Observed summer ammonia concentrations for Catherine Creek are presented in Figure 18. As shown in Figure 18, significant ammonia standard exceedances occur near the Union WWTP discharge. However, away from the discharge no violations are observed. The exceedances are caused by high ammonia concentrations in the Union effluent coupled with very poor dilution in the Creek. The poor dilution is due to lack of flow because of irrigation diversions. Not only is the chronic criteria of 0.082 mg/ L ( as N) exceeded near the discharge, but the acute criteria of 0.6 mg/ L ( as N) is also frequently exceeded. The recommended " No Discharge" allocation for summer months will eliminate these violations.

Figure 18. Catherine Creek observed Ammonia concentrations during the summer. UPPER GRANDE RONDE SUB BASIN TMDL OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY PAGE 47 APRIL, 2000 Winter conditions are illustrated by Figure 19, which compares observed ammonia concentrations in the upper Grande Ronde River to the chronic ammonia standard for a temperature of 15oC and pH of 8.7. As shown, the chronic criteria is potentially exceeded at times during the winter near the La Grande WWTP discharge ( MP 153.8). This is of concern because the WWTP will be allowed to discharge during the months of November through May. The permit limits for both the La Grande and Union WWTPs will be designed to insure that ammonia toxicity criteria are met at all times of the year.

Figure 19. Grande Ronde River observed Ammonia concentrations during the winter.

Habitat Modification and Flow Modification Habitat Modification and Flow Modification were identified on the § 303( d) list for the Upper Grande Ronde sub basin. Habitat modification is not the direct result of a pollutant although it does affect beneficial uses. Because a pollutant is not the cause, the concept of establishing a loading capacity and allocations does not apply. There is the expectation, however, that the improvements to riparian vegetation that will be necessary to meet temperature surrogates will also lead to improvements in habitat. Flow modification also is not the direct result of a pollutant load although decreased flow does affect beneficial uses. Although loading capacities and allocations are not established, improved flow is, however, necessary to adequately address water quality standards and habitat below the City of La Grande on the Grande Ronde River and below the City of Union on Catherine Creek. Improving in stream flow is an identified goal in this TMDL and is identified as a high priority in the Water Quality Management Plan. UPPER GRANDE RONDE SUB BASIN TMDL OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY PAGE 48 APRIL, 2000 Reasonable Assurance of Implementation There are several programs that are either already in place or will be put in place to help assure that this water quality management plan will be implemented. Some of these are traditional regulatory programs such as discharge permit programs for point source discharges. In these cases, the pollutants of concern in the Upper Grande Ronde sub basin will be considered and the regulation will be carried out as required by federal, state, and local law. The state Forest Practices Act, implemented by the Oregon Department of Forestry, regulates forest activities. The Agricultural Water Quality Management Area Plans, implemented by the Oregon Department of Agriculture, provide the assurance that agricultural activities are addressed. An interdepartmental review of these programs will provide the assurance that standards will be met. Other programs, while structured, are not strictly regulatory. In these cases local implementing agencies agree to make a good faith effort to implement the program. Structured programs that provide reasonable assurance of implementation include ( for more complete information on these programs see Upper Grande Ronde River Sub basin Water Quality Management Plan, Grande Ronde Water Quality Committee):

1. NPDES and WPCF Permit Programs: DEQ administers two different types of wastewater permits in implementing Oregon Revised Statute ( ORS) 468B. 050. The statute requires that no person shall discharge waste into waters of the state or operate a waste disposal system without obtaining a permit from DEQ.

2. Transportation: Management practices for transportation sources identified in the WQMP will be voluntarily implemented by the responsible agencies. There is incentive to voluntarily implement the practices not only to improve water quality and protect threatened species but also to avoid any additional regulation. In addition to voluntary incentives there are existing authorities and agreements that are adequate to assure implementation.

3. Municipal & Rural Residential: Union County and the City of La Grande have ordinances and policies that are relevant to the implementation of the management practices discussed under Municipal Sources in the Management Measures element of the Water Quality Management Plan. These Ordinances and Policies will be reviewed and revised to insure that they adequately address non point source pollution control.

4. Forestry: The Oregon Department of Forestry ( ODF) is the designated management agency for regulation of water quality on nonfederal forestlands. The Board of Forestry has adopted water protection rules, including but not limited to OAR Chapter 629, Divisions 635 660, which describe best management practices ( BMPs) for forest operations. These rules are implemented and enforced by ODF and monitored to assure their effectiveness.

5. Agriculture: The Oregon Department of Agriculture ( ODA) has primary responsibility for control of pollution from agricultural sources. This is done through the Agricultural Water Quality Management ( AWQM) program authorities granted ODA under Senate Bill 1010, adopted by the Oregon State Legislature in 1993.

There are also many voluntary, non regulatory, watershed improvement programs ( activities) that are already in place and are helping to address the water quality concerns in the Upper Grande Ronde River sub basin. Both technical expertise and partial funding are provided through these programs. Examples of activities promoted and accomplished through these programs include: planting of conifers, hardwoods, shrubs, grasses and forbs along streams; relocating legacy roads that may be detrimental to water quality; replacing problem culverts with adequately sized structures, and improvement/ maintenance of legacy roads known to cause water quality problems; and active channel restoration. These activities have been and are being implemented to improve watersheds and enhance water quality. Many of these efforts are helping resolve water quality related legacy issues. The programs addressing these problems include, but are not limited to, the following ( for more complete information on these programs see Upper Grande UPPER GRANDE RONDE SUB BASIN TMDL OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY PAGE 49 APRIL, 2000 Ronde River Sub basin Water Quality Management Plan, Grande Ronde Water Quality Committee):

  The Oregon Plan   Grande Ronde Model Watershed   Landowner Assistance Programs Forestry Incentive Program ( FIP) Stewardship Incentive Program ( SIP) Environmental Quality Incentives Program ( EQIP) Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program ( WHIP). Conservation Reserve Program ( CRP) Conservation Reserve Enhanced Program ( CREP) Forest Resource Trust ( FRT)

  Private Lands Forest Network ( PLFN).

  Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Programs UPPER GRANDE RONDE SUB BASIN TMDL OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY PAGE 51 APRIL, 2000 Glossary of Terms General Terminology Active Bank Erosion: Estimates from observation of the active stream bank erosion as a percentage (%) of the total reach length.

Adaptive Management: An iterative process where policy decisions that are implemented based on scientific experiments that tests the predictions and assumptions specified in a management plan. The results of the experiment are then used to guide policy changes for future management plans.

Anadromous Fish: Species of fish that spawn in fresh water, migrate to the ocean as juveniles, where they live most of their adult lives until returning to spawn in fresh water.

Anthropogenic Sources of Pollution: Pollutant deliver to a water body that is directly related to humans or human activities.

Autotrophs: Organisms that obtain energy from sunlight and their materials from non living sources. In streams, autotrophs include periphyton, phytoplankton, and macrophytes.

Base Flow: Groundwater fed summertime flows that occur in the long term absence of precipitation.

Bank Building Event: A hydrologic event ( usually high flow condition) that deposits sediments and organic debris in the flood plain and along stream banks.

Beneficial Use: Legislatively approved use of water for the best interest of people, wildlife and aquatic species.

Channel Complexity: Implied high pool frequency of pools and large woody debris ( instream roughness).

Channel Simplification: The loss ( absence) of pools and large woody debris that is important for creating and maintaining channel features such as: substrate, stream banks and pool: riffle ratios.

Clean Water Act: Established in 1977, is an amendment to the 1972 Federal Water Pollution Control Act which set the groundwork for regulating pollutant discharges into U. S. waters. The Clean Water Act makes discharging pollutants from a point source to navigable waters illegal without a permit. The Clean Water Act amendments of 1977 were aimed at toxic pollutants. In 1987, the Clean Water Act was reauthorized and focused on sewage treatment plants, toxic pollutants, and authorized citizen suit provisions. The Clean Water Act allows the EPA to delegate administrative and enforcement aspects of the law to the state agencies. In states with this EPA given authority of Clean Water Act implementation, the EPA still plays the role of supervisor.

Clearcut Harvest: Timber harvests that remove all trees are removed in a single entry from a designated area.

Debris Flow: A rapidly moving congregate of soil, rock fragments, water and trees, where over half of the material in transport has a particle size greater than that of sand.

Decommission: The removal of a road to improve hillslope drainage and stabilize slope hazards.

Endangered Species: A species that is declared by the Endangered Species Act ( ESA) to be in danger of extinction throughout a significant portion of its range.

Fine Sediment: Sand, silt and organic material that have a grain size of 6.4 mm or less. UPPER GRANDE RONDE SUB BASIN TMDL OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY PAGE 52 APRIL, 2000 Fire Regime: The frequency, extent, intensity and severity of naturally occurring seasonal fires in an ecosystem.

FLIR Thermal Imagery: Forward looking infrared radiometer thermal imagery is a direct measure of the longer wavelengths emitted by all bodies. The process by which bodies emit longwave radiation is described by the Stefan Boltzmann 4th Order Radiation Law. FLIR monitoring produces spatially continuous stream and stream bank temperature information. Accuracy is limited to 0.5oC. FLIR thermal imagery often displays heating processes as they are occurring and is particularly good at displaying the thermal impacts of shade, channel morphology and groundwater mixing.

Flood Plain: Strips of land ( of varying widths) bordering streams that become inundated with floodwaters. Land outside of the stream channel that is inside a perimeter of the maximum probable flood. A flood plain is built of sediment carried by the stream and deposited in the slower ( slack waters) currents beyond the influence of the swiftest currents. Flood plains are termed " living" if it experiences inundation in times of high water. A " fossil" flood plain is one that is beyond the reach of the highest current floodwaters.

Flood Plain Roughness: Reflects the ability of the flood plain to dissipate erosive flow energy during high flow events that over top streams banks and inundate the flood plain.

Fluvial: Of, found in or produced by a river.

Gradient: Reach gradient estimated by valley gradient reported in percent (%) from 1: 24,000 topography.

Groundwater: Subsurface water that completely fills the porous openings is soil and rocks.

Impaired waterbody: Any waterbody of the United States that does not attain water quality standards ( designated uses, numeric and narrative criteria and antidegradation requirements defined at 40 CFR 131), due to an individual pollutant, multiple pollutants, pollution, or an unknown cause of impairment.

Incipient Lethal Limit: Temperature levels that cause breakdown of physiological regulation of vital bodily processes, namely: respiration and circulation.

Indicator Species: Used for development of Oregon's water temperature standard as sensitive species that if water temperatures are reduced to protective levels will protect all other aquatic species.

Instantaneous Lethal Limit: Temperature levels where denaturing of bodily enzymes occurs.

Instream Roughness: Refers to the substrate ( both organic and inorganic) that is found in the stream bank.

Intermittent Flow: Stream flow that ceases seasonally, at least once a year.

Langley: A unit of solar radiation equivalent to one gram calorie per square centimeter of irradiated surface.

Large Woody Debris ( LWD): Pieces of woody debris located in the stream channel at least 36 inches in diameter and 50 feet in length.

LWD per 100 m: A measure of instream roughness and large woody debris frequency. The number of pieces of woody debris with a minimum diameter of 24 inches and at least 50 inches in length divided by the primary channel length and multiplied by 100 meters.

Legacy Condition: Past land management and historical disturbance affect the conditions that are currently observed in a stream channel. Present conditions may reflect chronic or episodic events that no longer occur. UPPER GRANDE RONDE SUB BASIN TMDL OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY PAGE 53 APRIL, 2000 Load Allocation ( LA): A term referred to in the Clean Water Act that refers to the portion of the receiving waters loading capacity attributed to either to one of its existing or future nonpoint sources of pollution or to natural background sources.

Loading Capacity: A term referred to in the Clean Water Act that establishes an accepted rate of pollutant introduction to a waterbody that is directly related to water quality standard compliance.

Macrophytes: Large vascular plants and bryophytes ( mosses and liverworts). Some large members of periphyton, such as long filaments of green alga Cladophora, may also be classified as Macrophytes.

Mass Movement: The movement of soil due to gravity, such as: landslides, debris avalanches, rock falls and creep.

Measured Daily Solar Radiation Load: The rate of heat energy transfer originating from the sun as determined by using a Solar Pathfinder   .

Natural Sources of Pollution: Pollutant delivered to a water body that is directly related to processes that are inherent to normal processes unaffected by humans.

Periphyton: Algae and other small autotrophs that are attached to substrate ( submerged rocks, vegetation, etc.). Periphyton consist of complex assemblages of diatoms, green algae, and cyanobacteria ( blue green algae) and, to a lessor degree, yellow brown algae, euglenoids and red algae.

pH: A measure of the hydrogen ion active concentration in aqueous solutions ( pH =  log10{ H+}). Acidic solutions have a pH less than 7, neutral solutions have a pH of 7, and basic solutions have a pH that is greater than 7.

Peak Flow: The largest flow volume occurring during a storm event.

Perennial Flow: Stream flow that persists throughout all seasons, yearlong.

Phytoplankton: algae and other small autotrophs which are suspended in the water column Pools: Number of pools reported in the survey reach of a stream.

Pools per 100 m: The frequency of pools observed in the survey reach per 100 meters of stream length. Calculated as the number of observed pools in the reach multiplied by 100 meters and divided by the primary channel length.

Potential Daily Solar Radiation Load: Based on the Julian calendar, for any particular location on earth, there exists a potential rate of heat energy transfer originating from the sun.

Primary Channel Length: Length of the primary channel located in the survey reach. Units are meters.

Primary Channel Width: Channel width of a stream reported in meters.

Rate: A measurable occurrence over a specified time interval.

Reach: Survey reaches in the same stream, numbered for organization.

Redd: An anadromous fish nest made in the gravel substrate of a stream where a fish will dig a depression, lay eggs in the depression and cover it forming a mound of gravel.

Residual Pool Depth: Average pool depth reported in meters.

Riparian Area: A geographic area that contains the aquatic ecosystem and the upland areas that directly affect it. Also defined as 360 feet from a fish bearing stream and 180 feet from a non fish bearing stream. UPPER GRANDE RONDE SUB BASIN TMDL OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY PAGE 54 APRIL, 2000 Sac Fry: Larval salmonid that has hatched, but has not fully absorbed the yolk sac and has not emerged from the redd.

Sediment: Fragmented material that originates from the weathering of rocks and is transported by, suspended in, or deposited by water or air.

Seral Stage: Refers to the age and type of vegetation that develops from the stage of bare ground to the climax stage.

Seral Stage  Early: The period from bare ground to initial crown closure ( grass, shrubs, forbs, brush).

Seral Stage  Mid: The period of a forest stand from crown closure to marketability ( young stand of trees from 25 to 100 years of age, includes hardwood stands).

Seral Stage  Late: The period of a forest stand from marketability to the culmination of the mean annual increment ( mature stands of conifers and old growth).

Shear Stress: The erosive energy associated with flowing water.

Site Potential: Physical and biological conditions that are at maximum potential, taking into account local natural environmental constraints and conditions.

Smolt: Juvenile salmonid one or two years old that has undergone physiological changes adapted for a marine environment. Generally, the seaward migrant stage of an anadromous fish species.

Soil Compaction: Activities/ processes, vibration, loading, pressure, that decrease the porosity of soils by increasing the soil bulk density       UnitVolume Weight .

Stream Bank Erosion: Detachment, entrainment, and transport of stream bank soil particles via fluvial processes ( i. e. local water velocity and shear stress).

Stream Bank Failure: Gravity related collapse of the stream bank by mass movement.

Stream Bank Retreat: The net loss of stream bank material and a corresponding widening of the stream channel that accompanies stream bank erosion and/ or stream bank failure.

Stream Bank Stability: Measure of detachment, entrainment, and transport of stream bank soil particles by local water velocity and shear stress.

Sub Lethal Limit: Temperature levels that cause decreased or lack of metabolic energy for feeding, growth or reproductive behavior, encourage increased exposure to pathogens, decreased food supplies, and increased competition from warm water tolerant species.

Surface Erosion: Detachment, entrainment, and transport of flood plain or upslope soil particles by wind and water.

Surrogate Measures ( Load Allocation): A term referenced in the Clean Water Act that refers to " other appropriate measures" that can be allocated to meet an established and accepted pollutant loading capacity.

Temperature Limited Waterbody: Refers to a stream or river that has been placed on the § 303( d) list for violating water quality numeric criteria based on measured data.

Threatened Species: Species that are likely to become endangered through their normal range within the foreseeable future.

Threatened waterbody: Any waterbody of the United States that currently attains water quality standards ( designated uses, numeric and narrative criteria and antidegradation requirements defined at 40 CFR 131), but for which existing and readily available data and information on adverse declining trends or anticipated load measures indicate that UPPER GRANDE RONDE SUB BASIN TMDL OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY PAGE 55 APRIL, 2000 water quality standards will likely be exceeded by the time the next list is required to be submitted to EPA.

Total Maximum Daily Load ( TMDL): TMDLs are written plans and analyses established to ensure that the waterbody will attain and maintain water quality standards. The OAR definition is " The sum of the individual WLAs for point sources and LAs for nonpoint sources and background. If a receiving water has only one point source discharger, the TMDL is the sum of that point source WLA plus the LAs for any nonpoint sources of pollution and natural background sources, tributaries, or adjacent segments. TMDLs can be expressed in terms of either mass per time, toxicity, or other appropriate measure. If Best Management Practices ( BMPs) or other nonpoint source pollution controls make more stringent load allocations practicable, then wasteload allocations can be made less stringent. Thus, the TMDL process provides for nonpoint source control tradeoffs" ( 340 04l 006( 21))

Wasteload Allocation ( WLA): A term referenced in the Clean Water Act that refers to point source rates of pollutant delivery that can be specifically linked to an established and accepted pollutant loading capacity.

Watershed: A drainage basin that contributes water, organic material, dissolved nutrients, and sediment to streams, rivers, and lakes.

Water Quality Limited: Can mean one of the following categories: ( a) A receiving stream which does not meet in stream water quality standards during the entire year or defined season even after the implementation of standard technology; ( b) A receiving stream which achieves and is expected to continue to achieve in stream water quality standard but utilizes higher than standard technology to protect beneficial uses; ( c) A receiving stream for which there is insufficient information to determine if water quality standards are being met with higher than standard treatment technology or where through professional judgment the receiving stream would not be expected to meet water quality standards during the entire year or defined season without higher than standard technology. ( OAR 340 04l 006( 30))

Width: Depth Ratio: The width of channel divided by the average depth in the survey reach of a stream. UPPER GRANDE RONDE SUB BASIN TMDL OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY PAGE 56 APRIL, 2000 Statistical Terminology Box and Whisker Plots: Water quality parameters and instream physical parameters are reviewed below using box and whisker plots for illustration. Below is an example of a box and whisker plot:

Example of box and whisker plot.

The box plots have river mile on the X axis with the water quality parameter on the Yaxis The box represents the data at the sampling sites, from upstream to downstream. Each box represents a summary of the data:

The upper corner of each box is the 75th percentile ( 75 percent of the data are below that concentration), and the lower corner is the 25th percentile ( 25 percent of the data are below that concentration). The upper and lower tails are the 90th and 10th percentiles, respectively. Points above and below the tails represent data higher and lower than the 90th and 10th percentiles. The dashed line in the box is the median concentration for that site ( half of the data fall above and below that concentration).

Correlation Coefficient ( R): Used to determine the relationship between two data sets. Rvalues vary between   1 and 1, where "   1" represents a perfectly inverse correlation relationship and " 1" represents a perfect correlation relationship. A " 0" R value indicates that no correlation exists.

( )( )  = µ     µ     = n 1 i y i x i y x n 1 R UPPER GRANDE RONDE SUB BASIN TMDL OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY PAGE 57 APRIL, 2000 Determinate Coefficient ( R2): The R2 value represents " goodness of fit" for a linear regression. An R2 value of " 1" would indicate that all of the data variability is accounted for by the regression line. Natural systems exhibit a high degree of variability; R2 values approaching " 1" are uncommon. A value of " 0" would indicate that none of the data variability is explained by the regression.

Mean ( µ ) : Refers to the arithmetic mean.

   = µ i x n 1 Median: A value in the data in which half the values are above and half are below.

Reach Averaged: An average that is based on the occurrence of a property weighted by the occurrence frequency over perennial stream length.

Standard Deviation (  ) : The measure of how widely values are dispersed from the mean ( µ ) .

( ) ( ) 1 n n x x n 2 2         =     Tempertaure Statistic: The maximum seasonal seven ( 7) day moving average of the daily maximum stream tempertaures. Page Left Blank Intentionally UPPER GRANDE RONDE SUB BASIN TMDL OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY PAGE 59 APRIL, 2000 References Ambrose, R. B., T. A. Wool, J. P. Connolly, and R. W. Schanz, 1988. WASP4, A hydrodynamic and water quality model   model theory, user's manual, and programmer's guide ( model developed by D. M. DiToro, J. J. Fitzpatrick, and R. V. Thomann of HydroQual, Inc.). Environmental Research Laboratory, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Athens, Georgia Allan, J. D. 1995. Stream ecology, structure and function of running waters. Chapman & Hall, London.

Baumgartner, B. 1996. Analysis of MZ data using QUAL2EU. ODEQ Memo to File.

Bell, M. C. 1986. Fisheries handbook of engineering requirements and biological criteria. Fish Passage Development and Evaluation Program, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, North Pacific Division. Portland, Oregon, 290 pp.

Beschta, R. L, R. E. Bilby, G. W. Brown, L. B. Holtby, and T. D. Hofstra. 1987. Stream temperature and aquatic habitat: Fisheries and forestry interactions. Pp. 191 232. In: E. O. Salo and T. W. Cundy ( eds), Streamside Management: Forestry and Fishery Interactions. University of Washington, Institute of Forest Resources, Contribution No. 57. 471 pp.

Beschta, R. L. and J. Weatherred. 1984. A computer model for predicting stream temperatures resulting from the management of streamside vegetation. USDA Forest Service. WSDG AD 00009.

Beschta, R. L., S. J. O'Leary, R. E. Edwards, and K. D. Knoop. 1981. Sediment and Organic Matter Transport in Oregon Coast Range Streams. Water Resources Research Institute. OSU. WRRI 70.

Bjornn, T. C. 1974. Sediment in streams and its effects on aquatic life. Moscow, Idaho: Water Resources Research Institute, Research Technical Completion Report, Project No. B 025 IDA.

Bohle, T. S. 1994. Stream temperatures, riparian vegetation, and channel morphology in the Upper Grande Ronde River Watershed, Oregon. Department of Forest Engineering, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon.

Bowen, I. S. 1926. The ration of heat loss by convection and evaporation from any water surface. Physical Review. Series 2, Vol. 27: 779 787.

Boyd, M. S. 1996. Heat Source: stream temperature prediction. Master's Thesis. Departments of Civil and Bioresource Engineering, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon.

Brett, J. R. 1952. Temperature Tolerance in Young Pacific Salmon, Genus Oncorhynchus. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Can., 9( 6): 265 323.

Brown, G. W. 1983. Chapter III, Water Temperature. Forestry and Water Quality. Oregon State University Bookstore. Pp. 47 57.

Brown, G. W. 1970. Predicting the effects of clearcutting on stream temperature. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. 25: 11 13.

Brown, G. W. 1969. Predicting temperatures of small streams. Water Resour. Res. 5( 1): 68 75.

Brown, L. C. and T. O. Barnwell. 1987. The enhanced stream water quality models qual2e and qual2e uncas: documentation and user manual. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Athens, Georgia. UPPER GRANDE RONDE SUB BASIN TMDL OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY PAGE 60 APRIL, 2000 Bureau of Land Management ( BLM), 1998. WODIP Guidebook: Western Oregon Digital Image Project. Oregon.

Chapra, S. C. 1997. Surface water quality modeling. McGraw Hill.

Chen, D. Y. 1996. Hydrologic and water quality modeling for aquatic ecosystem protection and restoration in forest watersheds: a case study of stream temperature in the Upper Grande Ronde River, Oregon. Ph. D. Dissertation. University, of Georgia. Athens, Georgia.

Chow, V. T. 1959. Open Channel Hydraulics. New York: McGraw Hill Co.

Clarke, S. E. and S. A. Bryce. 1997. Hierarchical subdivisions of the Columbia Plateau and Blue Mountains Ecoregions, Oregon and Washington. Gen. Tech. Rep. U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Portland, OR.

Clasunitzer, R. R. and E. A. Crowe. 1997. Mid Montane Wetland Plant Associations of the Malheur, Umatilla and Wallowa Whitman National Forests. United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. Technical Paper R6 NR ECOLTP 22 97.

Cole, T. M. and E. M. Buchak, 1994. CE QUAL W2: A two dimensional lateraly averaged, hydrodynamic and water quality model, version 2.0   User manual. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.

Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, and E. T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. FWS/ OBS 79 31. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. 131 pp.

Evans, J. W. 1990. Powerful Rocky: The Blue Mountains and the Oregon Trail, 1811 1883. Eastern Oregon State College, La Grande, OR.

Everest F. H., R. L. Beschta, J. C. Scrivener, K. V. Koski, J. R. Sedell, and D. J. Cederholm. 1987. Fine Sediment and salmonid production a paradox. in Streamside Management Forestry and Fishery Interactions. Salo and Cundy Eds. College of Forest Resources. University of Washington, Seattle WA.

Geiger, R. 1965. The Climate Near the Ground. Harvard University Press. Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Gildemeister, J., 1999. The Grande Ronde Watershed History Report. Completed for the Dept. of Natural Resources, CTUIR, Mission, OR.

Halliday D. and R. Resnick. 1988. Fundamentals of Physics. 3rd Edition. John Wiley and Sons, New York. pp. 472 473.

Harbeck, G. E. and J. S. Meyers. 1970. Present day evaporation measurement techniques. J. Hydraulic Division. A. S. C. E., Prceed. Paper 7388.

Heath A. G. and G. M. Hughes, . 1973. Cardiovascular and respitory changes during heat stress in rainbow trout ( Salmo gairneri). J. Exp. Biol., 59: 323 338.

Hines, C. A. 1999. Evaluating the Restoration Potential of Black Cottonwood ( Populus trichocarpa) from multiple scales of observation, Grande Ronde River Basin, Oregon, USA. Master's Thesis. Department of Forest Science, Oregon State University. Corvallis Oregon.

Hogan, J. W. 1970. Water temperature as a source of variation in specific activity of brain acetylcholinesterase of bluegills. Bull. Environment. Contam. Toxicol., 5: 347 353.

Hokanson, K. E. F., C. F. Kleiner and T. W. Thorslund. 1977. Effects of Constant Temperatures and Diel Temperature Fluctuations on Specific Growth and Mortality Rates and Yield of Juvenile Rainbow Trout, Salmo gairdneri. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Can., 34: 639 648. UPPER GRANDE RONDE SUB BASIN TMDL OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY PAGE 61 APRIL, 2000 Holaday, S. A. 1992. Summertime water temperature trends in Steamboat Cr. basin, Umpqua National Forest. Master's Thesis. Department of Forest Engineering, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon.

HydroQual, 1995. South Florida Water Management District Wetlands Model: Model Design. HydroQual, Inc., 1 Lethbridge Plaza, Mahwah, New Jersey Ibqal, M. 1983. An Introduction to Solar Radiation. Academic Press. New York. 213 pp.

Iwamoto R. N., E. O. Salo, M. A. Madej, R. L. McComas. 1978. Sediment and water quality: A review of the literature including a suggested approach for water quality criteria. EPA 910/ 9 78 048.

Jobson, H. E. and T. N. Keefer. 1979. Modeling highly transient flow, mass and heat transfer in the Chattahoochee River near Atlanta, Georgia. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1136. U. S. Gov. Printing Office, Washington D. C.

Khan, H. R., 1971. Laboratory Studies of Alluvial river Channel Patterns. Ph. D. Dissertation, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO.

Kovalchik, B. L. 1987. Riparian zone associations of the Deschutes, Ochoco, Fremont and Winema National Forests. R6ECOLTP279/ 87. Portland, OR: U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. 171 pp.

Li, H. W., G. L. Lamberti, T. N. Pearsons, C. K. Tait, J. L. Li and J. C. Buckhouse. 1994. Cumulative effects of riparian disturbance along high desert trout streams of the John Day Basin, Oregon. Am. Fish Soc. 123: 627 640.

Martin, J. L. and S. C. McCutcheon. 1999. Hydrodynamics and Transport for Water Quality Modeling. Lewis Publishers. Washington, D. C.

McIntosh, B. A. 1992. Historical changes in anadromous fish habitat in the Upper Grande Ronde River, Oregon, 1941 1990. Master's Thesis. Oregon State University. Oregon. 87 pp.

McIntosh, B. A. 1995. Historical changes in stream habitats in the Columbia River Basin. PhD. Dissertation. Oregon State University. Oregon.

McIntosh, B. 1999. Grande Ronde River FLIR data acquisition. Personal Communication.

Metcalf and Eddy. 1991. Wastewater Engineering   Treatment Disposal Reuse. 3rd edition. McGraw Hill, Inc. San Francisco.

Newcombe C. P. and D. D. MacDonold. 1991. Effects of suspended sediment on aquatic ecosystems. North American Journal of Fishery Management. 11: 72 82 Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. 1999. Draft Upper Grande Ronde River Subbasin temperature total maximum daily load ( TMDL). January, 1999. State of Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Portland, Oregon.

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. 1997. Water Quality Management Plan Guidance.

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. 1995. 1992 1994 Water Quality Standards Review. DO issue paper.

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. 1995a. River Basin Assessment  Upper/ Middle Grande Ronde River and Catherine Creek. June, 1995 Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. 1994. Grande Ronde River, Results of Temperature Monitoring, 1992 and 1993 Field Seasons ( undated, 1994 date assumed).

Oregon Coastal Salmon Restoration Initiative ( CSRI). 1997. State Agency Measures. UPPER GRANDE RONDE SUB BASIN TMDL OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY PAGE 62 APRIL, 2000 Owens, M., R. W. Edwards and J. W. Gibbs. 1964. Some reaeration studies in streams. International J. of Air and Water Pollution, vol. 8, no. 8/ 9, pp. 469 486, September, 1964.

Park, C. 1993. SHADOW: stream temperature management program. User's Manual v. 2.3. USDA Forest Service. Pacific Northwest Region.

Parker, F. L. and P. A. Krenkel. 1969. Thermal pollution: status of the art. Rep. 3. Department of Environmental and Resource Engineering, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN.

Rishel, G. B., Lynch, J. A. and E. S. Corbett.. 1982. Seasonal stream temperature changes following forest harvesting. J. Environ. Qual. 11: 112 116.

Rosgen, D. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology. Pagosa Springs, CO.

Satterland, D. R. and P. W. Adams. 1992. Wildland Watershed Management. 2nd edition. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York.

Schnurbusch, S. 1996a. Ammonia Toxicity  Grande Ronde River. Memorandum to File, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, January 24, 1996.

Schnurbusch, S. 1996b. Grande Ronde River TMDL Analysis for the La Grande WWTP. Memorandum to File, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, April 18, 1996.

Sellers, W. D. 1965. Physical Climatology. University of Chicago Press. Chicago, IL. 272 pp.

Sinokrot, B. A. and H. G. Stefan. 1993. Stream temperature dynamics: measurement and modeling. Water Resour. Res. 29( 7): 2299 2312.

Snoeyink, V. L. and D. Jenkins. 1980. Water Chemistry. John Wiley & Sons, New York.

Stedinger, J. R., R. M. Vogel, and E. Foufoula Georgiou. Frequency Analysis of Extreme Events. Handbook of Hydrology, 1993, D. R. Maidment, editor in chief. McGraw Hill, Inc., New York Stumm, W. and J. J. Morgan. 1981. Aquatic chemistry, an introduction emphasizing chemical equilibria in natural waters, 2nd. Edition. John Wiley & Sons, New York.

Tappel, P. D. and T. C. Bjornn. 1993. A new method of relating size of spawning gravel to salmonid embryo survival. N. Am. Journal Fish Mgmt. 3: 123 135.

Thomann, R. V. and J. A. Mueller. 1987. Principles of surface water quality modeling and control. Harpor & Row, New York.

Torgersen, C. E., D. M. Price, H. W. Li, and B. A. McIntosh. 1995. Thermal refugia and chinook salmon habitat in Oregon: Applications of airborne thermal videography. Proceedings of the 15th Biennial Workshop on Color Photography and Videography in Resource Assessment, Terre Haute, Indiana. May, 1995. American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing.

U. S. Fish Commission. 1894. Bulletin of the United States Fish Commission, Volume XIV. Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C.

U. S. Forest Service ( USFS) and Bureau of Land Management ( BLM). 1995. " Interim Strategies for Managing Anadromous Fish Producing Watersheds in Eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho, and portions of California [ PACFISH]". U. S. Forest Service. 1994. Upper Grande Ronde Watershed Analysis.

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1985. Rates, constants, and kinetics formulations in surface water quality modeling ( 2nd ed.). ( G. L. Bowie, W. B. Mills, D. B. Porcella, C. L. Campbell, J. R. Pagenkopf, G. L. Rupp, K. M. Johnson, P. W. H. Chan, S. A. Gherini, C. E. Chamberlin, and T. O. Barnwell). EPA/ 600/ 3 85/ 040 UPPER GRANDE RONDE SUB BASIN TMDL OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY PAGE 63 APRIL, 2000 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1998. Report of the Federal Advisory Committee on theTotal Maximum Daily Load Program. EPA 100 R 98 006.

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1993. Land Cover Classification for the Upper Grande Ronde. Unpublished.

Webster, James, Personal Communications, 1999. Upper Grande Ronde Sub basin WQMP edits and additions, Watershed Hydrologist, CTUIR.

Wunderlich, T. E. 1972. Heat and mass transfer between a water surface and the atmosphere. Water Resources Research Laboratory, Tennessee Valley Authority. Report No. 14, Norris Tennessee. Pp. 4.20. Page Left Blank Intentionally Page Left Blank Intentionally Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Water Quality Division 811 Southwest 6th Avenue Portland, Oregon 97204 This document can be accessed on the Internet http:// waterquality. deq. state. or. us/ wq/


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 227 (Monday, November 26, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 60363-60366]
[FR Doc No: 2018-25556]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0598; FRL-9986-76-Region 3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Maryland; Regional Haze Five-Year Progress Report

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving
Maryland's regional haze progress report, submitted on August 9, 2017,
as a revision to its State Implementation Plan (SIP). Maryland's SIP
revision addresses Clean Air Act (CAA) provisions and EPA regulations
that require each state to submit periodic reports describing the
State's progress towards reasonable progress goals (RPGs) established
for regional haze and to make a determination of the adequacy of the
State's existing regional haze SIP. The EPA is approving Maryland's
determination that the State's regional haze SIP is adequate to meet
the RPGs for the first implementation period.

DATES: This final rule is effective on December 26, 2018.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0598. All documents in the docket are listed on
the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business
information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is
not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available through
https://www.regulations.gov, or please contact the person identified in
the For Further Information Contact section for additional availability
information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Erin Trouba,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Under the Regional Haze Rule, each state was required to submit to
EPA an implementation plan addressing regional haze visibility
impairment for the first implementation period through 2018, and then
was required to submit

a progress report in the form of a SIP revision that evaluates progress
towards the RPGs set for each mandatory Class I Federal area within the
state and for each mandatory Class I Federal area outside the state
which may be affected by emissions from within the state. 40 CFR
51.308(g). Each state is also required to submit, at the same time as
the progress report, a determination of the adequacy of its existing
regional haze SIP. 40 CFR 51.308(h). The first progress report SIP is
due five years after submittal of the initial regional haze SIP.
    On February 13, 2012, Maryland submitted the State's first regional
haze SIP in accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308. The
progress report SIP was submitted by Maryland, through the Maryland
Department of the Environment (MDE), on August 9, 2017. On August 27,
2018 (83 FR 43571), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) in which EPA proposed approval of Maryland's regional haze 5-
year progress report SIP, a report on progress made in the first
implementation period towards RPGs for Class I areas outside the State
that are affected by emissions from Maryland's sources. Because there
are no Class I areas in Maryland, the State did not need to address
progress towards RPGs for Class I areas ``inside'' the State. This
progress report SIP also included the State's determination that its
existing regional haze SIP requires no substantive revision to achieve
the established regional haze visibility improvement and emissions
reduction goals for 2018.

II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA Analysis

    Maryland's regional haze 5-year progress report SIP submittal (2017
Progress Report) addresses the required elements for progress reports
under the provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(g) and includes a determination
that the State's existing regional haze SIP requires no substantive
revision to achieve the established regional haze visibility
improvement and emissions reduction goals for 2018 as required by 40
CFR 51.308(h).
    In the NPRM, EPA proposed to approve the 2017 Progress Report
because EPA found that the 2017 Progress Report addressed the elements
of 40 CFR 51.308(g) regarding progress implementing the approved
regional haze SIP and discussed visibility improvement in Class I areas
impacted by Maryland's emissions. The detailed rationale for EPA's
action is explained in the NPRM and will not be restated here. In
addition, pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(h), states are required to submit,
at the same time as the progress report submission, a determination of
the adequacy of their existing regional haze SIP. In the 2017 Progress
Report, Maryland declared that its existing regional haze SIP required
no substantive revision to achieve the RPGs for Class I areas. As
explained in detail in the NPRM, EPA concluded Maryland adequately
addressed 40 CFR 51.308(h) because decreasing emissions of visibility
impairing pollutants and progress of regional Class I areas towards
RPGs for 2018 indicate that no further revisions to Maryland's SIP are
necessary for this first regional haze implementation period.
Therefore, EPA concluded the 2017 Progress Report met the requirements
of 40 CFR 51.308(h).

III. Summary of Public Comments and EPA's Response

    One public comment was received on the NPRM. A summary of the
comment and EPA's response are provided in this section. The comment is
provided in the docket for this final rulemaking action.
    Comment: The commenter stated Maryland's plan does not adequately
address regional haze progress, alleged that the State's electric
generating units (EGUs) did not reduce sulfur dioxide (SO2)
emissions by ninety percent (90%), and alleged a pulp mill and EGU in
Maryland continue to emit large amounts of SO2. The
commenter stated Maryland's BART (Best Available Retrofit Technology)
determinations were and continue to be inadequate. The commenter stated
Maryland's sulfur fuel oil limits are not low and asked EPA to compare
Maryland's limits to other states.
    Response: EPA reviewed Maryland's 2017 Progress Report against the
requirements for progress reports in 40 CFR 51.308(g) and (h). EPA
found the 2017 Progress Report evaluated progress towards the RPGs and
determined that the existing Maryland regional haze SIP is adequate to
meet those RPGs because the 2017 Progress Report showed decreasing
emissions of visibility impairing pollutants and significant progress
of regional Class I areas to meeting or exceeding RPGs for 2018.
Maryland's 2017 Progress Report documented emission reductions from
point source, non-road, on-road, and area source sectors. Thus, EPA
agreed with Maryland's determination that no further revisions to
Maryland's SIP are necessary for this first regional haze
implementation period.
    40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) requires progress reports to contain a
description of the status of implementation of all measures included in
the implementation plan for achieving RPGs for Class I areas. One
implementation measure that is required to be described in the progress
report is the implementation of BART. As stated in the NPRM and in the
2017 Progress Report, Maryland discussed the implementation of BART at
EGUs and at Holcim Cement and Luke Pulp and Paper Mill. The adequacy of
these measures as BART was determined by EPA when EPA approved the
Maryland regional haze SIP in 2012. 77 FR 39938 (July 6, 2012). Nothing
in the CAA or in 40 CFR 51.308(g) or (h) requires Maryland or EPA to
reexamine the BART determinations when reviewing a progress report.
    In addition, in the 2017 Progress Report, Maryland addressed the
implementation of the Healthy Air Act (HAA) which was a measure
employed by Maryland for its regional haze SIP to achieve a 90%
reduction of SO2 from coal-fired EGUs within the State to
address RPGs for Class I areas impacted by Maryland and to address BART
for those eligible EGUs. For a discussion of the HAA as the approved
BART-alternative for EGUs in Maryland, see EPA's approval of the
Maryland regional haze SIP at 77 FR 39938. In the 2017 Progress Report,
Maryland included SO2 emissions data for EGUs demonstrating
reductions from the HAA as well as from other SO2 reducing
regulations. Therefore, as a factual matter, EPA disagrees with the
commenter that Maryland did not reduce SO2 emissions by 90%
from EGUs to meet the regional haze SIP measures. Maryland also
discussed the implementation of BART within the State and thus met
requirements for progress reports in 40 CFR 51.308. The commenter
provided no information that Maryland had not implemented BART as
approved by EPA.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In June 2012, EPA approved BART emission limits for power
boiler 25, a BART subject source, at the Verso Luke Paper Mill. 77
FR 39938 (June 13, 2012). In July 2017, EPA removed the previously
approved BART requirements for SO2 and nitrogen oxides
(NOx) from power boiler 25 (No. 25) and replaced them with new,
alternative emission requirements as BART. EPA established an annual
SO2 cap for power boiler 25 and approved alternative BART
emission limits for SO2 and NOx for power boiler 24 (No.
24). 82 FR 35451 (July 31, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding the commenter's concern about fuel sulfur limits, EPA
addressed Maryland's fuel sulfur requirements in the approval of
Maryland's regional haze SIP. As EPA stated when proposing to approve
Maryland's regional haze SIP, since Maryland has not adopted a low
sulfur fuel oil strategy, the State has a deficiency of 7,473.4 tons
per year (tpy) of SO2 emissions. However, Maryland has a

surplus of SO2 emission reductions of 57,552 tpy resulting
from the HAA. This surplus accounts for the SO2 emission
reductions needed to meet the requirements of the low sulfur fuel
strategy. 77 FR 11827, 11835 (Feb. 28, 2012). As EPA approved
Maryland's regional haze SIP without Maryland having a low sulfur fuel
strategy as a measure for its SIP, whether or not Maryland has such a
strategy now implemented, and whether any sulfur fuel requirements
Maryland has are less stringent than other states, are not relevant or
appropriate considerations before EPA in evaluating the 2017 Progress
Report. 40 CFR 51.308(g) relates to discussion of the implementation of
measures approved into a state's regional haze SIP. Thus, the 2017
Progress Report did not need to address any sulfur fuel requirements as
those are not part of the Maryland regional haze SIP. As EPA found
Maryland addressed its progress towards meeting RPGs in Class I areas
impacted by Maryland emissions and addressed visibility improvement
from measures in the Maryland SIP, EPA is approving the 2017 Progress
Report as addressing 40 CFR 51.308(g).

IV. Final Action

    EPA is approving Maryland's 2017 Progress Report submitted on
August 9, 2017, as meeting the applicable regional haze requirements
set forth in 40 CFR 51.308(g) and (h) as well as CAA section 110
requirements for SIPs.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. General Requirements

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866.
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by January 25, 2019. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action to approve Maryland's regional haze 5-year progress
report SIP revision may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2))

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: November 13, 2018.
Cosmo Servidio,
Regional Administrator, Region III.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart V--Maryland

0
2. In Sec.  52.1070, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding
the entry for ``Regional Haze Five-Year Progress Report'' at the end of
the table to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1070  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Name of non-regulatory SIP          Applicable           State                                Additional
             revision                geographic area    submittal date   EPA approval date       explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Regional Haze Five-Year Progress   Statewide..........       8/09/2017  11/26/2018, [Insert
 Report.                                                                 Federal Register
                                                                         citation].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2018-25556 Filed 11-23-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 179 (Friday, September 14, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56909-56910]
[FR Doc No: 2012-22703]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

Notice of Comment Period Extension for the Revised Draft
Environmental Impact Report/Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact
Statement for the California High-Speed Train Project Fresno to
Bakersfield Section

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), United States Department
of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of comment period extension.

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

SUMMARY: FRA is issuing this notice to advise the public that the
comment period for the Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) for the Fresno to Bakersfield Section of the California
High-Speed Train (HST) Project (Project) issued on June 20, 2012 has
been extended and shall now end on October 19, 2012. FRA and the
Project sponsor, the California High Speed Rail Authority (Authority),
made this decision to be responsive to stakeholder requests and to
encourage comprehensive public participation. FRA is the lead Federal
agency and Authority is the lead state agency for the environmental
review process. Public hearings were held on August 27, August 28, and
August 29, 2012, in the Cities of Fresno, Hanford, and Bakersfield, CA
respectively.

DATES: Written comments on the Supplemental Draft EIS for the Fresno to
Bakersfield Section should be provided to the California High-Speed
Rail Authority on or before October 19, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on the Supplemental Draft EIS should be
sent to the California High-Speed Rail Authority, EIR/EIS Comments, 770
L Street, Suite 800, Sacramento, CA 95814, or may be submitted online
at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. David Valenstein, Chief,
Environment and Systems Planning Division, Office of Railroad Policy
and Development, Federal Railroad Administration, U.S., Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., MS-20, Washington, DC 20590
(telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Once completed, the California HST system
will provide intercity, high-speed passenger rail service on more than
800 miles of tracks throughout California, connecting the major
population centers of Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, the
Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County, and San
Diego. It will use state-of-the-art,

electrically powered, high-speed, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology,
including contemporary safety, signaling, and automated train-control
systems, with trains capable of operating up to 220 miles per hour
(mph) over a fully graded-separated, dedicated double track alignment.
The HST System is comprised of multiple sections, one of which is the
Fresno to Bakersfield Section analyzed in the Supplemental Draft EIS.
    This project-level EIS tiers off of the Statewide Program EIS
published in 2005 and the Bay area to Central Valley Program EIS
published in 2008 and builds on the earlier decisions and Program EISs.
The Fresno to Bakersfield Section is comprised of a 114-mile dedicated,
double-track high-speed passenger rail corridor between Fresno and
Bakersfield, CA. The Project includes stations in downtown Fresno and
Bakersfield, and a possible Kings/Tulare Regional Station in the
vicinity of Hanford, CA. A heavy maintenance facility for assembly,
testing, and commissioning of trains, train inspection and service, and
train overhaul may be construction in the Fresno to Bakersfield
Section.
    In August 2011, FRA issued a Draft EIS and circulated the document
for a 60-day public and agency review and comment period. The Draft EIS
analyzed a no action alternative and various action alternatives for
the construction and operation of the California HST Project Fresno to
Bakersfield Section including alignment alternatives and station
locations. FRA and Authority held three public hearings on the Draft
EIS held in Fresno, Hanford, and Bakersfield on September 20, September
21, and September 22, 2011 respectively to collect public comments.
    Based on substantive comments received during the public and agency
review of the Draft EIS, the Authority and FRA decided to reintroduce
alignment alternatives west of Hanford. In response to concerns raised
by stakeholders in metropolitan Bakersfield, FRA and the Authority also
decided to evaluate another alternative in Bakersfield (Bakersfield
Hybrid Alternative) in an effort to minimize impacts to residential and
community facilities. The FRA and Authority determined that the
introduction of these new alternatives and refinements being considered
for existing Fresno to Bakersfield route alternatives required
preparation of a Supplemental Draft EIS under NEPA and a Revised Draft
EIR under CEQA.
    Consistent with the provisions of NEPA Section 102(2)(c) (42 U.S.C.
4321 et seq.), the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations
implementing NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500 et seq.), FRA's Procedures for
Considering Environmental Impacts (64 FR 28545, May 26, 1999), the
Supplemental Draft EIS describes the Project's purpose and need,
identifies the reasonable range of alternatives including the no action
alternative, evaluates the potential environmental effects associated
with those alternatives, and identifies mitigation measures to minimize
potential environmental effects.
    Copies of the Supplemental Draft EIS are available online at FRA's
Web site: www.fra.dot.gov; the Authority's Web site:
www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov; and are also available for viewing at the
following locations near the planned rail system:
     Fresno County Public Library, Central Branch, Central
Reference Department, 2420 Mariposa Street, Fresno, CA;
     Fresno County Public Library, Clovis Regional Library,
1155 Fifth Street, Clovis, CA;
     Fresno County Public Library, Laton Branch, 6313 DeWoody
Street, Laton, CA;
     Kern County Library, Beale Memorial Library, 701 Truxtun
Avenue, Bakersfield, CA;
     Kern County Library, Corcoran Branch, 1001 Chittenden
Avenue, Corcoran, CA;
     Kern County Library, Delano Branch, 925 10th Avenue,
Delano, CA;
     Kern County Library, Shafter Branch, 236 James Street,
Shafter, CA;
     Kern County Library, Wasco Branch, 1102 7th Street, Wasco,
CA;
     Kings County Library, Hanford Branch (Main Library), 401
N. Douty Street, Hanford, CA;
     Kings County Library, Lemoore Branch, 457 C Street,
Lemoore, CA;
     Tulare County Library, Visalia Branch (Main Library), 200
West Oak Avenue, Visalia, CA; and
     Tulare Public Library, 475 North M Street, Tulare, CA.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on September 7, 2012.
Corey Hill,
Director, Rail Project Development and Delivery.
[FR Doc. 2012-22703 Filed 9-13-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 130 (Wednesday, July 8, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 38943]
[FR Doc No: 2015-16742]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2015-0614]

Safety Zones; Annual Events in the Captain of the Port Buffalo
Zone

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: At various times throughout the month of July, the Coast Guard
will enforce certain safety zones located in 33 CFR 165.939. This
action is necessary and intended for the safety of life and property on
navigable waters during this event. During each enforcement period, no
person or vessel may enter the respective safety zone without the
permission of the Captain of the Port Buffalo.

DATES: The regulations in 33 CFR 165.939 will be enforced on July 5,
2015 from 9:15 p.m. to 10:15 p.m. and on July 10, 2015 from 9:45 p.m.
to 10:35 p.m., as specified in the Supplementary Information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this notice,
call or email LT Stephanie Pitts, Chief of Waterways Management
Division, U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Unit Cleveland; telephone 216-
937-0128, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard will enforce the Safety
Zones; Annual Events in the Captain of the Port Buffalo Zone listed in
33 CFR 165.939 for the following events:
    (1) Fairport Harbor Mardi Gras Fireworks, Fairport Harbor, OH; The
safety zone listed in 33 CFR 165.939(a)(22) will be enforced from 9:15
p.m. to 10:15 p.m. on July 5, 2015.
    (2) Sheffield Lake Annual Community Days Fireworks, Sheffield Lake,
OH; The safety zone listed in 33 CFR 165.939(a)(27) will be enforced
from 9:45 p.m. to 10:35 p.m. on July 10, 2015.
    Pursuant to 33 CFR 165.23, entry into, transiting, or anchoring
within these safety zones during an enforcement period is prohibited
unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated
representative. Those seeking permission to enter one of these safety
zones may request permission from the Captain of Port Buffalo via
channel 16, VHF-FM. Vessels and persons granted permission to enter one
of these safety zones shall obey the directions of the Captain of the
Port Buffalo or his designated representative. While within a safety
zone, all vessels shall operate at the minimum speed necessary to
maintain a safe course.
    This notice is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.939 and 5
U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this notice in the Federal Register, the
Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with advance
notification of these enforcement periods via Broadcast Notice to
Mariners or Local Notice to Mariners. If the Captain of the Port
Buffalo determines that one of these safety zones need not be enforced
for the full duration stated in this notice he or she may use a
Broadcast Notice to Mariners to grant general permission to enter the
respective safety zone.

    Dated: June 25, 2015.
B.W. Roche,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Buffalo.
[FR Doc. 2015-16742 Filed 7-7-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 128 (Tuesday, July 5, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 43698]
[FR Doc No: 2016-15766]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Request To Release Airport Property

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of intent to rule on request to release airport property
at Waterloo Regional Airport, Waterloo, Iowa. (ALO)

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to rule and invites public comment on the
release of land at Waterloo Regional Airport, Waterloo, Iowa, under the
provisions of 49 U.S.C. 47107(h)(2).

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 4, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this application may be mailed or delivered to
the FAA at the following address: Lynn D. Martin, Airports Compliance
Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration, Airports Division, ACE-
610C, 901 Locust Room 364, Kansas City, MO 64106.
    In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be
mailed or delivered to: Keith Kaspari, Director of Aviation, 2790
Livingston Ln., Waterloo, IA 50703,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lynn D. Martin, Airports Compliance
Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration, Airports Division, ACE-
610C, 901 Locust Room 364, Kansas City, MO 64106,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    The request to release property may be reviewed, by appointment, in
person at this same location.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA invites public comment on the
request to release approximately 0.91 acres of airport
property at Waterloo Regional Airport (ALO) under the provisions of 49
U.S.C. 47107(h)(2). On March 29, 2016, the Director of Aviation at
Waterloo Regional Airport requested from the FAA that approximately
0.91 acres of property be released for sale to Standard
Forwarding for an addition to their trucking business consistent with
the zoning ordinances of the City. On June 24, 2016, the FAA determined
that the request to release property at Waterloo Regional Airport (ALO)
submitted by the Sponsor meets the procedural requirements of the
Federal Aviation Administration and the release of the property does
not and will not impact future aviation needs at the airport. The FAA
may approve the request, in whole or in part, no sooner than thirty
days after the publication of this notice.
    The following is a brief overview of the request:
    The Waterloo Regional Airport (ALO) is proposing the release of
airport property totaling 0.91 acres, more or less. This land is to be
used for an addition to the Standard Forwarding Company. The release of
land is necessary to comply with Federal Aviation Administration Grant
Assurances that do not allow federally acquired airport property to be
used for non-aviation purposes. The sale of the subject property will
result in the land at Waterloo Regional Airport (ALO) being changed
from aeronautical to non-aeronautical use and release the lands from
the conditions of the Airport Improvement Program Grant Agreement Grant
Assurances. In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 47107(c)(2)(B)(i) and (iii),
the airport will receive fair market value for the property, which will
be subsequently reinvested in another eligible airport improvement
project for general aviation facilities at Waterloo Regional Airport.
    Any person may inspect, by appointment, the request in person at
the FAA office listed above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In
addition, any person may, upon appointment and request, inspect the
application, notice and other documents determined by the FAA to be
related to the application in person at Waterloo Regional Airport.

    Issued in Kansas City, MO on June 24, 2016.
Jim A. Johnson,
Manager, Airports Division.
[FR Doc. 2016-15766 Filed 7-1-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P