page 

fee for making photocopies of 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
29688 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

documents. On the day of the visit, 

please check in at the EPA Region 6 

reception area at 1445 Ross Avenue, 

Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jessica Franks, Ph.D., Marine and 

Coastal Section (6WQ–EC), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, 

Dallas, Texas 75202–2733, telephone 

(214) 665–8335, fax number (214) 665– 

6689; email address 

franks.jessica@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

A. Potentially Affected Entities 

B. Background 

C. Disposal Volume Limit 

D. Site Management and Monitoring Plan 

E. Ocean Dumping Site Designation Criteria 

—General Selection Criteria 

—Specific Selection Criteria 

F. Regulatory Requirements 

1. National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) 

2. Endangered Species Act Consultation 

3. Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation 

and Management Act of 1996 

4. Coastal Zone Management Act 

5. Coastal Barrier Improvement Act of 1990 

G. Administrative Review 

1. Executive Order 12886 

2. Paperwork Reduction Act 

3. Regulatory Flexibility Act, as Amended 

by the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 

4. Unfunded Mandates 

5. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

6. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

7. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

8. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use Compliance With 

Administrative Procedure Act 

9. National Technology Transfer 

Advancement Act 

10. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low Income 

Populations 

The supporting document for this site 

designation is the draft Environmental 

Impact Statement (EIS) for the 

Designation of the Atchafalaya River Bar 

Channel Ocean Dredged Material 

Disposal Site Pursuant to Section 102(c) 

of the Marine Protection, Research, and 

Sanctuaries, Act of 1972; St. Mary 

Parish, Louisiana dated March 2013 

prepared by the EPA and U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers. This document is 

available for public inspection at the 

following locations: 

1. Environmental Protection Agency, 

1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, 

Texas 75202–2733. 

2. EPA Web site: http://www.epa.gov/ 

region6/water/ecopro/current_action. 

html. 

3. Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov; follow the 

online instruction for submitting 

comments. 

A. Potentially Affected Entities 

Entities potentially affected by this 

action are persons, organizations, or 

government bodies seeking to dispose of 

dredged material in ocean waters at the 

ODMDS-West, under the Marine 

Protection Research and Sanctuaries 

Act, 33 U.S.C. 1401 et seq. This Rule 

would be primarily of relevance to 

parties seeking permits from the USACE 

to transport dredged material for the 

purpose of disposal into ocean waters at 

the ODMDS-West, as well as the USACE 

itself (when proposing to dispose of 

dredged material at the ODMDS-West). 

Potentially affected categories and 

entities seeking to use the Atchafalaya 

ODMDS-West and thus subject to this 

Rule include: 

Category Examples of potentially regulated persons 

Federal government ................................................................................. USACE Civil Works and O & M projects; other Federal agencies, including the Department of Defense. 

Industry and general public ...................................................................... Port authorities, marinas and harbors, shipyards and marine repair facilities, berth owners. 

State, local and tribal governments .......................................................... Governments owning and/or responsible for ports, harbors, and/or 

berths, Government agencies requiring disposal of dredged material 

associated with public works projects. 

This table is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

affected by this action. EPA notes, 

however, that nothing in this Rule alters 

in any way, the jurisdiction of EPA, or 

the types of entities regulated under the 

Marine Protection Research and 

Sanctuaries Act. To determine if you or 

your organization may be potentially 

affected by this action, you should 

carefully consider whether you expect 

to propose ocean disposal of dredged 

material, in accordance with the 

Purpose and Scope provisions of 40 CFR 

220.1, and if you wish to use the 

ODMDS-West. For any questions 

regarding the applicability of this action 

to a particular entity, please refer to the 

contact person listed in the preceding 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section. 

B. Background 

Ocean disposal of dredged materials 

is regulated under Title I of the Marine 

Protection, Research and Sanctuaries 

Act (MPRSA; 33 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.). 

The EPA and the USACE share 

responsibility for the management of 

ocean disposal of dredged material. 

Under Section 102 of MPRSA; EPA is 

responsible for designating an 

acceptable location for the ODMDS. 

With concurrence from EPA, the USACE 

issues permits under MPRSA Section 

103 for ocean disposal of dredged 

material deemed suitable according to 

EPA criteria in MPRSA Section 102 and 

EPA regulations in Title 40 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations Part 227 (40 CFR 

part 227). In lieu of the permit 

procedure for a federal project involving 

dredged material, the USACE may issue 

and abide by regulations using the same 

criteria, other factors to be evaluated, 

same procedures and same requirements 

that apply to the issuance of permits. 

Pursuant to its voluntary NEPA 

policy, published at 63 FR 58045 

(October 29, 1998), EPA typically relies 

on the EIS process to enhance public 

participation on the proposed 

designation of an ODMDS. A site 

designation EIS evaluates alternative 

sites and examines the potential 

environmental impacts associated with 

disposal of dredged material at various 

locations. Such an EIS first 

demonstrates the need for the ODMDS 

designation action (40 CFR 6.203(a) and 

40 CFR 1502.13) by describing available 

or potential aquatic and non-aquatic 

(i.e., land-based) alternatives and the 

consequences of not designating a site— 

the No Action Alternative. Once the 

need for an ocean disposal site is 

established, potential sites are screened 

for feasibility through a ‘‘Zone of Siting 

Feasibility’’ (ZSF) process. Potential 

alternative sites are then evaluated 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 29689 

using EPA’s ocean disposal criteria at 40 

CFR Part 228 and compared in the EIS. 

Of the sites that satisfy these criteria, the 

site that best complies is selected as the 

preferred alternative for designation 

through a rulemaking proposal 

published in the Federal Register (FR), 

as here. 

Formal designation of an ODMDS in 

the Federal Register and codification in 

the Code of Federal Regulations does 

not constitute approval of dredged 

material for ocean disposal. Site 

designation merely identifies a suitable 

ocean location in the event that dredged 

material is later approved for ocean 

disposal. Designation of an ODMDS 

provides an ocean disposal alternative 

for consideration in the review of each 

proposed dredging project. Before any 

ocean disposal may take place, the 

dredging project proponent must 

demonstrate a need for ocean disposal, 

including consideration of alternatives. 

Alternatives to ocean disposal, 

including the option for beneficial reuse of dredged material, are evaluated 

for each dredging project that may result 

in the ocean disposal of dredged 

materials from such project. Ocean 

disposal of dredged material is only 

allowed after both EPA and USACE 

determine that the proposed activity is 

environmentally acceptable under 

criteria codified at 40 CFR Part 227 and 

33 CFR Part 336, respectively. In 

addition, ongoing management of these 

ODMDSs would be subject to Site 

Management and Monitoring Plans 

(SMMPs) required by MPRSA section 

102(c)(3)(F) and (c)(4), which are 

discussed more fully below. Decisions 

to allow ocean disposal are made on a 

case-by-case basis through the MPRSA 

Section 103 permitting process, 

resulting in a USACE permit or its 

equivalent process for USACE’s Civil 

Works projects. Material proposed for 

disposal at a designated ODMDS must 

conform to EPA’s permitting criteria for 

acceptable quality (40 CFR Parts 225 

and 227), as determined from physical, 

chemical, and bioassay/ 

bioaccumulation tests prescribed by 

national sediment testing protocols 

(EPA and USACE 1991). Only clean 

non-toxic dredged material is acceptable 

for ocean disposal. The proposed 

ODMDS will be subject to ongoing 

monitoring and management to ensure 

continued protection of the marine 

environment. This ocean disposal site 

designation is based on EPA’s general 

and specific criteria as evaluated in the 

March 2013 ‘‘Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement, Designation of the 

Atchafalaya River Bar Channel Ocean 

Dredged Material Disposal Site Pursuant 

to Section 102(c) of the Marine 

Protection, Research and Sanctuaries 

Act of 1972, St. Mary Parish, Louisiana’’ 

(Draft EIS). 

The Atchafalaya River and Bayous 

Chene, Boeuf, and Black, Louisiana 

(Figure 1–1), project was authorized by 

the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1968 

(Pub. L. 90–483). Historically, the 

Atchafalaya River and Bayous Chene, 

Boeuf, and Black, Louisiana, navigation 

channel has been dredged to 24 feet 

Mean Low Gulf (MLG) which includes 

20 feet for the authorized channel 

dimension plus 2 feet advanced 

maintenance and 2 feet of allowable 

overdepth. Material removed from the 

ARBC suitable for beneficial use (i.e., 

between ARBC Stations 475+00 and 

650+00) has been placed in one of two 

adjacent Bird Island disposal sites, 

pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean 

Water Act (CWA) of 1977. Material that 

could not be used beneficially (i.e., 

between ARBC Stations 650+00 and 

1340+00) has been placed (prior to 

2002) at the existing Marine Protection, 

Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 

(MPRSA) Section 102(c) Ocean Dredged 

Material Disposal Site (ODMDS) on the 

east side of the channel. This ODMDS 

is referred to as ODMDS-East. Since 

2002, however, material not suitable for 

beneficial use has been placed at a 

temporary (i.e., 5-year) ODMDS on the 

west side of the channel under the 

authority of MPRSA Section 103(b) (the 

ODMDS-West). In 2007, the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers, New Orleans 

District (MVN) requested, and received, 

from the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 6 (EPA), a 5-year 

extension for the continued use of the 

MPRSA Section 103(b) ODMDS-West. 

The approval for the ODMDS-West use 

expired in August 2012; therefore, the 

site can no longer accommodate shoal 

material dredged from the ARBC unless 

it is re-designated as a MPRSA Section 

102(c) site by EPA. 

EPA has determined that the ODMDSWest alternative identified in the draft 

EIS is the environmentally preferred 

site, and this action proposes to 

designate the ODMDS-West as an ocean 

dredged material disposal site, located 

in Atchafalaya Bay, approximately 19 

miles from the mainland coast and the 

mouth of the Atchafalaya River. The 

proposed ODMDS-West is rectangular, 

approximately 3 miles wide by 16 miles 

long, located west of and parallel to the 

ARBC. The depth of the site ranges from 

4 to 23 feet MLG, and the total area is 

approximately 48 square miles. The 

action provides for adequate, 

environmentally-acceptable ocean 

disposal site capacity for suitable 

dredged material generated from 

dredging projects in and along the 

ARBC by formally designating the 

Atchafalaya ODMDS-West. 

C. Disposal Volume Limit 

The proposed action would formally 

designate the Atchafalaya ODMDS-West 

for placement of approximately 10.8 

cubic yards (cy) of maintenance material 

from the ARBC on an annual basis. The 

need for ongoing ocean disposal 

capacity is based on average historical 

dredging volumes from the ARBC 

navigational channel since 2002. 

D. Site Management and Monitoring 

Plan 

Continuing use of the site requires 

verification that significant impacts do 

not occur outside of the disposal site 

boundaries through implementation of 

the Site Management and Monitoring 

Plan (SMMP) developed as part of the 

proposed action and included as 

Appendix A to the draft EIS developed 

for the proposed designation of the 

ODMDS-West. The main purpose of the 

SMMP is to provide a structured 

framework to ensure that dredged 

material disposal activities will not 

unreasonably degrade or endanger 

human health, welfare, the marine 

environment, or economic potentialities 

(MPRSA Section 103(a)). Two main 

objectives for management of the 

Atchafalaya ODMDS-West are: (1) to 

ensure that only dredged material that 

satisfies the criteria set forth in 40 CFR 

part 227 Subparts B, C, D, E, and G and 

Part 228.4(e) and is suitable for 

unrestricted placement at the ODMDS 

and; (2) avoidance of excessive 

mounding, either within the site 

boundaries or in areas adjacent to the 

site, as a direct result of placement 

operations. 

The EPA and USACE New Orleans 

District personnel would achieve these 

SMMP objectives by jointly 

administering the following activities: 

(1) Regulation and administration of 

ocean dumping permits; (2) 

development and maintenance of a site 

monitoring program; (3) evaluation of 

permit compliance and monitoring 

results. 

The SMMP includes periodic physical 

monitoring to confirm that disposal 

material is deposited within the seafloor 

disposal boundary, as well as 

bathymetric surveys to confirm that 

there is no excessive mounding or shortterm transport of material beyond the 

limits of the ODMDS-West. Physical and 

chemical sediment and biological 

monitoring requirements are described 

in the SMMP and are required to be 

conducted based on the Evaluation of 

Dredged Material Proposed for Ocean 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
29690 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

Disposal Testing Manual, EPA 503/8-91/ 

001 and the Joint EPA–USACE Regional 

Implementation Agreement (RIA) 

procedures. Results will be used to 

confirm that dredged material actually 

disposed at the site satisfies the criteria 

set forth in 40 CFR part 227 Subparts B, 

C, D, E, and G and Part 228.4(e) and is 

suitable for unrestricted ocean disposal. 

Other activities implemented through 

the SMMP to achieve these objectives 

include: (1) Regulating quantities and 

types of material to be disposed, 

including the time, rates, and methods 

of disposal; and (2) recommending 

changes to site use requirements, 

including disposal amounts or timing, 

based on periodic evaluation of site 

monitoring results. 

E. Ocean Dumping Site Designation 

Criteria 

Five general criteria and 11 specific 

site selection criteria are used in the 

selection and approval of ocean disposal 

sites for continued use (40 CFR 228.5 

and 40 CFR 228.6(a)). 

General Selection Criteria 

1. The dumping of materials into the 

ocean will be permitted only at sites or 

in areas selected to minimize the 

interference of disposal activities with 

other activities in the marine 

environment, particularly avoiding 

areas of existing fisheries or 

shellfisheries, and regions of heavy 

commercial or recreational navigation. 

The Atchafalaya ODMDS-West is 

located adjacent to and parallel to the 

ARBC. This location reduces the 

distance that the maintenance-dredged 

material must be transported, 

minimizing interference with other 

activities in the marine environment. 

There may be some short-term 

interference with fishing activities 

during placement operations. No 

interference with these or other marine 

activities is expected outside the brief 

periods of placement operations. There 

have been no impacts to existing oyster 

leases located northeast of the ODMDS 

area near Point au Fer from the use of 

the existing ODMDS-East, or ODMDSWest (which has been used since 2002), 

and no impact is expected to occur in 

the future as a result of using the 

proposed ODMDS-West. 

2. Locations and boundaries of 

disposal sites will be so chosen that 

temporary perturbations in water 

quality or other environmental 

conditions during initial mixing caused 

by disposal operations anywhere within 

the site can be expected to be reduced 

to normal ambient seawater levels or to 

undetectable contaminant 

concentrations or effects before reaching 

any beach, shoreline, marine sanctuary, 

or known geographically limited fishery 

or shellfishery. 

Placement of maintenance-dredged 

material will produce a turbidity plume. 

This plume will disperse to the point 

where it would be indistinguishable 

from the turbidity naturally occurring in 

the area. Turbidity resulting from 

maintenance-dredged material 

placement is not expected to be 

distinguishable from the natural 

turbidity occurring in the vicinity of 

North Point and in Atchafalaya Bay, 

except temporarily. There are no marine 

sanctuaries in the immediate vicinity of 

the ODMDS (USFWS 1981). Fishnet 

Bank, the nearest protected Area of 

Biological Significance, is 

approximately 104 miles south of the 

ODMDS. Any impacts from placement 

of dredged material are expected to be 

minor. Based on the current regime 

noted in Section 3.1.3.2, the transport of 

suspended materials from the ODMDS 

would mainly be parallel to the 

coastline, and concentrations of 

suspended materials produced during 

dredging operations are expected to be 

within background levels within a few 

miles or so of the ODMDS (May 1973). 

There are no Public Oyster Areas within 

the ODMDS-East or ODMDS-West, and 

the nearest oyster leases are 

approximately 4 miles east of the ARBC 

and ODMDSs, near Point au Fer (LDNR 

2012). The potential impact on oyster 

beds in nearby Atchafalaya Bay is 

expected to be minimal. These 

organisms, as well as others in the 

region, are naturally subjected to 

periodic episodes of high, suspendedsolids concentrations from waveinduced resuspension of nearshore 

sediments and from the waters of the 

Atchafalaya River. 

3. If at any time during or after 

disposal site evaluation studies, it is 

determined that existing disposal sites 

presently approved on an interim basis 

for ocean dumping do not meet the 

criteria for site selection set forth in 

Sections 228.5 through 228.6, the use of 

such sites will be terminated as soon as 

suitable alternate disposal sites can be 

designated. 

This criterion does not apply to the 

proposed ODMDS-West since it is not 

an existing site approved on an interim 

basis. However, studies to date indicate 

that the proposed ODMDS-West meets 

the requirements of the MPRSA. 

Surveys of the site and vicinity 

indicated that water quality, sediments, 

and biological life were generally 

similar to surrounding areas. An 

existing designated ODMDS (the 

ODMDS-East) is located immediately 

across the navigation channel from the 

proposed site. No adverse 

environmental effects were detected 

outside the site boundaries during site 

investigation surveys (IEC 1983; 

Dettmann and Tracey 1990; Flemer et al. 

1994; Trulli 1996) of ODMDS-West. 

4. The sizes of the ocean disposal sites 

will be limited in order to localize for 

identification and control any 

immediate adverse impacts and permit 

the implementation of effective 

monitoring and surveillance programs 

to prevent adverse long-range impacts. 

The size, configuration, and location of 

any disposal site will be determined as 

a part of the disposal site evaluation or 

designation study. 

The size of the ODMDS-West has been 

identified to cover an area as small as 

possible to reasonably meet the criteria 

stated at 40 CFR 228.6(a) for the ARBC 

project and for efficient placement of 

material dredged from the ARBC. The 

size and location of the proposed 

ODMDS-West also minimizes the return 

of dredged material from the ODMDS to 

the channel. This consideration led to 

the establishment of a long site parallel 

to the channel with an area of 54 square 

miles. The site lends itself to 

surveillance of individual dredged 

material placement operations and longterm monitoring. The configuration of 

the ODMDS-West limits its overall area 

to a dimension of 18.0 miles long by 3.0 

miles wide. The width of 3.0 miles is 

typically the pumping distance at which 

a hydraulic pipeline cutterhead suction 

dredge may no longer be cost effective 

without a booster pump, depending on 

the size of the dredge. Teeter (2003) 

recommended westward disposal at the 

greatest practicable distance from the 

channel to minimize runback into the 

channel. The orientation of the ODMDSWest broadside to the prevailing 

currents in the area increases the chance 

that material placed in the ODMDSWest will be moved from the site before 

undesirable mounding can occur. 

5. The EPA will, wherever feasible, 

designate ocean dumping sites beyond 

the edge of the continental shelf and 

other such sites that have been 

historically used. 

In this area of the Gulf of Mexico, an 

ODMDS beyond the continental shelf 

would be at least 84 miles from the area 

to be dredged. A dredged material 

placement site beyond the continental 

shelf would not be feasible due to, 

among other things, increased safety 

risks, increased cost of dredged material 

transportation, and increased costs for 

site characterization, monitoring, and 

surveillance studies. 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 29691 

Specific Selection Criteria 

1. Geographical position, depth of 

water, bottom topography, and distance 

from the coast. 

The proposed ODMDS-West is a 16.0- 

mile long by 3.0 mile-wide rectangular 

area located west of and parallel to the 

ARBC and bound by the following 

coordinates (NAD 83): 29°22′06′′ N, 

91°27′38′′ W; 29°20′ 30′′ N, 91°25′13′′ W; 

29°09′16′′ N, 91° 35′12′′ W; and 

29°10′52′′ N, 91°37′33′′ W. The depth of 

the site ranges from 4 to 23 feet MLG, 

and the total area is approximately 48 

square miles. The center of the ODMDSWest is approximately 19 miles from the 

mouth of the Atchafalaya River. The 

ODMDS-West is located in the 

nearshore area of the plain. Except for 

being located adjacent to the dredged 

channel, the area occupied by the 

ODMDS is typical in depth and bottom 

topography to the continental shelf in 

the vicinity of the Atchafalaya River 

Delta. 

2. Location in relation to breeding, 

spawning, nursery, feeding, or passage 

areas of living resources in adult or 

juvenile phases. 

The northwestern Gulf of Mexico is a 

breeding, spawning, nursery, and 

feeding area for shrimp, menhaden, and 

bottom fish. Many of the species migrate 

seasonally between estuaries and the 

Gulf. Because the timing of species 

movements vary, some migration can 

occur at almost any time of the year 

(Day et al., 1989). 

The proposed ODMDS-West is located 

in a region dominated by species that 

are estuarine-dependent (Darnell et al., 

1983; Phillips and James, 1988; Day et 

al., 1989). Commercially important 

species likely found in the area include 

white shrimp, brown shrimp, Gulf 

menhaden, and sand sea trout. 

Commercially important shellfish and 

fish that inhabit the nearby bay 

environment include oyster, blue crab, 

black drum, white shrimp, and brown 

shrimp. 

Limited interferences with nearshore 

fisheries may occur during placement of 

maintenance-dredged material. The 

Atchafalaya estuary has a broader 

expanse of direct connection with the 

open Gulf of Mexico than any other 

estuary along the Louisiana coast. A 

small portion of this passage route may 

impede movement/migration of some 

marine organisms (e.g., shrimp) during 

periods of active dredging and 

placement. The settling of dredged 

material and the sediment plume in and 

near the ODMDS might also impede 

localized movement/migration of 

marine organisms on the continental 

shelf. However, the effect of these 

impediments on the movement/ 

migration of marine organism 

populations affected would be very 

small and probably undetectable. The 

stress and possible mortality of 

individual organisms encountering 

adverse conditions during dredging and 

placement operations in the ODMDS 

would be negligible compared to the 

passage of the far greater majority of 

individuals crossing into or out of the 

estuary and at other locations. 

Additionally, any impact would also 

occur at any other ODMDS location near 

the ARBC. 

Placement of material at the proposed 

ODMDS-West would have negligible 

effects on endangered and threatened 

species. Occurrences of whales off 

Louisiana are considered rare and 

because the animals generally inhabit 

waters far deeper than those in the 

proposed ODMDS, it is unlikely that 

maintenance-dredged material 

placement operations would impact 

whales. 

Sea turtles could potentially be found 

in the proposed ODMDS-West, although 

the persistent high turbidity makes the 

area unsuitable for regular use of this 

area by sea turtles, which generally 

depend on their sight to feed. Dredging 

operations might affect sea turtles 

through incidental take. Hopper 

dredging has been identified as a source 

of mortality to sea turtles in inshore 

waters (Dickerson and Nelson 1990; 

Magnuson et al. 1990; U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service [USFWS] and NMFS 

1991, 1992), not placement operations. 

Designation of the ODMDS-West has 

been requested for the placement of 

future maintenance material dredged 

from the ARBC by hydraulic cutterhead 

pipeline dredging and hopper dredging. 

If hopper dredges are used, there is a 

possibility of impact to sea turtles, as 

there would be no matter where the 

ODMDS is located. Hydraulic 

cutterhead pipeline dredging operations 

have not been identified as a source of 

sea turtle mortality. Hopper dredging 

will be conducted in accordance with 

all reasonable and prudent measures 

and implementing terms and conditions 

provided to MVN by NMFS in its 2007 

Biological Opinion (NMFS 2007) and 

any subsequent Biological Opinion, to 

avoid sea turtle mortality. 

3. Location in relation to beaches and 

other amenity areas. 

The nearest point of land is North 

Point of Point au Fer Island that is 

approximately 2.5 miles from the 

northeast end of the proposed ODMDSWest. There are no recreational parks or 

beaches near the proposed ODMDSWest. It may be possible to observe the 

placement plume from boats in the 

vicinity during the active period of 

maintenance-dredged material 

placement within the site. The plume 

resulting from the placement of dredged 

material is not expected to be visible 

from land because of the distance from 

land and the existing turbid nature of 

the water in the area. The plume is 

expected to dissipate quickly after 

completion of the placement operations. 

Except for the minor effects of these 

limited observations, there should be no 

effects to the aesthetics of the area. 

4. Types and quantities of wastes 

proposed to be disposed of, and 

proposed methods of release, including 

methods of packaging the waste, if any. 

Material dredged from the ARBC is 

mainly comprised of silt, with lesser 

amounts of sand and clay (Dettmann 

and Tracey 1990; PBS&J 2002; PBS&J 

2002). Sediment sampling as part of the 

contaminant assessments conducted by 

PBS&J (2008) found dredged material 

from the ARBC consisting of 

approximately 7–12 percent sand, 81–88 

percent silt, and 6–7 percent clay. Based 

on dredging records since 2002, the 

volume of maintenance-dredged 

material to be removed from the ARBC 

for disposal to the ODMDS-West is 

approximately 10.8 mcy per fiscal year. 

Material is removed from the ARBC 

using a hydraulic cutterhead pipeline 

dredge and released within the ODMDS 

as uncohesive slurry. The ARBC is 

dredged annually and the average length 

of the dredging contract is 60 to 90 days. 

It is expected that future disposal 

operations will follow the past disposal 

pattern with respect to types, quantities, 

and methods of release. Any material 

disposed of at the site would be 

required to comply with the criteria of 

the Ocean Dumping Regulations (40 

CFR Pans 220 to 229). None of the 

material will be packaged in any way. 

5. Feasibility of surveillance and 

monitoring. 

The proposed ODMDS-West is in 

relatively shallow water and is close to 

shore, which facilitates surveillance and 

monitoring of the site. Operational 

observations can be made using shorebased radar, aircraft, and day-use boats. 

A draft Site Management and 

Monitoring Plan (SMMP) incorporating 

monitoring requirements has been 

developed jointly by EPA and MVN for 

the proposed ODMDS-West and existing 

ODMDS-East. The primary purpose of 

the Site Monitoring Program is to 

evaluate the impact of dredged material 

on the marine environment. The SMMP 

is included in Appendix A of this draft 

EIS. 

6. Dispersal, horizontal transport, and 

vertical mixing characteristics of the 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
29692 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

area, including prevailing current 

direction and velocity, if any. 

Current patterns in the vicinity of the 

proposed ODMDS are highly complex. 

Although tides, Loop current intrusions, 

and river flow may affect the local 

currents, these currents are influenced 

predominately by winds (Phillips and 

James, 1988). Thus, the direction and 

velocity of the currents vary throughout 

the year. Winds are a particularly strong 

driving force in late autumn, winter, 

and early spring. Net water flow in the 

winter is to the northwest; however, 

rapid flow reversals to the southeast 

occur periodically in concert with wind 

direction (Crout and Hamiter 1981; 

Phillips and James 1988; Walker and 

Hammack 2000). The near shore current 

patterns are somewhat more complex in 

summer. In the absence of strong winds 

and the presence of a stratified water 

column, current patterns become 

considerably less distinct. Net flow in 

summer can be either to the east or west 

(Crout and Hamiter 1981; Phillips and 

James 1988; Walker and Hammack 

2000). Spinoff eddies from the Loop 

current occasionally enter the region, 

producing flows to the southeast near 

the ARBC (Weissberg et al. 1980a, 

1980b). 

Current speeds generally range from 

10 to 30 centimeters per second (cm/s) 

in the vicinity of the proposed ODMDS. 

Minimum speeds of 5 to 30 cm/s occur 

in June, July, and August; whereas the 

highest recorded current speeds in the 

vicinity range from 70 to 140 cm/s and 

occur during strong winter storms 

(Weissberg et al. 1980a, 1980b). 

Stagnant periods with little or no 

current motion, lasting as long as 6 

days, have been recorded in April, May, 

and July (Weissberg et al. 1980a, 1980b). 

Current speeds may reach 200 cm/s 

during hurricanes, which occur, on 

average, approximately once every four 

years (Weissberg et al. 1980a, 1980b; 

Phillips and James 1988; NOAA 2013a). 

In the absence of strong currents, the 

bulk of the maintenance-dredged 

material settles on the bottom of the 

particular area of a site being used at 

that time. A portion of the plume (fines) 

will be transported in the direction of 

the current over a wider area of the 

disposal site and, to some extent, 

outside the disposal site. This material 

will eventually settle over a wide area. 

Plume measurements were taken by 

Schubel et al. (1978) during dredged 

material disposal operations at the 

ODMDS-East. Background suspended 

solids concentrations were 

approximately 100 mg/L and currents 

were to the southwest at 9 to 19 cm/s. 

During placement operations, 

suspended solids concentrations as high 

as 300 mg/L were found a quarter of a 

mile downcurrent from the end of the 

discharge pipe. During another set of 

observations made when current 

directions were to the west and to the 

northeast, suspended solids 

concentrations of 300 mg/L were 

measured at 0.6 to 1.0 mile downcurrent 

from the end of the discharge pipe. For 

comparison purposes, total suspended 

solids (TSS) concentrations in this area 

of the continental shelf normally range 

between 250 to 400 mg/L. 

The maintenance-dredged material is 

proportionally very small compared to 

the sediment load delivered by the 

discharge of the Atchafalaya River to the 

area. During disposal operations, a 

temporary mound of maintenancedredged material may be initially 

formed within the ODMDS. However, 

flow of the noncohesive slurry and 

resuspension of the maintenancedredged material results in the 

disappearance of the mound through 

dispersal and horizontal transport. The 

net result would be the remixing of 

maintenance-dredged material with 

other materials from the original source. 

The natural sediment load of the 

Atchafalaya is estimated to be 

approximately 40 to 50 percent of the 

combined discharge from the 

Mississippi and Atchafalaya Rivers, 

which is 210 million tons/year (Walker 

and Hammack 2000). 

According to a sediment budget 

modeled by Teeter et al. (2003) for a 

hypothetical 10-mcy shoal in the ARBC, 

placement of material in the ODMDSWest would reduce runback to the 

channel by 5 mcy but increase lateral 

inflow by the same amount, when 

compared to placement in ODMDS-East. 

Although placement in ODMDS-West 

reduced runback to the channel, within 

approximately 10 weeks, the difference 

was made up through lateral inflow. 

Based on this analysis, the annual 

potential lateral source is estimated at 

approximately 30 mcy, which is a 

reasonable rate, given the parameters 

identified during the study (Teeter et al. 

2003). Thus, while placing material on 

the west side of the ARBC did not 

eliminate shoaling, it did reduce 

runback of material into the channel, 

when compared to placing material on 

the east side of the channel. The 10- 

week decrease in the amount of time it 

takes material to reenter the ARBC, 

then, would decrease the overall annual 

maintenance dredging effort (i.e., 

dredging frequency) needed for the 

ARBC while providing vessels with a 

longer period of safe navigation access 

between maintenance dredging events. 

7. Existence and effects of current and 

previous discharges and dumping in the 

area (including cumulative effects). 

The area proposed for selection has 

been used for the disposal of 

maintenance-dredged material since 

2002. Bathymetric surveys taken prior to 

and after disposal operations indicate 

there is no persistent mounding and the 

maintenance-dredged material is 

relatively quickly dispersed. No 

measurable effects from previous 

disposals have been noticed. 

Studies conducted on the ODMDSEast in the early 1980s and 1990s did 

not identify effects from dredged 

material placement in the water column, 

sediments, or benthos of the site. These 

studies were conducted during 

placement activities, as well as 10 and 

15 months following placement 

activities (USAC, 1996). Although these 

studies were conducted at the ODMDSEast, it is reasonable to expect that, 

because of the proximity of the 

proposed ODMDS-West, there would 

also be no effects from placement at 

ODMDS-West. 

8. Interference with shipping, fishing, 

recreation, mineral extraction, 

desalination, fish and shellfish culture, 

areas of special scientific importance, 

and other legitimate uses of the ocean. 

The proposed ODMDS-West is 

outside the navigation channel and 

therefore does not interfere with 

shipping. The shallow nature of the 

continental shelf in the area requires 

ships to remain in the navigation 

channels away from the ODMDS-West. 

Smaller recreational and commercial 

fishing vessels will pass over the 

ODMDS-West without interference from 

dredged material mounds that may 

temporarily form and that are expected 

to be relatively low and to disperse 

relatively quickly. Hydraulic cutterhead 

dredges and disposal pipelines may 

cause minor interference, but are not 

expected to interfere with shipping 

traffic. All dredging and placement 

operations are closely coordinated with 

the USCG with issuance of a Notice to 

Mariners to dredging operators and the 

shipping interests to avoid interference 

with traffic. 

Recreational fishing and boating takes 

place throughout the area of the 

ODMDS-West. Ship Shoal is located 

approximately 29 miles east of the 

ODMDS-West; Trinity and Tiger Shoals 

are about 28 miles west of the site. 

Smaller fishing shoals are within 2.9 

miles of the ODMDS-West and Point au 

Fer Reef is located just north of the site. 

There may be some short-term 

interference with recreational activities 

at the ODMDS-West, particularly during 

disposal operations. The plumes of 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 29693 

maintenance-dredged material and 

activities associated with the dredging 

operations could have a minor impact 

on targeted fish stocks, which may tend 

to avoid the area of active placement, 

temporarily affecting recreational 

fishing in the area. This interference 

would be short-term and restricted to 

the relatively small area of the ODMDSWest being used for dredged material 

placement at any particular time. 

Trawling and crabbing in the channel 

and near the placement area may 

experience interference during dredging 

operations. 

There are numerous active oil and gas 

platforms located in the west and south 

end of the ODMDS-West and other 

platforms are located adjacent to the 

east, south, and west of the site. 

Additionally, several large natural gas 

pipelines cross the ODMDS-West. 

Because of the dispersive nature of the 

site, past experience with dredged 

material placement has not indicated 

interference with oil and gas exploration 

or production. No other types of mineral 

extraction are taking place either within 

the site or within the general vicinity of 

the site. It is not expected that use of the 

site for placement of maintenancedredged material would interfere with 

any other legitimate use of the ocean in 

this general area. 

No desalination or artificial finfish or 

shellfish culture facilities are located 

within the site. The nearest oyster leases 

are located approximately 4 miles east 

of the ODMDS-West, near Point au Fer 

(Ernie Dugas 1995, personal 

communication, Oyster Survey Section 

LDWF; USACE 1996; LDNR 2012). Fish 

and shellfish that naturally occur within 

the site may be affected by placement of 

dredge material at the site, particularly 

bottom-dwelling organisms that may be 

trapped and smothered. Material 

dispersed from the site is expected to 

settle in thin layers and be mixed with 

the naturally occurring sediments in the 

region. Thus, dispersion and transport 

of this material outside of the site 

should not adversely affect the fish and 

shellfish in the area. Additionally, 

because the transport of suspended 

material from the ODMDS-West would 

be primarily parallel to the coastline 

and in a generally westward direction 

for much of the year, effect of placement 

operations on oyster lease areas near 

Point au Fer would be minimal and 

consistent with natural conditions. 

There have been no impacts to oyster 

leases from the use of the interimdesignated ODMDS-West, thus no 

impact is expected from its continued 

use. 

Two areas designated as wildlife 

management areas or wildlife refuges 

and that are used for recreational use are 

located in the project area. The 140,000- 

acre Atchafalaya Delta WMA, managed 

by the LDWF, encompasses the 

developing delta in Atchafalaya Bay. 

The Atchafalaya Delta WMA is located 

immediately adjacent to the upper end 

of the existing Section 103(b) ODMDSWest. The Shell Keys National Wildlife 

Refuge and Russell Sage—Marsh Island 

State Wildlife Refuge is located 

approximately 29 miles west of the 

ODMDS-West. The transport of 

suspended materials from the ODMDSWest would mainly be parallel to the 

coastline, and concentrations of 

suspended materials produced during 

dredging operations are expected to be 

within background levels within a few 

miles or so of the ODMDS-West (May 

1973). Suspended materials originating 

from the ODMDS-West may drift into 

adjacent portions of the Atchafalaya 

Delta WMA; however, the effects of 

these suspended materials would likely 

be indiscernible from ambient 

conditions in these areas. There have 

been no significant impacts to these 

areas from use of the interim-designated 

ODMDS-West, and no impacts are 

expected from its continued use. 

Various universities and state and 

Federal agencies have studied the 

biological, geomorphological, and 

hydrological development of the 

Atchafalaya Delta. This includes 

scientific studies that are periodically 

carried out in the offshore region and 

the bays of the area. As the Atchafalaya 

Delta progrades from the Atchafalaya 

Bay into the Gulf of Mexico, it is likely 

that scientific interest in the area will 

continue. Placement of dredged material 

into the ODMDS-West is not expected to 

interfere with any such studies. 

9. Existing water quality and ecology 

of the site as determined by available 

data or by trend assessment or baseline 

surveys. 

The water quality and ecology of the 

proposed ODMDS-West generally reflect 

that of the nearshore region off the 

Louisiana coast affected by discharges 

from the Atchafalaya River. The 

variations in water quality depend on 

the amount and mixing of freshwater 

runoff that is highly variable (Phillips 

and James 1988). Data collected during 

the IEC (1983) surveys and the EPA– 

ERLN (Dettmann and Tracey 1990) 

survey are generally comparable to 

historic data for the area as summarized 

in Phillips and James (1988). Neither the 

IEC (1983) nor the EPA–ERLN 

(Dettmann and Tracey 1990) water 

column data were taken during 

maintenance-dredged material 

placement operations; therefore, these 

data reflect ambient conditions. 

Similarly, water quality and sediment 

contaminant data from the 2008, 2002 

and 1996 contaminant assessments all 

indicated no water quality impacts 

related to the placement of dredged 

material. Additional detail regarding 

these data, as well as additional 

discussion of water quality can be found 

in sections 4.1.4 and 4.1.5. 

Macrofaunal assemblages near the 

ARBC ODMDSs have been examined 

during benthic investigations of several 

proposed salt dome brine diffuser sites 

(Parker et al., 1980; Weissberg et al., 

1980a, 1980b). These studies 

characterized nearshore assemblages 

typical of estuarine areas, with 

communities dominated by polychaete 

worms, small molluscs, and 

macrocrustaceans. Most species 

displayed seasonal population 

fluctuations, with recruitment during 

winter and spring. Stations sampled by 

IEC (1983) in the vicinity of the 

ODMDS-East were further inshore and 

shallower than the proposed brine 

diffuser sites; however, the same general 

macrofaunal assemblage was found. 

During both surveys, polychaetes 

dominated the macrofauna. 

Central Louisiana Gulf coastal waters 

are inhabited by numerous species of 

finfish and shellfish that can be 

characterized as estuary-related or 

demersal shelf inhabitants. Nektonic 

species and fast swimmers that may 

occur within the area of the ODMDS are 

attracted to oil rigs, which provide reeflike environments in the Gulf. Most, but 

not all, of the larger predators occur 

seasonally on the northern Gulf shelf, 

appearing in spring and leaving in the 

fall (Darnell et al. 1983). The density 

distribution of total fish and Penaeid 

shrimp catch in the northwestern Gulf 

has historically been highest off 

Louisiana (NMFS 2012). This may be 

directly attributable to the extensive 

estuarine nursery areas of Louisiana 

(Darnell et al. 1983; Darnell and Kleypas 

1987). Recreational fishing, including 

fishing, crabbing, and shrimping, is 

popular in the vicinity of the ODMDSs. 

10. Potentiality for the development or 

recruitment of nuisance species in the 

disposal site. 

Past placement of maintenancedredged material at the existing 

ODMDS-East and ODMDS-West has not 

resulted in the development or 

recruitment of nuisance species. 

Therefore, placement of maintenancedredged material at the proposed 

ODMDS-West is not expected to result 

in development or recruitment of 

nuisance species. 

11. Existence at or in close proximity 

to the site of any significant natural or 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
29694 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

cultural features of historical 

importance. 

The USACE Submerged Cultural 

Resource Database contains historical 

accounts of 52 shipwrecks in the 

Atchafalaya River and 7 shipwrecks in 

Atchafalaya Bay. These records indicate 

historical use of the Atchafalaya Basin. 

In 1996, a remote sensing survey was 

conducted in the ODMDS-East. This 

study found that while several anomaly 

clusters existed, which may represent 

shipwrecks, the geomorphologic and 

bathymetric data indicates that between 

17 and 21 feet of sedimentation had 

occurred in the area between 1839 and 

1996. A vessel wrecked more than 157 

years ago may have at least 17 feet of 

sediment covering it. As a result of this 

survey, it was concluded that the 

placement of maintenance-dredged 

materials in the proposed ODMDS-West 

would not add appreciably to the 

impact already induced by progradation 

of the Atchafalaya Delta during the last 

century. There is no other information 

suggesting the presence of significant 

natural or cultural resources of 

historical importance in the vicinity of 

the proposed ODMDS-West. The results 

of the 1996 remote sensing study can be 

applied to the present study given its 

proximity to the previously designated 

ODMDS-East. 

F. Regulatory Requirements 

1. National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) 

Pursuant to section 102(2)(C) of the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 (NEPA) federal agencies are 

generally required to prepare an 

environmental impact statement (EIS) 

on major federal actions significantly 

affecting the quality of the human 

environment. Due to the doctrine of 

functional equivalency, EPA 

designations of ODMDS under MPRSA 

are not subject to NEPA’s requirements. 

EPA believes the NEPA process 

enhances public participation on such 

designations, however, and the potential 

effects of these proposed designations 

are fully analyzed in a draft EIS on the 

Designation of the Atchafalaya River Bar 

Channel Ocean Dredged Materal 

Disposal Site Pursuant to Section 102(c) 

of the Marine Protection, research, and 

Sanctuaries Act of 1972, St. Mary 

Parish, Louisiana. The EPA is the lead 

agency on the draft EIS and Corps of 

Engineers a cooperating agency. 

A Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS 

was published in the Federal Register 

on July 21, 2011 requesting comments 

or names for the project mailing list to 

be submitted by August 22, 2011. A 

Scoping Input Request Letter requesting 

comments regarding the scope of the 

study was sent to Federal, state and 

local agencies; and interested groups 

and individuals on September 15, 2011; 

comments were received through 

October 31, 2011. Scoping comments 

were received from 11 entities and will 

be considered during the study process 

and in preparation of the draft EIS. A 

Scoping Report was prepared and is 

appended to the draft EIS. EPA has 

relied on information from the draft EIS 

and Scoping Report in its consideration 

and application of ocean dumping 

criteria to the Atchafalaya ODMDS-West 

it proposes to designate. 

2. Endangered Species Act Consultation 

During development of the site 

designation draft EIS, EPA and the 

USACE consulted with the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service (USFWS) pursuant 

to the provisions of the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA), regarding the 

potential for designation and use of the 

ocean disposal sites to adversely affect 

any threatened or endangered species or 

their critical habitat. By letter dated 

January 26, 2012, the USFWS concurred 

with the determination of EPA and the 

USACE that the proposed action is not 

likely to adversely affect the West 

Indian manatee, pallid sturgeon, or the 

piping plover or its critical habitat. This 

consultation process is fully 

documented in the site designation draft 

EIS. 

3. Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act of 

1996 

The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act of 

1996 (MSFCMA) defines Essential Fish 

Habitat (EFH) as ‘‘those waters and 

substrate necessary to fish for spawning, 

breeding, feeding or growth to 

maturity.’’ The estuarine and marine 

waters in St. Mary Parish, as well as the 

northern Gulf of Mexico, are designated 

as EFH. In particular, EFH identified by 

the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management 

Plan (FMP) in St. Mary Parish and 

adjoining waters—including 

Atchafalaya Bay—include estuarine 

water column and estuarine water 

bottoms, including mud, rock, sand, 

intertidal vegetation, and shell 

substrates. No ‘‘Habitat Areas of 

Particular Concern’’ have been 

identified in the project vicinity. By 

letter dated October 19, 2011, the 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

(NMFS) confirmed this subtital habitat 

is categorized as essential fish habitat 

(EFH) under provisions of the 

Magnuson-Stevens fishery Conservation 

and Management Act (MagnusonStevens Act). NMFS concurs with the 

initial evaluation provided in the 

September 15, 2011 information 

package that material removed from the 

bar channel is not suitable for wetland 

development and its disposal at the 

proposed location is not expected to 

have significant impacts to EFH and 

related marine fishery resources. 

Coordination with NMFS will be 

fulfilled through their review and 

comment on the draft EIS. 

4. Coastal Zone Management Act 

Pursuant to section 307(c)(1) of the 

Coastal Zone Management Act, federal 

activities that affect a state’s coastal 

zone must be consistent to the 

maximum extent practicable with the 

enforceable policies of the state’s 

approved coastal zone management 

program. To implement that 

requirement, federal agencies prepare 

coastal consistency determinations and 

submit them to the appropriate state 

agencies, which may concur in or object 

to a consistency determination. In 

connection with its preparation of the 

draft EIS on the Designation of the 

Atchafalaya River Bar Channel Ocean 

Dredged Material Disposal Site Pursuant 

to Section 102(c) of the Marine 

Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries 

Act of 1792, St. Mary Parish, Louisiana, 

the EPA prepared a coastal consistency 

determination the proposed Atchafalaya 

ODMDS-West designation, which it 

submitted to the Louisiana Department 

of Natural Resources (LDNR). By letter 

of April 30, 2012 LDNR agreed that the 

proposed designation of the Atchafalaya 

ODMDS-West was not inconsistent with 

the approved Louisiana Coastal 

Resources Program (LCRP). More 

detailed plans and descriptions of the 

proposed navigation projects may be 

needed for LDNR and the Corps to 

resolve potential issues on the 

practicability of beneficial use of 

dredged materials in Louisiana’s coastal 

zone. Such issues are independent of 

EPA’s proposed ODMDS designations, 

however, which only make an offshore 

disposal option available when the 

Corps deems beneficial use that might 

otherwise be required by a state CZM 

program impracticable. EPA supports 

beneficial use of dredged material, but 

ODMDS designations do not in any way 

require that the Corps forego beneficial 

use in favor of ocean disposal. 

5. Coastal Barrier Improvement Act of 

1990 

The disposal of dredged materials 

related to maintenance and construction 

is an exception to Federal expenditure 

restrictions related to Coastal Barrier 

Resources Act of 1982; therefore, project 

activities related to disposal are exempt 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 29695 

from the prohibitions set forth in this 

act. 

H. Administrative Review 

This rule proposes the designation of 

an ocean dredged material disposal site 

pursuant to Section 102 of the MPRSA. 

This proposed action complies with 

applicable executive orders and 

statutory provisions as follows: 

1. Executive Order 12866 

Under Executive order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993) EPA must 

determine whether the regulatory action 

is ‘significant’’, and therefore subject to 

office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) review and other requirements of 

the Executive Order. The Order defines 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ as one 

that is likely to lead to a rule that may: 

(a) Have an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more, or 

adversely affect in a material way, the 

economy, a sector of the economy, 

productivity, competition, jobs, the 

environment, public health or safety, or 

State, local or Tribal governments or 

communities; 

(b) Create a serious inconsistency or 

otherwise interfere with an action taken 

or planned by another agency; 

(c) Materially alter the budgetary 

impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, 

or loan programs, or the rights and 

obligations of recipients thereof: or 

(d) Raise novel legal or policy issues 

arising out of legal mandates, the 

President’s priorities, or the principles 

set forth in the Executive Order. 

This Proposed Rule should have 

minimal impact on State, local or Tribal 

governments or communities. 

Consequently, EPA has determined that 

this Proposed Rule is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under the terms of 

Executive Order 12866. 

2. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq., is intended to 

minimize the reporting and 

recordkeeping burden on the regulated 

community, as well as to minimize the 

cost of Federal information collection 

and dissemination. In general, the Act 

requires that information requests and 

record-keeping requirements affecting 

ten or more non-Federal respondents be 

approved by OMB. EPA anticipates that 

few, if any, non-federal entities will use 

the site as none have in the past. 

3. Regulatory Flexibility Act, as 

Amended by the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 

1996 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

provides that whenever an agency 

promulgates a final rule under 5 U.S.C. 

553, the agency must prepare a 

regulatory flexibility analysis (RFA) 

unless the head of the agency certifies 

that the final rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities (5 

U.S.C. 604 and 605). The site 

designation and management actions 

would only have the effect of setting 

maximum annual disposal volume and 

providing a continuing disposal option 

for dredged material. Consequently, 

EPA’s action will not impose any 

additional economic burden on small 

entities. For this reason, the Regional 

Administrator certifies, pursuant to 

section 605(b) of the RFA, that the 

Proposed Rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

4. Unfunded Mandates 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act (UMRA) of 1995 (Pub. L. 

104–4) establishes requirements for 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their regulatory actions on State, local, 

and Tribal governments and the private 

sector. 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 $10 million or 

more in any year. 

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. The Proposed rule would 

only provide a continuing disposal 

option for dredged material. 

Consequently, it imposes no new 

enforceable duty on any State, local or 

Tribal governments or the private sector. 

EPA anticipates that few, if any, nonfederal entities will use the site as none 

have in the past. 

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 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. The Proposed 

Rule would only have the effect of 

providing a continuing disposal option 

for dredged material. Thus, Executive 

Order 13132 does not apply to this 

Proposed Rule. 

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 

Proposed Rule would only have the 

effect of providing a continuing disposal 

option for dredged material. Thus, 

Executive Order 13175 does not apply 

to this Proposed Rule. 

7. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

This Executive Order (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: 

(1) Is determined to be ‘‘economically 

significant’’ as defined under Executive 

Order 12866, and (2) concerns an 

environmental health or safety risk that 

EPA has reason to believe may have a 

disproportionate effect on children. If 

the regulatory action meets both criteria, 

EPA must evaluate the environmental 

health or safety effects of the planned 

rule on children, and explain why the 

planned regulation is preferable to other 

potentially effective and reasonably 

feasible alternatives considered by EPA. 

This Proposed Rule is not subject to the 

Executive Order because it is not 

economically significant as defined in 

Executive Order 12866, and because 

EPA does not have reason to believe the 

environmental health or safety risks 

addressed by this action present a 

disproportionate risk to children. 

8. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use Compliance With 

Administrative Procedure Act 

This Proposed Rule is not subject to 

Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
29696 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355 (May 

22, 2001)) because it is not a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866. The Proposed Rule would only 

have the effect of providing a continuing 

disposal option for dredged material. 

Thus, EPA concluded that this Proposed 

Rule is not likely to have any adverse 

energy effects. 

9. National Technology Transfer 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law 

104–113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) 

directs EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards in its regulatory activities 

unless to do so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. Voluntary consensus 

standards are technical standards (e.g., 

material specifications, test methods, 

sampling procedures, and business 

practices) that are developed or adopted 

by voluntary consensus standards 

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 is 

not considering the use of any voluntary 

consensus standards. 

10. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and Low 

Income Populations 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629) 

establishes Federal executive policy on 

environmental justice. Its main 

provision directs Federal agencies, to 

the greatest extent practicable and 

permitted by law, to make 

environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. EPA 

determined that this proposed rule will 

not have disproportionately high and 

adverse human health or environmental 

effects on minority or low-income 

populations because it does not affect 

the level of protection provided to 

human health or the environment. EPA 

has assessed the overall protectiveness 

of designating the disposal site against 

the criteria established pursuant to the 

MPRSA to ensure that any adverse 

impact to the environment will be 

mitigated to the greatest extent 

practicable. 

List of subjects in 40 CFR part 228 

Environmental protection, Water 

pollution control. 

Dated: May 7, 2013. 

Samuel Coleman, P.E., 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6. 

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 

adding paragraph (j)(22) to read as 

follows: 

§ 228.15 Dumping sites designated on a 

final basis. 

* * * * * 

(j) * * * 

(22) Atchafalaya River and Bayous 

Chene, Boeuf, and Black, LA (ODMDSWest) 

(i) Location (NAD83): 29°22′06′′ N, 

91°27′38′′ W; 29°20′30′′ N, 91°25′13′′ W; 

29°09′16′′ N, 91°35′12′′ W; 29°10′52′′ N, 

91°37′33′′ W; thence to point of 

beginning. 

(ii) Size: 48 square miles 

(iii) Depth: Ranges from 4 to 23 feet 

(iv) Primary Use: Dredged material. 

(v) Period of Use: Continuing use. 

(vi) Restrictions: Disposal shall be 

limited to dredged material from the 

Atchafalaya River Bar channel that 

complies with EPA’s Ocean Dumping 

Regulations. Dredged material that does 

not meet the criteria set forth in 40 CFR 

part 227 shall not be placed at the site. 

Disposal operations shall be conducted 

in accordance with requirements 

specified in a Site Management and 

Monitoring Plan developed by EPA and 

USACE, to be reviewed periodically, at 

least every 10 years. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2013–12089 Filed 5–20–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Federal Emergency Management 

Agency 

44 CFR Part 67 

[Docket ID FEMA–2013–0002; Internal 

Agency Docket No. FEMA–B–1196] 

Proposed Flood Elevation 

Determinations for Lake County, 

Illinois, and Incorporated Areas 

AGENCY: Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, DHS. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency 

Management Agency (FEMA) is 

withdrawing its proposed rule 

concerning proposed flood elevation 

determinations for Lake County, Illinois, 

and Incorporated Areas 

DATES: This withdrawal is effective on 

May 21, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by Docket No. FEMA–B– 

1196, to Luis Rodriguez, Chief, 

Engineering Management Branch, 

Federal Insurance and Mitigation 

Administration, Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–4064, 

or (email) 

Luis.Rodriguez3@fema.dhs.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Luis 

Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering 

Management Branch, Federal Insurance 

and Mitigation Administration, Federal 

Emergency Management Agency, 500 C 

Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, 

(202) 646–4064, or (email) 

Luis.Rodriguez3@fema.dhs.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July 5, 

2011, FEMA published a proposed 

rulemaking at 76 FR 39063, proposing 

flood elevation determinations along 

one or more flooding sources in Lake 

County, Illinois. Because FEMA has 

issued a Revised Preliminary Flood 

Insurance Rate Map, and a Flood 

Insurance Study report, featuring no 

new flood hazard analysis and 

unchanged base flood elevations, the 

proposed rulemaking is being 

withdrawn. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4104; 44 CFR 67.4. 

Roy E. Wright, 

Deputy Associate Administrator for 

Mitigation, Department of Homeland 

Security, Federal Emergency Management 

Agency. 

[FR Doc. 2013–12011 Filed 5–20–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–12–P 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1