{"operation":"document","citation":"65 FR 80530","title":"Pipeline Safety: Areas Unusually Sensitive to Environmental Damage","source_type":"rulemaking","agency":"Research and Special Programs Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2000-12-21","effective_on":"2001-02-20","summary":"This final rule defines drinking water and ecological areas that are unusually sensitive to environmental damage if there is a hazardous liquid pipeline release. We refer to these areas as unusually sensitive areas (USAs). RSPA created this definition through a series of public workshops, pilot testing, a technical review of the pilot test results, and extensive collaboration with a wide-range of federal, state, public, and industry stakeholders. This final rule does not require specific action by pipeline operators but will be used in existing and future regulations.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/federal-register-00-31756.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/federal-register-00-31756.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/federal-register-00-31756","source_url":"https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2000/12/21/00-31756/pipeline-safety-areas-unusually-sensitive-to-environmental-damage","body":"Federal Register, Volume 65 Issue 246 (Thursday, December 21, 2000) [Federal Register Volume 65, Number 246 (Thursday, December 21, 2000)] [Rules and Regulations] [Pages 80530-80546] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [ www.gpo.gov ] [FR Doc No: 00-31756] [[Page 80529]] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Part III Department of Transportation ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Research and Special Programs Administration ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 49 CFR Part 195 Pipeline Safety; Areas Unusually Sensitive to Environmental Damage; Final Rule Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 246 / Thursday, December 21, 2000 / Rules and Regulations [[Page 80530]] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Research and Special Programs Administration 49 CFR Part 195 [Docket RSPA-99-5455; Amdt. 195-71] RIN 2137-AC34 Pipeline Safety: Areas Unusually Sensitive to Environmental Damage AGENCY: Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), DOT. ACTION: Final Rule. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: This final rule defines drinking water and ecological areas that are unusually sensitive to environmental damage if there is a hazardous liquid pipeline release. We refer to these areas as unusually sensitive areas (USAs). RSPA created this definition through a series of public workshops, pilot testing, a technical review of the pilot test results, and extensive collaboration with a wide-range of federal, state, public, and industry stakeholders. This final rule does not require specific action by pipeline operators but will be used in existing and future regulations. DATES: Effective February 20, 2001. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christina Sames at (202) 366-4561 or [email protected] . Copies of this document or other material in the docket can be obtained from the Dockets Facility, U.S. DOT, Room #PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590-0001. The Dockets Facility is open from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except on Federal holidays when the facility is closed. The public may review material in the docket by accessing the Docket Management System's home page at http://dms.dot.gov . An electronic copy of any document published in the Federal Register may be downloaded from the Government Printing Office Electronic Bulletin Board Service at (202) 512-1661. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: RSPA began its process to define unusually sensitive areas in 1992, when Congress amended the federal pipeline safety statute. The amended statute (49 U.S.C. 60109) required the Secretary of Transportation (Secretary) to prescribe regulations that establish criteria for identifying each hazardous liquid pipeline facility and gathering line located in an area that the Secretary describes as unusually sensitive to environmental damage if there is a hazardous liquid pipeline accident. We refer to these unusually sensitive areas as USAs for short. In 1996, Congress again amended the statute to require the Secretary to consider areas where a pipeline rupture would likely cause permanent or long-term environmental damage. We described these legislative mandates in more detail in the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) (64 FR 73464; December 30, 1999) to define USAs. To fulfill the legislative mandate, RSPA began a series of public meetings and workshops to gather information to help us establish criteria for identifying USAs. We held meetings with other federal agencies and the pipeline industry to work out a definition. We held a series of public workshops to openly discuss draft definitions for USAs. These workshops helped develop guiding principles for determining which resources to concentrate on, a model of how the USA process could work, and helped define terms used to describe USAs. The workshops also identified drinking water and ecological resources that are of great importance to the nation and filtering criteria to identify those resources that could sustain permanent or long term damage if affected by a release. Participants at these meetings and workshops included representatives from the U.S. Coast Guard; the Departments of Interior, Agriculture, and Commerce; the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); the American Waterworks Association; The Nature Conservancy; academia; the hazardous liquid pipeline industry and the public. Greater discussion on these workshops and meetings is found in the NPRM. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking On December 30, 1999, RSPA issued a NPRM to define USAs (64 FR 73464). The NPRM focused on drinking water and ecological resources. Cultural resources, recreational resources, and economic resource areas were not considered in the NPRM. RSPA determined that these areas should be addressed as a separate risk factor and under separate regulations. The NPRM proposed to identify USAs through a process that began by designating and assessing environmentally sensitive areas (ESAs), determining which ESAs are potentially more susceptible to permanent or long term damage from a hazardous liquid release (areas of primary concern), and finally identifying filtering criteria to determine which areas of primary concern can sustain permanent or long-term damage or are necessary for uninterrupted drinking water consumption by the human population. The areas that resulted from this process were the proposed USAs. Under the proposed USA definition, drinking water areas of primary concern are a subset of all surface intakes and groundwater-based drinking water supplies that provide potable water for domestic, commercial, and industrial users. These include public water systems, wellhead protection areas, and sole source aquifers. Definitions for these resources can be found in the NPRM and at the end of this final rule. Proposed filtering criteria included the depth and geology of a drinking water resource and if the public water system has an adequate alternative drinking water supply. Additional information on the proposed filter criteria can be found in the NPRM. The proposed ecological USA candidates focused on the characteristics of rarity, imperilment, or the potential for loss of large segments of an abundant population during periods of migratory concentration. These included threatened and endangered (T&E) species, critically imperiled and imperiled species, depleted marine mammals, and migratory waterbird concentration areas. Definitions for these resources can be found in the NPRM and at the end of this final rule. Proposed filtering criteria included the extent to which a species is vulnerable to extinction, areas that are critical to multiple sensitive species, and areas where a large percent of a species population could be impacted. Additional information on the proposed ecological filter criteria can be found in the NPRM. How RSPA Will Use the USA Definition RSPA will use the USA definition in current and future pipeline safety regulations. Any regulatory application of this definition will be aimed at ensuring that operators implement appropriate additional protective measures for pipelines that could affect USAs. We anticipate using the USA definition in the following regulations. Integrity Management Rule. RSPA issued a final rule titled ``Pipeline Safety: Pipeline Integrity Management in High Consequence Areas (Hazardous Liquid Operators with 500 or more miles of pipeline)'' on November 3, 2000, and it was published in the Federal Register on December 1, 2000 (65 FR 75378). The rule establishes new requirements to provide additional protection to high consequence areas. High consequence areas include USAs, populated areas, and commercially navigable waterways. The rule requires hazardous liquid pipeline operators who own or operate 500 or more miles [[Page 80531]] of pipeline to assess, evaluate, repair, and validate through analysis the integrity of any pipeline segment that could affect a high consequence area. Operators must develop and follow an integrity management program that provides for continually assessing the integrity of all pipeline segments that could affect any high consequence area, through internal inspection, pressure testing, or other equally effective assessment means. The program must also provide for periodically evaluating the pipeline segments through comprehensive information analysis, promptly remediating potential problems found through the assessment and evaluation, and ensuring additional protection to the segments and high consequence areas through preventative and mitigative measures. This integrity management rule was the first in a series of rulemakings that ultimately will require all regulated pipeline operators to have integrity management programs. This initial action covers about 87% of all the hazardous liquid pipelines in the U.S. These pipelines have the greatest potential to adversely affect critical areas, based on the volume they transport. RSPA is now preparing a NPRM with similar requirements for the remaining hazardous liquid pipelines currently regulated under 49 CFR Part 195. RSPA will then issue proposed integrity management program requirements for natural gas pipeline operators. Risk-based Alternative to Pressure Testing Older Hazardous Liquid and Carbon Dioxide Pipelines. Operators may elect a risk-based alternative in lieu of hydrostatically testing certain older pipelines (49 CFR 195.303). The alternative establishes test priorities based on the inherent risk of a given pipeline segment. One of the risk factors is to determine the pipeline segment's proximity to environmentally sensitive areas. In the preamble to the final rule, RSPA explained that it would consider defining the environmental factor in a future rulemaking once a definition of environmentally sensitive areas was finalized. Response Plans for Onshore Oil Pipelines under 49 CFR part 194. Operators must consider areas of environmental importance that are in or adjacent to navigable waters for spill response planning. RSPA intends to amend the definition of environmental importance to include USAs. These regulations were mandated by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act as amended by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA). Area Contingency Plans. 49 CFR part 194 also requires operators ensure their spill response plans are consistent with applicable Area Contingency Plans (ACPs). ACPs establish response strategies and priorities for a given area based on a local community assessment of all sensitive zones within that area. ACPs are created by Area Committees that are established under the U.S. Coast Guard in the coastal zone and by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in the inland zone. Area Committees base response priority and strategy determinations on environmental sensitivity, along with social, cultural, political, and economic sensitivities. Not all areas identified by the ACPs are USAs. The USA definition is not intended to dictate how a specific response should be undertaken, rather the definition provides a national perspective on environmental sensitivity considerations. We expect that pipeline operators and Area Committees will work cooperatively to consider the USA information when validating existing plans or revising plans during the normal 5-year planning cycle. Low Stress Pipelines. On July 12, 1999, RSPA issued a final rule extending part 195 regulations to certain pipelines operating at 20% specified minimal yield strength (SMYS) or less (39 FR 35465). In that final rule, RSPA deferred proposing to regulate non- volatile liquid low stress pipelines in rural sensitive areas since these areas had not been defined. We stated that we would reconsider the issue once there was a sensitive area definition. USA Pilot Test, Public Workshop and Technical Review RSPA conducted a pilot test to determine if the proposed USA definition could be used to identify and locate unusually sensitive drinking water and ecological resources using available data from government agencies and environmental organizations. Texas, California, and Louisiana were the states chosen to test the proposed USA definition. These states contain approximately 45% of the nation's hazardous liquid pipelines and considerable drinking water and ecological resources. RSPA collected drinking water, ecological, and base map data for the pilot test. Computer models were created from the proposed USA definition to process the collected data. RSPA used a geographic information system (GIS) to run the computer models and create maps of the USAs. The results of the pilot test can be found on the following web site: http://ops.dot.gov ./pilotresults.htm. The pilot test verified that the proposed USA definition could be used to identify and locate USAs. The pilot helped identify the types of data and the data attributes needed to run the computer models and what data are currently available in the pilot states. The pilot also helped in testing and modifying the model where incomplete data were not available. On April 27-28, 2000, RSPA conducted a public workshop to discuss the pilot test results and begin a technical review of those results. Workshop participants included drinking water and ecological resource experts from federal and state agencies, academia, environmental groups, and the public. RSPA also solicited drinking water and ecological experts to provide a formal technical review of the pilot results. These technical reviewers included the Department of the Interior's Fish and Wildlife Service, the Department of Agriculture's Forest Service, the Department of Commerce's National Marine Fisheries Service, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Groundwater and Drinking Water, Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, Louisiana Natural Heritage Program, Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, Railroad Commission of Texas' Environmental Services Division, California Department of Fish and Game, University of California Davis, Colorado State University, University of Alabama, Dartmouth College, and The Nature Conservancy. Discussions at the workshop included background on the USA initiative, the proposed drinking water and ecological definitions, models that were used to apply the proposed definition, data that was gathered, how the data was processed using a GIS, and maps of the resulting USAs. Presentations from the workshop and a detailed summary of the workshop can be viewed from RSPA's USA Internet page: http://ops.dot.gov/init.htm#usa . Workshop participants also submitted their comments to the docket on this rulemaking. Discussion of Comments Received From the Public Workshop and Technical Review The formal technical reviewers and other workshop participants stated the proposed USA definition and the computer model created from the proposed definition are reasonable and a significant start to defining USAs. They offered various suggestions for improving the proposed USA definition, [[Page 80532]] the computer model created from the proposed definition, and the process used to create USA maps. Drinking Water Recommendations 1. Replace wellhead protection areas (WHPAs) with source water protection areas (SWPAs), specifically the areas of primary influence. A WHPA is an area surrounding a water well or well field that supplies a public water system through which contaminants are likely to pass and eventually reach the water well or well field. SWPAs are being created under a new EPA program, the Source Water Assessment Program (SWAP). The SWAP expands EPA's Wellhead Protection Program to cover surface water and places where groundwater interacts with surface water, in response to the 1996 Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act. State agencies are obtaining additional information than the data used to create the WHPAs in order to create SWPAs. Under SWAP, state agencies must perform a source water assessment for each public water system to analyze existing and potential threats to the quality of the public water. As part of the assessment, the state must delineate the SWPA for the public water system. All source water assessments and SWPAs must be completed by May 2003. The NPRM proposed that a WHPA for a community water system or a non-transient non-community water system that obtains its water supply from a Class I or Class IIA aquifer and does not have an adequate alternative source of water for a backup be considered a USA. The NPRM discussed community water systems, non-transient non-community water systems, and Class I and IIA aquifers in detail. Definitions for these terms can be found in the NPRM and at the end of this final rule. The formal technical reviewers and other workshop participants agreed that RSPA should replace WHPAs with SWPAs. These commenters stated that SWPAs are more appropriate since they are an expansion of the WHPAs and the SWPAs should be more accurate than the WHPAs. In addition, states are focusing their attention away from WHPAs and onto SWPAs. Therefore, the WHPAs may become obsolete over time. Since the SWAP is a new program, commenters suggested that RSPA continue to use WHPAs where SWPAs have not yet been identified. However, RSPA found that a few SWPAs have already been delineated as of August 2000. RSPA agrees with the commenters and in the final rule has replaced WHPAs with SWPAs. Where SWPAs have not been created, WHPAs will be used to identify USAs. 2. Replace the Pettyjohn et al. Aquifer Classification Scheme with SWPAs. In the NPRM, RSPA proposed to use the Pettyjohn et al. aquifer classification scheme as a way to determine which ground water sources are more susceptible to contamination from a hazardous liquid release. The Pettyjohn et al. aquifer classification scheme can be found in EPA Report 600/2-91/043, ``Regional Assessment to Aquifer Vulnerability and Sensitivity in the Conterminous United States,'' August 1991. Under this classification scheme, aquifers are ranked as Class I (a-d), II (a-c), III, or U. Class I aquifers are surficial or shallow, are permeable, and are highly vulnerable to contamination. Class II aquifers are consolidated bedrock aquifers that are moderately vulnerable to contamination. Class III aquifers are consolidated or unconsolidated aquifers that are overlain by more than 50 feet of low permeability material and have a low vulnerability to contamination. Class U aquifers are undifferentiated aquifers where several lithologic and hydrologic conditions exist. One technical reviewer stated that it may be appropriate to replace the Pettyjohn et al. aquifer classification scheme used in the NPRM with SWPAs. Under the Source Water Protection Program, there are three components of source water assessment: (1) Delineating the boundaries of areas providing source waters to public water supplies (the SWPA); (2) identifying, to the extent practical, the origins of certain unregulated contaminants in the water supplies; and (3) determining the susceptibility of the source waters of the public water system(s) to contamination. For groundwater supplies, the SWPA delineation methods are very similar to the WHPA delineation methods, and many States are using previously delineated WHPAs as SWPAs for groundwater supplies. However, delineation of a SWPA is only the first step in the assessment process. The susceptibility analysis is a critical component of the program to identify those SWPAs that are most susceptible to contamination, and it has not been completed for most of the country. The Pettyjohn et al. aquifer classification scheme is a similar approach to determine the susceptibility of an aquifer to contamination. Since states will not complete their source water assessments until May 2003, RSPA considers it appropriate to continue to use the Pettyjohn approach that was characterized in the NPRM. RSPA will consider replacing the Pettyjohn et al. aquifer classification scheme with completed source water assessment data in the future. If we determine the SWPAs are an appropriate replacement to the Pettyjohn et al. aquifer classification scheme, we will issue a NPRM seeking comment on revising the USA definition. 3. Make a preliminary drinking water USA a USA unless it is verified that an adequate alternative drinking water source exists. Change the adequate alternative drinking water source definition to extend the amount of time needed for the backup water source from one month to six months for groundwater systems. In the computer model created from the proposed USA definition, a drinking water resource passes through a series of filtering criteria to determine if the resource is susceptible to contamination from a pipeline release. Drinking water intakes and WHPAs that pass these filtering criteria are called preliminary drinking water USAs. All preliminary drinking water USAs are put through a final filter criterion--Is there an adequate alternative drinking water source that the preliminary drinking water USA can pull from? The NPRM proposed that an adequate alternative drinking water source be defined as a source of water that currently exists, can be used almost immediately with a minimal amount of effort and cost, will meet the short-term (at least one month) consumptive and hygiene requirements of the existing population of impacted customers, involves no perceptible change in water quality, and is temporary (until a long term alternative can be put in place, if necessary). During the pilot test, RSPA telephoned public water suppliers to determine if an adequate alternative drinking water source existed for preliminary drinking water USAs. If the public water supplier stated that an adequate alternative drinking water source existed, the drinking water resource did not become a USA. If the public water supplier could not be reached or if the information received from the supplier was too ambiguous to decipher, the preliminary drinking water source stayed as a preliminary drinking water USA and did not become a final USA. In the pilot states, the success rate for determining whether there was an adequate alternative drinking water source varied widely, from only 45 percent for California, to nearly 85 percent for Louisiana. The formal technical reviewers and workshop participants recommended that RSPA modify how the computer [[Page 80533]] model created from the proposed USA definition processes adequate alternative drinking water sources. Commenters stated that all preliminary drinking water USAs should be treated as USAs unless the public water supplier states that an adequate alternative drinking water source exists. Most reviewers commented that, if it was not feasible to determine whether there was an adequate alternative drinking water source, the default assumption should be that there is no adequate alternative source. Participants and reviewers also recommended that RSPA change the proposed adequate alternative drinking water source definition to extend the amount of time needed for the backup water source for groundwater systems. Commenters stated that, in their experience, most spills that have affected surface water intakes resulted in short-term shutdowns of the intakes and that one month would be appropriate for surface water intakes. However, for groundwater systems, one month would not be enough time. Contamination to a groundwater system may take longer than a month to clean up and new wells might have to be drilled and connected to the water distribution system. Therefore, commenters suggested that the backup time be changed from one month to six--twelve months for groundwater systems. RSPA agrees with both recommendations and has incorporated them into the final rule. RSPA believes that six months is a sufficient amount of time for an adequate alternative drinking water source for a groundwater system. 4. Remove the doubling of WHPAs in sole source aquifers. In the NPRM, RSPA proposed as USAs an area twice that of the WHPAs if the following conditions existed: The WHPA was in a sole source aquifer, The sole source aquifer was a Class I or IIa aquifer as determined by the Pettyjohn, et al., aquifer classification scheme, and There was not an adequate alternative drinking water source available. EPA defines a sole or principal source aquifer as one which supplies at least 50 percent of the drinking water consumed in the area overlying the aquifer. These areas can have no alternative drinking water source(s) which could physically, legally, and economically supply all those who depend on the aquifer for drinking water. Workshop participants and technical reviewers stated that RSPA should rely on the analysis conducted by a state and should not second guess a state by doubling the WHPA. Each state has set up delineation programs that include scientific analytical methods to determine the appropriate size of the WHPA. Therefore, the states can most competently determine the correct protection area that should be used. RSPA agrees with these comments. The final definition does not double the SWPAs or WHPAs in sole source aquifers. 5. Update the definition for a Community Water System. In the NPRM, RSPA proposed to define a community water system as ``a public water system that provides water to the same population year round.'' RSPA agrees that the final USA definition should use EPA's current definition for a community water system, as defined by statute. The current definition is ``A public water system that serves at least 15 service connections used by year-round residents of the area served by the system or regularly serves at least 25 year-round residents.'' 6. Change the Filter Criteria to Consider All Class II Aquifers, Not Just Class IIa. In the NPRM, RSPA proposed that the WHPAs for community water systems or non-transient non-community water systems that obtain their water from a Class I or IIa aquifer and do not have an adequate alternative source of water for a backup be considered USAs. Class II aquifers are consolidated bedrock aquifers that are moderately vulnerable to contamination. They include the following sub-classes: Class IIa: Higher Yield Bedrock Aquifers. Consist of fairly coarse sandstone or conglomerate that contain lesser amounts of interbedded fine-grained clastics and occasionally carbonate units. In general, well yields must exceed 50 gallons per minute (gpm) to be included in this class. Class IIb: Lower Yield Bedrock Aquifers. Consist of the same clastic rock types present in the higher yield systems. Well yields are commonly less than 50 gpm. Class IIc: Covered Bedrock Aquifers. Consist of Class IIa and IIb aquifers that are overlain by less than 50 feet of unconsolidated material of low permeability. One technical reviewer recommended that all Class II aquifers (Pettyjohn et al., 1991) be considered. We are not adopting this recommendation. RSPA believes that class IIb and IIc are not significantly at risk of contamination from a release from a hazardous liquid pipeline. The USA delineation process is intended to identify those resources that are unusually sensitive to damage from a pipeline release. Lower-yield aquifers are at less risk of contamination because response actions should be effective in containing and cleaning up the spilled oil before the well becomes contaminated. 7. Include sole source aquifers that are karst in nature USAs. One technical reviewer recommended that RSPA include all sole source aquifers that are karst in nature as USAs. Another reviewer recommended that the final USA definition include the recharge areas of the sole source aquifers that are karst in nature. Karst aquifers are composed of limestone or dolomite where the porosity is derived from connected solution cavities. They are often cavernous, with high rates of flow. These types of aquifers are very susceptible to contamination and EPA's data show at least one case of significant contamination in a karst aquifer as a result of a hazardous liquid pipeline release in the recharge area of the aquifer. The recharge area is the area contributing to the groundwater that may flow to the aquifer over a long time. Recharge areas for karst aquifers often include sinkholes, disappearing streams, etc. where surface contaminants can directly enter the aquifer. Even rapid and effective spill response is not likely to prevent groundwater contamination in these areas. RSPA agrees that the recharge area of karst aquifers are highly susceptible to contamination from a hazardous liquid pipeline release. RSPA does not agree that the entire karst aquifer is unusually sensitive. Although contaminants, once introduced, will flow rapidly within the aquifer, they cannot readily be introduced in non-recharge areas. According to the Pettyjohn et al. aquifer classification system, if there are 50 feet or more of imperious material overlying the aquifer, it is a Class III aquifer and is of low susceptibility of contamination, even if it is karst in nature. In the NPRM, RSPA proposed that the WHPAs for community water systems or non-transient non-community water systems that obtain their water from a Class I or IIa aquifer and do not have an adequate alternative source of water for a backup be considered USAs. A recharge area of a sole source aquifer that is karst in nature would be considered part of a Class I aquifer. The NPRM proposed that WHPAs be doubled for sole source aquifers to provide additional protection. While RSPA did not propose to include the [[Page 80534]] entire recharge area for sole source aquifers that are karst in nature, RSPA did show intent to provide these areas with additional protection. RSPA has conducted a national review of sole source aquifers that are karst in nature and has determined that including the recharge areas for these aquifers would only cause a minor increase in the amount of land mass identified as a USA. Therefore, RSPA has included the recharge areas of sole source aquifers that are karst in nature in the final USA definition. 8. Where possible, consider artificial penetrations from abandoned wells, injection wells, seismic shot holes, etc. Three technical reviewers and several workshop participants expressed concern that artificial penetrations into an aquifer would provide a pathway for aquifer contamination that was unaccounted for in the Pettyjohn et al. aquifer classification. Artificial penetrations include abandoned wells, monitoring wells, injection wells, seismic shot holes, and improperly constructed water wells that allow groundwater interflow among aquifers. Artificial penetrations are of particular concern in many areas, including those with oil and gas exploration and production. In spite of the concern of the technical reviewers and workshop participants, the lack of data on the locations of these artificial penetrations makes it impossible to consider them in state or regional mapping applications or risk assessments at this time. Ecological Recommendations 1. Include in the USA definition all resources RSPA was asked to consider in the federal pipeline safety statute. One technical reviewer recommended that USAs include all resources that RSPA was asked to consider in 49 U.S.C. Sec. 60109. These resources include critical wetlands, riverine or estuarine systems, national parks, wilderness areas, wildlife preservation areas or refuges, wild and scenic rivers, and critical habitat for threatened and endangered species. RSPA has determined that not all of these resources should be considered USAs at this time. Congress required RSPA to establish criteria defining locations where unusually sensitive resources might incur permanent or long-term ``environmental'' damage in the event of an oil spill. Congress added the words ``permanent'' and ``long-term'' when it amended the USA identification requirements in 1996 (49 U.S.C. 60109). As we explained in the NPRM, rather than focus on the geographic boundaries of these areas, we focused on particular ecological species and drinking water resources in these areas that could suffer irreparable harm from a hazardous liquid release. We believe that protecting those particular species and resources now will concentrate prevention, mitigation, and response resources on areas that are most susceptible to permanent or long-term damage. We believe that this approach satisfies the statutory mandate. We ran computer models that tested including various categories of resources, including all resources listed in the statutory mandate, for which existing data bases permitted computer modeling. Based on our analysis of all information currently available, we believe that by focusing on the particular ecological species and drinking water resources that could suffer irreparable harm, we will pick up a substantial extent of resources within the National Parks, National Wildlife Refuges, National Wilderness Areas, National Forests, and other resources that do not meet the filtering criteria being used in this rulemaking. Based on information currently available, it is not possible at this time to determine the extent of coverage in these nationally important resources areas. Although we have not included these other areas in this rulemaking, RSPA will consider extending protection to other environmentally sensitive and vital resources through future rulemaking. Other areas that will be considered include the National Parks, National Wildlife Refuges, National Wilderness Areas, National Forests, and other cultural and sensitive environmental resources that do not meet the filtering criteria being used in this rulemaking. The following provides additional information on some of the particular resources listed in the federal pipeline safety statute: Critical Wetlands RSPA has not been able to find a strict definition of critical wetlands or a consistent program that identifies critical wetlands that could be applied to the ecological USA program. ``Critical wetland'' in many cases is a generally applied term used in a wide variety of situations. The most prevalent use of this term is in relation to issuance of permits for impacts to wetlands under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Some states have developed special conditions, mainly related to water quality criteria, that limit use of nationwide and other general permits in certain waters. The term ``critical wetland'' is used by a few states in this regard, however, the types of wetlands considered as ``critical'' differ from state to state. The term ``critical wetland,'' when used in permitting programs, tends to require additional scrutiny to permit applications. It does not preclude the approval of permits. Indeed, permits are approved for these ``critical wetlands,'' subjecting these areas to environmental impacts. Although the USA definition does not use the term ``critical wetlands,'' the definition does include wetlands that are represented in the Ramsar program (Wetlands of International Importance) and the Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network (WHSRN) program. These wetlands include the Florida Everglades, the Okefenokee Swamp in Georgia, Cheyenne Bottoms in Kansas, and Ash Meadows in Nevada. The protection of rare and endangered species in ecological USAs also contributes to the protection of wetland habitats. For aquatic and wetland species, the computer model created from the proposed and final USA definition identifies potentially larger polygonal areas as USAs (using a five mile radius around the species occurrence locations, as well as a one-fourth mile buffer into adjacent upland habitats), relative to terrestrial species (using a one mile radius), increasing the amount of wetland or aquatic area protected. Finally, as a result of technical reviewer and workshop participant comments and other public comments to the NPRM, RSPA has revised the USA definition to include all occurrences of aquatic and aquatic- dependent USA candidate species. This will further increase the number and extent of wetlands captured as USAs. Our discussion about including these species is found later in this document. Riverine or Estuarine Systems Rivers and estuaries are extensive geographic features. Although all rivers and estuaries are important national resources, RSPA has decided to focus on the most sensitive portions that contain critically imperiled, imperiled, and threatened and endangered species. Many rivers and estuaries are captured in whole or part by the final definition. Areas such as the Chesapeake Bay estuary, the Delaware Bay estuary, San Francisco Bay, Florida Bay (in Everglades National Park), the Copper River delta in Alaska and the Altamaha River in Georgia will be captured as USAs due to their recognition in the Ramsar and/or WHSRN programs. USAs formed due to the presence of rare and endangered species also result in the protection of [[Page 80535]] estuaries and rivers. As an example, many estuaries, rivers, and streams in the California pilot test became ecological USAs because they contained critically imperiled salmon populations. Also, much of the Pearl River in the Louisiana pilot became a USA because it contained three or more occurrences of endangered and imperiled species. National Parks, Wildlife Refuges, Wildlife Preserves, Wilderness Areas and Wild and Scenic Rivers We refer to these areas collectively as management areas, since they are managed primarily by the Departments of Interior and Agriculture. All of these areas are very important national resources. Rather than focus on the geographic boundaries of these areas, the proposed USA definition focuses on many areas within the boundaries as potential ecological USAs because of the presence of other protected species or natural communities. Management areas tend to receive more USA designations because there is more information on the ecological resources in these areas. Endangered and rare species surveys, migratory waterbird surveys and enhancement projects, and detailed natural resource mapping efforts are much more prevalent in management areas compared to lands under other types of ownership and management. Accordingly, under this rule, large portions of our national parks, wildlife refuges, etc. are likely to be identified and protected as USAs even without explicitly including these important national resources as a USA. Based on data currently available for our analysis, it is not possible to determine the exact extent of coverage with the boundaries. Designated Critical Habitat for Threatened or Endangered Species During the public workshops that were held to help identify USAs, designated critical habitats (DCH) were considered as possible ecological USA candidates. RSPA chose to focus on the locations of the species rather than DCH because the location is a more focused identification of where the rare species currently exists. RSPA expects large areas of DCH to be USAs based on the presence of rare species. Due to the way in which critical habitats are described for some species, converting the DCH text descriptions to geographic boundaries would be difficult and, in some cases, impossible. We believe that protecting those particular species and resources now will concentrate prevention, mitigation and response resources to areas that are most susceptible to permanent or long-term damage. As new ecological information becomes available to RSPA and we identify and locate additional USAs, the operator has responsibility to apply this new information in its integrity management program. 2. Include additional species concentration areas, such as rookeries. Four technical reviewers and workshop participants recommended that the USA definition include additional species congregation areas, such as migratory,","truncated":true,"body_characters":118654}