UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION 2 290 BROADWAY NEWYORK, NY 10007-1866



### MAY - 9 2005

Eric Hawk Protected Resources Division NOAA- National Marine Fisheries Service 263 13th Avenue South St. Petersburg, FL 33701

DearMr. Hawk:

This letter is sent as a follow up to our telephone conversation to provide National Marine Fisheries Service (the Service) with a fom1al opportunity to comment on the modification to the designations ofthe ocean dredged material disposal sites around Puerto Rico (at 40 CFR 228.16) that are being contemplated by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) before they are published in the FederalRegister. 

### Bythis letter, we request the Service's concurrence that this Regulatory modification is not likely tojeopardize the continued existence ofany endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification ofhabitat ofsuch species entrusted to the Service under the Endangered Species Act. CmTently, each ofthe five ocean dredged material disposal sites around Puerto Rico (Arecibo Harbor, PR; Mayaguez Harbor, PR; Ponce Harbor, PR; San Juan Harbor, PR; Yabucoa Harbor, PR) is restricted to receive only materials from within the confines of the harbor for which it is named (San Juan Harbor, PR can also receive material from
areas within 20 miles ofthe harbor entrance). The contemplated rule change would
remove the geographic restrictions from the sites' designations. This action has not been initiated in response to any immediate need; rather, EPA believes that this action is appropriate at this time to proactivelyprovide flexibility to coastal managers in meeting any eventual dredged material management needs that may arise due to emergencies (e.g., post hmTicane) and/or potential future development activities in areas outside the harbors currently provided for bythe Regulations. · Endangered species concems were discussed fully with the Service and with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service during EPA's voluntary preparation ofEnvironmental Impact Statements for the original site designations under the National Environmental Policy Act. As outlined below, EPA does not believe that this action will result in any additional potential impacts that would substantively affect the conclusions ofthe previous consultations (i.e., any potential for effects will be minimized by appropriate petmit or authorization restrictions on individual projects.)

It 

### is important to emphasize that the proposed modification does not alter any ofthe other requirements ofthe Regulations goveming ocean disposal ofdredged material. No

Internet Address (URL) o http://www.epa.gov Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Postconsumer, Process Chlorine Free Recycled Paperdredged material will be approved for disposal at the sites unless ithasbeen shown to be suitable for ocean disposal (i.e., conforms with the testing requirements of40 CFR227.6 and 40 CFR 227.27). 

### In addition, all disposal activitymustbe conducted in accordance with the approved Site Management and Monitoring Plan (SMMP) for each site and any other special restrictions deemed necessarybythe U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers and EPA. Because none ofthese otherprotections would be changed, onlythe same types of dredged material will be eligible for disposal; EPA does notbelieve that this Action warrants additional environmental concern.
This Regulatory action is not being taken inresponse to any specific request. Therefore, it is difficult to projecthow much additional volume mightbe disposed at the site. 

### Itis possible that the modifications maynot even cause any actual increasebecause ofthe expense ofocean disposal testing and transportation. However, EPAhas examined the recent history ofusage ofthe sites to determinehow volumes ofdredged material managed at the sites compare to projections used to evaluate impacts for the original EIS process supporting designation ofthe sites.

San Juan Harbor, PRhas been the only site to receive dredged material since its designation. 930,000 cubic yards (cy) were originallyprojected to be disposed biennially at San Juan Harbor, PR ODMDS. Since 2000, approximately 2.4 million cy has been disposed; the majority ofthis material was derived from deepening and widening ofthe federal navigation cham1els and from construction ofthe Rio Puerto Nuevo flood control project. Less than 800,000 cywere maintenance dredged material and therefore we would anticipate this to approximate the future amount ofmaterial from SanJuanHarbor that willrequire management at the site. Eightythousand cyofsediment was most recently dredged from Arecibo Harbor (used for beach nourislunent); whereas 150,000 cy was projected on a biennial basis. There has been no recent dredging in the remaining harbors having disposal sites. Therefore, despite major improvement projects planned for Ponce and Yabucoa Harbors, we anticipate that the continuing dredged material maintenance needs will be less than the 250,000 (to 290,000) cy and 150,000cy projected to be disposed biennially at the two sites, respectively. Similarly, EPA anticipates that future maintenance needs in Mayaguez Harbor will be less than the 53,500 cyprojected to be disposed biennially at that site. Based onthis analysis, EPA does notbelievethat theproposed action will increase volumes disposed at the site to amounts exceeding those originallyprojected for the sites and therefore does not present
concerns beyond those considered in the original NEPA evaluations.

EPA anticipates that there will be a limit on the radius ofpotential users which might pursue disposing dredged material at any given sitebased onthe cost to benefit aspects associated with using the site to dispose ofmaterial from particular projects. 

### It is difficult however, to project where additional projects would be located. EPA anticipates that increased usage is most likely at the Yabucoa Harbor, PR site. Emergency dredging of Fajardo Harbor was necessary after Hurricane Georges passed over Puerto Rico (1998). There also could be dredged material management needs arising from re-development of Roosevelt Roads Naval Station and territories east ofPuerto Rico itself. Transit of loaded barges from additional areas could present an additional environmental concern tosensitive habitats and trust resources beyond those considered inthe EIS supporting the initial site designations. While EPA recognizes this additional potential for concern, we wish to reassure the Service that there will be an opportunityto establishrestrictions on routes and methods oftransportation to minimize any impacts to trust resources before any permit or authorization is issued for disposal at the site. This opportunity is provided to the Service during the public and Agency commentperiod that is requiredbefore issuance ofany USACEpermit or authorization ofany federal dredging project.

Several ofthe sites affected bythis proposed modification are currentlybeing used or are being planned for use for disposal ofdredged materials. This 

### generally makes them preferable to morepristine sites that have eithernotbeen used orhavebeen used in the
more distant past. See 40 CPR228.5( e). Beyond this, however, EPA's evaluation ofdata and modeling results indicates that past disposal operations at the San Juan Harbor, PR ODMDS have notresulted in unacceptable orunreasonable envirorunental degradation, and that there shouldbe no significant adverse cumulative environmental effects from continuing to use the site on a long-termbasis. EPA anticipates that the same will be true for the other sites; there is no reason to believe that the additional material that maybe disposed as a result ofthis modification would change that detem1ination. Furthermore, EPA believes that enabling management ofthe additional dredged materials at monitored designated sites restricts impacts to those areas and minimizes the potential for using other discharge strategies withpotentially greater impacts to the marine envirorunent. As such, EPAbelieves that the proposed rule would afford additional protection ofaquatic organisms at individual, population, community, or ecosystem levels ofecological structures.

In light ofthe above factors, EPArequests the concurrence ofNationalMarine Fisheries Service that the proposed action as described is not likely tojeopardize the continued existence ofany endangered orthreatened species orresult in the destruction or adverse modification ofhabitat ofsuch species. Please provide us with your determination before May 15, 2005. Ifyou have any questions about the proposed action orEPA's assessment ofpotential impacts to ESA SP,ecies, please do not hesitate to contact MarkReiss at (212) 637-3799. ./ .Y / Thank**yat~,**...- ·;·' · _/ /**/<~** 

# ''(**-~/,?**

# {

# c

._ Douglas Pab.st Team

### Leade~ ···· ......

Dredged Material ManagementTeam

### Div(~ion ofEnvirorunental Planning and Protection