[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 82 (Thursday, April 29, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22589-22591]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-9984]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9143-4]


Preliminary Listing of an Additional Water to Wisconsin's 2008 
List of Waters Under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice announces the availability of EPA's decision 
identifying one water quality limited waterbody and associated 
pollutants in Wisconsin to be listed pursuant to the Clean Water Act 
Section 303(d)(2), and requests public comment. Section 303(d)(2) 
requires that States submit and EPA approve or disapprove lists of 
waters for which existing technology-based pollution controls are not 
stringent enough to attain or maintain State water quality standards 
and for which total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) must be prepared.

[[Page 22590]]

    On January 26, 2010, EPA partially approved and partially 
disapproved Wisconsin's submittal. Specifically, EPA approved 
Wisconsin's listing of waters, associated pollutants, and associated 
priority rankings. EPA disapproved Wisconsin's decision not to list one 
water quality limited segment and associated pollutant. EPA identified 
this additional water body and unidentified pollutants along with 
priority rankings for inclusion on the 2008 Section 303(d) list.
    EPA is providing the public the opportunity to review its decision 
to add the water and unidentified pollutant to Wisconsin's 2008 Section 
303(d) list, as required by EPA's Public Participation regulations. EPA 
will consider public comments in reaching its final decision on the 
additional water body and pollutants identified for inclusion on 
Wisconsin's final list.

DATES: Comments on this document must be received in writing by June 1, 
2010.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on today's notice may be submitted to Tinka 
G. Hyde, Director, Water Division, Attn: Illinois 303 (d) list, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 
Illinois 60604. As an alternative, EPA will accept comments 
electronically. Comments should be sent to the following Internet E-
mail Address: [email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donna Keclik, Watersheds and Wetlands 
Branch, at the EPA address noted above or by telephone at (312) 886-
6766. Some additional information can be found at http://www.epa.gov/reg5oh2o/wshednps/notices.htm.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) 
requires that each State identify those waters for which existing 
technology-based pollution controls are not stringent enough to attain 
or maintain State water quality standards. EPA's Water Quality Planning 
and Management regulations include requirements related to the 
implementation of Section 303(d) of the CWA (40 CFR 130.7). The 
regulations require States to identify water quality limited waters 
still requiring TMDLs every two years. The lists of waters still 
needing TMDLs must also include priority rankings and must identify the 
waters targeted for TMDL development during the next two years (40 CFR 
130.7).
    Consistent with EPA's regulations, Wisconsin submitted to EPA its 
listing decision under Section 303(d)(2) on August 1, 2008. On January 
26, 2010, EPA approved Wisconsin's listing of waters and associated 
priority rankings and disapproved Wisconsin's decisions not to list one 
water quality limited segment and associated pollutants, along with 
priority rankings for inclusion on the 2008 Section 303(d) list. More 
specifically, EPA disapproved Wisconsin's decision not to include Musky 
Bay on the 2008 list for impairment because this water does not meet 
Wisconsin's narrative standard set out in Wisconsin Administrative Code 
NR 102.04 (1)(b), which provides that ``Floating or submerged debris, 
oil, scum or other material shall not be present in such amounts as to 
interfere with public rights in waters of the State.'' As a result of 
EPA's disapproval decision, EPA is proposing to place Musky Bay on 
Wisconsin's 303(d) list. The list of waterbody/pollutants that EPA has 
approved and EPA's decision document are available at http://www.epa.gov/reg5oh2o/wshednps/notices.htm.
    During its review of WDNR's proposed 303(d) list, EPA reviewed data 
available to the State that indicated the impairment of Musky Bay due 
to excessive nutrients. After reviewing the existing and readily 
available data, U.S. EPA has determined, for reasons discussed below, 
that Musky Bay should be included in Category 5A of Wisconsin's 2008 
list of impaired waters.
    During the 2008 public notice and comment period, WDNR received 
comments suggesting that the State should list Musky Bay for impairment 
due to the presence of excessive nutrients, including phosphorus, 
elevated pH values, as well as the degradation of the Bay due to large 
floating algal mats and the presence of an invasive plant species known 
as Curly Leaf Pondweed (Potomogeton cripsus).
    The State determined that it would not list the Bay because 
Wisconsin does not have numeric criterian for phosphorus and WDNR did 
not believe that the available data provided a compelling rationale for 
listing. These data included water samples taken at four locations in 
the Bay. These locations are (1) MB-1, a deep hole in the Bay; (2) MB-
2, the east outlet from the cranberry bog operation (an inlet to the 
lake); (3) MB-2a, the west outlet from the cranberry bog operation (an 
inlet to the lake); and (4) MB-4, the north shore line of the Bay.
    After reviewing these data, WDNR determined that samples taken only 
from MB-1, the deep hole, were representative of the Bay because this 
location was centrally located and arguably provided a natural average 
of the various influences on the Bay's water quality, as represented by 
the other sample locations. After isolating the data for MB-4, WDNR 
concluded that sampling here showed lower phosphorous levels than at 
any other site, and that the Bay was not impaired due to phosphorus. 
WDNR stated that it will continue to monitor phosphorous levels in the 
Bay and will reconsider an impairment determination on the basis of 
phosphorus in 2010. Further, WDNR noted that the presence of curly leaf 
pondweed as an invasive aquatic species was not a sufficient basis for 
making an impairment determination.
    While U.S. EPA agrees with the State that additional sampling is 
needed to make an impairment decision with regard to phosphorus, after 
reviewing available data, U.S. EPA determined that the Bay is impaired 
based on Wisconsin's narrative standard Wisc. Admin. Code NR 102.04 
(1)(b), which provides that ``Floating or submerged debris, oil, scum 
or other material shall not be present in such amounts as to interfere 
with public rights in waters of the State'' and thus the Bay should be 
listed as a Category 5A water.
    In making its listing proposal, U.S. EPA reviewed the information 
submitted during the State's public comment period and held subsequent 
discussions with WDNR staff. WDNR supplied a copy of a letter dated 
November 8, 2007, from WDNR to Lac Courte Oreilles Lake Association 
stating that ``there are very significant water quality concerns for 
Musky Bay and that the cranberry bogs' discharge of nutrients is a 
major source of the problems.'' WDNR further stated in the letter that 
there are two suggestions that could be considered to help partially 
address the water quality/water use concerns:

    1. Navigational corridors through the dense beds of aquatic 
plants could be maintained by mechanical harvesting or possibly 
herbicide application. This would improve access to the main lake by 
Musky Bay property owners and improve access to the bay by other 
lake users. Implementing this activity would be likely to enhance 
your argument that the public use of the bay is currently limited 
and costs are being incurred to address the limitation. * * *
    2. Sources of nutrient loading other than the cranberry bogs 
could be assessed for application of nutrient loading reductions 
practices. Other agricultural areas and residential areas in Musky 
Bay watershed have been estimated to be the source of about 12% of 
the annual phosphorus load to the bay (Lac Courte Oreilles 
Conservation Department). * * * \1\

    \1\ See Letter from Tom Aartila, Upper Chippewa Basin Watershed 
Supervisor, WDNR, to Messrs. Siverton and Umland, November 8, 2007, 
attached to e-mail message from Craig P. Roesler, WDNR to Donna 
Keclik, U.S. EPA, April 7, 2009.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 22591]]

Based on the information submitted, including the documented impaired 
use of the Bay for boating, as evidenced by WDNR's acknowledgement of 
the need to cut navigational corridors through the heavy algal mats, 
U.S. EPA is proposing to list Musky Bay on the 2008 Wisconsin's 303(d) 
list in Category 5A.
    EPA solicits public comment on its identification of one additional 
water and associated pollutant Musky Bay, pollutant unidentified for 
inclusion on Wisconsin's 2008 Section 303(d) list.

    Dated: April 15, 2010.
Timothy C. Henry,
Acting Director, Water Division, EPA Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2010-9984 Filed 4-28-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P