24748 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 27, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

procedures and tests must be done to comply 

with this AD; any procedures or tests that are 

not identified as RC are recommended. Those 

procedures and tests that are not identified 

as RC may be deviated from using accepted 

methods in accordance with the operator’s 

maintenance or inspection program without 

obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided 

the procedures and tests identified as RC can 

be done and the airplane can be put back in 

an airworthy condition. Any substitutions or 

changes to procedures or tests identified as 

RC require approval of an AMOC. 

(o) Related Information 

(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing 

Airworthiness Information (MCAI) European 

Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) 

Airworthiness Directive 2015–0150, dated 

July 23, 2015, for related information. This 

MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the 

Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by 

searching for and locating Docket No. FAA– 

2016–5596. 

(2) For service information identified in 

this AD, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness 

Office—EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice 

Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; 

telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 

93 44 51; email account.airworth-eas@

airbus.com; Internet http://www.airbus.com. 

You may view this service information at the 

FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 

Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For 

information on the availability of this 

material at the FAA, call 425–227–1221. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 15, 

2016. 

Victor Wicklund, 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2016–09641 Filed 4–26–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 228 

[FRL–9945–52–Region 1] 

Ocean Disposal; Designation of a 

Dredged Material Disposal Site in 

Eastern Region of Long Island Sound; 

Connecticut 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) proposes to designate one 

dredged material disposal site, the 

Eastern Long Island Sound Disposal Site 

(ELDS) located offshore from New 

London, Connecticut, for the disposal of 

dredged material from harbors and 

navigation channels in eastern Long 

Island Sound in the states of 

Connecticut and New York. This action 

is necessary to provide a long-term, 

open-water dredged material disposal 

site as an alternative for the possible 

future disposal of such material. This 

disposal site designation is subject to 

various restrictions designed to support 

the goal of reducing or eliminating the 

disposal of dredged material in Long 

Island Sound. 

While EPA is currently proposing to 

designate the ELDS as its preferred 

alternative, EPA also has concluded, 

based on the analysis in the Draft 

Supplemental Environmental Impact 

Statement for the Designation of 

Dredged Material Disposal Site(s) in 

Eastern Long Island Sound, Connecticut 

and New York (DSEIS), that two other 

alternatives, the Niantic Bay and 

Cornfield Shoals disposal sites (NBDS 

and CSDS), or portions thereof, could 

potentially be designated in addition to, 

or instead of, the ELDS. EPA is not 

currently recommending the NBDS and 

CSDS as preferred alternatives, but is 

inviting public comments on the option 

of designating one or both of these sites 

instead of, or as a complement to, the 

ELDS. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before June 27, 2016. EPA will hold 

four public hearings to receive 

comments on the proposed rule. The 

first two will be held on May 25, 2016, 

from 1–3 p.m. at the Suffolk County 

Community College Culinary Arts 

Center, 20 East Main St., Riverhead, NY 

11901, and from 5:30–7:30 p.m. at the 

Mattituck-Laurel Library, 13900 Main 

Rd., Mattituck, NY 11952. The second 

two will be held on May 26, 2016, from 

1–3 p.m. and from 5–7 p.m. at the 

University of Connecticut—Avery Point, 

Academic Building, Room 308, 1084 

Shennecossett Rd., Groton, CT 06340. 

Registration will begin 30 minutes 

before each of the four hearings. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments should 

be sent to ELIS@epa.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Jean Brochi, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, New England 

Regional Office, 5 Post Office Square, 

Suite 100, Mail Code: OEP06–1, Boston, 

MA 02109–3912, telephone: (617) 918– 

1536, fax number: (617) 918–0536; 

email address: Brochi.Jean@epa.gov or 

ELIS@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

supporting document for this site 

designation is the DSEIS. The DSEIS is 

considered supplemental because it 

updates and builds on analyses that 

were conducted for the 2005 Long 

Island Sound Environmental Impact 

Statement that supported the 

designation of the Central and Western 

Long Island Sound dredged material 

disposal sites. This document is 

available for public inspection at the 

following locations: 

1. EPA Web site: https://

www.epa.gov/ocean-dumping/dredgedmaterial-management-long-islandsound. 

2. Regulations.gov: Docket No. EPA– 

R01–OW–2016–0239. 

3. In person: EPA Region 1 Library, 5 

Post Office Square, Boston, MA 02109. 

Organization of this document. The 

following outline is provided to aid in 

locating information in this preamble. 

I. Background 

II. Purpose and Need 

III. Potentially Affected Entities 

IV. Disposal Site Descriptions 

A. Eastern Long Island Sound Disposal Site 

B. Niantic Bay Disposal Site 

C. Cornfield Shoals Disposal Site 

V. Compliance With Statutory and 

Regulatory Authorities 

A. Marine Protection, Research, and 

Sanctuaries Act and Clean Water Act 

B. National Environmental Policy Act 

C. Coastal Zone Management Act 

D. Endangered Species Act 

E. Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation 

and Management Act 

VI. Restrictions 

VII. Proposed Action 

VIII. Supporting Documents 

IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

Section 102(c) of the Marine 

Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries 

Act of 1972 (MPRSA), as amended, 33 

U.S.C. 1412, gives the Administrator of 

EPA the authority to designate sites 

where ocean disposal may be permitted. 

On October 1, 1986, the Administrator 

delegated the authority to designate 

ocean dredged material disposal sites to 

the Regional Administrator of the 

Region in which the sites are located. 

The preferred alternative site, ELDS, 

and the other two alternatives, NBDS 

and CSDS, are all located within 

Connecticut state waters, which is 

within the area assigned to EPA Region 

1, see 40 CFR 1.7(b)(1); therefore the 

designation of one or more of these sites 

is being proposed pursuant to the EPA 

Region 1 Administrator’s delegated 

authority. 

EPA regulations (40 CFR 228.4(e)(1)) 

promulgated under the MPRSA require, 

among other things, that EPA designate 

ocean disposal sites by promulgation in 

40 CFR 228. Designated ocean disposal 

sites are codified at 40 CFR 228.15. 

The primary authorities that govern 

the aquatic disposal of dredged material 

in the United States are the MPRSA, 33 

U.S.C. 1401 et seq., and the Clean Water 

Act of 1972, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq. 

(CWA). While the CWA does not apply 

specifically to an EPA designation of a 

long-term dredged material disposal site 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 27, 2016 / Proposed Rules 24749 

under the MPRSA, future federal and 

non-federal projects involving dredged 

material disposal in Long Island Sound 

will require both a section 404 permit as 

well as a State Water Quality 

Certification pursuant to section 401 of 

the CWA. In 1980, the MPRSA was 

amended to add Section 106(f) to the 

statute. 33 U.S.C. 1416(f). This provision 

is commonly referred to as the ‘‘Ambro 

Amendment,’’ named after its author, 

Congressman Jerome Ambro. MPRSA 

section 106(f), 33 U.S.C. 1416(f), was 

itself amended in 1990. Under this 

provision, the disposal of dredged 

material in Long Island Sound from 

both federal projects (i.e., projects 

carried out by the USACE Civil Works 

Program or the actions of other federal 

agencies) and from non-federal projects 

generating more than 25,000 cubic yards 

of material must satisfy the 

requirements of both CWA section 404 

and the MPRSA. Disposal from nonfederal projects generating less than 

25,000 cubic yards of material, however, 

are subject only to CWA section 404. 

This rule proposes to designate the 

ELDS for open-water disposal of 

dredged material. While EPA is 

currently proposing the designation of 

the ELDS as its preferred alternative, 

EPA also has concluded, based on the 

analysis in the DSEIS, that two other 

alternatives, the Niantic Bay and 

Cornfield Shoals disposal sites (NBDS 

and CSDS), or portions thereof, could 

potentially be designated in addition to, 

or instead of, the ELDS. All three sites 

are described in detail in section IV, 

Disposal Site Descriptions. 

EPA has conducted the disposal site 

designation process consistent with the 

requirements of the MPRSA, the 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA), the Coastal Zone Management 

Act (CZMA), and other relevant statutes 

and regulations. The site designations 

are intended to be effective for an 

indefinite period of time. 

It is important to understand that the 

designation of a dredged material 

disposal site by EPA does not by itself 

authorize the disposal at that site of 

dredged material from any particular 

dredging project. For example, 

designation of the ELDS would only 

make that site available to receive 

dredged material from a specific project 

if no environmentally preferable, 

practicable alternative for managing that 

dredged material exists, and if analysis 

of the dredged material indicates that it 

is suitable for open-water disposal. See 

40 CFR 227.1(b), 227.2 and 227.3; 40 

CFR part 227, subparts B and C. 

Thus, each proposed dredging project 

will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis 

to determine whether there are 

practicable, environmentally preferable 

alternatives to open-water disposal (i.e., 

whether there is a need for open-water 

disposal). In addition, the dredged 

material from each proposed disposal 

project will be subjected to MPRSA and/ 

or CWA sediment testing requirements 

to determine its suitability for possible 

open-water disposal at an approved site. 

Alternatives to open-water disposal that 

will be considered include upland 

disposal and beneficial uses such as 

beach nourishment. If environmentally 

preferable, practicable disposal 

alternatives exist, open-water disposal 

will not be allowed. EPA also will not 

approve dredged material for openwater disposal if it determines that the 

material has the potential to cause 

unacceptable adverse effects to the 

marine environment or human health. 

The review process for proposed 

disposal projects is discussed in more 

detail below and in the DSEIS. 

Dredged material disposal sites 

designated by EPA under the MPRSA 

are subject to detailed management and 

monitoring protocols to track site 

conditions and prevent the occurrence 

of unacceptable adverse effects. EPA 

and the USACE typically share 

responsibility for the management and 

monitoring of these disposal sites. The 

management and monitoring protocols 

for the ELDS are described in the Site 

Management and Monitoring Plan 

(SMMP) that is incorporated in the 

DSEIS as Appendix I. See 33 U.S.C. 

1412(c)(3). EPA is authorized to close or 

limit the use of these sites to further 

disposal activity if their use causes 

unacceptable adverse impacts to the 

marine environment or human health. 

II. Purpose and Need 

As described in the DSEIS, the 

purpose of EPA’s proposed action is to 

determine whether one or more 

environmentally sound open-water 

dredged material disposal sites should 

be authorized for future long-term use in 

the eastern Long Island Sound region 

and, if so, to designate the site or sites 

accordingly and consistent with 

applicable law. The need for this effort 

derives from the following facts: (1) 

There are currently no disposal sites 

designated for long-term use in the 

eastern Long Island Sound region; (2) 

the two currently used sites in this 

region are only authorized for use until 

December 23, 2016; (3) periodic 

dredging is necessary to maintain safe 

navigation and marine commerce, and 

dredged material disposal is necessary 

when practicable alternative means of 

managing the material are not available; 

(4) EPA determined, based on the 

evaluation of projected dredging needs 

over a 30-year planning horizon and 

alternatives to open-water disposal 

conducted for the USACE’s DMMP, that 

there are dredging and dredged material 

disposal/handling needs that exceed the 

available disposal/handling capacity in 

the eastern region of Long Island Sound; 

and (5) the MPRSA requires an EPA 

designation for any long-term dredged 

material disposal site. 

In addition, the closest designated 

sites outside the eastern Long Island 

Sound region (and outside the ‘‘Zone of 

Siting Feasibility,’’ or ZSF, which is 

discussed in Section 1.3 of the DSEIS), 

are the Central Long Island Sound 

Disposal Site (CLDS) and the Rhode 

Island Sound Disposal Site (RISDS), 

which are 29.9 nautical miles (nmi) and 

51.4 nmi, respectively, from the 

Saybrook Outer Bars at the mouth of the 

Connecticut River. The Saybrook Outer 

Bars is the southernmost project in the 

Connecticut River dredging center, 

which is the largest dredging center in 

the eastern Long Island Sound region. 

The Western Long Island Sound 

Disposal Site (WLDS) is even farther to 

the west than the CLDS, lying 58.4 nmi 

from the Connecticut River dredging 

center (DMMP, Section 5.3). 

While the CLDS, WLDS, and RISDS 

have all been determined to be 

environmentally sound sites for 

receiving suitable dredged material, 

proposing to use any of them for 

suitable dredged material from the 

eastern region of Long Island Sound 

would be problematic and EPA would 

consider them to be options of last 

resort. Indeed, EPA does not consider 

the WLDS to be a truly viable option for 

eastern Long Island Sound material 

given how distant it is and given the fact 

that if material was being hauled long 

distance to the west from the eastern 

region of the Sound, the material would 

be taken to the CLDS and not hauled 

even farther to the WLDS. At the same 

time, using the CLDS or RISDS (not to 

mention the WLDS) would greatly 

increase the transport distance for, and 

duration of, open-water disposal for 

dredging projects from the eastern Long 

Island Sound region. This, in turn, 

would greatly increase the cost of such 

projects and would likely render many 

dredging projects too expensive to 

conduct, thus threatening safe 

navigation and interfering with marine 

recreation and commerce. Furthermore, 

the greater transport distance would 

also be environmentally detrimental in 

that it would entail greater energy use, 

increased air emissions, and increased 

risk of spills and short dumps (DSEIS, 

Section 2.1). Regarding air emissions, 

increased hauling distances may require 

using larger scows with more powerful 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
24750 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 27, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

tug boats, which would use more fuel 

and cause more emission of air 

pollutants. 

As determined by the USACE through 

the development of its recently 

completed Long Island Sound Dredged 

Material Management Plan (DMMP), 

and described in the DSEIS (Section 2.3 

and Tables 2–2 and 2–3), dredging in 

eastern Long Island Sound is projected 

to generate approximately 22.6 million 

cubic yards (mcy) of dredged material 

over the next 30 years, including 17.9 

mcy from Connecticut ports and harbors 

and 4.7 mcy from ports and harbors in 

New York. Of the total amount of 22.6 

mcy, approximately 13.5 mcy are 

projected to be fine-grained sediment 

that meets MPRSA and CWA standards 

for aquatic disposal (i.e., ‘‘suitable’’ 

material), and 9.1 mcy are projected to 

be coarse-grained sand that also meets 

MPRSA and CWA standards for aquatic 

disposal (i.e., also ‘‘suitable’’ material). 

In addition, the DMMP estimates that 

approximately 80,900 cy of material 

from eastern Long Island Sound will be 

fine-grained sediment that does not 

meet MPRSA and CWA standards for 

aquatic disposal (i.e., ‘‘unsuitable’’ 

material). 

Although Rhode Island is included in 

the ZSF for an eastern Long Island 

Sound dredged material disposal site— 

the ZSF is described later in section V, 

Compliance with Statutory and 

Regulatory Authorities—the volume of 

material estimated to come from two 

Rhode Island dredging centers (Block 

Island and South-Central/Southeast 

Washington County) located within the 

ZSF in Rhode Island is not included in 

the total amount of material estimated to 

come from the eastern portion of the 

Sound. This is because these dredging 

centers are closer to the RISDS. In 

addition, much of the dredged material 

from these two dredging centers is sand 

and will end up being used beneficially 

to nourish beaches. 

The DMMP also estimates the total 

dredging needs for the entire Long 

Island Sound region at 52.9 mcy, 

meaning the central and western regions 

are projected to generate approximately 

30.3 mcy of dredged material over the 

30-year planning horizon (DMMP, 

Section 4.7 and Table 4.1). Of the total 

of 30.3 mcy, 20.9 mcy are projected to 

be fine-grained sediment that meets 

MPRSA and CWA standards for aquatic 

disposal (i.e., ‘‘suitable’’ material), 6.1 

mcy are projected to be course-grained 

sand that also would be suitable for 

open-water disposal, and 3.3 mcy is 

projected to be fine-grained sediment 

unsuitable for open-water disposal. This 

leaves a total of 27 mcy of dredged 

material that could be suitable for openwater disposal, although EPA expects 

most, if not all, of the 6.1 mcy of sand 

would be used beneficially. The 

combined capacity of the CLDS and 

WLDS is approximately 40 mcy, which 

is enough to handle the 27 mcy from 

those regions. Those sites, however, 

neither have the capacity nor were 

intended also to meet the dredging 

needs of the eastern Long Island Sound 

region, which, as stated above, has been 

estimated to be approximately 22.6 mcy 

of suitable material (which, when added 

to the 27 mcy of suitable material from 

the central and western regions, 

amounts to a total of 49.6 mcy of 

suitable material from all of Long Island 

Sound). Furthermore, the distances from 

mouth of the Connecticut River to the 

CLDS and WLDS are 29.9 nmi and 58.4 

nmi, respectively. Thus, both sites are 

outside the ZSF for the eastern Long 

Island Sound Region and for the reasons 

discussed above, neither would be a 

viable as a long-term solution for 

dredged material from the eastern Long 

Island Sound region, even if the CLDS 

could conceivably be used for material 

from the eastern Sound in an emergency 

situation. 

The DMMP also included a detailed 

assessment of alternatives to open-water 

disposal and determined that, while all 

the sand generated in this region should 

be able to be used beneficially to 

nourish beaches, there are not 

practicable alternatives to open-water 

disposal with sufficient capacity to 

handle the projected volume of finegrained sediment. As described in 

section VI, Restrictions, and in the 

proposed rule itself, there will be 

restrictions on the use of all Long Island 

Sound dredged material disposal sites 

that are designed to facilitate and 

promote the use of practicable 

alternatives to open-water disposal 

whenever available, but one or more 

designated open-water disposal sites are 

needed in eastern Long Island Sound. 

EPA designation of a long-term 

dredged material disposal site(s) 

provides environmental benefits. First, 

when use of a site under the USACE 

short-term site selection authority is due 

to expire, designation by EPA is the 

only way to authorize continued use of 

that site, even if the site is 

environmentally suitable or even 

environmentally preferable to all other 

sites. With the NLDS and CSDS closing 

in December 2016, EPA’s site 

designation studies were designed to 

determine whether or not these or any 

other sites should be designated for 

continued long-term use. Congress has 

directed that the disposal of dredged 

material should take place at EPAdesignated sites, rather than USACEselected sites, when EPA-designated 

sites are available (see MPRSA 103(b)). 

Thus, Congress has identified a 

preference for use of EPA-designated 

sites. 

Second, MPRSA criteria for selecting 

and designating sites require EPA to 

consider previously used disposal sites 

or areas, with active or historically used 

sites given preference in the evaluation 

(40 CFR 228.5(e)). This preference is 

intended to concentrate the effects, if 

any, of disposal practices to small, 

discrete areas that have already received 

dredged material, and avoid distributing 

any effects over a larger geographic area. 

Finally, EPA designated sites require a 

SMMP that will help ensure 

environmentally sound monitoring and 

management of the sites. 

Periodic dredging of harbors and 

channels and, therefore, dredged 

material management, are essential for 

ensuring safe navigation and facilitating 

marine commerce. This is because the 

natural processes of erosion and 

siltation result in sediment 

accumulation in federal navigation 

channels, harbors, port facilities, 

marinas, and other important areas of 

our water bodies. Unsafe navigational 

conditions not only threaten public 

health and safety, but also pose an 

environmental threat from an increased 

risk of spills from vessels involved in 

accidents. Navigation safety is a 

regulatory requirement for such 

agencies as the USACE and U.S. Coast 

Guard. 

Economic considerations also 

contribute to the need for dredging (and 

the environmentally sound management 

of dredged material). There are a large 

number of important navigationdependent businesses and industries in 

the eastern Long Island Sound region 

and Block Island Sound, ranging from 

shipping (especially the movement of 

petroleum fuels and the shipping of 

bulk materials), to recreational boatingrelated businesses, marine 

transportation, commercial and 

recreational fishing, interstate ferry 

operations, and military navigation, 

such as that associated with the U.S. 

Naval Submarine Base in New London. 

These businesses and industries 

contribute substantially to the region’s 

economic output, the gross state product 

(GSP) of the bordering states and tax 

revenue. Continued access to harbors, 

berths, and mooring areas is vital to 

ensuring the continued economic health 

of these industries, and to preserving 

the ability of the region to import fuels, 

bulk supplies, and other commodities at 

competitive prices. In addition, 

preserving navigation channels, 

marinas, harbors, berthing areas, and 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 27, 2016 / Proposed Rules 24751 

other marine resources, improves the 

quality of life for residents and visitors 

to the eastern Long Island Sound region 

by facilitating recreational boating and 

associated activities, such as fishing and 

sightseeing. 

Finally, maintaining these marine 

areas (i.e., navigation channels, harbors, 

berthing areas) also is important for 

homeland security and public safety, as 

they support the operation of the U.S. 

Naval Submarine Base and USCG 

facilities in the region, as well as other 

governmental entities that operate on 

the waters of Long Island Sound. 

III. Potentially Affected Entities 

Entities potentially affected by this 

proposed action are persons, 

organizations, or government bodies 

seeking to dispose of dredged material 

in waters of eastern Long Island Sound, 

subject to the requirements of the 

MPRSA and/or the CWA and their 

implementing regulations. This 

proposed rule is expected to be 

primarily of relevance to: (a) Private 

parties seeking permits from the USACE 

to transport more than 25,000 cubic 

yards of dredged material for the 

purpose of disposal into the waters of 

eastern Long Island Sound; (b) the 

USACE for its own dredged material 

disposal projects; and (c) other federal 

agencies seeking to dispose of dredged 

material in eastern Long Island Sound. 

Potentially affected entities and 

categories of entities that may seek to 

use the proposed dredged material 

disposal site and would be subject to the 

proposed rule include: 

Category Examples of potentially 

affected entities 

Federal government ............................................ USACE (Civil Works Projects), and other federal agencies. 

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. 

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

This table is not intended to be 

comprehensive, but rather provides a 

guide for readers regarding the types of 

entities that could potentially be 

affected should the proposed rule 

become a final rule. EPA notes that 

nothing in this proposed rule alters the 

jurisdiction or authority of EPA, the 

USACE, or the types of entities 

regulated under the MPRSA and/or 

CWA. Questions regarding the 

applicability of this proposed rule to a 

particular entity should be directed to 

the contact person listed in the 

preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section. 

IV. Disposal Site Descriptions 

This rule proposes to designate the 

ELDS for open-water disposal of 

dredged material for several reasons. 

First, unlike the other two alternatives 

(i.e., Cornfield Shoals and portions of 

the Niantic Bay site), the entire ELDS is 

a containment site, which would 

support effective management and 

monitoring. Second, the NLDS, a part of 

which makes up part of the ELDS, has 

been used for dredged material disposal 

for over 35 years, and monitoring of the 

site has determined that past and 

present management practices have 

been successful in minimizing shortterm, long-term, and cumulative 

impacts to water quality and benthic 

habitat. Third, designating the ELDS, 

which includes a portion of the NLDS, 

would be consistent with USEPA’s 

ocean disposal regulations, which 

indicate a preference for designating 

disposal sites in areas that have been 

used in the past, rather than new, 

relatively undisturbed areas (40 CFR 

228.5(e)). Finally, the capacity of the 

ELDS is approximately 27 million cy 

(based on water volume below 59 feet 

[18 m]), which would be sufficient to 

meet the dredging needs of the eastern 

Long Island Sound region for the next 

30 years and beyond. 

While EPA is currently proposing the 

designation of the ELDS as its preferred 

alternative, EPA also has concluded, 

based on the analysis in the DSEIS, that 

two other alternatives, the Niantic Bay 

and Cornfield Shoals disposal sites 

(NBDS and CSDS), or portions thereof, 

could potentially be designated in 

addition to, or instead of, the ELDS. The 

Niantic Bay alternative, located just to 

the west of the existing NLDS, contains 

an area that was historically used (i.e., 

the NBDS), which is a criterion in the 

regulations. It also has a capacity of up 

to 27 million cy (based on water volume 

below 59 feet [18 m]), which is 

sufficient to meet the dredging needs of 

the eastern Long Island Sound region. 

However, the Niantic Bay site is 

predominately a transitional area, with 

a containment area in the northeastern 

corner, and the remainder of the site 

being dispersive. EPA is not 

recommending this site as a preferred 

alternative at this time primarily 

because it is not fully a containment 

site, as is the ELDS site. 

The CSDS, located in the western part 

of eastern Long Island Sound, has been 

used for dredged material disposal for 

over 30 years. Because the site is located 

in a highly dispersive environment, 

disposal there has been limited to 

certain types of sediment (e.g., sandy 

material). Monitoring of the site has 

determined that past and present 

management practices have been 

successful in minimizing short-term, 

long-term, and cumulative impacts to 

water quality and benthic habitat from 

dredged material disposal. Designation 

of this site in addition to one of the 

other alternatives would provide a 

disposal site on both ends of eastern 

Long Island Sound, which could reduce 

travel time for tugs/scows transporting 

dredged material for disposal at the 

CSDS. This, in turn, could reduce costs 

and further minimize any risks of spills 

or short dumps. Due to the high energy 

and dispersive nature of the area, the 

site has unlimited capacity, but disposal 

at the site would be restricted to only 

certain types of sediments, such as sand, 

consistent with past practice. 

Despite these considerations, EPA 

does not currently recommend 

designating the CSDS. Given the site’s 

dispersive characteristics, EPA 

concludes that the CSDS would not be 

appropriate to designate as the sole 

disposal site in eastern Long Island 

Sound. See 40 CFR 228.6(a)(5) and (6). 

Furthermore, EPA is not proposing to 

designate the Cornfield Shoals site even 

as a limited complement to one or more 

other sites because of the growing 

opportunities for sand and other 

dredged sediments to be beneficially 

used, such as for beach nourishment. 

The following site descriptions are 

based on information in section 3.4.3 of 

the DSEIS and other support 

documents. Specifically, Figures 3–9 

and 3–10 in the DSEIS show the 

locations of the sites, and Table 3–8 

provides corner coordinates. 

A. Eastern Long Island Sound Disposal 

Site 

The ELDS alternative is located to the 

south of the mouth of Thames River 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
24752 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 27, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

estuary, approximately halfway between 

Connecticut and New York. The ELDS 

encompasses approximately the western 

half of the existing New London 

Disposal Site (NLDS), along with Sites 

NL-Wa and NL-Wb, which are adjacent 

areas immediately to the west of the 

NLDS (see DSEIS, Figure 3–9). The 

dimensions of the ELDS, which 

combines these three areas, are 1 × 2 

nautical miles (nmi), for a total size of 

2 square nautical miles (nmi2). The 

closest upland points to the ELDS are 

Goshen Point, Connecticut, 

approximately 1.2 nmi (2.2 km) to the 

north, and Fishers Island, New York, 

approximately 1.4 nmi (2.6 km) to the 

southeast. The following are 

descriptions of the three areas that 

together would comprise the ELDS. 

1. New London Disposal Site 

The NLDS is located in the eastern 

part of the eastern Long Island Sound 

region and has been used for dredged 

material disposal since 1955 (SAIC, 

2001b). This active open-water dredged 

material disposal site was previously 

selected by the USACE using their site 

selection authority under MPRSA 

103(b), 33 U.S.C. 1413(b). The statute 

limits the use of USACE-selected sites to 

two five-year periods, 33 U.S.C. 1413(b), 

but Congress extended the period of use 

of the NLDS by five additional years by 

Public Law on December 23, 2011 (Pub. 

L. 112–74, Title I, Sec 116). 

The center of the NLDS is located 3.1 

nmi (5.4 km) south of Eastern Point in 

Groton, Connecticut. The site has an 

area of 1 nmi2 (3.4 km2) centered at 

41°16.306′ N., 72°04.571′ W. (NAD83); 

corner coordinates are presented in 

Table 3–8. Water depths in the site 

range from approximately 46 to 79 feet 

(14 to 24 m). Most of the site is located 

within Connecticut waters, while a 

small portion in the southeastern corner 

of the site is located in New York state 

waters. However, this rule proposes to 

include only the western half of the 

NLDS, which would exclude the portion 

of the site that is in New York waters. 

Approximately 5.4 mcy (4.1 million 

m3) were disposed at the NLDS between 

1955 and 1976. A total of approximately 

3.5 mcy (2.6 million m3) of dredged 

material have been placed at this 

location since it was formally selected 

in 1982. The dredged materials mounds 

on the seafloor result in an uneven 

seafloor within the site; the dredged 

material deposits can rise as much as 16 

to 20 feet (5 to 6 m) above the 

surrounding seafloor. 

The USGS mapped the sediment at 

the NLDS as predominantly sand, while 

sediments in the northernmost part of 

the site were mapped as gravelly. NUSC 

(1979) described the sediment at the site 

as generally fine sand. Much of the 

surface sediment at the site consists of 

placed dredged material. Sediment 

sampled by the DAMOS program at 

locations approximately 0.5 nmi (1 km) 

to the east and west of the NLDS 

consisted of silt/clay and very fine silty 

sand, which may reflect pre-disposal 

sediment textures at the NLDS. 

2. Site NL-Wa 

Site NL-Wa is immediately to the west 

of the NLDS and also has an area of 1 

nmi2 (3.4 km2). Water depths range from 

approximately 45 feet (14 m) in the 

north, to 100 feet (30 m) in the south. 

The site consists of mostly sandy areas, 

but also an area of boulders and rocks 

in the northern part of the site (WHG, 

2014). This boulder area may be a lag 

deposit of a glacial moraine. The water 

depth in parts of the boulder area is 

shallower than 59 feet (18 m). 

3. Site NL-Wb 

Site NL-Wb is immediately to the 

west of Site NL-Wa and has an area of 

0.5 nmi2 (1.7 km2). Water depths across 

the site range from approximately 59 

feet (18 m) in the north, to 95 feet (28 

m) in the south. The site consists of an 

extension of the sandy areas of Site NLWa. The southwestern corner of Site 

NL-Wb contains an area of bedrock and 

boulders; this area is an extension of a 

larger area with a similar substrate 

further to the south. The bedrock 

appears as parallel ridges of dipping, 

layered rock that can be correlated to 

bedrock on shore. The bedrock area 

within Site NL-Wb also contains some 

sand waves. Bartlett Reef is located 

approximately 0.5 nmi (0.9 km) to the 

west of the western boundary of the site. 

B. Niantic Bay Disposal Site 

The NBDS alternative is located to the 

south of Niantic Bay, between the 

Connecticut and Thames Rivers (DSEIS, 

Figure 3–9). It consists of the historic 

NBDS and Site NB–E immediately to the 

east. The NBDS alternative includes 

areas that were used historically for 

dredged material disposal, but it has not 

been used since at least 1972. 

The northern edge of the alternative 

site is located approximately 0.6 nmi 

(1.1 km) from Black Point (southwestern 

corner of Niantic Bay) and 1.6 nmi (3.0 

km) from the Millstone Nuclear Power 

Station (southeastern corner of Niantic 

Bay). The Niantic Bay alternative has an 

area of 2.8 nmi2, with a length of 2.08 

nmi and a width of 1.33 nmi. Water 

depths at the site range from 

approximately 60 to 130 feet (18 to 40 

m). The site is located entirely within 

Connecticut waters. 

1. Niantic Bay Disposal Site (Historic) 

The NBDS was used historically for 

the disposal of dredged materials 

between 1969 and 1972, when a total of 

176,000 cy (135,000 m3) of dredged 

material was disposed at this location. 

The site, however, has not been used for 

many years and it is not currently an 

active disposal site. Sediments at the 

site mostly consist of sand to the north 

and northwest and gravelly sediment 

with patches of gravel in the remainder 

of the area. There is a boulder area in 

the north-central part of the site and 

scour depressions in the south. The 

southeastern corner of the site abuts a 

bedrock area. The historic NBDS has an 

area of approximately 1.8 nmi2 (6.2 

km2). 

2. Site NB–E 

Water depths at Site NB–E range from 

43 feet (13 m) in the north to 230 feet 

(70 m) in the southeast. Surface 

sediments at the site are generally 

similar to sediments at the NBDS. The 

southwestern corner of Site NB–E 

contains a bedrock area, which is an 

extension of an exposed area of dipping 

bedrock layers to the south of the site. 

Site NB–E has an area of 1.0 nmi2 (3.4 

km2). Bartlett Reef, a bedrock shoal, is 

located approximately 0.5 nmi (1 km) to 

the east of the site. 

C. Cornfield Shoals Disposal Site 

The CSDS alternative consists entirely 

of the active CSDS, which is located in 

the westernmost part of eastern Long 

Island Sound, approximately halfway 

between the states of Connecticut and 

New York (Figure 3–10). Like the NLDS, 

the CSDS was selected by the USACE 

using its site selection authority, and 

use of the site was then further extended 

by Congress on December 23, 2011 (Pub. 

L.–112–74, Title I, Sec 116). An 

estimated 1.2 mcy (0.95 million m3) 

were disposed at the site between 1960 

and 1976, and an additional 1.7 mcy 

(1.3 million m3) between 1982 and 

2013. 

The center of the site is located 3.3 

nmi (6.1 km) south of Cornfield Point in 

Old Saybrook, Connecticut. The site has 

an area of 1 nmi2 (3.4 km2) centered at 

41°12.6858′ N., 72°21.4914′ W., 

(NAD83). The water depth is around 

150 feet (50 m). The site is located 

mostly within Connecticut waters, with 

only approximately 17 percent in New 

York state waters. 

Bottom currents generally move in an 

ENE–WSW direction. The seafloor 

around the CSDS is relatively flat, with 

longitudinal ripples and other bedforms 

that suggests that this area is sedimentstarved. The site is classified as 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 27, 2016 / Proposed Rules 24753 

erosional/non-depositional in the 

DSEIS. The surface of the seafloor at the 

CSDS consists predominantly of gravel 

and gravelly sediment. Gravelly 

sediment consists of a mixture of 50 to 

90% sand, silt and clay, with the 

remaining fraction consisting of gravel. 

V. Compliance With Statutory and 

Regulatory Authorities 

In proposing to designate a dredged 

material disposal site for the eastern 

portion of Long Island Sound, EPA has 

conducted the dredged material 

disposal site designation process 

consistent with the requirements of the 

MPRSA, NEPA, CZMA, the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA), the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act (MSFCMA), and any 

other applicable legal requirements. 

A. Marine Protection, Research, and 

Sanctuaries Act 

Section 102(c) of the MPRSA, as 

amended, 33 U.S.C. 1412(c) et seq., 

gives the Administrator of EPA 

authority to designate sites where ocean 

disposal of dredged material may be 

permitted. See also 33 U.S.C. 1413(b) 

and 40 CFR 228.4(e). The statute places 

no specific time limit on the term for 

use of an EPA-designated disposal site. 

Thus, EPA site designations can be for 

an indefinite term and are generally 

thought of as long-term designations. 

EPA may, however, place various 

restrictions or limits on the use of a site 

based on the site’s capacity to 

accommodate dredged material or other 

environmental concerns. See 33 U.S.C. 

1412(c). 

Section 103(b) of the MPRSA, 33 

U.S.C. 1413(b), provides that any ocean 

disposal of dredged material should 

occur at EPA-designated sites to the 

maximum extent feasible. In the absence 

of an available EPA-designated site, 

however, the USACE is authorized to 

‘‘select’’ appropriate disposal sites. In 

1992, Congress amended MPRSA 

section 103(b) to place maximum time 

limits on the use of USACE-selected 

disposal sites. Specifically, the statute 

restricted the use of such sites to two 

separate five-year terms. There are no 

EPA-designated dredged material 

disposal sites in the eastern portion of 

Long Island Sound and past open-water 

disposal of dredged material from 

projects subject to MPRSA requirements 

under section 106(f) has been conducted 

in this area of Long Island Sound at sites 

used pursuant to the USACE site 

selection authority. The two active 

USACE-selected sites, the NLDS and 

CSDS, will no longer be available after 

December 23, 2016, however, when 

their Congressionally-authorized term of 

use expires. 

The Ocean Dumping Regulations, see 

generally 40 CFR Subchapter H, 

prescribe general and specific criteria at 

40 CFR 228.5 and 228.6, respectively, to 

guide EPA’s choice of disposal sites for 

final designation. EPA regulations at 40 

CFR 228.4(e)(1) provide, among other 

things, that EPA will designate any 

disposal sites by promulgation in 40 

CFR part 228. Ocean dumping sites 

designated on a final basis are 

promulgated at 40 CFR 228.15. Section 

102(c) of the MPRSA, 33 U.S.C. 1412(c), 

and 40 CFR 228.3 also establish 

requirements for EPA’s ongoing 

management and monitoring, in 

conjunction with the USACE, of 

disposal sites designated by EPA to 

ensure that unacceptable, adverse 

environmental impacts do not occur. 

Examples of such management and 

monitoring include the following: 

Regulating the times, rates, and methods 

of disposal, as well as the quantities and 

types of material that may be disposed; 

conducting pre- and post-disposal 

monitoring of sites; conducting disposal 

site evaluation and designation studies; 

and, if warranted, recommending 

modification of site use and/or 

designation conditions and restrictions. 

See also 40 CFR 228.7, 228.8, 228.9. 

Finally, a disposal site designation by 

EPA does not actually authorize any 

dredged material to be disposed of at 

that site. It only makes that site 

available as a possible management 

option if various other conditions are 

met first. Use of the site for dredged 

material disposal must be authorized by 

the Corps under MPRSA section 103(b), 

subject to EPA review, and such 

disposal at the site can only be 

authorized if: (1) It is determined that 

there is a need for open-water disposal 

for that project (i.e., that there are no 

practicable alternatives to such disposal 

that would cause less harm to the 

environment); and (2) the dredged 

material satisfies the applicable 

environmental impact criteria specified 

in EPA’s regulations at 40 CFR part 227. 

See 40 CFR 227.1(b), 227.2 and 227.16. 

Furthermore, the authorization for 

disposal is also subject to review for 

compliance with other applicable legal 

requirements, which may include the 

ESA, the MSFCMA, the CWA (including 

any applicable state water quality 

standards), NEPA, and the CZMA. The 

following describes EPA’s evaluation of 

the ELDS, NBDS, and CSDS alternatives 

pursuant to the applicable site 

evaluation criteria, and its compliance 

with site management and monitoring 

requirements. 

EPA undertook its evaluation of 

whether to designate any dredged 

material disposal sites in the eastern 

Long Island Sound region pursuant to 

its authority under MPRSA section 

102(c) in response to several factors. 

These factors include the following: 

• The determination by EPA, based 

on the evaluation of projected dredging 

needs over the 30-year planning horizon 

and alternatives to open-water disposal 

conducted for the USACE’s DMMP, that 

the potential alternatives to open-water 

disposal do not provide sufficient 

capacity to accept the quantity of 

dredged material expected to be 

generated over the next 30 years in the 

region; 

• The prohibition on use of the NLDS 

and CSDS disposal sites after December 

23, 2016, pursuant to the USACE site 

selection authority under MPRSA 

section 103(b) and the five-year 

extension provided by Congress under 

Public Law 112–74, Title I, Sec 116. 

• The understanding that in the 

absence of an EPA-designated disposal 

site or sites, any necessary open-water 

disposal would either be stymied, 

despite the importance of dredging for 

ensuring navigational safety and 

facilitating marine commercial and 

recreational activities, or the USACE 

would have to undertake additional 

short-term site selections, perhaps many 

of them, in the future; 

• The clear Congressional preference 

expressed in MPRSA section 103(b) that 

any open-water disposal of dredged 

material take place at EPA-designated 

sites, if feasible; 

• The fact that the two closest EPAdesignated sites outside the eastern 

Long Island Sound region, the CLDS 

and RISDS, do not have the capacity to 

accept the quantity of suitable dredged 

material estimated to be generated from 

the eastern region of Long Island Sound, 

which was not anticipated when these 

sites were designated in 2005, and the 

additional fact that the two sites are 29.9 

nmi and 51.4 nmi respectively from the 

Connecticut River dredging center, 

which would significantly increase 

transportation costs and project 

durations, while also increasing energy 

use, air emissions, and the risk of spills 

or short-dumps; and 

• EPA’s policy view that it is 

generally environmentally preferable to 

concentrate any open-water disposal at 

sites that have been used historically 

and at fewer sites, rather than relying on 

the selection of multiple sites to be used 

for a limited time, see 40 CFR 228.5(e). 

EPA’s evaluation considered whether 

there was a need to designate one or 

more disposal sites for long-term 

dredged material disposal, including an 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
24754 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 27, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

assessment of whether other dredged 

material management methods could 

reasonably be judged to obviate the need 

for such designations. Having 

concluded that there was a need for 

open-water disposal sites, EPA then 

assessed whether there were sites that 

would satisfy the applicable 

environmental criteria to support a site 

designation under MPRSA section 

102(c). The MPRSA and EPA 

regulations promulgated thereunder 

impose a number of requirements 

related to the designation of dredged 

material disposal sites. These include 

procedural requirements, specification 

of criteria for use in site evaluations, 

and the requirement that a SMMP must 

be developed for all designated sites. As 

discussed below, EPA complied with 

each of these requirements in proposing 

to designate the ELDS. 

1. Procedural Requirements 

MPRSA sections 102(c) and 103(b) 

indicate that EPA may designate ocean 

disposal sites for dredged material. EPA 

regulations at 40 CFR 228.4(e) specify 

that dredged material disposal sites will 

be ‘‘designated by EPA promulgation in 

this [40 CFR] part 228 . . . .’’ EPA 

regulations at 40 CFR 228.6(b) direct 

that if an EIS is prepared by EPA to 

assess the proposed designation of one 

or more disposal sites, it should include 

the results of an environmental 

evaluation of the proposed disposal 

site(s), the Draft EIS (DEIS) should be 

presented to the public along with a 

proposed rule for the proposed disposal 

site designation(s), and that a Final EIS 

(FEIS) should be provided at the time of 

final rulemaking for the site designation. 

EPA has complied with all procedural 

requirements related to the publication 

of this proposed rule and associated 

DSEIS. The Agency has prepared a 

thorough environmental evaluation of 

the recommended alternative site being 

proposed for designation, the other two 

alternative sites still being considered, 

and other courses of action (including 

the option of not designating open-water 

disposal sites). This evaluation is 

presented in the DSEIS (and related 

documents) and this proposed rule. 

2. Disposal Site Selection Criteria 

EPA regulations under the MPRSA 

identify four general criteria and 11 

specific criteria for evaluating locations 

for the potential designation of dredged 

material disposal sites. See 40 CFR 

228.4(e), 228.5 and 228.6. The 

evaluation of the ELDS with respect to 

the four general and 11 specific criteria 

is discussed in detail in the DSEIS and 

supporting documents and is 

summarized below. The evaluation of 

the NBDS and CSDS with respect to the 

criteria also is discussed in detail in the 

DSEIS and supporting documents, but is 

not discussed in detail below because 

EPA is not currently proposing to 

designate these sites. 

General Criteria (40 CFR 228.5) 

As described in the DSEIS, and 

summarized below, EPA has determined 

that the ELDS, NBDS, and CSDS satisfy 

the four general criteria specified in 40 

CFR 228.5. This is discussed in Chapter 

5 and summarized in Table 5–9, 

‘‘Summary of Impacts for Action and No 

Action Alternatives,’’ of the DSEIS. 

i. 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)). 

EPA’s evaluation determined that use 

of the ELDS would cause minimal 

interference with the aquatic activities 

identified in the criterion. The site is 

not located in shipping lanes or any 

other region of heavy commercial or 

recreational navigation. In addition, the 

site is not located in an area that is 

important for commercial or 

recreational fishing or shellfish 

harvesting. EPA used Geographic 

Information System (GIS) software to 

overlay the locations of various uses and 

natural resources of the marine 

environment on the disposal site 

location and surrounding areas 

(including their bathymetry). Analysis 

of this data indicated that use of the site 

would have minimal potential for 

interfering with other existing or 

ongoing uses of the marine environment 

in and around the ELDS, including 

lobster harvesting or fishing activities. 

In addition, the western half of the 

ELDS has been used for dredged 

material disposal for many years (as the 

NLDS) and not only has this activity not 

significantly interfered with the uses 

identified in the criterion, but mariners 

in the area are accustomed to use of this 

site. Finally, time-of-year restrictions 

(also known as ‘‘environmental 

windows’’) imposed to protect fishery 

resources will typically limit dredged 

material disposal activities to the 

months of October through April, thus 

further minimizing any possibility of 

interference with the various activities 

specified in the criterion. The NBDS 

and CSDS also meet this criterion for 

largely the same reasons. 

ii. 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 to undetectable 

contaminant concentrations or effects 

before reaching any beach, shoreline, 

marine sanctuary, or known 

geographically limited fishery or 

shellfishery (40 CFR 228.5(b)). 

EPA’s analysis concludes that the 

ELDS satisfies this criterion. First, the 

site is a significant distance from any 

beach, shoreline, marine sanctuary (in 

fact, there are no federally-designated 

marine sanctuaries in Long Island 

Sound), or known geographically 

limited fishery or shellfishery. Second, 

the site will be used only for the 

disposal of dredged material determined 

to be suitable for open-water disposal by 

application of the MPRSA’s ocean 

dumping criteria. See 40 CFR part 227. 

These criteria include provisions related 

to water quality and account for initial 

mixing. See 40 CFR 227.4, 227.5(d), 

227.6(b) and (c), 227.13(c), 227.27, and 

227.29. Data evaluated during 

development of the DSEIS, including 

data from monitoring conducted during 

and after past disposal activities, 

indicates that any temporary 

perturbations in water quality or other 

environmental conditions at the site 

during initial mixing from disposal 

operations will be limited to the 

immediate area of the site and will 

neither cause any significant 

environmental degradation at the site 

nor reach any beach, shoreline, marine 

sanctuary, or other important natural 

resource area. The NBDS and CSDS also 

meet this criterion for the same reasons. 

iii. 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)). 

EPA has determined, based on the 

information presented in the DSEIS, that 

the ELDS, NBDS, and CSDS alternatives 

are sufficiently limited in size to allow 

for the identification and control of any 

immediate adverse impacts, and to 

permit the implementation of effective 

monitoring and surveillance to prevent 

adverse long-range impacts. The 

maximum combined size of the three 

sites is approximately 5.8 nmi2, which 

is just 0.015 (1.5 percent) of the 

approximately 370 nmi2 surface area of 

the eastern Long Island Sound region 

(the ZSF excluding Block Island Sound), 

and just 0.0043 (less than one-percent) 

of the surface area of the entire Long 

Island Sound. The long history of 

dredged material disposal site 

monitoring in New England through the 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 27, 2016 / Proposed Rules 24755 

DAMOS program, and specifically at 

active and historic dredged material 

disposal sites in Long Island Sound, 

provides ample evidence that these 

surveillance and monitoring programs 

are effective at determining physical, 

chemical, and biological impacts at sites 

of the size of the options considered in 

this case. 

All three alternative sites are 

identified by specific coordinates 

spelled out in the DSEIS, and the use of 

precision navigation equipment in both 

dredged material disposal operations 

and monitoring efforts will enable 

accurate disposal operations and 

contribute to effective management and 

monitoring of the sites. Detailed plans 

for the management and monitoring of 

the ELDS are described in the SMMP 

(Appendix I of the DSEIS). Finally, as 

discussed herein and in the DEIS, EPA 

has tailored the boundaries of each of 

the alternative sites in light of site 

characteristics, such as local currents 

and bottom features, so that the area and 

boundaries of the sites are optimized for 

environmentally sound dredged 

material disposal operations. 

iv. EPA will, wherever feasible, 

designate ocean dumping sites beyond 

the edge of the continental shelf and 

other such sites that have been 

historically used (40 CFR 228.5(e)). 

EPA evaluated sites beyond the edge 

of the continental shelf and historical 

disposal sites in Long Island Sound as 

part of the alternatives analysis 

conducted for the DSEIS. The 

continental shelf extends about 60 nmi 

seaward from Montauk Point, New 

York, and a site located on the 

continental slope would result in a 

transit of approximately 80 nmi from 

New London. This evaluation 

determined that the long distances and 

travel times between the dredging 

locations in eastern Long Island Sound 

and the continental shelf posed 

significant environmental, operational, 

safety, and financial concerns, rendering 

such options unreasonable. 

Environmental concerns include 

increased risk of encountering 

endangered species during transit, 

increased fuel consumption and air 

emissions, and greater potential for 

accidents in transit that could lead to 

dredged material being dumped in 

unintended areas. 

As described in the Disposal Site 

Descriptions section, the ELDS, NBDS, 

and CSDS all encompass the footprints 

of historically used sites. To the extent 

that the site boundaries have been 

adjusted to include adjacent areas 

outside of the existing sites, EPA has 

concluded that these adjustments will 

be environmentally beneficial, as 

discussed in the DSEIS. For example, 

rather than propose designation of the 

existing NLDS, the eastern half of which 

is at capacity and nearing depths that 

could lead to scouring of the sediment 

by surface currents and storms, EPA is 

proposing a new ELDS that 

encompasses the western half of the 

existing NLDS along with two adjacent 

areas immediately to the west of the 

NLDS. These two adjacent areas have 

been determined to be containment 

areas by physical oceanographic 

modeling. Long-term monitoring of the 

three alternative sites, or at least the 

historically used parts of them, has 

shown minimal adverse impacts to the 

adjacent marine environment and rapid 

recovery of the benthic community in 

the disposal mounds. While there are 

also other historically used disposal 

sites in eastern Long Island Sound, the 

analysis in the DSEIS concludes that the 

ELDS, NBDS, and CSDS are the 

preferable locations. Thus, designation 

of the ELSD, NBDS, and/or CSDS would 

be consistent with this criterion. 

a. Specific Criteria (40 CFR 228.6) 

In addition to the four general criteria 

discussed above, 40 CFR 228.6(a) lists 

eleven specific factors to be used in 

evaluating the impact of using the site(s) 

for dredged material disposal under the 

MPRSA. Compliance with the eleven 

specific criteria is discussed below. It is 

also discussed in detail in Chapter 5 and 

summarized in Table 5–13, ‘‘Summary 

of Impacts at the Alternative Sites,’’ of 

the DSEIS. 

i. Geographical Position, Depth of 

Water, Bottom Topography and 

Distance From Coast (40 CFR 

228.6(a)(1)). 

Based on analyses in the DSEIS, EPA 

has concluded that the geographical 

position (i.e., location), water depth, 

bottom topography (i.e., bathymetry), 

and distance from coastlines of the 

ELDS (and part of the NBDS) will 

facilitate containment of dredged 

material within site boundaries, and 

reduce the likelihood of material being 

transported away from the site to 

adjacent sea floor areas. As described in 

the preceding Disposal Sites Description 

section and in the above discussion of 

compliance with general criteria iii and 

iv (40 CFR 228.5(c) and (d)), all three 

sites (ELDS, NBDS and CSDS) are 

located far enough from shore and are 

in deep enough water to avoid adverse 

impacts to the coastline. 

The ELDS and northeastern portion of 

the NBDS are containment areas, so 

disposal of dredged material there is 

expected to stay in those sites and not 

cause adverse effects to the adjacent 

seafloor areas. The CSDS and remaining 

portions of the NBDS are dispersive, so 

any dredged material disposed there 

would not be expected to stay within 

the site boundaries. However, disposal 

site monitoring, ambient water quality 

monitoring, and fisheries surveys have 

not documented any adverse impacts 

from the use of the CSDS since the early 

1980s. The closest points of land to the 

ELDS are Goshen Point, Connecticut, 

approximately 1.2 nmi (2.2 km) to the 

north, and Fishers Island, New York, 

approximately 2 nmi (3.2 km) to the 

southeast, in water depths ranging from 

approximately 45 feet (14 m) in the 

north to 100 feet (30 m) in the south. 

The northern edge of the NBDS 

alternative is located approximately 0.6 

nmi (1.1 km) from Black Point 

(southwestern corner of Niantic Bay) 

and 1.6 nmi (3.0 km) from the Millstone 

Nuclear Power Station (southeastern 

corner of Niantic Bay). Water depths at 

the site range from approximately 60 to 

130 feet (18 to 40 m). The center of the 

CSDS is 3.3 nmi (6.1 km) south of 

Cornfield Point in Old Saybrook, 

Connecticut, and the water depth at the 

site is around 150 feet (50 m). 

As discussed in the DSEIS, long-term 

monitoring of disposal sites in Long 

Island Sound has indicated that creating 

mounds above a depth of 46 feet (14 

meters) can result in material being 

removed from the mounds by currents. 

All three sites are of a sufficient depth 

to allow the disposal of the amount of 

material that is projected over the 30- 

year planning horizon without 

exceeding this depth threshold. As 

discussed in the DSEIS, the entire ELDS 

and the northeastern part of the NBDS 

are containment areas and, as a result, 

EPA expects material placed at these 

sites to remain there. As a result, any 

short-term impacts from dredged 

material placement will be localized 

and this, together with other regulatory 

requirements described elsewhere in 

this document, will facilitate prevention 

of any adverse impacts at the sites. 

The CSDS alternative and a part of the 

NBDS, however, are dispersive areas 

from which dredged material disposed 

there would likely be eroded over time. 

This material would then be dispersed 

in the water column and transported 

predominantly toward the west. As a 

result, past disposal at the CSDS has 

been limited to certain types of 

sediments (i.e., sandy material). If the 

NBDS were designated, similar 

restrictions would likely be appropriate 

regarding any use of the dispersive areas 

of the site. Monitoring of the CSDS has 

determined that past and present 

management practices have been 

successful in minimizing short-term, 

long-term, and cumulative impacts to 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
24756 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 27, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

water quality and benthic habitat from 

dredged material disposal. EPA expects 

that similar results would follow from 

using the dispersive portions of the 

NBDS with similar restrictions. 

ii. 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)). 

EPA considered the proposed ELDS 

and the other two sites in relation to 

breeding, spawning, nursery, feeding, 

and passage areas for adult and juvenile 

phases (i.e., life stages) of living 

resources in Long Island Sound. From 

this analysis, EPA concluded that, while 

disposal of suitable dredged material at 

the ELDS, NBDS, or CSDS would cause 

some short-term, localized effects, 

overall it would not cause adverse 

effects to the habitat functions and 

living resources specified in the above 

criterion. As previously noted, the 

maximum combined size of the three 

sites is approximately 5.8 nmi 2, which 

is just 0.015 (1.5 percent) of the 

approximately 370 nmi2 surface area of 

the eastern Long Island Sound region 

(the ZSF excluding Block Island Sound), 

and just 0.0043 (less than one-percent) 

of the surface area of the entire Long 

Island Sound. 

Generally, there are three primary 

ways that dredged material disposal 

could potentially adversely affect 

marine resources. First, disposal can 

cause physical impacts by injuring or 

burying less mobile fish, shellfish, and 

benthic organisms, as well as their eggs 

and larvae. Second, tug and barge traffic 

transporting the dredged material to a 

disposal site could possibly collide or 

otherwise interfere with marine 

mammals and reptiles. Third, 

contaminants in the dredged material 

could potentially bioaccumulate 

through the food chain. However, EPA 

and the other federal and state agencies 

that regulate dredging and dredged 

material disposal impose requirements 

that prevent or greatly limit the 

potential for these types of impacts to 

occur. 

For example, the agencies impose 

‘‘environmental windows,’’ or time-ofyear restrictions, for both dredging and 

dredged material disposal. This type of 

restriction has been a standard practice 

for more than a decade in Long Island 

Sound, and New England generally, and 

is incorporated in USACE permits and 

authorizations in response to 

consultation with federal and state 

natural resource agencies (e.g., NMFS). 

Dredged material disposal in Long 

Island Sound is generally limited to the 

period between October 1 and April 30 

to avoid time periods when any threat 

of effects on aquatic organisms would be 

greater. Indeed, environmental windows 

are often set depending on the location 

of specific dredging projects in relation 

to certain fish and shellfish species. For 

example, dredging in nearshore areas 

where winter flounder spawning occurs 

is generally prohibited between 

February 1 and April 1; dredging that 

may interfere with anadromous fish 

runs is generally prohibited between 

April 1 and May 15; and dredging that 

may adversely affect shellfish is 

prohibited between June 1 and 

September 30. These environmental 

windows, in effect, serve to further 

restrict periods during which dredged 

material disposal would occur. 

Another benefit of using 

environmental windows is that they 

reduce the likelihood of dredged 

material disposal activities interfering 

with marine mammals and reptiles. 

While there are several species of 

marine mammal or reptile, such as 

harbor porpoises, long-finned pilot 

whales, seals, and sea turtles, that either 

inhabit or migrate through Long Island 

Sound, most of them either leave the 

Sound during the winter months for 

warmer waters to the south or are less 

active and remain near the shore. There 

also are many species of fish (e.g., 

striped bass, bluefish, scup) and 

invertebrates (e.g., squid) that leave the 

Sound during the winter for either 

deeper water or warmer waters to the 

south, thus avoiding the time of year 

when most dredging and dredged 

material disposal occurs. The use of 

environmental windows has been 

refined over time and is considered an 

effective management tool to minimize 

impacts to marine resources. 

Dredged material disposal will, 

however, have some localized impacts 

to fish, shellfish, and benthic organisms, 

such as clams and worms, that are 

present at a disposal site (or in the water 

column directly above the site) during a 

disposal event. The sediment plume 

may entrain and smother some fish in 

the water column, and may bury some 

fish, shellfish, and other marine 

organisms on the sea floor. It also may 

result in a short-term loss of forage 

habitat in the immediate disposal area, 

but the DAMOS program has 

documented the recolonization of 

disposal mounds by benthic infauna 

within 1–3 years after disposal and this 

pattern would be expected at the sites 

evaluated in the DSEIS. As discussed in 

the DSEIS (section 5.2.2), over time, 

disposal mounds recover and develop 

abundant and diverse biological 

communities that are healthy and able 

to support species typically found in the 

ambient surroundings. Some organisms 

may burrow deeply into sediments, 

often up to 20 inches, and are more 

likely to survive a burial event. 

To further reduce potential 

environmental impacts associated with 

dredged material disposal, the dredged 

material from each proposed dredging 

project will be subjected to the MPRSA 

sediment testing requirements set forth 

at 40 CFR part 227 to determine its 

suitability for open-water disposal. 

Suitability for open-water disposal is 

determined by testing the proposed 

dredged material for toxicity and 

bioaccumulation and by quantifying the 

risk to human health from consuming 

marine organisms that are exposed to 

dredged material and its associated 

contaminants using a risk assessment 

model. If it is determined that the 

sediment is unsuitable for open-water 

disposal—that is, that it may 

unreasonably degrade or endanger 

human health or the marine 

environment—it cannot be disposed at 

disposal sites designated under the 

MPRSA. See 40 CFR 227.6. Therefore, 

EPA does not anticipate significant 

effects on marine organisms from 

dredged material disposal at the sites 

under evaluation. 

EPA also is complying with the ESA 

by consulting with the NMFS and U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

concerning EPA’s conclusion that the 

designation of the ELDS, NBDS, or 

CSDS would not likely adversely affect 

federally listed species under their 

respective jurisdictions or any habitat 

designated as critical for such species. 

Additionally, EPA consulted with 

NMFS under the MSFCMA on potential 

impacts to essential fish habitat (EFH). 

NMFS determined that the use of 

environmental windows and the 

stringent testing requirements were 

sufficient steps to minimize any impacts 

to EFH and did not offer additional 

conservation recommendations. Further 

details on these consultations are 

provided in the DSEIS and the section 

below describing compliance with the 

ESA and MSFCMA. 

EPA recognizes that dredged material 

disposal causes some short-term, 

localized adverse effects to marine 

organisms in the immediate vicinity of 

each disposal event. But because 

dredged material disposal would be 

limited to suitable material at the 1–3 

small sites under consideration here 

(see above regarding compliance with 

general criteria (40 CFR 2285(e)), and 

during only several months of the year, 

EPA concludes that designating ELDS, 

NBDS, or CSDS would not cause 

unacceptable or unreasonable adverse 

impacts to breeding, spawning, nursery, 

feeding, or passage areas of living 

resources in adult or juvenile phases. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 27, 2016 / Proposed Rules 24757 

There is no evidence of long-term effects 

on benthic processes or habitat 

conditions. 

iii. Location in Relation to Beaches 

and Other Amenity Areas (40 CFR 

228.6(a)(3)). 

EPA’s analysis concludes that the 

ELDS, NBDS, and CSDS all satisfy this 

criterion. All three sites are far enough 

away from beaches, parks, wildlife 

refuges, and other areas of special 

concern to prevent adverse impacts to 

these amenities and, as previously 

noted, there are no marine sanctuaries 

in Long Island Sound. As previously 

described, the ELDS, NBDS, and CSDS 

are 1.2 nmi (2.2 km), 0.6 nmi (1.1 km), 

and 2.8 nmi (5.2 km) from the nearest 

shore, respectively, and none of the sites 

is closer than 1.7 nmi (3.2 km) to public 

beaches in either Connecticut or New 

York. Based on modeling results that are 

presented in section 5.5.3 of the DSEIS, 

and past monitoring of actual disposal 

activities, this distance is beyond any 

expected transport of dredged material 

due to tidal motion or currents. As 

noted above, any temporary 

perturbations in water quality or other 

environmental conditions at the sites 

during initial mixing from disposal 

operations will be limited to the 

immediate area of the sites and will not 

reach any beach, parks, wildlife refuges, 

or other areas of special concern. 

Thus, EPA does not anticipate that the 

use of the ELDS, NBDS, or CSDS would 

cause any adverse impacts to beaches or 

other amenity areas. 

iv. 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)). 

The typical composition of dredged 

material to be disposed at the sites is 

expected to range from predominantly 

‘‘clay-silt’’ to ‘‘mostly sand.’’ This 

expectation is based on data from 

historical dredging projects from the 

eastern region of Long Island Sound. For 

federal dredging projects and private 

projects generating more 25,000 cubic 

yards of dredged material, EPA and the 

USACE will conduct sediment 

suitability determinations applying the 

criteria for testing and evaluating 

dredged material under 40 CFR 227 and 

further guidance in the ‘‘Regional 

Implementation Manual for the 

Evaluation of Dredged Material 

Proposed for Disposal in New England 

Waters’’ (EPA, 2004), and the material 

would have to satisfy these suitability 

criteria before it could be authorized for 

disposal under the MPRSA. Private 

dredging projects generating up to 

25,000 cubic yards will continue to be 

regulated under CWA section 404. The 

requirements under the MPRSA and the 

CWA are discussed in detail in the 

DSEIS. 

The ELDS, NBDS, and CSDS would 

receive dredged material that is 

transported by either government or 

private contractor hopper dredges or 

oceangoing bottom-dump barges 

(‘‘scows’’) towed by tugboat. Both types 

of equipment release the material at or 

very near the surface, which is the 

standard operating procedure for this 

activity. The disposal of this material 

will occur at specific coordinates 

marked by buoys and will be placed so 

as to concentrate material from each 

disposal project. This concentrated 

placement is expected to help minimize 

bottom impacts to benthic organisms. In 

addition, there are no plans to pack or 

package dredged material prior to 

disposal. 

Furthermore, it should be emphasized 

that the three alternative sites are only 

being considered for the disposal of 

dredged material; disposal of other 

types of material will not be allowed at 

these sites. It also should be noted that 

the disposal of certain other types of 

material is expressly prohibited by the 

MPRSA and EPA regulations (e.g., 

industrial waste, sewage sludge, 

chemical warfare agents, insufficiently 

characterized materials) (33 U.S.C. 

1414b; 40 CFR 227.5). 

As previously discussed, dredging in 

eastern Long Island Sound is projected 

to generate approximately 22.6 million 

cubic yards (mcy) of dredged material 

over the next 30 years, including 17.9 

mcy from Connecticut ports and harbors 

and 4.7 mcy from ports and harbors in 

New York. Of the total amount of 22.6 

mcy, approximately 13.5 mcy are 

projected to be fine-grained sediment 

that meets MPRSA and CWA standards 

for aquatic disposal (i.e., ‘‘suitable’’ 

material), and 9.1 mcy are projected to 

be course-grained sand that also meets 

MPRSA and CWA standards for aquatic 

disposal (i.e., also ‘‘suitable’’ material). 

Even if none of the sand is used 

beneficially, which is highly unlikely 

given the high demand for this resource, 

the maximum quantity of dredged 

material that may possibly be disposed 

of at one or more of the three 

alternatives is approximately 22.6 mcy, 

and EPA expects that increased efforts 

to develop and use practicable 

alternatives to open-water disposal will 

reduce that amount significantly. Since 

the estimated capacity of the ELDS, 

NBDS, and CSDS is 27 mcy, 27 mcy, 

and unlimited respectively, there is 

more than sufficient capacity even if 

only ELDS or one of the other two 

alternatives is designated for long-term 

use. (As previously stated, EPA is not 

considering designating the CSDS alone 

because it is a dispersive site.) For all of 

these reasons, no significant adverse 

impacts are expected to be associated 

with the types and quantities of dredged 

material that may be disposed at the 

sites. 

v. Feasibility of Surveillance and 

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

Monitoring and surveillance are 

expected to be feasible at all three sites, 

although the ELDS and the northeast 

portion of the NBDS would be most 

conducive to monitoring because they’re 

containment sites and material disposed 

there is expected to stay there. The 

ELDS, NBDS, and CSDS are all readily 

accessible for bathymetric and side-scan 

sonar surveys and the NLDS portion of 

the ELDS and the CSDS have been 

successfully monitored by the USACE 

over the past 35 years under the 

DAMOS program. Upon designation of 

a site or sites, monitoring would 

continue under the DAMOS program in 

accordance with the most current 

approved Site Management and 

Monitoring Plan (SMMP) for each site. 

A draft SMMP has been developed only 

for the ELDS at this time, since it is 

EPA’s preferred alternative, but EPA 

will develop SMMPs for any other sites 

that may be designated following a 

similar format. As a containment site, 

the ELDS is conducive to the type of 

monitoring most commonly conducted 

at dredged material disposal sites, 

including side-scan sonar, sediment 

profile imaging, and sediment grab 

sampling. The draft SMMP for the ELDS 

is included as Appendix I of the DSEIS. 

While the CSDS and transitional part 

of the NBDS can be monitored, they are 

more dispersive sites, which means that 

currents take dredged sediments away 

from the sites over time. Therefore, it is 

not possible to accurately track the fate 

of material placed at these sites. As 

explained above, that is why use of the 

CSDS has been limited over the years to 

receiving sediments from non-industrial 

harbors and channels, like the mouth of 

the Connecticut River. EPA is not 

currently proposing to designate the 

NBDS or CSDS, but if that changes after 

consideration of public comments, EPA 

would prepare an SMMP for public 

review and comment in conjunction 

with a proposal to designate the site. 

The SMMPs are subject to review and 

updating at least once every ten years, 

if necessary, and may be subject to 

additional revisions based on the results 

of site monitoring and other new 

information. Any such revisions will be 

closely coordinated with other federal 

and state resource management agencies 

and stakeholders during the review and 

approval process and will become final 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
24758 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 27, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

only when approved by EPA, in 

conjunction with the USACE. See 33 

U.S.C. 1413 (c)(3). 

vi. Dispersal, Horizontal Transport 

and Vertical Mixing Characteristics of 

the Area, Including Prevailing Current 

Direction and Velocity, if Any (40 CFR 

228.6(a)(6)). 

Although the interactions of 

bathymetry, wind-generated waves, and 

river and ocean currents in Long Island 

Sound are complex, the ELDS, NBDS, 

and CSDS are located in areas that are 

generally calm except during storms. 

(Dredging and dredged material disposal 

would not be conducted during storm 

events. See e.g., 40 CFR 

228.15(b)(4)(vi)(L)). Consistent with 

this, past monitoring during disposal 

operations at the NLDS (in the vicinity 

of the proposed ELDS), NBDS, and 

CSDS revealed minimal drift of 

sediment out of the disposal site area as 

it passed through the water column. 

Conditions are more complicated at 

the seafloor within the alternative 

disposal sites. Disposal site monitoring 

has confirmed that peak wave-induced 

bottom current velocities are not 

sufficient to cause significant erosion of 

dredged material placed at either the 

ELDS or the containment portions of the 

NBDS. As noted above, physical 

oceanographic monitoring and modeling 

has indicated that the ELDS and 

portions of the NBDS are depositional 

locations that collect, rather than 

disperse, sediment. For these reasons, 

EPA has determined that the dispersal, 

horizontal transport, and vertical mixing 

characteristics, as well as the current 

velocities and directions at the ELDS 

and within portions of the NBDS are 

appropriate to support their designation 

as dredged material disposal sites. 

As discussed above, EPA also has 

determined that the CSDS and portions 

of the NBDS are dispersive sites with 

bottom currents that would likely move 

dredged material away from the site to 

surrounding areas. Therefore, EPA does 

not currently favor designating these 

sites, but they could be designated for 

limited use for the placement of suitable 

sediments with similar characteristics to 

native sediments in the general vicinity 

of the sites. This is how the CSDS was 

used in the past. EPA is interested in 

receiving comments concerning the 

option of designating the CSDS for such 

limited use. 

vii. Existence and Effects of Current 

and Previous Discharges and Dumping 

in the Area (Including Cumulative 

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

As previously described in the 

Disposal Sites Descriptions section, the 

portion of the ELDS that was used 

historically as the NLDS has received 

approximately 8.9 mcy (6.7 million m3) 

since 1955. The NBDS is not currently 

an active disposal site, but it was used 

between 1969 and 1972, when a total of 

176,000 cy (135,000 m3) of dredged 

material was disposed at this location. 

The CSDS has received an estimated 2.9 

mcy of dredged material (2.25 million 

m3) since 1960. 

Until the passage of the CWA in 1972, 

dredged material disposal was not a 

heavily regulated activity. Since 1972, 

open-water disposal in Long Island 

Sound has been subject to the sediment 

testing and alternatives analysis 

provisions of section 404 of the CWA. 

With passage of the Ambro Amendment 

in 1980 (which was further amended in 

1990), dredged material disposal from 

all federal projects and non-federal 

projects generating more than 25,000 

cubic yards of material became subject 

to the requirements of both CWA 

section 404 and the MPRSA. The result 

of these increasingly stringent 

regulatory requirements for dredged 

material disposal, combined with the 

reduction in contaminants entering 

waterways from other Clean Water Act 

programs, is that there has been a 

steady, measurable improvement in the 

quality of material that has been 

allowed to be placed at the NLDS 

portion of the ELDS and CSDS over the 

past 35 years. 

The NLDS portion of the ELDS and 

CSDS both have been used on a 

consistent basis since the early 1980s 

pursuant to the USACE’s short-term site 

selection authority under section 103(b) 

of the MPRSA (33 U.S.C. 1413(b)). Since 

then, disposal operations at these sites 

have been carefully managed and the 

material disposed there has been 

monitored. In EPA’s view, past use of 

these sites 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 

CFR 228.5(e). Continuing to use existing 

sites, as long as they have remaining 

capacity, rather using a multitude of 

sites, helps to limit or concentrate the 

footprint of dredged material disposal 

on the seafloor of Long Island Sound. 

While the effects of placing suitable 

dredged material at a disposal site are 

primarily limited to short-term physical 

effects, such as burying benthic 

organisms in the location where the 

material is placed, EPA regards it to be 

preferable to concentrate such effects in 

particular areas and leave other areas 

untouched as much as possible. 

That said, EPA’s evaluation of data 

and modeling results indicates that past 

disposal operations have not resulted in 

unacceptable or unreasonable 

environmental degradation, and that 

there should be no such adverse effects 

in the future from the projected use of 

any of the three sites, although it would 

be easier to determine this at the ELDS 

and the containment portion of the 

NBDS, since the material is expected to 

stay at those sites and could be 

monitored. As part of this conclusion, 

discussed in detail in the DSEIS, EPA 

found that there should be no 

significant adverse cumulative 

environmental effects from using these 

sites on a long-term basis for dredged 

material disposal in compliance with all 

applicable regulatory requirements 

regarding sediment quality and site 

usage. 

viii. Interference With Shipping, 

Fishing, Recreation, Mineral Extraction, 

Desalination, Fish and Shellfish 

Culture, Areas of Special Scientific 

Importance and Other Legitimate Uses 

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

In evaluating whether disposal 

activity at the sites could interfere with 

shipping, fishing, recreation, mineral 

extraction, desalination, fish or shellfish 

culture, areas of scientific importance, 

and other legitimate uses of the ocean, 

EPA considered both the effects of 

placing dredged material on the bottom 

of the Sound at the ELDS, NBDS, and 

CSDS and any effects from vessel traffic 

associated with transporting the 

dredged material to the disposal sites. 

From this evaluation, EPA concluded 

there would be no unacceptable or 

unreasonable adverse effects on the 

considerations noted in this criterion. 

Some of the factors listed in this 

criterion have already been discussed 

above due to the overlap of this criterion 

with aspects of certain other criteria. 

Nevertheless, EPA will address each 

point below. 

The ELDS is the only site in close 

proximity to significant shipping 

activity. The eastern boundary of the 

proposed ELDS is one-half mile west of 

the eastern boundary of the current 

NLDS; this shift to the west would move 

the disposal site out of about half of the 

Submarine Transit Corridor into New 

London Harbor, further reducing the 

potential for conflicts between the 

disposal site and submarine traffic. 

Vessel traffic generated by disposal 

activity is expected to be similar to that 

which has occurred over the past 20–30 

years, which has not interfered with 

other shipping activity. Moreover, 

research by EPA and the USACE 

concluded that after disposal at any of 

the three sites, resulting water depths 

will be sufficient to permit navigation in 

the area without interference. (And by 

providing an open-water alternative for 

dredged material disposal in the 

absence of environmentally preferable, 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 27, 2016 / Proposed Rules 24759 

practicable alternatives, the sites are 

likely to improve and facilitate 

navigation in many of the harbors, bays, 

rivers and channels around eastern Long 

Island Sound.) 

EPA also carefully evaluated the 

potential effects on commercial and 

recreational fishing for both finfish and 

shellfish (including lobster) of 

designating the ELDS, NBDS, and CSDS 

for dredged material disposal and 

concluded that there would be no 

unreasonable or unacceptable adverse 

effects. As discussed above in relation to 

other site evaluation criteria, dredged 

material disposal will only have shortterm, incidental, and insignificant 

effects on organisms in the disposal 

sites and no appreciable effects beyond 

the sites. Indeed, since past dredged 

material disposal has been determined 

to have no significant adverse effects on 

fishing, the similar projected levels of 

future disposal activities at the 

designated sites also are not expected to 

have any significant adverse effects. 

Four main reasons that EPA 

concluded that no unacceptable adverse 

effects would occur from placing 

dredged material at the site alternatives 

are discussed below. First, as discussed 

above, EPA has concluded that any 

contaminants in material permitted for 

disposal—having satisfied the dredged 

material criteria in the regulations that 

restrict any toxicity and 

bioaccumulation—will not cause any 

significant adverse effects on fish, 

shellfish, or other aquatic organisms. 

Because both the ELDS and portions of 

the NBDS are containment areas, 

dredged material disposed at those sites 

is expected to remain there. If the CSDS 

and/or dispersive portion of the NBDS 

were to be designated, EPA would 

restrict the types of material to be 

placed at those sites, as discussed 

above. 

Second, as also discussed above, the 

disposal sites do not encompass any 

especially important, sensitive, or 

limited habitat for the Sound’s fish and 

shellfish, such as key spawning or 

nursery habitat for species of finfish. 

Numerous studies and data reviewed by 

EPA and the USACE indicate that there 

is low potential for any future 

incremental risk from the placement of 

dredged sediments at the three 

alternative sites, either in the long- or 

short-term. 

Third, while EPA found that a small 

number of demersal fish (e.g., winter 

flounder), shellfish (e.g., clams and 

lobsters), benthic organisms (e.g., 

worms), and zooplankton and 

phytoplankton could be lost due to the 

physical effects of disposal (e.g., burial 

of organisms on the bottom by dredged 

material and entrainment of plankton in 

the water column by dredged material 

upon its release from a disposal barge), 

EPA also determined that these minor, 

temporary adverse effects would be 

neither unreasonable nor unacceptable. 

This determination was based on EPA’s 

conclusion that the numbers of 

organisms potentially affected represent 

only a minuscule percentage of those in 

eastern Long Island Sound, and on 

DAMOS monitoring that consistently 

documents the rapid recovery of the 

benthic community in an area that has 

received dredged material. In addition, 

any physical effects will be further 

limited by the relatively few months in 

which disposal activities could be 

permitted by the environmental window 

(or time-of-year) restrictions. 

Fourth, EPA has determined that 

vessel traffic associated with dredged 

material disposal will not have any 

unreasonable or unacceptable adverse 

effects on fishing. As explained above, 

environmental window restrictions will 

limit any disposal to the period between 

October 1 and April 30, and often to 

fewer months depending on speciesspecific restrictions for each dredging 

project, each year. Moreover, there is 

generally far less vessel traffic in the 

months when disposal would occur due 

to the seasonal nature of recreational 

boating and commercial shipping. There 

currently are no mineral extraction 

activities or desalinization facilities in 

the eastern Long Island Sound region 

with which disposal activity could 

potentially interfere. Energy 

transmission pipelines and cables are 

located near the sites, but none are 

within their boundaries. No finfish 

aquaculture currently takes place in 

Long Island Sound and the only form of 

shellfish culture in the area, oyster 

production, occurs in nearshore 

locations far enough away from the 

three alternative sites that it should not 

be impacted in any manner by this 

proposed action. Finally, none of the 

disposal site options are in an area of 

special scientific importance; in fact, 

areas with such characteristics were 

screened out very early in the 

alternatives screening process. 

Accordingly, depositing dredged 

material at any of the three sites will not 

interfere with any of the activities 

described in this criterion or other 

legitimate uses of Long Island Sound. 

ix. The Existing Water Quality and 

Ecology of the Sites as Determined by 

Available Data or by Trend Assessment 

or Baseline Surveys (40 CFR 

228.6(a)(9)). 

EPA’s analysis of existing water 

quality and ecological conditions at the 

site in light of available data, trend 

assessments and baseline surveys 

indicates that use of the designated 

disposal sites will cause no 

unacceptable or unreasonable adverse 

environmental effects. Considerations 

related to water quality and various 

ecological factors (e.g., sediment quality, 

benthic organisms, fish and shellfish) 

have already been discussed above in 

relation to other site selection criteria, 

and are discussed in detail in the DSEIS 

and supporting documents. In 

considering this criterion, EPA took into 

account existing water quality and 

sediment quality data collected at the 

disposal sites, including from the 

USACE’s DAMOS site monitoring 

program, as well as water quality data 

from the Department of Energy and 

Environmental Protection’s (CT DEEP) 

Long Island Sound Water Quality 

Monitoring Program. As discussed 

herein, EPA has determined that 

placement of suitable dredged material 

at the disposal site alternatives should 

not cause any significant adverse 

environmental effects to water quality or 

to ecological conditions at the disposal 

sites. EPA and the USACE have 

prepared a draft SMMP for the ELDS to 

guide future monitoring of site 

conditions (DSEIS Appendix I), and 

would prepare SMMPs for the NBDS 

and/or CSDS if either of them were to 

be designated. 

x. Potentiality for the Development or 

Recruitment of Nuisance Species in the 

Disposal Sites (40 CFR 228.6(a)(10)). 

Monitoring at disposal sites in Long 

Island Sound over the past 35 years has 

shown no recruitment of nuisance 

(invasive, non-native) species and no 

such adverse effects are expected to 

occur at the ELDS, NBDS, or CSDS in 

the future. EPA and the USACE will 

continue to monitor EPA-designated 

sites under their respective SMMPs, 

which include a ‘‘management focus’’ 

on ‘‘changes in composition and 

numbers of pelagic, demersal, or benthic 

biota at or near the disposal sites’’ 

(section 6.1.5 of the SMMP, Appendix I 

of the DSEIS). 

xi. Existence at or in Close Proximity 

to the Sites of Any Significant Natural 

or Cultural Feature of Historical 

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

There are no natural features of 

historical importance in the ELDS, 

NBDS, or CSDS, and the cultural 

resources that have the greatest 

potential for being impacted in eastern 

Long Island Sound are shipwrecks. As 

discussed in the DSEIS, a review of 

submerged vessel reports in the NOAA 

and Connecticut State Historic 

Preservation Office (CT SHPO) 

shipwreck databases indicate that there 

are three charted shipwrecks within 0.5 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
24760 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 27, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

nmi (0.9 km) of the alternative sites. 

One of these charted shipwrecks is 

located within Site NL-Wa of the ELDS; 

this wreck was also identified by the 

side-scan sonar survey. The side-scan 

sonar survey identified two additional 

wrecks within the 0.5-nm (0.9-km) 

perimeter outside of the NBDS. None of 

these known shipwrecks are currently 

considered to be of historical 

significance. Consultation with the New 

York Office of Parks, Recreation and 

Historic Preservation (OPRHP; acts as 

the NY SHPO) revealed that there are no 

submerged vessels or historic resources 

within the portion of the CSDS that is 

located in New York State waters. 

As additional side-scan sonar surveys 

are conducted at the disposal sites in 

the future under the SMMPs, and if 

potential shipwrecks are identified, EPA 

will take appropriate action in 

cooperation with federal and state 

historic preservation officials in 

response to any significant cultural 

resources. The CT SHPO also 

determined that there are no known 

aboriginal artifacts at the ELDS, NBDS, 

or CSDS. EPA coordinated with Indian 

tribes in Connecticut, Rhode Island, and 

New York throughout the development 

of the DSEIS and the tribes did not 

identify any important natural, cultural, 

spiritual, or historical features or areas 

within any of the three disposal sites 

under consideration. 

In summary, there are no historic or 

archaeological resources within the 

NBDS or CSDS, and while the NL-Wa 

portion of the ELDS contains a 

shipwreck near its southern boundary, 

this wreck is not considered to be of 

historical significance. Nevertheless, 

any impacts to that wreck from dredged 

material disposal could be minimized 

by establishing a 164-foot (50 m) 

avoidance buffer surrounding the 

shipwreck and appropriate site 

management, which accommodates both 

the minimum buffer of 30 m 

recommended by the CT SHPO, and the 

40–50 m minimum buffer applied by the 

NY OPRHP. 

3. Disposal Site Management (40 CFR 

228.3, 228.7, 228.8 and 228.9) 

The ELDS, NBDS, and CSDS would be 

subject to specific management 

requirements to ensure that 

unacceptable adverse environmental 

impacts do not occur. Examples of these 

requirements include: (1) Restricting the 

use of the sites to the disposal of 

dredged material that has been 

determined to be suitable for ocean 

disposal following MPRSA and/or CWA 

requirements in accordance with the 

provisions of MPRSA section 106(f), as 

well as to material from waters in the 

vicinity of the disposal sites; (2) 

monitoring the disposal sites and their 

associated reference sites, which are not 

used for dredged material disposal, to 

assess potential impacts to the marine 

environment by providing a point of 

comparison to an area unaffected by 

dredged material disposal; and (3) 

retaining the right to limit or close these 

sites to further disposal activity if 

monitoring or other information reveals 

evidence of unacceptable adverse 

impacts to the marine environment. As 

mentioned above, dredged material 

disposal will not be allowed when 

weather and sea conditions could 

interfere with safe, effective placement 

of any dredged material at a designated 

site. In addition, although not 

technically a site management 

requirement, disposal activity at the 

sites will generally be limited to the 

period between October 1 and April 30, 

but often less depending on 

environmental windows to protect 

certain species, as described above. 

EPA and the USACE have managed 

and monitored dredged material 

disposal activities at the CSDS and the 

historically used portion of the ELDS 

since the early 1980s. Site monitoring 

has been conducted under the USACE’s 

DAMOS disposal site monitoring 

program. In accordance with the 

requirements of MPRSA section 102(c) 

and 40 CFR 228.3, EPA and the USACE 

have developed a draft SMMP for the 

ELDS, and are prepared to do so for the 

NBDS and/or CSDS if a decision is 

made to propose either for designation. 

The draft SMMP is incorporated in the 

DSEIS as Appendix I and is available for 

review and comment. The SMMP 

describes in detail the specific 

management and monitoring 

requirements for the ELDS. With respect 

to site monitoring, the SMMP builds on 

the USACE’s DAMOS monitoring 

program, which will continue to 

provide the backbone of the site 

monitoring effort. 

B. National Environmental Policy Act 

The NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., 

requires the public analysis of the 

potential environmental effects of 

proposed federal agency actions and 

reasonable alternative courses of action 

to ensure that these effects, and the 

differences in effects among the 

different alternatives, are understood. 

The goal of this analysis is to ensure 

high quality, informed decision-making, 

to facilitate avoiding or minimizing any 

adverse effects of proposed actions, and 

to help restore and enhance 

environmental quality. See 40 CFR 

6.100(a) and 1500.1(c) and 1500.2(d)–(f). 

NEPA requires public involvement 

throughout the decision-making 

process. See 40 CFR 6.400(a) and 40 

CFR 1503 and 1501.7, 1506.6. 

Section 102(c) of NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 

4321 et seq., requires federal agencies to 

prepare an EIS for major federal actions 

significantly affecting the quality of the 

human environment. An EIS should 

assess: (1) The environmental impact of 

the proposed action; (2) any adverse 

environmental effects that cannot be 

avoided should the proposal be 

implemented; (3) alternatives to the 

proposed action; (4) the relationship 

between local short-term uses of the 

environment and the maintenance and 

enhancement of long-term productivity; 

and (5) any irreversible and irretrievable 

commitments of resources that would be 

involved in the proposed action should 

it be implemented. The required content 

of an EIS is further described in 

regulations promulgated by the 

President’s Council on Environmental 

Quality (CEQ). See 40 CFR 1502. 

EPA disposal site designation 

evaluations conducted under the 

MPRSA have been determined to be 

‘‘functionally equivalent’’ to NEPA 

reviews, so that they are not subject to 

NEPA analysis requirements as a matter 

of law. Nevertheless, as a matter of 

policy, EPA voluntarily uses NEPA 

procedures when evaluating the 

potential designation of ocean dumping 

sites. See 63 FR 58045 (Notice of Policy 

and Procedures for Voluntary 

Preparation of National Environmental 

Policy Act Documents, October 29, 

1998). While EPA voluntarily uses 

NEPA review procedures in conducting 

MPRSA disposal site designation 

evaluations, EPA also has explained that 

‘‘[t]he voluntary preparation of these 

documents in no way legally subjects 

the Agency to NEPA’s requirements’’ 

(63 FR 58046). 

In this case, EPA has prepared a Draft 

Supplemental EIS (DSEIS) to evaluate 

the possibility of designating one or 

more open-water disposal sites to serve 

the eastern Long Island Sound region. 

As previously noted, the DSEIS is 

considered supplemental because it 

updates and builds on the analyses that 

were conducted for the 2005 Long 

Island Sound Environmental Impact 

Statement that supported the 

designation of the Central and Western 

Long Island Sound disposal sites. As 

part of the NEPA process, federal 

agencies prepare a public record of 

decision (ROD) at the time of their final 

decision on any action for which an 

FEIS has been prepared. If EPA decides 

to proceed with this proposed action 

after full consideration of public 

comments, the Agency will publish a 

final rule (in conjunction with the FEIS) 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 27, 2016 / Proposed Rules 24761 

that will serve as the ROD for the site 

designation. See 40 CFR 1505.2 and 

1506.4 (the ROD may be integrated into 

any other agency document prepared in 

carrying out its action). In addition, EPA 

will also publish a Responses to 

Comments document in conjunction 

with publication of a FSEIS and final 

rule. The Responses to Comments will 

identify and respond to comments 

received on the DSEIS and proposed 

rule. EPA’s use of NEPA procedures to 

evaluate this proposed action is further 

described below. 

Consistent with its voluntary NEPA 

policy, as described and referenced 

above, EPA has followed the NEPA 

process and undertaken NEPA analyses 

as part of its decision-making process 

for the disposal site designations. EPA 

published a Notice of Intent to prepare 

an EIS, held public meetings regarding 

the scope of issues to be addressed by 

the SEIS, and has now published a 

DSEIS for public review and comment. 

The DSEIS, entitled, ‘‘Draft 

Supplemental Environmental Impact 

Statement for the Designation of 

Dredged Material Disposal Site(s) in 

Eastern Long Island Sound, Connecticut 

and New York,’’ assesses and compares 

the effects, including the environmental 

effects, of designating dredged material 

disposal sites in eastern Long Island 

Sound, and of various alternative 

approaches to managing dredging needs, 

including the ‘‘no action’’ alternative 

(i.e., the alternative of not designating 

any open-water disposal sites). See 40 

CFR 1502.14. 

1. Third-Party Contracting 

EPA is the agency authorized by the 

MPRSA to designate dredged material 

disposal sites and is responsible for the 

DSEIS. However, EPA does not receive 

appropriations to support disposal site 

designation studies, so the state of 

Connecticut provided funding to hire 

contractors to carry out the studies, 

support the public participation 

program, and help to produce the 

DSEIS, all with participation and close 

supervision by EPA. CEQ regulations 

state that an EIS can be prepared by a 

contractor under contract to and paid 

directly by the applicant (i.e., a ‘‘thirdparty contract’’). 40 CFR 1506.5(c); Forty 

Most Asked Questions Concerning 

CEQ’s National Environmental Policy 

Act Regulations, 46 FR 18026, 18031 

(1981). The contractor answers to the 

federal agency preparing the EIS (in this 

case, the EPA), not the applicant, for 

preparing an EIS that meets the 

requirements of the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). 40 

CFR 1506.5(c). 

Because EPA is ultimately responsible 

for the SEIS, the Agency worked closely 

with the state of Connecticut to select 

the contractors and then maintained 

close involvement with production of 

the SEIS and control over its analyses 

and conclusions. The state of 

Connecticut is not an ‘‘applicant’’ 

because it is not applying directly for 

the disposal site designation. 

Nevertheless, because Connecticut has 

expressed past support for designating 

one or more dredged material disposal 

sites in the eastern region of Long Island 

Sound, EPA followed the third-party 

contracting method described in 40 CFR 

1506.5 to ensure the impartiality of the 

EIS. 

Under the third-party contracting 

method, EPA must be involved in the 

selection of the contractor, furnish 

guidance and participate in the 

preparation of the EIS, and 

independently evaluate the EIS prior to 

approval. See 40 CFR 1506.5(c). The 

third-party contracting process used by 

EPA requires the third party (or parties) 

to pay for the contractor’s services while 

EPA retains control of and supervisory 

authority over the analysis. See 66 FR 

15527, 15531 (2001). While EPA retains 

final control over the selection of the 

contractor, applicants are allowed some 

input. Id. Once a contractor is selected, 

EPA and the applicant enter into a 

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) 

outlining a general timeframe for the 

completion of the EIS and defining the 

scope of the EIS. Id. If EPA determines 

more information is needed, the MOU 

may be amended or EPA can complete 

the analysis itself. Id. The applicant and 

the contractor also enter into an 

agreement. Id. Additionally, the 

contractor must sign a disclosure 

statement for EPA declaring that it has 

no financial or other interest in the 

outcome of the project. Id.; 46 FR at 

18031; 40 CFR 6.604(g)(3)(ii). 

The Connecticut Department of 

Transportation (CT DOT) was the lead 

agency for the state with regard to 

preparation of the DSEIS, with technical 

assistance provided by the CT DEEP. CT 

DOT, with extensive input from EPA 

and CT DEEP, selected as its primary 

contractor the University of 

Connecticut, in large part due to its 

expertise in physical oceanography. The 

university selected as its subcontractor 

the Louis Berger Group (LBG). EPA 

worked in close partnership with CT 

DOT to ensure both that all project 

components carried out through thirdparty contracting would meet federal 

statutory and regulatory requirements, 

and that CT DOT’s contractors were 

qualified to support public participation 

and other necessary processes under 

NEPA and the MPRSA, including 

scoping and site screening. 

The U.S. Navy also contributed to the 

site designation process by funding 

biological and other environmental 

studies in support of the DSEIS. The 

Navy, with extensive input from EPA 

and CT DEEP, used its contractor Tetra 

Tech due to its expertise in biological 

resources studies and risk assessment. 

2. Cooperating Agencies 

The USACE was a ‘‘cooperating 

agency’’ in the development of the 

DSEIS because of its knowledge 

concerning the region’s dredging needs, 

its technical expertise in monitoring 

dredged material disposal sites and 

assessing the environmental effects of 

dredging and dredged material disposal, 

its history in the regulation of dredged 

material disposal in Long Island Sound 

and elsewhere, and its ongoing legal 

role in regulating dredging, dredged 

material disposal and the management 

and monitoring of disposal sites. Other 

cooperating agencies were NMFS, CT 

DEEP, CT DOT, New York Department 

of State (NY DOS), New York 

Department of Environmental 

Conservation (NY DEC), and Rhode 

Island Coastal Resources Management 

Council (RI CRMC). To take advantage 

of expertise held by other entities, and 

to promote strong inter-agency 

communications, EPA also coordinated 

with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 

the Mashantucket (Western) Pequot 

Tribal Nation, Mohegan Tribe, Eastern 

Pequot Tribal Nation, and Paucatuck 

Eastern Pequot Indians (in Connecticut); 

the Narragansett Indian Tribe (in Rhode 

Island); the Shinnecock Indian Nation 

(in New York), and, as previously 

discussed, the CT SHPO and NY 

OPRHP. 

Throughout the SEIS development 

process, EPA communicated with the 

cooperating federal and state agencies 

and tribes to keep them apprised of 

progress on the project and to solicit 

input. EPA conducted approximately 

ten interagency meetings and 

teleconferences between October 2012 

and January 2016 to review progress and 

get feedback, and EPA was in regular 

contact with representatives of these 

agencies throughout the SEIS process. 

3. Public Participation 

Consistent with the public 

participation provisions of the NEPA 

regulations, EPA conducted an 

extensive public participation program 

throughout the development of the 

DSEIS as described in detail in Chapter 

7 and Appendix A of the DSEIS. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
24762 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 27, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

4. Zone of Siting Feasibility 

As one of the first steps in the SEIS 

process, EPA, in cooperation with other 

federal and state agencies delineated a 

‘‘Zone of Siting Feasibility’’ (ZSF). The 

ZSF is the geographic area from which 

reasonable and practicable open-water 

dredged material disposal site 

alternatives should be selected for 

evaluation. EPA’s 1986 site designation 

guidance manual describes the factors 

that should be considered in delineating 

the ZSF and recommends locating openwater disposal sites within an 

economically and operationally feasible 

radius from areas where dredging 

occurs. Other factors to be considered 

include navigational restrictions, 

political or other jurisdictional 

boundaries, the distance to the edge of 

the continental shelf, the feasibility of 

surveillance and monitoring, and 

operation and transportation costs. In 

2012, consistent with the guidance and 

in cooperation with the other agencies, 

EPA established the ZSF to include the 

eastern region of Long Island Sound, 

with a western boundary consisting of a 

line from Mulberry Point in Guilford, 

CT, to Mattituck Point in Mattituck, NY, 

a southern boundary from Montauk 

Point to the southern tip of Block Island, 

and an eastern boundary from the 

northern tip of Block Island due north 

to the Rhode Island shoreline. 

5. Draft Supplemental Environmental 

Impact Statement 

The DSEIS evaluates whether—and if 

so, which—open-water dredged material 

disposal sites should be designated in 

the eastern region of Long Island Sound. 

The DSEIS describes the purpose and 

need for any such designations, 

evaluates several alternatives to this 

action, including the option of ‘‘no 

action’’ (i.e., no designation). From this 

evaluation, EPA concludes that 

designation of the ELDS under the 

MPRSA is the preferred alternative. 

The purpose of this designation is to 

provide a long-term, open-water 

dredged material disposal site as a 

potential option for the future disposal 

of such material. The action is necessary 

because periodic dredging and dredged 

material disposal is unavoidably 

necessary to maintain safe navigation 

and marine commerce in Long Island 

Sound. As previously noted, dredging in 

eastern Long Island Sound is projected 

to generate approximately 22.6 million 

cubic yards (mcy) of dredged material 

over the next 30 years, including 17.9 

mcy from Connecticut ports and harbors 

and 4.7 mcy from ports and harbors in 

New York. Of the total amount of 22.6 

mcy, approximately 13.5 mcy are 

projected to be suitable, fine-grained 

sediment, and 9.1 mcy are projected to 

be suitable, coarse-grained sand. In 

addition, the DMMP estimates that 

approximately 80,900 cy of material 

from eastern Long Island Sound will be 

fine-grained sediment that does not 

meet MPRSA and CWA standards for 

aquatic disposal (i.e., ‘‘unsuitable’’ 

material). 

With the USACE’s DMMP as its 

primary source, EPA evaluated potential 

alternatives to open-water disposal in 

Long Island Sound but determined that 

they are not sufficient to meet the 

regional dredging needs. In accordance 

with EPA regulations, use of alternatives 

to open-water disposal will be required 

for dredged material management when 

they provide a practicable, 

environmentally preferable option for 

the dredged material from any particular 

disposal project. See 40 CFR 227.16. 

When no such practicable alternatives 

exist, however, EPA’s designation of the 

ELDS will provide an open-water 

disposal site as a potential management 

option for dredged material regulated 

under the MPRSA that has been tested 

and determined to be environmentally 

suitable for open-water disposal. 

Sediments found to be unsuitable for 

open-water disposal will not be 

authorized for placement at a disposal 

site designated by EPA under the 

MPRSA and will have to be managed in 

other ways. 

EPA’s initial screening of alternatives, 

which involved input from other federal 

and state agencies, local governments, 

academic institutions, and the public, 

led to the determination that the openwater disposal sites were the most 

environmentally sound, cost-effective, 

and operationally feasible options for 

the full quantity of dredged material 

expected to be found suitable for openwater disposal over the 30-year 

planning horizon. Regardless of this 

conclusion, in practice, each individual 

dredging project will be analyzed on a 

case-specific basis and open-water 

disposal of dredged material at a 

designated site would only be 

authorized when there is a need for 

such disposal (i.e., there are no 

practicable, environmentally preferable 

alternatives). See 40 CFR 227.2(a)(1), 

227.16(b). EPA analyzed alternatives for 

the management of dredged material 

from navigation channels and harbors in 

eastern Long Island Sound. This 

analysis was informed by the DMMP 

and evaluated several different potential 

alternatives, including open-water 

disposal sites, upland disposal, 

beneficial uses, sediment treatment, and 

the no-action alternative. From this 

analysis, EPA determined that at least 

one open-water disposal site, such as 

the ELDS, was necessary to provide 

sufficient capacity to meet long-term 

dredged material disposal needs in the 

eastern Long Island Sound region, in the 

event that practicable alternatives to 

open-water disposal are not available for 

all the material. Again, EPA’s analysis 

also acknowledged that options for 

dredged material management other 

than open-water disposal might be 

identified and required for specific 

dredged material disposal projects in 

the future. 

EPA also evaluated several openwater disposal site alternatives other 

than the ELDS, NBDS, and CSDS. This 

evaluation considered multiple factors, 

such as reasonable distances to 

transport dredged material, the potential 

for adverse effects on important natural 

resources, and other measures that 

might indicate incompatibility for use as 

a disposal site. Specific factors 

evaluated included: The sensitivity and 

value of natural resources; 

geographically limited habitats; fisheries 

and shellfisheries; shipping and 

navigation lanes; physical and 

environmental parameters; and 

economic and operational feasibility. 

The analysis was carried out in a tiered 

process in which some options were 

‘‘screened out’’ at an earlier stage based 

on certain factors, while other options 

were retained for further evaluation. 

The final tier involved a detailed 

analysis of the no-action alternative and 

the following three open-water 

alternative sites: ELDS, NBDS, and 

CSDS. Based on this analysis, 

designating the ELDS as an open-water 

dredged material disposal site was 

identified as the preferred alternative, 

but we are soliciting public comments 

on the other two alternative sites (NBDS 

and CSDS). A management and 

monitoring strategy was developed for 

the ELDS and is set forth in the SMMP 

for the site. 

C. Coastal Zone Management Act 

The CZMA, 16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq., 

authorizes states to establish coastal 

zone management programs to develop 

and enforce policies to protect their 

coastal resources and promote uses of 

those resources that are desired by the 

state. These coastal zone management 

programs must be approved by the 

Department of Commerce’s National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA), which is 

responsible for administering the 

CZMA. Sections 307(c)(1)(A) and (C) of 

the CZMA require federal agencies to 

provide relevant states with a 

determination that each federal agency 

activity, whether taking place within or 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 27, 2016 / Proposed Rules 24763 

outside the coastal zone, that affects any 

land or water use or natural resource of 

the state’s coastal zone, will be carried 

out in a manner consistent to the 

maximum extent practicable with the 

enforceable policies of the state’s 

approved coastal zone management 

program. EPA’s compliance with the 

CZMA is described below. 

Based on the evaluations presented in 

the DSEIS and supporting documents, 

and a review of the federally approved 

Connecticut and New York coastal zone 

programs and policies, EPA has 

determined that designation of the 

ELDS, and/or the NBDS and CSDS for 

open-water dredged material disposal 

under the MPRSA would be consistent 

to the maximum extent practicable with 

the enforceable policies of the coastal 

zone management programs of 

Connecticut, New York, and Rhode 

Island. EPA will provide a written 

determination to that effect to each of 

the three states within the statutory and 

regulatory mandated timeframes. 

In EPA’s view, there are several broad 

reasons why the proposed designation 

of the ELDS would be consistent with 

the applicable, enforceable policies of 

both states’ coastal zone programs. First, 

the designation is not expected to cause 

any significant adverse impacts to the 

marine environment, coastal resources, 

or uses of the coastal zone. Indeed, EPA 

expects the designation to benefit uses 

involving navigation and berthing of 

vessels by facilitating needed dredging, 

and to benefit the environment by 

concentrating any open-water dredged 

material disposal at a small number of 

environmentally appropriate sites 

designated by EPA and subject to the 

previously described SMMP, rather than 

at a potential proliferation of USACEselected sites. Second, designation of 

the sites does not actually authorize the 

disposal of any dredged material at the 

sites, since any proposal to dispose 

dredged material from a particular 

project at a designated site will be 

subject to case-specific evaluation and 

be allowed only if: (a) The material 

satisfies the sediment quality 

requirements of the MPRSA and the 

CWA; (b) no practicable alternative 

method of management with less 

adverse environmental impact can be 

identified; and (c) the disposal complies 

with the site restrictions for the site. 

(EPA is proposing a number of 

restrictions on the potential use of the 

ELDS in today’s Proposed Rule. See 

Proposed 40 CFR 228.15(b)(6)). These 

restrictions are described and discussed 

in the next section of the preamble. 

Third, the designated disposal site(s) 

will be managed and monitored 

pursuant to a SMMP and if adverse 

impacts are identified, use of the sites 

will be modified to reduce or eliminate 

those impacts. Such modification could 

further restrict, or even terminate, use of 

the sites, if appropriate. See 40 CFR 

228.3, 228.11. 

On December 22, 2015, as suggested 

by NOAA guidance on federal 

consistency determinations, EPA sent 

letters to NY DOS and CT DEEP (1) 

identifying EPA’s effort to prepare a 

DSEIS to assess whether to propose 

designation of one or more dredged 

material disposal sites in the eastern 

portion of Long Island Sound, and (2) 

requesting information from each state 

concerning their respective coastal zone 

management programs to assist EPA 

with its federal consistency 

determination. On March 11, 2016, EPA 

sent a similar letter to the State of Rhode 

Island Coastal Resources Management 

Council. All three states responded in 

writing to EPA’s letters and provided 

the most current information on their 

respective coastal management 

programs. 

D. Endangered Species Act 

Under section 7(a)(2) of the ESA, 16 

U.S.C. 1536(a)(2), federal agencies are 

required to ensure that their actions are 

‘‘not likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of any endangered species or 

result in the destruction or adverse 

modification of habitat of such species, 

which is determined * * * to be critical 

* * * .’’ Depending on the species 

involved, a federal agency is required to 

consult with the NMFS and/or USFWS 

if the agency’s action ‘‘may affect’’ an 

endangered or threatened species or its 

critical habitat (50 CFR 402.14(a)). Thus, 

the ESA requires consultation with 

NMFS and/or USFWS to adequately 

address potential impacts to threatened 

and endangered species that may occur 

at the proposed dredged material 

disposal alternative sites from any 

proposal to dispose dredged material. 

To comply with the ESA, EPA has 

coordinated with NMFS and USFWS 

and will request consultation 

concurrent with the release of the draft 

SEIS. EPA has determined that the 

designation of a disposal site will not 

result in adverse impacts to threatened 

or endangered species, species of 

concern, marine protected areas, or 

essential fish habitat. In addition, the 

USACE would coordinate with the 

NMFS and USFWS for individual 

permitted projects to further ensure that 

impacts would not adversely impact any 

threatened or endangered species. 

E. Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act 

The 1996 Sustainable Fisheries Act 

amendments to the MSFCMA, 16 U.S.C. 

1801 et seq., require the designation of 

essential fish habitat (EFH) for federally 

managed species of fish and shellfish. 

The goal of the these amendments is to 

ensure that EFH is not adversely 

impacted by fishing or other human 

activities, including dredged material 

disposal, and to further the 

enhancement of these habitats, thereby 

protecting both ecosystem health and 

the fisheries industries. Pursuant to 

section 305(b)(2) of the MSFCMA, 

federal agencies are required to consult 

with NMFS regarding any action they 

authorize, fund, or undertake that may 

adversely affect EFH. An adverse effect 

has been defined by the Act as, ‘‘[a]ny 

impact which reduces the quality and/ 

or quantity of EFH [and] may include 

direct (e.g., contamination or physical 

disruption), indirect (e.g., loss of prey, 

reduction in species’ fecundity), sitespecific or habitat-wide impacts, 

including individual, cumulative, or 

synergistic consequences of actions’’ (50 

CFR 600.810(a)). 

EPA is coordinating with NMFS to 

ensure compliance with the EFH 

provisions of the MSFCMA and has 

prepared an essential fish habitat 

assessment in compliance with the Act. 

EPA will incorporate any conservation 

recommendations from NMFS or 

explain why it has not done so in its 

final action. 

VI. Restrictions 

EPA proposes to restrict use of the 

ELDS in the same manner that it has 

restricted use of the CLDS and WLDS. 

The existing site use restrictions for the 

CLDS are detailed in 40 CFR 

228.15(b)(4)(vi) and are incorporated for 

the WLDS by the cross-references in 40 

CFR 228.15(b)(4)(vi) and 

228.15(b)(5)(vi). Similarly, EPA is 

proposing to apply to the ELDS the 

same restrictions as are applied to the 

CLDS and WLDS by including simple 

cross-references to those restrictions in 

the new proposed regulations at 40 CFR 

228.15(b)(4) and 228.15(b)(6)(vi). 

While EPA is planning for the 

restrictions applicable to the CLDS and 

WLDS to also be applied to the ELDS, 

it also should be understood that EPA 

is currently proposing amendments to 

the CLDS/WLDS restrictions. 

Specifically, on February 10, 2016, EPA 

published in the Federal Register (81 

FR 7055) a proposed rule to amend the 

restrictions on the CLDS and WLDS. 

EPA is currently considering public 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
24764 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 27, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

comments received on the proposed 

regulatory amendments. 

EPA has proposed amendments to the 

CLDS/WLDS restrictions in order to 

incorporate new standards and 

procedures for the use of those sites 

consistent with the recommendations of 

the Long Island Sound DMMP 

completed by the USACE on January 11, 

2016. The DMMP identifies a wide 

range of alternatives to open-water 

disposal and recommends standards 

and procedures to help determine 

whether and which of these alternatives 

should be pursued for particular 

dredging projects. The goal of EPA’s 

proposed regulatory amendments based 

on these standards and procedures is to 

reduce or eliminate the open-water 

disposal of dredged material in Long 

Island Sound wherever practicable. 

The DMMP addresses dredging and 

dredged material management issues for 

all of Long Island Sound, including the 

eastern portion of the Sound. Therefore, 

EPA concludes that it makes sense to 

apply site use restrictions based on the 

DMMP to the ELDS as well as to the 

CLDS and WLDS. Again, it is intended 

that these restrictions will help to 

reduce or eliminate dredged material 

disposal in the Eastern portion of Long 

Island Sound as well as in the Central 

and Western portions. That said, no 

final decisions have been made about 

final restrictions for the ELDS and such 

final decisions will only be made after 

EPA considers public comments 

received on this proposed rule and other 

relevant information. 

In order to understand the nature of 

the site use restrictions that EPA is 

considering for the ELDS, reviewers of 

this proposed rule for the ELDS should 

review the site use restrictions in 40 

CFR 228.15(b)(4)(vi), as cross-referenced 

in proposed 40 CFR 228.15(b)(6)(vi). 

Reviewers can also review the 

regulatory amendments that EPA has 

proposed for 40 CFR 228.15(b)(4)(vi). 

See 81 FR 7055. EPA is currently 

considering public comments submitted 

on these proposed amendments and, as 

explained above, EPA expects that the 

amendments, including any changes 

made to them based on public 

comments, will ultimately be applied to 

the ELDS, as well as to the CLDS and 

WLDS. This expectation is, however, 

subject to EPA considering the final 

amendments to the restrictions for the 

CLDS and WLDS, public comments 

received on this proposed rule for the 

ELDS, and other relevant information. 

The proposed restrictions on site use are 

summarized below. 

A. Standards 

The proposed restrictions provide that 

disposal at the site shall be allowed only 

if there is no practicable alternative to 

open-water disposal and that any 

practicable alternative will be fully 

utilized for the maximum volume of 

dredged material practicable. EPA 

recognizes that an alternative to openwater disposal may add additional 

costs. The decision regarding whether 

there is a ‘‘practicable alternative’’ will 

continue to be made on a case-by-case 

basis, in connection with the permitting 

process. The term ‘‘practicable 

alternative’’ is defined in 40 CFR 

227.16(b) of the EPA’s ocean disposal 

regulations as an alternative which is 

‘‘available at reasonable incremental 

cost and energy expenditures, [and] 

which need not be competitive with the 

costs of ocean dumping, taking into 

account the environmental benefits 

derived from such activity, including 

the relative adverse environmental 

impacts associated with the use of 

alternatives to ocean dumping.’’ 

The following standards for the 

disposal of dredged material, by type of 

material, are derived from the DMMP. 

These proposed restrictions do not make 

decisions about the suitability of any 

particular dredged material for openwater disposal or any other type of 

management. Each dredging project will 

have to go through project-specific 

permitting evaluations. 

1. Unsuitable Material 

‘‘Unsuitable fine-grained materials’’ 

are those determined by physical, 

chemical and biological testing to be 

unsuitable for unconfined open-water 

placement. Accordingly, EPA’s 

proposed rule specifies that unsuitable 

fine-grained materials shall not be 

disposed of at the designated sites. 

2. Sandy Material 

‘‘Sandy material’’ in Long Island 

Sound is coarse-grained material of 

generally up to 20 percent fines when 

used for direct beach placement, or up 

to 40 percent fines when used for 

nearshore bar/berm nourishment. Clean 

sandy material should be used for beach 

or nearshore bar/berm nourishment 

whenever practicable. Sandy material 

has a high value as nourishment or in 

other coastal resiliency applications, 

and recent experience is that state and 

local governments, as well as property 

owner groups, are willing to fund the 

additional cost for such material even 

where there is no other federal project 

authority to assist in that cost. As long 

as beach or nearshore placement is a 

practicable alternative, project 

proponents will need to identify and 

secure funding for any needed nonfederal cost-sharing. Accordingly, the 

proposed restriction specifies that 

coarse-grained material should be used 

for beach or nearshore bar/berm 

nourishment, or other beneficial use 

whenever practicable. 

3. Suitable Fine-Grained Material 

‘‘Suitable fine-grained material’’ in 

Long Island Sound is typically clay and 

silty material of more than 20 to 40 

percent fines that is not suitable for 

beach or nearshore placement, yet is 

determined through testing and analysis 

to be suitable for open-water placement. 

Although the most likely cost-effective 

and environmentally acceptable method 

of placement of this material is at openwater disposal sites, EPA proposes that 

every proposed project will continue to 

have to exhaust the possibility for a 

practicable alternative to open-water 

disposal. More specifically, for materials 

dredged from upper river channels in 

the Connecticut, Housatonic and 

Thames Rivers, whenever practicable, 

the one existing Confined Open Water 

site, and on-shore or in-river placement, 

should be used for such projects. 

The proposed restrictions specify that 

beneficial uses such as marsh creation, 

should be examined and used whenever 

practicable. If no other alternative is 

determined to be practicable, suitable 

fine-grained material may be placed at 

the designated site. 

4. Source Reduction 

Efforts to control sediment entering 

waterways can reduce the need for 

maintenance dredging of harbor features 

and facilities by reducing shoaling rates. 

Reducing sediment loads could help 

reduce the volumes dredged in each 

maintenance operation as well as reduce 

the frequency of maintenance. In 

addition, efforts to prevent introduction 

of contaminants into the watershed (e.g., 

multi-sector and municipal stormwater 

permits, measures to control nonpoint 

agricultural runoff) can result in 

reduced contaminant levels in 

sediments that can increase the range of 

options available to beneficially use 

those sediments. Continued source 

reduction efforts for both sediment and 

contaminants will assist in further 

reducing the need for open-water 

placement of dredged material in Long 

Island Sound. The EPA expects that 

federal, state and local agencies tasked 

with regulating those discharges into the 

watersheds tributary to Long Island 

Sound will exercise their authority 

under various statues and regulations in 

a continuing effort to reduce the flow of 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 27, 2016 / Proposed Rules 24765 

sediments and contaminants into state 

waterways and harbors. 

B. Procedures 

The Long Island Sound Regional 

Dredging Team (RDT) was formed to 

identify practicable alternatives to openwater disposal and recommend their use 

for projects proposed while the USACE 

was preparing the DMMP. EPA proposes 

to include restrictions that redefine the 

role of the RDT to ensure that the 

Standards described above are utilized 

in evaluating proposed dredging 

projects in Long Island Sound. EPA 

proposes restrictions that make explicit 

the RDT’s purpose, geographic scope, 

membership, structure and general 

process as described below. 

1. Purpose of the Long Island Sound 

Regional Dredging Team (LIS RDT) 

The primary purpose of the LIS RDT 

is to reduce or eliminate wherever 

practicable the open-water disposal of 

dredged material in Long Island Sound. 

The LIS RDT will accomplish this by 

reviewing all proposed dredging 

projects subject to MPRSA (namely all 

federal projects and non-federal projects 

that generate greater than 25,000 cubic 

yards) to assess whether there are 

practicable alternatives to open-water 

disposal, by recommending that any 

available alternative(s) to open-water 

disposal be utilized for the maximum 

volume of dredged material practicable, 

and to provide documented findings 

and recommendations to USACE on 

these points so that the USACE and the 

EPA can consider the LIS RDT’s 

recommendations. The LIS RDT should 

review the alternatives analysis for all 

projects submitted to help ensure that 

available alternatives as described in the 

DMMP for each harbor and dredging 

center have been thoroughly evaluated 

and are implemented where practicable. 

While the LIS RDT will conduct project 

reviews and make submissions and 

recommendations to the USACE, the LIS 

RDT will not supplant the regulatory 

obligations or authorities of participant 

agencies under the MPRSA, CWA, 

CZMA or other applicable laws. 

Other purposes of the LIS RDT 

include: Serving as a forum for 

continuing exploration of new 

beneficial use alternatives to open-water 

disposal; promoting the use of such 

alternatives; and suggesting approaches 

for cost-sharing opportunities. For 

example, the LIS RDT could further 

investigate and develop opportunities 

for approving and funding long-term 

regional Confined Disposal Facilities 

which could accommodate suitable and 

unsuitable dredged material and 

provide environmental and social 

benefits such as parkland and habitat 

once filled and closed. 

The LIS RDT and its member agencies 

should also assist USACE and EPA in 

continuing a number of long term 

activities to continue the 

environmentally sound implementation 

of dredging and dredged material 

management in Long Island Sound. 

These activities include supporting 

USACE’s dredged material tracking 

system, supporting USACE’s DAMOS 

(Disposal Area Monitoring System) 

program and related efforts to study the 

long-term impacts of open-water 

placement, and promoting opportunities 

for beneficial use of clean, parent 

marine sediments often generated in the 

development of CAD cells. 

2. Geographic Scope 

The geographic range of the LIS RDT 

will include all of Long Island Sound 

and adjacent waters landward of the 

seaward edge of the territorial sea (three 

mile limit) or, in other words, from 

Throgs Neck to a line three miles east 

of the baseline across western Block 

Island Sound. These boundaries would 

encompass all harbors and areas 

included in the DMMP except Block 

Island. The WLDS, CLDS, and ELDS 

would all be within the RDT’s purview. 

3. Membership 

The LIS RDT should include 

representatives from affected federal 

and state government organizations. 

EPA anticipates that federal 

participation would include EPA 

Regions 1 & 2; the New England and 

New York Districts and the North 

Atlantic Division of the USACE and the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration. EPA encourages the 

participation of the U.S. Navy, the U.S. 

Coast Guard and the U.S. Fish & 

Wildlife Service. EPA expects that the 

states of Connecticut, New York and 

Rhode Island would be participants 

through their environmental agencies, 

coastal zone management programs and 

relevant port authorities. EPA requests 

that, to the extent possible, member 

organizations will provide sufficient 

funding to enable their active 

participation in the LIS RDT. 

4. Structure and Process 

EPA proposes that the specific details 

for structure (e.g., chair, committees, 

working groups) and process (e.g., how 

projects come before the LIS RDT, 

coordination with other entities) be left 

for the LIS RDT to determine and 

allowed to evolve as best accomplishes 

the team’s purpose. 

The LIS RDT is encouraged to 

establish and maintain cooperative 

working relationships with other Long 

Island Sound-based organizations (e.g., 

the Long Island Sound Study’s Science 

and Technical Advisory Committee, 

non-governmental organizations, 

relevant university-based programs) so 

that relevant scientific, program and 

policy information is effectively shared 

and resources are leveraged to the 

maximum extent. 

VII. Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing this rule to 

designate the ELDS for the purpose of 

providing an environmentally sound, 

open-water disposal option for possible 

use in managing dredged material from 

harbors and navigation channels in 

eastern Long Island Sound and its 

vicinity in the states of Connecticut, 

New York, and Rhode Island. Without 

this dredged material disposal site 

designation, there will be no open-water 

disposal site available in the eastern 

region of Long Island Sound after 

December 23, 2016. In developing the 

DMMP, described previously in several 

sections, the USACE conducted a 

‘‘dredging needs’’ assessment that 

estimated that a total volume of 22.6 

mcy of dredged material that from the 

eastern region of Long Island Sound 

over the 30-year planning horizon. 

The site designation process has been 

conducted consistent with the 

requirements of the MPRSA, CWA, 

NEPA, CZMA, and other applicable 

federal and state statutes and 

regulations. The basis for this federal 

action is further described in a DSEIS 

that identifies EPA designation of the 

ELDS as the preferred alternative. The 

DSEIS also is being released for public 

comment in conjunction with the 

publication of this proposed rule. Upon 

completion of the public comment 

period and EPA’s consideration of all 

comments received, EPA will publish a 

final Supplemental Environmental 

Impact Statement (FSEIS) specifying a 

preferred alternative, and a final rule 

that will serve as EPA’s Record of 

Decision (ROD) in the NEPA process. 

The ELDS is subject to management 

and monitoring protocols to prevent the 

occurrence of unacceptable adverse 

environmental impacts. These protocols 

are spelled out in a SMMP for the site. 

The SMMP is included as Appendix I to 

the DSEIS. Under 40 CFR 228.3(b), the 

Regional Administrator of EPA Region 1 

is responsible for the overall 

management of this site. As previously 

explained, the designation of these 

disposal sites does not constitute or 

imply EPA’s approval of open-water 

disposal at either site of dredged 

material from any specific project. 

Disposal of dredged material will not be 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
24766 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 27, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

allowed at the ELDS until the proposed 

disposal operation first receives proper 

authorization from the USACE under 

MPRSA section 103. In addition, any 

such authorization by the Corps is 

subject to EPA review under MPRSA 

section 103(c), and EPA may condition 

or ‘‘veto’’ the authorization as a result of 

such review in accordance with MPRSA 

section 103(c). In order to properly 

obtain authorization to dispose of 

dredged material at the ELDS disposal 

site under the MPRSA, the dredged 

material proposed for disposal must first 

satisfy the applicable criteria for testing 

and evaluating dredged material 

specified in EPA regulations at 40 CFR 

part 227, and it must be determined in 

accordance with EPA regulations at 40 

CFR part 227, subpart C, that there is a 

need for open-water disposal (i.e., that 

there is no practicable dredged material 

management alternative to open-water 

disposal with less adverse 

environmental impact). In addition, any 

proposal to dispose of dredged material 

under the MPRSA at the designated site 

will need to satisfy all the site 

Restrictions included in the final rule as 

part of the site designations. See 40 CFR 

228.8 and 228.15(b)(6). 

VIII. Supporting Documents 

1. EPA Region 1/USACE NAE. 2005. 

Response to Comments on the Final 

Environmental Impact Statement for the 

Designation of Dredged Material 

Disposal Sites in Central and Western 

Long Island Sound, Connecticut and 

New York. U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 1, Boston, 

MA and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 

New England District, Concord, MA. 

April 2005. 

2. EPA Region 1. 2005. Memorandum 

to the File Responding to the Letter from 

the New York Department of State 

Objecting to EPA’s Federal Consistency 

Determination for the Dredged Material 

Disposal Site Designations. U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 1, Boston, MA. May 2005. 

3. EPA Region 1/USACE NAE. 2004. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

for the Designation of Dredged Material 

Disposal Sites in Central and Western 

Long Island Sound, Connecticut and 

New York. U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 1, Boston, 

MA and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 

New England District, Concord, MA. 

March 2004. 

4. EPA Region 1/USACE NAE. 2004. 

Regional Implementation Manual for the 

Evaluation of Dredged Material 

Proposed for Disposal in New England 

Waters. U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 1, Boston, MA, and U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers, New England 

District, Concord, MA. April 2004. 

5. EPA Region 2/USACE NAN. 1992. 

Guidance for Performing Tests on 

Dredged Material Proposed for Ocean 

Disposal. U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 2, New York, NY and 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New 

York District, New York, NY. Draft 

Release. December 1992. 

6. EPA/USACE. 1991. Evaluation of 

Dredged Material Proposed for Ocean 

Disposal-Testing Manual. U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Washington, DC, and U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers, Washington, DC. EPA– 

503/8–91/001. February 1991. 

7. Long Island Sound Study. 2015. 

Comprehensive Conservation and 

Management Plan for Long Island 

Sound. Long Island Sound Management 

Conference. September 2015. 

8. NY DEC and CT DEP. 2000. A total 

maximum daily load analysis to achieve 

water quality standards for dissolved 

oxygen in Long Island Sound. Prepared 

in conformance with section 303(d) of 

the Clean Water Act and the Long Island 

Sound Study. New York State 

Department of Environmental 

Conservation, Albany, NY and 

Connecticut Department of 

Environmental Protection, Hartford, CT. 

December 2000. 

9. USACE NAE. 2016. Final Long 

Island Sound Dredged Material 

Management Plan and Final 

Programmatic Environmental Impact 

Statement—Connecticut, Rhode Island 

and New York. U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, New England District. 

December 2015. 

IX. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

1. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This action is not a significant 

regulatory action, as defined in the 

Executive Order, and was therefore not 

submitted to the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) for review. 

2. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

This action does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

PRA because it would not require 

persons to obtain, maintain, retain, 

report or publicly disclose information 

to or for a federal agency. 

3. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

This action will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities under the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The 

amended restrictions in this proposed 

rule are only relevant for dredged 

material disposal projects subject to the 

MPRSA. Non-federal projects involving 

25,000 cubic yards or less of material 

are not subject to the MPRSA and, 

instead, are regulated under CWA 

section 404. This action will, therefore, 

have no effect on such projects. ‘‘Small 

entities’’ under the RFA are most likely 

to be involved with smaller projects not 

covered by the MPRSA. Therefore, EPA 

does not believe a substantial number of 

small entities will be affected by today’s 

rule. Furthermore, the proposed 

amendments to the restrictions also will 

not have significant economic impacts 

on a substantial number of small entities 

because they primarily will create 

requirements to be followed by 

regulatory agencies rather than small 

entities, and will create requirements 

(i.e., the standards and procedures) 

intended to help ensure satisfaction of 

the existing regulatory requirement (see 

40 CFR 227.16) that practicable 

alternatives to the ocean dumping of 

dredged material be utilized. 

4. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

This action does not contain any 

unfunded mandate as described in 

UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, and does 

not significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. The action imposes no 

enforceable duty on any state, local or 

tribal governments or the private sector. 

5. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action 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. Through the RDT 

process, however, this action will 

provide a vehicle for facilitating the 

interaction and communication of 

interested federal and state agencies 

concerned with regulating dredged 

material disposal in Long Island Sound. 

6. 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 proposed 

restrictions will not have substantial 

direct effects on Indian tribes, on the 

relationship between the federal 

government and Indian Tribes, or the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the federal 

government and Indian Tribes. EPA 

consulted with the potentially affected 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 27, 2016 / Proposed Rules 24767 

Indian tribes in making this 

determination. 

7. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13045 because it is not 

economically significant as defined in 

Executive Order 12866, and because the 

EPA does not believe the environmental 

health or safety risks addressed by this 

action present a disproportionate risk to 

children. 

8. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211, because it is not a 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

9. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) 

This rulemaking does not involve 

technical standards. 

10. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

The EPA believes the human health or 

environmental risk addressed by this 

action will not have a 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority, low-income or indigenous 

populations. 

11. Executive Order 13158: Marine 

Protected Areas 

Executive Order 13158 (65 FR 34909, 

May 31, 2000) requires EPA to 

‘‘expeditiously propose new sciencebased regulations, as necessary, to 

ensure appropriate levels of protection 

for the marine environment.’’ EPA may 

take action to enhance or expand 

protection of existing marine protected 

areas and to establish or recommend, as 

appropriate, new marine protected 

areas. The purpose of the Executive 

Order is to protect the significant 

natural and cultural resources within 

the marine environment, which means, 

’’those areas of coastal and ocean 

waters, the Great Lakes and their 

connecting waters, and submerged lands 

thereunder, over which the United 

States exercises jurisdiction, consistent 

with international law.’’ 

The EPA expects that this proposed 

rule will afford additional protection to 

the waters of Long Island Sound and 

organisms that inhabit them. Building 

on the existing protections of the 

MPRSA and the ocean dumping 

regulations, the proposed regulatory 

amendments are designed to promote 

the reduction of open-water disposal of 

dredged material in Long Island Sound. 

12. Executive Order 13547: Stewardship 

of the Ocean, Our Coasts, and the Great 

Lakes 

Section 6(a)(i) of Executive Order 

13547, (75 FR 43023, July 19, 2010) 

requires, among other things, EPA and 

certain other agencies ‘‘. . . to the 

fullest extent consistent with applicable 

law [to] . . . take such action as 

necessary to implement the policy set 

forth in section 2 of this order and the 

stewardship principles and national 

priority objectives as set forth in the 

Final Recommendations and subsequent 

guidance from the Council.’’ The 

policies in section 2 of Executive Order 

13547 include, among other things, the 

following: ‘‘. . . it is the policy of the 

United States to: (i) protect, maintain, 

and restore the health and biological 

diversity of ocean, coastal, and Great 

Lakes ecosystems and resources; [and] 

(ii) improve the resiliency of ocean, 

coastal, and Great Lakes ecosystems, 

communities, and economies . . ..’’ As 

with Executive Order 13158 (Marine 

Protected Areas), the overall purpose of 

the Executive Order is to promote 

protection of ocean and coastal 

environmental resources. 

The EPA expects that this proposed 

rule will afford additional protection to 

the waters of Long Island Sound and the 

organisms that inhabit them. Building 

on the existing protections of the 

MPRSA and the ocean dumping 

regulations, the proposed regulatory 

amendments are designed to promote 

the reduction or elimination of openwater disposal of dredged material in 

Long Island Sound. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 228 

Environmental protection, Water 

pollution control. 

Dated: April 18, 2016. 

H. Curtis Spalding, 

Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1—New 

England. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, title 40, Chapter I, of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is proposed to be 

amended as set forth below. 

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(b) is amended by 

revising paragraph (b)(4)(vi) 

introductory text and adding paragraph 

(b)(6) to read as follows: 

§ 228.15 Dumping sites designated on a 

final basis. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(4) * * * 

(vi) Restrictions: The designation in 

this paragraph (b)(4) sets forth 

conditions for the use of the Central 

Long Island Sound (CLDS), Western 

Long Island Sound (WLDS) and Eastern 

Long Island Sound (ELDS) Dredged 

Material Disposal Sites. These 

conditions apply to all disposal subject 

to the MPRSA, namely, all federal 

projects and nonfederal projects greater 

than 25,000 cubic yards. All references 

to’’ permittees’’ shall be deemed to 

include the U. S. Army Corps of 

Engineers (USACE) when it is 

authorizing its own dredged material 

disposal from a USACE dredging 

project. The conditions for this 

designation are as follows: 

* * * * * 

(6) Eastern Long Island Sound 

Dredged Material Disposal Site (ELDS). 

(i) Location: Corner Coordinates (NAD 

1983) 41°15.81′ N., 72°04.57′ W.; 

41°16.81′ N., 72°04.57′ W.; 41°16.81′ N., 

72°07.22′ W.; 41°15.81′ N., 72°07.22′ W. 

(ii) Size: A 2 by 1 nautical mile 

rectangular area, a size of 2 square 

nautical miles (nmi2). 

(iii) Depth: Ranges from 45 to 100 feet 

(14m to 30m). 

(iv) Primary use: Dredged material 

disposal. 

(v) Period of use: Continuing use. 

(vi) Restrictions: See 40 CFR 

228.15(b)(4)(vi)(A) through (N). 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2016–09603 Filed 4–26–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 73 

[MB Docket No. 16–93, RM–11764; DA 16– 

404] 

Television Broadcasting Services; 

Tolleson, Arizona 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Commission has before it 

a petition for rulemaking filed by 

America 51, L.P. (America 51), the 

licensee of KPPX–TV, channel 51, 

Tolleson, Arizona, requesting the 

substitution of channel 31 for channel 

51 at Tolleson. While the Commission 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS