Causal Analysis of Biological Impairment in Long Creek: A Sandy-Bottomed Stream in Coastal Southern Maine, 16008-16009 [E8-6166]

Download as PDF 16008 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 26, 2008 / Notices used without unreasonable adverse effects on human health or the environment. The implementing regulations establishing the procedures for registration review appear at 40 CFR part 155. A pesticide’s registration review begins when the Agency establishes a docket for the pesticide’s registration review case and opens the docket for public review and comment. At present, EPA is opening registration review dockets for the case identified in the following table. TABLE—REGISTRATION REVIEW DOCKETS OPENING Registration Review Case Name and Number pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES Barium Metaborate 0632 EPA–HQ–OPP–2008–0047 B. Docket Content 1. Review dockets. The registration review dockets contain information that the Agency may consider in the course of the registration review. The Agency may include information from its files including, but not limited to, the following information: • An overview of the registration review case status. • A list of current product registrations and registrants. • Federal Register notices regarding any pending registration actions. • Federal Register notices regarding current or pending tolerances. • Risk assessments. • Bibliographies concerning current registrations. • Summaries of incident data. • Any other pertinent data or information. Each docket contains a document summarizing what the Agency currently knows about the pesticide case and a preliminary work plan for anticipated data and assessment needs. Additional documents provide more detailed information. During this public comment period, the Agency is asking that interested persons identify any additional information they believe the Agency should consider during the registration reviews of these pesticides. The Agency identifies in each docket the areas where public comment is specifically requested, though comment in any area is welcome. 2. Other related information. More information on these cases, including the active ingredients for each case, may be located in the registration review schedule on the Agency’s website at http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/ registration_review/schedule.htm. Information on the Agency’s registration review program and its implementing regulation may be seen at http:// www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/ registration_review. 3. Information submission requirements. Anyone may submit data or information in response to this VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:52 Mar 25, 2008 Pesticide Docket ID Number Jkt 214001 Nathan Mottl 703–305–0208 mottl.nathan@epa.gov document. To be considered during a pesticide’s registration review, the submitted data or information must meet the following requirements: • To ensure that EPA will consider data or information submitted, interested persons must submit the data or information during the comment period. The Agency may, at its discretion, consider data or information submitted at a later date. • The data or information submitted must be presented in a legible and useable form. For example, an English translation must accompany any material that is not in English and a written transcript must accompany any information submitted as an audiographic or videographic record. Written material may be submitted in paper or electronic form. • Submitters must clearly identify the source of any submitted data or information. • Submitters may request the Agency to reconsider data or information that the Agency rejected in a previous review. However, submitters must explain why they believe the Agency should reconsider the data or information in the pesticide’s registration review. • As provided in 40 CFR 155.58, the registration review docket for each pesticide case will remain publicly accessible through the duration of the registration review process; that is, until all actions required in the final decision on the registration review case have been completed. List of Subjects Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests, antimicrobials, barium metaborate. Dated: March 19, 2008. Frank Sanders, Director, Antimicrobials Division, Office of Pesticide Programs. [FR Doc. E8–6182 Filed 3–25–08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–S PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Chemical Review Manager, Telephone Number, E-mail Address ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL–8546–7] Causal Analysis of Biological Impairment in Long Creek: A SandyBottomed Stream in Coastal Southern Maine Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice of availability. AGENCY: SUMMARY: EPA is announcing the availability of a final report entitled, ‘‘Causal Analysis of Biological Impairment in Long Creek: A SandyBottomed Stream in Coastal Southern Maine’’ (EPA/600/R–06/065F), which was prepared by the National Center for Environmental Assessment (NCEA) within EPA’s Office of Research and Development (ORD). ADDRESSES: The document is available electronically through the NCEA Web site at: http://www.epa.gov/ncea. A limited number of paper copies will be available from the EPA’s National Service Center for Environmental Publications (NSCEP), P.O. Box 42419, Cincinnati, OH 45242; telephone: 1– 800–490–9198; facsimile: 301–604– 3408; e-mail: nscep@bps-lmit.com. Please provide your name, your mailing address, the title, and the EPA number of the requested publication. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Information Management Team, National Center for Environmental Assessment (8623P), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460; Telephone: 703–347–8561; e-mail: nceadc.comment@epa.gov. This assessment presents results from a complex causal assessment of a biologically impaired, urbanized coastal watershed—the Long Creek watershed. The primary goals of this case study include the following. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: E:\FR\FM\26MRN1.SGM 26MRN1 pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 26, 2008 / Notices First, the assessment serves as an example EPA Stressor Identification (SI) case study, whereby the report may help future assessors understand the SI process for other biologically impaired ecosystems and the scientific community better understand urbanrelated stressor interactions. Target audience members may include government agency and consulting firm scientists attempting to conduct their own case studies and managers interested in learning what the SI process is capable of. Second, the assessment provides useful information for the specific environmental improvement of the Long Creek watershed. This is especially timely, as managers are currently considering options for promoting ecological recovery of the watershed. The Long Creek watershed is biologically impaired and located primarily in South Portland, Maine. A relatively unimpaired upstream portion of the Red Brook watershed, adjacent to and immediately south of Long Creek, provides a reference condition and is also discussed in the report. The contributing watersheds of both streams are urbanized, home to industrial, commercial, and residential land uses. The Long Creek and Red Brook watersheds showcase a wide range of topics related to resource management including the environmental implications of urban land use for coastal regions and the interactions among multiple causes linked to biological impairment. The Long Creek project team, consisting of the U.S. EPA and Maine Department of Environmental Protection, followed U.S. EPA’s SI guidance to conduct the case study. A rudimentary knowledge of the SI process may assist report readers; U.S. EPA’s CADDIS (Causal Analysis/ Diagnosis Decision Information System) Web site, http://www.epa.gov/caddis/, provides causal assessors with the most recent SI methodology. The project team identified four specific biological effects defining impairment and seven candidate causes of impairment. The biological effects include decreased Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera (EPT) generic richness, increased percentage of non-insect taxa individuals, increased Hilsenhoff Biotic Index (HBI) score, and absence of brook trout. Candidate causes include increased onsite organic production (or autochthony), decreased dissolved oxygen, altered flow regime (increased hydrologic flashiness, including decreased baseflow and increased peaks), decreased large woody debris, increased sediment, increased VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:52 Mar 25, 2008 Jkt 214001 temperature, and toxic substances (including, e.g., metals and ionic strength). Specific biological effects and candidate causes were evaluated at three impaired sites on Long Creek. Implications associated with interactions among probable causes of impairment are discussed in terms of this case study and causal assessment in general. Dated: March 14, 2008. Rebecca Clark, Acting Director, National Center for Environmental Assessment. [FR Doc. E8–6166 Filed 3–25–08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL–8546–6] Underground Injection Control Program; Hazardous Waste Injection Restrictions; Petition for Exemption— Class I Hazardous Waste Injection; Veolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C., Port Arthur, TX Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice of Final Decision on a No Migration Petition Reissuance. AGENCY: SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that exemptions to the land disposal restrictions under the 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act have been reissued to Veolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C., (Veolia) for two Class I injection wells located at Port Arthur, Texas. As required by 40 CFR Part 148, the company has adequately demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Environmental Protection Agency by the petition and supporting documentation that, to a reasonable degree of certainty, there will be no migration of hazardous constituents from the injection zone for as long as the waste remains hazardous. This final decision allows the underground injection by Veolia, of the specific restricted hazardous wastes identified in this exemption, into Class I hazardous waste injection wells Nos. WDW–160 and WDW–358 at the Port Arthur, Texas facility, until November 30, 2018, unless EPA moves to terminate these exemptions under provisions of 40 CFR 148.24. Additional conditions included in this final decision may be reviewed by contacting the Region 6 Ground Water/UIC Section. As required by 40 CFR 148.22(b) and 124.10, a public notice was issued PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 16009 January 17, 2008. The public comment period closed on March 3, 2008. No comments were received. This decision constitutes final Agency action and there is no Administrative appeal. This decision may be reviewed/appealed in compliance with the Administrative Procedure Act. DATES: This action is effective as of March 14, 2008. ADDRESSES: Copies of the petition and all pertinent information relating thereto are on file at the following location: Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, Water Quality Protection Division, Source Water Protection Branch (6WQ–S), 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Philip Dellinger, Chief Ground Water/ UIC Section, EPA—Region 6, telephone (214) 665–7150. Dated: March 14, 2008. Miguel I. Flores, Division Director, Water Quality Protection Division (6WQ). [FR Doc. E8–6209 Filed 3–25–08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA–HQ–OPP–2007-1021; FRL–8354–7] Flutolanil and Its Metabolites; Withdrawal of Tolerance Petition Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. AGENCY: SUMMARY: The Agency is withdrawing pesticide petition (PP 6F7070) at the request of the petitioner, Nichino America, Inc., because the data submitted to the Agency do not support the proposed indirect or inadvertent tolerances for flutolanil on corn and cotton. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa Jones, Registration Division (7505P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone number: (703) 308–9424; fax number: (703) 308– 5320; e-mail address: jones.lisa@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me? Although this action only applies to the registrant in question, it is directed to the public in general. Since various individuals or entities may be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific E:\FR\FM\26MRN1.SGM 26MRN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 59 (Wednesday, March 26, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16008-16009]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-6166]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

 [FRL-8546-7]


Causal Analysis of Biological Impairment in Long Creek: A Sandy-
Bottomed Stream in Coastal Southern Maine

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is announcing the availability of a final report entitled, 
``Causal Analysis of Biological Impairment in Long Creek: A Sandy-
Bottomed Stream in Coastal Southern Maine'' (EPA/600/R-06/065F), which 
was prepared by the National Center for Environmental Assessment (NCEA) 
within EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD).

ADDRESSES: The document is available electronically through the NCEA 
Web site at: http://www.epa.gov/ncea. A limited number of paper copies 
will be available from the EPA's National Service Center for 
Environmental Publications (NSCEP), P.O. Box 42419, Cincinnati, OH 
45242; telephone: 1-800-490-9198; facsimile: 301-604-3408; e-mail: 
nscep@bps-lmit.com. Please provide your name, your mailing address, the 
title, and the EPA number of the requested publication.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Information Management Team, National 
Center for Environmental Assessment (8623P), U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460; 
Telephone: 703-347-8561; e-mail: nceadc.comment@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This assessment presents results from a 
complex causal assessment of a biologically impaired, urbanized coastal 
watershed--the Long Creek watershed. The primary goals of this case 
study include the following.

[[Page 16009]]

    First, the assessment serves as an example EPA Stressor 
Identification (SI) case study, whereby the report may help future 
assessors understand the SI process for other biologically impaired 
ecosystems and the scientific community better understand urban-related 
stressor interactions. Target audience members may include government 
agency and consulting firm scientists attempting to conduct their own 
case studies and managers interested in learning what the SI process is 
capable of.
    Second, the assessment provides useful information for the specific 
environmental improvement of the Long Creek watershed. This is 
especially timely, as managers are currently considering options for 
promoting ecological recovery of the watershed.
    The Long Creek watershed is biologically impaired and located 
primarily in South Portland, Maine. A relatively unimpaired upstream 
portion of the Red Brook watershed, adjacent to and immediately south 
of Long Creek, provides a reference condition and is also discussed in 
the report. The contributing watersheds of both streams are urbanized, 
home to industrial, commercial, and residential land uses. The Long 
Creek and Red Brook watersheds showcase a wide range of topics related 
to resource management including the environmental implications of 
urban land use for coastal regions and the interactions among multiple 
causes linked to biological impairment.
    The Long Creek project team, consisting of the U.S. EPA and Maine 
Department of Environmental Protection, followed U.S. EPA's SI guidance 
to conduct the case study. A rudimentary knowledge of the SI process 
may assist report readers; U.S. EPA's CADDIS (Causal Analysis/Diagnosis 
Decision Information System) Web site, http://www.epa.gov/caddis/, 
provides causal assessors with the most recent SI methodology.
    The project team identified four specific biological effects 
defining impairment and seven candidate causes of impairment. The 
biological effects include decreased Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and 
Trichoptera (EPT) generic richness, increased percentage of non-insect 
taxa individuals, increased Hilsenhoff Biotic Index (HBI) score, and 
absence of brook trout. Candidate causes include increased onsite 
organic production (or autochthony), decreased dissolved oxygen, 
altered flow regime (increased hydrologic flashiness, including 
decreased baseflow and increased peaks), decreased large woody debris, 
increased sediment, increased temperature, and toxic substances 
(including, e.g., metals and ionic strength).
    Specific biological effects and candidate causes were evaluated at 
three impaired sites on Long Creek. Implications associated with 
interactions among probable causes of impairment are discussed in terms 
of this case study and causal assessment in general.

    Dated: March 14, 2008.
Rebecca Clark,
Acting Director, National Center for Environmental Assessment.
 [FR Doc. E8-6166 Filed 3-25-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P