19872 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 77 / Friday, April 21, 1995 / Proposed Rules

ADDRESSES: Address all comments to

Patricia E. Neely, Staff Assistant,

Systems Policy Staff, Justice

Management Division, Department of

Justice, Washington, DC 20530 (Room

850, WCTR Building).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Patricia E. Neely (202–616–0178).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the

notice section of today’s Federal

Register, the Department of Justice

provides a description of the

‘‘Telephone Activity Record System’’,

JUSTICE/BOP–011.’’

Pursuant to the requirements of the

Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601–

612, it is hereby stated that the order

will not have a ‘‘significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small

entities.’’

List of Subjects in 28 CFR Part 16

Administrative practices and

procedure, Freedom of Information Act,

Government in the Sunshine Act and

Privacy Act.

Pursuant to the authority vested in the

Attorney General by 5 U.S.C. 552a and

delegated to me by the Attorney General

Order No. 793–78, it is proposed to

amend 28 CFR part 16 as set forth

below.

Dated: April 6, 1995.

Stephen R. Colgate,

Assistant Attorney General for

Administration.

1. The authority for part 16 continues

to read as follows:

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301, 552, 552a, 552b(g)

and 553; 18 U.S.C. 4203(a)(1); 28 U.S.C. 509,

510, 534; 31 U.S.C. 3717 and 9701.

2. It is proposed to amend 28 CFR

16.97 by adding and reserving

paragraph (d) and adding paragraphs (e)

and (f), to read as follows:

§ 16.97 Exemption of Federal Bureau of

Prisons (BOP) Systems—limited access.

* * * * *

(d) [Reserved]

(e) The following system of records is

exempt from 5 U.S.C. 552a (c)(3) and

(4), (d), (e)(2) and (3), (e)(5) and (8), (f)

and (g):

Telephone Activity Record System

(JUSTICE/BOP–011).

(f) These exemptions apply only to

the extent that information in this

system is subject to exemption pursuant

to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2) and/or (k)(2).

Where compliance would not appear to

interfere with or adversely affect the law

enforcement process, and/or where it

may be appropriate to permit

individuals to contest the accuracy of

the information collected, the applicable

exemption may be waived, either

partially or totally, by the BOP.

Exemptions from the particular

subsections are justified for the

following reasons:

(1) From subsection (c)(3) to the

extent that this system of records is

exempt from subsection (d), and for

such reasons as those cited for

subsection (d) in paragraph (f)(3) below.

(2) From subsection (c)(4) to the

extent that exemption from subsection

(d) makes this exemption inapplicable.

(3) From the access provisions of

subsection (d) because exemption from

this subsection is essential to prevent

access of information by record subjects

that may invade third party privacy;

frustrate the investigative process;

jeopardize the legitimate correctional

interests of safety, security, and good

order of prison facilities; or otherwise

compromise, impede, or interfere with

BOP or other law enforcement agency

activities.

(4) From the amendment provisions

from subsection (d) because amendment

of the records may interfere with law

enforcement operations and would

impose an impossible administrative

burden by requiring that, in addition to

efforts to ensure accuracy so as to

withstand possible judicial scrutiny, it

would require that law enforcement

information be continuously

reexamined, even where the information

may have been collected from the record

subject. Also, some of these records

come from other Federal criminal

justice agencies or State, local and

foreign jurisdictions, or from Federal

and State probation and judicial offices,

and it is administratively impossible to

ensure that the records comply with this

provision.

(5) From subsection (e)(2) because the

nature of criminal and other

investigative activities is such that vital

information about an individual can be

obtained from other persons who are

familiar with such individual and his/

her activities. In such investigations it is

not feasible to rely solely upon

information furnished by the individual

concerning his/her own activities since

it may result in inaccurate information.

(6) From subsection (e)(3) because in

view of BOP’s operational

responsibilities, application of this

provision to the collection of

information is inappropriate.

Application of this provision could

provide the subject with substantial

information which may in fact impede

the information gathering process or

compromise an investigation.

(7) From subsection (e)(5) because in

the collection and maintenance of

information for law enforcement

purposes, it is impossible to determine

in advance what information is

accurate, relevant, timely and complete.

Material which may seem unrelated,

irrelevant or incomplete when collected

may take on added meaning or

significance at a later date or as an

investigation progresses. Also, some of

these records may come from other

Federal, State, local and foreign law

enforcement agencies, and from Federal

and State probation and judicial offices

and it is administratively impossible to

ensure that the records comply with this

provision. It would also require that law

enforcement information be

continuously reexamined even where

the information may have been

collected from the record subject.

(8) From subsection (e)(8) because the

nature of BOP law enforcement

activities renders impractical the notice

of compliance with compulsory legal

process. This requirement could present

a serious impediment to law

enforcement such as revealing

investigative techniques or the existence

of confidential investigations,

jeopardize the security of third parties,

or otherwise compromise law

enforcement efforts.

(11) From subsections (f) and (g) to

the extent that this system is exempt

from the access and amendment

provisions of subsection (d).

[FR Doc. 95–9807 Filed 4–20–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–05–M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 228

[FRL–5194–4]

Ocean Dumping; Proposed

Designation of Site

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA proposes to designate an

ocean dredged material disposal site,

the Humboldt Open Ocean Dredged Site

(HOODS), located offshore of Humboldt

Bay, California, for the disposal of

suitable dredged material removed from

the Humboldt Bay region and other

nearby harbors or dredging sites. EPA

has tentatively determined that the site

selected in the Draft EIS as the preferred

site will be the site designated as

HOODS in this Proposed Rule. The

proposed HOODS is located between

approximately 3 and 4 nautical miles (5

and 7 kilometers) west of the Humboldt

Bay entrance and occupies an area of 1

square nautical mile (3 square
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 77 / Friday, April 21, 1995 / Proposed Rules 19873

kilometers). Water depths within the

area range from 160 to 180 feet (49 to

55 meters). The coordinates of the

corners of the proposed square site are:

40°48′25′′ North latitude (N) by

124°16′22′′ West longitude (W);

40°49′03′′ N by 124°17′22′′ W; 40°47′38′′

N by 124°17′22′′ N; and 40°48′17′′ N by

124°18′12′′ W (North American Datum

from 1983). This proposed action is

necessary to provide an acceptable

ocean dumping site for disposal of

suitable dredged material from Northern

California dredging sites, including

Humboldt Bay and Harbor; the

suitability of proposed dredged material

will be determined by appropriate

sediment testing protocols. The

proposed designation of HOODS is for

a period of 50 years. Disposal operations

at the site will be prohibited if the site

management and monitoring program is

not implemented.

DATES: Comments on this proposed rule

must be submitted by June 6, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Send questions or

comments to: Mr. Allan Ota, Ocean

Disposal Coordinator, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region IX (W–3–3), 75 Hawthorne

Street, San Francisco, California 94105,

telephone (415) 744–1980. The

supporting document for this

designation is the Draft Environmental

Impact Statement (EIS) for Designation

of an Ocean Dredged Material Disposal

Site off Humboldt Bay, California,

March 1995, which is available for

public inspection at the following

locations:

A. EPA Public Information Reference

Unit (PIRU), Room 2904 (rear), 401 M

Street, S.W., Washington, D.C.

B. EPA Region IX, Library, 75

Hawthorne Street, 13th Floor, San

Francisco, California.

C. Humboldt Bay Harbor, Recreation

and Conservation District, P.O. Box

1030, Eureka, California.

D. Humboldt County Library, 421 I

Street, Eureka, California.

E. Humboldt State University Library,

Arcata, California.

F. Arcata City Library, 500 7th Street,

Arcata, California.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Allan Ota, Ocean Disposal

Coordinator, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Region IX (W–3–3),

75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco,

California 94105, telephone (415) 744–

1980.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Background

Section 102(c) of the Marine

Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries

Act (MPRSA) of 1972, as amended, 33

U.S.C. 1401 et seq., gives the

Administrator of EPA authority to

designate sites where ocean dumping

may be permitted. On October 1, 1986

the Administrator delegated authority to

designate ocean dredged material

disposal sites (ODMDS) to the Regional

Administrator of the EPA Region in

which the sites are located. The

proposed HOODS designation action is

being made pursuant to that authority.

The EPA Ocean Dumping Regulations

(40 CFR 228.4) state that ocean dumping

sites will be designated by publication

pursuant to 40 CFR part 228. This

proposed site designation is being

published as proposed rulemaking in

accordance with § 228.4(e) of the Ocean

Dumping Regulations, which permits

the designation of ocean disposal sites

for dredged material. Interested persons

may participate in this proposed

rulemaking by submitting written

comments within 45 days of the date of

this publication to the address given

above.

The proposed HOODS is located

between approximately 3 and 4 nautical

miles (5 and 7 kilometers) west of the

Humboldt Bay entrance and occupies an

area of approximately 1 square nautical

mile (3 square kilometers). Water depths

within the area range from

approximately 160 to 180 feet (49 to 55

meters). The coordinates of the corners

of the proposed square site are:

40°48′25′′ North latitude (N) by

124°16′22′′ West longitude (W);

40°49′03′′ N by 124°17′22′′ W; 40°47′38′′

N by 124°17′22′′ N; and 40°48′17′′ N by

124°18′12′′ W (North American Datum

from 1983). EPA Region IX now

proposed to designate HOODS as an

ocean dredged material disposal site for

continued use for a period of 50 years.

Site use is subject to implementation

of site management and monitoring

requirements contained in the Draft EIS,

which are now identified as the draft

Site Management and Monitoring Plan

(SMMP) for the HOODS. The draft

SMMP incorporates a tiered site

monitoring structure and MPRSA

Section 103 permit review, and

identifies standard conditions that must

be included in any permit or

authorization for disposal site use.

B. EIS Development

Section 102(c) of the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of

1969, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., requires

that Federal agencies prepare an

environmental impact statement (EIS)

on proposals for major Federal actions

significantly affecting the quality of the

human environment. The object of

NEPA is to build into the agency

decision-making process careful

consideration of all environmental

aspects of proposed actions, including

evaluation of reasonable alternatives to

the proposed action.

A Notice of Availability of the Draft

EIS has been published in the Federal

Register discussing EPA’s intent to

designate an open ocean dredged

material disposal site off Humboldt Bay,

California. The Draft EIS, titled: Draft

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)

for Designation of an Ocean Dredged

Material Disposal Site off Humboldt

Bay, California, evaluated a range of

potential alternative disposal sites as

summarized below. The comment

period will close 45 days after the

Notice of Availability of the Draft EIS

has been published in the Federal

Register. Anyone desiring a copy of the

Proposed Rule or Draft EIS may obtain

them from the EPA Region IX office

address given above.

EIS Alternatives Analysis

On average, over 800,000 cubic yards

of dredged material are generated

annually as a result of routine federal

maintenance dredging operations by the

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) in

Humboldt Bay and Harbor. Historically,

most of this dredged material has been

disposed at 3 different sites offshore of

Humboldt Bay. Although dredged

material has been disposed at the sites

known as ‘‘SF–3’’ and ‘‘NDS’’ in the

past, environmental and navigational

safety concerns shifted disposal

operations to HOODS for the last 3

years.

EPA’s analysis of alternatives

included detailed examination of

several potential ocean dumping sites

for dredged materials from the

Humboldt Bay region and other nearby

harbors or dredging sites, including

potential alternative means of handling

these dredged materials other than

disposal at an ocean dump site.

Alternatives evaluated in detail in the

draft EIS are discussed below. Note that

designation of an ocean dumping site

does not authorize any actual dumping

and does not preclude EPA or the Corps

from finding in the future, or for

individual projects, that alternative

means of managing dredged materials

from the Humboldt Bay region are

available and environmentally

preferable.

EPA has determined that it is

necessary to designate an ocean

dumping site for dredged materials from

Humboldt Bay site now, even if

alternatives to ocean dumping should

eventually prove to be available,

because it is unlikely that alternative

means of managing dredged material

will accommodate all of the dredged
19874 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 77 / Friday, April 21, 1995 / Proposed Rules

material that will be generated in the

future. As discussed in the Draft EIS,

there are significant limitations at

present to the potential alternatives to

ocean dumping of dredged material in

the Humboldt Bay region. However, in

all cases, the disposition of dredged

materials from individual projects will

be evaluated by EPA Region IX and the

Corps’ San Francisco District on a caseby-case basis, taking into account all the

alternatives available at the time of

permitting. Beneficial reuse alternatives

will be preferred over ocean disposal

whenever they are practicable and

would cause less adverse impacts than

ocean disposal.

The following ocean disposal

alternatives were evaluated in the Draft

EIS:

1. No Action—Failure to designate a

permanent ocean disposal site pursuant

to Section 102 of the MPRSA would

have significant negative consequences.

First, the continued foreseeable need to

have an appropriate site for disposal of

suitable sediments from various

Humboldt Bay dredging projects would

place pressure on the Corps and EPA to

approve on a project-by-project basis the

use of existing or temporary ocean

dumping locations pursuant to MPRSA

Section 103. This could result in:

Increased cumulative effects if multiple

disposal sites were used over time;

projects delays (with potential

navigation and human safety

consequences); and the inefficient

expenditure of limited government

resources on multiple site designation

actions and monitoring programs over

time. Second, the Water Resources

Development Act of 1992 prohibits the

continued use of ocean dump sites

which have not been designated by EPA

as Section 102 dump sites by the end of

1997. If EPA fails to designate the

HOODS by that date, then ocean

disposal of dredged materials taken

from Humboldt Bay projects will be

effectively precluded under Section 102

of the MPRSA.

2. Upland Disposal—Several upland

sites were considered for disposal of

dredged materials from Humboldt Bay,

including the ‘‘Superbowl’’ site which

was originally designed to contain

approximately 1 million cubic yards of

dredged material. EPA has eliminated

the ‘‘Superbowl’’ site from further

consideration in the Draft EIS because of

the nearby presence of an endangered

plant species (Erysium menziesii, or

Menzie’s Wallflower) and the small

capacity of the site relative to the needs

of harbor maintenance and new work

dredging over a 50-year period. Other

land disposal sites were also considered

but were not investigated in detail

because of the potential for adverse

impacts on wetlands, inadequate

capacity, and/or conflicts with other

land uses.

3. Beach Nourishment—This disposal

alternative was considered because

much of the sediment dredged from the

Humboldt Bay region is sand.

(Sediments dredged from the Bar and

Entrance, North Bay Channels, and the

Field’s Landing Channel in the area

north of Buhne Point are predominately

medium- to fine-grained sand. However,

sediments in the southern reach of the

Field’s Landing Channel and the Samoa

and Eureka Channels have historically

been finer-grained material that would

not be suitable for beach nourishment.)

EPA has eliminated this alternative from

further consideration for these areas

because the dredging and disposal

operations are not expected to be

practicable for all of the material

generated in the region. Stationary

dredging plants cannot be used in the

entrance and main channel areas

because of exposure to rough sea

conditions. Use of a hopper dredge

would require rehandling which would

result in adverse localized (in-bay)

environmental impacts. The dredged

sediments would be deposited at a

sheltered in-bay site by hopper dredge

(effects on in-bay biota), and

hydraulically re-dredged for transport

by slurry pipeline to the North or South

Spit beach sites. Dredging and nearshore

disposal directly via hopper dredge

without rehandling is discussed below.

This alternative would have greater

overall adverse impacts than the

preferred alternative (HOODS). (Note

that EPA and the Corps may still

determine that beach nourishment is the

preferable alternative for individual

projects on a case-by-case basis.)

4. Disposal off the Continental Shelf—

The EPA Ocean Dumping Regulations

(40 CFR 228.5(e)) state that the EPA

will, whenever feasible, designate ocean

dumping sites beyond the edge of the

continental shelf and/or at sites that

have been historically used (to

minimize cumulative effects). Disposal

off the continental shelf would require

use of a site located 10 nautical miles

(19 kilometers) or farther from

Humboldt Bay. The Corps has

determined that the Zone of Siting

Feasibility (ZSF—the radius limit for

economically feasible disposal

operations for the Humboldt Bay area) is

4 nautical miles from the entrance to

Humboldt Bay. EPA has therefore

eliminated alternatives off the

continental shelf because they would be

outside the ZSF, and because historical

disposal sites exist on the continental

shelf within the ZSF.

5. Nearshore Disposal Site (NDS)—

This alternative site is located

approximately 2 nautical miles (4

kilometers) southwest of the Humboldt

Harbor mouth. Two disposal episodes

occurred at this site as part of a study

to determine whether sediments

discharged at the NDS would remain in

the littoral zone and promote beach

nourishment. The study indicated some

shoaling and some evidence of

shoreward transport. EPA has

eliminated this alternative from further

consideration because, while it provides

a potential beneficial reuse of sandy

sediments, there has been strong

objection by local fishermen’s groups to

the use of this site based on adverse

impacts on navigational safety in the

vicinity of the southern approach and

on commercial fishery resources that

inhabit the nearshore area. These

resources include egg-brooding

Dungeness crab, juvenile Dungeness

crab, and juvenile English sole. This

alternative would have greater overall

adverse impacts than the preferred

alternative (HOODS).

6. Disposal Site SF–3—This

alternative disposal site is located

approximately 1 nautical mile (2

kilometers) southwest of the Humboldt

Harbor mouth. This site has been used

previously by the Corps for disposal of

dredged material from Humboldt Bay.

This site was de-designated as an

interim site on December 31, 1988,

although it had been used subsequently

under authority of the provisions of

Section 103 of the MPRSA. EPA has

eliminated this alternative from further

consideration because of concerns about

adverse impacts on safe navigation and

on commercial and recreational

fisheries. This site would have greater

overall adverse impacts than the

preferred alternative (HOODS).

7. Humboldt Open Ocean Disposal

Site (HOODS)—The Draft EIS identified

this alternative site as the preferred

alternative based on comparison to the

alternative sites listed above, and to the

specific selection criteria listed in 40

CFR 228.6(a). The proposed HOODS is

located furthest from the coast (between

approximately 3 and 4 nautical miles

west of the Humboldt Bay entrance) and

in the deepest depth range

(approximately 160 to 180 feet, or 49 to

55 meters). The 1 square nautical mile

(3 square kilometer) site represents an

extremely small area relative to the

extent of similar habitat in the

surrounding region. Bathymetric and

sediment surveys indicate the proposed

HOODS is located in a depositional area

which is likely to retain dredged

material deposited on the sea floor. No

significant impacts to other resources or
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 77 / Friday, April 21, 1995 / Proposed Rules 19875

amenity areas are expected to result

from the proposed designation of the

HOODS. Existing and potential fisheries

resources within the proposed HOODS

are minimal relative to the other ocean

or nearshore alternatives and the site is

removed from more important fishing

grounds located closer to or within the

other alternative sites. Studies have

shown that abundances and biomass of

demersal fishes and megafaunal

invertebrates, at the proposed HOODS

are lower than those at the other

alternative sites. Water column impacts

resulting from disposal of dredged

material are expected to be temporary

and localized within the site. Therefore,

potential impacts to surface and midwater dwelling organisms, such as

seabirds, marine mammals, and

midwater fishes, are expected to be

insignificant.

EPA has determined that this

proposed site represents the

environmentally preferred alternative

for designation of an open ocean

dredged material disposal site for the

Humboldt Bay area. Its selection, along

with the general and specific

restrictions on site use, avoids and

minimizes environmental harm from

ocean disposal of suitable dredged

material to the maximum extend

practicable. A Record of Decision (ROD)

will not be issued as a separate

document; instead the Final Rule will

serve as the ROD for proposed

designation of the HOODS.

C. Regulatory Requirements

Consistency With the Coastal Zone

Management Act

EPA will prepare a Coastal

Consistency Determination (CCD)

document based on the evaluations

presented in the Draft EIS. The CCD will

evaluate whether the proposed action—

designation of the HOODS as described

in the Draft EIS as an ocean disposal site

for up to 50 years, for dredged material

meeting ocean disposal criteria—would

be consistent with the provisions of the

Coastal Zone Management Act. The CCD

will be formally presented to the

California Coastal Commission at the

scheduled public hearing. Any

Commission recommendations will be

incorporated, as appropriate, into the

Final EIS and Final Rule.

Endangered Species Act Consultation

EPA has initiated consultations with

the National Marine Fisheries Service

(NMFS) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service (FWS) pursuant to provisions of

the Endangered Species Act, regarding

the potential for designation and use of

any of the alternative ocean disposal

sites under study to jeopardize the

continued existence of any federally

listed threatened or endangered species.

This consultation process will be fully

documented in the Final EIS.

Compliance With Ocean Dumping

Criteria

Five general criteria are used in the

selection and approval of ocean disposal

sites for continuing use (40 CFR 228.5).

First, sites must be selected to minimize

interference with other activities,

particularly avoiding fishery areas or

major navigation areas. Second, sites

must be situated such that temporary

(during initial mixing) water quality

perturbations caused by disposal

operations would be reduced to normal

ambient levels before reaching any

beach, shoreline, sanctuary, or

geographically limited fishery area.

Third, if site designation studies show

that any interim disposal site does not

meet the site selection criteria, use of

such site shall be terminated as soon as

an alternate site can be designated.

Fourth, disposal site size must be

limited in order to localize for

identification and control any

immediate adverse impacts, and to

facilitate effective monitoring for longrange effects. Fifth, EPA must, wherever

feasible, designate ocean dumping sites

beyond the edge of the continental shelf

and/or where historical disposal has

occurred.

As described in the Draft EIS, the

proposed HOODS was specifically

selected to comply with these general

criteria. First, as discussed further

below in discussing the 11 specific site

selection criteria, EPA has determined

that the proposed HOODS is not a

significant fishery area, is not a major

navigation area and otherwise has no

geographically limited resource values

that are not abundant in other parts of

this coastal region. Second, as also

discussed further below, dredged

material deposited at the proposed site

is not expected to reach any significant

area such as a marine sanctuary, beach,

or other important natural resource area.

Third, although it is a historically used

site, the proposed HOODS is not an

interim disposal site. Fourth, the

proposed site has an appropriately

limited size and has been selected to

allow for effective monitoring. Fifth,

although the proposed site is not located

beyond the continental shelf, it is

located in an area historically used for

dumping.

In addition to the 5 general criteria, 11

specific site selection criteria are listed

in 40 CFR 228.6(a) of the EPA Ocean

Dumping Regulations for evaluation of

all candidate disposal sites. The 5

general criteria and the 11 specific

factors overlap to a great degree. The

proposed HOODS site, as discussed

below, is also acceptable under each of

the 11 specific criteria.

1. Geographical position, depth of

water, bottom topography and distance

from coast (40 CFR 228.6(a)(1)). The

proposed HOODS is located between

approximately 3 and 4 nautical miles (5

and 7 kilometers) west of the Humboldt

Bay entrance and occupies an area of 1

square nautical mile (3 kilometers).

Water depths within the area range from

160 to 180 feet (49 to 55 meters).

Bathymetric and sediment surveys

indicate that the proposed site is located

in a depositional area. The proposed

site’s depositional nature and natural

topography is expected to minimize the

extent of potential impacts to the

benthos, and is expected to facilitate

long-term containment of deposited

material as well as site monitoring

activities.

2. Location in relation to breeding,

spawning, nursery, feeding, or passage

areas of living resources in adult or

juvenile phases (40 CFR 228.6(a)(2)).

The proposed HOODS provides feeding

and breeding areas for common resident

benthic species. Floating larvae and eggs

of various species are expected to be

found at and near the water surface at

the site as well as the alternative sites

evaluated. However, the proposed

designation of the site is not expected to

affect any geographically limited (i.e.,

unique) habitats, breeding sites, or

critical areas that are essential to rare or

endangered species. In comparison to

the other alternative sties evaluated, the

proposed site has the least potential for

adverse impact to commercially

important species.

3. Location in relation to beaches and

other amenity areas (40 CFR

228.6(a)(3)). The proposed HOODS site

is located between approximately 3 and

4 nautical miles (5 and 7 kilometers)

west of the Humboldt Bay entrance and

approximately 4 to 7 nautical miles

from the closest nearshore resources,

beaches, and other coastal amenity

areas. Ocean currents in the vicinity of

the proposed HOOD flow predominately

to the northwest and offshore in the

winter and predominately to the

southwest and offshore in the summer.

Current speeds are usually on the order

of 0.5 knot (25 centimeters per second)

at the surface and less at depth. These

flows may be strongly influenced by

local winds and tides. Any residual

suspended solids from disposal

operations at the proposed HOODS are

expected to move primarily to the

northwest or southwest depending on

the oceanographic season during any
19876 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 77 / Friday, April 21, 1995 / Proposed Rules

one year and generally in the offshore

direction throughout the year. Because

of the relatively shallow depths and

slow current speeds, it is predicated that

the vast bulk of the disposed material

will remain within the proposed

disposal site. For the above reasons,

EPA has determined that aesthetic

impacts of plumes, transport of dredged

material to any shoreline, and

alternation of any habitat of special

biological significance or marine

sanctuary is not expected to occur if this

proposed site is designated.

4. Types and quantities of wastes

proposed to be disposed of, and

proposed methods of release, including

methods of packing the waste, if any (40

CFR 228.6(a)(4)). Over 800,000 cubic

yards of dredged material are generated

annually as a result of federal

maintenance dredging operations by the

Corps in Humboldt and Harbor. In

addition, larger volumes of dredged

material (e.g., from deepening projects)

may also be generated periodically.

Typical composition of dredged

material disposed at the site is expected

to range between two types:

‘‘predominantly sand’’ (grain size

greater than 0.075 millimeters) versus

‘‘predominantly silt-clay’’ (grain size

less than 0.075 millimeters). These

material types are based on data from

historical projects from the Humboldt

Bay region. The expected typical

disposal method would involve hopper

dredges (hydraulic dredging), with a

maximum capacity of up to 5,000 cubic

yards but typically carrying loads of

approximately 2,000 to 3,000 cubic

yards of dredged material per trip.

Dredged material would not be

packaged. All dredged material

proposed for disposal at the proposed

site must be suitable for ocean disposal.

This determination will be made by

DPA Region IX and the Corps’ San

Francisco District based upon the

results of an evaluation of information

developed in accordance with the 1991

EPA/Corps ‘‘Green Book’’ (e.g., physical,

chemical and biological tests) before a

MPRSA Section 103 permit can be

issued. Dumping of prohibited materials

or other industrial or municipal wastes

will not be permitted at the proposed

site (40 CFR 227.5 and 227.6(a)).

Existing information suggests that it is

appropriate to dispose, via hopper

dredge or bottom-dump barge, of the

type of dredged material that will be

removed from the Humboldt Bay region

at the proposed HOODS. Because of the

relatively shallow depths and slow

current speeds, the dredged material is

expected to settle rapidly to the ocean

bottom within the boundaries of the

proposed site and not to create plumes

which will reach significant areas such

as marine sanctuaries, recreational

areas, or geographically limited habitats

at greater than background

concentrations. Disposing dredged

material at the proposed site which

meets regulatory criteria for ocean

dumping is expected to create some

limited alteration of benthic habitat

within site boundaries, but should not

create substantial adverse impacts

extending beyond site boundaries. For

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

proposed site.

5. Feasibility of surveillance and

monitoring (40 CFR 228.6(a)(5)). EPA

Region IX and the Corps’ San Francisco

District share the responsibilities of

managing and monitoring the disposal

site, and, with the on-site assistance of

the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), to enforce

permit conditions within the limits of

their jurisdiction. The proposed HOODS

is located between approximately 3 and

4 nautical miles (5 and 7 kilometers)

offshore and occupies an area ranging in

depth from 160 and 180 feet (49 to 55

meters). Standardized equipment and

techniques would be used for

surveillance and monitoring activities

during transit to and at the proposed

site, as described in the SMMP included

in the Draft EIS. Based on previous

experience at other ocean dredged

material disposal sites located farther

offshore and in deeper waters, EPA has

determined that the surveillance and

monitoring activities are fully feasible to

implement at the proposed HOODS.

6. Dispersal, horizontal transport and

vertical mixing characteristics of the

area, including prevailing current

direction and velocity, if any (40 CFR

228.8(a)(6)). Ocean currents in the

vicinity of the proposed HOODS flow

predominantly to the northwest and

offshore in the winter and

predominantly to the southwest and

offshore in the summer. Current speeds

are usually on the order of 0.5 knot (25

centimeters per second) at the surface

and less at depth. These flows may be

strongly influenced by local winds and

tides. Any residual suspended solids

from disposal operations at the

proposed HOODS are expected to move

primarily to the northwest or southwest

depending on the oceanographic season

during any one year and generally in the

offshore direction throughout the year.

Because of the relatively shallow depths

and slow current speeds, it is predicted

that the vast bulk of the disposed

material will remain within the

proposed disposal site. For these

reasons, EPA has determined that the

dispersal, transport and mixing

characteristics of the proposed site, and

its current velocities and directions, are

appropriate for its proposed designation

as a dredged material disposal site.

7. Existence and effects of current and

previous discharges and dumping in the

area (including cumulative effects) (40

CFR 228.6(a)(7)). Under an MPRSA

Section 103 permit, the Corps has been

discharging on average over 800,000

cubic yards of dredged material at the

proposed HOODS. The NDS has been

used for two disposal episodes, totaling

over 1.4 million cubic yards. The SF–3

site has been used for dredged material

from maintenance dredging operations

since the 1940’s. It is estimated that a

total of 20 to 25 million cubic yards of

dredged material from the Humboldt

Bay Federal navigation channels has

been disposed at the SF–3 site. No other

documented disposal of dredged

material has occurred within or in the

vicinity of the proposed site.

In addition, no other discharges occur

in the immediate vicinity of the

HOODS. The Simpson Paper Company

presently discharges freshwater through

an outfall into ocean waters adjacent to

the Samoa Peninsula, although

historically it discharged bleached kraft

pulp effluent. The outfall is

approximately 3 nautical miles (5.5

kilometers) east of the HOODS, 3

nautical miles (5.5 kilometers) north of

the SF–3 site, and 3.5 nautical miles (6.5

kilometers) north of the NDS. The

Louisiana Pacific Corporation owns and

operates a market bleached kraft pulp

mill located on the Samoa Peninsula.

The discharge from this outfall consists

of: Process wastewater from kraft

pulping, pulp bleaching, and pulp

drying; solids from its water treatment

plant; power boiler effluent; and

stormwater, As authorized under its

National Pollutant Discharge

Elimination System (NPDES) Permit, the

Louisiana Pacific Corporation is

prohibited from discharging waste water

in violation of effluent standards or

prohibitions established under Section

307(a) of the Clean Water Act, and it is

prohibited from discharging sewage

sludge. The outfall is located

approximately 3.5 nautical miles (6.5

kilometers) east of the HOODS, 3.5

nautical miles (6.5 kilometers) north of

the SF–3 site, and 4 nautical miles (7.5

kilometers) north of the NDS. Prevailing

near-shore currents would direct

discharge plumes from both outfalls up

or down the coast, depending on the

seasonal current regime, not offshore

toward the HOODS. The effects of

discharges are expected to be limited to

local areas near the outfalls and to not
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 77 / Friday, April 21, 1995 / Proposed Rules 19877

extend to the vicinity of the proposed

ocean dredged material disposal site

(HOODS). For the above reasons, EPA

has determined that there are no

expected adverse cumulative or

synergistic impacts from the use of the

proposed HOODS and discharges from

the outfalls described above.

8. Interference with shipping, fishing,

recreation, mineral extraction,

desalination, fish and shellfish culture,

areas of special scientific importance

and other legitimate uses of the ocean

(40 CFR 288.6(a)(8)). In evaluating

whether dumping activity at the site

could interfere with shipping, fishing,

recreation, mineral extraction,

desalination, areas of scientific

importance and other legitimate uses of

the ocean, EPA considered both the

direct effects from depositing dredged

material on the ocean bottom within the

proposed HOODS boundaries and the

indirect effects associated with vessel

traffic that will result from

transportation of dredged material to the

proposed dump site. Existing

information indicates that the proposed

site is not a significant fisheries area, is

not a significant recreational area, is not

a significant area for harvestable

minerals, is not a potential staging

ground or intake area for desalination

activity, is not scientifically important

in itself, and otherwise has no

geographically limited resource values

that are not abundant in other parts of

this coastal region. Accordingly,

depositing dredged material at the

proposed site will not interfere with

these activities. Finally, vessel traffic

involved in transportation of dredged

material to the proposed HOODS should

also cause no substantial interference

with any of the activities discussed

above.

9. The existing water quality and

ecology of the site as determined by

available data or by trend assessment or

baseline surveys (40 CFR 228.6(a)(9)).

Existing information and regional

studies described in the Draft EIS

provide the following determinations:

Water quality at the proposed HOODS is

indistinguishable from the water quality

of nearby areas. Sediments contain

background levels or low concentrations

of trace metal and organic contaminants.

The demersal fish community within

the proposed HOODS has lower

numbers of species and lower

abundances than the other alternative

sites. The proposed HOODS contains

moderate numbers of megafaunal

invertebrate species (Dungeness crab)

but lower overall abundances compared

to the other alternative sites. Infaunal

invertebrates (polychaetes, amphipods,

and mollusks) within the proposed

HOODS show higher diversity and

abundance compared to the other

alternative sites; however, these

infaunal invertebrate trends are similar

to the general depth-related trends of

the surrounding region. Seabirds,

marine mammals, and mid-water

organisms including juvenile rockfishes

are seasonally abundant; however, the

proposed HOODS is not considered to

have geographically limited resource

values that are not also abundant in

other alternative sites or other parts of

this coastal region. Based on these Draft

EIS conclusions, EPA has determined

that, compared to the alternative sites

evaluated, the HOODS is the

environmentally preferred location for

ocean disposal site designation.

10. Potentiality for the development

or recruitment of nuisance species in

the disposal site (40 CFR 228.6(a)(10)).

Local opportunistic benthic species

characteristic of disturbed conditions

are expected to be present and abundant

at any ocean dredged material disposal

site in response to physical deposition

of sediments. Opportunistic

polychaetes, such as Capitella, may

colonize the proposed disposal site.

However, these worms can become food

items for local bottom-feeding fish and

are not directly harmful to other species.

No recruitment of species capable of

harming human health or the marine

ecosystem is expected to occur at the

proposed site. Previous studies of the

benthic fauna present at the SF–3 site

and at the NDS support the expectation

that disposal of dredged material from

the Humboldt Bay region will not

promote the development of nuisance

species.

11. Existence at or in close proximity

to the site of any significant natural or

cultural feature of historical importance

(40 CFR 228.6(a)(11)). The ocean waters

in the vicinity of Humboldt Bay contain

sites of numerous vessel accidents and

sinkings. Based on previous evaluations

for and issuance of MPRSA Section 103

permits, no significant national or

cultural features of historical

importance have been identified in the

vicinity of the proposed HOODS. The

California State Historic Preservation

Officer has been contacted for an initial

examination of their inventory and

whether there are any known historic

shipwrecks or any known aboriginal

artifacts at the HOODS or in the

vicinity. Final determination will be

made for the Final EIS and Final Rule.

D. Site Management and Monitoring of

the HOODs

Implementation of site management

and monitoring activities for the

proposed HOODS is a requirement for

site use. These activities must be

performed in accordance with the Site

Management and Monitoring Plan

(SMMP) included in the Draft and Final

EIS. Failure to implement the

monitoring described in the SMMP

precludes use of the proposed site for

disposal of dredged material until such

time when monitoring can be resumed.

The SMMP, jointly administered by

EPA Region IX and the Corps San

Francisco District, embodies

management and monitoring activities.

Management activities consists of:

evaluating the suitability of sediments

proposed for disposal at the HOODS for

each project; evaluating the performance

and conditions of the site based on the

results of periodic site monitoring; and

conducting surveillance and

enforcement of permits issued for use of

the proposed HOODS. Site monitoring

activities are built upon a tiered

monitoring approach. These monitoring

activities are designed to ensure that the

area of acceptable impact is primarily

restricted to the disposal site and that

unacceptable environmental impacts do

not occur beyond the site boundaries.

Management decisions at each tier are

defined for sediment fate and effects,

body burdens of chemicals of concern,

or benthic biological community effects.

Each tier will require a management

decision based on the information

gathered. If the null hypothesis for a

particular tier is rejected, then an

change in site management practices

may be instituted, or a more complex set

of tests are invoked at the next higher

tier to determine the extent of impacts.

Physical monitoring (Tier 1) is

expected to occur on an annual basis to

determine changes in bathymetry and

extent of the dredged material deposit

(footprint) relative to the site

boundaries. If the footprint extends

beyond the site boundary and exceeds

10 centimeters of thickness outside of

the site boundary, then an evaluation

will be made to determine the potential

of adverse physical impacts due to

smothering of the benthic resources by

the disposed sediments (Tier 2). If EPA

determines that the extent of physical

impact outside of the site boundary is

unacceptable, a change in site

management practices will be instituted.

If the extent of the footprint is not

unacceptable, but the adverse impacts to

the benthic resources cannot be clearly

attributed only to physical factors (i.e.,

burial), then an evaluation will be made

to determine the potential of adverse

impacts to the benthic resources due to

elevated chemical contaminants and

bioaccumulation (Tier 3).

This monitoring program is designed

to facilitate detection of any potential
19878 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 77 / Friday, April 21, 1995 / Proposed Rules

1The Draft and Final EIS are available at the

following locations: EPA Public Information

Reference Unit (PIRU), Room 2904 (rear), 401 M

Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. / EPA Region IX,

Library, 75 Hawthorne Street, 13th Floor, San

Francisco, California. / Humboldt Bay Harbor,

Recreation and Conservation District, P.O. Box

1030, Eureka, California. / Humboldt County

Library, 421 I Street, Eureka, California. / Humboldt

State University Library, Arcata, California. / Arcata

City Library, 500 7th Street, Arcata, California.

unacceptable adverse impacts due to

dredged material disposal, so that

decisions about the need for changes in

management practices may be made in

a timely manner. Depending on the

results of the periodic monitoring, EPA

may at any tier determine that one or

more of the following types of site

management actions is required:

Continue existing site use; implement

higher tier monitoring; modify some or

all site use restrictions; or discontinue

disposal activities. EPA expects that the

SMMP will be revised and updated from

time to time based on monitoring

results, scientific advancements, and

experience gained. EPA is committed to

considering public comments prior to

implementing substantive updates to

the SMMP. To ensure that interested

parties have the opportunity to

comment, proposed substantive updates

to the SMMP will be distributed in draft

form via a Public Notice or similar

means.

E. Action

EPA Region IX has determined that

there is a need for an ocean dredged

material disposal site in the vicinity of

Humboldt Bay, California. Based on

evaluation of alternatives, EPA Region

IX has tentatively determined that the

HOODS may appropriately be

designated for use over a period of 50

years. The proposed designation of the

HOODS complies with the general and

specific criteria used for site evaluation.

EPA is, therefore, proposing to designate

the HOODS as an EPA-approved Ocean

Dumping Site in this proposed

rulemaking. Management of this

proposed site will be the responsibility

of the Regional Administrator of EPA

Region IX in cooperation with the

Corps’ South Pacific Division Engineer

and the San Francisco District Engineer,

based on requirements defined in the

Final EIS and Final Rule. The required

management and monitoring activities

will be described in a SMMP prepared

by EPA and incorporated in the Draft

and Final EIS, with the opportunity for

public review. Subsequent substantive

revisions of the SMMP will be

published and subjected to public

review.

It is emphasized that ocean dumping

site designation does not constitute or

imply EPA Region IX’s or the Corps San

Francisco District’s approval of actual

ocean disposal of dredged materials.

Before ocean dumping of dredged

material at the site may begin, EPA

Region IX and the Corps San Francisco

District must evaluate permit

applications according to EPA’s Ocean

Dumping Criteria. Permits cannot be

issued if either EPA Region IX or the

Corps San Francisco District determines

that the Ocean Dumping Criteria of

MPRSA would not be met. The

requirement for compliance with the

Ocean Dumping Criteria of the MPRSA

may not be superseded by the

provisions of any future comprehensive

regional management plan for dredged

material.

F. Regulatory Assessments

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

EPA is required to perform a Regulatory

Flexibility Analysis for all Rules which

may have a significant impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

EPA has determined that this proposed

action will not have a significant impact

on a substantial number of small entities

since the proposed site designation will

only have the effect of providing a

disposal option for dredged material.

Consequently, this Proposed Rule does

not necessitate preparation of a

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.

This proposed action will not result

in an annual effect on the economy of

$100 million or more or cause any of the

other effects which would result in its

being classified by the Executive Order

as a major Rule. Consequently, this

Proposed Rule does not necessitate

preparation of a Regulatory Impact

Analysis.

G. Responses to Comments on the Site

Designation Proposed Rule

Comment period for this Proposed

Rule will end June 6, 1995. Comments

will be considered and revisions, as

appropriate, will be incorporated into

the Final EIS and Final Rule.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 228

Environmental protection water

pollution control.

Dated: April 12, 1995.

Felicia A. Marcus,

Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX.

In consideration of the foregoing,

subchapter H of chapter 1 of title 40 is

proposed to be amended as set forth

below.

PART 228—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 228

continues to read as follows:

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

2. Section 228.15 is amended by

adding paragraph (1)(10) to read as

follows:

§ 228.15 Dumping sites designated on a

final basis.

* * * * *

(1) * * *

(10) Humboldt Open Ocean Disposal

Site (HOODS) Ocean Dredged Material

Disposal Site—Regional IX

(i) Location: The coordinates of the

corners of the square site are: 40°48′25′′

North latitude (N) by 124°16′22′′ West

longitude (W); 40°49′03′′ N by

124°17′22′′ W; 40°47′38′′ N by

124°17′22′′ N; and 40°48′17′′ N by

124°18′12′′ W (North American Datum

from 1983).

(ii) Size: 1 square nautical mile (3

square kilometers).

(iii) Depth: Water depths within the

area range between approximately 160

to 180 feet (49 to 55 meters).

(iv) Use Restricted to Disposal of:

Dredged materials.

(v) Period of Use: Continuing use over

50 years from date of site designation,

subject to restrictions and provisions set

forth in paragraph (1)(10)(vi) of this

section.

(vi) Restrictions/Provisions: Site

management and monitoring activities

shall be implemented during the period

of site use and in accordance with the

Site Management and Monitoring Plan

(SMMP) for the HOODS as incorporated

in the Draft and Final EIS.1 All disposal

activities shall be terminated if

monitoring, as described in the SMMP,

is not implemented. The SMMP may be

periodically revised as necessary;

proposed substantive revisions to the

SMMP shall be made following

opportunity for public review and

comment.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 95–9927 Filed 4–20–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–M

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[MM Docket No. 95–46, RM–8594]

Radio Broadcasting Services;

Edenton, Columbia, Pine Knoll Shores,

NC

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Commission requests

comments on a petition filed by