& E PA
US Army
Corps of Engineers
© San Francisco District
Final Evaluation and Environmental Assessment
for Expansion of the Existing
Humboldt Open Ocean Disposal Site (HOODS)
Offshore of Eureka, California
Samoa
State Marine
Buoy 46244
iftetetencei
Existing
HOODS
(No Action)
Alternative 1
HOODS
Boundary
Nearshore Sand
Placement Site
Eureka
Alternative 2
HOODS
Boundary
Cutten
fRidgewood
j Fields landing
Prepared by
US Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9
US Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco District
October 19, 2020
HOODS Expansion: Environmental Assessment and MPRSA Criteria Evaluation
page i

-------
Appendix E
Response to Comments
On the
Draft EA and Proposed Rule
EPA published the draft EA for a 30-day public comment period on May 29, 2020 and accepted
comments until June 29, 2020. Simultaneously with the draft EA, EPA issued for public comment a
proposed rule to implement Alternative 1. The proposed rule is functionally equivalent to a
preliminary Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). Both the draft EA and proposed rule were
available at www.regulations.gov fDocket ID No. EPA-R09-OW-2020-0188) and at
https://www.epa.gov/ocean-dumping/humboldt-open-ocean-disposal-site-hoods-documents.
EPA received feedback from a total of four commenters on the draft EA and proposed rule. Based
on the comments received, only minor, clarifying wording changes have been made to the EA and
proposed rule. The comments received, and EPA's responses, are provided in this Appendix.
HOODS Expansion, Environmental Assessment and MPRSA Criteria Evaluation
page 109

-------
Commenter
Date
Comments
EPA Responses
1. Citizen - no name
given
5-31-2020
(A)	I think this is a great idea to enlarge the dumping site. Has
this site been enlarged before? And do you think it will be
enlarged again in the future?
(B)	I think it is important to have specified dumping sites
throughout the country and the fact that this is being
monitored will help keep this regulation in order. Are
there any strict punishments for people that are caught
dumping elsewhere?
(C)	I hope that this enlargement of the site does not cause any
harm to marine life in the area
(A) Thank you for your comments. HOODS
has not been enlarged before. If
disposal continues at the present rate,
and no new alternatives become
available, the EA estimates that HOODS
would not need to be enlarged again for
approximately 75 years.
(C)	EPA manages about 100 ocean
dumping sites for dredged material
around the country. HOODS is one of 6
sites along the California coast.
Dumping is only permitted at
designated sites, and only with EPA and
USACE approval. Disposers must
comply with all site use conditions in
their permits, and under the Marine
Protection, Research and Sanctuaries
Act (MPRSA), EPA has authority to
enforce the ocean disposal permit
conditions. Civil penalties for violating
the conditions can be quite substantial.
(D)	The evaluation in the EA considered
this issue in detail. There have been no
significant adverse impacts on marine
life or habitat in 25 years of disposal at
HOODS, and it is expected that similar
disposal in the expanded site in the
future also will not result in any
significant adverse impacts.

-------
Commenter
Date
Comments
EPA Responses
2. Lance C. Roddy,
Cartographer,
NOAA
6-5-2020
Dear Mr. Ross, The Marine Chart Division of NOAA's Office of
Coast Survey is responsible for charting U.S. coastal waters
and certain inland waterways. In keeping with that
responsibility, the division depicts the locations of Ocean
Dredged Material Disposal Sites in navigable waterways as
shown on NOAA ENC - Electronic Navigational Charts. My
credentials follow: I am a nautical cartographer; member
since December 2004 of the Nautical Data Branch / Marine
Chart Division / Office of Coast Survey. I have extensive
experience in examining boundaries and regulations
associated with Federal Register Proposed and Final Rules as
they relate to nautical charting. The purpose of my comments
is to provide feedback regarding the Proposed Rule published
in Federal Register Vol. 85, No. 104, pp. 32340 - 32346,
Friday, May 29, 2020; Docket ID EPA-R09-OW-2020-0188.
Subject: Ocean Dumping: Modification of an Ocean Dredged
Material Disposal Site Offshore of Humboldt Bay, California
Humboldt Open Ocean Disposal Site (HOODS) My comments
follow: Per the Summary section on Page 32340, Column 2,
"The primary purpose for the site modification is to enlarge
the site to serve the long-term need for disposal of permitted,
suitable material dredged from Humboldt Harbor and
vicinity..." According to Section III, Environmental Statutory
Review, Page 32344, Column 2, "Alternative 1, the Proposed
Action, is to slightly reorient and expand the existing HOODS
boundary by 1 nmi to the north (upcoast) and 1 nmi to the
west (offshore)." In Esri ArcMap, I plotted the
latitude/longitude corner coordinates for the existing HOODS
boundary (see attached 40 CFR Part 228.15, Ch. I, Page 250
[7-1-19 Edition]), and the latitude/longitude corner
coordinates for the proposed, modified HOODS boundary as
stated on page 32341 (II. Background, Paragraph (b), Column
2) and page 32346 (Section (i), Column 3) of the proposed
rule.
The proposed expansion encompasses a substantial portion
of the existing boundary, but the proposed expansion does
(A) Thank you for your comments. It is
indeed EPA's intention that the new
boundary for HOODS completely
replaces the previous boundary, which
must eventually be removed from all
maps, charts and related publications.
We have added a sentence to the EA
and the final rule to make this clear.
Generally, EPA's headquarters office
periodically coordinates with NOAA
regarding updates to the NOAA maps
and charts based on final rulemakings
that have occurred since the previous
round of updates. But we appreciate
your catching this issue now, and we
look forward to working with NOAA to
ensure that charts and maps depicting
the expanded HOODS are properly
updated at the next appropriate
opportunity.

-------
not fully encompass the eastern and southern portions of the
existing boundary. The HOODS boundary as depicted on ENC
US5CA94M coincides with existing boundary as described in
the CFR mentioned above. Please refer to the attached file,
"Attachmentl_Boundary_and_Chart_Evaluation.pdf".
(A) Is it your agency's intent to expand the boundary
without fully encompassing the existing boundary? I
request that you re-evaluate the proposed boundary
and consider the following three options for
publishing the boundary in the Final Rule: 1. Revise
the coordinates of the proposed boundary to fully
encompass the existing boundary. 2. Retain the
coordinates of the proposed boundary and add
additional coordinates to represent the vertices
formed by the intersection of the existing and
proposed boundaries. 3. Based on my evaluation of
the EPA Environmental Assessment (pp. 8,11), dated
4/15/2020, the small areas outside the proposed
boundary appear to coincide with a Buffer Zone (No
Disposal) of the existing HOODS. If your evaluation
unequivocally indicates that dredged material does
not exist within the areas of the existing boundary
outside of the proposed boundary, then perhaps you
could state in the Final Rule that the new boundary
completely replaces the previous boundary, which
must be removed from all maps, charts and related
publications. My goal is to ensure that the
cartographic production team of the Marine Chart
Division will receive a revised boundary description
and coordinates that your Agency explains clearly,
and which do not conflict with the charted boundary.
The achievement of this goal can lead to an efficient
process of revising the boundary on the affected
charts. If you have any questions or comments, please
feel free to contact me per the contact information
that I have provided.
Respectfully, Lance C. Roddy, Cartographer

-------
Commenter
Date
Comments
EPA Responses
Larry Simon
6-23-2020
The Commission staff submits the following comment on the
May 29, 2020, Federal Register notice regarding the proposed
boundary modification to HOODS.
(A) The Commission staff looks forward to receiving EPA's
consistency determination for the proposed boundary
modification and to working with EPA staff on this
submittal. Best regards,
Larry Simon
Manager, Federal Consistency Unit
Energy, Ocean Resources and
Federal Consistency Division
California Coastal Commission
(A) Thank you for your comment. EPA
looks forward to presenting our Coastal
Consistency Determination (CCD)
package for the Commission's review in
the coming weeks, and to addressing
any specific comments the Commission
and staff may have. EPA will not
publish the final rule for expanding
HOODS until any Commission
comments have been fully considered.
Tessa Beach and
Mark Wiechmann,
USACE San Francisco
6-29-2020
From: Wiechmann, Mark J CIV USARMY CESPN (USA):
Tessa,
I'm still looking it over.
I have one correction so far:
(A)	Section 4.1.1, middle of last paragraph (p.28) - change the
word "ether" to "either".
Everything else, so far, looks fine.
-M
From: Beach, Tessa E CIV USARMY CESPN (USA)
Hi Mark,
Thanks for your review! If it is just editorial, as with your
comment below,
(B)	I think letting John and Brian know would be fine, we
won't need to submit anything formally.
Appreciate you wrapping up this review and please let me
know if you do end up having any other comments.
Respectfully,
Tessa Eve Beach, Ph.D.
Chief, Environmental Sections
Thank you for your review and comments.
EPA appreciates the close working
relationship our agencies have enjoyed, and
the assistance USACE staff has provided,
during development of the HOODS EA and
proposed rule.
(A)	The typographical error in Section 4.1.1
has been corrected.
(B)	No additional comments from USACE
were received.

-------