Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 87 / Friday, May 5, 1995 / Notices 22381

the right to receive copies of caserelated Commission documents and

filings by other intervenors. Likewise,

each intervenor must provide copies of

its filings to all other parties. If you

want to become an intervenor you must

file a motion to intervene according to

Rule 214 of the Commission’s Rules of

Practice and Procedure (18 CFR

385.214) (see appendix 2).

The date for filing timely motions to

intervene in this proceeding has passed.

Therefore, parties now seeking to file

late interventions must show good

cause, as required by section

385.214(b)(3), why this time limitation

should be waived. Environmental issues

have been viewed as good cause for late

intervention. You do not need

intervenor status to have your scoping

comments considered.

Additional information about the

proposed project is available from Mrs.

Dawn Neumann, EA Project Manager, at

(202) 208–1046.

Lois D. Cashell,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–11115 Filed 5–4–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL–5200–9]

Public Notice; Review of Lake

Michigan Lakewide Management Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

SUMMARY: This document provides

opportunity for comment on the revised

draft Lakewide Management Plan

(LaMP) for Lake Michigan as required

by the Great Lakes Critical Programs Act

of 1990. The Lake Michigan LaMP will

serve to satisfy the obligations of the

United States Environmental Protection

Agency (USEPA or Agency) under

Section 118 (c) (4) of the Clean Water

Act. This revised draft LaMP was

developed by USEPA, in cooperation

with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,

U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S.

Geological Survey, the States of Illinois,

Indiana, Michigan, and Wisconsin, and

the Chippewa/Ottawa Treaty Fishery

Management Authority. USEPA puts

forward this draft LaMP for public

comment on behalf of these agencies.

The draft Lake Michigan LaMP

describes the pollutants impacting Lake

Michigan on a lakewide and regional

scale and informs the public of the

variety of actions that Federal, State,

Tribal, and local governments and

private organizations are taking, will

take, or could take to reduce the amount

of these pollutants entering the waters

of the Lake Michigan watershed. Due to

its length and format, the draft Lake

Michigan LaMP is summarized in this

notice, rather than published in full. As

described in this notice, USEPA is

making copies of the entire revised draft

Lake Michigan LaMP available to the

public. USEPA also has produced, and

is making available to the public, a

Responsiveness Summary which details

USEPA’s responses to comments

received on an earlier draft Lake

Michigan LaMP, dated January 1, 1992.

Comments on the January 1, 1992, draft

LaMP were solicited in a Federal

Register notice of availability published

on August 11, 1992 (57 FR 41941), and

during seven public meetings held

throughout the Lake Michigan basin in

the fall 1992. Because numerous

comments were received on the draft

LaMP, which led to substantial

revisions of the document, the Agency

is providing the public another

opportunity to review and comment on

the revised draft Lake Michigan LaMP.

With this notice, USEPA is soliciting

comments on all aspects of the revised

draft LaMP. In particular, USEPA seeks

comments regarding the proposed list of

Critical Pollutants and Pollutants of

Concern for Lake Michigan, and the

actions available to Federal, State, and

local agencies, as well as the public, to

reduce the release of these pollutants

from all sources and the presence of

these substances in the waters of the

Lake Michigan watershed. USEPA

hopes to publish a final Stage 1 Lake

Michigan LaMP in the Federal Register

by January 1996.

DATES: USEPA will accept comment on

the revised draft Lake Michigan LaMP

for 60 days after the date of publication

of this notice of availability. In addition,

USEPA has considered materials

submitted by the public prior to today’s

notice in the development of the revised

draft LaMP. These materials contain

comments on draft elements that have

been superseded by today’s proposal

and USEPA will not consider them in

the development of the LaMP. Further,

USEPA cannot ensure consideration of

comments submitted to other agencies

or entities other than USEPA in the

development of the LaMP. Accordingly,

USEPA advises the public that for the

purposes of exhaustion of

administrative remedies, all comments

must be submitted to USEPA based on

today’s notice.

ADDRESSES: All comments should be

addressed to Jeanette Morris-Collins,

Environmental Protection Assistant,

U.S. EPA, Region 5 (WQ–16J), 77 West

Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois,

60604 (telephone: 312–886–0152). To

obtain a copy of the revised draft Lake

Michigan LaMP or to provide oral or

written comments, please contact

Jeanette Morris-Collins, Environmental

Protection Assistant, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency—

Region 5 (WQ–16J), 77 West Jackson,

Chicago, Illinois 60604, 312/886–0152.

Copies of the revised draft Lake

Michigan LaMP may also be obtained

from the following offices:

Illinois Environmental Protection

Agency, ATTN: Bob Schacht, 1701 S.

First Avenue, Suite 600, Maywood,

Illinois 60153, 708/338–7900

Indiana Department of Environmental

Management, ATTN: Adriane

Esparza, Gainer Bank Building, 504 N.

Broadway, Suite 418, Gary, Indiana

46402, 219/881–6707

Michigan Department of Natural

Resources, ATTN: Amy Shelton, P.O.

Box 30028, Lansing, Michigan 48909,

517/335–1211

Water Resources Management,

Wisconsin Department of Natural

Resources, ATTN: Jo Mercurio, 101 S.

Webster Street, P.O. Box 7921,

Madison, Wisconsin 53707, 608/267–

2452

Lake Michigan Federation, 59 E. Van

Buren Street, Suite 2215, Chicago,

Illinois 60605, 312/939–0838

Lake Michigan Federation, 1270 Main

Street, Green Bay, Wisconsin 54302,

414/432–5253

Lake Michigan Federation, 647 W.

Virginia, Milwaukee, Wisconsin

53204, 414/271–5059

Lake Michigan Federation, 425 Western

Avenue, Suite 201, Muskegon,

Michigan 49440, 616/722–5116

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary

Kohlhepp, Lake Michigan LaMP

Coordinator, U.S. EPA, Region 5 (WQ–

16J), 77 West Jackson Blvd., Chicago,

Illinois, 60604 (telephone: 312–886–

4680).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

In Article VI, Annex 2 of the Great

Lakes Water Quality Agreement

(GLWQA), as amended by Protocol in

1987, the United States and Canadian

Governments agreed to develop and

implement Lakewide Management Plans

(LaMPs) for each of the five Great Lakes.

In the 1987 amendments to the Clean

Water Act (CWA; Public Law 100–4,

February 4, 1987), Congress directed

USEPA to take the lead in the effort to

meet the goals embodied in the

GLWQA, with particular emphasis on
22382 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 87 / Friday, May 5, 1995 / Notices

toxic pollutants, in cooperation with

other Federal and State agencies and

local authorities (Section 118 (a)(1)). For

Lake Michigan, the Government of the

United States has the sole responsibility

for developing the LaMP.

Congress further emphasized the

importance of the LaMP process for

Lake Michigan in the Great Lakes

Critical Programs Act of 1990 (GLCPA;

Public Law 101–596, November 16,

1990) by establishing a specific

schedule for Lake Michigan LaMP

development. Section 101 of the GLCPA

directs USEPA to:

• Publish in the Federal Register a

proposed LaMP for Lake Michigan and

solicit public comments by January 1,

1992;

• Submit a proposed LaMP for Lake

Michigan to the International Joint

Commission for review by January 1,

1993; and

• Publish in the Federal Register a

final LaMP for Lake Michigan and begin

implementation by January 1, 1994.

The LaMP for Lake Michigan

represents a summary of the Agency’s

current knowledge regarding specific

pollutants impacting the waters of Lake

Michigan, the current sources and

loadings of these pollutants into the

Lake, and initial steps to reduce both

loads and ambient concentrations of

these pollutants.

The goals of the Lake Michigan LaMP

are: (1) To reduce both the ambient

concentrations and the mass loadings of

toxic pollutants from all sources, in

order to restore the 14 beneficial uses

(Listed in the GLWQA) of Lake

Michigan and protect and restore the

physical, chemical, and biological

integrity of Lake Michigan; (2) to

prevent any further degradation of the

Lake Michigan System from the release

of toxic pollutants and to avoid the need

for remedial actions in the future; (3) to

be a mechanism of progress for the Lake

Michigan System towards the

Agreement’s goal of virtually

eliminating the discharge of persistent,

bioaccumulative toxic pollutants

throughout the Great Lakes System; and

(4) to implement the requirements of the

Clean Water Act and thereby achieve

the goals and objectives of the Great

Lakes Water Quality Agreement.

USEPA intends the Lake Michigan

LaMP to serve as the basis for

development and submission of Water

Quality Management Plans developed in

accordance with Sections 208 and

303(b) of the CWA, as implemented

through the requirements of 40 CFR

130.6. These plans establish a process

for continuous water quality planning

which focuses on priority issues and

geographic areas and on the

development of water quality controls

leading to implementation measures.

Such plans draw on water quality

assessments to identify priority point

and nonpoint water quality problems,

consider alternative solutions and

recommend control measures. Annual

state workplans are to be based on these

priority areas identified in each State

WQM plan. In this way, USEPA and the

States will ensure reasonable progress in

the overall improvement of Great Lakes

water quality and attainment of

beneficial uses.

II. Management Process

The development and implementation

of a LaMP for Lake Michigan is an

enormous undertaking in terms of the

technical complexity of the

environmental issues, the geographic

area involved, and the extensive

coordination needed at the Federal,

State, Tribal and local levels and with

the public. USEPA believes full

participation by all interested parties is

necessary to ensure reasonable progress

in developing the LaMP.

The Lake Michigan LaMP is directed

by the Lake Michigan Management

Committee, a steering committee

consisting of managers of Federal, State,

and Tribal agencies. The Management

Committee is responsible for: (1)

Providing overall policy direction to the

program, defining program priorities,

and ensuring program implementation

through application of all relevant

programmatic and statutory authorities,

and through voluntary and innovative

programs; (2) convening technical work

groups composed of Federal, State, and

other representatives as necessary to

develop recommendations for action; (3)

reviewing and approving the LaMP or

specific elements of it, technical

workgroup products and

recommendations; (4) ensuring public

participation and review; and (5)

securing resources for LaMP

development and implementation.

A Technical Coordinating Committee

(TCC), comprised of technical staff from

participating agencies, reports to the

Management Committee. The TCC

meets quarterly to identify and discuss

LaMP priorities and provide specific

recommendations concerning LaMP

development and implementation to the

Management Committee.

Public participation in the

development and implementation of the

Lake Michigan LaMP is accomplished

through three tiers of activity: (1)

General public education through

workshops, public presentations, and

the distribution of fact sheets and other

written materials; (2) public notices to

provide the opportunity for broad

public review of LaMP documents and

progress on implementation; and (3) the

Lake Michigan Forum. The Lake

Michigan Forum consists of members of

the public from environmental groups,

industry, non-profit organizations,

municipalities, and other interested

citizens, with membership and meetings

open to any interested parties. The

Forum meets quarterly to discuss LaMP

issues, provides comment to the

Management Committee on specific

issues, and reviews and comments on

LaMP documents. Participation in

technical work groups is open to the

public. The Forum does not substitute

for the activities described in tiers 1 and

2. Forum members are encouraged to

inform their constituencies of activities

carried out under the LaMP program

and to provide the Management

Committee with their constituencies’

views and concerns on LaMP activities.

III. LaMP Process

The Lake Michigan LaMP embodies a

process for implementing a multi-media

approach to environmental protection.

The process consists of the following

steps:

(1) Monitoring the environment and

reviewing available data to identify any

existing beneficial use impairments or

other ecological impairments, as well as

any potential threats to Lake Michigan

and its watershed;

(2) Identifying the pollutants

associated with impairments or threats;

(3) Identifying sources of these

pollutants;

(4) Measuring or estimating the

quantity of pollutants being released by

those sources and the amount reaching

the waters of the Lake Michigan System

(i.e., the ‘‘loading’’ of the pollutants);

(5) Establishing load reductions that

will allow the restoration and protection

of the ecological health of the Lake

Michigan System;

(6) Developing and implementing

specific strategies to reduce the levels of

pollutant loadings and/or ambient levels

in the waters of the Lake Michigan

System;

(7) Monitoring reductions from all

pollutant sources;

(8) Evaluating ecosystem response,

through monitoring of ecosystem

indicators, to measure progress towards

restoration of beneficial uses and

ecosystem integrity, and to detect

emerging problems; and,

(9) Revising the LaMP to reflect the

results of load reduction actions,

incorporate additional data on the status

of beneficial uses and ecosystem

integrity, and identify the next series of

necessary actions.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 87 / Friday, May 5, 1995 / Notices 22383

USEPA intends the LaMP to serve as

a guide for environmental managers in

the Lake Michigan Basin by defining a

network of dynamic, interrelated

actions. In subsequent iterations of the

Lake Michigan LaMP, USEPA

anticipates more information will

become available, and additional load

reduction activities identified for

implementation by the participating

agencies. USEPA and the participating

agencies will assess the effectiveness of

ongoing efforts, and establish new

priorities as appropriate.

USEPA and the participating agencies

believe the LaMP process will improve

environmental protection efforts by: (1)

Coordinating on a lakewide basis the

prevention, abatement and remediation

programs undertaken in support of the

Great Lakes program; (2) coordinating

Federal, State, local, and tribal activities

to avoid duplication of effort, ensure

that ongoing activities are

complementary, and identify

opportunities to enhance ongoing

efforts; (3) communicating information

among all levels of government and the

public in order to both fully inform the

public of ongoing and proposed

activities and provide a forum for public

input and comment; (4) providing a

specific mechanism for linking

pollution control activities to

environmental results; and (5)

identifying and evaluating gaps in

existing programs, authorities, and

voluntary activities which represent

impediments to restoring and protecting

Lake Michigan, and making

recommendations on how to improve

environmental protection efforts.

Because Annex 2 of the GLWQA

specifically states that the United States

and Canadian governments are to

develop ‘‘Lakewide Management Plans

for Critical Pollutants’’, USEPA believes

that the current focus on pollutants

fulfills the requirements of the GLWQA.

However, USEPA recognizes that toxic

pollutants in Lake Michigan are not the

only causes of impairments of beneficial

uses. For example, habitat losses and

shifts in species composition may be

equally important factors contributing to

degraded conditions. Therefore, future

iterations of the LaMP will be expanded

to look at the beneficial use

impairments caused by all stressors,

including toxics, nutrients, habitat loss/

degradation, exotic species, and

resource exploitation. In this manner

the Agency believes the LaMP process

can facilitate appropriate management

attention on other stressors in addition

to toxic pollutants.

IV. LaMP Integration With Other Great

Lakes Initiatives

There are a number of other programs

the United States is currently

implementing to prevent pollutants

from being introduced, reduce pollutant

loadings currently being discharged,

and remediate past pollutant discharges

to the waters of the Great Lakes System.

Together, the Agency believes these

represent a comprehensive approach to

restoring and protecting the Great Lakes

System.

The Great Lakes 5-Year Strategy

(Strategy) commits the Federal, Tribal,

and State agencies responsible for

environmental protection in the Great

Lakes to achieving specific

environmental goals. The Strategy has

three primary components: reducing

and virtually eliminating toxic

pollutants; protecting and restoring

habitat; and protecting the health of all

Great Lakes species. In the area of toxics

reduction, the Strategy calls for ‘‘ * * *

[reducing] the level of toxic substances

in the Great Lakes system with an

emphasis on persistent toxic substances,

so that all organisms are adequately

protected and toxic substances are

virtually eliminated from the Great

Lakes ecosystem.’’ The Lake Michigan

LaMP is one piece of the 5-Year

Strategy’s toxics reduction component.

Annex 2 of the GLWQA also directs

the State and Provincial Governments to

develop and implement Remedial

Action Plans (RAPs) to restore and

protect beneficial uses in specific areas

designated as Areas of Concern (AOCs).

By definition, the RAPs are designed to

address local problems within the AOC,

problems which may or may not be

reflected on a lakewide basis. There are

ten AOCs located in the Lake Michigan

watershed. Through the LaMP, USEPA

intends to document sources of

pollutants and estimate loads of

pollutants to Lake Michigan from the

AOCs, and determine whether or not

these areas contribute significantly to

lakewide impairments. Pollution

prevention, abatement and remediation

activities that are carried out through

the RAP process will reduce toxic

chemical inputs to Lake Michigan.

USEPA does not intend for the LaMP to

duplicate or interfere with RAP efforts,

but rather to serve as an umbrella under

which RAP activities can be placed into

a lakewide context. Any toxic chemical

contributing to use impairments in an

AOC is listed as a Lake Michigan LaMP

Pollutant. This approach maximizes

coordination and minimizes duplication

of effort between LaMPs and RAPs.

USEPA believes that including

nearshore and coastal areas within the

definition of open lake waters is

appropriate as use impairments most

representative of the toxic pollution

problem in Lake Michigan (e.g.,

bioaccumulation in the aquatic food

chain and resulting wildlife deformities

at the top of the food chain) occur most

frequently in nearshore areas where

biological activity is highest.

A major initiative across the Great

Lakes Basin was the development of the

final Water Quality Guidance for the

Great Lakes System (Guidance), signed

by the Administrator on March 13,

1995. The final Guidance represents a

milestone in the 30 years of effort on the

part of the Great Lakes stakeholders to

define and apply innovative,

comprehensive environmental programs

in protecting and restoring the Great

Lakes. In particular, publication of the

final Guidance culminates six years of

intensive, cooperative effort that

included participation by the eight

Great Lakes States, the environmental

community, academia, industry,

municipalities and USEPA Regional and

National offices.

The Guidance consists of water

quality criteria for 29 pollutants to

protect aquatic life, wildlife, and human

health, and detailed methodologies to

develop criteria for additional

pollutants; implementation procedures

to develop more consistent, enforceable

water quality-based effluent limits in

discharge permits, as well as total

maximum daily loads of pollutants that

can be allowed to reach the Lakes and

their tributaries from all sources; and

antidegradation policies and

procedures. The final Guidance will

help establish consistent, enforceable,

long-term protection with respect to all

types of pollutants, but will place shortterm emphasis on the types of longlasting pollutants that accumulate in the

food web and pose a threat to the Great

Lakes System. In addition, the Guidance

provisions help establish consistent

goals or minimum requirements for

Remedial Action Plans and Lakewide

Management Plans that are critical to

the success of international multi-media

efforts to protect and restore the Great

Lakes ecosystem. The final Guidance

also establishes goals and minimum

requirements that will further the next

phase of Great Lakes programs,

including the Great Lakes Toxic

Reduction Effort’s integrated, multimedia ecosystem approach.

Great Lakes States and Tribes will use

the water quality criteria,

methodologies, policies, and procedures

in the Guidance to establish consistent,

enforceable, long-term protection for

fish and shellfish in the Great Lakes and

their tributaries, as well as for the
22384 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 87 / Friday, May 5, 1995 / Notices

people and wildlife who consume them.

Under the Clean Water Act, the States

of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan,

Minnesota, New York, Ohio,

Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin must

adopt provisions into their water quality

standards and NPDES permit programs

within two years following publication

of the final Guidance that are consistent

with the Guidance, or USEPA will

promulgate the provisions for them.

USEPA, working in conjunction with

the Great Lakes States, are developing

an integrated, basin-wide framework

under the Great Lakes 5-Year Strategy to

achieve additional reductions in

loadings of toxic contaminants from

nonpoint sources to the Great Lakes.

The activities under this framework are

collectively referred to as the ‘‘Great

Lakes Toxics Reduction Effort’’. The

following principles guide the process:

1. Focus on bioaccumulative

chemicals of concern (BCCs) as

proposed in the Great Lakes Water

Quality Guidance;

2. Sufficient action where scientific

knowledge currently exists to prevent,

control, or eliminate certain BCCs;

3. To strategically apply appropriate

elements of existing legislative,

regulatory, and nonregulatory

authorities, and address relevant

programmatic gaps to reduce toxic

pollutant loads to the Great Lakes;

4. Perform additional scientific

research to identify the sources and

relative contributions of toxics from all

sources, to better target future reduction

efforts;

5. Undertake these efforts in an open,

collaborative process with Federal,

State, Tribal, and local partners and

provide opportunity for full and

meaningful public participation.

6. Do as much of the work as possible

through existing committees and

structures, rather than creating new

ones.

In keeping with these guidelines,

there are three major activities being

pursued: (a) The Pathway/Source

analysis, focusing on the primary

sources and mechanisms or ‘‘pathways’’

through which BCCs enter the Great

Lakes System; (b) the Virtual

Elimination Project, focusing on the

sources, uses, and releases of BCCs,

including PCBs and mercury, in the

Great Lakes basin and analyzing ways to

achieve further reductions; and (c) the

Lake Michigan Enhanced Monitoring

Program, designed to guide future toxic

reduction efforts. The Pathway/Source

analysis focuses on: air deposition;

contaminated sediments; transport,

handling, and short-term storage; waste

sites; and stormwater and combined

sewer overflows. Ultimately, procedures

will be established for the attainment of

the water quality criteria and values

proposed in the Guidance through the

application of appropriate elements of

environmental authorities to nonpoint

sources throughout the Great Lakes

basin.

V. Environmental Objectives and

Indicators

The development of environmental

objectives and indicators are essential

for the Lake Michigan LaMP to

demonstrate success. In Annex 1 of the

GLWQA, the U.S. government, in

consultation with State governments,

agreed to develop environmental

objectives for the waters of the Great

Lakes System, as the state of the

knowledge permits. Ecosystem

objectives and indicators for Lake

Michigan, when finalized and adopted

into the Lake Michigan LaMP, will serve

to further the broader goals of the

Agency’s Great Lakes program.

USEPA views ecosystem objectives as

an integral component of LaMPs

consistent with the general principles of

Annex 2 of the GLWQA that LaMPs

embody a systematic and

comprehensive ecosystem approach to

restoring and protecting beneficial uses.

Proposed Lake Michigan ecosystem

objectives for aquatic communities,

wildlife, human health, habitat, and

stewardship were formulated by

representatives of Federal and State

agencies and members of the public at

a December 1991 workshop held in

Chicago, Illinois. Because the Agency

intends to finalize and adopt

environmental objectives based on

comments received, USEPA requests

public comment on the proposed

objectives described in Chapter 1 of the

revised draft LaMP, including the scope

and appropriateness of these proposed

objectives.

In addition, USEPA and the other

participating agencies currently are

developing environmental indicators for

Lake Michigan. These indicators, when

finalized, will define specific

measurable endpoints, including both

chemical and biological components,

relating to the final Lake Michigan

ecosystem objectives. In this manner,

USEPA will be able to measure progress

towards achieving the ecosystem

objectives for Lake Michigan. Interested

members of the public also will have

opportunities to participate in the

development of, as well as review and

comment on, environmental indicators

prior to final adoption.

The Great Lakes Water Quality

Guidance establishes water quality

criteria and goals to protect aquatic life,

wildlife, and human health in the Great

Lakes Basin. The water quality criteria

and values in the Guidance apply to all

the ambient waters of the Great Lakes

System, regardless of the source of

pollutants to those waters. In this

manner, the water quality criteria and

values provide the basis for integrating

actions carried out under the range of

environmental programs available to

Federal, State, and Tribal regulators to

restore and protect the Great Lakes.

USEPA intends to use the water quality

criteria and values as indicators of the

health of the Lake Michigan system.

USEPA requests comments on this

approach.

VI. Lake Michigan LaMP Pollutants

A Critical Pollutant Work Group,

consisting of technical staff from

USEPA, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

U.S. Geological Survey, and the four

Lake Michigan States, has developed a

process for listing and delisting

substances as LaMP Pollutants and

identified those chemicals that, based

on existing information, are impacting

Lake Michigan and its watershed. The

Critical Pollutant Work Group

recommends that LaMP Pollutants be

categorized into three levels based on

degree of association with use

impairments and spatial distribution or

frequency of occurrence. Subsequent

LaMP management activities also would

be tiered based on pollutant

classification.

The Great Lakes Water Quality

Agreement defines Critical Pollutants as

substances that exist at levels that

impair beneficial uses due to their

presence in open lake waters, their

ability to cause or contribute to a failure

to meet Agreement objectives, or their

ability to bioaccumulate. For the

purposes of the Lake Michigan LaMP,

USEPA proposes ‘‘Critical Pollutants’’

(Level 1) as those chemicals that violate

the most stringent Federal/State water

quality standard or criteria, exceed an

FDA action level in Lake Michigan fish,

or are associated with lakewide use

impairments. Based on the available

information regarding the pollution of

Lake Michigan and the effects or

potential effects of the pollutants on

aquatic life, wildlife, and humans,

USEPA is proposing the following

pollutants as Critical Pollutants (Level I)

for Lake Michigan: total polychlorinated

biphenyls (PCBs); dieldrin; chlordane;

DDT and degradation products (DDD

and DDE isomers); polychlorinated

dibenzo-para-dioxins (dioxins);

polychlorinated dibenzofurans (furans);

and mercury. These substances are the

primary focus of the LaMP program.

USEPA proposes ‘‘Pollutants of

Concern’’ (Level 2) as those pollutants
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 87 / Friday, May 5, 1995 / Notices 22385

associated with local or regional use

impairments (including AOCs) or for

which there is evidence that loadings to,

or ambient concentrations in, the Lake

Michigan watershed are increasing.

Management actions for these

substances will emphasize pollution

prevention efforts, load reduction

opportunities, and additional

information collection. Pollutants of

Concern include any chemicals

associated with a use impairment in an

Area of Concern, if it is not already

listed as a Critical Pollutant. In these

instances, the LaMP process will not

duplicate or interfere with RAP efforts.

USEPA believes that listing pollutants

associated with impairments in only

one or a few AOCs as LaMP Pollutants

of Concern recognizes that these

substances are present in the Lake

Michigan watershed, have been

associated with an impairment, and may

be transported into the Lake if control

measures are not taken. When the RAP

process determines that a chemical no

longer contributes to use impairments in

any Lake Michigan AOC, it will be

removed from the LaMP Pollutant list.

USEPA believes that listing chemicals

with increasing loads and/or

concentrations, and those that cause

impairments in AOCs, as LaMP

Pollutants of Concern is consistent with

the Agency’s intent to prevent future

impairments of beneficial uses and is

consistent with the Agency’s pollution

prevention policy. This approach will

allow the participating agencies to

prevent or reduce pollutant loads prior

to their causing a lakewide problem.

Based on available data, USEPA is

proposing the following Pollutants of

Concern for Lake Michigan:

Hexachlorobenzene, toxaphene,

polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons

(PAHs), lead, copper, zinc, arsenic,

cadmium, chromium, and cyanide.

In addition to addressing persistent

toxic pollutants which contribute to

ecological impairments, USEPA

proposes that the LaMP process identify

those pollutants which have not yet

been associated with an impairment, but

whose characteristics suggest the ability

to impact the Lake Michigan System.

USEPA believes the identification and

reduction of pollutant loadings to Lake

Michigan waters before they reach

levels sufficient to cause beneficial use

impairments is consistent with the

Agency’s intent to prevent future

impairments of beneficial uses and is

consistent with the Agency’s pollution

prevention policy. USEPA proposes

‘‘Emerging Pollutants’’ (Level 3) as those

toxic substances that, while not

presently known to contribute to

impairments or to show increasing

loadings or concentrations, have

characteristics that indicate a potential

to impact the physical or biological

integrity of Lake Michigan. These

characteristics include presence in the

watershed, ability to bioaccumulate,

persistence, and toxicity. A brief

summary of information concerning

these characteristics will be developed

for any pollutant listed as an Emerging

Pollutant, as well as a description of

information required to determine

whether it should be moved up on, or

removed from, the LaMP Pollutant list.

USEPA believes that listing pollutants

under ‘‘Emerging Pollutants’’ is another

mechanism to help prevent pollutants

from causing lakewide problems. In

terms of management action for

Emerging Pollutants, the Work Group

recommends data collection, research,

and monitoring efforts. Emerging

Pollutants will not be subject to

pollution prevention, reduction, or

remediation efforts through the LaMP

process. Instead, the LaMP recommends

Emerging Pollutants as priorities for

data gathering and research activities.

Based on available information, USEPA

proposes the following substances as

‘‘Emerging Pollutants’’: atrazine,

selenium, and 5 PCB substitute

compounds (isopropylbiphenyl,

Santosol 100 and 150, Suresol 290,

Diisopropylnaphthalene).

USEPA intends information regarding

Emerging Pollutants to be compiled and

summarized, including data on

chemical properties (persistence,

bioaccumulation, and toxicity), ambient

concentrations, loadings, and sources.

Where information is lacking for

specific pollutants, these data gaps will

be identified and recommendations for

future needs developed through the

LaMP process. USEPA intends to

develop one page ‘‘fact sheets’’ that

briefly summarize pertinent information

for Emerging Pollutants. These fact

sheets will be updated as more data

become available. In some cases,

information collection may be a longterm process.

The Agencies will review and update

the LaMP Pollutant list for Lake

Michigan as necessary based on data

generation and new information. This

process will include:

1. Convening the Critical Pollutant

Work Group to review available

information regarding:

(a) Contaminants currently listed as

LaMP Pollutants for which data indicate

that either removal from the list or

dropping to a lower category is

warranted. Reasons could include load

reductions, elimination of association

with use impairments, and/or

compliance with all standards, criteria,

or action levels;

(b) Pollutants listed as LaMP

Pollutants or not previously listed, for

which current information suggests

moving up on or adding to the list. Such

evidence would include a lakewide

(Critical Pollutant) or local (Pollutant of

Concern) association with an ecological

impairment, a violation of a numerical

or narrative standard (Critical

Pollutant), increasing loads/ambient

concentrations (Pollutant of Concern),

or characteristics indicating a potential

to adversely impact Lake Michigan

(Emerging Pollutant).

2. Critical Pollutant Work Group

recommendations, based on these

reviews, to the Management Committee

concerning chemicals for listing/

delisting or changing categories. These

recommendations and supporting

documentation also will be presented to

the Lake Michigan Forum for review

and comment.

3. Management Committee review of

Work Group recommendations and

Forum comments regarding alterations

of the pollutant list and issuance of a

final recommendation. If the

Management Committee recommends

changes to the list, these will become

final pending their publication in the

Federal Register, a 45-day public

comment period, and publication of the

revised list.

USEPA requests comments on its

proposal to designate the pollutants

listed above as Critical Pollutants,

Pollutants of Concern, and Emerging

Pollutants for Lake Michigan, the

approaches for designating these

pollutants, and the proposed process for

revising the lists. USEPA requests

proposals for pollutants other than those

listed above to be added to any of the

three levels, as well as the scientific

basis for such additions. USEPA further

requests any information concerning the

concentration of a substance in the

water or sediments of Lake Michigan, or

in the tissues of the aquatic life,

wildlife, or humans that are dependent

on Lake Michigan for food or water,

which suggests that a substance should

be considered for listing in Lake

Michigan. In addition, USEPA requests

any additional information on sources

and loadings of these and any other

substances that may contribute to, or

have the potential to contribute to,

impairments of beneficial uses in the

Lake Michigan ecosystem.

VII. Source Identification and Load

Quantification

The draft Lake Michigan LaMP

identifies potential sources of the

proposed Levels 1, 2, and 3 Pollutants,
22386 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 87 / Friday, May 5, 1995 / Notices

and estimates pollutant loadings from

these sources where such estimates

exist. Sources of LaMP Pollutants to

Lake Michigan discussed in the LaMP

include NPDES facilities (industrial and

municipal), urban and agricultural

runoff, atmospheric deposition,

tributaries, hazardous waste facilities

and sites (RCRA, CERCLA),

groundwater, stormwater, and

contaminated sediments. Load estimates

for toxic pollutants from most of these

sources to Lake Michigan are scarce or

nonexistent. USEPA intends to better

identify sources of LaMP Pollutants and

generate more accurate load estimates

from various sources in future iterations

of the Lake Michigan LaMP in order to

prioritize prevention, reduction, and

remediation activities.

One major activity being developed

through the Lake Michigan LaMP is the

Lake Michigan Enhanced Monitoring

Program, an integrated tributary and air

deposition study for LaMP Pollutants.

Full sampling of 11 tributaries and nine

land-based atmospheric deposition

stations (as well as some overwater

stations) began in April 1994 and will

continue through October 1995. This

study will allow USEPA and the

participating Agencies to identify which

tributaries contribute the greatest loads

of LaMP Pollutants to Lake Michigan, as

well as to determine the relative loading

contributions of tributaries and air

deposition.

Other source identification and load

quantification actions have been

initiated or are being planned by

USEPA, the States, and local authorities.

These include:

1. Development of a Lake Michigan

mass balance model, which will allow

water quality managers to predict the

environmental benefits of specific load

reduction scenarios for toxic pollutants,

and the time required to realize those

benefits;

2. Estimate of LaMP Pollutant

loadings to Lake Michigan from

tributary and harbor contaminated

sediments;

3. Lake Michigan Environmental

Monitoring and Assessment Program;

4. Estimate of LaMP Pollutant

loadings to Lake Michigan from major

NPDES facilities using available State

data;

5. Expansion of Toxic Release

Inventory (TRI) database to include

additional LaMP Pollutants to better

estimate releases into the environment;

6. Evaluation of the potential for

RCRA facilities to release LaMP

Pollutants into Lake Michigan Basin

surface and ground waters; and

8. Air emissions inventories of

sources of air toxics in the Great Lakes

Basin.

Finally, the Lake Michigan LaMP

identifies other source identification

activities that the participating agencies

could implement either in the shortterm or the long-term. Some of these

proposed activities include more

detailed evaluations of urban runoff and

stormwater for LaMP Pollutants, as well

as multi-media facility audits and

comprehensive PCB inventories. USEPA

requests public comment on the scope,

adequacy, and timing of these ongoing

and proposed actions described in the

Lake Michigan LaMP. In particular,

USEPA requests that persons with

knowledge of any sources or ongoing

releases of LaMP Pollutants to waters

within the Lake Michigan basin provide

this information during the public

comment period.

VIII. Management Actions

In addition to the data collection and

assessment activities described in the

preceding section, USEPA and the

participating agencies have initiated

several pollution prevention, reduction,

and remediation activities for LaMP

Pollutants. These include:

1. Agricultural clean sweeps for

banned, cancelled, and unused

pesticides in Indiana, Michigan, and

Wisconsin;

2. Urban clean sweep in northwest

Indiana;

3. Sediment assessment and

remediation projects at Lincoln Park

Gun Club (IL), Trail Creek (IN), and

Manistee Lake (MI);

4. Sediment assessment and

remediation activities in Lake Michigan

Areas of Concern;

5. Pollution prevention outreach and

multi-media technical assistance

projects in Milwaukee, Chicago, western

Michigan, and northwest Indiana;

6. Development of Maximum

Achievable Control Technology (MACT)

Standards for significant source

categories of air toxics;

7. Great Waters Report to Congress

describing impacts of toxics from air

sources on the Great Lakes, and

recommendations for reducing air

emissions of these toxics; and

8. 25% reductions in releases of LaMP

Pollutants to Lake Michigan waters from

10 RCRA facilities with the greatest

potential for LaMP Pollutant releases.

The Lake Michigan LaMP also

identifies several short-term and longterm activities that would prevent or

reduce loadings of LaMP Pollutants to

the waters of the Lake Michigan System.

The Technical Coordinating Committee

(TCC) intends to focus on high-priority

items and set schedules, identify

responsible parties, and develop the

specific processes to ensure that these

recommendations are implemented.

Implementation will occur through base

programs to the extent possible. Where

this is not feasible, other approaches

and relevant authorities will be

identified. Each recommendation will

identify the lead agency, the timeframe

for completing the work, and the

deliverables from the activity. Based on

recommendations, workplans will be

developed spelling out specific

activities to be implemented during

each year.

USEPA requests public comment on

the scope, adequacy, and timing of these

ongoing and proposed prevention,

reduction, and remediation actions

described in the Lake Michigan LaMP.

USEPA specifically request public

comments on the scope and adequacy of

the recommendations for action

identified in the opening pages of

Chapter 5, as well as on the proposed

process for translating the

recommendations into specific

workplans.

IX. Comments on January 1, 1992, Draft

Lake Michigan LaMP

A notice of availability was published

in the Federal Register on August 11,

1992, for an earlier draft Lake Michigan

LaMP, dated January 1, 1992. Written

comments from over 70 agencies,

interest groups, companies, and citizens

were received by USEPA. In addition,

members of the public provided oral

comments at seven public meetings

around Lake Michigan. USEPA has

prepared a Responsiveness Summary

which is available to the public upon

request.

Several commentors stated that the

LaMP should prioritize Lake Michigan’s

environmental problems according to

ecological health threats and prioritize

remedial and reduction measures. The

top priorities should be identified based

on consensus of the participating

Agencies as well as an explanation for

these choices, as opposed to the current

Action Agenda which appears to lack

justification or establish clear priorities.

USEPA believes the prioritization of

pollution prevention, reduction, and

remediation activities is an important

step in the LaMP process. The current

Lake Michigan LaMP is an assessment

of impairments, associated pollutants,

and pollutant sources. Based on the

information summarized in the LaMP,

the participating Agencies are beginning

discussions to identify priorities and

provide recommendations on how to

focus efforts to reduce levels of LaMP

Pollutants and restore and protect
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 87 / Friday, May 5, 1995 / Notices 22387

beneficial uses. USEPA intends to

revisit priorities and recommendations

annually as new information becomes

available and environmental conditions

change, and the Agencies will evaluate

program successes and failures.

Many commentors stated that the

LaMP Pollutant list is too small and

should be expanded. Several believed

the Pollutants of Concern (Level 2), such

as PAHs, hexachlorobenzene, and

furans, should be moved up to Critical

Pollutants (Level 1). Others believed

that many substances not listed as LaMP

Pollutants should be included on the

basis of known toxicity.

On the other hand, many commentors

believed that the proposed list of

Critical Pollutants is sufficiently

comprehensive and no additional

pollutants should be added until an

effective management strategy is

developed for the existing list. The

pollutants in levels 1–4 include all

those for which current science

supports or infers potential lakewide

impacts. Further efforts to add

substances to the Critical pollutant list

are likely to sidetrack available

resources which would be better used to

manage pollutants already identified.

USEPA surveyed available

information and literature to identify

those substances that are known to

contribute, or have the potential to

contribute, to beneficial use

impairments in the Lake Michigan

watershed. USEPA recognizes there are

other pollutants which are toxic,

bioaccumulative, and persistent, and

have the potential to impair beneficial

uses. However, USEPA believes that the

best course of action is to focus efforts

and limited resources on reducing levels

of those pollutants known to be having

the greatest impacts on the Lake

Michigan system.

Many commentors stated that the

outcome of USEPA’s tiered approach in

the LaMP would result in the following

outcome: toxic substances not identified

in level 1 or 2 would be allowed to

accumulate in Lake Michigan. Not until

toxics reached such concentrations that

they significantly impaired beneficial

uses would there be inclination to shift

them into category 1 or 2, and managed

for load reduction. Known toxics that

have not yet reached dangerous

concentrations in Lake Michigan should

be prevented from entering Lake

Michigan in the first place. That is, the

LaMP should be proactive and prevent

problems rather than being strictly

reactive and cleaning up already

existing problems.

USEPA believes the LaMP process

provides a context for using new and

existing monitoring and research data to

identify pollutants, beyond the LaMP

Pollutants, that may impair, or have the

potential to impair, beneficial uses. The

proposed LaMP does contain proposals

for detecting these substances. For

example, USEPA and the Michigan

Department of Natural Resources

piloted a new method for analyzing fish

tissues for a wide range of acid-soluble

bioaccumulative pollutants. This project

enabled the participating agencies to

identify pollutants accumulating in fish

tissues. In addition, the pollutant listing

system was revised to address emerging

pollutants that, while not yet known to

be impairing beneficial uses, have

characteristics (presence, toxicity,

persistence, bioaccumulative) indicating

a potential to impact the Lake Michigan

system.

Several commentors believed the

LaMP should identify Lake Michiganspecific, quantitative chemical and

biological indicators to track progress

towards restoring the Lake’s health.

Further, the LaMP should describe these

indicators or provide a process and

schedule to develop them.

The participating Agencies recognize

this issue as a priority and an important

component of the LaMP process. A

workgroup has been established to

identify and select indicators. These

quantitative measures will be included

in subsequent LaMP updates and

revisions.

Many citizens, particularly

representatives of the sport and

commercial fishing industries, were

concerned with the objective on aquatic

communities, specifically with the

emphasis on self-sustaining

communities of native species. This goal

is viewed as a statement against the

stocking of non-native salmonid species

such as coho and chinook salmon and

brown and steelhead trout, and that this

objective should be modified or deleted.

The current draft LaMP focuses on

reducing levels of toxic pollutants

impacting Lake Michigan and its

watershed. As such, actions taken

through the LaMP process will benefit

all species in Lake Michigan. The LaMP

is not a fishery management plan, and

therefore the objective for aquatic

communities has been modified in the

proposed LaMP.

Several commentors stated that the

draft Lake Michigan LaMP is too narrow

in scope. While toxic pollutants are a

serious problem in Lake Michigan, other

issues, such as habitat quantity and

quality, exotic species, and

overexploitation, are equally important

and must be considered for the LaMP to

be considered a true lakewide,

ecosystem plan for Lake Michigan.

While the current focus of the Lake

Michigan LaMP is on toxic pollutants,

the participating Agencies recognize

that issues associated with habitat

quality and quantity, particularly as

they relate to endangered or threatened

species, are significant factors in

addressing the overall ecological health

of the Great Lakes system. As the LaMP

process develops, the participating

Agencies will identify opportunities for

addressing these issues in conjunction

with, or parallel to, toxics load

reduction activities. In this manner, the

Lake Michigan LaMP will further the

broader goal of the GLWQA of

identifying beneficial use impairments,

and restoring and protecting the Lake

Michigan basin.

Many commentors believed the

Action Agenda is too heavily weighted

towards load reduction activities from

point sources, and that not enough

attention is given to the control of

nonpoint sources. The LaMP identifies

opportunities for achieving load

reductions from all sources, including

both point and nonpoint sources. A

number of ongoing and priority

activities relate to reducing loads from

nonpoint sources. The participating

agencies recognize that all sources must

be addressed to accomplish the goals of

the LaMP process.

Because there is evidence that the

toxic pollutants identified in the Lake

Michigan LaMP are impacting the

physical and biological health of Lake

Michigan, USEPA believes releases of

these pollutants from all sources must

be reduced. While contributions of

pollutants from air deposition,

contaminated sediments, or other

nonpoint sources which may be greater

than those from point sources, USEPA

believes this should not preclude load

reduction actions from being

implemented for point sources where

possible. However, USEPA agrees that

for the LaMP to be successful, all

sources of pollutants must be addressed.

Several commentors stated that the

initial LaMP should address the

requirement from the GLWQA for the

‘‘virtual elimination’’ of toxic

substances. On the other hand, many

commentors stated that virtual

elimination of some pollutants, if

defined as zero discharge, is not

possible without major societal impacts,

and that there are levels at which

pollutants may be present in the

environment without causing adverse

effects.

USEPA believes the goal of the Lake

Michigan LaMP, as defined in the

GLWQA, is to restore and protect the

beneficial uses in the Lake Michigan

watershed. LaMPs are to be steps toward
22388 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 87 / Friday, May 5, 1995 / Notices

the goal of virtual elimination.

Therefore, the Lake Michigan LaMP

does not require virtual elimination of

pollutants, unless it is determined that

virtual elimination of a specific

substance is necessary to restore and

protect a beneficial use. The LaMP

process will take steps to reduce loads

of LaMP Pollutants, thereby ensuring

reasonable progress in attaining the

goals of the Agreement.

Several commentors stated that many

of the references cited in the draft Lake

Michigan LaMP need to be updated,

references to unpublished studies are

not appropriate in this document, and

that more complete data should be

incorporated into the LaMP.

USEPA has revised the proposed

LaMP to include more recent data and

a greater amount of data in general.

USEPA concurs that unpublished

studies should not be used to draw

conclusions, and that only information

pertinent to Lake Michigan, or at least

to the Great Lakes, should be presented

in the Lake Michigan LaMP.

X. Future LaMP Revisions

The proposed Lake Michigan LaMP

will be revised following the public

comment period to incorporate the

comments received. The next iteration

of the Lake Michigan LaMP will again

be published in the Federal Register, to

be followed by periodic revisions of the

LaMP. These updates, on an ongoing

basis, will ensure that the most recent

data are incorporated into the

document, that pollutant lists, sources,

and loads are reviewed and updated by

participating Agencies, and that new,

emerging issues are identified and

addressed. USEPA will continue to

solicit public input and comment on

LaMP activities and products during

these future updates.

Dated: April 20, 1995.

Valdas V. Adamkus,

Regional Administrator, Region 5.

[FR Doc. 95–11146 Filed 5–4–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

[ER–FRL–4722–7]

Environmental Impact Statement and

Regulations; Availability of EPA

Comments

Availability of EPA comments

prepared March 27, 1995 through March

31, 1995 pursuant to the Environmental

Review Process (ERP), under Section

309 of the Clean Air Act and Section

102(2)(c) of the National Environmental

Policy Act as amended. Request for

copies of EPA comments can be directed

to the Office of Federal Activities at

(202) 260–5076.

An explanation of the ratings assigned

to draft environmental impact

statements (EISs) was published in FR

dated April 14, 1995 (72 FR 19047).

Draft EISs

ERP No. D–AFS–K65168–CA Rating

EC2, San Bernardino National Forest,

Realignment and Reconstruction, Falls

Road, Implementation, San Bernardino

County, CA.

Summary: EPA expressed

environmental concerns on two water

quality issues. EPA requested that the

final EIS should clarify whether any

aspect of the project will require a

permit under Clean Air Act Section 404;

and should carefully explore all feasible

water quality mitigation for project

construction due to existing erosion

problems in the area and its steep

terrain.

ERP No. D–DOE–E22000–PC Rating

EC2, Savannah River Site Waste

Management Facilities, Implementation,

Aiken, Allendale and Barnwell

Counties, SC.

Summary: EPA expressed

environmental concerns for potential

impacts to sensitive ecological and

cultural resources under the maximum

waste volume forecast. EPA found the

Extensive Treatment Configuration to be

the environmentally preferable

alternative for long-term benefits.

ERP No. D–SFW–K99024–NV Rating

EC2, Desert Tortoises (Gopherus

Agassizii) Habitat, Issuance of Permit to

Allow Incidental Take, Federal Land

and Non-Federal Land, Clark County,

NV.

Summary: EPA expressed

environmental concerns. EPA

applauded the regional effort

represented by the CCDCP and the longterm incidental take permit. EPA

proposed that the FEIS include

additional information on existing

conditions and potential impacts to air

and water quality. EPA also

recommended describing contingency

plans in the FEIS in the event that

development projections are exceeded

and/or mitigation and conservation

measures and unsuccessful.

Final EISs

ERP No. F–AFS–G61033–NM, Sipapu

Ski Area Expansion, Master

Development Plan Approval and

Special Use Permit, Carson National

Forest, Camino Real Ranger District,

Taos County, NM.

Summary: EPA expressed lack of

objections to the proposed action. EPA’s

concerns have been adequately

addressed in the final EIS.

ERP No. F–AFS–L81011–AK,

Helicopter Glacier Landing Tours,

Implementation, Issuance of SpecialUse-Permits, Tongass National Forest,

Chatham Area, Juneau Ranger District,

Alaska.

Summary: EPA had no objection to

the preferred alternative as described in

the EIS. Review of the final EIS has been

completed and the project found to be

satisfactory.

ERP No. F–BLM–J65203–MT, Big Dry

Land and Resource Management Plan,

Implementation, Miles City District,

several counties, MT.

Summary: EPA continued to express

environmental concerns regarding

environmental effects, including

cumulative effects, and lack of

meaningful, detailed monitoring plans,

particularly addressing fisheries, nonpoint pollution sources and water

quality monitoring. EPA believed that

water quality impacts of land

management activities need to be

monitored, assessed, and evaluated on a

continuing basis to detect and measure

impacts, so that the necessary

adjustments in activities to prevent and

minimize adverse impacts can be made.

ERP No. F–FHW–K40207–CA, CA–41

Route Adoption of Alignment Project,

between El Paso Avenue and CA–145,

Funding, Right-of-Way Acquisition and

COE Section 404 Permit, Fresno and

Madera Counties, CA.

Summary: EPA provided comments

regarding EPA’s role in the mitigation

plan and implementation schedule for

wetland impacts under Clean Water Act

Section 404 as well as the infiltration

and detention basins used to hold

stormwater runoff. Both issues will be

discussed in greater detail in the

project’s Tier II environmental

documentation for facility construction.

ERP No. F–FHW–L50004–WA,

Stillaguamish River Bridges WA–9/132

(Haller) and WA–530/120 (Lincoln)

Bridge Replacement Project,

Improvements, Funding, COE Section

404 Permit and Right-of-Way

Acquisition, City of Arlington,

Snohomish County, WA.

Summary: EPA had no objection to

the preferred alternative as described in

the EIS. Review of the Final EIS has

been completed and the project found to

be satisfactory.

ERP No. F–NPS–C80023–NY,

Hamilton Grange National Memorial,

General Management Plan,

Implementation, New York County, NY.

Summary: EPA expressed lack of

objections to implementing the project

as proposed.

ERP No. F–USN–K11024–CA, U.S.

Navy Lease of Fleet and Industrial

Supply Center, (Naval Supply Center)