
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 81 (Wednesday, April 27, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 24748-24767]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-09603]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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/dredged-material-management-long-island-sound.
    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

[[Page 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 non-
federal 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 open-water 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

[[Page 24750]]

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 open-water 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 fine-grained 
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 EPA-designated sites, rather than USACE-selected 
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 navigation-dependent 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 boating-
related 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

[[Page 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:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Examples of potentially  affected
           Category                             entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal government...........  USACE (Civil Works Projects), and other
                                federal agencies.
State, local, and tribal       Governments owning and/or responsible for
 governments.                   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 
short-term, 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

[[Page 24752]]

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 x 2 nautical miles (nmi), for a total size of 2 square 
nautical miles (nmi\2\). 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 nmi\2\ (3.4 
km\2\) centered at 41[deg]16.306' N., 72[deg]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 m\3\) were disposed at the NLDS 
between 1955 and 1976. A total of approximately 3.5 mcy (2.6 million 
m\3\) 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 nmi\2\ (3.4 km\2\). 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 nmi\2\ (1.7 km\2\). 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 NL-
Wa. 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 nmi\2\, 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 
m\3\) 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 nmi\2\ (6.2 km\2\).
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 nmi\2\ (3.4 km\2\). 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 m\3\) were disposed at the 
site between 1960 and 1976, and an additional 1.7 mcy (1.3 million 
m\3\) 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 
nmi\2\ (3.4 km\2\) centered at 41[deg]12.6858' N., 72[deg]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 sediment-starved. 
The site is classified as

[[Page 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 Magnuson-Stevens 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 EPA-designated 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

[[Page 24754]]

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 
nmi\2\ 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

[[Page 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

[[Page 24756]]

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 nmi\2\ 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-of-year 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.

[[Page 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

[[Page 24758]]

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 m\3\) 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 m\3\) of dredged material 
was disposed at this location. The CSDS has received an estimated 2.9 
mcy of dredged material (2.25 million m\3\) 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,

[[Page 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 
short-term, 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 
species-specific 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

[[Page 24760]]

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)

[[Page 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 ``third-party 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 third-
party 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[r x dquo] 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.

[[Page 24762]]

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 open-water 
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 open-
water 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 open-water 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 open-water 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

[[Page 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 USACE-selected 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), site-
specific 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

[[Page 24764]]

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 open-water 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 open-water 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 non-federal 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 open-water 
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

[[Page 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 open-water 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

[[Page 24766]]

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

[[Page 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 science-based 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 open-water 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

0
1. The authority citation for part 228 continues to read as follows:

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

0
2. Section 228.15(b) is amended by revising paragraph (b)(4)(vi) 
introductory text and adding paragraph (b)(6) to read as follows:


Sec.  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[deg]15.81' N., 
72[deg]04.57' W.; 41[deg]16.81' N., 72[deg]04.57' W.; 41[deg]16.81' N., 
72[deg]07.22' W.; 41[deg]15.81' N., 72[deg]07.22' W.
    (ii) Size: A 2 by 1 nautical mile rectangular area, a size of 2 
square nautical miles (nmi\2\).
    (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


