55144 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 174 / Friday, September 7, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

The special requirements listed in 33 

CFR 165.1332, which can be found in 

the Federal Register (75 FR 33700) 

published on June 15, 2010, apply to the 

activation and enforcement of this zone. 

All vessel operators who desire to 

enter the safety zone must obtain 

permission from the Captain of the Port 

or his Designated Representative by 

contacting either the on-scene patrol 

craft on VHF Ch 13 or Ch 16 or the 

Coast Guard Sector Puget Sound Joint 

Harbor Operations Center (JHOC) via 

telephone at (206) 217–6002. 

The Coast Guard may be assisted by 

other Federal, State, or local law 

enforcement agencies in enforcing this 

regulation. 

This notice is issued under authority 

of 33 CFR 165.1332 and 33 CFR part 165 

and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this 

notice, the Coast Guard will provide the 

maritime community with extensive 

advanced notification of the safety zone 

via the Local Notice to Mariners and 

marine information broadcasts on the 

day of the events. 

Dated: August 23, 2012. 

G.G. Stump, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Captain 

of the Port, Puget Sound. 

[FR Doc. 2012–22010 Filed 9–6–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 228 

[EPA–R10–OW–2012–0197; FRL–9724–7] 

Ocean Dumping; Designation of Ocean 

Dredged Material Disposal Sites 

Offshore of Yaquina Bay, Oregon 

AGENCY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The EPA is finalizing the 

designation of two new ocean dredged 

material disposal (ODMD) sites offshore 

of Yaquina Bay, Oregon, pursuant to the 

Marine Protection, Research, and 

Sanctuaries Act, as amended (MPRSA). 

On April 5, 2012, the EPA published a 

proposed rule to designate the sites and 

opened a public comment period under 

Docket ID No. EPA–R10–OW–2012– 

0197. The comment period closed on 

May 7, 2012. The EPA received several 

comments on the proposed rule. The 

EPA’s responses are included in section 

2.c of this final rule labeled ‘‘Response 

to Comments Received.’’ The EPA 

decided to finalize the action to 

designate the new sites because the new 

sites are needed to serve the long-term 

need for a location to dispose of 

material dredged from the Yaquina 

River navigation channel, and to 

provide a location for the disposal of 

dredged material for persons or entities 

who have received a permit for such 

disposal. The newly designated sites are 

subject to ongoing monitoring and 

management to ensure continued 

protection of the marine environment. 

DATES: The effective date of this final 

action shall be October 9, 2012. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the www.regulations.gov 

index. Although listed in the index, 

some information may not be publicly 

available, e.g., confidential business 

information (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 EPA Region 10 Library, 1200 Sixth 

Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, Washington 

98101. The EPA Region 10 Library is 

open from 9:00 a.m. to noon, and 1:00 

to 4:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, 

excluding federal holidays. The EPA 

Region 10 Library telephone number is 

(206) 553–1289. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Bridgette Lohrman, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 10, Office of 

Ecosystems, Tribal and Public Affairs, 

Environmental Review and Sediment 

Management Unit, Oregon Operations 

Office, 805 SW Broadway, Suite 500, 

Portland, Oregon 97205; phone number 

(503) 326–4006; email: 

Lohrman.Bridgette@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

1. Potentially Affected Persons 

Persons potentially affected by this 

action include those who seek or might 

seek permits or approval by the EPA to 

dispose of dredged material into ocean 

waters pursuant to the Marine 

Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries 

Act, as amended (MPRSA), 33 U.S.C. 

1401 to 1445. The EPA’s action would 

be relevant to persons, including 

organizations and government bodies 

seeking to dispose of dredged material 

in ocean waters offshore of Yaquina 

Bay, Oregon. Currently, the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers (Corps) would be 

most affected by this action. Potentially 

affected categories and persons include: 

Category Examples of potentially regulated persons 

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 .................... 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 persons likely to 

be affected by this action. For any 

questions regarding the applicability of 

this action to a particular person or 

entity, please refer to the contact person 

listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

2. Background 

a. History of Disposal Sites Offshore of 

Yaquina Bay, Oregon 

The Corps historically used the 

general area offshore of Yaquina Bay for 

dredged material disposal. In 1977, an 

Interim ODMD site offshore of Yaquina 

Bay received an EPA interim 

designation and was used by the Corps 

for dredged material disposal after 1977 

and prior to 1986 (Figure 1). Because of 

increased mounding in the Interim Site 

and its potential adverse effect on 

navigation safety, the Corps selected an 

alternate ODMD site, the ‘‘Adjusted 

Site,’’ under the authority of Section 103 

of the MPRSA, with the EPA’s 

concurrence. The Corps began to use 

this ‘‘Adjusted Site’’ in 1986. By 1990, 

dredged material had accumulated in 

the Adjusted Site to an extent that 

portions of the Site had to be avoided, 

and careful placement of material was 

necessary on specific portions of the 

Adjusted Site. In 2000, the Corps ceased 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 174 / Friday, September 7, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 55145 

disposal of material at the Adjusted Site. 

In 2001, the Corps and the EPA 

completed a study examination of 

possible new locations for ocean 

disposal further offshore from the 

entrance to Yaquina Bay. The 

recommended locations from that study 

are the Yaquina North and South Sites 

designated in this action. 

In October 2000, these disposal sites 

were authorized for use by the Corps, 

following the EPA’s concurrence, under 

Section 103 of the MPRSA as selected 

sites. To provide for sufficient disposal 

capacity over the long term, on April 5, 

2012, the EPA proposed to designate 

both a Yaquina North Site and a 

Yaquina South Site under Section 102 

of the MPRSA, for the ocean disposal of 

dredged material offshore of Yaquina 

Bay. These proposed sites were 

designed to use the footprints of the 

Section 103 selected sites. The Yaquina 

North Site, which had been unavailable 

once authorization for use under 

Section 103 of the MPRSA expired at 

the end of the 2011 dredge season, will 

be available for use as a designated site 

upon the effective date of this final 

action. The Yaquina South Site, which 

was used for disposal of dredged 

material for the first time during the 

2012 dredging and disposal season since 

its selection under Section 103 in 2001, 

will also be available for use as a 

designated site upon the effective date 

of this action. 

The designation of the two ocean 

disposal sites for dredged material does 

not mean that the Corps or the EPA has 

approved the use of the Sites for open 

water disposal of dredged material from 

any specific project. Before any person 

or entity can dispose dredged material 

at either of the Sites, the EPA and the 

Corps must evaluate the project 

according to the ocean dumping 

regulatory criteria (40 CFR, part 227) 

and authorize the disposal. The EPA 

independently evaluates proposed 

dumping and has the right to restrict 

and/or disapprove of the actual disposal 

of dredged material if the EPA 

determines that environmental 

requirements under the MPRSA have 

not been met. 

b. Location and Configuration of 

Yaquina North and South Ocean 

Dredged Material Disposal Sites 

This action finalizes the designation 

of two ocean dredged material sites to 

the north and south, respectively, 

offshore of Yaquina Bay. The location of 

the two ocean dredged material disposal 

sites (Yaquina North and South ODMD 

Sites, North and South Sites, or Sites) 

are bounded by the coordinates, listed 

below, and shown in Figure 1. The 

designation of these two Sites will allow 

the EPA to adaptively manage the Sites 

to maximize their capacity, minimize 

the potential for mounding and 

associated safety concerns, and 

minimize the potential for any longterm adverse effects to the marine 

environment. 

The coordinates for the two Sites are, 

in North American Datum 83 (NAD 83): 

Yaquina North ODMD Site 

44°38′17.98′′ N, 124°07′25.95′′ W 

44°38′12.86′′ N, 124°06′31.10′′ W 

44°37′14.33′′ N, 124°07′37.57′′ W 

44°37′09.22′′ N, 124°06′42.73′′ W 

Yaquina South ODMD Site 

44°36′04.50′′ N, 124°07′52.66′′ W 

44°35′59.39′′ N, 124°06′57.84′′ W 

44°35′00.85′′ N, 124°08′04.27′′ W 

44°34′55.75′′ N, 124°07′09.47′′ W 

The two Sites are located in 

approximately 112 to 152 feet of water, 

and are located to the north and south 

of the entrance to Yaquina Bay on the 

central Oregon Coast. The Yaquina 

North Site is located about 1.7 nautical 

miles northwest of the entrance to 

Yaquina Bay and the Yaquina South 

Site is located about 2.0 nautical miles 

southwest of the bay’s entrance. Both 

ocean disposal sites are 6,500 feet long 

by 4,000 feet wide, each about 597 acres 

in size. 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES
55146 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 174 / Friday, September 7, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–C 

c. Response to Comments Received 

The EPA received several comments 

on the proposed site designation during 

the public comment period which 

closed on May 7, 2012. Two 

commenters, while finding the proposed 

site designation to be thorough and 

inclusive, questioned whether negative 

effects from the site designation could 

be adequately controlled. In response to 

the concern raised by these commenters, 

the EPA reviewed the Site Management 

and Monitoring Plan (SMMP) for the 

Sites to ensure that controls are in place 

both to prevent negative effects and to 

correct impacts from negative effects in 

the unlikely event such effects occurred. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULESER07SE12.006</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 174 / Friday, September 7, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 55147 

The final SMMP, found in the docket for 

this action, includes safeguards to act to 

prevent negative effects, primarily 

through ensuring that only material 

meeting ocean dumping criteria for 

ocean disposal are allowed to be 

disposed at the Sites, and through the 

implementation of adaptive 

management of the Sites. The EPA can 

respond to negative impacts, including, 

for example, having site users adjust 

disposal amounts, techniques, and 

timing, and the EPA can shut down the 

sites on a short term or long term basis 

if needed, if negative effects are 

observed or if trends suggest negative 

impacts could occur. The EPA has 

authority to condition, terminate or 

restrict site use with cause. 

Another commenter suggested that 

dumping dredged material at the Sites 

would result in a large amount of 

pollution in concentrated areas. In 

response to this comment, the EPA 

reiterates that material allowed to be 

disposed of at the Sites is limited to 

dredged material deemed to be 

environmentally acceptable for ocean 

disposal. As discussed in the proposed 

designation, and further discussed 

below, dredged material proposed for 

disposal would be evaluated prior to 

disposal. Only dredged material without 

contaminant concentrations at harmful 

levels would be deemed suitable for 

ocean disposal. 

This commenter also suggested that 

less dredging in the waterways would 

create less need for ocean disposal, 

while another commenter asked the 

EPA to consider alternate disposal sites 

and to facilitate additional discussions 

with local businesses and residents to 

discuss the impacts of the designation. 

The EPA appreciates these concerns. 

While the Corps, rather than the EPA 

determines the location and amount of 

dredging necessary to maintain the 

waterways of the U.S., the EPA 

determines, with the Corps’ input, how 

best to dispose of material that must be 

disposed of in the ocean. Part of that 

analysis includes a balancing of 

community and ocean user needs. The 

EPA finds this site designation to be the 

best balance of those needs at this time. 

The EPA will continue to evaluate these 

local community concerns and will use 

the SMMP to make adjustments as 

needed to the extent practicable, to help 

ensure the needs of the users are 

balanced against the concerns of the 

local community. 

A commenter raised a concern about 

the site designations on bar conditions 

across the Yaquina Bay bar during high 

swell conditions and asked whether any 

special analysis was warranted. The 

EPA and the Corps share the 

commenter’s concern that negative 

effects on bar crossing safety are 

unacceptable. The SMMP for the 

designated North and South Sites is 

designed with safeguards to help 

prevent disposal at the Sites from 

causing or contributing to adverse swell 

conditions. A primary goal of site 

management is to avoid the creation of 

persistent mounds that could negatively 

impact the wave climate. SMMP 

safeguards include placement strategies 

and special management conditions and 

practices to be implemented, such as 

‘‘uniform placement’’ of dredged 

material and annual bathymetric 

surveys, so as to minimize the potential 

for mounding that could create or 

contribute to adverse swell conditions 

across the sites. Alternating the use of 

the North and South Sites is an 

included condition to help ensure 

minimal impact to the wave climate. 

Safeguards also include quantity 

restrictions, and the EPA’s annual 

review of the prior year’s dumping and 

the EPA’s review of dump plans for the 

upcoming year prepared by the Corps. 

The SMMP sets a threshold condition to 

require the Corps to re-evaluate disposal 

impacts on wave climate if bathymetric 

surveys show elevations at 14 feet above 

2001 baseline elevations over more than 

30% of the Site. If mounds above this 

threshold become widespread or 

persistent, the USACE and the EPA will 

conduct additional site assessment to 

determine if site use restrictions, 

including a change in disposal 

methodology, or cessation of use, are 

needed. If necessary, the EPA can direct 

users to conduct special studies to 

assess conditions and contributing 

factors. The EPA is convinced these 

safeguards combined with the EPA’s 

authority to condition, terminate or 

restrict site use with cause, are 

sufficient to address this commenter’s 

concern. 

Finally, one commenter asked 

whether shorebirds in the area would be 

affected by the site designation. The 

EPA assessed the potential impact to 

shorebirds in the Environmental 

Assessment prepared for the site 

designation and as part of evaluating the 

site designation pursuant to the 

Endangered Species Act. As discussed 

in the Environmental Assessment and 

the Biological Assessment, shorebirds 

are not expected to be affected by the 

site designation. The U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (USFWS) concurred 

with the EPA’s finding that the site 

designation is not likely to adversely 

affect seabirds because of the presence 

of abundant suitable foraging habitat 

and the anticipated temporary nature of 

minor behavioral changes in flight or 

foraging during disposal activities at the 

designated sites. The USFWS 

concurrence letter is included in the 

docket for this action. 

d. Management and Monitoring of the 

Sites 

The Sites are expected to receive 

sediments dredged by the Corps to 

maintain the federally authorized 

navigation project at Yaquina Bay, 

Oregon and dredged material from other 

persons who have obtained a permit for 

the disposal of dredged material at the 

Sites. All persons using the Sites are 

required to follow the Site Management 

and Monitoring Plan (SMMP) for the 

Sites. The SMMP includes management 

and monitoring requirements to ensure 

that disposal activities will not 

unreasonably degrade or endanger 

human health, welfare, the marine 

environment, or economic 

potentialities. The SMMP for the 

Yaquina North and South Sites, in 

addition to the aforementioned, also 

addresses management of the Sites to 

ensure adverse mounding does not 

occur and to ensure that disposal events 

minimize interference with other uses of 

ocean waters in the vicinity of the 

proposed Sites. The SMMP, which was 

available for public comment as a draft 

document, has been finalized and the 

final document may be found in the 

Docket. 

e. MPRSA Criteria 

In designating these Sites, the EPA 

assessed the Sites according to the 

criteria of the MPRSA, with particular 

emphasis on the general and specific 

regulatory criteria of 40 CFR part 228, to 

determine whether the site designations 

satisfied those criteria. The EPA’s 

Yaquina Bay, Oregon Ocean Dredged 

Material Disposal Sites Evaluation 

Study and Environmental Assessment, 

July 2012 (EA), provided an extensive 

evaluation of the criteria and other 

related factors for the designation of 

these Sites. The EA was available as a 

draft document for review and comment 

when the EPA proposed to designate the 

sites. The EA has been finalized and the 

final document may be found in the 

Docket. 

General Criteria (40 CFR 228.5) 

(1) Sites must be selected to minimize 

interference with other activities in the 

marine environment, particularly 

avoiding areas of existing fisheries or 

shellfisheries, and regions of heavy 

commercial or recreational navigation 

(40 CFR 228.5(a)). 

The EPA reviewed the potential for 

the Sites to interfere with navigation, 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES
55148 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 174 / Friday, September 7, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

recreation, shellfisheries, aquatic 

resources, commercial fisheries, 

protected geologic features, and cultural 

and/or historically significant areas and 

found low potential for conflicts. The 

Sites spatially overlap with recreational 

activities such as boating and whale 

watching, recreational and commercial 

finfish or Dungeness crab fishing, tow 

lane agreements between tow boat 

operators and Dungeness crab 

fishermen, and recreational and 

commercial navigation. However, the 

Sites are unlikely to cause interference 

with these or other uses provided close 

communication and coordination is 

maintained among users, vessel traffic 

control and the U.S. Coast Guard. 

Recreational users are expected to focus 

their activities on areas that are 

shoreward of the Sites, such as Yaquina 

Reef. Commercial fishing, including that 

for salmon and Dungeness crab, is 

expected to occur at the Sites, but the 

EPA does not expect disposal operations 

at the Sites to conflict with this use 

because of the limited space and time 

during which disposal occurs. The 

SMMP outlines site management 

objectives, including minimizing 

interference with other uses of the 

ocean. Should a site use conflict be 

identified, site use could be modified 

according to the SMMP to minimize that 

conflict. 

(2) Sites must be situated such that 

temporary perturbations to water quality 

or other environmental conditions 

during initial mixing caused by disposal 

operations would be reduced to normal 

ambient levels or undetectable 

contaminant concentrations or effects 

before reaching any beach, shoreline, 

marine sanctuary, or known 

geographically limited fishery or 

shellfishery (40 CFR 228.5(b)). 

Based on the EPA’s review of 

modeling, monitoring data, sediment 

quality, and history of use, no detectable 

contaminant concentrations or water 

quality effects, e.g., suspended solids, 

would be expected to reach any beach 

or shoreline from disposal activities at 

the Sites. The primary impact of 

disposal activities on water quality is 

expected to be temporary turbidity 

caused by the physical movement of 

sediment through the water column. All 

dredged material proposed for disposal 

will be evaluated according to the ocean 

dumping regulations at 40 CFR 227.13 

and guidance developed by the EPA and 

the Corps. In general, dredged material 

which meets the criteria under 40 CFR 

227.13(b) is deemed environmentally 

acceptable for ocean dumping without 

further testing. Dredged material which 

does not meet the criteria of 40 CFR 

227.13(b) must be further tested as 

required by 40 CFR 227.13(c). 

Disposal of suitable material meeting 

the regulatory criteria and deemed 

environmentally acceptable for ocean 

dumping will be allowed at the Sites. 

Most of the dredged material 

(approximately 95%) to be disposed at 

the Sites is expected to be sandy 

material, while a small amount of 

material (up to 5% of the material) 

would be classified as fine-grained. 

Hopper dredges, which are typically 

used for the Corps’ annual navigation 

dredging, are not capable of removing 

debris from the dredge site. However, 

specific projects may utilize a clamshell 

dredge, in which case there is the 

potential for the occasional placement 

of naturally occurring debris at the 

disposal Sites. 

(3) The sizes of disposal sites will be 

limited in order to localize for 

identification and control any 

immediate adverse impacts, and to 

permit the implementation of effective 

monitoring and surveillance to prevent 

adverse long-range impacts. Size, 

configuration, and location are to be 

determined as part of the disposal site 

evaluation (40 CFR 228.5(d)). 

To ensure that site managers can be 

responsive to the specifics of each 

dredging season based on dredge 

schedules, weather, and bathymetry at 

the Sites, the EPA has decided to 

designate both the North and South 

Sites. The footprints of the Sites are 

designed to maximize their capacity, 

helping to assure minimal mounding 

and to minimize any adverse affects to 

the wave climate. The presence of 

Yaquina Reef, close to shore at shallow 

depths, prevents nearshore designation 

and dredged material disposal in 

dispersive locations at depths less than 

60 feet. The North Site will be the 

preferred placement area for disposal of 

dredged material as was the case when 

the Site was used as a Section 103 

selected site. During some periods, 

disposal may be alternated between the 

two Sites. The use of the South Site is 

more dependent upon wind and wave 

conditions, particularly in April and 

May when the typical dredge season 

starts, and for this reason is expected to 

be used less frequently than the North 

Site. Effective monitoring of the Sites is 

necessary and required. The EPA will 

require annual bathymetric surveys for 

each Site to track site capacity and to 

assess the potential for mounding 

concerns. These surveys will inform the 

active management of the Sites. 

(4) EPA will, wherever feasible, 

designate ocean dumping sites beyond 

the edge of the continental shelf and 

other such sites where historical 

disposal has occurred (40 CFR 228.5(e)). 

Disposal areas located off of the 

continental shelf would be at least 20 

nautical miles offshore. This distance is 

well beyond the 4.5 nautical mile haul 

distance determined to be feasible by 

the Corps for maintenance of their 

Yaquina Bay project. Additional 

disadvantages to off-shelf ocean 

disposal would be the unknown 

environmental impacts of disposal on 

deep-sea, stable, fine-grained benthic 

communities and the higher cost of 

monitoring sites in deeper waters and 

further offshore. 

Historic disposal has occurred at or in 

the vicinity of these Sites receiving final 

designation. The substrate of the Sites is 

similar in grain size to the disposal 

material and the placement avoids the 

unique habitat features of Yaquina Reef. 

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 EPA does not anticipate that the 

geographical position of the Sites, 

including the depth, bottom topography 

and distance from the coastline, will 

unreasonably degrade the marine 

environment. To help avoid adverse 

mounding at the Sites, site management 

will generally include uniform 

placement, i.e., spreading disposal 

material throughout the Sites in a 

manner that will result in a relatively 

uniform accumulation of disposed 

material on the bottom over the longterm. Site management will include 

creating dump plans for each Site where 

disposal will occur. Dump plans 

establish cells within the Site to ensure 

uniform placement. In addition to 

minimizing mounding, the uniform 

placement is expected to minimize the 

thickness of disposal accumulations, 

which is expected to be less disruptive 

to benthic communities and aquatic 

species, such as crabs, that might be 

present at the Sites during disposal 

events. Because the Sites are relatively 

deep, to avoid the nearshore Yaquina 

Reef, they are not considered dispersive. 

Material placed in the Sites is not 

expected to move from the Sites except 

during large storm events. 

(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 Sites are not located in exclusive 

breeding, spawning, nursery, feeding or 

passage areas for adult or juvenile 

phases of living resources. At and in the 

immediate vicinity of the Sites, a variety 

of pelagic and demersal fish species, 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 174 / Friday, September 7, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 55149 

including salmon, green sturgeon, and 

flatfish, as well as Dungeness crab, are 

found. Studies conducted by the EPA 

and the Corps at the Sites found the 

benthic infaunal and epifaunal 

community to be dominated by 

organisms that are adapted to a sandy 

environment. The benthic species, 

densities and diversities collected 

during these studies were typical of the 

nearshore sandy environment along the 

Oregon coast. 

(3) Location in Relation to Beaches 

and Other Amenity Areas (40 CFR 

228.6(a)(3)). 

The Sites are approximately 2 

nautical miles off the beach in water 

depths greater than 100 feet and beyond 

the ecologically and economically 

important Yaquina Reef. Given the 

depth of these Sites, the material is not 

expected to disperse from the Sites 

except during infrequent large storm 

events. Thus, impacts to beaches or the 

reef will be avoided. The sand removed 

from the Newport littoral cell is not 

expected to affect Newport’s beaches 

because Pacific Northwest beaches tend 

to respond strongly to storm effects, the 

episodic nature of which would mask 

any long-term discrete changes such as 

disposal at these Sites. Site monitoring 

and adaptive management are 

components of the final SMMP to 

ensure beaches and other amenity areas 

are not adversely impacted. 

(4) Types and Quantities of Wastes 

Proposed To Be Disposed of, and 

Proposed Methods of Release, Including 

Methods of Packing the Waste, if any (40 

CFR 228.6(a)(4)). 

Dredged material found suitable for 

ocean disposal pursuant to the 

regulatory criteria for dredged material, 

or characterized by chemical and 

biological testing and found suitable for 

disposal into ocean waters, will be the 

only material allowed to be disposed at 

the Sites. No material defined as 

‘‘waste’’ under the MPRSA will be 

allowed to be disposed at the Sites. The 

dredged material to be disposed at the 

Sites will be predominantly marine 

sand. Generally, disposal is expected to 

occur from a hopper dredge, in which 

case, material will be released just 

below the surface while the disposal 

vessel remains under power and slowly 

transits the disposal location. This 

method of release is expected to spread 

material at the Sites to minimize 

mounding, while minimizing impacts to 

the benthic community and to aquatic 

species present at the Sites at the time 

of a disposal event. 

(5) Feasibility of Surveillance and 

Monitoring (40 CFR 228.6(a)(5)). 

The EPA expects monitoring and 

surveillance at the Sites to be feasible 

and readily performed from small, 

surface vessels. The EPA will ensure 

monitoring of the sites for physical, 

biological and chemical attributes. 

Bathymetric surveys will be conducted 

annually, contaminant levels in the 

dredged material will be analyzed prior 

to dumping, and the benthic infauna 

and epibenthic organisms will be 

monitored every 5 years, as funding 

allows. 

(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)). 

Disposal at the Sites will not degrade 

the existing wave environment within 

or outside the Sites. The placement of 

dredged material may have a minor 

effect on circulation within or outside 

the site boundaries. Due to the 

anticipated size of the mound resulting 

from the accumulated dredged material 

(10–14 feet high covering 597 acres over 

20 years), it is possible the currents in 

the vicinity of the Sites may begin to be 

affected. Any potential effect would not 

be expected to occur until a substantial 

amount of dredged material has been 

placed at the site (4–6 million cubic 

yards). At that time, the EPA plans to reassess these assumptions and associated 

potential effects. 

(7) Existence and Effects of Current 

and Previous Discharges and Dumping 

in the Area (Including Cumulative 

Effects) (40 CFR 228.6(a)(7)). 

The North Site was used for disposal 

of dredged material from 2001 to 2011. 

The seafloor elevation at the Site has 

risen 12 feet in a few locations. Annual 

bathymetric surveys will continue to be 

conducted to monitor mounding at the 

North Site. To date, disposal of dredged 

material has not changed the benthic 

infaunal nor epifaunal species expected 

to inhabit nearshore sandy substrates at 

this location. The South Site, prior to 

this designation, was selected by the 

Corps under their Section 103 authority 

under the MPRSA and has been used 

during the current 2012 dredging 

season. Preferential use of the North Site 

is expected to resume when this 

designation becomes effective, but 

capacity and other factors may result in 

continued use of the South Site in the 

future. The final SMMP includes 

monitoring and adaptive management 

measures to address potential mounding 

issues. 

(8) Interference With Shipping, 

Fishing, Recreation, Mineral Extraction, 

Desalination, Fish and Shellfish 

Culture, Areas of Special Scientific 

Importance and Other Legitimate Uses 

of the Ocean (40 CFR 228.6(a)(8)). 

The Sites are not expected to interfere 

with shipping, fishing, recreation or 

other legitimate uses of the ocean. 

Commercial and recreational fishing 

and commercial navigation are the 

primary activities that may spatially 

overlap with disposal at the Sites. This 

overlap is more likely at the South Site 

given the South Site’s proximity to the 

commercial shipping lane and in more 

direct alignment with the entrance 

channel to Yaquina Bay. The likelihood 

of direct interference with these 

activities is low, provided there is close 

communication and coordination 

among users, vessel traffic control and 

the U.S. Coast Guard. The EPA is not 

aware of any plans for mineral 

extraction, desalination plants, or fish 

and shellfish culture operations near the 

Sites at this time. The Sites are not 

located in areas of special scientific 

importance. They are located to the 

south of the Newport Hydrographic line, 

south of the proposed Northwest 

National Marine Renewable Energy 

Center’s nearshore test facility, and west 

of the Yaquina Reef. 

(9) The Existing Water Quality and 

Ecology of the Sites as Determined by 

Available Data or Trend Assessment of 

Baseline Surveys (40 CFR 228.6(a)(9)). 

The EPA has not identified any 

potential adverse water quality impacts 

from the ocean disposal of dredged 

material at the Sites based on water and 

sediment quality analyses conducted in 

the study area of the Sites, and based on 

past disposal experience at the proposed 

North Site when it was used as a 

Section 103 selected site. Benthic grabs 

and trawl data show the ecology of the 

area to be that associated with sandy 

nearshore substrate typical of the 

Oregon Coast. 

(10) Potentiality for the Development 

or Recruitment of Nuisance Species in 

the Disposal Site (40 CFR 228.6(a)(10)). 

Nuisance species, considered as any 

undesirable organism not previously 

existing at a location, have not been 

observed at, or in the vicinity of, the 

Sites. Material expected to be disposed 

at the Sites will be uncontaminated 

marine sands similar to the sediment 

present at the Sites. Some fine-grained 

material, finer than natural background, 

may also be disposed. While this finergrained material could have the 

potential to attract nuisance species to 

the Sites, no such recruitment is known 

to have taken place at the North Site 

while the Site was used as a Section 103 

selected site. The final SMMP includes 

benthic infaunal and epifaunal 

monitoring requirements, which will act 

to identify any nuisance species and 

allow the EPA to direct special studies 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES
55150 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 174 / Friday, September 7, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

and/or operational changes to address 

the issue if it arises. 

(11) Existence at or in Close Proximity 

to the Site of any Significant Natural or 

Cultural Feature of Historical 

Importance (40 CFR 228.6(a)(11)). 

No significant cultural features have 

been identified at, or in the vicinity of, 

the proposed Sites at this time. The EPA 

coordinated with Oregon’s State 

Historic Preservation Officer and with 

Tribes in the vicinity of the Sites to 

identify any cultural features. On July 

16, 2012, the State agreed with the EPA 

that the designation of the North and 

South Yaquina Sites will have no effect 

on any known cultural resources. No 

cultural features or shipwrecks have 

been observed or documented within 

the proposed Sites or their immediate 

vicinity. 

3. Environmental Statutory Review— 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA); Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA); 

Marine Mammal Protection Act 

(MMPA); Coastal Zone Management 

Act (CZMA); Endangered Species Act 

(ESA); National Historic Preservation 

Act (NHPA) 

a. NEPA 

Section 102 of the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as 

amended (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 to 

4370f, requires Federal agencies to 

prepare an Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS) for major federal actions 

significantly affecting the quality of the 

human environment. NEPA does not 

apply to the EPA designations of ocean 

disposal sites under the MPRSA because 

the courts have exempted the EPA’s 

actions under the MPRSA from the 

procedural requirements of NEPA 

through the functional equivalence 

doctrine. The EPA has, by policy, 

determined that the preparation of 

NEPA documents for certain EPA 

regulatory actions, including actions 

under the MPRSA, is appropriate. The 

EPA’s ‘‘Notice of Policy and Procedures 

for Voluntary Preparation of NEPA 

Documents,’’ (Voluntary NEPA Policy), 

63 FR 58045, (October 29, 1998), sets 

out both the policy and procedures the 

EPA uses when preparing such 

environmental review documents. The 

EPA’s primary voluntary NEPA 

document for designating the Sites was 

the draft Yaquina Bay, Oregon Ocean 

Dredged Material Disposal Sites 

Evaluation Study and Environmental 

Assessment, (July 2012) (EA), jointly 

prepared by the EPA and the Corps. The 

draft EA and its Technical Appendices, 

which are part of the docket for this 

action, were finalized after the close of 

the public comment period for this 

action. The information from the final 

EA is used above, in the discussion of 

the ocean dumping criteria. 

b. MSA and MMPA 

The EPA prepared an essential fish 

habitat (EFH) assessment pursuant to 

Section 305(b), 16 U.S.C. 1855(b)(2), of 

the Magnuson-Stevens Act, as amended 

(MSA), 16 U.S.C. 1801 to 1891d, and 

submitted that assessment to the 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

(NMFS) on December 19, 2011. The 

NMFS reviewed the EPA’s EFH 

assessment and Endangered Species Act 

(ESA) Biological Assessment and 

addendum thereto for purposes of the 

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, 

as amended (MMPA), 16 U.S.C. 1361 to 

1389. The NMFS found that that all 

potential adverse effects to ESA-listed 

marine mammals, marine turtles, and 

designated critical habitat for 

leatherback sea turtles from the EPA’s 

action to designate the Yaquina North 

and South Sites are discountable or 

insignificant. Those findings are 

documented in the Biological Opinion 

issued by the NMFS to the EPA on July 

10, 2012. With respect to EFH, the 

NMFS concluded that the disposal of 

dredged material will adversely affect 

water quality from increased turbidity 

in the water column, availability of 

benthic prey species, and safe passage 

during disposal. The NMFS provided 

two EFH Conservation 

Recommendations to avoid or minimize 

the effects to EFH mentioned above. The 

NMFS recommends monitoring how 

fish interact with the disposal plume 

and conducting surveys to determine 

seasonal distribution, abundance, and 

habitat use of EFH species and their 

prey at the disposal sites. The EPA will 

respond in a separate written response 

to the NMFS’ recommendations. 

c. CZMA 

The Coastal Zone Management Act, as 

amended (CZMA), 16 U.S.C. 1451 to 

1465, requires Federal agencies to 

determine whether their actions will be 

consistent to the extent practicable with 

the enforceable policies of approved 

state programs. The EPA prepared a 

consistency determination for the 

Oregon Coastal Management Program 

(OCMP), the approved state program in 

Oregon, to meet the requirements of the 

CZMA and submitted that 

determination to the Oregon Department 

of Land Conservation and Development 

(DLCD) for review on February 17, 2012. 

The DCLD concurred on May 7, 2012, 

with the EPA’s determination that the 

designation of the North and South 

Yaquina ODMD sites is consistent to the 

maximum extent practicable with the 

enforceable policies of the OCMP. The 

DLCD based its concurrence on the 

information contained in the EPA’s 

consistency determination and 

supporting materials, and on extensive 

conversations with the EPA. The Oregon 

Department of Fish and Wildlife 

(ODFW) participated in discussions 

with the EPA and the DLCD concerning 

the consistency determination and both 

the ODFW and the DLCD encouraged 

the EPA to pursue future disposal sites 

within the littoral zone. 

d. ESA 

The Endangered Species Act, as 

amended (ESA), 16 U.S.C. 1531 to 1544, 

requires Federal agencies to consult 

with the NMFS and the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (USFWS) to ensure that 

any action authorized, funded, or 

carried out by the Federal agency is not 

likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of any endangered species or 

threatened species or result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

any critical habitat. The EPA prepared 

a Biological Assessment (BA) to assess 

the potential effects of designating the 

two proposed Sites on aquatic and 

wildlife species and submitted that BA 

to the NMFS and the USFWS on 

December 19, 2011. The EPA found that 

site designation does not have a direct 

impact on any of the identified ESA 

species, and also found that indirect 

impacts associated with reasonably 

foreseeable future disposal activities 

had to be considered. These anticipated 

indirect impacts from disposal included 

a short-term increase in suspended 

sediment, short-term disruption in avian 

foraging behavior, modification of 

bottom topography, loss of benthic prey 

species from burial, and loss of pelagic 

individuals during disposal of material 

through the water column. The EPA 

concluded that its action may affect, but 

is not likely to adversely affect 18 ESAlisted species and is not likely to 

adversely affect designated critical 

habitat for southern green sturgeon 

(Acipenser medirostris) but is likely to 

adversely affect Oregon Coast coho 

salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch). The 

USFWS concurred on the EPA’s finding 

that the proposed action is not likely to 

adversely affect listed endangered or 

threatened species under the 

jurisdiction of the USFWS. 

The NMFS issued a Biological 

Opinion on July 10, 2012. The NMFS 

considered disposal by the Corps and all 

other entities as an interrelated action to 

the EPA’s proposed site designation, 

thus, the effects from future disposals 

are indirect effects of the EPA’s action. 

The NMFS concluded that the EPA’s 

action is not likely to jeopardize the 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 174 / Friday, September 7, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 55151 

continued existence of Oregon Coast 

coho salmon, southern distinct 

population segment (DPS) of North 

American green sturgeon, southern DPS 

of Pacific eulachon, or result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

designated critical habitat for southern 

DPS North American green sturgeon. 

The NMFS also concluded that the 

EPA’s proposed action is not likely to 

adversely affect 18 ESA-listed salmon, 

sea lions, whales, marine turtles, and 

critical habitat for southern DPS of 

North American green sturgeon and 

leatherback turtles. 

The NMFS did not issue an incidental 

take statement with their Biological 

Opinion to the EPA. This decision was 

based upon the following: (1) The 

adverse effects identified in the 

Biological Opinion will result from 

indirect effects of subsequent Federal 

actions carried out by the Corps and 

other entities carrying out dredging and 

disposal; (2) these individual actions are 

likely to cause take of ESA-listed 

species, so it is more appropriate to 

consider exempting take on a case-bycase basis as such actions are proposed 

in the future; (3) the EPA’s action as 

described in the Biological Opinion 

does not authorize and will not itself 

result in disposal of any dredged 

materials; and (4) the NMFS does not 

anticipate any take will result from the 

site designation and adoption of the 

SMMP. The NMFS further stated that 

‘‘any further analysis of the effects of 

disposal of dredged material at the 

disposal site and issuance of an 

incidental take statement with 

reasonable and prudent measures and 

non-discretionary terms and conditions 

to minimize take will be prepared when 

an ESA consultation on a dredging and 

disposal action is requested.’’ 

e. NHPA 

The EPA initiated consultation with 

the State of Oregon’s Historic 

Preservation Officer (SHPO) on 

February 27, 2012, to address the 

National Historic Preservation Act, as 

amended (NHPA), 16 U.S.C. 470 to 

470a–2, which requires Federal agencies 

to take into account the effect of their 

actions on districts, sites, buildings, 

structures, or objects, included in, or 

eligible for inclusion in the National 

Register. The EPA determined that no 

historic properties were affected, or 

would be affected, by designation of the 

Sites. The EPA did not find any historic 

properties within the geographic area of 

the Sites. This determination was based 

on a review of the National Register of 

Historic Districts in Oregon, the Oregon 

National Register list and an assessment 

of potential cultural resources near the 

Sites. On July 16, 2012, the State agreed 

with the EPA that the designation of the 

North and South Yaquina Sites will 

have no effect on any known cultural 

resources. 

4. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

This rule finalizes the designation of 

two ocean dredged material disposal 

sites pursuant to Section 102 of the 

MPRSA. This action complies with 

applicable executive orders and 

statutory provisions as follows: 

a. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563. 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under the terms of 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993). This action is exempt 

from review under Executive Order 

12866 and Executive Order 13563 (76 

FR 3821, January 21, 2011). 

b. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The EPA does not reasonably 

anticipate collection of information 

from ten or more people based on the 

historic use of designated sites. 

Consequently, the action is not subject 

to the Paperwork Reduction Act. 

c. Regulatory Flexibility 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 

as amended by the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 

(SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., 

generally requires Federal agencies to 

prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis 

of any rule subject to notice and 

comment rulemaking requirements 

under the Administrative Procedure Act 

or any other statute unless the agency 

certifies that the rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Small entities include small businesses, 

small organizations, and small 

governmental jurisdictions. For 

purposes of assessing the impacts of this 

rule on small entities, small entity is 

defined as: (1) A small business defined 

by the Small Business Administration’s 

size regulations at 13 CFR part 121; (2) 

a small governmental jurisdiction that is 

a government of a city, county, town, 

school district, or special district with a 

population of less than 50,000; and (3) 

a small organization that is any not-forprofit enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. The EPA has 

determined that this action will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

small entities because the rule will only 

have the effect of regulating the location 

of sites to be used for the disposal of 

dredged material in ocean waters. After 

considering the economic impacts of 

this proposed rule, I certify that this 

action will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

d. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This action contains no Federal 

mandates under the provisions of Title 

II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform 

Act (UMRA) of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1531 to 

1538, for State, local, or tribal 

governments or the private sector. This 

action imposes no new enforceable duty 

on any State, local or tribal governments 

or the private sector. Therefore, this 

action is not subject to the requirements 

of sections 202 or 205 of the UMRA. 

This action is also not subject to the 

requirements of section 203 of the 

UMRA because it contains no regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or 

uniquely affect small government 

entities. Those entities are already 

subject to existing permitting 

requirements for the disposal of dredged 

material in ocean waters. 

e. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action does not have federalism 

implications. It does not have 

substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among various levels of 

government, as specified in Executive 

Order 13132. Thus, Executive Order 

13132 does not apply to this action. In 

the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and 

consistent with the EPA policy to 

promote communications between the 

EPA and State and local governments, 

the EPA specifically solicited comment 

from State and local officials but did not 

receive comments from State or local 

officials. 

f. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175 because the designation of 

the two ocean dredged material disposal 

Sites will not have a direct effect on 

Indian Tribes, 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. 

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to this action. Although Executive 

Order 13175 does not apply to this 

action the EPA consulted with tribal 

officials in the development of this 

action, particularly as the action relates 

to potential impacts to historic or 

cultural resources. The EPA specifically 

solicited comment from tribal officials. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES
55152 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 174 / Friday, September 7, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

The EPA did not receive comments from 

tribal officials. 

g. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

The EPA interprets Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885) as applying only to 

those regulatory actions that concern 

health or safety risks, such that the 

analysis required under Section 5–501 

of the Executive Order has the potential 

to influence the regulation. This action 

is not subject to Executive Order 13045 

because it does not establish an 

environmental standard intended to 

mitigate health or safety risks. The 

action concerns the designation of two 

ocean dredged material disposal sites 

and only has the effect of providing 

designated locations to use for ocean 

disposal of dredged material pursuant to 

Section 102(c) of the MPRSA. 

h. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning 

Regulations that Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 

FR 28355) because it is not a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ as 

defined under Executive Order 12866. 

i. National Technology Transfer and 

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), directs 

the 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 the EPA to provide 

Congress, through OMB, explanations 

when the Agency decides not to use 

available and applicable voluntary 

consensus standards. This action 

includes environmental monitoring and 

measurement as described in the EPA’s 

SMMP. The EPA will not require the 

use of specific, prescribed analytic 

methods for monitoring and managing 

the designated Sites. The Agency plans 

to allow the use of any method, whether 

it constitutes a voluntary consensus 

standard or not, that meets the 

monitoring and measurement criteria 

discussed in the proposed SMMP. 

j. 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. The 

EPA determined that this 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. The 

EPA has assessed the overall 

protectiveness of designating the 

disposal Sites 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. 

k. Congressional Review Act 

Congressional Review Act (CRA), 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. The EPA will 

submit a report containing this rule and 

other required information to the U.S. 

Senate, the U.S. House of 

Representatives, and the Comptroller 

General of the United States prior to 

publication of the rule in the Federal 

Register. A major rule cannot take effect 

until 60 days after it is published in the 

Federal Register. This action is not a 

‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 

804(2). This rule will be effective 

October 9, 2012. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 228 

Environmental protection, Water 

pollution control. 

Authority: This action is issued under the 

authority of Section 102 of the Marine 

Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act, as 

amended, 33 U.S.C. 1401, 1411, 1412. 

Dated: August 27, 2012. 

Dennis J. McLerran, 

Regional Administrator, Region 10. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, the EPA amends chapter I, 

title 40 of the Code of Federal Register 

as follows: 

PART 228—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for Part 228 

continues to read as follows: 

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

■ 2. Section 228.15 is amended by 

adding paragraph (n)(15) to read as 

follows: 

§ 228.15 Dumping sites designated on a 

final basis. 

* * * * * 

(n) * * * 

(15) Yaquina Bay, OR—North and 

South Ocean Dredged Material Disposal 

Sites 

(i) North Site. 

(A) Location (NAD 83): 44°38′17.98′′ 

N, 124°07′25.95′′ W; 44°38′12.86′′ N, 

124°06′31.10′′ W; 44°37′14.33′′ N, 

124°07′37.57′′ W; 44°37′09.22′′ N, 

124°06′42.73′′ W. 

(B) Size: Approximately 1.07 nautical 

miles long and 0.66 nautical miles wide 

(0.71 square nautical miles); 597 acres 

(242 hectares) 

(C) Depth: Ranges from approximately 

112 to 152 feet (34 to 46 meters) 

(D) Primary Use: Dredged material 

(E) Period of Use: Continuing use 

(F) Restrictions: (1) Disposal shall be 

limited to dredged material determined 

to be suitable for ocean disposal 

according to 40 CFR 227.13 from the 

Yaquina Bay and River navigation 

channel and adjacent areas; 

(2) Disposal shall be managed by the 

restrictions and requirements contained 

in the currently-approved Site 

Management and Monitoring Plan 

(SMMP); 

(3) Monitoring, as specified in the 

SMMP, is required. 

(ii) South Site. 

(A) Location (NAD 83): 44°36′04.50′′ 

N, 124°07′52.66′′ W; 44°35′59.39′′ N, 

124°06′57.84′′ W; 44°35′00.85′′ N, 

124°08′04.27′′ W; 44°34′55.75′′ N, 

124°07′09.47′′ W. 

(B) Size: Approximately 1.07 nautical 

miles long and 0.66 nautical miles wide 

(0.71 square nautical miles); 597 acres 

(242 hectares) 

(C) Depth: Ranges from approximately 

112 to 152 feet (34 to 46 meters) 

(D) Primary Use: Dredged material 

(E) Period of Use: Continuing use 

(F) Restrictions: (1) Disposal shall be 

limited to dredged material determined 

to be suitable for ocean disposal 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 174 / Friday, September 7, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 55153 

according to 40 CFR 227.13, from the 

Yaquina Bay and River navigation 

channel and adjacent areas; 

(2) Disposal shall be managed by the 

restrictions and requirements contained 

in the currently-approved Site 

Management and Monitoring Plan 

(SMMP); 

(3) Monitoring, as specified in the 

SMMP, is required. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2012–22100 Filed 9–6–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 660 

[Doc. No 120403252–2392–01] 

RIN 0648–BC06 

Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; 

Fisheries Off West Coast States; 

Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery; 

Correction 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Final rule; correcting 

amendment. 

SUMMARY: This action corrects 

groundfish regulations that were 

published in three final rules. The first 

was published on December 15, 2010, 

and established various provisions of 

the trawl rationalization program; the 

second published on May 11, 2011, and 

established the 2011–2012 harvest 

specifications and management 

measures for groundfish; the third 

published in December 1, 2011, and 

made revisions to the trawl program. 

This rules corrects inadvertent errors 

that, although they will not modify 

current fishing practices need to be 

corrected so that the rule text comports 

with the intent as expressed in the rules’ 

preambles. This rule includes but is not 

limited to corrections to coordinates 

defining depth countours that apply to 

all fisheries, permit renewal dates, 

observer requirements, recreational 

regulations, processor obligations in the 

MS sector, the forms used to transfer an 

MS/CV endorsement, and others. Each 

correction is explained below. 

DATES: Corrections to regulations at 

§ 660.25(b)(4)(i)(B), 660.140(d)(3)(i)(B) 

and (e)(3)(i)(B) are effective September 

7, 2012. The remaining corrections are 

effective on September 24, 2012. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sarah Williams (Northwest Region, 

NMFS), phone: 206–526–4646; fax: 206– 

526–6736 and email: 

sarah.williams@noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

This action corrects regulations that 

were published in three separate final 

rules for the Pacific Coast groundfish 

fisheries managed under 50 CFR 660 

subparts C through F in order to 

correctly reflect Council intent. The 

final rules that are the subject of this 

correction are as follows: (1) Trawl 

Rationalization Program Components 

final rule (program components rule) 

published on December 15, 2010, (75 FR 

78344); (2) 2011–2012 Biennial Harvest 

Specifications and Management 

Measures final rule (2011–2012 

specifications rule) published on May 

11, 2011, (76 FR 28897); and (3) Trawl 

Program Improvement and 

Enhancement final rule (PIE rule) 

published on December 1, 2011, (76 FR 

74725). As published, the three final 

rules contain inadvertent errors that, 

although they will not modify current 

fishing practices need to be corrected so 

that the rule text comports with the 

intent as expressed in the rules’ 

preambles. Each correction is explained 

below grouped together by the final rule 

that originally published the 

regulations. 

None of these changes will result in 

any vessel or vessel owner having to 

modify its behavior in order to comply 

with the rules. In fact, the fishery 

already complies with the rules as they 

were intended to be written. 

Accordingly, these corrections are just 

that; they make changes necessary to 

have the rule text reflect both NMFS’ 

original intent—as expressed in the 

preambles to the rules—as well as to 

current fishery practice. 

Corrections to Regulations 

Implemented as Part of the Program 

Components Rule 

There are four corrections to the 

Program Components final rule, as 

follows: 

(1) Correct regulations to specify that 

all commercial vessels processing 

groundfish at sea carry an observer. 

During implementation of Amendment 

20 to the Pacific Coast Groundfish 

Fishery Management Plan (PCGFMP), 

which restructured the entire 

groundfish regulations, this existing 

provision, which required observers on 

all commercial vessel processing at-sea, 

was inadvertently changed from 

applying to all commercial fisheries to 

only applying to the at-sea whiting 

fisheries. Nonetheless, all commercial 

fisheries continued to use observers on 

board. To bring the rules in line with 

the original intent, this action modifies 

the observer requirement language to 

include all vessels that process 

groundfish at sea. The affected fisheries 

are as follows: Shorebased IFQ Program 

(§ 660.140(h)(1)(i)), the limited entry 

fixed gear fishery (§ 660.216(a)), and the 

open access fishery (§ 660.316(a)). See 

68 FR 53334 (September 10, 2003) for 

more history on this requirement. 

(2) Correct regulations at 

§ 660.150(g)(2)(i)—the Mothership (MS) 

program—to clarify that processor 

obligations are to an MS permit and not 

to the MS vessel. This change is 

necessary to make the MS regulations 

consistent with the processor obligation 

in the MS Coop Program, as defined 

under ‘‘processor obligation’’ at 

§ 660.111 and specified at 

§ 660.150(c)(7)(i). 

(3) Correct language at § 660.114(b), in 

the third column of the table, which 

specifies who is required to submit an 

Economic Data Collection (EDC) form. 

This change makes the third column of 

the table consistent with § 660.113(d)(1), 

and the table now requires owners, 

lessees, and charterers of a vessel 

registered to a C/P endorsed limited 

entry trawl permit to submit an EDC. 

Vessels subject to this rule, as revised, 

are already providing the EDCs; this 

clarification merely corrects the 

language of the table to make it more 

clear who needs to submit the EDCs. 

(4) Correct language at 

§§ 660.150(d)(2) and 660.160(d)(2) to 

specify that if an applicant does not 

appeal an initial administrative decision 

(IAD) in the trawl rationalization 

program within 30 calendar days, that 

the decision in the IAD becomes the 

final decision. This correction will make 

this provision consistent with the 

limited entry permit regulations at 

§ 660.25(g)(4)(ii) for IADs. 

Correction to Regulations Implemented 

as Part of the PIE Rule 

There are four corrections to the PIE 

rule, as follows: 

(1 and 2) Correct language at 

§§ 660.112 and 660.140 to specify that 

an observer must be on the vessel while 

in port unless the observer provides a 

form to the catch monitor documenting 

the weight and number of select 

overfished species (bocaccio, canary 

rockfish, cowcod, and yelloweye 

rockfish) retained on board by the vessel 

during that IFQ trip. The current 

regulations at § 660.112 and 

management measures at § 660.140 are 

unclear on the requirements for 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES