[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 87 (Friday, May 5, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22381-22388]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-11146]



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

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 [[Page 22382]] 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. [[Page 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 short-term emphasis on the types of long-
lasting 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, multi-
media 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 
[[Page 22384]] 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 [[Page 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 long-term 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, [[Page 22386]] 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 short-term 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 long-
term 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 [[Page 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 Michigan-
specific, 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 [[Page 22388]] 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