[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 115 (Thursday, June 16, 1994)] [Unknown Section] [Page 0] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 94-14536] [[Page Unknown]] [Federal Register: June 16, 1994] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-4999-7] Notice of a Final List of Water Quality Limited Waterbodies in the State of Minnesota AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency. ACTION: Notice of a final Clean Water Act section 303(d) list for the State of Minnesota. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The purpose of this notice is to announce the United States Environmental Protection Agency's (USEPA) final decision with respect to the list required of the State of Minnesota, under section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act (CWA). On December 8, 1993, the USEPA published (58 FR 64584) a proposed list of waterbodies, subsequent to its disapproval, on August 9, 1993, of portions of the list prepared by the State of Minnesota. A total of 72 waterbodies have been identified as appropriate waterbodies for the development of total maximum daily loads (TMDLs), pursuant to section 303(d), 40 CFR part 130, and USEPA guidance, as resources permit. An additional number of waterbodies have been identified, for which implementation of a TMDL will be dependent on a variety of events or actions outside the control of the State of Minnesota. Copies of the lists may be obtained at the address provided in the addresses section. ADDRESSES: Persons wishing to obtain a copy of the lists may do so by contacting Mr. Robert F. Pepin, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Water Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, telephone (312) 886-1505; or Mr. Greg Gross, Division of Water Quality, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, 520 Lafayette Road, St. Paul, Minnesota 55155, telephone (612) 296-7213. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Robert F. Pepin or Mr. Greg Gross at the above addresses or telephone numbers. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 303(d) of the CWA requires that the States identify lists of waterbodies for which TMDL development is appropriate. Further, section 303(d) requires that the lists developed by the States be submitted to the USEPA for review and approval or disapproval. To the extent that the USEPA disapproves a State submittal, section 303(d) of the CWA requires that the USEPA develop and publish the list. The USEPA must also assure that public participation in the formulation of a list of waterbodies is consistent with 40 CFR part 25, and may publicly notice a State submittal for that purpose as well. The State of Minnesota had prepared several lists for the USEPA review, and had submitted and subsequently withdrawn several of these. On July 6, 1993, the USEPA received from Minnesota, a proposed list, which contained some, but not all of the waterbodies which the USEPA believed should be included on the list applicable to the State of Minnesota. As a result, the USEPA issued, on August 9, 1993, a partial approval of the list submitted by the State, approving the list to the extent that it did include waterbodies which were appropriately included on the list, but disapproving the submission in that it did not include all waterbodies which would be subject to the requirements of section 303(d). Subsequently, USEPA developed a list of additional waterbodies which it believed were subject to the requirements of section 303(d), and published a notice to that effect on December 8, 1993 (58 FR 64584). The USEPA received written comments from four commenters, including the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). These comments are available for public inspection at the address listed above. (A) Responses to Comments In making its final determination, the USEPA has carefully considered all comments received, and has revised its lists accordingly. In particular, changes have been made based upon the following. (1) The MPCA commented that 23 stream segments were not identified on the proposed list, and should be included. In alternate years, the State of Minnesota, pursuant to section 305(b) of the CWA, provides a report to Congress, on the health of waters within the State. In its 1992 report, Minnesota had identified the 23 stream segments in question, as impaired, however, the USEPA had not included these segments on its proposed list, believing the data to be old and somewhat unreliable. Upon further review, however, it is apparent that these segments are contiguous with other waterbodies included upon the USEPA's proposed list, and that these other waterbodies are scheduled for TMDL development within the next few years. As MPCA intends to develop these TMDLs for the whole waterbody, the MPCA believes that the 23 segments the USEPA had originally proposed to exclude should also be listed. The USEPA agrees. (2) The MPCA commented that 65 segments that were identified by the USEPA in the proposed list should not be included because the data used to support listing does not reflect current conditions. The information provided by the commenter indicates that of the 65 segments, remedial actions have been taken on 51 segments. In addition, exceedences of water quality standards were infrequent for five of the 65 segments, and did not support a conclusion that the waterbodies were impaired. Finally, the impairment determination for nine segments was based on data that were typically five to 10 years of age, and was not thought to be indicative of current conditions. The USEPA agrees that these waterbodies should not be listed pursuant to section 303(d). (3) The MPCA commented that nine waterbodies that were identified in the proposed list should not be listed because the stated impairment is due to ubiquitous metals, for which there is no evidence, based upon biological sampling, that designated uses are impaired. For each of these waterbodies, the MPCA provided documentation that the impairments described were based upon one or more of the following: Rare excursions of the water quality standards; ambient levels of the various constituents higher than expected for the ecoregion, but no water quality standards exceedences measured; or misinterpretation by the USEPA of the data provided in the 305(b) report. The USEPA agrees with the MPCA that cause does not exist for listing these waterbodies. (4) The MPCA commented that approximately 245 segments of waterbodies which were included on the proposed USEPA list, should be excluded for a variety of reasons. All of the identified segments are segments which were listed because of the presence of a fish consumption advisory for mercury or polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). The MPCA commented that the sole, or primary source of mercury or PCBs to these waterbodies is airborne deposition, and that where control of these sources is outside the State, the State is unable to develop a TMDL. These segments, therefore, are not appropriate candidates for TMDL development at this time. The USEPA agrees that technology based standards imposed under the Clean Air Act which affect sources external to the State of Minnesota may obviate the future need for TMDL development in these waterbodies. A separate list of these waterbody segments can be obtained by contacting the USEPA at the address provided above. It is important to note that not all waterbodies for which fish consumption advisories exist fall into the category discussed above. There are certain waterbodies with fish consumption advisories, and for which TMDLs have been, or can be successfully developed at this time. These are not included in the 245 waterbodies on which the MPCA provided comments. (5) Two other commenters believed that the proposed list is inadequate because it fails to identify all water quality limited segments within the State of Minnesota. Where the State has failed to do so, one of the commenters stated there is a mandatory duty to identify all water quality-limited segments, and include them on the list of waterbodies for which TMDL development is appropriate. The USEPA interprets section 303(d) to require the identification of water quality-limited waterbodies for which TMDLs are appropriate. Such identification is to be based on existing and readily available data (40 CFR 130.7(b)(5)); consequently, there are no requirements within the Statute for additional monitoring or analysis. Since 40 CFR 130.7(d)(1) requires the biennial submission of revised section 303(d) lists to the USEPA for approval, this provision recognizes, that information will become available in the future, which can be used to revise and update the decisions made under section 303(d). This provision supports the USEPA's position that current listings should be based on currently available information. The submission every 2 years of a section 303(d) list addresses this issue by allowing changes to the lists to reflect additional identification of impaired waterbodies, and allows for removal of waterbodies once standards are attained or TMDLs developed. Pursuant to section 305(b) of the CWA, States must prepare, on a biennial basis, a report to Congress which assesses the status of State waters. 40 CFR 130.7(b)(5) explicitly states that the section 305(b) report should be considered when developing the section 303(d) list. In preparation of the December 8, 1993, proposed list, Minnesota's 1992 305(b) report was extensively used. All waterbodies listed as impaired in Appendix 1 of that report were considered for listing. For reasons provided in the December 8, 1992, FR notice, specific comments received in response to that notice, and elsewhere in this notice some waterbodies that were listed as impaired in the Fiscal Year 1992 section 305(b) report were not included in today's list. (6) One commenter stated that even if the only available data are older than five years, if those data indicate water quality impairments, then the subject waterbodies should be listed on the section 303(d) list. Throughout its regulations and guidance the USEPA has consistently stated that all information should be used to develop a section 303(d) list. In using available information, however, it is imperative to consider its accuracy in order to assure that technically defensible determinations can be developed. The USEPA believes that data that are older than five years, or impairment assessments based on a subjective analysis, carry a large degree of uncertainty as to whether the impairment is still valid. As such information of this kind must be considered in light of all available information and cannot represent a prima facie basis for listing. (7) One commenter stated that the USEPA must actively solicit all interested parties for information on which to develop a section 303(d) list. Regulations governing the solicitation of public comment may be found at 40 CFR part 25. The USEPA believes that the publication of the proposed list in the December 8, 1993, FR notice fulfilled those requirements, and served as adequate solicitation of comment of all interested parties. In response to that publication the USEPA received four comment letters, one by a State agency and three by public interest groups. These comments have been thoroughly considered in the development of the final list. (8) One commenter stated that the proposed list does not meet the requirements of section 303(d) because it does not contain specific, calculated TMDLs for each waterbody listed. Section 303(d)(1)(A) requires the development of a list of waterbodies for which technology-based effluent limits are not stringent enough to achieve water quality standards. Section 303(d)(1)(C) requires the development of TMDLs for the waters listed pursuant to section 303(d)(1)(A). The USEPA has interpreted the Act to require the development of the section 303(d) list prior to actually establishing TMDLs. The USEPA believes that to delay listing until the TMDLs are all completed would either lead to deceptively short lists of waterbodies, or would delay the process indefinitely. Because TMDL development can be a complex activity, involving many years of effort particularly in cases where specific stream conditions must be analyzed, or model development and calibration must be achieved, only a few TMDLs can be developed at any particular time. Even so, it is also recognized that remedial actions can take place before a TMDL is developed, therefore the Agency believes that the listing process should go forward as the initial step in order to encourage action even though actual TMDL development may take place later. It is reasonable, therefore, to conclude that development of individual TMDLs must follow list development. (9) One commenter stated that the proposed list does not contain any schedule for TMDL development for the next two years, and that the criteria by which the USEPA prioritized waters on the proposed list should focus on the protection human health. The December 8, 1993, Federal Register notice announced as being available for public review and comment a proposed section 303(d) list for Minnesota consisting of 447 water quality-limited segments. The notice further provided that the priority for TMDL development reflects that contained in the September 16, 1993, section 303(d) list submitted by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. In that submittal, the TMDLs identified for development through April 1994 were the Minnesota River and the Redwood River. These waterbodies continue to be listed as high priority for TMDL development. Because the prioritization of TMDLs as well as the resources and personnel to develop them are largely under the control of the State, the USEPA believes it is appropriate to defer to this State prioritization. It should be noted that these priorities are subject to annual review by the USEPA and the State in the annual program planning process under 40 CFR part 130 and as a result of the biennial updates of the 305(b) lists required under 40 CFR part 131 and section 305(b) of the CWA. (10) One commenter stated that the Mississippi River from the Minneapolis/St. Paul metropolitan area downstream to the Iowa border should be listed as high priority. The USEPA agrees that this waterbody is an important resource. In compliance with requirements of an National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit issued to the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission (MWCC), studies of phosphorus, the identified pollutant of concern, are being conducted by both the MWCC and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency on the waterbody to define better the sources of the impairments and to ascertain needed remedial actions. Current information suggests that much of the loading of phosphorus is originating in the Minnesota River basin, which is high priority for TMDL development. It is anticipated that remedial actions in the Minnesota River basin will have significant positive impact on magnitude of impairments in the Mississippi River. It is anticipated that upon the completion of the studies and implementation of additional controls required through the NPDES permit and the results of the TMDL being developed for the Minnesota River, downstream impacts on the Mississippi River will be reduced such that this portion of the River does not meet the requirements for listing under section 303(d). Therefore, this waterbody continues to be listed as low priority on the section 303(d) list. (11) One commenter questioned why only two waterbodies were listed on the section 303(d) list. In the December 8, 1993, FR notice, USEPA proposed a list of 447 waterbody segments. This was in addition to the two waterbodies which the State of Minnesota has identified as appropriate for TMDL development. While the USEPA agrees with the State of Minnesota, that those two waterbodies warrant listing pursuant to 303(d), the USEPA also believes, that additional waterbodies should be listed, and for that reason has proceeded with today's notice. (12) One commenter recommended that the following waterbodies be listed on the section 303(d) list as high priority for TMDL development. --All Minnesota Outstanding Resource Value Waters --All Minnesota designated trout streams and trout lakes --All Minnesota designated canoe trails --All Federal or Minnesota designated wild, scenic, and recreational rivers --All waterbodies within any National Wildlife Refuge --The entire length of the Mississippi River (presumed to include sections both upstream and downstream of the Minneapolis/St. Paul metropolitan area --Lake Superior As stated above, the resources and personnel necessary to develop TMDLs are largely under the control of the State. In addition, the State's proximity to its public allows it to evaluate priorities in light of the public need more readily than USEPA. Consequently the USEPA believes it is appropriate to defer to the State in the matter of prioritization of waterbodies for TMDL development. (B) Revisions to the Proposed Notice As a result of the public comments received and continuing review of the proposed notice by the USEPA, the following changes have been made to the final identification of the section 303(d) water quality- limited segments for the State of Minnesota: (1) The final list of waterbodies for which TMDL development would be appropriate has been revised to include the 23 additional steam segments which the State has requested be included on the list, due to proximity to, and influence upon, other waterbodies for which TMDLs are being developed. (2) Waterbodies for which fish consumption advisories exist, and for which remedial measures lie outside the control of the State of Minnesota have been separately identified. (3) The final list of waterbodies for which TMDL development is appropriate excludes 65 stream segments included in the proposed list, for which the State has provided documentation that the information leading to the USEPA's decision to include these segments on the proposed list was not based on the most current information, and the more current information reveals that TMDLs are no longer appropriate. (4) The final list excludes nine stream segments identified in the State's comments which were described as meeting the designated uses, since the exceedences of numeric water quality criteria noted by the USEPA as the basis for our proposal to include these segments on the 303(d) list were due to naturally occurring background concentrations. (C) Final Notice This notice is being issued pursuant to section 303(d)(2) of the CWA. Under this section, the USEPA is required to publish an identification of water quality-limited segments if a state submission is disapproved. The disapproval of the Minnesota submission occurred on August 9, 1993. This notice identifies 72 water quality limited waterbodies for which TMDL development is appropriate and further identifies three waterbodies for which TMDL development is scheduled to be initiated over the next two years. This notice further identifies 245 waterbodies for which TMDL development is not feasible at this time. This constitutes USEPA's final determination. Dated: June 2, 1994. David A. Ullrich, Acting Regional Administrator. [FR Doc. 94-14536 Filed 6-15-94; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6050-50-P