[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