Je veux savoir à propos de…

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 17, 2021 / Rules and Regulations have a long-term adverse impact on the local economy. In addition, use of the Humboldt Harbor as a port of refuge could be affected. Finally, ship groundings caused by improperly maintained deep-draft channels could result in adverse ecological repercussions i.e., oil and fuel spills.
Although the No Action Alternative would not address the purpose and need for action, it was evaluated as a basis to compare the effects of the other alternatives considered.

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES

Alternative 1: Expansion of HOODS by 1 nmi Preferred Alternative Alternative 1, the Selected Action, is to slightly reorient and expand the existing HOODS boundary by one nmi to the north upcoast and one nmi to the west offshore. Alternative 1 is the Selected Action because it would provide environmentally acceptable disposal capacity for many years, while also affording the most operational flexibility for managing the dredged material in a manner that would further minimize even physical impacts over time. This configuration would result in the total area of the site increasing from one square nmi to four square nmi, and would supersede the original HOODS
boundary. The effective total capacity of the site would increase from the original 25 million cy to over 100 million cy i.e., allowing for 75 million cy of additional disposal to occur, before mounding to 130 feet could again occur across the entire site. If current disposal practices were to continue unchanged i.e., if 1 million cy of entrance channel sand per year were to continue to be disposed of at HOODS
indefinitely, the modified site would reach capacity in about 75 years.
Alternative 2: Expansion of HOODS by 12 nmi Alternative 2 is the expansion of the existing HOODS boundary by 12 nmi to the north upcoast and 12 nmi to the west offshore. This configuration would result in the total area of the site increasing from 1 square nmi to 2.25
square nmi and would supersede the original HOODS boundary. The effective total capacity of the site would increase from the original 25 million cy to approximately 56 million cy i.e., allowing for approximately 31 million cy of additional disposal to occur, before mounding to 130 feet could again occur across the entire site. If current disposal practices were to continue unchanged i.e., if 1 million cy per year of entrance channel sand were to continue to be disposed of at HOODS
indefinitely, the modified site would reach capacity in about 31 years.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

15:56 Feb 16, 2021

Jkt 253001

b. Magnuson-Stevens Act The EPA submitted an EFH
assessment to the NMFS, pursuant to Section 305b, 16 U.S.C. 1855b2, of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 1801 to 1891. The EPA determined that this action will not significantly affect managed species or EFH. NMFS concurred with the EPAs determination, but included one Conservation Recommendation to further minimize potential impacts.
Specifically, NMFS recommended continuing to manage future disposal at HOODS by expanding the mound while leaving other areas of the site undisturbed as long as possible, rather than purposely spreading disposal events throughout the site each year.
The updated SMMP discusses how EPA
will implement this NMFS Conservation Recommendation.
c. Coastal Zone Management Act The EPA submitted a Consistency Determination CD package to the California Coastal Commission CCC on July 20, 2020, following the close of the public comment period on the draft EA
and the proposed rule. The CD package specifically addresses how the proposed action to expand HOODS is consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the California Coastal Act Chapter 3
policies. On October 9, 2020, the CCC
unanimously concurred with EPAs CD
and did not propose any additional measures beyond those already contained in the updated SMMP.
d. Endangered Species Act The ESA, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 1531
tthrough 1544, requires federal agencies to consult with NMFS and the USFWS
to ensure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by the federal agency is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of any critical habitat. The EPA
completed informal ESA consultations with USFWS and NMFS, and the consultations are included as an Appendix to the EA.
Based on those consultations, the EPA
determined that this action will have no effect on marine mammals, sea turtles and certain seabird species. The EPA further determined that this action may affect but is not likely to adversely affect anadromous fish including the SONCC Coho ESU, the CC Chinook Salmon ESU, the NC Steelhead DPS, Eulachon, and sDPS Green Sturgeon, marbled Murrelet, and short-tailed albatross. The Services concurred with
PO 00000

Frm 00041

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

9877

these findings and no additional mitigation measures were recommended beyond the avoidance and minimization aspects of the EPA mandatory disposal site use conditions which would apply to every project using HOODS these conditions are included with the SMMP, and relevant provisions of the SMMP would be identified or incorporated into subsequently issued permits and Federal projects.
e. National Historic Preservation Act The National Historic Preservation Act NHPA, 16 U.S.C. 470 through 470a2, requires federal agencies to consider the effect of their actions on districts, sites, buildings, structures, or objects, included in, or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places NRHP. The depths of the expanded HOODS approximately 150210 feet generally excludes potential habitation or resources related to human settlements in this area.
Historic shipwreck remnants do exist in the general vicinity, but none would be affected by ongoing disposal activities within the expanded HOODS
boundaries.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews This rule modifies the HOODS by replacing the boundaries of the existing site with expanded boundaries, pursuant to Section 102 of the MPRSA, 33 U.S.C 1412. This action complies with applicable executive orders and statutory provisions as follows:
a. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review This action is not a significant regulatory action under the terms of Executive Order 12866 58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993 and is therefore not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011.
b. Executive Order 13089: Coral Reef Protection Executive Order 13089 on Coral Reef Protection directs agencies to preserve and protect the biodiversity, health, heritage, and social and economic value of U.S. coral reef ecosystems and the marine environment. This E.O. does not apply to this action because there are no coral reef ecosystems in the HOODS area.
c. Paperwork Reduction Act This action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction
E:FRFM17FER1.SGM

17FER1