# Pipeline Safety: Areas Unusually Sensitive to Environmental Damage

- **operation:** document
- **citation:** 64 FR 73464
- **title:** Pipeline Safety: Areas Unusually Sensitive to Environmental Damage
- **source type:** rulemaking
- **agency:** Research and Special Programs Administration
- **status:** proposed
- **official:** true
- **published on:** 1999-12-30
- **effective on:** Not available
- **summary:** This proposed 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). The proposed definition was created through a series of public workshops and our collaboration with a wide-range of federal, state, public, and industry stakeholders. RSPA is working on a pilot test that implements the proposed definition and identifies USAs in three states: Texas, Louisiana, and California. Other government agencies, environmental groups, and academia will evaluate the final results of this pilot test. RSPA will publish the results of the pilot test and technical analysis once they are complete. This proposed rule would not require specific action by pipeline operators. However, this proposed definition would be used as criteria in evaluating requirements by certain existing and future regulations.
- **machine formats:** - **json:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/federal-register-99-33614.json
- **markdown:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/federal-register-99-33614.md
- **app url:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/federal-register-99-33614
- **source url:** https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/1999/12/30/99-33614/pipeline-safety-areas-unusually-sensitive-to-environmental-damage
**body:**

Federal Register, Volume 64 Issue 250 (Thursday, December 30, 1999) [Federal Register Volume 64, Number 250 (Thursday, December 30, 1999)] [Proposed Rules] [Pages 73464-73476] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [ www.gpo.gov ] [FR Doc No: 99-33614] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Research and Special Programs Administration 49 CFR Part 195 [Docket RSPA-99-5455] RIN 2137-AC34 Pipeline Safety: Areas Unusually Sensitive to Environmental Damage AGENCY: Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: This proposed 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). The proposed definition was created through a series of public workshops and our collaboration with a wide-range of federal, state, public, and industry stakeholders. RSPA is working on a pilot test that implements the proposed definition and identifies USAs in three states: Texas, Louisiana, and California. Other government agencies, environmental groups, and academia will evaluate the final results of this pilot test. RSPA will publish the results of the pilot test and technical analysis once they are complete. This proposed rule would not require specific action by pipeline operators. However, this proposed definition would be used as criteria in evaluating requirements by certain existing and future regulations. DATES: Send written comments by June 27, 2000. ADDRESSES: Send written comments in duplicate to the Dockets Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Room #PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590-0001. Persons who want confirmation of mailed comments must include a self-addressed stamped postcard. Comments may also be e-mailed to [[Page 73465]] [email protected] in ASCII or text format. The Dockets Facility is open from 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except on Federal holidays when the facility is closed. Persons interested in receiving future information, including the final pilot results, should visit the OPS Home Page at http://ops.dot.gov , or send their name, affiliation, address, and phone number to Christina Sames, U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of Pipeline Safety, 400 Seventh Street SW, DPS-11, Washington, D.C. 20590-0001. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christina Sames at (202) 366-4561 or [email protected] . Copies of this document or other material in the docket, including material from the public workshops, can be obtained from the Dockets Facility. The public may also 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: Legislative Mandates In 1992, Congress amended the federal pipeline safety statute to require 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 (USAs). The Secretary was to consider all hazardous liquid pipeline facilities and gathering lines, whether or not they are subject to safety regulation under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 601. The Secretary also had to consult with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in establishing the criteria. The following were to be considered: Earthquake zones and areas subject to substantial ground movements, such as landslides; Areas where ground water contamination would be likely in the event of the rupture of a pipeline facility; Freshwater lakes, rivers, and waterways; and River deltas and other areas subject to soil erosion or subsidence from flooding or other water action, where pipeline facilities are likely to become exposed or undermined. In 1996, Congress amended the USA identification requirements (49 U.S.C. Section 60109). The Secretary was still required to prescribe standards that establish criteria for identifying each hazardous liquid pipeline facility and gathering line located in an USA. However, in establishing criteria, the Secretary was now to consider areas where a pipeline rupture would likely cause permanent or long-term environmental damage, including: Locations near pipeline rights-of-way that are critical to drinking water, including intake locations for community water systems and critical sole source aquifer protection areas; and Locations near pipeline rights-of-way that have been identified as critical wetlands, riverine or estuarine systems, national parks, wilderness areas, wildlife preservation areas or refuges, wild and scenic rivers, or critical habitat areas for threatened and endangered species. A Presidential memorandum that accompanied the 1996 statute clarified Administration policy on USAs. The memorandum said that the listed examples should be considered, but are not exclusive and that DOT was to accord full protection to all wetlands and other aquatic areas. DOT was also to consider both the potential for short term and permanent or long term injuries to natural resources or the environment. The Secretary was to use the identification of these unusually sensitive environmental areas in future rulemakings, that include requiring additional prevention and inventory measures in these sensitive areas. For instance, 49 U.S.C. 60109(a)(2) directs the Secretary to require operators to identify unusually sensitive environmental areas through maps and pipeline inventories. The Secretary is to consider requiring each pipeline in an unusually sensitive environmental area to be inspected periodically and to prescribe when an instrumented internal inspection device should be used to inspect the pipeline (49 U.S.C. 60102(f)(2)). Also, the Secretary is to survey and assess the effectiveness of emergency flow restricting devices and other procedures, systems, and equipment used to detect and locate hazardous liquid pipeline ruptures, and to prescribe regulations on the circumstances under which an operator of a hazardous liquid pipeline facility must use an emergency flow restricting device or such other procedure, system, or equipment (49 U.S.C. 60102(j)). June 1994 Public Meeting: Consideration of an OPA Approach to USAs On June 28, 1994, RSPA held a public meeting to gather data that would allow RSPA to establish criteria for identifying environmentally sensitive areas on or near hazardous liquid pipelines. RSPA would then use the established criteria to carry out the requirements of the Oil Pollution Act (OPA) and 49 U.S.C. Section 60109. Under our regulations that implement OPA requirements for pipelines (49 CFR part 194), an operator of an onshore oil pipeline that, because of its location, could reasonably be expected to cause substantial harm or significant and substantial harm to the environment by a release into or on any navigable waters or adjoining shorelines, must prepare and submit an oil spill response plan. These requirements are intended to improve response capabilities and to reduce the environmental impact of oil discharged from onshore oil pipelines. The OPA regulations require an operator to identify the areas potentially affected by its pipeline that are of greatest vulnerability to an oil discharge, including navigable waters, public drinking water intakes, and environmentally sensitive areas. Environmentally sensitive areas were defined as ``an area of environmental importance which is in or adjacent to navigable waters.'' These areas included wetlands, national parks, wilderness and recreational areas, wildlife refuges, marine sanctuaries, and conservation areas. We hoped to create a single definition for environmentally sensitive areas that could be used for OPA spill response planning and for the preventive measures intended by the pipeline safety statute. As previously discussed, these pipeline safety requirements included increased inspection requirements, emergency flow restricting devices, and maps and pipeline inventories of pipelines in unusually sensitive areas. Participants at the meeting included representatives from the EPA, U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Agriculture, Department of Interior, Department of Commerce, hazardous liquid pipeline industry, and the public. Participants discussed a draft definition that focused on areas where a hazardous liquid release could create significant long-term environmental harm or represent an imminent threat to human health. These areas included community water intakes; freshwater lakes, rivers and waterways; state or Federal wetlands, parks, natural areas, wilderness areas, [[Page 73466]] wild or scenic rivers, wildlife refuges or wildlife sanctuaries specifically designated, identified, and located by the Area Contingency Plans; and river deltas and other areas subject to soil erosion or subsidence from flooding or other water action, where pipeline facilities are likely to become exposed or undermined. Participants also discussed whether common criteria could be created for both spill response planning and prevention measures. Meetings With Other Federal Agencies and the Pipeline Industry RSPA held several meetings with other federal agencies and the pipeline industry following the June 1994 public meeting. The meetings were held to obtain additional information on sensitive resources that should be considered when defining USAs. Participants at the meetings included the EPA; the U.S. Coast Guard; the Departments of Interior, Commerce, and Agriculture; and the hazardous liquid pipeline industry. Several participants at the meetings stated that it would be better to separate the OPA definition of environmentally sensitive areas from the USA definition. They stated that it would be better to maintain a broad definition within OPA for spill response functions and that a narrow definition should be created for USAs and the prevention measures the USA definition would be applied to. Participants at the meetings also discussed the resources that should be considered when defining USAs. These included community drinking water intakes, threatened and endangered species, populated areas, economic resources, and commercial water intakes. Participants stated that a decision tree or matrix should be developed to help identify which environmentally sensitive areas were USAs. RSPA used the information gathered at these meetings to create a revised draft definition for USAs. The definition built upon the values other Federal agencies had established for activities under OPA, but more narrowly identified those areas that were unusually sensitive to damage from a hazardous liquid release. The revised definition focused on areas where a release would reach the sensitive area before the release was contained or before the area was protected. June 1995 Public Workshop: Consideration of a Three Tier Approach to USAs On June 15 and 16, 1995, RSPA held a public workshop to openly discuss the revised draft definition for USAs (60 FR 27948, May 26, 1995). Participants included representatives from the U.S. Coast Guard; the Departments of Interior, Agriculture, and Commerce; the EPA; non- government agencies; the hazardous liquid pipeline industry; and the public. The revised draft definition considered three tiers of USAs. RSPA considered phasing in the three tiers to give operators more time to determine which USAs could be affected by a hazardous liquid pipeline release. Tier One consisted of areas that could affect human health if contaminated, such as intakes for community drinking water systems and sole source aquifers. Sole source aquifers supply at least half of the drinking water consumed in the area above the aquifer and have no alternative sources that could supply all those who get their drinking water from the aquifer. In the tier model, community drinking water systems and sole source aquifers that could reasonably be expected to be affected by a release would be considered the most sensitive and highest priority areas. We gave Tier Two, USAs along surface water, the second highest priority. Tier Two took into account the surface water habitat's natural ability to restore itself to the condition that existed before the release, and the biological and human use resources in the body of water and along the water's edge. The habitat, the biological resources, and the human use resources were assigned numerical sensitivity ratings. Combining the numerical ratings of these three resources determined if a particular area was an USA. Tier Three, USAs within terrestrial environments, was given the third highest priority. Tier Three, like Tier Two, took into account biological resources and human use resources be studied to determine if a given area is an USA. Each was assigned a numerical sensitivity rating; the combination of these ratings determined if a particular area was an USA. Participants at the workshop discussed the above approach and criteria. Participants stated the tiered approach was complicated and that operators may not be able to carry out the process. Participants requested that additional workshops be held to further discuss this complex topic. October 1995 Public Workshop: Discussions on the Three Tier Approach Continue and Discussions on the USA Process On October 17, 1995, RSPA held a second public workshop on USAs (60 FR 44824; August 29, 1995) that focused on developing a process that could be used to determine if an area is an USA. Participants asked that the process include a series of workshops on topics such as guiding principles, defining terms that may be used when referring to USAs, and protecting drinking water sources, biological resources, and human use resources. The hazardous liquid pipeline industry provided information on its current research on USAs and recommended that a definition consider the resource to be protected, the likelihood of a given pipeline impacting that resource, and what can be done to reduce the risk to the resource. Other participants recommended integrating factors on the likelihood of a rupture occurring and the severity of the consequence into the USA definition. Participants also discussed guiding principles that could be used when determining if a given area is a USA. January 1996 Public Workshop: Guiding Principles and the Creation of a USA Model RSPA held a third workshop on January 18, 1996, to further discuss the guiding principles for determining USAs (61 FR 342; January 4, 1996). Participants at the workshop included the EPA; the Departments of Interior, Agriculture, and Commerce; the hazardous liquid pipeline industry, and the public. The participants stated that significant drinking water and ecological resources should be considered USAs, but that economic or recreational areas should not. They maintained that economic and recreational areas could be restored following a hazardous liquid release, but certain drinking water or ecological resources could be irreparable if affected by a release. Several participants also questioned including cultural resources as USAs. These participants stated that most cultural resources can be repaired or replaced if they are impacted by a hazardous liquid release. Indian tribal concerns were also discussed and participants requested that additional research be conducted in this area. Participants at the workshop identified consensus guiding principles to help RSPA determine which resources we should concentrate on (areas of primary concern), which areas of primary concern are the most sensitive to a hazardous liquid release, and how to collect and process resource data. The following is the list of those guiding principles: Human health and safety and serious threat of contamination are always to be considered. [[Page 73467]] A functional definition of significant must be developed to determine USAs. Only areas in the trajectory of a potential spill, e.g. down gradient, should be considered. It is expected that no pipeline operator will be required to collect natural field resource data to determine USAs. USAs should be subject to a systematic review process. USAs may change through time as species migrate, change location, or for other reasons. The USA definition should be explicit and practical in application. All phases of the USA definition process should be pilot tested for validity, practicality, and workability, to the extent practical. The government agencies must describe and identify USAs so that the data will not be subject to various interpretations and will be applied consistently. Sources of USA data must be readily available to the public and uniform in criteria and standards. The standards and criteria for resource sensitivity should be uniform on a national basis such that equivalent resources receive equivalent sensitivity assessments regardless of regionally based priorities. In addition to the guiding principles, the following guidelines were created: Workshops for each phase of developing a USA definition should include technical experts, representatives, and field personnel with appropriate experience from agencies as well as from industry. Public workshops should be used to gather information on the criteria that will determine USAs. The USA definition should be complete before its use in a rulemaking. The implementation of resource assessment and protection under the USA definition could be phased. All terms in the USA definition should be defined. National consistency in application of the USA definition should be the goal. Guidelines for data quality should include consistency, accuracy, and scope. Encourage open communication with land or resource managers in USAs. The ranking of resources or adding of values of several resources to reach a threshold USA quantity, as discussed in the June 1995 workshop, is not practical for many pipeline operators. Participants at the workshop also created the following model of how the USA process could work. In this model, all areas that have been designated as environmentally sensitive are considered. From this large set, areas of greater concern due to their sensitivity to a hazardous liquid release are identified. These resource areas are called areas of primary concern. Filter criteria are then applied to the areas of primary concern to determine which areas of primary concern are unusually sensitive to damage from a potential hazardous liquid release. Filter criteria are designed to consider the likelihood that the resource could be impacted by a release, the guiding principles, the sensitivity of the resource, if the resource is irreparable or irreplaceable, if there are substitutes for the resource, and the criticality of the resource. [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30DE99.043 [[Page 73468]] This model was used in all of the ensuing workshops and technical meetings and continues to be used in the current proposal. Finally, participants considered and identified the USA terms that they thought needed to be clarified. April 1996 Public Workshop: USA Terms The fourth public workshop on April 10-11, 1996, (61 FR 13144; March 26, 1996; Docket PS-140(d)), focused on criteria, components, and parameters of terms that have been used when describing USAs. These terms include the following: Significant, Threat of significant contamination, Contamination, Ecological, Drinking water resources, Recreational areas, Economic areas, Cultural areas, Readily available, and Uniform. Participants also discussed the scope and objectives of any additional USA workshops. API Technical Meeting on Drinking Water Resources On May 9-10, 1996, the API held a meeting of technical experts to discuss drinking water resources. RSPA and EPA attended this meeting and discussed our draft paper on drinking water resources that RSPA intended to present at its public workshop on drinking water resources. The draft discussed possible resource areas of primary concern and filtering criteria that could be used in determining which drinking water resources are unusually sensitive to damage from a hazardous liquid pipeline release. June 1996 Public Workshop: Drinking Water Resources RSPA held a fifth workshop on June 18-19, 1996, (61 FR 27323; May 31, 1996; Docket PS-140(e)) to discuss drinking water resources. Participants at this workshop included the EPA, the American Waterworks Association, Stanford University, the University of Alaska, and the public. This workshop focused on identifying critical drinking water resources (drinking water areas of primary concern) and possible filtering criteria that could be used to identify drinking water resources that are USAs. Participants identified public water systems, wellhead protection areas, and sole source aquifers as drinking water areas of primary concern. Filtering criteria discussed include the depth of the aquifer, the geology surrounding the drinking water resource, and if the public water system has an adequate alternative drinking water supply. Additional Technical Meetings In addition to the five public workshops, we have had over a dozen meetings with other government agencies to discuss drinking water, ecological, and cultural resources. The API has also held meetings of technical experts to discuss unusually sensitive drinking water and ecological resources. RSPA, EPA, the Departments of Interior, Commerce, and Agriculture, The Nature Conservancy, and academia attended the API meetings. API's technical meetings were on October 23-24, 1996, and June 25- 26, 1997. Attendees discussed possible ecological areas of primary concern and filtering criteria that could be used to determine which ecological resources are unusually sensitive to damage from a hazardous liquid pipeline release. The significant ecological resources that were identified during the meetings included threatened and endangered species, critically imperiled and imperiled species, depleted marine mammals, and areas containing a large percent of the world's population of a migratory waterbird species. Filtering criteria focused on the extent to which a species is endangered, areas that are critical to multiple sensitive species, and areas where a large percent of a species population could be impacted. Notes from these technical meetings are in the Docket. How RSPA Will Use the USA Definition RSPA will use the definition for identifying USAs in current and future regulations. Any regulatory application of this definition will be aimed at ensuring that operators implement appropriate protective measures for pipelines in USAs. Regulations where operators may have to identify USAs include the Risk-based Alternative to Pressure Testing Older Hazardous Liquid and Carbon Dioxide Pipelines (63 FR 59475; November 4, 1998), Response Plans for Onshore Oil Pipelines (62 FR 67292; December 24, 1997), Hazardous Liquid Pipelines Operated at 20% or Less of Specified Minimum Yield Strength (49 CFR Part 195), Emergency Flow Restricting Devices, (Docket PS-133), Increased Inspection Requirements, (Docket PS-141) and Pipeline Safety: Enhanced Safety and Environmental Protection for Gas Transmission and Hazardous Liquid Pipelines in High Consequence Areas, (64 FR 56725; October 21, 1999) Under the ``Risk-based Alternative to Pressure Testing Older Hazardous Liquid and Carbon Dioxide Pipelines'' rule (49 CFR Sec. 195.303), operators may elect a risk-based alternative in lieu of hydrostatically testing certain older pipelines. 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 when we issued the final rule (63 FR 59475; November 4, 1998), we explained that until we defined these areas, operators were to use their best judgement in applying this factor. We further said that we may define the environmental factor in a future rulemaking. Under 49 CFR part 194, ``Response Plans for Onshore Oil Pipelines,'' operators must consider areas of environmental importance that are in or adjacent to navigable waters for spill response planning. These regulations were mandated by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act as amended by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA). RSPA intends to amend the definition of environmental importance to include USAs, once USAs are defined. Hazardous liquid pipelines that operate at 20% of the specified minimum yield strength (SMYS) or less are currently exempt from 49 CFR part 195 regulations if they are in rural areas. When we issued the final rule extending 49 CFR part 195 regulations to certain pipelines operating at 20% SMYS or less (59 FR 35465; July 12, 1994), we deferred proposing to regulate non-hazardous volatile liquid low stress pipelines in rural environmentally sensitive areas. We did this because a definition of environmentally sensitive areas did not exist. We stated that we would revisit the issue once we defined such areas. In 49 USC 60102(j), we are required to survey and assess the effectiveness of EFRDs and other procedures, systems, and equipment used to detect and locate hazardous liquid pipeline ruptures, and to prescribe regulations on the circumstances under which an operator of a hazardous liquid pipeline facility must use an EFRD or other device. In an EFRD rulemaking (Docket PS-133), we will consider requiring operators to use an EFRD or other procedure or equipment on their pipelines located in USAs to mitigate the extent and impact of a release in the event of a failure. We must also (49 USC 60102(f)(2)) prescribe, if necessary, additional standards that require the periodic inspection of certain pipelines in USAs using an instrumented internal inspection device or another inspection method that is at least as effective as using the device. RSPA plans to address this mandate in a proposed rule in early CY 2000 (Docket PS-141). [[Page 73469]] RSPA recently held a public meeting to discuss the need for additional protection in high consequence areas. (Pipeline Safety: Enhanced Safety and Environmental Protection for Gas Transmission and Hazardous Liquid Pipelines in High Consequence Areas, 64 FR 56725; October 21, 1999). We stated that we planned to strengthen current pipeline safety regulations with respect to high consequence areas, including USAs. We will consider increased inspection, enhanced damage prevention, improved emergency response, and other preventive measures for pipelines in these areas. We recognize that inventories of USAs will have to be updated on a periodic basis to incorporate new information and databases, and to reflect changes in species listings and their locations and the availability of drinking water resources. We intend to identify the locations of USAs through a comprehensive collection and analysis of drinking water and ecological resource data, contingent on the availability of funding and resources. These areas will be mapped using the National Pipeline Mapping System. Operators will have access to these maps through the internet. Operators will then be able to determine which areas of their pipeline intersect USAs. Operators may need to contact resource agencies to obtain additional information on a particular species or drinking water intake. Existing Protections for Environmentally Sensitive Areas Currently, pipeline safety regulations on pipeline design, construction, operation, maintenance, emergency and spill response planning generally protect all environmentally sensitive areas, cultural resources, and economic resources. The pipeline design and construction standards specify how pipeline components must be designed, welded together, installed in the ditch, and replaced to ensure the pipeline is constructed in a safe manner. The design and construction standards also cover the design and location of valves and flanges to minimize any potential release. The operation and maintenance standards specify the pipeline's acceptable operating pressure, require personnel training, and require operators to perform inspection, monitoring, and testing to assure that the pipeline continues to operate in a safe manner. Emergency and spill response planning regulations are also in place that require the identification of areas of environmental importance and that operators have response capabilities in place to minimize the release and impact of a pipeline accident on these resources. In addition to current and intended future pipeline safety regulations, there are many other Federal, state, and local government regulations in place to protect sensitive resources. These include regulations to protect drinking water resources, threatened and endangered species, critical habitats for various species, and spawning areas. Areas have been created and designated to protect and maintain aquatic life, wildlife, various natural resources, and water resources. Permits from various Federal, state, and local agencies are needed before a pipeline can be installed or construction to modify or repair an existing line take place. Environmental reviews and consultations with resource experts are routinely conducting as part of the permit process. RSPA's existing and planned regulations complement these other Federal, state, and local government regulations on sensitive drinking water and ecological resources. Our Current Proposal for Identifying USAs We have developed our current proposed process for identifying USAs after extensive consultation with drinking water experts, conservation biologists, government agencies, and other stakeholders. This identification uses a process that begins by designating and assessing environmentally sensitive areas (ESAs), determining which of these 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 be reached by a release and sustain permanent or long-term damage. The areas that result are USAs. RSPA has considered, but has not included, everything listed in the pipeline safety statute and the Presidential memorandum that accompanied the 1996 statute. RSPA has focused on the resources that could suffer permanent or long-term environmental damage if affected by a hazardous liquid release. RSPA has looked beyond the boundaries of the national parks, wetlands, wildlife preservation areas, refuges, etc. to the ecological species and drinking water resources that could suffer irreparable harm if affected by a hazardous liquid release. Cultural resources, recreational resources, and economic resource areas are not being considered in this NPRM. These areas should be addressed as a separate risk factor and under separate regulations. We also believe that drinking water and ecological resources that do not qualify as USAs should also be addressed as a separate risk factor and under separate regulations. RSPA currently protects these resources under OPA's spill response plan requirements and will consider if additional measures are needed to better protect these areas. RSPA will issue additional regulations to protect these resources if it is determined that additional protections are needed. The following discusses the areas of primary concern and filtering criteria that RSPA proposes as standards for drinking water and ecological resources. Drinking Water Resources: Areas of Primary Concern Drinking water resource 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. Drinking water resource areas of primary concern include drinking water resources for permanent communities such as cities and towns, transient communities such as campgrounds, or individual domestic supplies for residential consumption. As defined by the EPA, the drinking water areas of primary concern that we are proposing include the following: A. Public Water Systems (PWS): provide piped water for human consumption to at least 15 service connections or serve an average of at least 25 people for at least 60 days each year. These systems include the sources of the water supplies--i.e., surface or ground. PWS can be community, non-transient non-community, or transient non- community systems, as described below: 1. Community Water System (CWS): a PWS that provides water to the same population year round. 2. Non-transient Non-community Water System (NTNCWS): a PWS that regularly serves at least 25 of the same people at least six months of the year. Examples of these systems include schools, factories, and hospitals that have their own water supplies. 3. Transient Non-community Water System (TNCWS): a PWS that caters to transitory customers in nonresidential areas. Examples of these systems include campgrounds, motels, rest stops, and gas stations. B. Wellhead Protection Areas (WHPA): the surface and subsurface area surrounding a well or well field that supplies a public water system through which contaminants are likely to pass [[Page 73470]] and eventually reach the water well or well field. C. Sole Source Aquifers (SSA): areas designated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under the Sole Source Aquifer program as the ``sole or principal'' source of drinking water for an area. Such designations are made if the aquifer's ground water supplies 50% or more of the drinking water for an area, and if that aquifer were to become contaminated, it would pose a public health hazard. Drinking Water Resources: Filtering Criteria Filtering criteria would be applied to the drinking water areas of primary concern to determine which of these areas are USAs. We believe the following filtering criteria would help identify which drinking water areas of primary concern are necessary for uninterrupted consumption by human populations and could be permanently affected, or have long term damage, from a hazardous liquid release. A. Filter Criterion #1: TNCWS intakes would not be designated as USAs. B. Filter Criterion #2: For CWS and NTNCWS that obtain their water supply primarily from surface water sources, and do not have an adequate alternative source of water, the water intakes would be designated as USAs. C. Filter Criterion #3: For CWS and NTNCWS that obtain their water supply primarily from ground water sources, where the source aquifer is identified as a Class I or Class IIa (as identified in Pettyjohn et al., 1991; EPA Document: EPA/600/2-91/043, August 1991; see Attachment A), and do not have an adequate alternative source of water, the WHPAs for such systems would be designated as USAs. D. Filter Criterion #4: For CWS and NTNCWS that obtain their water supply primarily from ground water sources, where the source aquifer is identified as a Class IIb, III, or Class U (as identified in Pettyjohn et al., 1991; EPA Document: EPA/600/2-91/043, August 1991; see Attachment A,) the public water systems that rely on these aquifers would not be designated as USAs. E. Filter Criterion #5: For CWS and NTNCWS that obtain their water supply primarily from ground water sources, where the source aquifer is identified as a Class I or Class IIa (as identified in Pettyjohn et al., 1991; EPA Document: EPA/600/2-91/043, August 1991; see Attachment A), and the aquifer is designated as a sole source aquifer, an area twice the WHPA would be designated a USA. Ecological Resources: Areas of Primary Concern On April 10-11, 1996, RSPA held a public workshop to discuss the elements that should define ecological resources (61 FR 13144, March 26, 1996). Participants concluded that ecological resources should include fish, wildlife, plants, biota and their habitats which may include land, air, and/or water. Examples of ecological resources are provided in a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Guidance Document issued in March 1994 (59 FR 14714). Ecological resources include sensitive fish, wildlife, plant, and habitat resources that are at risk from hazardous liquid spills. These include such resources as breeding, spawning, and nesting areas; early life stage concentration and nursery areas; wintering or migratory areas; rare, threatened, and endangered species locations; and other types of high concentration or sensitive areas. Ecological areas of primary concern are a subset of all ecological resources. These areas of primary concern are areas that contain ecological resources that are potentially more susceptible to permanent or long term environmental damage. We are proposing four resource categories as ecological areas of primary concern. These categories are susceptible to permanent or long term ecological damage due to inherent characteristics of rarity, imperilment, or the potential for loss of large segments of an abundant population during periods of migratory concentration. A. Areas Containing Critically Imperiled and Imperiled Species and Subtaxa: These areas contain known occurrences of animal and plant species that have such limited distribution that a hazardous liquid pipeline release could affect a significant percentage of the species population. There are a number of species that are at risk of extinction due to their extremely restricted distribution or limited numbers. These resources are identified, ranked, and inventoried by Natural Heritage Programs and Conservation Data Centers in conjunction with The Nature Conservancy (TNC). Under the TNC approach, each species is assigned a Global (or range-wide) Conservation Status Rank. This rank is based on several specific factors, including the number of known occurrences or populations, number of individuals, health of the population, its extinction potential, whether it is experiencing an increasing or decreasing trend, and if there are known threats to the species. Ecological areas of primary concern include occurrences of species and subtaxa with the following Global Ranks: 1. Critically imperiled: These species demonstrate extreme rarity (5 or fewer occurrences or fewer than 1,000 individuals) or extreme vulnerability to extinction due to some natural or man-made factor. There are approximately 1,300 species in the United States which are ranked as critically imperiled globally. Rare or extremely vulnerable subtaxa which are critically imperiled are included in this category, despite the conservation status of the species as a whole. 2. Imperiled: These species demonstrate rarity (6 to 20 occurrences or 1,000 to 3,000 individuals) or vulnerability to extinction due to some natural or man-made factor. There are approximately 1,800 species in the United States ranked as imperiled. Rare or vulnerable subtaxa which are imperiled are included in this category, despite the conservation status of the species as a whole. B. Areas Containing Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered (T&E) Species: These areas contain known occurrences of animal and plant species that have been listed and are protected under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA73) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). A summary of these listed species is published annually as the ``List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants'' (50 CFR 17.11 and 17.12). There are currently more than 1,000 listed T&E species in the United States. The term ``endange
- **truncated:** true
- **body characters:** 77293