[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 228 (Tuesday, November 27, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60836-60837]
[FR Doc No: 2018-25773]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP19-300-000.
    Applicants: Eastern Shore Natural Gas Company.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rate--DCRC to be
effective 1/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 11/19/18.
    Accession Number: 20181119-5182.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/3/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP19-301-000.
    Applicants: Western Gas Interstate Company.
    Description: eTariff filing per 1430: Western Gas Interstate
Company Extension of Time Request Filing FERC Form 501-G.
    Filed Date: 11/20/18.
    Accession Number: 20181120-5000.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/26/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP19-302-000.
    Applicants: Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated rate--Amended
Boston Gas 510807 eff 1-1-2019 to be effective 1/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 11/20/18.
    Accession Number: 20181120-5034.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/3/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP19-303-000.
    Applicants: Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc.
    Description: Compliance filing Annual Cash-Out Activity Report
2018.
    Filed Date: 11/20/18.
    Accession Number: 20181120-5036.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/3/18.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: November 20, 2018.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-25773 Filed 11-26-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


LT2ESWTR Toolbox Guidance Manual Proposal Draft June 2003 E 1 Appendix E Watershed Control Best Management Practices ( BMPs)

This appendix provides a list of programmatic resources and guidance available to assist systems in building partnerships and implementing watershed protection activities. Examples of partnerships and possible control measures for different sources are summarized in chapter 2, section 2.4.2; this appendix provides further detail to the control measures described in chapter 2.

E. 1 Regulatory and Other Management Strategies For systems in watersheds where most of the land is privately owned, land use regulations may be the best way to control pollution, especially in heavily developed or growing areas. Examples of possible regulations include septic system requirements, zoning ordinances specifying minimum lot sizes or low impact development, limits on discharge from wastewater treatment plants and other facilities, pet waste cleanup ordinances, and requirements for permits for certain land uses. Your ability to regulate land use will depend on the authority granted to your municipality by the state, the ownership of your system ( public or private), and the support of your local government and the public. Regulatory authority, steps for designing a regulation that can withstand lawsuits, and types of land use regulations are described in the paragraphs below.

E. 1.1 Determining Authority to Regulate Where a water system is privately owned, it may be necessary to ask the cooperation of the local government to get source water regulations passed. For a municipal water system whose watershed is located entirely within the municipality, issuing zoning or land use ordinances should be less of a hurdle. The ability of a municipality to pass a land use ordinance or other law to help reduce contamination may depend on the authority the state grants to the local government in the state constitution or through legislation, although states normally do not interfere with the actual land use and zoning rules ( AWWARF 1991). States generally permit zoning for the purposes of protecting public health or general welfare. However, some states may prevent local governments from passing laws that are more stringent than state law or that conflict with state laws. State laws in other states may prevent municipal governments from passing certain local laws that are not expressly permitted elsewhere in state law.

If the watershed or the area of influence on water quality extends throughout several municipalities, it can be difficult to standardize watershed control practices throughout the watershed. The legal framework used will depend on who has jurisdiction over land use in the watershed and on the authority of the water system ( AWWARF 1991). New York State law, for instance, authorizes municipalities to draft watershed regulations, which are then approved and adopted by the state. This gives the municipalities the authority to enforce the watershed rules within their watersheds even if the watershed is outside municipal boundaries. For instance, New York City sets water quality standards, land use restrictions, and approves wastewater treatment Appendix E  Watershed Control Best Management Practices LT2ESWTR Toolbox Guidance Manual Proposal Draft June 2003 E 2 plant designs in its watersheds in upstate New York. The City of Syracuse conducts watershed inspections on Skaneateles Lake, its source of supply, several miles outside of Syracuse. Both of these systems are filtration avoidance systems, so it is especially important that they have some control over areas outside their jurisdictions.

The Metropolitan District Commission, although not a PWS, was created by the State of Massachusetts and is authorized to promulgate and enforce watershed protection regulations in watersheds used by the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority to provide water to the Boston metropolitan area. Some watersheds which extend across state boundaries have governing bodies authorized by Congress. The formation of the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency was the result of a compact between the States of California and Nevada and was approved by Congress. The agency is authorized to pass ordinances, including source water protection rules, that regulate land use in the area around Lake Tahoe.

County governments in some states may have some zoning authority and may be able to assist with enforcement of some regulations affecting source water ( e. g., septic systems). In most cases where watersheds cross jurisdictions, however, PWSs will not have regulatory or enforcement authority. PWSs in this situation should work with other local governments' PWSs and agencies in their watersheds to sign memoranda of agreement or understanding, in which each entity agrees to meet certain standards or implement certain practices.

The City of New York signed a memorandum of agreement in 1997 with the State of New York, EPA, and 79 municipalities within its watersheds. The agreement calls for the creation of local and regional watershed protection programs and, for New York City, funding for water quality and infrastructure improvement projects in upstate New York. Other cities, such as Salem and The Dalles, both in Oregon, have signed memoranda of understanding with the U. S. Forest Service, which owns most of the land in the cities' watersheds. These memoranda define the management responsibilities of each PWS and the Forest Service.

E. 1.2 Zoning This section describes the steps you should follow to make sure a zoning law can withstand a legal challenge. Basically, it is important to make sure the appropriate procedures are followed and that the law has sufficient scientific basis ( AWWA 1999). First, be sure you have the authority to regulate, especially if you are proposing something besides a simple zoning law. Make sure the rule is specific enough; if a map of an overlay district is not drawn to a small enough scale, it may be difficult to tell which properties are affected. Comply with all administrative procedure requirements, such as notifying the public of the proposed changes and holding a public hearing; failure to do so is the most common reason for rules being revoked. Follow substantive due process, which means that the regulation should promote the municipality's public health goals. In practice, this means the ordinance should conform to the objectives of the watershed control program plan. The plan should contain enough data to illustrate how the ordinance will affect water quality. Appendix E  Watershed Control Best Management Practices LT2ESWTR Toolbox Guidance Manual Proposal Draft June 2003 E 3 Ordinances should also be designed to withstand a takings lawsuit ( AWWA 1999). The fifth amendment to the U. S. Constitution states that private property may not be taken for public use without just compensation. Any physical invasion without consent is always considered a taking, even if the landowner retains ownership of the land. Installation of a monitoring well or stream gauge without consent is an example of a taking.

In addition, ordinances that " fail to advance a legitimate government interest" or " deny a landowner economically viable use of his land" can be viewed as takings, even if the landowner retains full ownership ( AWWA 1999). The first criterion means that there should be a need for the ordinance; for example, if a planned development's storm sewers and wastewater treatment plant will discharge into an area outside a municipality's wellhead protection area, the municipality cannot cite impacts on the drinking water as a factor in the decision to restrict development without compensating landowners. Under the second criterion, if property values decrease but still retain some value ( e. g., due to a decrease in permitted building density), the ordinance does not result in a taking. A regulation that restricts all development would probably be considered a taking. In keeping with these two criteria, the effect of an ordinance should be proportional to the predicted impact of development. Thus, if a municipality determines that half acre zoning is sufficient to protect a drinking water source, it may not zone for five acres.

To prevent takings claims, the municipality should show the need for the regulation and a connection between the ordinance and the expected result ( AWWA 1999). This proof should be based on a scientific analysis beginning with an accurate delineation of the watershed or wellhead protection area/ recharge area. A zoning district based on an arbitrary fixed radius around a well or lake would probably be considered insufficient in court unless it is characterized as an interim boundary. A court challenge could claim that such a district protects an area that does not contribute to the watershed or that land that is part of the watershed is not being protected ( failing to advance the government's interests).

Following the delineation, determine the impact the regulation will have by mapping current and projected residential, commercial, and industrial development under current zoning requirements. Then map current and projected development for existing regulations and for the proposed ordinance, and determine the potential pollutant load under each scenario ( AWWA 1999). You may not be able to determine Cryptosporidium loading if you have not monitored, but there may be data available on fecal coliform bacteria from different sources in your watershed ( e. g., agriculture, septic system failure, pets and wildlife). If your PWS has not collected such data, other local agencies, such as sewer authorities, non profit groups, universities, or planning commissions, as well as the U. S. Geological Survey, may have water quality data. Water quality models can help you determine pollutant loading. This " buildout analysis" will help you show how your proposed ordinance advances a legitimate government interest and how the effect of the ordinance is proportional to the impact of land use in your watershed. Appendix E  Watershed Control Best Management Practices LT2ESWTR Toolbox Guidance Manual Proposal Draft June 2003 E 4 Types of Ordinances Appendix E  Watershed Control Best Management Practices LT2ESWTR Toolbox Guidance Manual Proposal Draft June 2003 E 5 Watershed ordinances usually apply within an " overlay district," which may be the area of influence you determined for your watershed control plan. All existing zoning or land use regulations apply within that area, but additional requirements apply within the overlay district. Following are some land use ordinances you may wish to consider:

Large lot or low density zoning. Unless lots are very large ( such lots can use septic systems and wells), large lot zoning may be inefficient, as it increases costs for sewer, water, and road development. This type of zoning also may go against affordable housing requirements. However, it may be useful in agricultural areas for preserving rural character and preventing subdivision of farms.

Limits on certain types of land use except by special permit. Such ordinances should specify criteria for granting special permits and designate an authority that may grant permits. The authority should present findings that back up its decision to grant the permit. Special permits are granted for a particular lot, not for the owner of that lot.

Impact fees. The regulating authority must be sure it has authority to impose such fees. Impact fees collected can be used to pay for mitigation of pollution caused by development, e. g., for preventing runoff or buying land elsewhere in the watershed. Fees should be proportional to the impact and the cost of mitigation, and the purpose of the fees should be specified in the regulation. A disadvantage to impact fees is that they may in some cases be considered taxes, and local governments' authority to impose taxes may be limited. Fees are more likely to withstand challenge if they are framed as optional services provided to the developer ( i. e., the developer can choose not to develop) and if the fees are set aside for the PWS or stormwater utility rather than put into general funds.

Submission and approval of a watershed protection plan or impact study as a condition for development of a subdivision or apartment complex. This type of ordinance requires that watershed protection plan or stormwater control be implemented before a building certificate of compliance is issued. Plans should be required to designate the party responsible for maintaining stormwater facilities after construction is complete.

Performance standards. A performance standard permits development but limits impact of the development. For example, the regulation could specify that permits require that the pollutant loading rate of the development is no more than a certain percentage of the pre development loading rate of the area. This would require enforcement or monitoring to make sure the development continues to comply. In its permit application, the developer would also be required to list mitigation steps it would take if it exceeded the pollutant loading requirements.

Most zoning ordinances have grandfather clauses that allow nonconforming land uses to continue. Ordinances may also allow the zoning authority to grant variances if the topography or size of a lot make it difficult to comply with a zoning requirement. Appendix E  Watershed Control Best Management Practices LT2ESWTR Toolbox Guidance Manual Proposal Draft June 2003 E 6 Examples of source water protection ordinances can be found at http:// www. epa. gov/ owow/ nps/ ordinance/ osm7. htm.

E. 1.3 Land Acquisition and Conservation Easements Acquisition of watershed land by the utility or its affiliated jurisdiction is often the most effective approach to protecting the water source. Landowners usually consider acquisition as fair, since it compensates them for their property while protecting the watercourses nearby. Land conservation has also been found to provide multiple benefits aside from controlling pathogen contamination, such as flood control, limited recreational use, and the protection of historic and environmental resources. EPA's Drinking Water State Revolving Fund allows a percentage of the fund to be set aside for land acquisition associated with watershed protection.

Several organizations exist that can help systems purchase watershed land to protect drinking water quality, especially when government agencies are unable to move quickly enough to buy land when it becomes available. The Trust for Public Land ( http:// www. tpl. org) and small local land trusts and conservancies can facilitate the land acquisition process. Trusts can buy and hold land from multiple landowners on behalf of a water system until the system can assemble funding to purchase it from the trust. Trusts may also maintain land ownership themselves. The Trust for Public Land also can assist with development of financing strategies for land purchases.

Trusts also can work with landowners to buy or have landowners donate conservation easements. An easement is a legal document that permanently limits the development of a piece of land, even after the land is sold or otherwise changes ownership. The landowner selling or donating the easement specifies the development restrictions to apply to the land. The law varies from state to state, but the owner of the easement ( the government agency or land trust) has the authority to determine if the requirements of the easement are being followed. If not, the owner of the easement make take legal action. Easements donated to government agencies or to land trusts may be eligible for tax deductions. See http:// www. landtrust. org/ ProtectingLand/ EasementInfo. htm for frequently asked questions about easements and for an example of a model easement for use in the State of Michigan. The Land Trust Alliance ( http:// www. lta. org), a trade organization for land trusts, has published handbooks on designing and managing conservation easement programs.

Other government agencies, such as the U. S. Forest Service or state natural resource departments, may be able to buy parcels in your watershed if you are unable to afford to purchase all the land that needs to be protected. Appendix E  Watershed Control Best Management Practices LT2ESWTR Toolbox Guidance Manual Proposal Draft June 2003 E 7 E. 2 Addressing Point Sources E. 2.1 Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations Some animal feeding operations ( AFOs) may be considered concentrated animal feeding operations ( CAFOs) if they have more than a specified number of animals and/ or if they discharge pollutants into navigable waters through a manmade ditch or other device or if they discharge directly into waters of the United States. Possible sources of pollutants at CAFOs include runoff that flows through feedlots; failure of pumps, pipes, or retaining walls of manure storage lagoons; runoff from areas where manure is applied to the soil; and direct contact of animals with surface water. CAFOs are located primarily in the South and Midwest, but the number of such facilities is increasing as farms consolidate their operations.

EPA recently issued a rule that changed the requirements on CAFOs that must apply for National ( or State) Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES) permits ( U. S. EPA 2003). All CAFOs are regulated as point sources in the NPDES program. Previously, CAFOs could be exempt from permitting if they could show that they did not discharge during 25 year 24 hour storms. The new rules eliminate this exemption, unless a facility can show that it does not discharge at all. NPDES permits for CAFOs generally allow zero discharge of pollutants and may also require the use of certain technologies. CAFOs are required to report to the state within 24 hours of exceeding effluent limits ( U. S. EPA 2001a).

Many CAFOs do not currently have permits due to limited state resources for compliance ( medium and small AFOs may be designated as CAFOs only by state or regional staff after onsite inspection). For CAFOs ( and other NPDES permittees) that do have individual permits, you may want to attend the public hearing required as part of the permit renewal process, especially if you have any concerns about the adequacy of the existing permit requirements to prevent Cryptosporidium or other drinking water contamination. If a CAFO in your area of influence does not have a permit, consider encouraging its managers to apply for one or working with them to implement a nutrient management plan or other BMPs.

E. 2.2 Wastewater Treatment Plants All wastewater treatment plants in the United States are required to provide secondary treatment ( primary treatment consists of sedimentation, while in secondary treatment, aeration provides oxygen to bacteria that take in nutrients and digest organic material) ( U. S. EPA 2001b). Most plants are also required to disinfect their effluent before discharging. However, conventional chlorine disinfection may be ineffective against Cryptosporidium.

Some wastewater treatment facilities are beginning to implement treatment similar to that used for drinking water treatment. The Robbins Plant of the Upper Occoquan Sewerage Authority in Centreville, Virginia, discharges into a stream that feeds into a reservoir in northern Appendix E  Watershed Control Best Management Practices LT2ESWTR Toolbox Guidance Manual Proposal Draft June 2003 E 8 Virginia. Following secondary treatment using activated sludge, the facility provides other treatment, including clarification, multimedia filtration, and disinfection ( U. S. EPA 2000a). The Cole Pollution Control Plant in Fairfax County, Virginia, which discharges into a creek flowing into the Potomac River, also uses advanced treatment, including chlorine disinfection, filtration, and dechlorination ( Fairfax County 2001).

PWSs should identify all wastewater treatment plants in their watersheds and determine what their permit effluent limits are and whether the limits are being met. Some of this information may already be available through the source water assessment program. PWSs may wish to work with the wastewater utilities and appropriate government agencies to get them to voluntarily upgrade the treatment provided. PWSs with the appropriate legal authority may wish to require wastewater plants to use certain technologies. An example might be switching from chlorine to ozone or ultraviolet radiation disinfection before discharging.

E. 2.3 Combined Sewer Overflows Combined sewer overflows ( CSOs) are most common in older cities in the northeastern and midwestern United States and can be a significant contributor of Cryptosporidium to urban watersheds.

There are three major structural solutions to the problem of CSOs. The first is to separate combined sewers into sanitary and storm sewers, where sanitary sewers flow to the wastewater treatment plant and storm sewers release to surface water. This separation may cause the unwanted side effect of increasing overall contamination due to the fact that storm water is no longer being treated. For example, separating sewers resulted in only an estimated 45 percent reduction in fecal coliform removal in a bay in Boston ( Metcalf and Eddy 1994, cited in U. S. EPA 1999c). Separating sewers is also very expensive and often impractical. The second option is to increase the capacity of the wastewater treatment plant so that it is able to treat combined sewage from most storms. The third, very expensive solution is to build aboveground open or covered retention basins or to construct underground storage facilities for combined sewage to hold the sewage until the storm has passed and can be treated without overloading the plant. The Metropolitan Water Reclamation District in Cook County, Illinois, chose the third option, building 109 miles of tunnel up to 35 feet wide and several underground reservoirs underneath Chicago and its suburbs, with most funding from EPA ( MWRD 1999). In addition to reducing CSOs, the tunnels eliminated flooding that had previously affected the area due to its flat topography. The project also eliminated the need for individual municipalities to implement their own CSO programs.

CSOs are not regulated directly under their own program, but EPA has a CSO control policy ( U. S. EPA 1994) which encourages minor improvements to optimize CSO operation, and CSO management may be written into NPDES or SPDES permits. The CSO policy also encourages development of long term control plans for each CSO system; such plans would require significant construction, and few utilities have drafted or implemented them yet. Planned Appendix E  Watershed Control Best Management Practices LT2ESWTR Toolbox Guidance Manual Proposal Draft June 2003 E 9 construction projects can be included as control measures in watershed control plans. PWSs should determine the extent of the CSO programs in place in municipalities within their watersheds. They may be able to work with other utilities to address overflow sites of particular concern. Many municipalities with CSOs made major structural changes to their systems in the 1980s and 1990s; current improvements are more likely to involve streamlining operation and management.

Many large cities have already addressed a significant portion of their CSOs, but there are additional smaller steps they can take to reduce the amount of sewage released during a wet weather event. These include maximizing in line storage ( storage available in the sewer pipes themselves) through regular inspection and removal of obstructions and sediment, installation and maintenance of flow regulators, upgrading pumping capacity ( assuming the treatment plant can handle the increased volume); raising weirs at CSO outfalls; and installing computerized sensors to control flow during storms.

Additionally, reducing inflow ( entry of storm water into the combined sewers) and infiltration ( entry of storm water through cracks and manholes) is important. Inflow can be reduced by disconnecting roof drains and sump pumps from sewers, restricting flow into storm drains, and constructing storm water detention ponds and infiltration devices. If overflow events can be reduced, it may be possible to eliminate some outfalls. Some sewer systems also have installed some treatment of CSOs including disinfection and screening; this treatment may be required as part of a NPDES permit.

E. 2.4 Sanitary Sewer Overflows Sanitary sewer systems normally feed into wastewater treatment plants but can still cause water quality problems. Sanitary sewer overflows ( SSOs) occur when untreated and mostly undiluted sewage backs up into basements, streets, and surface water. SSOs discharging to surface water are prohibited under the Clean Water Act. Insufficient maintenance and capacity and illegal connections are some of the primary causes of SSOs. Many sanitary sewers are subject to inflow and infiltration, just as combined sewers are, caused by cracks in pipes or bad connections to service lines. They may receive water they were not designed to receive, such as storm water from roof drains that should be connected to storm sewers, or wastewater from new developments that did not exist when the wastewater treatment plant was designed. SSOs can be reduced by cleaning and maintaining the sewer system; reducing inflow and infiltration by repairing leaking or broken service lines; increasing sewer, pumping, and/ or wastewater treatment plant capacity; and constructing storage for excess wastewater ( U. S. EPA 2001c). EPA is proposing a rule that will require sewer systems to implement capacity assurance, management, operation, and maintenance programs and will require public notification of overflow events. This information will assist PWSs in addressing SSO point sources. Appendix E  Watershed Control Best Management Practices LT2ESWTR Toolbox Guidance Manual Proposal Draft June 2003 E 10 E. 2.5 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems Municipal separate storm sewer systems ( MS4s) in areas with populations of more than 100,000 are also required to obtain NPDES permits. Information on storm sewer outfall locations, volume discharged, conventional pollutant loads, and existence of illicit discharges is submitted as part of the permit application process ( U. S. EPA 1996). In addition, these MS4s must develop management plans addressing items such as outfall monitoring, structural and nonstructural BMPs to be implemented, and identification and elimination of illicit discharges. Illicit discharges to MS4s include any non stormwater discharges, such as discharges that should be connected to sanitary sewers ( e. g., water from sinks, floor drains, and occasionally toilets), illegal dumping of sewage from recreational vehicles, sanitary sewer overflow backing up through manhole covers into storm drains, effluent from failing septic systems, water from sump pumps, etc.

Small MS4s ( serving areas with populations of less than 100,000) are subject to NPDES permit requirements if they are located in " urbanized areas" as determined by the Bureau of the Census. Some small MS4s in urbanized areas may be eligible for waivers from the NPDES requirement. Those MS4s subject to NPDES permits must implement " control measures" in six areas, including a plan for eliminating illicit discharges ( U. S. EPA 2000b).

PWSs should work with all MS4 utilities in the area of influence to gather existing information about storm water contamination. MS4 utilities may need to install or retrofit structural BMPs, such as retention ponds, to reduce contamination. Most studies of structural stormwater BMPs focus on nutrient or sediment removal, so almost no information is available on Cryptosporidium removal, and limited information is available on bacterial removal. However, a few studies of bacteria in structural BMPs show that bacteria survive for weeks to months in retention pond sediments and natural lake environments. In addition, other studies showed higher bacteria levels in retention pond effluent than in influent. This suggests that stormwater pond sediments resuspended during storms can be a source of pathogens ( Schueler 1999).

E. 3 What BMPs Can Help Alleviate Nonpoint Sources?

The following sections describe BMPs for agricultural, forestry, and urban sources of Cryptosporidium. Your watershed control program plan must discuss how these or any other BMPs you choose will be implemented in the area of influence. EPA Section 319 grants and Clean Water State Revolving Fund loans can be used for nonpoint sources and watershed management purposes. Appendix E  Watershed Control Best Management Practices LT2ESWTR Toolbox Guidance Manual Proposal Draft June 2003 E 11 E. 3.1 Agricultural BMPs E. 3.1.1 Management Programs The U. S. Department of Agriculture ( USDA) ( 2000) recommends a multiple barrier approach to controlling pathogen transport and proliferation on farms and in agricultural watersheds. It recommends the following " control points:"

° Preventing initial infection by controlling pathogen import to the farm ° Controlling the reproduction and spread of the pathogen throughout the farm ° Managing waste ° Controlling pathogen export from the farm These control points should not be treated separately. For example, waste management affects reproduction and spread of the pathogen if feed becomes contaminated with waste. Waste management is also related to pathogen export; composting can kill Cryptosporidium oocysts before they leave the farm.

BMPs that can reduce pathogen loading include composting, waste management ( manure storage and land application), grazing management, feedlot runoff diversion, and buffer or filter strips. PWSs should work with their local soil and water conservation districts and agricultural or cooperative extensions, which can help farmers design and implement pollution management plans and BMPs. Details about these conservation practices are provided in the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service's ( NRCS) National Handbook of Conservation Practices ( NRCS 1999) at http:// www. ftw. nrcs. usda. gov/ nhcp_ 2. html.

Management strategies designed to minimize direct livestock contamination of surface water with Cryptosporidium should focus primarily on young animals ( those less than 3 months old) and their waste, since calves are more likely to shed Cryptosporidium. Efforts should also focus on cow herds as a whole when calves are present.

Several NRCS programs provide technical assistance to farmers and subsidize the cost of implementing BMPs. These include Agricultural Management Assistance, the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, the Conservation Reserve Program, and the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program ( see www. nrcs. usda. gov/ programs). The last two programs also pay farmers rent on erodible cropland taken out of production. More information is available at http:// www. fsa. usda. gov/ dafp/ cepd/ crpinfo. htm. The 2002 Farm Bill increased funding for these programs and created new ones as well. For example, the new Conservation Security Program will recognize and reward farmers who are leaders in environmental management.

E. 3.1.2 Composting Composting can effectively reduce pathogen concentrations. Temperatures greater than 55 degrees Celsius ( 131  F) can be easily attained and maintained long enough to inactivate most Appendix E  Watershed Control Best Management Practices LT2ESWTR Toolbox Guidance Manual Proposal Draft June 2003 E 12 oocysts ( Blewett 1989). To reliably achieve Cryptosporidium inactivation, however, the entire waste mass should be uniformly treated and there should be no cold spots. Intense management may be needed to completely mix the composted material.

E. 3.1.3 Buffer Strips Buffer strips, or filter strips, provide a buffer between the area of manure application or grazing and adjacent streams or lakes. Filter strips have been studied primarily with regard to their effectiveness at sediment and nutrient removal. Nutrient removal has been shown to be extremely variable, while agricultural grass filter strips consistently remove 65 percent or more of sediment ( Ohio State University Extension undated). How sediment removal relates to Cryptosporidium removal is not known. Cryptosporidium often adsorbs to suspended material the size of clay and silt particles, which is the type of sediment that is likely to pass through the filter strip, especially at high flow velocities.

Few studies have evaluated the ability of buffer strips to remove Cryptosporidium. However, one study found that grass filter strips with slopes of 20 percent or less and widths of at least 3 meters resulted in removal of 1 to 3 log ( 90 to 99.9 percent) during mild to moderate precipitation ( Atwill et al. 2002). More data are available on removal of bacteria. Moore et al. ( 1988) reviewed the work of several investigators and concluded that vegetative filters are most reliable at removing bacteria at high concentrations from waste effluent. Bacterial populations in runoff from buffer areas seem to equilibrate at approximately 104 to 105 organisms per 100 milliliters, regardless of experimental conditions. For this reason, USDA ( 2000) recommends that buffers and filter strips be considered secondary practices for pathogen control and be used in conjunction with other source, proliferation, and waste treatment and control measures to form an integrated, comprehensive pathogen management system.

The NRCS encourages the use of riparian forest buffers of at least 35 to 100 feet ( depending on floodplain width) for stream restoration purposes but recommends additional width in high sediment and animal waste application areas. Grass filter strips may be added upgradient of the forest buffers or may be used alone. The NRCS ( 1999) recommends grass filter strip widths of at least 20 feet, but width should be determined based on the slopes of the strip and the field being drained, the area being drained, the erosion rate, sediment grain size distribution, runoff volume, and the vegetation in the strip. Filter strips should follow contours as much as possible to promote sheet flow. The area being drained should have a slope of less than 10 percent. Grazing should not generally be permitted within the filter strip. Maintenance activities should include mowing to prevent woody growth, inspection after storm events, repair of any gullies, reseeding of disturbed areas, and any other steps needed to maintain overland sheet flow.

E. 3.1.4 Grazing Management Managed grazing can be cheaper and less environmentally damaging than confined feeding and unmanaged grazing. It decreases feed, herbicide, equipment, and fertilizer costs, while reducing erosion and increasing runoff infiltration and manure decomposition rates ( Ohio State Appendix E  Watershed Control Best Management Practices LT2ESWTR Toolbox Guidance Manual Proposal Draft June 2003 E 13 University Extension, undated). In managed, or rotational, grazing, a sustainable number of cattle or other livestock graze for a limited time ( usually 2 3 days) on each pasture before being rotated to the next pasture. This allows vegetation regrowth and prevents overgrazing, which can contribute to erosion and runoff, and helps distribute manure evenly over the grazed area. It also prevents soil compaction, thereby increasing infiltration. One of the best ways to prevent surface water contamination during rotational grazing is to prevent grazing along streams ( through fencing and use of a buffer strip) and to provide alternative water sources for livestock. Providing water in each paddock can increase the number of cattle the pasture is able to support. Even where rotational grazing is not used, surface water contamination can be reduced by keeping cattle, especially calves, out of streams.

E. 3.1.5 Manure Storage Manure storage facilities allow farmers to wait until field conditions are more suitable for land application. Without manure storage facilities, farmers must distribute manure on adjacent fields daily. However, weather conditions are not always appropriate for manure application. During the winter, for example, frozen soil conditions allow Cryptosporidium oocysts to be washed into watercourses, and oocysts survive longer at cold temperatures.

Manure storage facilities should be designed to prevent discharge through leaching or runoff. They should be lined and, if possible, covered. Facilities that are not covered should be designed to contain precipitation and runoff from a 25 year 24 hour storm. Storage areas should have embankments to prevent overflow and collapse of the storage facility and to divert runoff from outside the facility from contamination. Facilities should be sited outside of flood plains. Manure should be stored for a time period sufficient for microorganisms to die off.

E. 3.1.6 Land Application of Manure Several precautions taken in manure application can prevent runoff from entering surface water, reducing the likelihood of Cryptosporidium contamination. Buffer strips should be situated between the water body and area of manure application. Manure should not be applied to frozen ground or before predicted rainfall. Manure should not be applied near tile drains or dry wells or to land subject to flooding. If soil is dry and cracked, fields should be tilled before application. Soil and manure should be tested for nutrient levels, and the application rate should be tailored to the soil and specific crop needs. To minimize runoff, waste should be injected ( injection creates holes 6 14 inches deep and does not turn soil over) or applied to the surface and then plowed under. Applying manure to land with crop residue or new crops rather than bare soil also minimizes erosion. Surface application without plowing under may be acceptable if conditions are warm and dry   this enables significant pathogen die off ( Vendrall et al. 1997) by exposure to UV light and desiccation. The Agricultural Waste Management Field Handbook ( NRCS 1992), Chapter 5, Table 5 3 contains a detailed review of restricting features that should be considered during manure spreading. Appendix E  Watershed Control Best Management Practices LT2ESWTR Toolbox Guidance Manual Proposal Draft June 2003 E 14 For pastures to be used for grazing, waste should be stored for at least 60 days and then applied at least 30 days before the scheduled grazing period, to avoid infection of the animals. Use of these areas for grazing should be limited to mature animals. Manure spreading on pastures used for grazing or on hayfields should take place when minimal amounts of vegetation are present, just after harvesting or grazing. This allows sunlight and desiccation to destroy the most pathogens and reduces the chance of pathogen adherence to the forage.

Critical source areas are defined as saturated areas that can expand and contract rapidly, based on soil, hydrological, and slope characteristics ( Gburek and Poinke 1995). These areas are dominated by saturated overland flow and rapidly respond to subsurface flow. Therefore, watershed managers should identify the boundaries of potential saturated areas and ensure that waste is only applied outside of those boundaries to minimize Cryptosporidium oocyst runoff. Some tools have been developed to delineate critical source areas ( e. g., Cornell Soil Moisture Routing Model; Frankenberger 1999). Less detailed delineations can also be made using information such as soil drainage class, flooding frequency, wetland mapping, areas of concentrated flow, and aerial photo interpretations.

E. 3.1.7 Feedlot Runoff Diversion Clean roof and surface water can be diverted away from feedlots to a drainage system that is independent of a farm's waste management system ( Ohio State University Extension 1992). All roofs that could contribute to feedlot runoff should have gutters, downspouts, and outlets that discharge away from the feedlot. Berms around the feedlot can divert surface runoff. Diverting clean water before it drains into the feedlot can significantly reduce the amount of wastewater that needs to be managed. Runoff within the feedlot should be contained and treated in the waste management system for the lot.

E. 3.2 Forestry BMPs Forestry practices are not likely to significantly contribute to Cryptosporidium sources, since wildlife levels decrease or, at most, remain constant after logging. However, logging can cause increased erosion, leading to increased runoff and making it more likely that Cryptosporidium present in wildlife will reach the source water. In addition, logging can cause elevated sediment levels, resulting in high turbidity, which affects water treatment efficiency.

Filter strips, where ground cover is maintained around lakes, permanent and intermittent streams, and wetlands, help trap sediment. Filter strip width should increase with slope of the area being logged. Streamside or riparian management zones are intended to stabilize stream banks and maintain shade over streams to minimize water temperature fluctuations. Streamside management zones and filter strips often overlap, but limited logging is often permitted within streamside management zones ( NRCS 1999). Appendix E  Watershed Control Best Management Practices LT2ESWTR Toolbox Guidance Manual Proposal Draft June 2003 E 15 Logging roads should be constructed to minimize runoff through proper grading and drainage. Road runoff should be diverted away from streams and prevented from channelizing. Loggers should minimize soil disturbance and compaction on skid trails, the trails used to drag logs to trucks for loading ( U. S. EPA 2002a).

E. 3.3 Urban/ Suburban BMPs See http:// www. epa. gov/ owm/ mtb/ mtbfact. htm for fact sheets on technologies and BMPs municipalities can use to reduce contamination from wastewater and stormwater.

E. 3.3.1 Buffer Zones For watersheds in urban areas, buffer zones help to protect development on the floodplain from being damaged when the water is high, as well as protect the stream from the effects of the development.

The utility, municipality, or cooperating jurisdictions may acquire land bordering the reservoir and/ or its tributaries. Alternatively, buffers can be required by zoning ordinances, conservation easements, or subdivision regulations. Buffer zones can be fixed width or variable width. In a fixed width zone, the buffer zone encompasses a certain distance from the stream bank or some other hydrological reference point ( e. g., the high water mark of a stream). The widths of fixed buffer zones vary considerably among water sources, frequently ranging from 50 feet to 250 feet of buffer from the stream edge. Another form of buffer zone, the variablewidth buffer, can vary in width depending on the hydrological sensitivity, stream size, and character of the land adjacent to the watercourse.

Considerations for developing local buffer requirements are the size and location of the stream, the nature of existing or potential development, and the financial and political feasibility of establishing protected zones around the streams and reservoir of the watershed. Although buffer zones have been found to trap fecal waste ( Coyne and Blevins 1995; Young et al. 1980), the extent to which they reduce Cryptosporidium loading is not well understood. For this reason, buffer zones should be used to augment, rather than replace, other watershed management practices to help protect overall source water quality.

Buffer zones should be routinely inspected to ensure that sources of contamination have not been introduced to the area and that the buffer is being maintained ( e. g., that buffers are kept unmowed). Watershed managers should also be aware of storm sewers and culverts that may be draining into the waterways and bypassing the buffer zones altogether.

E. 3.3.2 Dry Detention Basins Dry detention basins temporarily store stormwater runoff and release the water slowly to allow for settling of particulates and the reduction of peak flows. These structures hold a certain Appendix E  Watershed Control Best Management Practices LT2ESWTR Toolbox Guidance Manual Proposal Draft June 2003 E 16 amount of water from a storm and release the water through a controlled outlet over a specified time period based on design criteria. Most basins dry out completely between storm events. The major failure of these basins is that some are not designed or maintained properly, resulting in too slow a release of water to empty the basin before the next storm. If the basin remains partially full, only a portion of the design runoff volume from the next storm will be retained. With inadequate detention, pollutants are not removed from the runoff. Dry detention basins also risk the possibility of resuspension of pathogens from the basin sediments if hydraulic retention times are compromised by poor design or failure to keep the outlets open.

E. 3.3.3 Infiltration Devices Infiltration devices remove pathogens and particles by adsorption onto soil particles and filtration as the water moves through the soil to the ground water. Infiltration devices include infiltration basins, infiltration trenches, and dry wells ( NALMS 2000). Properly designed devices can reproduce hydrological conditions that existed before urban development, and provide ground water recharge and control of peak storm water flows. In order for them to function effectively, infiltration devices must be used only where the soil is porous and can readily absorb storm water at an adequate rate. An advantage of infiltration devices over many other urban BMPs is that they provide significant ground water recharge in areas with a high percentage of impervious surface.

E. 3.3.4 Sand Filters Sand filters can be used to treat storm water runoff from large buildings and parking lots. As the name implies, storm water is filtered through beds of sand, which may be located above ground in self contained beds, or can be installed underground in trenches or concrete boxes. Underground sand filters can be installed in urban settings where space is restricted and the filters are not visible. Pathogens and particles are removed by filtering storm water through approximately 18 inches of sand. Above ground filters may be preceded by grassed filter strips or swales to pre treat the incoming storm water and prevent the sand filters from clogging.

Sand filters are often more expensive to construct than infiltration trenches ( NALMS 2000). They do not provide a significant amount of storm water detention, and their ability to remove pathogens is limited. They require little maintenance; the sand surface should be raked and a few inches of dirty sand on the filter surface should be removed and replaced periodically, so that the filters do not clog.

E. 3.3.5 Wet Retention Ponds Wet retention ponds maintain a permanent pool of water that is augmented by storm water runoff. The ponds fill with storm water, which they slowly release over several days until the pond returns to its normal depth. Ponds can effectively reduce suspended particles and, presumably, some pathogens, by settling and biological decomposition. There is concern, however, that ponds attract wildlife that may contribute additional fecal pollution to the water, rather than reducing contamination. Bacteria may also survive in pond sediment. Appendix E  Watershed Control Best Management Practices LT2ESWTR Toolbox Guidance Manual Proposal Draft June 2003 E 17 Many people find wet ponds aesthetically pleasing, and welcome their use for storm water control. Some maintenance of the ponds is required in order for them to continue to function effectively and to avoid nuisance odors and insect problems. Wetland plants should be periodically harvested, and the pond inlets and outlets should be kept clear so that flow is not impeded. Wet ponds can be an appealing play area for children, so safety measures should also be taken to restrict access..

E. 3.3.6 Constructed Wetlands Constructed subsurface flow wetlands ( where wetland plants are not submerged) can reduce Cryptosporidium and bacteria concentrations in wastewater ( Thurston et al. 2001). Subsurface flow prevents the public from coming into contact with wastewater and prevents mosquitos problems. Wetlands may also be useful for treating storm water or other polluted water. However, the matrix material of a constructed subsurface flow wetland ( gravel is often used) may provide an environment for bacterial growth, and animals living in the wetlands may contribute microbes to the effluent ( Thurston et al. 2001). Animals are probably less significant than they would be in a free water surface wetland. The growth of bacteria in the wetland medium is both positive and negative   bacteria that help break down materials in wastewater are more plentiful, but fecal coliform also can survive in such environments. Constructed wetlands are relatively inexpensive often used on small scales to treat water at small facilities such as schools, apartment complexes, and parks ( U. S. EPA 2000c).

E. 3.3.7 Runoff Diversion As with feedlot runoff diversion, structures can be installed in more urban settings to divert clean water flow before it reaches a contamination source. Structures that channel runoff away from contamination sources include stormwater conveyances such as swales, gutters, channels, drains, and sewers. Graded surfaces can also be used to re direct sheet flow, and diversion dikes or berms can be installed to route sheet flow around areas that are being protected from runoff.

E. 3.3.8 Pet Waste Management Municipalities can implement pet waste management programs to encourage pet owners to properly collect and dispose of their animals' waste. Many communities have pet waste ordinances that require pet owners to clean up after their pets on public property or anywhere outside their own yards; however, compliance is limited, and enforcement is usually not a priority. In addition, most ordinances do not require pet owners to clean up pet waste in their own yards ( this problem can usually be addressed, though only reactively, through nuisance or pet neglect laws). Some communities have ordinances that govern the cleanup process by requiring disposal of pet waste with regular trash, burial, or flushing it down the toilet. Enforcement of these ordinances with fines for noncompliance is probably the best way to increase compliance. Appendix E  Watershed Control Best Management Practices LT2ESWTR Toolbox Guidance Manual Proposal Draft June 2003 E 18 To increase public awareness about pet waste, you can distribute educational materials through emails, letters, public service announcements, and signs. Posting is the most common outreach strategy for managing pet waste. Pet waste stations containing waste receptacles for public use are another popular solution. Public works departments have also formed voluntary commitment and partnership programs with pet owners and local pet stores in the community to promote good pet waste management.

E. 3.3.9 Water Conservation Water conservation is usually presented as a practice that can help preserve the amount of water available for use, especially in times of drought. However, water conservation can also decrease the amount of wastewater and stormwater generated, thereby protecting the quality of the water supply ( U. S. EPA 2002b). Use of low flow toilets and showerheads, for example, can allow wastewater treatment plants to treat wastewater from more customers without having to increase capacity, reducing the occurrence of combined or sanitary sewer overflows. The reduced load on wastewater treatment plants can also decrease the need for rate increases. Reducing lawn watering decreases the amount of runoff entering storm sewers, combined sewers, and surface water.

E. 3.3.10 Low Impact Development Low impact development, or better site design, is a watershed practice that reduces pollutant loads, conserves natural areas, saves money, and increases property values ( Center for Watershed Protection 1999). A fundamentally different approach to residential and commercial development, site design tries to reduce the amount of impervious cover, increase natural lands set aside for conservation, and use pervious areas for more effective stormwater treatment. Low impact development involves changing traditional practices for residential street and parking lot design, lot development, and conservation of natural areas. Some specific steps for better site design include the following ( Center for Watershed Protection 1999):

° Design residential streets based on the minimum width needed to support travel lanes, on street parking, and emergency and maintenance vehicle access. For example, a street with single family houses with driveways does not need two lanes for parking. Construct sidewalks on only one side of the street. ° Minimize the number of cul de sacs. Where cul de sacs are built, place landscaped islands to reduce their impervious cover. ° Advocate open space or cluster design subdivisions on smaller lots. ° Reduce imperviousness by promoting alternative driveway surfaces and shared driveways that connect two or more homes together. Reduce driveway length by allowing decreased front setbacks. ° Direct rooftop runoff to pervious areas such as yards, open channels, or vegetated areas rather than the roadway and stormwater sewers. Better yet, install open vegetated channels instead of storm sewers. Appendix E  Watershed Control Best Management Practices LT2ESWTR Toolbox Guidance Manual Proposal Draft June 2003 E 19 ° Reduce the imperviousness and size of parking lots by minimizing stall dimensions, incorporating efficient parking lanes, and using pervious materials in the spillover parking areas where possible. Use lower parking ratios where possible ( e. g., where mass transit is available and codes permit). ° Provide stormwater treatment for parking lot runoff using bioretention areas, filter strips, and/ or other practices. ° Create a naturally vegetated buffer system along all perennial streams that encompasses critical environmental features such as the 100 year floodplain, steep slopes, and wetlands. ° Clearing and grading of forests and native vegetation at a site should be limited to the minimum amount needed to build lots, allow access, and provide fire protection. Specify a party legally responsible for maintaining the vegetated area.

Some aspects of low impact development may be prohibited outright under traditional zoning and development regulations, so low impact development practices may need to be codified. Where such practices remain voluntary or require exemptions from existing regulations, water systems should work with local planners to encourage the switch to better site design.

E. 3.3.11 Septic Systems Failing septic systems can be a major source of microbial contamination in a watershed. Poor placement of leachfields can feed partially treated waste directly into a drinking water source. Poorly constructed percolation systems may allow wastewater to escape before it has been properly treated. Failing systems can result in clogging and overflow of waste onto land or into surface water.

Most septic system regulations require construction permits and an inspection before the system begins operating, but few require any follow up. Where failing systems are a serious problem or are close to a drinking water source, however, some municipalities have maintenance or inspection requirements. For example, the Portland ( Maine) Water District requires permits for all septic systems within 200 feet of Sebago Lake, its primary source ( U. S. EPA 1999a). These septic systems are subject to regular inspection and may face stricter design requirements than systems outside the boundary. Portland also has the authority to inspect systems within 1,000 feet of Sebago Lake tributaries. Similarly, the Onondaga County Water Authority in New York visually inspects every septic system in the water system annually. Every three years each septic system is subject to a dye tracer test. Enforcement cases are referred to the county health department ( U. S. EPA 1999a).

Although water systems rarely have enforcement authority over septic systems, they should work closely with the local regulatory authority to ensure that septic system codes are being properly enforced and to strengthen codes where necessary. Utilities should also encourage residents with septic systems in the watershed to understand their systems and the proper maintenance that their systems require. Home* A* Syst programs run by many state cooperative extensions provide educational material and checklists for septic system owners about proper Appendix E  Watershed Control Best Management Practices LT2ESWTR Toolbox Guidance Manual Proposal Draft June 2003 E 20 siting and maintenance. Utilities may also want to encourage residents to hook up to a sanitary sewer system where feasible. Clean Water State Revolving Fund loans, USDA Rural Utilities Service funds, and Department of Housing and Urban Development Community Development Block Grants are available for septic system rehabilitation or replacement. Individual homeowners may be eligible for some of these loans ( U. S. EPA 1999b). Some of these funds may also be used to build centralized wastewater treatment.

E. 3.3.12 Wildlife BMPs Steps taken to prevent wildlife from contaminating source water vary with the source and type of wildlife. Some reservoirs and lakes employ boats with noisemakers to scare seagulls and geese away. Many systems with control of the land around their reservoirs place fences on the water's edge to keep out larger land animals and humans. To keep geese from feeding along the river bank just upstream from one of its intakes, the Philadelphia Water Department planted a riparian buffer and wildflower meadow and conducted a public education program to prevent people from feeding the geese ( Philadelphia Water Department 2003). Appendix E  Watershed Control Best Management Practices LT2ESWTR Toolbox Guidance Manual Proposal Draft June 2003 E 21 References Atwill, E. R., L. Hou, B. M. Karle, T. Harter, K. W. Tate, and R. A. Dahlgren. 2002. Transport of Cryptosporidium parvum oocysts through vegetated buffer strips and estimated filtration efficiency. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 68( 11): 5517 27.

AWWARF. 1991. Effective Watershed Management for Surface Water Supplies. Prepared by R. W. Robbins, J. L. Glicker, D. M. Bloem, and B. M. Niss, Portland ( OR) Water Bureau. Denver: American Water Works Association Research Foundation.

AWWA. 1999. Source Water Protection: Effective Tools and Techniques You Can Use. 1999 Participant Manual. Denver: American Water Works Association. Developed for a technical training seminar for public water suppliers and local officials.

Edinburgh: The Animal Disease Research Association. 107 116.

Center for Watershed Protection. 1999. An Introduction to Better Site Design. Watershed Protection Techniques 3( 2): 623 632.

Coyne, M. S. and R. L. Blevins. 1995. Fecal bacteria in surface runoff from poultry manured fields. In K. Steele ( ed.), Animal Water and the Land Water Interface, pp. 77 87. Boca Raton: Lewis Publishers, CRC Press.

Fairfax County. 2001. Wastewater Treatment Plant. www. co. fairfax. va. us/ gov/ DPWES/ utilities/ wwtrmnt_ 0600. htm. Last modified May 16, 2001. Website accessed January 2002.

Frankenberger, J. R. et al. 1999. A GIS based variable source area hydrology model. Hydrologic Processes 13: 805 822.

Gburek, W. J. and H. B. Pionke. 1995. Management strategies for land based disposal of animal wastes: Hydrologic implications. pp. 313 323. In K. Steele ( ed.), Animal Water and the Land Water Interface, pp. 77 87. Boca Raton: Lewis Publishers, CRC Press.

Metcalf and Eddy. 1994. Final CSO Conceptual Plan and System Master Plan: Part II CSO Strategies. Prepared for the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority. Wakefield, Massachusetts.

Moore, J. A. et al. 1988. Evaluating coliform concentrations in runoff from various animal waste management systems. Special Report 817. Agricultural Experimental Stations, Oregon State University, Corvallis, and the U. S. D. A., Portland, OR. Appendix E  Watershed Control Best Management Practices LT2ESWTR Toolbox Guidance Manual Proposal Draft June 2003 E 22 MWRD. 1999. Tunnel and Reservoir Plan. Metropolitan Water Reclamation District. www. mwrdgc. dst. il. us/ plants/ tarp. htm. Last modified August 6, 1999. Website accessed January 2002.

NALMS ( North American Lake Management Society). March 2000. Best Management Practices to Protect Water Quality.

NRCS. 1999. National Handbook of Conservation Practices. Natural Resources Conservation Service. http:// www. ftw. nrcs. usda. gov/ nhcp_ 2. html.

NRCS. 1992. Agricultural Waste Management Field Handbook.

Ohio State University Extension. 1992. Ohio Livestock Manure and Wastewater Management Guide, Bulletin 604. http:// ohioline. osu. edu/ b604/ index. html. Website accessed March 2003.

Ohio State University Extension. No date. Vegetation Filter Strips: Application, Installation, and Maintenance. AEX 467 94. http:// ohioline. osu. edu/ aex fact/ 0467. html. Website accessed March 2003.

Ohio State University Extension. No date. Getting Started Grazing. Edited by Henry Bartholomew. http:// ohioline. osu. edu/ gsg/ index. html Philadelphia Water Department. 2003. Philadelphia Projects. Website. http:// www. phillywater. org/ Schuylkill/ projects% 20pages/ Project_ Main. htm# Goose% 20Project. Undated. Accessed February 12, 2003.

Schueler, T. R. 1999. Microbes and urban watersheds: concentrations, sources, and pathways. Watershed Protection Techniques. 3( 1): 554 565. http:// www. stormwatercenter. net.

Thurston, J. A., C. P. Gerba, K. E. Foster, M. M. Karpiscak. Fate of indicator microorganisms, Giardia, and Cryptosporidium in subsurface flow constructed wetlands. Water Research 35( 6): 1547 1551.

U. S. Department of Agriculture. 2000. Waterborne Pathogens in Agricultural Watersheds. Watershed Science Institute. http:// www. wcc. nrcs. usda. gov/ watershed/ pdffiles/ Pathogens_ in_ Agricultural_ Watersheds. pdf. Website accessed March 2003.

U. S. EPA 2003. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit Regulation and Effluent Limitation Guidelines and Standards for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations ( CAFOs). Federal Register 68( 29): 7176 7274. February 12.

U. S. EPA 2002a. Polluted Runoff ( Nonpoint Source Pollution: Managing Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry. Pointer No. 8. EPA 841 F 96 004H. Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Appendix E  Watershed Control Best Management Practices LT2ESWTR Toolbox Guidance Manual Proposal Draft June 2003 E 23 Watersheds. www. epa. gov/ owow/ nps/ facts/ point8. htm. Last modified August 28, 2002. Website accessed March 2003.

U. S. EPA. 2002b. Public Education and Outreach on Storm Water Impacts: Water Conservation Practices for Homeowners. http:// cfpub. epa. gov/ npdes/ stormwater/ menuofbmps/ edu_ 13. cfm. Last updated November 25, 2002. Downloaded December 10, 2002.

U. S. EPA. 2001a. Proposed Revisions to CAFO Regulations ( January 12, 2001; 66 FR 2960): Frequently Asked Questions. http:// www. epa. gov/ npdes/ pubs/ cafo_ faq. pdf. Downloaded February, 2002.

U. S. EPA. 2001b. Secondary Treatment Standards. http:// cfpub. epa. gov/ npdes/ techbasedpermitting/ sectreat. cfm? program_ id= 15. Last updated February 21, 2001. Downloaded January 22, 2002.

U. S. EPA 2001c. Sanitary Sewer Overflows Frequently Asked Questions. Office of Wastewater Management. Web page updated March 20, 2001. http:// cfpub. epa. gov/ npdes/ faqs. cfm? program_ id= 4. Website accessed January 2002.

U. S. EPA. 2000a. Wastewater Technology Fact Sheet: Granular Activated Carbon Adsorption and Regeneration. Office of Water. EPA 832 F 00 017. September. http:// www. epa. gov/ owmitnet/ mtb/ carbon_ absorption. pdf.

U. S. EPA 2000b. Storm Water Phase II Final Rule: Small MS4 Storm Water Program Overview. Fact Sheet 2.0. Office of Water. EPA 833 F 00 002. www. epa. gov/ npdes/ pubs/ fact2 0. pdf Website accessed March 2003.

U. S. EPA 2000c. Wastewater Technology Fact Sheet. Wetlands: Subsurface Flow. Office of Water EPA 832 F 00 023. September. http:// www. epa. gov/ owm/ mtb/ wetlands subsurface_ flow. pdf. Website accessed March 2003.

U. S. EPA. 1999a. Protecting Sources of Drinking Water: Selected Case Studies in Watershed Management. Office of Water. EPA 816 R 98 016. April. http:// www. epa. gov/ safewater/ swp/ swpcases. pdf. Accessed December 10, 2002.

U. S. EPA 1999b. Funding Decentralized Wastewater Systems Using the Clean Water State Revolving Fund. Office of Water ( 4204). EPA 832 F 99 001. 4 pages. http:// www. epa. gov/ owm/ cwfinance/ cwsrf/ septic3. pdf. Website accessed March 2003.

U. S. EPA 1999c. Combined Sewer Overflow Management Fact Sheet: Sewer Separation. Office of Water. EPA 832 F 99 041. September. http:// www. epa. gov/ npdes/ pubs/ sepa. pdf. Website accessed March 2003. Appendix E  Watershed Control Best Management Practices LT2ESWTR Toolbox Guidance Manual Proposal Draft June 2003 E 24 U. S. EPA. 1996. Overview of the Storm Water Program. Office of Water. EPA 833 R 96 008. June. 42 pp. www. epa. gov/ npdes/ pubs/ owm0195. pdf. Website accessed March 2003.

U. S. EPA. 1994. Combined Sewer Overflow ( CSO) Policy; Notice. Federal Register 59( 75): 18688 18698. April 19.

Vendrall, P. F., K. A. Teague, and D. W. Wolf. 1997. Pathogen indicator organism die off in soil. ASA Annual Meeting, Anaheim, CA.

Young, R. A. et al. 1980. Effectiveness of vegetated buffer strips in controlling pollution from feedlot runoff. J. Environ. Qual. 9: 483 487. Appendix E  Watershed Control Best Management Practices LT2ESWTR Toolbox Guidance Manual Proposal Draft June 2003 E 25 E. 1 Regulatory and Other Management Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E 1 E. 1.1 Determining Authority to Regulate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E 1 E. 1.2 Zoning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E 2 E. 1.3 Land Acquisition and Conservation Easements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E 5 E. 2 Addressing Point Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E 6 E. 2.1 Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E 6 E. 2.2 Wastewater Treatment Plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E 6 E. 2.3 Combined Sewer Overflows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E 7 E. 2.4 Sanitary Sewer Overflows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E 8 E. 2.5 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E 9 E. 3 What BMPs Can Help Alleviate Nonpoint Sources? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E 9 E. 3.1 Agricultural BMPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E 10 E. 3.1.1 Management Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E 10 E. 3.1.2 Composting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E 11 E. 3.1.3 Buffer Strips . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E 11 E. 3.1.4 Grazing Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E 12 E. 3.1.5 Manure Storage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E 12 E. 3.1.6 Land Application of Manure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E 12 E. 3.1.7 Feedlot Runoff Diversion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E 13 E. 3.2 Forestry BMPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E 13 E. 3.3 Urban/ Suburban BMPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E 14 E. 3.3.1 Buffer Zones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E 14 E. 3.3.2 Dry Detention Basins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E 15 E. 3.3.3 Infiltration Devices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E 15 E. 3.3.4 Sand Filters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E 15 E. 3.3.5 Wet Retention Ponds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E 16 E. 3.3.6 Constructed Wetlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E 16 E. 3.3.7 Runoff Diversion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E 16 E. 3.3.8 Pet Waste Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E 17 E. 3.3.9 Water Conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E 17 E. 3.3.10 Low Impact Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E 17 E. 3.3.11 Septic Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E 18 E. 3.3.12 Wildlife BMPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E 19 << List will generate here >>


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 221 (Friday, November 15, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62525-62526]
[FR Doc No: 2019-24768]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. IC19-39-000]

Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-511); Comment
Request; Extension

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of information collection and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or
FERC) is soliciting public comment on the currently approved
information collection FERC-511 (Transfer of Hydropower License) and
submitting the information collection to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for review. Any interested person may file comments
directly with OMB and should address a copy of those comments to the
Commission as explained below. On August 29, 2019, the Commission
published a Notice in the Federal Register (84 FR 45489) in Docket No.
IC19-39-000 requesting public comments. The Commission received no
public comments.

DATES: Comments on the collection of information are due December 16,
2019.

ADDRESSES: Comments filed with OMB, identified by OMB Control No. 1902-
0069, should be sent via email to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Attention: Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission Desk Officer.
    A copy of the comments should also be sent to the Commission, in
Docket No. IC19-39-000, by either of the following methods:
     eFiling at Commission's Website: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp.
     Mail: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of
the Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
    Instructions: All submissions must be formatted and filed in
accordance with submission guidelines at: http://www.ferc.gov/help/submission-guide.asp. For user assistance, contact FERC Online Support
by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by phone at:<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll-free), or<PHONE_NUMBER> for TTY.
    Docket: Users interested in receiving automatic notification of
activity in this docket or in viewing/downloading comments and
issuances in this docket may do so at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/docs-filing.asp.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Brown may be reached by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, and fax at (202)
273-0873.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: FERC-511, Transfer of Hydropower License.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The title is being updated to Transfer of Hydropower License
(rather than Transfer of Electric License).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OMB Control No.: 1902-0069.
    Type of Request: Three-year extension of the FERC-511 information
collection requirements with no changes to the current reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
    Abstract: The Commission uses the information collected under the

requirements of FERC-511 to implement the statutory provisions of
Sections 4(e) and 8 of the Federal Power Act (FPA).\2\ Section 4(e)
authorizes the Commission to issue licenses for the construction,
operation and maintenance of reservoirs, powerhouses, and transmission
lines or other facilities necessary for the development and improvement
of navigation and for the development, transmission, and utilization of
power.\3\ Section 8 of the FPA provides that the voluntary transfer of
any license is made only with the written approval of the Commission.
Any successor to the licensee may assign the rights of the original
licensee but is subject to all of the conditions of the license. The
information filed with the Commission is a mandatory requirement
contained in the format of a written application for transfer of
license, executed jointly by the parties of the proposed transfer. The
sale or merger of a licensed hydroelectric project may occasion the
transfer of a license. The Commission's staff uses the information
collection to determine the qualifications of the proposed transferee
to hold the license and to prepare the transfer of the license order.
Approval by the Commission of transfer of a license is contingent upon
the transfer of title to the properties under license, delivery of all
license instruments, and evidence that such transfer is in the public
interest. The Commission implements these filing requirements in the
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) under 18 CFR part 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 16 U.S.C. 797(e) and 801.
    \3\ Refers to facilities across, along, from, or in any of the
streams or other bodies of water over which Congress has
jurisdiction under its authority to regulate commerce with foreign
nations and among the several States, or upon any part of public
lands and reservations of the United States, or for the purpose of
utilizing the surplus water or water power from any Government dam.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Type of Respondent: Hydropower Project Licensees.
    Estimate of Annual Burden: \4\ The Commission estimates the annual
burden and cost \5\ for the information collection as follows.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Burden is defined as the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or
disclose or provide information to or for a federal agency. See 5
CFR 1320 for additional information on the definition of information
collection burden.
    \5\ The FERC 2019 average salary plus benefits for one FERC
full-time equivalent (FTE) is $167,091/year (or $80.00/hour).
Commission staff estimates that the industry's skill set (wages and
benefits) for completing and filing FERC-511 is comparable to the
Commission's skill set.

                                                        FERC-511: Transfer of Hydropower License
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Annual number                                                                               Cost per
                                     Number of     of responses    Total number   Average burden hrs. & cost   Total annual burden hours &    respondent
                                    respondents   per respondent   of responses          per response               total annual cost            ($)
                                             (1)             (2)     (1) * (2) =  (4).......................  (3) * (4) = (5)..............    (5) / (1)
                                                                             (3)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hydropower Project Licensees....              46               1              46  40 hrs.; $3,200...........  1,840 hrs.; $147,000.........       $3,200
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments: Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Commission, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden and
cost of the collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility and clarity of the information collection; and (4) ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are
to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.

    Dated: November 7, 2019.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-24768 Filed 11-14-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 59 (Wednesday, March 27, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18590-18591]
[FR Doc No: 2013-07074]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0191; FRL-9380-4]

Organic Arsenicals; Amendments to Terminate Uses; Amendment to
Existing Stocks Provisions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: EPA issued a document in the Federal Register of September 30,
2009 (74 FR 50187) (FRL-8437-7) concerning the cancellations and
amendments of pesticide products containing organic arsenicals. A
portion of the voluntary cancellation request giving rise to the 2009
document was conditioned upon the convening of a public scientific peer
review process that would address the mode of action for carcinogenic
effects of inorganic arsenic. Because the peer review process has not
yet occurred, the cancellations of the sod farm, golf course, and
highway rights-of-way uses identified in the 2009 document were
improperly finalized, and the existing stocks provisions for all
remaining products containing the organic arsenical monosodium
methanearsonate (MSMA) will be corrected as noted in Unit II. of this
document. In addition, this document clarifies that existing stocks of
products already in the hands of users as of December 31, 2010,
containing MSMA labeled for all uses, except cotton, sod farms, golf
courses, and highway rights-of-way and products containing disodium
methanearsonate (DSMA), calcium acid methanearsonate (CAMA), and
cacodylic acid and its sodium salt, can be used legally until they are
exhausted, provided that such use complies with the EPA-approved label
and labeling accompanying the affected product.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Myers, Pesticide Re-evaluation
Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of
interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human
health, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide
users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution,
or use of pesticides. Since others also may be interested, the Agency
has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be
affected by this action.

B. How can I get copies of this document and other related information?

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0191, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution
Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-
5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information
about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Background

    The voluntary cancellation request identified in the 2009 document
(74 FR 50187) was based upon a negotiated Agreement in Principle to
Implement the Organic Arsenicals Reregistration Eligibility Decision
dated January 16, 2009. Under that Agreement, certain uses were to be
cancelled unconditionally, while others were subject to future
cancellation conditionally. The products that were cancelled
unconditionally in the 2009 document were MSMA labeled for residential;
forestry; non-bearing fruit and nuts; citrus, bearing and non-bearing;
bluegrass, fescue and ryegrass grown for seed; drainage ditch banks;
railroad, pipeline, and utility rights-of-way; fence rows; storage
yards; and similar non-crop areas and all products containing DSMA,
CAMA, cacodylic acid and its sodium salt. Regarding the golf course,
sod farms, and highway rights-of-way uses, paragraph 3 of that
agreement provided that EPA would convene a public meeting of either
the Agency's Scientific Advisory Board, the Scientific Advisory Panel,
or both to evaluate any new data on the mode of action of inorganic
arsenicals, and paragraph 6 of the agreement provided that, before the
cancellations of golf course, sod farms, and highway rights-of-way uses
of MSMA would take effect, EPA would make a written determination
whether EPA believes that the science on the mode of action has changed
sufficiently to warrant the continued registration of those uses. Thus,
a portion of the cancellation request and existing stocks provision of
the 2009 document were conditioned upon the timely completion of the
peer review process and EPA's written determination thereto.
    In light of a Congressional directive to have the National Academy
of Sciences (NAS) look at the mode of action for carcinogenic effects
by inorganic arsenic, EPA and the arsenic registrants recently agreed
to modify paragraph 3 of the agreement to include the NAS as a third
potential peer review body, one of which must hold a public meeting on
the mode of action before the last use cancellations can be finalized.
It is EPA's current intention to rely on the NAS for the peer review of
the mode of action issue although EPA retains the right to utilize
either of the Agency's scientific peer review bodies if it later
determines that would be more appropriate. The NAS final report is
currently scheduled to be completed in late 2015. See the letter from
Richard P. Keigwin Jr., Director, Pesticide Re-evaluation Division, to
Lynn Bergeson on behalf of the Organic Arsenical Products Task Force
dated September 14, 2012 regarding the modification to paragraph 3 of
Agreement in Principle, located in docket number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0191.
    In the cancellation order of the 2009 document registrants would
have been prohibited from selling and distributing products containing
MSMA for use on sod farms, golf courses, and highway rights-of-way
after December 31, 2012. Persons other than registrants would have been
prohibited from selling and distributing products containing MSMA for
use on sod farms, golf courses, and highway rights-of-way after June
30, 2013, and after December 31, 2013 use of products containing MSMA
labeled for all uses, except cotton would have been prohibited. All of
those prohibitions were predicated, among other things, upon the
convening of a scientific peer review to evaluate the mode of action of
inorganic arsenicals, and the agreement contained a provision delaying
the effective date of cancellation (and the related existing stocks
provision) until such time as the Agency provides a written
determination regarding the peer review

evaluation. Because that peer review process has not yet occurred, the
related cancellations can not yet be finalized.
    Pursuant to the agreement, a number of registrants amended their
registrations to require the addition of label statements identifying
December 31, 2013 as the last date the product could be used legally on
sod farms, golf courses, and highway rights-of-way. In light of the
fact, as discussed in this Unit, that the cancellations of products
registered for use on sod farms, golf courses, and highway rights-of-
way did not become effective in 2009, and that these uses remain
registered, registrants have submitted labels removing the restrictive
statement prohibiting use of the product on sod farms, golf courses,
and highway rights-of-way after December 31, 2013. All products with
labels that include the prohibitive language must be used according to
their labels. EPA intends to issue a new cancellation order when and if
cancellation of these uses is proper under the terms of the agreement.
    Finally, as to the uses that were cancelled in the 2009 document
without regard to the conduct of a peer review of the mode of action of
inorganic arsenicals, EPA is clarifying that existing stocks of
products in users' hands as of December 31, 2010, containing MSMA
labeled for residential; forestry; non-bearing fruit and nuts; citrus,
bearing and non-bearing; bluegrass, fescue and ryegrass grown for seed;
drainage ditch banks; railroad, pipeline, and utility rights-of-way;
fence rows; storage yards; and similar non-crop areas and products
containing DSMA, CAMA, cacodylic acid and its sodium salt, can be used
legally until they are exhausted, provided that such use complies with
the EPA-approved label and labeling accompanying the affected product.
This was the intent of the original order, but some language in the
order may have suggested incorrectly that such use of existing stocks
would be terminated after December 31, 2013.

III. What does this document do?

    In light of the fact that a portion of the cancellation was
improperly finalized, EPA is issuing this document to alert
registrants, users, and others that the cancellation of products
registered for use on sod farms, golf courses, and highway rights-of-
way in the 2009 document is not effective, and that the order and
existing stocks provision did not go into effect on September 30, 2009.
That portion of the cancellation order will not be proper until EPA has
addressed in writing the recommendations of a peer review panel
pursuant to paragraph 6 of the Agreement in Principle. When and if that
portion of the voluntary cancellation becomes effective, persons other
than registrants will have at least six additional months to sell and
distribute existing stocks of the cancelled product, and users will
have at least one additional year to use existing stocks of cancelled
product (provided use is consistent with the previously-approved
labeling of the particular product in the users' hands).
    In addition, EPA is clarifying that existing stocks of products in
users' hands as of December 31, 2010, containing MSMA labeled for
residential; forestry; non-bearing fruit and nuts; citrus, bearing and
non-bearing; bluegrass, fescue and ryegrass grown for seed; drainage
ditch banks; railroad, pipeline, and utility rights-of-way; fence rows;
storage yards; and similar non-crop areas and products containing DSMA,
CAMA, cacodylic acid and its sodium salt, can be used legally until
they are exhausted, provided that such use complies with the EPA-
approved label and labeling accompanying the affected product.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, MSMA, organic arsenicals, pesticides.

    Dated: March 19, 2013.
Richard P. Keigwin Jr.,
Director, Pesticide Re-evaluation Division, Office of Pesticide
Programs.
[FR Doc. 2013-07074 Filed 3-26-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P