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 

Dear Mr. 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 of the 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 Federal Register. By this 

letter, we request the Service's concurrence that this Regulatory modification is not likely 

to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or result in 

the destruction or adverse modification of habitat of such species entrusted to the Service 

under the Endangered Species Act. 

CmTently, each of the 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 of the 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 proactively provide 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 by the Regulations. · 

Endangered species concems were discussed fully with the Service and with the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service during EPA's voluntary preparation of Environmental 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 of the 

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 of the other 

requirements of the Regulations goveming ocean disposal of dredged 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 Paper 
dredged material will be approved for disposal at the sites unless it has been shown to be 

suitable for ocean disposal (i.e., conforms with the testing requirements of 40 CFR 227.6 

and 40 CFR 227 .27). In addition, all disposal activity must be conducted in accordance 

with the approved Site Management and Monitoring Plan (SMMP) for each site and any 

other special restrictions deemed necessary by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and 

EPA. Because none of these other protections would be changed, only the same types of 

dredged material will be eligible for disposal; EPA does not believe that this Action 

warrants additional environmental concern. 

This Regulatory action is not being taken in response to any specific request. Therefore, 

it is difficult to project how much additional volume might be disposed at the site. It is 

possible that the modifications may not even cause any actual increase because of the 

expense of ocean disposal testing and transportation. However, EPA has examined the 

recent history of usage of the sites to determine how volumes of dredged material 

managed at the sites compare to projections used to evaluate impacts for the original EIS 

process supporting designation of the sites. 

San Juan Harbor, PR has been the only site to receive dredged material since its 

designation. 930,000 cubic yards ( cy) were originally projected 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 of the 

federal navigation cham1els and from construction of the Rio Puerto Nuevo flood control 

project. Less than 800,000 cy were maintenance dredged material and therefore we 

would anticipate this to approximate the future amount of material from San Juan Harbor 

that will require management at the site. Eighty thousand cy of sediment 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 150,000 cy 

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 cy projected to be disposed biennially at that site. Based on this analysis, EPA 

does not believe that the proposed action will increase volumes disposed at the site to 

amounts exceeding those originally projected for the sites and therefore does not present 

concerns beyond those considered in the original NEP A evaluations. 

EPA anticipates that there will be a limit on the radius of potential users which might 

pursue disposing dredged material at any given site based on the cost to benefit aspects 

associated with using the site to dispose of material 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 of Puerto Rico itself. Transit of 

loaded barges from additional areas could present an additional environmental concern to 
sensitive habitats and trust resources beyond those considered in the 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 opportunity to establish restrictions on 

routes and methods of transportation 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 comment period that is required before 

issuance of any US ACE permit or authorization of any federal dredging project. 

Several of the sites affected by this proposed modification are currently being used or are 

being planned for use for disposal of dredged materials. This generally makes them 

preferable to more pristine sites that have either not been used or have been used in the 

more distant past. See 40 CPR 228.5( e). Beyond this, however, EPA's evaluation of data 

and modeling results indicates that past disposal operations at the San Juan Harbor, PR 

ODMDS have not resulted in unacceptable or unreasonable envirorunental degradation, 

and that there should be no significant adverse cumulative environmental effects from 

continuing to use the site on a long-term basis. EPA anticipates that the same will be true 

for the other sites; there is no reason to believe that the additional material that may be 

disposed as a result of this modification would change that detem1ination. Furthermore, 

EPA believes that enabling management of the additional dredged materials at monitored 

designated sites restricts impacts to those areas and minimizes the potential for using 

other discharge strategies with potentially greater impacts to the marine envirorunent. As 

such, EPA believes that the proposed rule would afford additional protection of aquatic 

organisms at individual, population, community, or ecosystem levels of ecological 

structures. 

In light of the above factors, EPA requests the concurrence ofNational Marine Fisheries 

Service that the proposed action as described is not likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of any endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse 

modification of habitat of such species. Please provide us with your determination before 

May 15, 2005. If you have any questions about the proposed action or EPA's assessment 

of potential impacts to ESA SP,ecies, please do not hesitate to contact Mark Reiss at (212) 

637-3799. ./ .Y / 

Thank yat~, ... - ·;·' · _/ / /<~ 

''( -~/,? { c ._ Douglas Pab.st 

Team Leade~ 

···· ...... 

Dredged Material Management Team 

Div(~ion of Envirorunental Planning and Protection