[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]]
ops.comments@rspa.dot.gov 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
christina.sames@rspa.dot.gov. 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 ``endangered species'' is defined as ``any species which
is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of
its range'' (16 U.S.C. 1532). The term ``threatened species'' is
defined as ``any species which is likely to become an endangered
species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant
portion of its range'' (16 U.S.C. 1532). The term species includes
species, subspecies, and distinct vertebrate populations.
In addition, a species that has been proposed or is a candidate to
become a T&E species will become an ecological area of primary concern
upon its final listing as a T&E species in the Federal Register.
C. Areas Containing Depleted Marine Mammal Species: These areas
contain known occurrences of depleted species identified and protected
under the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (MMPA) (16
U.S.C. 1361 et seq.). The term ``depleted'' refers to marine mammal
species that are listed
[[Page 73471]]
as T&E or are below their optimum sustainable populations (16 U.S.C.
1362). The term ``species'' includes species, subspecies, or population
stocks. There are currently 18 species listed as ``depleted'' under the
MMPA. Eleven of these species are also listed as endangered and three
of these species are listed as threatened under the ESA73.
The term ``marine mammal'' is defined as ``any mammal which is
morphologically adapted to the marine environment (including sea otters
and members of the orders Sirenia, Pinnipedia, and Cetacea), or
primarily inhabits the marine environment (such as the polar bear)''
(16 U.S.C. 1362). The order Sirenia includes manatees, the order
Pinnipedia includes seals, sea lions, and walruses, and the order
Cetacea includes dolphins, porpoises, and whales.
D. Areas Containing a Large Percentage of the World's Population of
a Migratory Waterbird Species: These areas contain very high
concentrations of the world's population of a species for a short time.
An example would be those areas of the Delaware Bay where a major
portion of the world population of red knot (a shorebird species) stop-
over to feed during migration.
Two programs of international significance are responsible for
identifying and delimiting areas where significant populations of
migratory waterbirds congregate during critical periods. The first
program, the Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network (WHSRN),
ranks migratory shorebird concentration areas into four different
categories on the basis of biological criteria. These four categories
are:
1. Hemispheric reserves--these areas host at least 500,000
shorebirds annually or 30% of a species flyway population;
2. International reserves--these areas host 100,000 shorebirds
annually or 15% of a species flyway population;
3. Regional reserves--these areas host 20,000 shorebirds annually
or 5% of a species flyway population; and
4. Endangered species reserves--these areas are critical to the
survival of endangered species and no minimum number of birds is
required.
Eighteen WHSRN sites have been established in the United States
(Table 1).
A second program, The Convention on Wetlands of International
Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat (Ramsar), is dedicated to
identifying globally critical wetland areas supporting migratory
waterfowl. The establishment of a Ramsar site (Ramsar Articles, 1996)
includes the following specific criteria for waterfowl:
1. A wetland area that regularly supports 20,000 waterfowl, or
2. A wetland area that regularly supports substantial numbers of
individuals from particular groups of waterfowl, indicative of wetland
values, productivity, or diversity, or
3. Where data on populations are available, a wetland area that
regularly supports 1% of the individuals in a population of one species
or subspecies of waterfowl.
There are a total of 17 Ramsar sites in the United States. See
table 1 in the appendix to this document.
Additional information on the Ramsar and WHSRN sites is available
on the internet or from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of
International Affairs.
Ecological Resources: Filter Criteria
Filter criteria would be applied to the ecological resource areas
of primary concern to determine which are most susceptible to permanent
or long term environmental damage from a hazardous liquid pipeline
spill. These resources would be ecological USAs.
We are proposing three ecological filter criteria that are
consistent with current trends in conservation ecology to identify
areas with critically imperiled species, multi-species protection
sites, and migratory waterbird concentrations. The three criteria would
be applied in a multi-tiered process where all ecological areas of
primary concern receive repetitive consideration for USA status. For
example, an ecological area of primary concern is first subjected to
filter criterion 1, areas with critically imperiled species, and may be
designated an USA at this point. If the ecological area of primary
concern does not meet filter criterion 1, it then receives
consideration under filter criterion 2, multi-species protection areas,
and may be designated an USA at this point. If the ecological area of
primary concern does not meet filter criterion 2, it receives
consideration under filter criterion 3, migratory waterbird
concentration areas, and may be designated an USA at this point. If the
ecological area of primary concern does not meet filter criterion 3, it
remains an ecological area of primary concern. All ecological areas of
primary concern must be periodically reviewed to consider changes in
resource information or status. An ecological area of primary concern
would become a USA once it meets one of the filtering criteria.
A. Filter Criterion 1: Areas With Critically Imperiled Species
Filter criterion 1 selects those ecological areas of primary
concern that contain viable occurrences of species or subtaxa
designated as critically imperiled globally to be USAs. These species
or subtaxa demonstrate extreme rarity or extreme vulnerability to
extinction due to some natural or man-made factor. They typically have
five or fewer occurrences or fewer than 1,000 individuals globally. In
some cases, species or subtaxa may be identified as critically
imperiled because they are subject to an extreme threat of extinction
due to factors other than low number of occurrences or individuals.
The critically imperiled designation includes a wide variety of
plant and animal species and subtaxa. It includes approximately 64% of
the listed threatened and endangered species and 53% of those species
currently designated by the Departments of Interior and Commerce as
proposed or as candidates for listing under ESA73. This filter
criterion also selects an additional number of plant and animal species
and subtaxa not designated under ESA73. All ecological areas of primary
concern meeting this criterion would be considered USAs. Ecological
areas of primary concern that do not meet filter criterion 1 would then
be considered under filter criteria 2 and 3.
B. Filter Criterion 2: Multi-species Protection Areas
Filter criterion 2 selects the ecological areas of primary concern
that form multi-species assemblages. Multi-species assemblages are
defined as areas where three or more different critically imperiled or
imperiled species, threatened or endangered species, depleted marine
mammals, or migratory waterbird concentrations co-occur. These areas
are valuable since they often represent unique ecosystems. Multi-
species protection areas also protect a greater number of sensitive
resources per site location.
C. Filter Criterion 3: Migratory Waterbird Concentration Areas
Filter criterion 3 selects the ecological areas of primary concern
that are designated Ramsar sites. Filter criterion 3 also selects the
ecological areas of primary concern that are WHSRN sites ranked as
hemispheric, international, or endangered species reserves. These areas
are valuable since significant populations of migratory waterbirds
congregate in these areas during critical periods. Relatively common
species may be at risk at such sites. In some
[[Page 73472]]
cases, as much as 80% of the entire North American population of a
particular species may occur at one of these sites during critical
concentration periods.
Pilot Test
RSPA published a Notice of Intent to Pilot Test (64 FR 38173) on
July 15, 1999. This notice announced the commencement of a pilot test
to determine if the definition described in this NPRM could be used to
identify and locate unusually sensitive drinking water and ecological
resources using available data from government agencies and
environmental organizations. RSPA is conducting the pilot test using
the States of Texas, California, and Louisiana to test this proposed
USA definition due to the large number of hazardous liquid pipelines in
these states and the considerable drinking water and ecological
resources that exist in these states. RSPA and others will use the
results to evaluate whether the proposed definition identifies the
majority of unusually sensitive areas and whether environmental data is
accessible and appropriate to support the proposed definition. The
results of this pilot test will be used to create an industry guidance
document on unusually sensitive areas.
In this pilot test RSPA is:
Identifying pertinent drinking water data that have been
created and maintained by Federal or state government agencies,
environmental groups, or private organizations. This includes data on
public drinking water systems, aquifers, sole source aquifers, wellhead
protection areas, alternative drinking water resources, and aquifer
vulnerabilities.
Identifying pertinent ecological data that have been
created and maintained by Federal or state government agencies,
environmental groups, or private organizations. This includes data on
threatened and endangered species, critically imperilled and imperilled
species, depleted marine mammal species, and areas containing a large
percentage of the world's population of a migratory waterbird species.
Identifying data on land features, such as the location of
wetlands, rivers, transportation networks, and water routes (including
flow direction).
Obtaining, where possible, all pertinent drinking water,
ecological, and land feature data. All problems encountered in
gathering the data are being documented.
Determining if the obtained data can be used with the
proposed USA definition to identify and locate USAs. This includes
reviewing the data for accuracy, attributes, format, restrictions on
use, and determining if the resources and features were mapped with
sufficient precision.
Processing the data, using a geographic information system
(GIS), according to the proposed USA definition. Identifying all
problems encountered in processing the data.
Comparing the USA pilot results to other preservation area
identification efforts, where possible, and to all threatened and
endangered specie areas.
RSPA will publish a Notice of Availability in the Federal Register
and put the results of this pilot test on the OPS's Web Page: http://
ops.dot.gov for review and comment as soon as the results are
available. We currently expect to have the results in April 2000.
Technical Review
Drinking water and ecological resource experts will review the
pilot test to determine whether the results identify the majority of
unusually sensitive areas within the three pilot states. These experts
will come from the Departments of Interior, Agriculture, and Commerce,
the Environmental Protection Agency, state Nature Conservancies and
Heritage Programs. We will also use experts on drinking water and
ecological resources from state agencies, including the Texas Railroad
Commission, Texas Parks and Wildlife, the Louisiana Department of
Environmental Quality, the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and
Fisheries, the California Department of Fish and Game, and the
California State Fire Marshals Office.
These peer reviewers will help to identify other data sets that
might be utilized and other resources that might be considered, and to
improve the capability of the proposed USA definition to identify the
majority of USAs within the three states. RSPA will publish a Notice of
Availability in the Federal Register and the results of this peer
review on OPS's Web Page: http://ops.dot.gov as soon as the results are
available.
RSPA will also present this NPRM and the USA pilot results to the
Technical Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety Standards Committee
(THLPSSC). The THLPSSC is responsible for reviewing proposed federal
hazardous liquid pipeline safety standards and reporting on their
feasibility, reasonableness, and practicability. Representatives on the
THLPSSC include the Minerals Management Service, City of Fredericksburg
Virginia, U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Department of Commerce,
Virginia State Corporation Commission, Environmental Defense Fund, The
Nature Conservancy, Kenai Peninsula, Atlantic Consultants, Southwest
Research Institute, Buckeye Pipe Line, Lakehead Pipe Line, Kinder
Morgan Energy Partners, and Mobil Pipe Line.
Regulatory Analyses and Notices
A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Policies and Procedures
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) does not consider this
proposed rulemaking to be a significant regulatory action under Section
3(f) of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735; October 4, 1993).
Therefore, OMB has not reviewed this rulemaking document. DOT does not
consider this proposed rulemaking significant under its regulatory
policies and procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979).
This proposed definition will have no cost impact on the pipeline
industry or the public because it is only a definition. It requires no
immediate action on the part of pipeline operators. Potentially, it
could impact current or future regulations but this would require
specific rulemaking action. Because there is no accompanying action
requiring anything of pipeline operators, there is no need to examine
the cost impact. If future rulemakings require that operators take any
specific actions on pipelines that are in unusually sensitive areas,
then RSPA will perform a cost-benefit analysis to determine any
potential impact. Because operators are taking no actions there are
also no specific benefits attributable to this proposed definition.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The proposed rule would not impose additional requirements on
pipeline operators, including small entities that operate regulated
pipelines. Based on the above information showing that there is no
economic impact of this proposed rulemaking, I certify, pursuant to
Section 605 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605), that this
proposed rulemaking would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
C. Executive Order 13084
The proposed rule has been analyzed in accordance with the
principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13084,
``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments.''
Because the proposed rules would not significantly or uniquely affect
the Indian tribal governments, the funding and consultation
requirements of Executive Order 13084 do not apply.
[[Page 73473]]
D. Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposed rulemaking contains no information collection that is
subject to review by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
This proposed rulemaking would not impose unfunded mandates under
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. It would not result in costs
of $100 million or more to either State local, or tribal governments,
in the aggregate, or to the private sector, and would be the least
burdensome alternative that achieves the objective of the rule.
F. National Environmental Policy Act
We have analyzed the proposed rule for purposes of the National
Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) The information and
analysis provided in the Environmental Assessment demonstrate that the
proposed action to define USAs in Part 195.2 and 195.6 will not have
any significant environmental impact. However, as discussed in the
Environmental Assessment, RSPA is considering several rulemakings that
will provide additional protection for the USAs that will be identified
using this definition. At the time these rulemakings are proposed, RSPA
will perform Environmental Assessments to determine the impacts on the
environment of these new requirements. The Environmental Assessment
document is available for review in the docket.
G. Impact on Business Processes and Computer Systems
Many computers that use two digits to keep track of dates will, on
January 1, 2000, recognize ``double zero'' not as 2000 but as 1900.
This glitch, the Year 2000 problem, could cause computers to stop
running or to start generating erroneous data. The Year 2000 problem
poses a threat to the global economy in which Americans live and work.
With the help of the President's Council on Year 2000 Conversion,
Federal agencies are reaching out to increase awareness of the problem
and to offer support. We do not want to impose new requirements that
would mandate business process changes when the resources necessary to
implement those requirements would otherwise be applied to the Year
2000 Problem. This notice of proposed rulemaking does not propose
business process changes or require modifications to computer systems.
Because this notice apparently does not affect the ability of
organizations to respond to the Year 2000 problem, we do not intend to
delay the effectiveness of the regulatory definition proposed in this
notice.
H. Executive Order 12612
This action would not have substantial direct effects on states, on
the relationship between the Federal Government and the states, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels
of government. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 12612 (52
FR 41685; October 30, 1987), RSPA has determined that the proposed
regulation does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant
preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 195
Anhydrous Ammonia, Carbon dioxide, Hazardous liquids, Petroleum,
Pipeline Safety.
In consideration of the foregoing, RSPA hearby proposes to amend 49
CFR Part 195 as follows:
PART 195--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for Part 195 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5103, 60102, 60104, 60108, 60109, 60118,
and 49 CFR 1.53.
2. Section 195.2 would be revised by adding the following
definition in alphabetical order to read as follows:
Sec. 195.2 Definitions.
* * * * *
Unusually sensitive area (USA) means a drinking water or ecological
resource area that is unusually sensitive to environmental damage from
a hazardous liquid pipeline release, as identified under Sec. 195.6.
3. Section 195.6 would be added to read as follows:
Sec. 195.6 Unusually Sensitive Areas (USAs).
As used in this part, an USA means a drinking water or ecological
resource area that is unusually sensitive to environmental damage from
a hazardous liquid pipeline release.
(a) For drinking water resources: (1) The water intake for a
Community Water System (CWS), as defined under Sec. 195.6(c), or a Non-
transient Non-community Water System (NTNCWS), as defined under
Sec. 195.6(c), that obtains its water supply primarily from a surface
water source and does not have an adequate alternative source of water,
(2) The Wellhead Protection Area (WHPA) for a CWS, as defined under
Sec. 195.6(c), or a NTNCWS that obtains its water supply from a Class I
or Class IIA aquifer, as defined under Sec. 195.6(c), and does not have
an adequate alternative source of water, or
(3) An area twice the WHPA for a CWS or a NTNCWS that obtains its
water supply primarily from a sole source Class I or Class IIa aquifer
and does not have an alternative source of water.
(b) For ecological resources: (1) An area containing critically
imperiled species, as defined under Sec. 195.6(c),
(2) A multi-species protection area, as defined under
Sec. 195.6(c), or
(3) A migratory waterbird concentration area, as defined under
Sec. 195.6(c).
(c) As used in this part--Class I Aquifer means an aquifer that is
surficial or shallow, permeable, and is highly vulnerable to
contamination. A Class I aquifer may be a:
(1) Unconsolidated Aquifer (Class Ia) that consists of surficial,
unconsolidated, and permeable alluvial, terrace, outwash, beach, dune
and other similar deposits. These aquifers generally contain layers of
sand and gravel that, commonly, are interbedded to some degree with
silt and clay. Not all Class Ia aquifers are important water-bearing
units, but they are likely to be both permeable and vulnerable. The
only natural protection of these aquifers is the thickness of the
unsaturated zone and the presence of fine-grained material.
(2) Soluble and Fractured Bedrock Aquifer (Class Ib). Lithologies
in this class include limestone, dolomite, and, locally, evaporitic
units that contain documented karst features or solution channels,
regardless of size. Generally these aquifers have a wide range of
permeability. Also included in this class are sedimentary strata, and
metamorphic and igneous (intrusive and extrusive) rocks that are
significantly faulted, fractured, or jointed. In all cases groundwater
movement is largely controlled by secondary openings. Well yields range
widely, but the important feature is the potential for rapid vertical
and lateral ground water movement along preferred pathways, which
result in a high degree of vulnerability.
(3) Semiconsolidated Aquifer (Class Ic) that generally contains
poorly to moderately indurated sand and gravel that is interbedded with
clay and silt. This group is intermediate to the unconsolidated and
consolidated end members. These systems are common in the Tertiary age
rocks that are exposed throughout the Gulf and Atlantic coastal states.
Semiconsolidated conditions also arise from the presence of
intercalated clay and caliche within primarily unconsolidated to poorly
consolidated
[[Page 73474]]
units, such as occurs in parts of the High Plains Aquifer.
(4) Covered Aquifer (Class Id) that is any Class I aquifer overlain
by less than 50 feet of low permeability, unconsolidated material, such
as glacial till, lacustrian, and loess deposits.
Class IIa aquifer means a Higher Yield Bedrock Aquifer that is
consolidated and is moderately vulnerable to contamination. These
aquifers generally consist of fairly permeable sandstone or
conglomerate that contain lesser amounts of interbedded fine grained
clastics (shale, siltstone, mudstone) and occasionally carbonate units.
In general, well yields must exceed 50 gallons per minute to be
included in this class. Local fracturing may contribute to the dominant
primary porosity and permeability of these systems.
Community Water System (CWS) means a public water system that
provides water to the same population year round.
Critically imperiled species means a species of extreme rarity,
based on The Nature Conservancy's Global Conservation Status Rank.
These species have 5 or fewer occurrences or fewer than 1,000
individuals, or are extremely vulnerable to extinction due to some
natural or man-made factor.
Depleted Marine Mammal species means a species that has been
identified and is protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act of
1972, as amended (MMPA) (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.). The term ``depleted''
refers to marine mammal species that are listed as threatened or
endangered, or are below their optimum sustainable populations (16
U.S.C. 1362). The term ``marine mammal'' means ``any mammal which is
morphologically adapted to the marine environment (including sea otters
and members of the orders Sirenia, Pinnipedia, and Cetacea), or
primarily inhabits the marine environment (such as the polar bear)''
(16 U.S.C. 1362). The order Sirenia includes manatees, the order
Pinnipedia includes seals, sea lions, and walruses, and the order
Cetacea includes dolphins, porposes, and whales.
Imperiled species means a rare species, based on The Nature
Conservancy's Global Conservation Status Rank. These species have 6 to
20 occurrences or 1,000 to 3,000 individuals, or are vulnerable to
extinction due to some natural or man-made factor.
Migratory waterbird concentration area means a designated Ramsar
site or Western Hemisphere Shoreline Reserve Network site ranked as
hemispheric, international, or endangered species reserve.
Multi-species protection area means an area where three or more
different critically imperiled or imperiled species, threatened or
endangered species, depleted marine mammals, or migratory waterbird
concentrations co-occur.
Non-transient Non-community Water System (NTNCWS) means a public
water system 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.
Public Water System (PWS) means a system that provides piped water
for human consumption to at least 15 service connections or serves 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.
Ramsar site means a site that has been designated under The
Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Especially as
Waterfowl Habitat program. Ramsar sites are globally critical wetland
areas that support migratory waterfowl. These include wetland areas
that regularly support 20,000 waterfowl; wetland areas that regularly
support substantial numbers of individuals from particular groups of
waterfowl, indicative of wetland values, productivity, or diversity; or
wetland areas that regularly support 1% of the individuals in a
population of one species or subspecies of waterfowl.
Sole Source Aquifer (SSA) means an area 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.
Species means species, subspecies, population stocks, or distinct
vertebrate populations.
Threatened and Endangered Species (T&E) means an animal or plant
species that has been listed and is protected under the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA73) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
``Endangered species'' is defined as ``any species which is in danger
of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range''
(16 U.S.C. 1532). ``Threatened species'' is defined as ``any species
which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable
future throughout all or a significant portion of its range'' (16
U.S.C. 1532).
Transient Non-Community Water System (TNCWS) means a public water
system that caters to transitory customers in nonresidential areas.
Examples of these systems include campgrounds, motels, rest stops, and
gas stations.
Wellhead Protection Area (WHPA) means the surface and subsurface
area surrounding a 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.
Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network (WHSRN) site means an
area that contains migratory shorebird concentrations and has been
designated as a hemispheric reserve, international reserve, regional
reserve, or endangered species reserve. Hemispheric reserves host at
least 500,000 shorebirds annually or 30% of a species flyway
population. International reserves host 100,000 shorebirds annually or
15% of a species flyway population. Regional reserves host 20,000
shorebirds annually or 5% of a species flyway population. Endangered
species reserves are critical to the survival of endangered species and
no minimum number of birds is required.
Richard B. Felder,
Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.
Appendix
Note: This appendix will not appear in the Code of Federal
Regulations.
Table 1.--Currently Recognized Migratory Waterbird Protection Areas in the U.S.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Site name State Size (ha) Location coordinates
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ramsar Sites:
Ash Meadows National Wildlife Nevada................. 9,509 36 deg.25'N 116 deg.20'W
Refuge.
Bolinas Lagoon.................. California............. 445 37 deg.55'N 112 deg.41'W
[[Page 73475]]
Cache-Lower White Rivers........ Arkansas............... 81,376 34 deg.40'N 091 deg.11'W
Cache River-Cypress Creek Illinois............... 24,281 37 deg.13'N 089 deg.08'W
Wetlands.
Caddo Lake...................... Texas.................. 8,382 32 deg.45'N 094 deg.08'W
Catahoula Lake.................. Louisiana.............. 12,150 31 deg.30'N 092 deg.06'W
Chesapeake Bay Estuarine Complex Virginia............... 45,000 38 deg.00'N 076 deg.20'W
Cheyenne Bottoms State Game Area Kansas................. 8,036 38 deg.29'N 098 deg.40'W
Connecticut River Estuary & Connecticut............ 6,484 41 deg.15'N 072 deg.18'W
Tidal Wetland Complex.
Delaware Bay Estuary............ Delaware and New Jersey 51,252 39 deg.11'N 075 deg.14'W
Edwin B Forsythe National New Jersey............. 13,080 39 deg.36'N 074 deg.17'W
Wildlife Refuge.
Everglades National Park MR..... Florida................ 566,143 25 deg.00'N 080 deg.55'W
Horicon Marsh................... Wisconsin.............. 12,911 43 deg.30'N 088 deg.38'W
Izembek Lagoon National Wildlife Alaska................. 168,433 55 deg.45'N 162 deg.41'W
Refuge.
Okefenokee National Wildlife Georgia, Florida....... 159,889 30 deg.49'N 082 deg.20'W
Refuge.
Pelican Island National Wildlife Florida................ 1,908 27 deg.48'N 080 deg.25'W
Refuge.
Sand Lake National Wildlife South Dakota........... 8,700 45 deg.45'N 098 deg.15'W
Refuge.
WHSRN Sites:
Copper River Delta.............. Alaska.................
Kachemak Bay.................... Alaska.................
Mono Lake....................... California.............
Grasslands...................... California.............
San Francisco Bay............... California.............
Delaware Bay.................... Delaware, New Jersey...
American Falls.................. Idaho..................
Cheyenne Bottoms................ Kansas.................
Quivira......................... Kansas.................
Barrier Islands................. Maryland, Virginia.....
Benton Lake..................... Montana................
Stillwater...................... Nevada.................
Salt Plains..................... Oklahoma...............
Cape Roman...................... South Carolina.........
Bolivar Flats................... Texas..................
Brazoria Refuge Complex......... Texas..................
Great Salt Lake................. Utah...................
Gray's Harbor................... Washington.............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attachment A
Recommended Data Source: EPA Report 600/2-91/043. Regional
Assessment of Aquifer Vulnerability and Sensitivity in the
Conterminous United States. Office of Research and Development.
Washington, DC. 319pp.
The following information was obtained from pages 6-8 of the
above report:
Class I Aquifers (Surficial or Shallow, Permeable Units; Highly
Vulnerable to Contamination)
Unconsolidated Aquifers (Class Ia)
Class Ia aquifers consist of surficial, unconsolidated, and
permeable alluvial, terrace, outwash, beach, dune and other similar
deposits. These units generally contain layers of sand and gravel
that, commonly, are interbedded to some degree with silt and clay.
Not all deposits mapped as Class Ia are important water-bearing
units, but they are likely to be both permeable and vulnerable. The
only natural protection of aquifers of this class is the thickness
of the unsaturated zone and the presence of fine-grained material.
Soluble and Fractured Bedrock Aquifers (Class Ib)
Lithologies in this class include limestone, dolomite, and,
locally, evaporitic units that contain documented karst features or
solution channels, regardless of size. Generally these systems have
a wide range in permeability. Also included in this class are
sedimentary strata, and metamorphic and igneous (intrusive and
extrusive) rocks that are significantly faulted, fractured, or
jointed. In all cases groundwater movement is largely controlled by
secondary openings. Well yields range widely, but the important
feature is the potential for rapid vertical and lateral ground water
movement along preferred pathways, which result in a high degree of
vulnerability.
Semiconsolidated Aquifers (Class Ic)
Semiconsolidated systems generally contain poorly to moderately
indurated sand and gravel that is interbedded with clay and silt.
This group is intermediate to the unconsolidated and consolidated
end members. These systems are common in the Tertiary age rocks that
are exposed throughout the Gulf and Atlantic coastal states.
Semiconsolidated conditions also arise from the presence of
intercalated clay and caliche within primarily unconsolidated to
poorly consolidated units, such as occurs in parts of the High
Plains Aquifer.
Covered Aquifers (Class Id)
This class consists of any Class I aquifer that is overlain by
less than 50 feet of low permeability, unconsolidated material, such
as glacial till, lacustrian, and loess deposits.
Class II Aquifers (Consolidated Bedrock Aquifers; Moderately
Vulnerable)
Higher Yield Bedrock Aquifers (Class IIa)
These aquifers generally consist of fairly permeable sandstone
or conglomerate that contain lesser amounts of interbedded fine
grained clastics (shale, siltstone, mudstone) and occasionally
carbonate units. In general, well yields must exceed 50 gpm to be
included in this class. Locally fracturing may contribute to the
dominant primary porosity and permeability of these systems.
Lower Yield Bedrock Aquifers (Class IIb)
In most cases, these aquifers consist of sedimentary or
crystalline rocks. Most commonly, lower yield systems consist of the
same clastic rock types present in the higher yield systems, but in
the former case grain size is generally smaller and the degree of
cementation or induration is greater, both of which lead to a lower
permeability. In many existing and ancient mountain regions, such as
the Appalachians (Blue Ridge and Piedmont), the core consists of
crystalline rocks that are fractured to some degree. Well yields are
commonly less than 50 gpm, although they may be larger in valleys
than on interstream divides.
Covered Bedrock Aquifers (Class IIc)
This group consists of Class IIa and IIb aquifers that are
overlain by less than 50 feet of unconsolidated material of low
[[Page 73476]]
permeability, such as glacial till, lacustrian, or loess deposits.
It is assumed that most Class V wells are relatively shallow and,
therefore, 50 feet or less of fine grained cover could reduce but
not necessarily eliminate the vulnerability of underlying Class II
systems.
Class III (Consolidated or Unconsolidated Aquifers That Are
Overlain by More Than 50 Feet of Low Permeability Material; Low
Vulnerability)
Aquifers of this type are the least vulnerable of all the
classes because they are naturally protected by a thick layer of
fine grained material, such as glacial till or shale. Examples
include parts of the Northern Great Plains where the Pierre Shale of
Cretaceous age crops out over thousands of square miles and is
hundreds of feet thick. In many of the glaciated states, till forms
an effective cover over bedrock or buried outwash aquifers, and
elsewhere alternating layers of shale, siltstone, and fine grained
sandstone insulate and protect the deeper major water bearing zones
* * *
Class U (Undifferentiated Aquifers)
This classification is used where several lithologic and
hydrologic conditions are present within a mappable area. Units are
assigned to this class because of constraints of mapping scale, the
presence of undelineated members within a formation or group, or the
presence of nonuniformly occurring features, such as fracturing.
This class is intended to convey a wider range of vulnerability than
is usually contained within any other single class.
Subclass V (Variable Covered Aquifers)
The modifier ``v'', such as Class IIa-v, is used to describe
areas where an undetermined or highly variable thickness of low
permeability sediments overlie the major water bearing zone. To
provide the largest amount of information, the underlying aquifer
was mapped as if the cover were absent, and the ``v'' designation
was added to the classification. The ``v'' indicates that a variable
thickness of low permeability material covers the aquifer and, since
the thickness of the cover, to a large degree, controls
vulnerability, this aspect is undefined.
[FR Doc. 99-33614 Filed 12-29-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P
