[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 36 (Thursday, February 24, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 9019-9023]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-3525]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 228
[FRL-7876-4]
Ocean Dumping; Proposed Site Designation
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA today proposes to designate a new Ocean Dredged Material
Disposal Site (ODMDS) in the Atlantic Ocean offshore Port Royal, South
Carolina, as an EPA-approved ocean dumping site for the disposal of
suitable dredged material. This proposed action is necessary to provide
an acceptable ocean disposal site for consideration as an option for
dredged material disposal projects in the greater Port Royal, South
Carolina vicinity. This proposed site designation is for an indefinite
period of time, but the site is subject to continuing monitoring to
insure that unacceptable adverse environmental impacts do not occur.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 11, 2005.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments by one of the following methods:
(a) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
(b) E-mail: [email protected].
(c) Fax: (404) 562-9343.
(d) Mail: Coastal Section, EPA Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303. ATTN: Gary W. Collins.
The file supporting this proposed designation is available for
public inspection at the following locations:
EPA Region 4, Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303.
Department of the Army, Charleston District Corps of Engineers, 69A
Hagood Ave., Charleston, South Carolina 29403-5107.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary W. Collins, (404) 562-9395.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Background
Section 102(c) of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries
Act (MPRSA) of 1972, as amended, 33 U.S.C. 1401 et seq., gives the
Administrator of EPA the authority to designate sites where ocean
disposal may be permitted. On October 1, 1986, the Administrator
delegated the authority to designate ocean disposal sites to the
Regional Administrator of the Region in which the sites are located.
This proposed designation of a new site offshore Port Royal, South
Carolina, which is within Region 4, is being made pursuant to that
authority.
The EPA Ocean Dumping Regulations promulgated under MPRSA (40 CFR
Chapter I, Subchapter H, Sec. 228.4) state that ocean dumping sites
will be designated by promulgation in this part 228. This site
designation is being published as proposed rulemaking in accordance
with Sec. 228.4(e) of the Ocean Dumping Regulations, which permits the
designation of ocean disposal sites for dredged material. Interested
persons may participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting
written comments within 45 days of the date of this publication to the
address given above.
B. Regulated Entities
Entities potentially affected by this action are persons,
organizations, or government bodies seeking to dispose of dredged
material into ocean waters offshore Port Royal, South Carolina, under
the MPRSA and its implementing regulations. This proposed rule is
expected to be primarily of relevance to (a) parties seeking permits
from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) to transport dredged
material for the purpose of disposal into ocean waters and (b) to the
COE itself for its own dredged material disposal projects. Potentially
regulated categories and entities that may seek to use the proposed
dredged material disposal site may include:
[[Page 9020]]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of potentially regulated
Category entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Government................... U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Civil Works Projects, U.S.
Marine Corps, and Other Federal
Agencies.
Industry and General Public.......... Port Authorities, Marinas and
Harbors, Shipyards, and Marine
Repair Facilities, Berth Owners.
State, local and tribal governments.. Governments owning and/or
responsible for ports, harbors,
and/or berths, Government
agencies requiring disposal of
dredged material associated with
public works projects.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action, should the proposed rule become a final rule. To determine
whether your organization is affected by this action, you should
carefully consider whether your organization is subject to the
requirement to obtain an MPRSA permit in accordance with section 103 of
the MPRSA and the applicable regulations at 40 CFR parts 220 and 225,
and whether you wish to use the sites subject to today's proposal. EPA
notes that nothing in this proposed rule alters the jurisdiction or
authority of EPA or the types of entities regulated under the MPRSA.
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.
C. EIS Development
Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
of 1969, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., requires that federal
agencies prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on proposals
for legislation and other major federal actions significantly affecting
the quality of the human environment. The object of NEPA is to build
into the Agency decision making process careful consideration of all
environmental aspects of proposed actions. While NEPA does not apply to
EPA activities of this type, EPA has voluntarily committed to prepare
NEPA documents in connection with ocean disposal site designations.
(See 63 FR 58045 [October 29, 1998], ``Notice of Policy and Procedures
for Voluntary Preparation of National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
Documents.'')
EPA, in cooperation with the Charleston District of the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (COE), has prepared a Final EIS (FEIS) entitled
``Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Port Royal Ocean Dredged
Material Disposal Site Designation.'' On June 25, 2004, the Notice of
Availability (NOA) of the FEIS for public review and comment was
published in the Federal Register (69 FR 35597 (June 25, 2004)). Anyone
desiring a copy of the EIS may obtain one from the addresses given
above. The public comment period on the final EIS closed on July 26,
2004.
EPA received one comment letter on the Final EIS from the South
Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control. This letter
states their findings that the proposed ODMDS would be consistent with
the S.C. Coastal Zone Management Program.
Pursuant to an Office of Water policy memorandum dated October 23,
1989, EPA has evaluated the proposed site designation for consistency
with the State of South Carolina's (the State) approved coastal
management program. EPA has determined that the designation of the
proposed site is consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the
State coastal management program, and submitted this determination to
the State for review in accordance with EPA policy. As stated above,
the State agrees with this determination.
This rule proposes the permanent designation for continuing use of
the ODMDS near Port Royal, South Carolina. The purpose of the proposed
action is to provide an environmentally acceptable option for the
continued ocean disposal of dredged material. The need for the
permanent designation of a Port Royal ODMDS is based on a demonstrated
COE need for ocean disposal of maintenance dredged material from the
Federal navigation projects in the greater Port Royal Sound area.
However, every disposal activity by the COE is evaluated on a case-by-
case basis to determine the need for ocean disposal for that particular
case. The need for ocean disposal for other projects, and the
suitability of the material for ocean disposal, will be determined on a
case-by-case basis as part of the COE's process of issuing permits for
ocean disposal for private/federal actions and a public review process
for their own actions.
For the Port Royal ODMDS, the COE and EPA would evaluate all
federal dredged material disposal projects pursuant to the EPA criteria
given in the Ocean Dumping Regulations (40 CFR parts 220-229) and the
COE regulations (33 CFR 209.120 and 33 CFR parts 335-338). The COE then
issues Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA) permits
after compliance with regulations is determined to private applicants
for the transport of dredged material intended for ocean disposal. EPA
has the right to disapprove any ocean disposal project if, in its
judgment, the MPRSA environmental criteria (section 102(a)) or
conditions of designation (section 102(c)) are not met.
The FEIS discusses the need for this site designation and examines
ocean and non-ocean disposal site alternatives to the proposed action.
Specific alternatives considered were the two interim ocean sites,
sites off the continental shelf, land disposal sites, and sites that
might be used for shore protection.
D. Proposed Site Designation
The proposed site is located approximately 7 nautical miles
offshore Bay Point Island, South Carolina. The proposed ODMDS occupies
an area of about 1.0 square nautical miles (nmi2). Water
depths within the area average 36 feet (ft.). The coordinates of the
New Port Royal site proposed for final designation are as follows:
32[deg]05.00' N 80[deg]36.47' W
32[deg]05.00' N 80[deg]35.30' W
32[deg]04.00' N 80[deg]35.30' W
32[deg]04.00' N 80[deg]36.47' W
E. Regulatory Requirements
Pursuant to the Ocean Dumping Regulations, 40 CFR 228.5, five
general criteria are used in the selection and approval for continuing
use of ocean disposal sites. Sites are selected so as to minimize
interference with other marine activities, to prevent any temporary
perturbations associated with the disposal from causing impacts outside
the disposal site, and to permit effective monitoring to detect any
adverse impacts at an early stage. Where feasible, locations off the
Continental Shelf and other sites that have been historically used are
to be chosen. In this case, locations off the Continental Shelf are not
feasible and no environmental benefit would be obtained by selecting
such a site instead of that proposed in this action. Historical use of
the proposed site has not resulted in substantial adverse effects to
living resources of the ocean or to other uses of the marine
environment. If, at any time, disposal
[[Page 9021]]
operations at a site cause unacceptable adverse impacts, further use of
the site can be restricted or terminated by EPA. The proposed site
conforms to the five general criteria.
In addition to these general criteria in Sec. 228.5 and Sec.
228.6 lists the 11 specific criteria used in evaluating a proposed
disposal site to assure that the general criteria are met. Application
of these 11 criteria constitutes an environmental assessment of the
impact of disposal at the site. The characteristics of the proposed
site are reviewed below in terms of these 11 criteria (the EIS may be
consulted for additional information).
1. Geographical position, depth of water, bottom topography, and
distance from coast (40 CFR 228.6(a)(1)).
The boundary of the proposed site is given above. The northern
boundary of the proposed site is located about 7 nmi offshore of Bay
Point Island, South Carolina. The site is approximately 1.0
nmi2 in area. The bottom topography is relatively flat and
featureless, with water depths averaging 36 ft.
2. Location in relation to breeding, spawning, nursery, feeding, or
passage areas of living resources in adult or juvenile phases (40 CFR
228.6(a)(2)).
Many of the area's species spend their adult lives in the offshore
region, but are estuary-dependent because their juvenile stages use a
low salinity estuarine nursery region. Specific migration routes are
not known to occur within the proposed site. The site is not known to
include any major breeding or spawning area. Due to the motility of
finfish, it is unlikely that disposal activities will have any
significant impact on any of the species found in the area. In a letter
dated October 23, 2003, the Habitat Conservation Division of National
Marine Fisheries Service concurred with our assessment that the
proposed action would not have a substantial individual or cumulative
adverse impact on essential fish habitat, or fishery resources.
3. Location in relation to beaches and other amenity areas (40 CFR
228.6(a)(3)).
The proposed site is located approximately 7 nautical miles from
the coast. Considering the previous disposal activities of the existing
ODMDS, dredged material disposal at the site is not expected to have an
effect on the recreational uses of these beaches.
4. Types and quantities of wastes proposed to be disposed of, and
proposed methods of release, including methods of packing the waste, if
any (40 CFR 228(a)(4)).
The type of materials to be disposed of within this proposed site
is dredged material as described in type and quantity by section 2 of
the FEIS. Between the years 1992 and 2003, approximately 200,000 cubic
yards (annual average) have been ocean disposed from this area.
Disposal would be by hopper dredge or dump scow. All disposals shall be
in accordance with the approved Site Management and Monitoring Plan
developed for this site (FEIS, Appendix B).
5. Feasibility of surveillance and monitoring (40 CFR 228.6(a)(5)).
Due to the relative proximity of the site to shore and its depth,
surveillance will not be difficult. The Site Management and Monitoring
Plan (SMMP) for the Port Royal ODMDS has been developed and was
included as an appendix in the FEIS. This SMMP establishes a sequence
of monitoring surveys to be undertaken to determine any impacts
resulting from disposal activities. The SMMP may be reviewed and
revised by EPA. A copy of the SMMP may be obtained at any of the
addresses given above.
6. Dispersal, horizontal transport and vertical mixing
characteristics of the area including prevailing current direction and
velocity, if any (40 CFR 228.6(a)(6)).
A detailed current study, along with fate modelling of dredged
material, was not deemed necessary and therefore was not conducted
within the proposed site. Transport of disposed material should not
present any adverse impacts. In summary, littoral drift is reported to
be predominantly southwestward, while nearshore surface currents are
derived primarily from wind stress, and are subject to extreme
variability.
7. Existence and effects of current and previous discharges and
dumping in the area (including cumulative effects) (40 CFR
228.6(a)(7)).
The proposed ODMDS, as well as past interim sites nearby, has been
used to dispose of the material from the Port Royal Sound area since
1956. Subsequent monitoring of these disposals and the long-term
effects show that no adverse impacts have, or are likely to occur to
the area.
8. Interference with shipping, fishing, recreation, mineral
extraction, desalination, fish and shellfish culture, areas of special
scientific importance and other legitimate uses of the ocean (40 CFR
228.6(a)(8)).
The location of the proposed ODMDS was selected to avoid
interference with commericial shipping. It is not anticipated that the
proposed site would interfere with any recreational activity. In
addition, mineral extraction, fish and shellfish culture, and
desalination activities do not occur in the area.
9. The existing water quality and ecology of the site as determined
by available data or by trend assessment or baseline surveys (40 CFR
228.6(a)(9)).
Appropriate water quality and ecological assessments have been
performed at the site. The most abundant benthic invertebrates found
within the proposed site were the annelid Polygrodius sp., the bivalve
Ervilia concentrica, the polychaete Prionospio cristata, annelids in
the class Oligochaeta, and the bivalve Crassinella lunulata. These five
taxa accounted for more than 40 percent of total number of individuals
collected. More detailed information concerning the water quality and
ecology at the proposed ODMDS is presented in the FEIS. A copy of the
FEIS may be obtained at any of the addresses given above.
10. Potentiality for the development or recruitment of nuisance
species in the disposal site (40 CFR 228.6(a)(10)).
The disposal of dredged materials should not attract or promote the
development of nuisance species. No nuisance species have been reported
to occur at previously utilized disposal sites in the vicinity.
11. Existence at or in close proximity to the site of any
significant natural or cultural features of historical importance (40
CFR 228.6(a)(11)).
There are no known such natural or cultural features of historical
importance. As stated in the FEIS, this proposed action has fully
complied with both the Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act and
the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended.
F. Site Management
Site management of the Port Royal ODMDS is the responsibility of
EPA in cooperation with the COE. The COE issues permits to private
applicants for ocean disposal; however, EPA/Region 4 assumes overall
responsibility for site management.
The Site Management and Monitoring Plan (SMMP) for the proposed
Port Royal ODMDS was developed as a part of the process of completing
the EIS. This plan provides procedures for both site management and for
the monitoring of effects of disposal activities. This SMMP is intended
to be flexible and may be reviewed and revised by the EPA.
G. Proposed Action
The EIS concludes that the proposed site may appropriately be
designated for use. The proposed site is compatible with the 11
specific and 5 general criteria used for site evaluation.
The designation of the Port Royal site as an EPA-approved ODMDS is
being
[[Page 9022]]
published as Proposed Rulemaking. Overall management of this site is
the responsibility of the Regional Administrator of EPA/Region 4.
It should be emphasized that, if an ODMDS is designated, such a
site designation does not constitute EPA's approval of actual disposal
of material at sea. Before ocean disposal of dredged material at the
site may commence, the COE must evaluate a permit application according
to EPA's Ocean Dumping Criteria. EPA has the right to disapprove the
actual disposal if it determines that environmental concerns under
MPRSA have not been met.
The Port Royal ODMDS is not restricted to disposal use by federal
projects; private applicants may also dispose suitable dredged material
at the ODMDS once relevant regulations have been satisfied. This site
is restricted, however, to suitable dredged material from the greater
Port Royal, South Carolina vicinity.
H. Regulatory Assessments
1. Executive Order 12866
Under Executive Order 12866, EPA must determine whether the
regulatory action is ``significant'' and therefore subject to OMB
review and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines
``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a
rule that may:
(A) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
(B) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(C) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(D) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
It has been determined that this proposed rule is not a
``significant regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive Order
12866 and is therefore not subject to OMB review.
2. Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposed rule would not impose an information collection
burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501, et seq.) 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
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, EPA is required to perform a
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for all rules that may have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. EPA has
determined that this action will not have a significant impact on small
entities since the designation will only have the effect of providing
an environmentally acceptable disposal option for dredged material on a
continued basis. Consequently, by publication of this Rule, the
Regional Administrator certifies that this action will not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities and
therefore does not necessitate preparation of a Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis.
4. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA), Public Law
104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal Mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt
the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation of why that
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments to have
meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory
proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and
informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with
the regulatory requirements.
EPA has determined that this proposed action contains no Federal
mandates (under the regulatory provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for
State, local and tribal governments or the private sector. It imposes
no new enforceable duty on any State, local or tribal governments or
the private sector. Thus, the requirements of section 202 and section
205 of the UMRA do not apply to this proposed rule. Similarly, EPA has
also determined that this proposed action contains no regulatory
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small
government entities. Thus, the requirements of section 203 of the UMRA
do not apply to this proposed rule.
5. Executive Order 13132
Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that 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.''
This proposed rule 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,
as specified in Executive Order 13132. As described elsewhere in this
preamble, today's proposed rule would only have the effect of providing
a continual use of an ocean disposal site pursuant to section 102(c) of
MPRSA. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this proposed
rule. Although section 6 of Executive Order 13132 does not apply, EPA
did consult with State officials in developing this proposed action and
no concerns were raised.
6. Executive Order 13175
Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal
[[Page 9023]]
implications.'' This proposed rule does not have tribal implications,
as specified in Executive Order 13175. As described elsewhere in this
preamble, today's proposed rule would only have the effect of providing
continual use of an ocean disposal site pursuant to section 102(c) of
MPRSA. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this proposed
rule.
7. Executive Order 13045
Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to
any rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant'' as
defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental
health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets
both criteria, EPA must evaluate the environmental health or safety
effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned
regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably
feasible alternatives considered by EPA.
This proposed rule is not subject to the Executive Order because it
is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866,
and because EPA does not have any reason to believe the environmental
health or safety risks addressed by this action present a
disproportionate risk to children. As described elsewhere in this
preamble, today's proposed rule would only have the effect of providing
continual use of an ocean disposal site pursuant to section 102(c) of
MPRSA.
8. Executive Order 13211
This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 1001)) because it
is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
9. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note), directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its
regulatory activities unless doing so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide
Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. This proposed
rule does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA did not
consider the use of any voluntary consensus standards.
10. Executive Order 12898
Executive Order 12898 requires that, to the greatest extent
practicable and permitted by law, each Federal agency must make
achieving environmental justice part of its mission. Executive Order
12898 provides that each Federal agency must conduct its programs,
policies, and activities that substantially affect human health or the
environment in a manner that ensures that such programs, policies, and
activities do not have the effect of excluding persons (including
populations) from participation in, denying persons (including
populations) the benefits of, or subjecting persons (including
populations) to discrimination under such programs, policies, and
activities because of their race, color, or national origin.
No action from this proposed rule would have a disproportionately
high and adverse human health and environmental effect on any
particular segment of the population. In addition, this rule does not
impose substantial direct compliance costs on those communities.
Accordingly, the requirements of Executive Order 12898 do not apply.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 228
Environmental protection, Water pollution control.
Dated: February 7, 2005.
J. I. Palmer, Jr.,
Regional Administrator for Region 4.
In consideration of the foregoing, Subchapter H of Chapter I of
Title 40 is proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 228--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 228 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1412 and 1418.
2. Section 228.15 is amended by adding paragraph (h)(23) to read as
follows:
Sec. 228.15 Dumping sites designated on a final basis.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
(23) Port Royal, SC; Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site.
(i) Location (NAD83): 32[deg]05.00' N., 80[deg]36.47' W.; 32[deg]
05.00' N., 80[deg]35.30' W.; 32[deg]04.00' N., 80[deg] 35.30' W.;
32[deg]04.00' N., 80[deg]36.47' W.
(ii) Size: Approximately 1.0 square nautical miles.
(iii) Depth: Averages 36 feet.
(iv) Primary use: Dredged material.
(v) Period of use: Continuing use.
(vi) Restriction: Disposal shall be limited to suitable dredged
material from the greater Port Royal, South Carolina vicinity. Disposal
shall comply with conditions set forth in the most recent approved Site
Management and Monitoring Plan.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 05-3525 Filed 2-23-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P