Wednesday
September 30, 1998
Part VII
Environmental
Protection Agency
Final Modification of the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) Storm Water Multi-Sector
General Permit for Industrial Activities
Termination of the EPA NPDES Storm
Water Baseline Industrial General Permit
Notice
-------
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 189/Wednesday, September 30, 1998 /Notices
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[FRL-6162-4]
Final Modification of the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) Storm Water Multi-
Sector General Permit for Industrial
Activities; Termination of the EPA
NPDES Storm Water Baseline
Industrial General Permit
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final notice of modifications to
the NPDES Storm Water Multi-Sector
General Permit for Industrial Activities
and Termination of the EPA Storm
Water Baseline Industrial General
Permit.
SUMMARY: The Regional Administrators
of EPA Regions I, II, III, IV, VI, IX, and
X are today providing final notice of
modifications to EPA's final NPDES
Storm Water Multi-Sector General
Permit (MSGP) which was first issued
on September 29, 1995 (60 FR 50804),
and amended on February 9, 1996 (61
FR 5248), February 20, 1996 (61 FR
6412), and September 24, 1996 (61 FR
50020). EPA has modified the MSGP to
authorize storm water discharges from
previously excluded facilities so that
they may be covered by the MSGP after
expiration of EPA's Baseline Industrial
General Permit. EPA also finalized the
following limited specific changes to the
MSGP as published on September 29,
1995 (60 FR 50804): (1) Authorization of
mine dewatering discharges from
construction sand and gravel, industrial
sand, and crushed stone mines in EPA
Regions I, II and X; (2) inclusion in
Sector A of the MSGP of the effluent
limitation guideline in 40 CFR Part 429,
Subpart I for discharges resulting from
spray down of lumber and wood
products in storage yards (wet decking);
(3) clarification that Sectors X and AA
authorize discharges from all facilities
in major SIC groups 27 and 34
respectively; (4) addition of new Sector
AD to the MSGP to authorize discharges
from Phase I facilities which may not
fall into one of the original sectors of the
permit, and selected Phase II discharges
which are designated for permitting in
accordance with 40 CFR 122.26(g)(l)(i);
(5) modification of inspection
requirements in Sector I for inactive oil
and gas extraction facilities which are
remotely located and unstaffed; (6)
addition of new Addendum I to provide
guidance and information to assist
applicants with determining permit
eligibility concerning protection of
historic properties; and (7) update of the
county/species list of endangered and
threatened species found in Addendum
H, and provide a listing of additional
sources to reference for future updates
to the list.
The Regional Administrators are also
providing final notice that the Agency is
not reissuing the NPDES storm water
Baseline Industrial General Permit
which was issued on September 9, 1992
(57 FR 41236) or September 25, 1992 (57
FR 44438), depending on the geographic
area of applicability, and to terminate
this permit (with the limited exceptions
discussed in Section I below) upon final
modification of the multi-sector permit.
As a result, all industrial facilities
previously permitted under the Baseline
Industrial General Permit, except as
otherwise specified in this notice, are
required to seek storm water permit
coverage under the modified MSGP
within 90 days after the publication of
this final notice or submit an
application for an individual NPDES
permit.
This action also provides notice for
the issuance of the final NPDES MSGP
(including today's modifications) for
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity for American Samoa
and the Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands (CNMI). The geographic
area of coverage of the MSGP is being
revised today to include American
Samoa and CNMI on the list of areas for
which discharges may be authorized.
DATES: The modifications to the MSGP
are effective upon publication of this
notice for discharges for which EPA is
currently the permitting authority. This
will allow new dischargers which have
not been able to obtain discharge
authorization since the Baseline
Industrial General Permit expired to
obtain coverage under the MSGP as
soon as possible. Except as specified
otherwise in this notice, termination of
administratively extended permit
coverage for facilities permitted under
the Baseline Industrial General Permit
will take effect 92 days after the date of
publication of this notice in areas where
EPA is the NPDES permitting authority.
Where EPA has approved State NPDES
programs with authority over discharges
covered by the Baseline Industrial
General Permit, that permit will remain
in effect by operation of law until
superseded by either 'a State-issued
NPDES permit or an EPA permit issued
under section 402 (d) (4) of the Clean
Water Act.
ADDRESSES: The index to the
administrative record for this permit is
available at the appropriate Regional
Office or from the EPA Water Docket
Office in Washington, DC. The
administrative record is stored in two
locations. Documents immediately
referenced in this modification notice
are stored at the EPA Water Docket
Office at the address listed below. All
other documents which were used to
support the original issuance of the
MSGP in 1995 are a supplement to the
record for this modification action but
are stored at Science Applications
International Corporation (SAIC), 1710
Goodridge Drive, McLean, Virginia
22102. These materials include, for
example, the permit applications and
sampling data provided to EPA by group
applicants. The immediate and
supplemental record is available for
inspection from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. For appointments to examine
any portion of the administrative record,
please call the Water Docket Office at
(202) 260-3027. Copies of the final
permit modifications may be acquired
from the Office of Water Resource
Center by dialing (202) 260-7786. A
reasonable fee may be charged for
copying. Specific record information
can also be made available at the
appropriate Regional Office upon
request.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
further information on the final permit
modifications, contact the appropriate
EPA Regional Office. The name, address
and phone number of the EPA Regional
Storm Water Coordinators are provided
in Part III.H of this Fact Sheet.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
following Fact Sheet provides
background information and
explanations for the permitting actions
and modifications taken by EPA in
today's notice. The actual language of
the final permit modifications appears
after Appendix B of the Fact Sheet.
Fact Sheet
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. Coverage of Final Modified MSGP
III. Requirements for Transferred Facilities
A. Notification Requirements
1. Historic Preservation
2. Endangered Species
3. North American Industry Classification
System
B. Special Conditions
1. Non-storm Water Discharges
2. Releases of Reportable Quantities of
Hazardous Substances and Oil
3. Co-located Industrial Facilities
C. SWPPP Requirements
1. Deadline for SWPPP Revision and
Implementation for Transferred Facilities
2. Special Requirements for Facilities
Subject to EPCRA Section 313
D. Monitoring and Reporting Requirements
1. Sampling Schedule
2. Sample Type
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 189/Wednesday, September 30, 1998/Notices
52431
3. Quarterly Visual Examination
Requirements of the MSGP
4, Exemptions for Analytical Monitoring
5. Reporting Requirements
E. Numeric Effluent Limitations
F. Miscellaneous Final Permitting Actions
1. Coverage of Mine Dewatering Discharges
In EPA Regions I. II and X
2, Discharges Resulting from Spray Down
of Lumber and Wood Products in Storage
Yards in Sector A
3. Clarification of Coverage in Sectors X
and AA of the MSGP
4, Addition of Sector AD to the MSGP
5. Modification of Inspection Requirements
for Inactive Oil and Gas Extraction
Facilities in Sector I
G. Response to National Mining Association
Concerning Sector G of the MSGP
H. Regional Offices
IV. Cost Estimates
V. Economic Impact (Executive Order 12866)
VI. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
VII. Paperwork Reduction Act
VOL Regulatory Flexibility Act
IX. Official Signatures
X. Notice of Final MSGP for American Samoa
and the Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands (CNM1)
Appendix A—Summary of Responses to
Public Comments on the July 11,1997,
Proposal to Modify the Multi-Sector
General Permit and Terminate the
Baseline Industrial General Permit
Appendix B—Summary of MSGP and
Baseline Permit Requirements
I. Background
On September 9,1992 (57 FR 41175)
or September 25. 1992 (57 FR 44412),
depending on the geographic area
Involved, EPA Issued a final NPDES
storm water baseline Industrial general
permit (not Including construction
activity) for the following areas:
EPA Region /—for the States of Maine,
Massachusetts and New Hampshire; and
for Indian country located in
Massachusetts, New Hampshire and
Maine.
EPA Region II—for Puerto Rico and
Indian country located in New York.
(On April 14. 1993. EPA proposed
modifications to the baseline general
permit Issued In Puerto Rico to address
changes to the 401 certification
conditions requested by the
Environmental Quality Board (EQB) of
Puerto Rico. On September 24. 1993 the
changes became final. These
modifications, however, did not alter
the original issuance and expiration
date of the baseline general permit in
Puerto Rico.)
EPA Region III—for the District of
Columbia and Federal facilities in
Delaware.
EPA Region IV—for the State of
Florida; and for Indian country located
in Florida, Mississippi, and North
Carolina.
EPA Region V3-for the States of
Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma and
Texas; and for Indian country located in
Louisiana, New Mexico (except Navajo
lands and Ute Mountain Reservation
lands\ Oklahoma, and Texas.
EPA Region WZf-for the State of
South Dakota; for Indian country
located in Colorado, Montana, South
Dakota, North Dakota, Utah (except
Goshute Reservation and Navajo
Reservation lands), and Wyoming; for
Federal facilities in Colorado; and for
the Ute Mountain Reservation in
Colorado and New Mexico.
EPA Region IX-for the State of
Arizona; for the Territories of Johnston
Atoll, American Samoa, Guam, and
Midway and Wake Islands; and for
Indian country located in California,
and Nevada; and for the Goshute
Reservation in Utah and Nevada, the
Navajo Reservation in Utah, New
Mexico, and Arizona, the Duck Valley
Reservation in Nevada and Idaho.
EPA Region X-for the States of
Alaska and Idaho; for Indian country
located in Alaska, Idaho (except Duck
Valley Reservation lands), and
Washington; and for Federal facilities in
Washington.
Most of the above areas were covered
by the September 9, 1992, notice of
permit issuance. The September 25,
1992, notice covered only the States of
Florida (except for Indian lands which
were covered by the September 9, 1992
notice) and Massachusetts, Puerto Rico,
the District of Columbia, Guam and
American Samoa, Indian country in
New York and Federal facilities in
Delaware. The baseline permit expired
on September 9, 1997 or September 25,
1997, depending on the area of
applicability, and EPA is not reissuing
the baseline permit in those areas where
today's MSGP modification is effective.
As a result, most industrial facilities
previously permitted under the baseline
permit (except for those located in
certain excluded areas discussed below)
are therefore required to seek storm
water permit coverage under today's
modified MSGP or an individual permit.
The MSGP which was originally issued
on September 29, 1995 (60 FR 50804),
and amended on February 9, 1996 (61
FR 5248), February 20, 1996 (61 FR
6412). and September 24, 1996 (61 FR
50020).
The excluded areas where the
baseline permit will continue to apply
are those areas where the baseline
permit had been effective, but where the
modified MSGP is not effective. These
areas include Federal facilities in
Colorado, and Indian country located in
Colorado (including the portion of the
Ute Mountain Reservation located in
New Mexico), Montana, North Dakota,
South Dakota (including the portion of
the Pine Ridge Reservation located in
Nebraska), Utah (except for the Goshute
and Navajo Reservation lands (see
Region IX)) and Wyoming. Maintaining
storm water permit coverage under the
baseline permit is necessary since the
MSGP does not apply to facilities '
located in these areas, and the Agency
is not expanding the MSGP's scope of
coverage to include them through this
modification. In addition, for facilities
where individual permits are required,
baseline permit coverage will be
extended until final determinations are
made on the individual permit
applications.
EPA's July 11, 1997 notice of the
proposed modification of the MSGP had
included American Samoa among the
areas where the baseline permit would
be extended (62 FR 37448). However,
since the MSGP is now effective in
American Samoa by today's action (see
Section X below), extension of the
baseline permit is no longer necessary
in this area.
There are also a few areas where the
baseline permit was issued but not the
MSGP, where the baseline permit is
nevertheless being terminated. These
areas are Indian country in New York,
North Carolina and Mississippi. Only a
very small number of permittees exist in
these areas and individual permits will
be issued as needed.
Permit numbers for New Hampshire
Federal Indian Reservations
(NHR05*##F) and Vermont Federal
Indian Reservations (VTR05*##F) have
been removed from the EPA Region I
"Areas of Coverage" in the final permit
modification because no Federally
recognized Tribes exist in these States.
It should also be pointed out that in
certain states which had been covered
by the 1992 baseline permit, the NPDES
permit program has now been delegated
to the state (except for Indian country in
these states). These states are South
Dakota, Louisiana and Oklahoma, and
permittees in these states (except for
certain oil and gas facilities in
Oklahoma) are now subject to
permitting by the state. In Oklahoma,
EPA will maintain NPDES permitting
authority over oil and gas exploration
and production related industries, and
pipeline operations, which are regulated
by the Oklahoma Corporation
Commission (See 61 FR 65049).
Oklahoma received NPDES program
authorization for only those discharges
covered by the authority of the
Oklahoma Department of Environmental
Quality (ODEQ).
-------
52432
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 189/Wednesday, September 30, 1998/Notices
The action of transferring permittees
currently covered by the baseline permit
to the MSGP is consistent with the long-
term permitting strategy for storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity which was finalized on April 2,
1992 (57 FR 11394). This strategy
includes the following four permitting
tiers:
Tier I—Baseline Permitting—One or
more general permits will be developed
to initially cover the majority of storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity.
Tier II—Watershed Permitting—
Facilities within watersheds shown to
be adversely impacted by storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity will be targeted for individual
or watershed-specific general permits.
Tier IE—Industry-Specific
Permitting—Specific industry categories
will be targeted for individual or
industry-specific general permits.
Tier IV—Facility-Specific
Permitting—A variety of factors will be
used to target specific facilities for
individual permits.
The long-term permitting strategy
begins with baseline permitting as was
done in 1992 with the baseline general
permit. However, baseline permitting
may not provide optimum water quality
benefits since the same basic permit
conditions are applied to a wide variety
of facilities operating in different
geographic areas. As such, the long-term
strategy also calls for additional
permitting over time with more specific
permit conditions developed for
facilities in Tiers II, III and IV above.
The MSGP is based on information
received as a result of the group permit
application process described at 40 CFR
122.26(c)(2). EPA received applications
from approximately 1,200 groups
representing nearly all of the categories
of industrial facilities listed in the storm
water regulations at 40 CFR
122.26(b)(14). To facilitate permit
issuance for the group applications, EPA
consolidated the groups into 29
industrial sectors, with subsectors also
included in certain sectors as
appropriate.
The group applications included
information concerning the specific
types of operations which are present at
the different types of industrial
facilities, potential sources of pollutants
from the facilities, industry-specific best
management practices (BMPs) which are
available, and monitoring data from the
different types of facilities. Using this
information, EPA was able to develop
sector-specific BMPs for the MSGP
which are better tailored to controlling
the discharges of pollutants from the
various facilities than the requirements
of the baseline permit which only
include generic BMP requirements
which are applied across a wide variety
of industries. In addition, the
monitoring requirements of the MSGP
are based on actual monitoring data
rather than best professional judgment
which is largely the case for the baseline
permit.
Given the above factors, EPA believes
that the MSGP should provide improved
water quality benefits as compared to
the baseline permit. For this reason, and
in accordance with the long-term
permitting strategy, EPA is transferring
permit coverage from the baseline
permit to the MSGP after expiration of
the baseline permit.
As discussed in Section II below, the
MSGP omitted coverage for a small
number of categories of facilities which
were authorized to discharge under the
baseline general permit. As such, EPA is
today modifying the coverage of the
MSGP to include these categories in
order that they may be eligible for
coverage when transferring from the
baseline permit to the MSGP.
H. Coverage of Final Modified MSGP
The final modified multi-sector storm
water permit covers storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity in most geographic areas where
EPA is the NPDES permitting authority,
described earlier in this fact sheet. In
accordance with the long-term
permitting strategy discussed above,
EPA's intent when issuing the baseline
general permit was to cover all of the
categories of industrial facilities which
may discharge storm water associated
with industrial activity as defined at 40
CFR 122.26(b)(14). The baseline permit
did include certain generic coverage
limitations which are also found in
Section I.B.3 of the MSGP. These
exclusions include discharges such as
those which may contribute to a
violation of a water quality standard,
and discharges which adversely affect
endangered species or their critical
habitat.
As noted above, group applications
were not received from all of the
categories of facilities listed at 40 CFR
122.26 (b) (14), and certain categories
were not included in the MSGP which
had been included in the baseline
permit. In order to cover all the types of
facilities to be transferred from the
baseline permit, EPA is today expanding
the coverage of the MSGP to authorize
storm water discharges from these
additional categories of facilities.
The MSGP had already authorized
storm water discharges from a wide
range of industrial facilities which are
summarized below in Table 1:
TABLE 1.—SECTOR/SUBSECTORS COVERED BY THE MSGP
Subsector
SIC code
Activity
represented
Sector A. Timber Products
1*
2
3* .
4*
2421
2491
2411
2426
2429
243X" (except 2434)
244X
245X
2493
2499
General Sawmills and Planning Mills.
Wood Preserving. :
Log Storage and Handling.
Hardwood Dimension and Flooring Mills.
Special Product Sawmills, Not Elsewhere Classified.
Millwork, Veneer, Plywood, and Structural Wood.
Wood Containers.
Wood Buildings and Mobile Homes.
Reconstituted Wood Products.
Wood Products, Not Elsewhere Classified.
Sector B. Paper and Allied Products Manufacturing
1
2
3*
4
261 X
262X
263X
265X
Pulp Mills.
Paper Mills.
Paperboard Mills.
Paperboard Containers and Boxes.
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 189/Wednesday, September 30, 1998/Notices
52433
TABLE 1.—SECTOR/SUBSECTORS COVERED BY THE MSGP—Continued
Subsoctor
SIC code
Activity represented
5 267X Converted Paper and Paperboard Products, Except Containers and Boxes
Sector C. Chemical and Allied Products Manufacturing
1* 281X Industrial Inorganic Chemicals.
2* 282X Plastics Materials and Synthetic Resins, Synthetic Rubber, Cellulosic and Other Manmade Fi-
bers Except Glass.
4* 284X Soaps, Detergents, and Cleaning Preparations; Perfumes, Cosmetics, and Other Toilet Prep-
arations.
5 285X Paints, Varnishes, Lacquers, Enamels, and Allied Products.
6 286X Industrial Organic Chemicals.
7* « 287X Agricultural Chemicals.
8 289X Miscellaneous Chemical Products.
9 3952 (limited to list) Inks and Paints, Including China Painting Enamels, India Ink, Drawing Ink, Platinum Paints for
Burnt Wood or Leather Work, Paints for China Painting, Artist's Paints and Artist's Water-
colors.
Sector D. Asphalt Paving and Roofing Materials Manufacturers and Lubricant Manufacturers
1* 295X Asphalt Paving and Roofing Materials.
2 299X Miscellaneous Products of Petroleum and Coal.
Sector E. Glass, Clay, Cement, Concrete, and Gypsum Product Manufacturing
1 321X Flat Glass.
322X Glass and Glassware, Pressed or Blown.
323X Glass Products Made of Purchased Glass.
2 3241 Hydraulic Cement.
3* 325X Structural Clay Products. /
326X (except 3261) Pottery and Related Products.
3297 Non-Clay Refractories.
4* 327X (except 3274) Concrete, Gypsum and Plaster Products.
3295 Minerals and Earth's, Ground, or Otherwise Treated.
Sector F. Primary Metals
1* 331X Steel Works, Blast Furnaces, and Rolling and Finishing Mills.
2* 332X Iron and Steel Foundries.
3 333X Primary Smelting and Refining of Nonferrous Metals.
4 , 334X Secondary Smelting and Refining of Nonferrous Metals.
5* 335X Rolling, Drawing, and Extruding of Nonferrous Metals.
6* 336X Nonferrous Foundries (Castings).
7 339X Miscellaneous Primary Metal Products.
Sector G. Metal Mining (Ore Mining and Dressing) ***
1 101X Iron Ores.
2* 102X Copper Ores.
3 103X Lead and Zinc Ores.
4 , 104X Gold and Silver Ores.
5 106X Ferroalloy Ores, Except Vanadium.
8 108X Metal Mining Services.
7 ., 109X Miscellaneous Metal Ores.
Sector H. Coal Mines and Coal Mining-Related Facilities
NA* 12XX Coal Mines and Coal Mining-Related Facilities.
^ Sector I. Oil and Gas Extraction
1* 131X Crude Petroleum and Natural Gas.
2 132X Natural Gas Liquids.
3* 138X Oil and Gas Field Services.
Sector J. Mineral Mining and Dressing
1* 141X Dimension Stone.
142X Crushed and Broken Stone, Including Rip Rap.
148X Nonmetallic Minerals, Except Fuels.
2* 144X Sand and Gravel.
3 145X Clay, Ceramic, and Refractory Materials.
4 ., 147X Chemical and Fertilizer Mineral Mining.
-------
52434
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 189/Wednesday, September 30, 1998/Notices
TABLE 1.—SECTOH/SUBSECTORS COVERED BY THE MSGP—Continued
Subsector
SIC code
Activity represented
149X
Miscellaneous Nonmetallic Minerals, Except Fuels.
Sector K. Hazardous Waste Treatment Storage or Disposal Facilities
NA*
NA
Hazardous Waste Treatment Storage or Disposal.
Sector L. Landfills and Land Application Sites
NA*
NA
Landfills and Land Application Sites.
Sector M. Automobile Salvage Yards
NA*
5015
Automobile Salvage Yards.
Sector N. Scrap Recycling Facilities
NA*
5093
Scrap Recycling Facilities.
Sector O. Steam Electric Generating Facilities
NA*
NA
Steam Electric Generating Facilities.
NA*
Sector P. Land Transportation
1
2
3
4
5
40XX
41 XX
42XX (except 4221-4225)
43XX
5171
Railroad Transportation.
Local and Highway Passenger Transportation.
Motor Freight Transportation and Warehousing.
United States Postal Service.
Petroleum Bulk Stations and Terminals.
Sector Q. Water Transportation
44XX
Water Transportation.
Sector R. Ship and Boat Building or Repairing Yards
NA
373X
Ship and Boat Building or Repairing Yards.
Sector S. Air Transportation Facilities
NA*
45XX
Air Transportation Facilities.
Sector T. Treatment Works
NA*
NA
Treatment Works.
Sector U. Food and Kindred Products
1 ..
2 ..
3 ..
4*
5 ..
6 ..
7*
8 ..
9 ..
201X
202X
203X
204X
205X
206X
207X
208X
209X
21XX
Meat Products. „„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„!„„„„„„„„„„„„„>
Dairy products."""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Canned, Frozen and Preserved Fruits, Vegetables and Food Specialties.
Grain Mill Products.
Bakery Products.
Sugar and Confectionery Products.
Fats and Oils.
Beverages.
Miscellaneous Food Preparations and Kindred Products Manufacturing.
Tobacco Products Manufacturing.
Sector V. Textile Mills, Apparel, and Other Fabric Product
22XX
23XX
Textile Mill Products. ....
Apparel and Other Finished Products Made From Fabrics and Similar Materials.
Sector W. Furniture and Fixtures
,NA
25XX
2434
Furniture and Fixtures.
Wood Kitchen Cabinets.
Sector X. Printing and Publishing
NA,
2732
2752
2754
Book Printing. ;
Commercial Printing, Lithographic.
Commercial Printing, Gravure.
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 189 /Wednesday, September 30, 1998/Notices 52435
Subssctor
1*
2
NA
NA
1*
2*
NA
NA
NA
TABLE 1.— SECTOR/SUBSECTORS COVERED BY THE MSGP— Continued
SIC code
2759
2796
Activity represented
Commercial Printing, Not Elsewhere Classified.
Platemaking and Related Services.
Sector Y. Rubber, Miscellaneous Plastic Products, and Miscellaneous Manufacturing Industries
301X
302X
305X
306X
308X
393X
394X
395X
396X
399X
311X
NA
Tires and Inner Tubes.
Rubber and Plastics Footwear.
Gaskets, Packing, and Sealing Devices and Rubber and Plastics Hose and Belting.
Fabricated Rubber Products, Not Elsewhere Classified.
Miscellaneous Plastics Products.
Musical Instruments.
Dolls, Toys, Games and Sporting and Athletic Goods.
Pens, Pencils, and Other Artists' Materials.
Costume Jewelry, Costume Novelties, Buttons, and Miscellaneous Notions, Except Precious
Metal.
Miscellaneous Manufacturing Industries.
Sector Z. Leather Tanning and Finishing
Leather Tanning and Finishing.
Facilities that Make Fertilizer Solely from Leather Scraps and Leather Dust.
Sector AA. Fabricated Metal Products
3429
3441
3442
3443
3444
3451
3452
3462
3471
3494
3496
3499
391X
3479
Cutlery, Hand Tools, and General Hardware.
Fabricated Structural Metal Products.
Metal Doors; Sash, Frames Molding and Trim.
Fabricated Plate Work (Boiler Shops).
Sheet Metal Work.
Screw Machine Products.
Bolts, Nuts, Screws, Rivets, and Washers.
Metal Forgings and Stampings.
Electroplating, Plating, Polishing, Anodizing, and Coloring.
Valves and Pipe Fittings, Not Elsewhere Classified.
Miscellaneous Fabricated Wire Products.
Miscellaneous Fabricated Metal Products.
Jewelry, Silverware, and Plated Ware.
Coating, Engraving, and Allied Services.
Sector AB. Transportation Equipment, Industrial or Commercial Machinery
35XX (except 357)
37XX (except 357)
Industrial and Commercial Machinery (except Computer and Office Equipment.
Transportation Equipment (except Ship and Boat Building and Repairing).
Sector AC. Electronic, Electrical, Photographic and Optical Goods
36XX
38XX
357
Electronic, Electrical.
Measuring, Analyzing and Controlling Instrument; Photographic and Optical Goods.
Computer and Office Equipment.
, monitoring requirements.
from 0 to 9 in the SIC code. NA indicates those industry sectors in which subdivision into subsec-
*"EPA Intends to issue a modification'of the MSGP for this section shortly, in a separate FR notice.
EPA reviewed the categories of
additional facilities to be added to the
MSGP and also considered the coverage
and existing requirements of the various
sectors/subsectors already Included in
the MSGP. Based on this review, EPA
concluded that for each category of
facility to be added, a sector/subsector
of the MSGP was available with
appropriate BMP and monitoring
requirements for the new categories.
The new categories of facilities, and the
sectors/subsectors in which they have
been added by today's MSGP
modification, are summarized in Table
2 below. EPA has also added a new
Sector AD which will allow coverage for
any regulated storm water discharge
associated with industrial activity not
described by any of the other sectors.
TABLE 2.—PLACEMENT OF ADDITIONAL FACILITIES INTO THE MSGP
SIC code
MSGP sector/subsector
2833-2836—Medicinal chemicals and botanical products; pharma-
ceutical preparations; In vitro and in vivo diagnostic substances- bio
logical products, except diagnostic substances
2911—Petroleum refining
Subsector i (Drugs) of Sector C—Chemical and Allied Products Manu-
facturing
Sector I—Oil and Gas Extraction
-------
federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 189/Wednesday, September 30. 1998/Notices
TABLE 2.—PLACEMENT OF ADDITIONAL FACILITIES INTO THE MSGP—Continued
SIC code
MSGP sector/subsector
3131—Boot and shoe cut stock and findings (leather soles, inner soles
other boot and finished wood heels).
3142-3144—house slippers; men's dress, street and work shoes; wom-
en's dress, street and work shoes
3149—Footwear, except rubber, include athletic shoes
3151—Leather gloves and mittens
3161—Luggage and cases
3171—Women's handbags and purses, leather
3172—personal leather goods, e.g., billfolds, key cases, coin purses
checkbooks, etc..
3199—Leather goods, not elsewhere classified, e.g., saddlery, belts
holsters, leather aprons
3231—Glass products, made of purchased glass
3261—Vitreous china plumbing fixtures, and china and earthenware fit
ting and bathroom accessories
3274—Lime, agricultural/building lime, dolomite, lime plaster
3281—Cut stone and stone products, benches, blackboards, table tops
pedestals, etc..
3291—Abrasive products
3292—Asbestos products, tiles, building materials, except paper, insu
lating pipe coverings
3296—Mineral wool, insulation
3299—Nonmetallic mineral products, not elsewhere classified, plaste
of Paris and paper-mache, etc.
4221-5—Warehousing facilities without trucking services ,
Sector V—Textile Mills, Apparel and other Fabric Products
Sector V—Textile Mills, Apparel and other Fabric Products
Sector V-
Sector V-
Sector V-
Sector V-
Sector V-
-Textile Mills, Apparel and other Fabric Products
-Textile Mills, Apparel and other Fabric Products
-Textile Mills, Apparel and other Fabric Products
-Textile Mills, Apparel and other Fabric Products
-Textile Mills, Apparel and other Fabric Products
LF—Open dumps
Sector V—Textile Mills, Apparel and other Fabric Products
Subsector 1 (Glass Products) of Sector E—Glass, Clay, Cement, Con-
crete, and Gypsum Product Manufacturing
Subsector 3 (Structural clay products, pottery and related products and
non-clay refractories) of Sector E—Glass, Clay , Cement, Concrete
and Gypsum Product Manufacturing
Subsector 4 (Concrete, Gypsum and Plaster Products) of Sector E—
Glass Clay, Cement, Concrete, and Gypsum Product Manufacturing
Subsector 1 (Glass Products) of Sector E—Glass, Clay, Cement, Con-
crete, and Gypsum Product Manufacturing
Subsector 1 (Glass Products) of Sector E—Glass, Clay, Cement, Con-
crete, and Gypsum Product Manufacturing
Subsector 1 (Glass Products) of Sector E—Glass, Clay, Cement, Con-
crete, and Gypsum Product Manufacturing
Subsector 1 (Glass Products) of Sector E—Glass, Clay, Cement, Con-
crete, and Gypsum Product Manufacturing
Subsector 1 (Glass Products) of Sector E—Glass, Clay, Cement, Con-
crete, and Gypsum Product Manufacturing
Subsector 3 (Motor Freight Transportation and Warehousing) of Sector
P—Land Transportation
Sector L—Landfills and Land Application Sites
After a permittee previously covered
by the baseline permit transfers to the
MSGP, the effluent limitations,
monitoring requirements and other
conditions of the MSGP apply to the
permittee's facility as appropriate based
on the sector/subsector in which facility
falls. The requirements for the new
categories of facilities which have been
added to the MSGP are those set forth
in the MSGP for the sectors/subsectors
shown above in Table 2. Section III
below discusses the differences between
the baseline permit and the MSGP and
the requirements for transferred
facilities.
III. Requirements for Transferred
Facilities
In today's notice, EPA is making
certain clarifications and interpretations
regarding how certain conditions of the
MSGP will apply to permittees
transferring from the baseline general
permit. These interpretations and
clarifications address: (1) Deadlines for
storm water pollution prevention plan
revisions and implementation for
transferring permittees; (2) MSGP
sampling schedules and sample types;
(3) the submittal of sampling data; (4)
applicability of certain limitations; (5)
the applicability of the Endangered
Species Act (ESA) and National Historic
Preservation Act (NHPA); (6) the
applicability of the co-located activities
requirements; (7) use of the NOI form;
(8) applicability of the new North
American Industry Classification
System (NAICS); (9) non-storm water
discharges; (10) releases of reportable
quantities of hazardous substances and
oil; and (11) exemptions from analytical
monitoring. These clarifications are
discussed below.
The requirements of the MSGP,
including sector-specific requirements
were described in detail in the fact sheet
accompanying the original issuance of
the MSGP (September 29, 1995, 60 FR
50804) and is incorporated by reference
into this fact sheet. All transferring
facility operators should acquire a copy
of the 1995 multi-sector general permit
and study it carefully to ensure full
compliance with all terms and
conditions. Certain important
requirements for facilities which
transfer to the MSGP from the baseline
general permit are emphasized below.
. A. Notifications Requirements
To obtain coverage under the
modified MSGP, facilities which
acquired extended coverage under the
baseline industrial general permit in
accordance with the provisions of the
Administrative Procedures Act must
submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) not later
than 90 days after the effective date of
this MSGP modification. Baseline
general permittees that applied for and
received extended coverage which are
located in areas identified in Part II.A.9.
of this modification where the permit is
not being terminated may remain
covered by the baseline permit until
further notice from EPA. Conversely,
baseline general permittees that applied
for and received extended baseline
permit coverage which are ineligible for
MSGP coverage per Part II. A. 10 must
submit an application for an individual
NPDES permit and may remain covered
under the baseline permit until a final
decision is made by EPA on their
individual permit.
Under today's final modification, Part
II.A.9 is added to the MSGP which
includes a 90 day period after the
effective date of the modified MSGP for
submittal of an NOI for facilities
transferring to the MSGP. The NOI form
currently in use for the MSGP can be
found in Addendum B to the MSGP
published on September 29, 1995 (60 FR
51265). For convenience, this form is
also attached to this modification.
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 189/Wednesday, September 30. 1998/ Notices
52437
The NOI form for the MSGP differs
from the form for the original 1992
baseline permit In that new
requirements have been added to ensure
compliance with the National Historic
Preservation Act (NHPA) and
Endangered Species Act (ESA). A
discussion of these requirements, as
applicable to facilities transferring
permit coverage to the MSGP, follows
below:
1. Historic Preservation
The National Historic Preservation
Act (NHPA) requires Federal agencies to
take Into account the effects of Federal
undertakings, Including undertakings
on historic properties that are either
listed on, or eligible for listing on, the
National Register of Historic Places. The
term "Federal undertaking" Is defined
In the existing NHPA regulations to
Include any project, activity, or program
under the direct or Indirect jurisdiction
of a Federal agency that can result in
changes in the character or use of
historic properties, if any such historic
properties are located in the area of
potential effects for that project, activity,
or program, See 36 CFR 802(o). Historic
properties are defined in the NHPA
regulations to Include prehistoric or
historic districts, sites, buildings,
structures, or objects that are included
In. or are eligible for Inclusion in, the
National Register of Historic Places. See
36CFR802(e).
Federal undertakings include the
EPA's issuance of general NPDES
permits. In light of NHPA requirements,
EPA Included a provision In the
eligibility requirements of the 1995
MSGP for the consideration of the
effects to historic properties. That
provision provides that an applicant is
eligible for permit coverage only If: (1)
the applicant's storm water discharges
and best management practices (BMPs)
to control storm water runoff do not
affect a historic property, or (2) the
applicant has obtained, and is in
compliance with, a written agreement
between the applicant and the State
Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO)
that outlines all measures to be taken by
the applicant to mitigate or prevent
adverse effects to the historic properly.
See Part I.B.6.60 FR 51112 (September
29, 1995). When applying for permit
coverage, applicants are required to
certify In the NOI that they are in
compliance with the Part I.B.6 eligibility
requirements. Provided there are no
other factors limiting permit eligibility,
MSGP coverage is then granted 48 hours
after the postmark on the envelope used
to mall the NOI.
In today's modification EPA is
Including two revisions with respect to
historic properties. First, EPA is
amending Part I.B.6.(ii) to include a
reference to Tribal Historic Preservation
Officers (THPOs) because MSGP
coverage extends to Tribal lands and in
recognition of the central role Tribal
governments play in the protection of
historic resources. Second, EPA is
including guidance and a list of SHPO
and THPO addresses in new Addendum
I to the MSGP to assist applicants with
the certification process for permit
eligibility under this condition.
Facilities being transferred from the
baseline permit which cannot certify
compliance with the NHPA
requirements must submit individual
permit applications to the permitting
authority in accordance with the time
frames set forth above for NOI submittal.
2. Endangered Species
The ESA of 1973 requires Federal
Agencies such as EPA to insure, in
consultation with the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (also
known collectively as the "Services"),
that any actions authorized, funded, or
carried out by the Agency (e.g., EPA
issued NPDES permits authorizing
discharges to waters of the United
States) are not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of any Federally-
listed endangered or threatened species
or adversely modify or destroy critical
habitat of such species (see 16 U.S.C.
1536(a)(2), 50 CFR 402 and 40 CFR
122.49(c)). This consultation resulted in
a joint Service biological opinion issued
by the FWS on March 31,1995, and by
the NMFS on April 5, 1995, which
concluded that the issuance and
operation of the MSGP was not likely to
jeopardize the existence of any listed
endangered or threatened species, or
result in the adverse modification or
destruction of any critical habitat. The
MSGP contains a number of conditions
to protect listed species and critical
habitat. Permit coverage is only
provided where:
• The storm water discharge(s), and
the construction of Best Management
Practices (BMPs) to control storm water
runoff, are not likely to adversely affect
species identified in Addendum H of
the permit; or
• The applicant's activity has
received previous authorization under
the Endangered Species Act and
established an environmental baseline
that is unchanged; or,
• The applicant is implementing
appropriate measures as required by the
Director to address adverse effects.
Addendum H of the permit contained
a list of proposed and listed endangered
and threatened species that could be
affected by the discharges and measures
to control pollutants in the discharges.
The Addendum also provided
instructions to assist applicants in
determining whether they met the above
eligibility requirements.
Because EPA determined that this
permit modification is an action that
may affect listed endangered and
threatened species, EPA reinitiated ESA
§ 7 consultation on July 16, 1997. On
April 24, 1998, the US Fish and Wildlife
Service and on May 1, 1998, the
National Marine Fisheries Service
provided written concurrences on EPA's
findings that this modification is not
likely to result in adverse effects to
listed species or critical habitat.
As a result of this consultation and in
response to public comments on the
modification, EPA has updated the
species list in Addendum H to include
species that were listed or proposed for
listing since the Addendum H list was
compiled on March 31, 1995. EPA has
also decided to expand the list to
include all of the terrestrial (i.e., non-
aquatic) listed and proposed species in
recognition that those species may be
impacted by permitted activities such as
the construction and operation of the
BMPs. The Addendum H list will be
updated on a regular basis and an
electronic copy of that list will be made
available at the Office of Wastewater
Management website at "http://
www.epa.gov/owm". Information on the
availability of an electronic list is also
being added to the Addendum H
instructions. Addendum H, updated as
of July 8, 1998, has been attached in
Section VII of today's final MSGP
modification.
EPA is not changing any other ESA-
related conditions in this modification
because it believes that the current
permit conditions have been successful
in ensuring the protection of listed and
proposed species and critical habitat.
To be eligible for coverage under the
MSGP, facilities which are being
transferred from the baseline permit
must review the list of species and their
locations which are contained in the
updated Addendum H of the MSGP and
which are described in the instructions
for completing the application
requirements under this permit. If an
applicant determines that none of the
species identified in the Addendum are
found in the county in which the
facility is located, then there is no
likelihood of an adverse effect and they
are eligible for permit coverage.
Applicants must then certify that their
discharges, and the construction of
storm water BMPs, are not likely to
adversely affect species and will be
granted MSGP permit coverage 48 hours
-------
Federal Reglster/Vol. 63, No. 189/Wednesday, September 30, 1998/Notices
after the date of the postmark on the
envelope used to mail the NOI form,
provided there are no other factors
limiting permit eligibility.
If species identified in Addendum H
are found to be located in the same
county as the facility seeking MSGP
coverage, then the applicant must
determine whether the species are in
proximity to the storm water discharges
at the facility, or any BMPs to be
constructed to control storm water
runoff. A species is in proximity to a
storm water discharge when the species
is located in the path or down gradient
area through which or over which point
source storm water flows from
industrial activities to the point of
discharge into the receiving water, and
once discharged into the receiving
water, in the immediate vicinity of, or
nearby, the discharge point. A species is
also in proximity if a species is located
in the area of a site where storm water
BMPs are planned to be constructed. If
an applicant determines there are no
species in proximity to the storm water
discharge, or the BMPs to be
constructed, then there is no likelihood
of adversely affecting the species and
the applicant is eligible for permit
coverage.
If species are in proximity to the
storm water discharges or areas of BMP
construction, as long as they have been
considered as part of a previous ESA
authorization of the applicant's activity,
and the environmental baseline
established in that authorization is
unchanged, the applicant may be
covered under the permit. The
environmental baseline generally
includes the past and present impacts of
all Federal, state and private actions that
were occurring at the time the initial
NPDES authorization and current ESA
section 7 action by EPA was taken.
Therefore, if a permit applicant has
received previous authorization and
nothing has changed or been added to
the environmental baseline established
in the previous authorization, then
coverage under this permit will be
provided.
In the absence of such previous
authorization, if species identified in
Addendum H are in proximity to the
discharges or construction areas for
BMPs, then the applicant must
determine whether there is any likely
adverse effect upon the species. This is
done by the applicant conducting a
further examination or investigation, or
an alternative procedure, as described in
the instructions in Addendum H of the
permit. If the applicant determines that
there is no likely adverse effect upon the
species, then the applicant is eligible for
permit coverage. If the applicant
determines that there likely is, or will
likely be an adverse effect, then the
applicant is not eligible for MSGP
coverage.
All dischargers applying for coverage
under the MSGP must provide in the
application information on the Notice of
Intent form: (1) A determination as to
whether there are any species identified
in Addendum H in proximity to the
storm water discharges and BMP
construction areas, and (2) a
certification that their storm water
discharges and the construction of
BMPs to control storm water are not
likely to adversely affect species
identified in Addendum H, or are
otherwise eligible for coverage due to a
previous authorization under the ESA.
Coverage is contingent upon the
applicant's providing truthful
information concerning certification and
abiding by any conditions imposed by
the permit. :
Dischargers (including those being
transferred to the MSGP from the
baseline permit) who are not able to
determine whether there will be any
adverse effect on species, cannot sign
the certification to gain coverage under
the MSGP and must apply to EPA for an
individual NPDES storm water permit.
The deadlines for the individual
applications are the same as those given
above for the NOIs for facilities
transferred from the baseline permit. As
appropriate, EPA will conduct ESA
section 7 consultation when issuing
such individual permits.
Regardless of the above conditions,
EPA may require that a permittee apply
for an individual NPDES permit on the
basis of possible adverse effects on
species or critical habitats. Where there
are concerns that coverage for a
particular discharger is not sufficiently
protective of listed species, the Services
(as well as any other interested parties)
may petition EPA to require that the
discharger obtain an [individual NPDES
permit and conduct an individual
section 7 consultation as appropriate.
In addition, the Assistant
Administrator for Fisheries for the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, or his/her authorized
representative, or the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (as well as any other
interested parties) may petition EPA to
require that a permittee obtain an
individual NPDES permit. The
permittee is also required to make the
SWPPP, annual site compliance
inspection report, or other information
available upon request to the Assistant
Administrator for Fisheries for the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, or his/her authorized
representative, or the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service Regional Director, or
his/her authorized representative.
These mechanisms allow for the
broadest and most efficient coverage for
the permittee while still providing for
the most efficient protection of
endangered species. They significantly
reduce the number of dischargers that
must be considered individually and
therefore allow the Agency and the
Services to focus their resources on
those discharges that are indeed likely
to adversely affect listed species.
Straightforward mechanisms such as
these allow applicants more immediate
access to permit coverage, and
eliminates "permit limbo" for the
greatest number of permitted discharges.
At the same time it is more protective
of endangered species because it allows
both agencies to focus on the real
problems, and thus, provide endangered
species protection in a more expeditious
manner.
3. North American Industry
Classification System
EPA recognizes that a new North
American Industry Classification
System (NAICS) was recently adopted
by the Office of Management and
Budget (62 FR 17288. April 9, 1997).
NAICS replaces the 1987 standard
industrial classification (SIC) code
system for the collection of statistical
economic data. However, the use of the
new system for nonstatistical purposes
is optional. EPA considered the use of
NAICS for the modified multi-sector
permit, but elected to retain the 1987
SIC code system since the storm water
regulations (40 CFR 122.26(b)(14))
reference the existing system and this
system has generally proven to be
adequate. EPA will address the new
NAICS system in future rule making.
B. Special Conditions
The MSGP includes certain special
conditions which are similar to
corresponding conditions found in the
baseline general permit. Except for the
requirements for co-located facilities
(Section III.B.3 below), permittees
which have been operating under the
baseline permit should generally be
familiar with these requirements
already.
1. Non-storm Water Discharges
Non-storm water discharges are
generally not authorized by either the
MSGP or the baseline permit. However,
both permits do authorize a list of minor
non-storm discharges such as fire
hydrant flushings, potable water
sources, routine external building
washdown water, uncontaminated
ground water and certain other
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 189/Wednesday, September 30, 1998/Notices
52439
discharges, provided the discharges are
Identified in the SWPPP and
appropriate pollution prevention
measures are included for the
discharges. In addition, permittees
should also check the sector-specific
SWPPP requirements in the MSGP for
any additional requirements pertaining
to non-storm water requirements.
2. Releases of Reportable Quantities of
Hazardous Substances and Oil
The MSGP and the baseline general
permit include the same conditions
pertaining to releases of reportable
quantities of hazardous substances and
oil. Such releases must be reported to
the National Response Center and the
permitting authority, and the SWPPP
must be amended to prevent such
discharges in the future.
3. Co-located Industrial Facilities
The MSGP Includes a special
condition pertaining to co-located
facilities which was not included in the
baseline general permit (see 60 FR
50813). Iran industrial plant includes
co-located facilities which fall into more
than one sector of the MSGP. then the
sector-specific SWPPP and monitoring
requirements for both sectors apply to
the plant. The baseline permit had
required that when an Industrial plant
includes facilities which fall into more
than one monitoring category, then the
facility overall must comply with the
monitoring requirements of both
categories. However, the baseline permit
did not Include sector-specific BMP
requirements. In addition, both the
baseline permit and the MSGP provide
that if monitoring for the same
parameter Is required for more than one
category (or sector), then only one
sample analysis Is required for that
parameter.
C. SWPPP Requirements
Both the baseline general permit and
the MSGP require that permittees
develop and implement SWPPPs to
control the discharge of pollutants in
storm water discharges. The SWPPPs
required by the baseline permit
included various generic BMPs for all
categories of facilities covered by the
permit. The following is a summary of
the requirements:
* Pollution Prevention Team—the
SWPPP must identify the individuals
who are responsible for development
and Implementation of the SWPPP.
• Site Evaluation—the SWPPP must
include a map of the facility and an
assessment of the potential sources of
storm water pollution at the facility.
• Generic BMPs including good
housekeeping, preventive maintenance,
spill prevention and response, employee
training, record keeping, non-storm
water discharge evaluation, erosion
control measures and storm water
management measures as appropriate.
• Comprehensive site inspection/
compliance evaluation.
• Special requirements for Emergency
Planning and Community Right to
Know Act (EPCRA) Section 313
facilities.
The baseline general permit required
that covered facilities develop their
SWPPPs no later than April 1, 1993, and
come into compliance with their
SWPPPs by October 1, 1993. The MSGP
(as amended on February 9, 1996, 61 FR
5248) required that covered facilities
develop and implement their SWPPPs
by September 25, 1996. However, the
MSGP also allows up to 3 years after
permit finalization.(i.e., no later than
September 29, 1998) for completion of
control measures identified in the
SWPPP which involve construction.
The SWPPP which is required by the
MSGP includes the same basic BMPs
which are found in the baseline general
permit and also sector-specific BMPs
which are unique to the types of
facilities in the various sectors. As such,
the SWPPPs which have been
developed by facilities which are
currently operating under the baseline
permit should already include the basic
requirements of the MSGP. However,
facilities which are transferred to the
MSGP from the baseline permit will
have to review the sector-specific BMP
requirements of the MSGP and, as
needed, upgrade their SWPPPs to
comply with the requirements of the
MSGP. Appendix B to this fact sheet
summarizes the sector-specific
requirements of the MSGP, including
sector-specific SWPPP requirements,
monitoring requirements (with a
comparison to baseline permit
requirements), numeric effluent
limitations and inspection
requirements. A more detailed
description can be found in Section VIII
of the September 29, 1995 fact sheet.
1. Deadline for SWPPP Revision and
Implementation for Transferred
Facilities
EPA has added a special deadline to
the MSGP for SWPPP revision and
implementation for transferred facilities
(Part IV.A.10). The modified MSGP
requires SWPPP modification and
implementation within 180 days after
the effective date of the MSGP
modification. However, to implement
control measures involving
construction, transferred facilities have
until October 1, 2000, which provides
approximately the same amount of time
for implementing constructed BMPs as
the original MSGP. During the time
period prior to SWPPP upgrade, the
existing requirements of the baseline
permit apply and are incorporated into
the MSGP.
2. Special Requirements for Facilities
Subject to EPCRA Section 313
Requirements
The MSGP includes the same special
BMP requirements for facilities subject
to the reporting requirements of Section
313 of the EPCRA as are found in the
baseline general permit. Both permits
require certain additional BMPs for
facilities which are required to report
for "water priority chemicals."
However, the list of suclrchemicals in
the MSGP (Addendum F of the MSGP)
differs somewhat from the list in the
baseline permit due to changes in
EPCRA reporting requirements which
occurred subsequent to the issuance of
the baseline permit. As such, facilities
transferring to the MSGP should check
the MSGP's list of "water priorities
chemicals" to determine whether the
special EPCRA requirements would
apply.
The baseline permit also requires that
the SWPPP for facilities subject to
EPCRA Section 313 be certified by a
professional engineer every 3 years.
However, the MSGP only requires
certification in accordance with the
regular signatory requirements of the
permit, i.e., by a responsible corporate
official.
The MSGP also provides an
exemption from the EPCRA Section 313
requirements for situations where an
operator certifies that all water priority
chemicals which are handled and/or
stored on-site are only in gaseous or
non-soluble liquid or solid forms (at
atmospheric pressure and temperature).
This exemption was not included in the
baseline permit, and some facilities may
be eligible for this exemption upon
transfer from the baseline permit to the
MSGP.
D. Monitoring and Reporting
Requirements
Both the baseline general permit and
the MSGP include analytical storm
water monitoring requirements for
certain categories of dischargers.
However, the requirements differ
somewhat with regard to the parameters
for which sampling and analysis are
required, and the industrial categories
which are affected. In addition, the
MSGP (Sector M) does not include the
provision in the baseline permit for auto
recyclers that monitoring only be
required for facilities above a certain
-------
federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 189/Wednesday, September 30, 1998/Notices
size. The group application monitoring
data did not support such an exemption.
Appendix B to this fact sheet
summarizes the monitoring
requirements of the MSGP, and the
differences from the baseline permit.
Additional information can be found in
the fact sheets accompanying the
issuance of the baseline permit (see 57
FR 41248) and the MSGP (see 60 FR
50822). Facilities which are transferred
to the MSGP from the baseline permit
are required to comply with the
requirements of the MSGP. The key
differences are discussed below:
1. Sampling Schedule
The MSGP differs from the baseline
permit with regards to the schedule for
analytical monitoring. The baseline
permit had required monitoring for
certain facilities once or twice each year
during the term of the permit. The
MSGP, however, requires monitoring
quarterly, as appropriate, during years
two and four of the term of the permit.
For purposes of this monitoring, year
two runs from October 1, 1996, through
September 30, 1997. For transferred
facilities and other dischargers
obtaining MSGP coverage after
September 30, 1997 (i.e., new
dischargers, existing unpermitted
dischargers and dischargers
transitioning industrial storm water
discharge permit coverage from an
individually drafted NPDES permit to
the MSGP), monitoring will only be
required in year four (October 1, 1998,
through September 30, 1999) since year
two has already passed.
Also, as discussed below in Section
HI.E, both the baseline permit and the
MSGP authorize certain discharges
subject to numeric effluent limitations.
Section III.E discusses the limits, and
the sampling and reporting
requirements.
2. Sample Type
The baseline general permit required
grab and composite sampling for most
parameters. As an alternative, the
baseline permit also provided that one
grab sample may be taken from a
holding pond with a retention period
greater than 24 hours. The requirements
of the MSGP, however, have been
simplified in that only a grab sample is
required for all sectors except Sector S
(air transportation) where grab and
composite samples are required. Both
the baseline permit arid MSGP require
that the grab sample be taken within the
first 30 minutes of the discharge, unless
this is impractical, in which case
sampling is required within the first
hour of discharge.
3. Quarterly Visual Examination
Requirements of the MSGP
The MSGP requires quarterly visual
examinations of storm water discharges
for all sectors except Sector S, which
covers air transportation. A full
description of the requirements for the
visual examinations is found in Section
VI.E.8 of the fact sheet accompanying
the issuance of the MSGP. Basically, the
MSGP requires that grab samples of
storm water discharges be taken and
examined visually for the presence of
color, odor, clarity, floating solids,
settled solids, suspended solids, foam,
oil sheen or other obvious indicators of
storm water pollution. The grab samples
must be taken within'the first 30
minutes after storm water discharges
begin, or as soon as practicable, but not
longer than 1 hour after discharges
begin. The sampling must be conducted
quarterly during the following time
periods: January-March, April-June,
July-September and October-December
of each year. The reports summarizing
these quarterly visual storm water
examinations must be maintained on-
site with the SWPPP.
The baseline general permit did not
include requirements for visual
examinations and facilities which are
transferred to the MSGP will have to
comply with these additional sampling
requirements. For transferred facilities,
these sampling requirements would
begin in the first full calendar quarter of
coverage of the MSGP. EPA believes that
this type of sampling provides an
inexpensive means for permittees to
quickly assess the effectiveness of their
SWPPPs and make any necessary
modifications to address the results of
the visual examinations.
4. Exemptions from Analytical
Monitoring
Both the MSGP and the baseline
general permit include certain
provisions for exemptions from
analytical monitoring. Both permits
provide that facilities need not monitor
if they certify that no significant
materials or industrial activities are
exposed to storm water. For the MSGP,
however, the certification is on a
pollutant-by-pollutant, outfall-by-outfall
basis; i.e., if there are no exposed
sources of a particular pollutant, then
monitoring for that pollutant at that
outfall does not need to be conducted.
For the baseline permit, monitoring
must be conducted for the entire suite
of pollutants required by the permit if
any industrial materials or activities are
exposed.
The MSGP also includes an
exemption from monitoring (again on a
pollutant-by-pollutant basis) in the
fourth year of the permit if the
monitoring results of the second year
are below certain benchmark values
which are found below in Table 3:
TABLE 3.—PARAMETER BENCHMARK VALUES
Parameter name
nH — •
Mn ••" •
Phlnririfl
CoDoer, Total (H) -.
Benchmark level
30 mg/L
120 mg/L
100 mg/L
15 mg/L
0.68 mg/L
2.0 mg/L
6.0-9.0 s.u
7.55 mg/L
0.75 mg/L
19 mg/L
0.636 mg/L
0.1 6854 mg/L
0.01 mg/L
0.13 mg/L
3 mg/L
0.0159 mg/L
860 mg/L
0.0636 mg/L
Source
4
5
7
8
7
6
4
2
1
1
9
9
10
2
3
9
1
9
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 189/Wednesday, September 30, 1998/Notices
52441
TABLE 3.—PARAMETER BENCHMARK VALUES—Continued
Parameter name
Dimethyl Phthalate
Ethyloonzene
Ruoranthone
Fluoride
Iron, Total
Lead, Total (H)
Mangarmsa
Mercury, Total
Nfckel, Total (H)
PCB-1018 (c)
PCB-1221 (c)
PCB-1232 (c)
PCB-1242(c)
PCB-1248 (c)
PCB-1254(c)
PCB-1260(c)
Phanols, Total
Pyrena (PAH,c) ,
Satenlurn, Total (•)
Stiver, Total (H)
Tduons
TrfcWoroethylene (c)
Zinc, Total (H)
Benchmark level
1 0 mg/L
3 1 mg/L
0 042 mg/L
1 8 mg/L
1 0 mn/l
0 0816 mg/L
1 0 mg/L
1 4.17 mn/l
0 000127 mg/L
0 nnmifl mn/l
n nnopn mn/i
0 002544 mg/L
010 mg/L
1 0 ma/L
0 01 mn/l
0 2385 mg/L
1 n n mn/l
0.1 17 mg/L
Source
11
Q
19
1
n
1
1
m
m
g
10
HI
m
g
3
1
Sources
1. "EPA Recommended Ambient Water
Quality Criteria." Acute Aquatic Life
Freshwater
2, "EPA Recommended Ambient Water
Quality Criteria." LOEL Acute
Freshwater
3. "EPA Recommended Ambient Water
Quality Criteria." Human Health Criteria
for Consumption of Water and
Organisms
4. Secondary Treatment Regulations (40 CFR
133)
5. Factor of 4 times BODS concentration-
North Carolina benchmark
6. North Carolina storm water benchmark
derived from NC Water Quality
Standards
7. National Urban Runoff Program (NURP)
median concentration
8. Median concentration of Storm Water
Effluent Limitation Guideline (40 CFR
Part 419)
9. Minimum Level (ML) based upon highest
Method Detection Limit (MDL) times a
factor of 3.18
10, Laboratory derived Minimum Level (ML)
11, Discharge limitations and compliance
data
12. "EPA Recommended Ambient Water
Quality Criteria." Chronic Aquatic Life
Freshwater
13, Colorado—Chronic Aquatic Life
Freshwater—Water Quality Criteria
Notes
(*) Limit established for oil and gas
exploration and production facilities
only.
(c) carcinogen
(H) hardness dependent
(PAH) Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbon
Assumptions
Receiving water temperature—20 C
Receiving water pH—7.8
Receiving water hardness CaCOS 100 mg/L
Receiving water salinity 20 g/kg
Acute to Chronic Ratio (AOR)—10
Note that the benchmark value for
total mercury listed above is correctly
listed as 0.0024 mg/L. The benchmark
value for total mercury in the original
publication of the MSGP (60 FR 50826)
had been Incorrectly listed as 10.0024
mg/L. In addition, as further discussed
in EPA's notice of technical correction
of February 9, 1996 (61 FR 5248), the
benchmark for zinc is correctly listed
above as 0.117 mg/1 rather than 0.065
mg/1 which was an error in the original
MSGP.
EPA believes that monitoring results
below these benchmarks indicate that a
generally effective SWPPP is being
implemented at a facility, and that
further monitoring should not be
required. The exemption also provides
an incentive for facilities to implement
an effective SWPPP which will reduce
pollutant discharges.
The baseline permit required
continued analytical monitoring for
certain categories of facilities
throughout the term of the permit
regardless of sampling results. For
facilities which are transferred to the
MSGP from the baseline industrial
permit, monitoring is not required in
year four for particular pollutants if the
average of the two most recent
monitoring results conducted for the
baseline permit are below the
benchmarks. However, if monitoring
was not conducted for the appropriate
pollutants, then the exemption would
not be available. In addition, the
exemption would not be available if the
industrial activities at a facility have
changed to the extent that the most
recent monitoring results do not reflect
discharges from current activities.
It should also be pointed out that the
monitoring exemption discussed above
based on the absence of exposure at a
facility is available in year 4 of the
MSGP regardless of past monitoring
results. This exemption is available for
facilities already covered by the MSGP
and those to be transferred to the MSGP
from the baseline permit. EPA believes
that the exemption provides an
incentive for facilities to eliminate
exposure of materials and activities to
storm water, thereby reducing pollutant
discharges. We should also point out,
however, that the discharges discussed
in Section III.E below which are subject
to numeric effluent limitations are not
eligible for any of the exemptions from
monitoring.
5. Reporting Requirements
The baseline permit required annual
reporting of analytical monitoring
results for those facilities subject to
semi-annual monitoring. Facilities
which are subject to annual monitoring
were required to retain the results on-
site. The MSGP requires that monitoring
results be submitted to the permitting
authority at the end of each year in
which sampling is required (postmarked
by March 31 of the year following the
monitoring period, e.g., by March 31,
2000, for the year four monitoring
period). The results of the quarterly
visual examinations need not be
-------
52442
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 189/Wednesday, September 30, 1998/Notices
submitted, but must be retained on-site
in the SWPPP.
E. Numeric Effluent Limitations
The MSGP includes the same numeric
effluent limitations for coal pile runoff
as were found in the baseline general
permit. These limits are: (1) maximum
of 50 mg/L for total suspended solids
(TSS) and a pH range of 6-9 standard
units. Any untreated overflow from
facilities designed, constructed and
operated to treat the runoff associated
with a 10-year, 24-hour rainfall event is
not subject to the 50 mg/L limit for TSS.
Dischargers previously covered under
the baseline general permit must be
compliant with this limitation upon
submittal of the NOI for coverage under
MSGP.
The baseline general permit did not
authorize storm water discharges subject
to numeric effluent limitation
guidelines (ELGs). The MSGP, however,
does authorize certain storm water
discharges subject to ELGs including the
coal pile runoff at steam electric power
plants, and for the following categories:
Phosphate fertilizer manufacturing (40
CFR part 418), asphalt paving and
roofing emulsions (40 CFR part 443),
and cement manufacturing materials
storage pile runoff (40 CFR part 411). In
addition, the modified MSGP authorizes
mine dewatering discharges from
construction sand and gravel, industrial
sand, and crushed stone facilities (40
CFR Part 436) in EPA Regions I, H, VI,
X and Arizona. These numeric effluent
limitations can be found in Appendix B
to this fact sheet.
The baseline permit required semi-
annual monitoring (with annual
reporting) of coal pile runoff. However,
the MSGP only requires annual
monitoring for all of the discharges
subject to numeric effluent limits
(except mine dewatering discharges in
Sector J where the monitoring frequency
is quarterly). The annual monitoring
periods run from October 1 through
September 30 of each year, and
reporting is required by November 30 of
each year. The quarterly monitoring
results are due no later than the last day
of the month following the collection of
the sample.
F. Miscellaneous Permitting Actions
In today's notice, EPA has also made
the following limited specific changes to
the MSGP as published on September
29, 1995 (60 FR 50804): (1)
authorization of mine dewatering
discharges from construction sand and
gravel, industrial sand, and crushed
stone mines in EPA Regions I, II and X;
(2) inclusion in Sector A of the MSGP
of the effluent limitation guideline in 40
CFR Part 429 Subpart I for discharges
resulting from spray down of lumber
and wood products in storage yards (wet
decking); (3) clarification that Sectors X
and AA authorize discharges from all
facilities in major SIC groups 27 and 34
respectively; and (4) addition of new
sector (Sector AD) to the MSGP to
authorize discharges from Phase I
facilities which may not fall into one of
the sectors of the modified MSGP, and
selected Phase II discharges which are
designated for permitting in accordance
with 40 CFR 122.26(g)(l)(i). These are
discussed below.
1. Coverage of Mine Dewatering
Discharges in EPA Regions I, II and X
Sector J of the original MSGP
authorized mine dewatering discharges
composed entirely of storm water or
ground water seepage from construction
sand and gravel, industrial sand and
crushed stone mines in EPA Region VI
and Arizona. These discharges are
subject to effluent limitations guidelines
found at 40 CFR Part 436, Subparts B,
C and D. An individual permit or an
alternate general permit was needed for
these types of discharges in areas other
than Region VI and Arizona. For
increased permitting flexibility, today's
modification extends this authorization
to facilities in the areas of EPA Regions
I, II and X where EPA is the NPDES
regulating authority (see "Areas of
Coverage" at the beginning of the Final
Permit Modifications section of this
notice to identify specific areas in these
Regions where the modifications apply).
This action avoids the need to issue
individual NPDES permits, or an
alternate general permit, for discharges
in these areas. As discussed in the
Response to Public Comments found in
Appendix A of this Fact Sheet, today's
final action includes EPA Region I
which increased the affected area
beyond that which was proposed by the
Agency on July 11, 1997.
2. Discharges Resulting From Spray
Down of Lumber and Wood Products in
Storage Yards in Sector A
The MSGP authorizes non-storm
water discharges resulting from the
spray down of lumber and wood
products in storage yards (wet decking),
provided that no chemical additives are
used in the spray and no chemicals are
applied to the wood during storage. The
MSGP, however, inadvertently omitted
the numerical effluent limitation
guideline in 40 CFR part 429, Subpart
I which applies to such discharges.
Accordingly, EPA has modified the
MSGP to incorporate the applicable
effluent limitation guideline and
appropriate monitoring requirements for
clarification.
The numerical limits which apply to
these non-storm water discharges are:
there shall be no debris discharged and
the pH shall range from 6.0 to 9.0. The
term "debris" refers to woody material
such as bark, twigs, branches,
heartwood or sapwood that does not
pass through a 2.54 cm (1.0 inch)
diameter round opening and is present
in the discharge from a wet storage
facility. EPA has included these effluent
limitations and also a requirement for
annual monitoring of the discharges.
3. Clarification of Coverage in Sectors X
and AA of the MSGP
Sectors X and AA of the MSGP
contain narrative descriptions of
industrial activities, SIC code major
group listings and specific four digit SIC
codes listings for which coverage would
be available. These three methods of
describing the types of industry allowed
coverage under these two sectors has
proven to be confusing and EPA is now
clarifying the coverage of these two
sectors in this modification.
Sector X was intended by EPA to
cover all industry in major SIC group 27
(printing, publishing and allied
industries), and Sector AA was intended
to cover all industry in major SIC group
34. EPA has been accepting NOIs from
all facilities within these two major SIC
groups, regardless of the four digit SIC
code listings, which mistakenly, have
been interpreted to be more restrictive.
Through this clarification, EPA wants to
make it clear that all qualifying
industries in these two major groups can
make use of the MSGP.
4. Addition of Sector AD to the MSGP
EPA has also added another sector to
the MSGP (Sector AD) to cover
discharges from Phase I facilities which
may not fall into one of the sectors of
the final modified MSGP, and to
provide a readily available means for
covering many of the Phase II storm
water facilities which are designated for
permitting prior to the permit
application deadline for Phase II sources
of August 7, 2001. As discussed earlier,
EPA has modified the MSGP to include
all facilities which were authorized
under the baseline general permit, but
excluded from the MSGP. Although
EPA believes that all such previously
excluded facilities have been identified
and included in the final modified
MSGP, Sector AD has been added to
cover any inadvertent omissions.
For Phase II storm water sources,
NPDES regulations at 40 CFR
122.26(g)(l)(i) provide that permit
applications may be required within 180
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 189/Wednesday, September 30, 1998/Notices
52443
days of notice for discharges which
contribute to a violation of a water
quality standard, or are determined to
be significant sources of pollutants. For
discharges other than municipal
separate storm sewer discharges, 40 CFR
122.26(g)(2) provides that individual
permit applications may be required in
accordance with 40 CFR 122.26(c)(l), or
an NOI under a general permit may be
required. Sector AD provides a means
through which general permit coverage
may be obtained for many designated
Phase II facilities and as such, facilitates
Implementation of the requirements of
40 CFR 122.26(g)(l)(i). However, for
cases where Sector AD is inappropriate,
individual permits or an alternate
general permit are required. In addition,
Part I.B.S.f of the MSGP does not
authorize coverage for discharges which
may be contributing to a violation of a
water quality standard. As such, for
discharges permitted under 40 CFR
122,26® (l)(i). Sector AD could only be
used for discharges which are
determined to be a significant source of
pollutants.
Sector AD is added in Part XI.AD of
the MSGP. The SWPPP requirements for
this sector are the same as in the
baseline general permit to ensure
flexibility given the broad universe of
potential types of facilities which may
be covered. Also, no analytical
monitoring requirements are included
for the new sector; however, quarterly
visual examinations are required as in
most other sectors. In addition, the
requirements common to all sectors of
the MSGP which are set forth in Parts
I-X and XII of the MSGP also apply to
Sector AD,
5. Modification of Inspection
Requirements for Inactive Oil and Gas
Extraction Facilities in Sector I
As discussed further in the Summary
of Responses to Public Comments, EPA
has modified the inspection
requirements for inactive oil and gas
extraction facilities which are remotely
located and unstaffed (within major SIC
group 13) covered by Sector I. The
modification provides that only annual
inspections are required (rather than
quarterly or semi-annual inspections)
for Inactive facilities which are remotely
located and unstaffed. This modification
Is being made in response to concerns
regarding the practicality of quarterly or
semi-annual inspections for inactive,
unstaffed facilities, particularly those in
remote areas. Sector] (for mineral
mining and processing) also requires
only annual inspections for inactive
facilities and EPA believes that this
requirement is appropriate for inactive
oil and gas extraction facilities which
are remotely located and unstaffed as
well.
G. Response to National Mining
Association Concerning Sector G of the
MSGP
As discussed above, the MSGP
authorizes selected storm water
discharges subject to ELGs. However,
Sector G for the ore mining and dressing
industry is not among the sectors for
which the MSGP authorizes such
discharges. In section Vin.G of the fact
sheet for the MSGP, EPA provided a
table (Table G-4) regarding the
applicability of ELGs to storm water
discharges from ore mining operations.
On October 10, 1995, the National
Mining Association (NMA) challenged
the interpretations of the ELGs
contained in Table G-4, particularly the
interpretation of the term "mine
drainage" to include runoff from waste
rock and overburden represented by the
Table (National Mining Association/.
EPA, No. 95-3519 (8th Cir.)).
On October 22. 1997 (62 FR 54950),
EPA proposed a clarification to the
interpretation in Table G-4 and
modification of Sector G of the MSGP in
response to the challenge from the
NMA. On August 7, 1998, EPA
published final revisions to Sector G in
the Federal Register which modified
Table G-4 to only include those specific
storm water discharges which are
authorized by the MSGP and are not
subject to ELGs. Monitoring
requirements for storm water discharges
from waste rock and overburden piles
were also included in the final
revisions.
H. Regional Offices
Notice of Intent Address. Notices of
Intent to be authorized to discharge
under the MSGP should be sent to:
Storm Water Notice of Intent (4203),
USEPA, 401 M Street, S.W.,
Washington, DC 20460.
For further information, please call
the appropriate EPA Regional storm
water contacts listed below:
• ME, MA, NH, Indian country in CT,
MA, ME, RI, and Federal Facilities
inVT
EPA Region I, Office of Ecosystem
Protection, JFK Federal Building
(CMU), Boston, MA 02203, Contact:
Thelma Hamilton (617) 565-3569
• PR
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Caribbean Environmental
Protection Division, Centra Europa
Building, 1492 Ponce de Leon
Avenue, Suite 417 Santurce, Puerto
Rico 00907-4127 Contact: Sergio
Bosques (787) 729-6951
• DC and Federal Facilities in DE
EPA Region III, Water Protection
Division, (3WP13), Storm Water
Staff, 841 Chestnut Building,
Philadelphia, PA 19107, Contact:
Cheryl Atkinson (215) 566-3392
• FL and Indian country in FL
EPA Region IV, Water Management
Division, Surface Water Permits
Section (SWPFB), 61 Forsyth Street,
SW, Atlanta, GA 30303-3104,
Contact: Floyd Wellborn (404) 562-
9296
• NM and TX; Indian country in LA,
OK, TX and NM (Except Navajo and
Ute Mountain Reservation Lands);
and oil and gas exploration and
production related industries, and
pipeline operations (which under
State law are regulated by the
Oklahoma Corporation Commission
and not the Oklahoma Department
of Environmental Quality).
EPA Region VI, NPDES Permits
Section (6WQ-PP), 1445 Ross
Avenue, Dallas, TX 75202-2733,
Contact: Brian Burgess (214) 665-
7534
• AZ, American Samoa,
Commonwealth of Northern
Mariana Islands, Johnston Atoll,
Guam, Midway Island and Wake
Island; all Indian country in AZ,
CA, and NV; those portions of the
Duck Valley, Fort McDermitt and
Goshute Reservations that are
outside NV; those portions of the
Navajo Reservation that are outside
AZ.
EPA Region IX, Water Management
Division, (WTR-5), Storm Water
Staff, 75 Hawthorne Street, San
Francisco, CA 94105, Contact:
Eugene Bromley (415) 744-1906
• AK and ID; Indian country in AK, ID
(except the Duck Valley
Reservation), OR (except the Fort
McDermitt Reservation), and WA;
and Federal facilities in WA
EPA Region X, Office of Water (OW-
130), Storm Water Staff, 1200 Sixth
Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101,
Contact: Joe Wallace (206) 553-
8399
IV. Cost Estimates
Cost estimates for the MSGP were
included with the final fact sheet
accompanying the issuance of the MSGP
on September 29, 1995 and are not
being repeated here. However, costs for
the facilities being transferred to the
MSGP from the baseline permit are
expected to be lower than for those
initially applying for coverage under the
MSGP since the transferred facilities
will already have responded to some of
the requirements of the MSGP.
-------
52444
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 189/Wednesday, September 30, 1998/Notices
V. Economic Impact (Executive Order
12866)
Under Executive Order 12866 [58 FR
51735 (October 4, 1993)], the Agency
must determine whether the regulatory
action is "significant" and therefore
subject to OMB review and the
requirements of the Executive Order.
The Order defines "significant
regulatory action" as one that is likely
to result in a rule that may have an
annual effect on the economy of $100
million or more or adversely affect in a
material way the economy, a sector of
the economy, productivity, competition,
jobs, the environment, public health or
safety, or State, local, or tribal
governments or communities; create a
serious inconsistency or otherwise
interfere with an action taken or
planned by another agency; materially
alter the budgetary impact of
entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan
programs or the rights and obligations of
recipients thereof; or raise novel legal or
policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or
the principles set forth in the Executive
Order.
EPA has determined that this
modified general permit is not a
"significant regulatory action" under
the terms of Executive Order 12866 and
is therefore not subject to formal OMB
review prior to proposal.
VI. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Section 201 of the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act (UMRA), P.L.
104-4, generally requires Federal
agencies to assess the effects of their
"regulatory actions" on State, local, and
tribal governments and the private
sector. UMRA uses the term "regulatory
actions" to refer to regulations. (See,
e.g., UMRA section 201, "Each agency
shall * * * assess the effects of Federal
regulatory actions * * * (other than to
the extent that such regulations
incorporate requirements specifically
set forth in law)" (emphasis added)).
UMRA section 102 defines "regulation"
by reference to 2 U.S.C. 658 which in
turn defines "regulation" and "rule" by
reference to section 601(2) of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). That
section of the RFA defines "rule" as
"any rule for which the agency
publishes a notice of proposed
rulemaking pursuant to section 553(b) of
[the Administrative Procedure Act
(APA)],or any other law * * *"
As discussed in the RFA section of
this notice, NPDES general permits are
not "rules" under the APA and.thus not
subject to the APA requirement to
publish a notice of proposed
rulemaking. NPDES general permits are
also not subject to such a requirement
under the CWA. While EPA publishes a
notice to solicit public comment on
draft general permits, it does so
pursuant to the CWA section 402 (a)
requirement to provide "an opportunity
for a hearing." Thus, NPDES general
permits are not "rules" for RFA or
UMRA purposes.
EPA has determined that the final
modifications will not contain a Federal
mandate that may result in expenditures
of $100 million or more for State, local
and Tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or the private sector in any
one year. !
The Agency also believes that the
final modifications will not significantly
nor uniquely affect small governments.
For UMRA purposes, "small
governments" is defined by reference to
the definition of "small governmental
jurisdiction" under the RFA. (See
UMRA section 102(1), referencing 2
U.S.C. 658, which references section
601(5) of the RFA.) "Small
governmental jurisdiction" means
governments of cities, counties, towns,
etc., with a population of less than
50,000, unless the agency establishes an
alternative definition.
The final modifications also will not
uniquely affect small governments
because compliance with the final
permit conditions affects small
governments in the same manner as any
other entities seeking coverage under
the modified permit. '
VII. Paperwork Reduction Act
EPA has reviewed the requirements
imposed on regulated facilities resulting
from the final permitting actions under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980,
44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.The information
collection requirements of the MSGP
have already been approved in previous
submissions made for the NPDES permit
program under the provisions of the
Clean Water Act.
VIII. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,
5 U.S.C. 601 et seq, EPA is required to
prepare a Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis to assess the impact of rules on
small entities. Under! 5 U.S.C. 605(b), no
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is
required where the head of the Agency
certifies that the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
The Agency has determined that the
permit modification being published
today is not subject to the Regulatory
Flexibility Act ("RFA"). By its terms,
the RFA only applies to rules subject to
notice-and-comment rulemaking
requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act ("APA") or any other
statute. Today's permit modification is
not subject to notice and comment
requirements under the APA or any '
other statute because the APA defines
"rules" in a manner that excludes
permits. See APA section 551 (4), (6),
and (8). The APA distinguishes between
agency action that is a "rule" and
agency action that is an "order." An
order is any final agency disposition,
including agency action in issuing
licenses or permits, in a matter other
than rulemaking. Adjudication is the
agency process for formulating an order
and rulemaking the process for
formulating a rule. The requirements of
APA section 553 apply only to the
issuance of "rules." Informal
adjudications, which typically include
agency process for issuing permits, are
not rules and are not subject to the
rulemaking requirements of section
553(b). In the Agency's view, the
issuance by EPA of a license (in the
form of an NPDES general permit) that
may apply to a large number of different
dischargers does not necessarily convert
the permit issuance of the general
permit from an adjudication to
rulemaking. The Agency has explained
in further detail its reasons for
concluding that issuance of a general
NPDES permit is not subject to the RFA
at 63 FR 7898 (February 17, 1998).
Today's final permit modification
actions will provide small entities the
opportunity to obtain storm water
permit .coverage under the MSGP, which
was originally developed based on the
group application process. The group
application information submitted to
EPA provided a basis for the
development of storm water permit
conditions tailored specifically for each
industry. Today's action expands
applicability provisions for some sectors
so that permittees previously authorized
under the expired Baseline Industrial
General Permit may be eligible for
authorization. Today's modifications
also create a "default" category for
permittees covered by the expired
baseline permit where there is no
applicable or relevant industrial sector
category in the MSGP. The MSGP
requirements were designed to
minimize significant administrative and
economic impacts on small entities.
Transfer of permit coverage from the
baseline permit to the MSGP should not
have a significant impact on industry in
general. Moreover, the MSGP reduces a
significant burden on regulated sources
of applying for individual permits.
Part DC—Official Signatures
Accordingly, I hereby find consistent
with the provisions of the Regulatory
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 189/Wednesday, September 30, 1998/Notices
52445
Flexibility Act, that these final permit
modifications will not have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Authority: Clean Water Act, 33
U.S.C. 1251 ef seq.
Dated: July 1.1998.
John DcVillmrs,
Regional Administrator, Region 1.
Dated; August 26.1998.
Jeanne M. Fox,
Regional Administrator, Region 2.
Dated; August 6,1998.
Thomas Voltagglo,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 3.
Dated: August 4,1998.
Robert F. McGhee,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
Dated: July 20,1998.
Gregg A. Cooke,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
Dated; August 17,1998.
Laura Yoshll,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 9.
Dated: July 26.1998.
Chuck Flndley,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10.
X. Notice of Final MSGP for American
Samoa and the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI)
The draft MSGP was proposed by EPA
on November 19, 1993 (58 FR61146),
and American Samoa and the CNMI
were proposed to be included among
the areas of coverage of the MSGP.
However, at the time of issuance of the
final MSGP for most areas (September
29, 1995). the American Samoa EPA and
the Division of Environmental Quality
of CNMI had not completed their review
of the MSGP for certification purposes
pursuant to Section 401 of the CWA. As
such, EPA did not issue the MSGP for
American Samoa and CNMI at that time.
On September 5,1997 and October 6,
1997, respectively, the CNMI Division of
Environmental Quality and the
American Samoa EPA provided their
401 certifications for the MSGP
(including today's modifications). The
certifications also include certain
special conditions necessary to ensure
compliance with the CWA. Today, EPA
Is providing notice of the issuance of the
final MSGP for American Samoa and
CNMI, including the special conditions
which were required. The area of
coverage of the MSGP is being revised
today to include American Samoa and
CNMI among the areas for which
discharges may be authorized. The other
modifications of the MSGP which are
discussed elsewhere in this fact sheet
also apply to the MSGP issued for
American Samoa and CNMI. The 401
certification conditions required by
American Samoa and CNMI are found
in Part XH of today's revised MSGP.
The MSGP includes industry-specific
sections that describe the storm water
pollution prevention plan requirements,
numeric effluent limitations and
monitoring requirements for the specific
industries. These industry-specific
sections are contained in Part XI of the
MSGP and are described in Part VHI of
the fact sheet published on September
29, 1995. There are also a number of
permit requirements that apply to all
industries which are found elsewhere in
the MSGP and described in the fact
sheet.
Today's notice incorporates by
reference the permit terms and
conditions set forth at 60 FR 51108-
51255 published on September 29,
1995, and also incorporates by reference
the technical corrections of February 9,
1996 (61 FR 5251-5254) and February
20, 1996 (61 FR6412). These
requirements may be found in Parts I
through XI of the permit.
A. Contacts
Notices of Intent (Ndls) to be covered
under the MSGP and Notices of
Termination (NOTs) to terminate
coverage under the MSGP must be sent
to the Storm Water Notice of Intent
Processing Center (see address below).
The complete administrative record for
the MSGP is available through the Water
Docket MC-4101, Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M Street SW,
Washington, D.C. 20460. A reasonable
fee may be charged for copying.
Notice of Intent AddressNotices of
Intent to be authorized to discharge
under the MSGP should be sent to: NOI/
NOT Processing Center (4203), 401 M
Street SW, Washington, D.C. 20460.
Address for Other Submittal£>Hher
submittals of information required
under the MSGP for American Samoa
and CNMI should be sent to EPA,
Region 9, Water Division (WTR-7), 75
Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105.
B. 401 Certification
Section 401 of the CWA provides that
no Federal license or permit, including
NPDES permits, to conduct any activity
that may result in any discharge into
navigable waters, shall be granted until
the state in which the discharge
originates certifies that the discharge
will comply with the applicable
provisions of Sections 301, 302, 303,
306 and 307 of the CWA.
For American Samoa, the following
special conditions were included with
its 401 certification:
1. NOIs must be sent to the American
Samoa EPA simultaneously with
submittal to EPA.
2. Storm water pollution prevention
plans (SWPPPs) must be submitted to
the American Samoa EPA for review
and approval. (Although the American
Samoa EPA did not specify a deadline
for submittal, it is presumed that
submittal is required as soon as the
SWPPP is completed.)
For CNMI, the following special
conditions were included with its 401
certification:
1. NOIs submitted to the CNMI DEQ
must be postmarked 7 days prior to any
storm water discharges.
2. The NOI which is submitted to
CNMI must be accompanied by a letter
from the CNMI DEQ approving the
SWPPP.
3. SWPPPs required by the permit
must be submitted to the CNMI DEQ for
review and approval along with
applicable fees associated with a 401
Water Quality Certification prior to
submittal of an NOI to EPA and the
CNMI DEQ.
4. NOIs must be submitted to the
CNMI DEQ and EPA Region 9 as well as
the regular NOI address in Washington,
D.C.
The 401 certification requirements for
American Samoa and CNMI are added
to Part XII of the MSGP in the section
for EPA Region 9 requirements.
C. Deadlines
NOI Submlttal.NOIs for facilities in
CNMI must be submitted no later than
90 days after today's date which is the
effective date of the permit. This is
consistent with the time frame for NOI
submittal of the original MSGP issued
on September 29, 1995. Although the
NOI deadline of the original MSGP was
extended 90 additional days, EPA does
not believe this should be necessary in
CNMI given the relatively small number
of facilities in CNMI. A special
condition was added to the MSGP (Part
H.A.l 1) to clarify the deadline for NOI
submittal for CNMI since the baseline
general permit was never issued for
CNMI. Permittees in CNMI will be
requesting initial permit coverage under
the MSGP rather than transferring from
the baseline permit to the MSGP.
Facilities in American Samoa
transferring to the MSGP from the
baseline permit will also have 90 days
to request coverage under the MSGP,
which is the same amount of time given
to any other permittees transferring to
the MSGP.
SWPPP Preparation and Compliance.
For facilities in CNMI, preparation and
compliance with SWPPPs must be
completed no later than 270 days after
-------
52446
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 189/Wednesday, September 30, 1998/Notices
the date of today's MSGP issuance. This
provides the same amount of time that
was provided in the original MSGP of
September 29, 1995. However, for BMPs
involving construction, the deadline is
October 1, 2000, which provides
roughly the same amount of time as
provided by the original MSGP.
The expiration date for the MSGP for
American Samoa and CNMI has been set
at October 1, 2000, which is the same
expiration date for areas covered by the
September 29, 1995 MSGP. Although
this results in a permit term somewhat
less than the usual five years, alignment
of the expiration dates will facilitate
permit reissuance.
D. Paperwork Reduction Act
EPA has reviewed the requirements
imposed on regulated facilities in the
final MSGP for American Samoa and
CNMI under the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The
information collection requirements in
today's final notice for American Samoa
and CNMI have already been approved
by the Office of Management and
Budget in previous submissions made
for the NPDES permit program under
the provisions of the CWA.
E. Considerations Under Other Federal
Laws
For the MSGP issued for American
Samoa and CNMI by today's notice, EPA
is required to conduct and certify
certain analyses under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 etseq., and
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act,
Pub. L. No. 104-4. By today's action,
EPA adopts, incorporates, and certifies
the relevant findings under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act and the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act made
in the September 29, 1995 MSGP (and
elsewhere in this fact sheet for today's
modifications of the MSGP) for the
purposes of the MSGP issued for
American Samoa and CNMI.
F. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Certification
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,
5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., EPA is required to
prepare a Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis to assess the impact of rules on
small entities. Under 5 U.S.C. 605(b), no
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is
required where the head of the. Agency
certifies that the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
Today's permit will provide any small
entity the opportunity to obtain storm
water permit coverage as a result of the
group application process. Group
applications provided small entities a
mechanism to reduce their permit
application burden by grouping together
with other industrial facilities and
submitting a common permit
application with reduced monitoring
requirements and shared costs. The
group application information
submitted to EPA provided a basis for
the development of storm water permit
conditions tailored specifically for each
industry. The permit requirements have
been designed to minimize significant
administrative and economic impacts
on small entities and should not have a
significant impact on industry in
general. Moreover, the permit reduces a
significant burden on regulated sources
of applying for individual permits.
Accordingly, I hereby certify
consistent with 5 U.S.C. 605 (b) that this
permit will not have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. ;
Dated: July 18, 1998.
Laura Yoshii,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 9.
Appendix A—Summary of Responses
To Public Comments on the July 11,
1997, Proposal To Modify the MSGP
and Terminate the Baseline Industrial
General Permit
The following discussion is a
summary of the major issues identified
by EPA that were raised during the
public comment period regarding the
proposal to modify the MSGP and
terminate the Baseline Industrial
General Permit, along with EPA's
response to each major issue. This
summary aggregates comments by
similarity of the issues. A
comprehensive discussion of each
comment that was raised is provided in
a separate document which is
maintained by EPA as a part of the
record for these permitting actions.
Notice of Intent Comments
Several comments were received
concerning the need for EPA to
streamline the permit process and
reduce the administrative burden on the
regulated community,for permittees that
chose to remain under the Baseline
Industrial General Permit (BGP) after its
expiration date. Comments included the
following: The procedure required by
the BGP for permittees to follow to
obtain extended coverage beyond the
permit's expiration date was confusing
and cumbersome (i.e., submission of a
NOI between August 1, 1997, and 2 days
prior to the expiration date); the
submission of an NOI for extended
coverage under the BGP, followed by
submission of another NOI at a later
date to transition coverage to the MSGP
and submission of a Notice of
Termination (NOT) to end BGP coverage
would be especially burdensome on
companies with multiple facilities; and,
the timing of the MSGP permit
modification with the changeover from
the expiring BGP to the MSGP was
arbitrary and therefore burdensome on
the regulated community.
In response, EPA acknowledges that
the permit process could have been
improved but doing so would have
required that EPA draft, propose and
finalize a modification to Part VII.B of
the BGP (i.e., Part VII.B of the BGP
requires that permittees submit a second
NOI during the period of August 1,
1997, through September 29, 1997, if
they wish to maintain permit coverage
beyond the expiration date of October 1,
1997). This process may not have been
completed in a timely manner (i.e.,
before the permit's expiration date) and
would have diverted limited Agency
resources from the more important task
of modifying the MSGP. Also, the
submission of a NOT to end BGP
coverage when a permittee submits its
NOI for transition to the MSGP is not a
permit requirement (see Part IX. A of the
BGP), but does assist EPA with its
database management activities.
Furthermore, under Part VII.B of the
MSGP (Continuation of the Expired
Permit; 60 FR 51120), permittees are not
required to submit a second NOI to
remain covered beyond the expiration
date of that permit. Another NOI would
only have to be submitted to obtain
coverage under a new or alternate
general permit.
One commenter suggested that EPA
automatically extend permit coverage
for BGP permittees under the authority
of the Administrative Procedure Act
(APA). Another commenter suggested
that EPA provide permittees with a
"post card" type notice to submit
instead of another NOI to facilitate the
process. Yet another commenter
suggested that EPA consider BGP
permittees automatically extended after
the expiration date unless they
specifically indicate an intention to
terminate permit coverage, or that the
Agency will not take enforcement action
against any permittee that fails to
submit a NOI to extend permit coverage.
In response, EPA notes that Part VII.B
of the BGP requires that permittees
submit a second NOI during the period
of August 1, 1997, through September
29, 1997, if they wish to maintain
permit coverage beyond the expiration
date of October 1, 1997. Development
and distribution of a "post card" type
notice for BGP permittees to submit in
lieu of a NOI would have conflicted
with this permit requirement. '''
Furthermore, the NOI is an official
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 189/Wednesday, September 30, 1998/Notices
52447
Agency form approved by the UJ
of Management and Budget and:
s US Office
[is
required for storm water permittee or
applicant use where directed by permit
conditions. To change these permit
requirements and allow automatic
extensions or use of "post card" type
notices as the commenters suggested
would have required that EPA draft,
propose and finalize a modification to
the BGP. As mentioned above, this
process may not have been completed in
a timely manner (i.e., before the permit's
expiration date) and would have
diverted limited Agency resources from
the more important task of modifying
the MSGP. To assist permittees with
understanding their options in view of
the pending expiration of the permit,
EPA sent a letter to all BGP permittees
In August 1997 which described in
detail their permitting options (i.e.,
submission of a NOI to either transition
to the MSGP permit or remain covered
under the BGP past its expiration date).
Finally, failure by a BGP permittee to
submit a NOI for extended coverage
would be a permit violation and may
subject the permittee to potential
enforcement action.
Similar comments were received
concerning the need for BGP permittees
to submit another NOI to transfer
coverage to the MSGP, and that EPA
should do this automatically to reduce
the administrative burden on both
permittees and the Agency. In response,
EPA notes that according to NPDES
permit regulations found at 40 CFR
122,28(b)(2). dischargers seeking
coverage under a general permit such as
the MSGP must submit a Notice of
Intent to EPA. Further, though the BGP
and the MSGP are similar, they are
separate NPDES permits with specific
eligibility requirements and application
procedures which must be followed
when applying for permit coverage.
Applying for and receiving permit
coverage under one does not mean that
a permittee has also automatically
received coverage under the other. This
Is especially evident since there are
specific questions and certification
provisions concerning the Endangered
Species Act and the National Historic
Preservation Act on the current NOI
form (OMB No. 2040-0086) which
MSGP applicants must respond to but
not BGP applicants.
Several commenters were confused
Whether a statement in the modification
proposal (62 FR 37455) that BGP
permittees were eligible for voluntary
transferral to the MSGP also applied to
"orphan" facilities (i.e.. BGP permittees
who. prior to today's final MSGP permit
modification, were not eligible for
transfer to the MSGP). In response, EPA
is providing clarification that the option
to voluntarily transfer to the MSGP from
the BGP applied only to non-orphan
facilities since orphan facilities were not
eligible for transfer to the MSGP at the
time of the publication of the proposed
modifications (July 11, 1997) and only
became eligible through today's final
publication of the modifications to the
MSGP.
One commenter agreed with EPA's
position to not modify the MSGP to
require the use of the new North
American Industry Classification
System (NAICS) in lieu of the 1987
Standard Industrial Classification (SIC)
Manual which has been used by the
MSGP since its original publication in
1995. EPA agrees with the commenter's
assertion that switching to the new
NAICS would create unnecessary
confusion in the MSGP's regulated
community. Further, EPA believes that
a revision to the definition of "storm
water associated with industrial
activity" should be completed before
any such permit modification is
undertaken since the definition, which
is the first step in determining whether
a facility needs to apply for permit
coverage, is currently based on the SIC
manual and not on the NAICS.
Several commenters suggested that
EPA introduce (propose) the new
expanded NOI form developed by EPA
in conjunction with the Urban Wet
Weather Flows Federal Advisory
Committee for use by industrial storm
water dischargers. The commenters
stated that the expanded NOI form
would require facilities to not only
identify the receiving water body as the
current NOI form does, but also quantify
storm water flows thereby improving
applicants' awareness of the actual
effect their storm water discharges have
on water bodies. The expanded NOI
form would also require permittees to
identify their storm water management
practices, something that is not required
by the current NOI form. The
commenters stated that this would
improve the applicants' awareness of
storm water pollution prevention as
well as the myriad of practices which
can be used to decrease the discharge of
pollutants. Furthermore, the expanded
NOI form would provide information
which EPA and State agencies could use
to base resource allocations on by
focusing on potential problem facilities.
Finally, the expanded form would
vastly increase citizen access to
meaningful information, thereby
improving credibility of the program.
The commenters argued that EPA
should employ these valuable tools in
the permit modification rather than
delaying the benefits that the expanded
NOI form would provide. In response,
EPA concurs with the commenters
suggestions and will be proposing the
expanded NOI form for public comment
in the near future. However, the
expanded NOI form has not yet been
approved by the Office of Management
and Budget and is not ready for use in
today's MSGP modification.
Several commenters stated that the
certification language contained on the
NOI should include a provision that the
person signing the form should not only
certify "To the best of my knowledge
* * *", but should also make a
reasonable investigation of the facts
used to complete the form. They also
stated that ignorance should not be a
shield (from potential liability). In
response, EPA believes that the
commenters are referring to Box 2 of the
current NOI form which, as stated in the
box, is for MSGP applicants only.
However, the provisions contained in
Box 1 apply to all people who sign and
date the NOI. EPA believes that the
certification statement contained in Box
1 sufficiently addresses the commenters'
concerns: "I certify under penalty of law
that this document and all attachments
were prepared under my direction or
supervision in accordance with a system
designed to assure that qualified
personnel properly gather and evaluate
the information submitted. Based on my
inquiry of the person or persons who
manage the system, or those persons
directly responsible for gathering the
information, the information submitted
is, to the best of my knowledge, true,
accurate, and complete. I am aware that
there are significant penalties for
submitting false information, including
the possibility of fine and imprisonment
for knowing violations." This language
comes from NPDES regulations at 40
CFR 122.22. Consequently, no change to
the current NOI form will be proposed.
Also, EPA intends to use the same
language when proposing the expanded
NOI form in the near future.
Deadlines for Submitting Notices of
Intent (NOIs) and for SWPPP
Compliance
The proposal of July 11, 1997,
provided 30 days after the effective date
of the MSGP modification for NOI
submittal for facilities transferring to the
MSGP from the baseline industrial
permit. A 90 day period after the
effective date of the modification was
proposed for upgrading SWPPPs as
necessary to comply with the provisions
of the MSGP, and facilities requiring
BMP construction would be allowed up
to September 29, 1998. Several
commenters argued that all three of
these time periods were too short, and
-------
52448
federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 189/Wednesday, September 30, 1998/Notices
various extensions and justifications for
the extensions were submitted.
Conversely, one commenter stated that
the September 29, 1998, deadline for
transitioning facilities to complete BMP
construction was unnecessary since any
BMP construction required under the
Baseline Industrial General Permit, the
predecessor to the MSGP, supposedly
would have already been completed.
The commenter requested that this time
frame be shortened to 90 days from the
effective date of the permit.
Commenters had argued that 30 days
for NOI submittal may be inadequate
due to the possible need to coordinate
with other agencies on matters such as
the Endangered Species Act
certification. A commenter also noted
that SWPPPs are sometimes prepared by
consultants and that adequate time is
needed to hire a consultant and modify
the SWPPP. Other commenters also
argued that more than 90 days would be
required due to the complexity of the
requirements of the MSGP. In addition,
for BMPs involving construction, the
proposed deadline of September 29,
1998, would be inadequate due to
factors such as the time necessary for
the planning and budgeting for the
projects, as well as the construction
itself.
In response to these concerns, EPA
has extended the deadlines are follows:
NOIs would be due 90 days after the
effective date of the MSGP modification;
SWPPP revisions not involving
construction would be due 180 days
after the effective date of the MSGP
modification; and SWPPP revisions
which involve construction would be
required no later than October 1, 2000,
which is the expiration date of the
MSGP. EPA believes that the revised
deadlines are appropriate and generally
in line with the recommendations of the
commenters.
A commenter also noted that the
proposed modification would require
that permittees "begin implementation"
of their revised SWPPPs by the required
deadline. The commenter requested that
EPA clarify that all requirements of the
modified SWPPPs must be in place and
in operation by the deadlines. In
response, EPA believes that the words
"begin implementation" clearly indicate
that the actual implementation of any
new BMPs in SWPPPs must commence
(or be completed and in operation in the
case of BMPs involving construction) by
the appropriate deadlines. As such, no
changes were made in response to this
comment.
Other commenters expressed concern
that the proposal of July 11, 1997, had
not clarified that for facilities
transferring to the MSGP prior to its
modification, SWPPPs must be in
compliance with the requirements of the
MSGP at the time of NOI submittal. EPA
agrees that such a clarification would
have been helpful. However, this is a
moot issue at this time since the MSGP
has now been modified and hence no
additional discussion of this matter is
required. .
Is a New NOI Required if Operations
Change at a Facility?
A commenter raised the question, in
connection with eligibility requirements
of Sector AD of Part XI, if both a Notice
of Termination (NOT) and a new Notice
of Intent (NOI) would need to be
submitted if conditions change at a
facility covered by this sector such that
the facility falls into another sector.
In response, in order to reduce the
paperwork burden on permittees EPA
does not require that updated NOIs be
submitted for such changes. Updated
information concerning the type of
facility can be provided when the MSGP
is reissued and the next NOI is
submitted. The MSGP does, however,
require that permittees update their
SWPPPs in response to changes which
occur at a facility. In addition, if
changes occur at a facility such that the
facility would fall into a different sector
or an additional sector, the monitoring
requirements of the other sector(s)
would apply.
Must Permittees Submit Notices of
Intent (NOIs) to Operators of Municipal
Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s)?
A commenter noted that the July 11,
1997, notice did not address the
question of whether facilities must
submit NOIs to the operator of a large
or medium MS4 in addition to EPA. The
commenter requested;clarification of
this issue. ;
Part H.D of the MSGP requires that
facilities requesting coverage under the
MSGP also submit a copy of the NOI to
the operator of a large or medium MS4
if they discharge into the MS4. Part II.D
of the MSGP is not affected by this
permit modification. Therefore, copies
of NOIs must be provided to large or
medium MS4 operators.
Re-Publication of MSGP and Notice of
Termination (NOT) Form
A commenter suggested that it may be
necessary to re-published the entire
MSGP so that facilities can more easily
evaluate which sectors would apply to
their facilities. Another commenter
requested that the NOT form be
published with the final permit
modification in addition to the NOI
form.
For the convenience of permittees,
today's final modification includes the
NOT form along with the NOI form.
However, EPA has not re-published the
entire MSGP due to its size and the fact
that very little of the MSGP has actually
been modified. The original MSGP can
be found at 60 FR 50804. Copies can be
obtained by calling the Region 2 and
Region 6 storm water permitting hotline
at 1-800-245-6510, or the EPA Office of
Water Resources Center at 202-260-
7786.
Extending the Public Comment Period •
Several commenters requested that
the comment period be extended given
the potential effects on regulated
facilities of the proposed transfer of
facilities to the MSGP from the BGP.
Another commenter contended that EPA
had previously provided oral assurances
that 60 day public comment periods
would be provided for this type of
action.
The July 11, 1997, notice consisted
solely of the proposal to terminate the
BGP and transfer facilities covered by
that permit to the MSGP, along with a
few minor modifications and
clarifications of the MSGP. Given the
limited complexity of the actual
proposal, EPA believes that adequate
time was provided for public comment.
Further, it was necessary to limit the
public comment period in consideration
of the expiration of the BGP in
September 1997. EPA regrets any
inconvenience for permittees resulting
from the fact that EPA was unable to
provide a longer comment period such
as 60 days.
Another commenter requested a
workshop on the MSGP in Alaska. As
part of the finalization of today's
permitting actions, EPA is working to
communicate the requirements of the
MSGP to all affected industrial sectors.
EPA believes that these efforts will
address the concerns of the commenter
regarding the MSGP.
Another commenter noted certain
typographical errors in the proposal of
July 11, 1997, and felt that the proposal
had been rushed and not carefully
thought out. In response, EPA has
considered and responded to the
comments received on the proposal and
believes that the final permitting actions
are appropriate. The typographical
errors have also been corrected.
Requests for Public Hearings
Three commenters requested that
additional public hearings be held on
the proposals. A commenter argued that
it was unfair that hearings were
scheduled only in EPA Regions 6 and 9.
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 189/Wednesday, September 30, 1998/Notices
52449
NPDES regulations at 40 CFR 124.12
require that a public hearing be held
when a significant public interest exists
in a proposed permitting action. Public
hearings were held in Regions 6 and 9
in anticipation of such interest.
However, since only three requests for
additional hearings were received, EPA
has decided not to hold additional
hearings in other areas.
Reopening the Entire MSGP for
Comment
Several commenters argued that the
entire MSGP should be reopened for
comment at this time. The commenters
argued that facilities which were
operating under the baseline industrial
permit during the issuance process for
the MSGP had no indication that they
might be subject to the MSGP in the
future and therefore did not comment
on the MSGP.
EPA appreciates the concerns of the
commenters in this regard, but for the
reasons discussed below EPA
nevertheless believes that the proposed
permitting action is appropriate. First, a
considerable amount of time was
provided for comment on the original
MSGP. The MSGP was proposed on
November 19, 1993 (58 FR 61146). with
a 90 day comment period. The MSGP
was widely reviewed and commented
upon by many commenters, including
many representing the same types of
industries which are now arguing for a
reopening of the entire MSGP. Second,
EPA does not believe that the
commenters in their current review of
the MSGP have identified any major
new issues which were not raised
during the original comment period.
EPA believes that the vast majority of
facilities covered by the baseline
industrial permit will be able to
transition to the MSGP without undue
hardships. If the MSGP is inappropriate
for a given facility, an individual permit
may be requested,
EPA also does not agree with
commenters who stated they had no
indication the MSGP, or a permit such
as the MSGP. would ever apply to them.
EPA's long term permitting strategy for
industrial storm water dischargers was
promulgated on April 2,1992 (57 FR
11394) well before the proposal of the
MSGP. This long term strategy clearly
indicated that EPA intended to issue
industry-specific storm water permits,
such as the MSGP, in the future. As
such, EPA does not agree that facilities
covered by the baseline industrial
permit at the time of the proposed
MSGP should not have taken an interest
in the proposal.
EPA also points out that reopening
the entire MSGP at this time could be
a lengthy process which would not
advance the objective of the Clean Water
Act of expeditiously controlling
pollutants in storm water discharges. In
vi3w of these factors, EPA has
terminated the baseline industrial
permit (with the limited exceptions
discussed in the fact sheet) and as
proposed is requiring facilities
previously covered by the baseline
industrial permit to transition to the
MSGP.
Retaining the 1992 Baseline Industrial
General Permit
Many commenters recommended that
EPA reissue the 1992 baseline industrial
permit and provided various reasons for
this recommendation. For example,
commenters believed that the baseline
industrial permit has proven to be
adequate for protection of the
environment and that the MSGP is not
needed. Other commenters objected to
the complexities of the MSGP and the
transition from the baseline industrial
permit. Others were concerned about a
perceived inflexibility of the MSGP
(which is also discussed elsewhere in
this Summary of Responses to
Comments). Another commenter argued
that the baseline industrial permit
already requires compliance with the
Best Available Control Technology
Economically Achievable/Best
Conventional Pollutant Control
Technology (BAT/BCT) requirements of
the Clean Water Act and nothing more
should be required. Still others asked
whether EPA has any actual data which
shows that the MSGP provides
improved water quality benefits
compared to the baseline industrial
permit. Many commenters
recommended that the 1992 baseline
industrial permit should at least be
reissued until the year 2000 when the
MSGP expires.
EPA appreciates the concerns which
have been raised but nevertheless
believes that the July 11,1997, proposal
is a workable and reasonable permitting
action given the present circumstances.
For example, over 10,000 facilities are
currently covered by the MSGP and EPA
has no evidence that the permit is
excessively complex or inflexible. The
MSGP requires at least a consideration
by permittees of various sector-specific
Best Management Practices (BMPs)
which have been identified for various
types of industries. Such BMPs may or
may not have been considered and
incorporated into SWPPPs by permittees
operating under the baseline industrial
permit. Common sense indicates the
MSGP should provide environmental
benefits equal to or better than the
baseline industrial permit. EPA also
points out SWPPPs are technology-
based requirements which are required
by the BAT/BCT requirements of the
Clean Water Act regardless of water
quality considerations. However, EPA
also does not believe that the
requirements of the MSGP are such that
only negligible additional reductions in
pollutant discharges would result. In
addition, while the baseline industrial
permit represented a good first step in
establishing BAT/BCT effluent
limitations for industrial storm water
discharges in 1992, EPA believes that
the MSGP is an appropriate next step to
further define BAT/BCT for specific
industries in 1995. As noted elsewhere,
EPA's intent to require industry-specific
permits was announced on April 2,
1992 (57 FR 11394), in the long term
permitting strategy for industries.
EPA also points out that the first
storm water monitoring results from
facilities currently operating under
MSGP were not due until March 31,
1998. As such, EPA has little actual
monitoring data from these facilities to
compare with data from baseline
industrial permit facilities.
Nevertheless, as noted above, EPA
believes that the improved SWPPPs
developed pursuant to the MSGP should
lead to water quality benefits.
Several other commenters supported
the proposal to terminate the baseline
industrial permit and transition
facilities covered by it to the MSGP. An
industrial representative agreed with
EPA that the MSGP should be more
effective in regulating industrial storm
water discharges than the baseline
industrial permit which only included
generic BMP requirements. Another
commenter noted that historic
properties would receive increased
protection via the NOI requirements of
the MSGP, and supported the proposal
on that basis. Today's final permitting
actions differ only slightly from the
proposals of July 11, 1997, and EPA
believes that the final actions are
consistent with the comments received
from these commenters.
Expiration Date of the Baseline
Industrial General Permit
Comments were received concerned
the conflicting expiration dates listed in
the baseline industrial permit. Part VII.B
of the baseline industrial permit lists
October 1, 1997, as the expiration date
while the signature pages list September
9, 1997 (57 FR 41300). In accordance
with NPDES regulations found at 40
CFR 122.46, an NPDES permit can be
issued for no more that five years. (Note
that permittees may obtain
administrative extension of permit
coverage beyond the expiration date
-------
52450
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 189/Wednesday, September 30, 1998/Notices
provided they have reapplied within the
appropriate time frame.) Therefore, the
correct expiration date is September 9,
1997, rather than October 1, 1997. In
view of this inconsistency, EPA would
use enforcement discretion and does not
intend to initiate enforcement action for
non-compliance with the CWA in
instances where the discharger submits
an NOI postmarked no later than 48
hours before October 1, 1997, to either
obtain extended coverage under the
baseline industrial permit or transition
to the MSGP. The Agency conducted a
mass-mailing in August 1997 to provide
information concerning the expiration
of the baseline industrial permit as well
as the options available to permittees.
Another commenter requested that
once the modifications are finalized, the
Agency notify all permittees and inform
them of precisely what the permit
requirements are as well as the
deadlines for all submittals and permit
conditions. In response, the Agency is
making the permit modifications widely
known through publication in today's
Federal Register. Due to the tremendous
numbers of facilities affected by the
modifications to the MSGP (i.e., all
transitioning industrial baseline
permittees), resources do not allow the
Agency to provide individual attention
to each permittee. The MSGP was
drafted to be as self-implementing as
possible in each industrial sector as well
as the other parts which have general
applicability to many or all permittees.
To assist permittees with answering
questions, EPA has several sources
available by phone and over the Internet
(please see Part III.H of the Fact Sheet
for a list of EPA storm water contacts).
Other sources include State and local
government, trade associations and
consultants.
Requesting an Individual Permit
EPA has proposed that facilities
would be required to submit an
individual permit application if they are
ineligible for coverage under the MSGP
due to Endangered Species Act or
National Historic Preservation Act
restrictions, or other conditions. Several
commenters noted that the BGP would
be terminated 30 days from the effective
date of the MSGP modification. The
commenters expressed concern that the
individual permit would probably take
longer than 30 days to issue and could
leave the discharger without a permit.
Part II.A.9 of the proposed modified
MSGP provided that the baseline permit
would remain in effect until the
individual permit was issued for the
scenario described by the commenters.
As such, EPA believes that the proposal
addressed the commenters' concern and
no changes were made in the final
modified MSGP in response to this
comment. It should also be noted that
the individual permit .application is due
90 days after the effective date of the
final modified MSGP, rather than 30
days as had been proposed.
Issues Related to Requirements for Co-
Located Facilities
Several commenters raised questions
and concerns regarding the provisions
in the MSGP regarding co-located
facilities. The MSGP requires that when
one facility includes operations which
fall into more than one sector, the
SWPPP and monitoring requirements of
both sectors apply to the facility. It
should also be noted, however, that if
monitoring for the same parameter is
required by two sectors, only one
sample analysis is required for that
parameter.
Concerns were expressed that some
facilities may fall into many sectors and
that it may be difficult to determine
which sectors would apply. In response
to this concern, EPA believes that the
sectors are reasonably clear with regards
to their applicability and permittees can
successfully use their best judgment
concerning which sectors apply. We
also point out that over 10,000 facilities
are currently covered by the MSGP and
we have no evidence that this has been
a significant problem.
Several questions were also raised
specifically for airport operations and
how the MSGP is intended to be
implemented for airports. For example,
clarification was requested regarding
permitting requirements for tenant
operations such as car rental agencies
which may conduct on-site vehicle
maintenance or fueling, but do not have
a primary SIC code which is listed in
the MSGP.
The implementation of the
requirements of the MSGP for airports
and their tenants was discussed in the
final fact sheet and response to
comments when the MSGP was
originally issued in 1995. Further
clarification is also provided below.
EPA would first like to clarify that
storm water discharges from all facilities
at an airport which engage in activities
such as vehicle maintenance, painting,
washing, fueling or de-icing need to be
addressed. Tenants having an SIC code
of 45xx (or otherwise listed at 40 CFR
122.26(b)(14)) must obtain NPDES
permit coverage which could be
accomplished by submittal of an NOI
requesting MSGP coverage or by
obtaining coverage under an individual
permit. Tenants such as car rental
agencies (SIC code 7514) with an SIC
code (or narrative description) other
than those listed at 40 CFR 122.26(b)(14)
may obtain NPDES permit coverage.
However, these tenants may also be
addressed through agreements between
the airport authority and the tenant with
regards to appropriate storm water
pollution control.
As discussed in the fact sheet and
response to comments accompanying
the 1995 MSGP, EPA encourages airport
authorities and work cooperatively with
tenants in implementing the
requirements of the MSGP. For example,
one SWPPP could be developed for the
entire airport which addresses the
pollution control activities to be
implemented by the airport authority
and all its tenants. Each individual
tenant would only be responsible for
implementing the portion of the SWPPP
which applied to his or her specific
facility.
In addition, the MSGP requires
monitoring for an airport as a whole,
and this could be accomplished most
easily by permittees working together.
Facilities which are not co-permittees
under the MSGP, or which receive
individual permits would have to
comply with the monitoring and SWPPP
requirements of the MSGP (or their
individual storm water NPDES permit)
on their own.
Another commenter noted that a
facility such as a car hauler may be
situated next to a car manufacturer.
Concern was expressed that the car
hauler might be required to comply with
the SWPPP and monitoring
requirements of the car manufacturer. In
response, EPA points out that the
requirements for the car manufacturer
would not apply to the car hauler in
such a situation since the car hauler
would be a different operator. In
addition, in response to another
comment, in situations where one
industrial plant includes separate
operations which fall into more than
one sector, the SWPPP and monitoring
requirements for the individual co-
located facilities do not necessarily have
to be implemented throughout the entire
facility. For example, in the case of a
landfill at a wood treatment facility, the
SWPPP requirements for the landfill
would most likely be appropriate only
for the landfill portion of the facility.
Exemption for Existing Facilities
A commenter recommended that only
new facilities should be subject to storm
water permitting requirements since
they can incorporate appropriate
controls into the design of the new
facility. The commenter recommended
that existing facilities should be exempt.
In response, EPA points out that
Section 402 (p) of the Clean Water Act,
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 189/Wednesday, September 30, 1998/Notices
52451
as amended by the Water Quality Act of
1987, requires NPDES permits for new
and existing storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity. As
such, EPA cannot waive storm water
permit requirements for existing
Industrial facilities as recommended by
the commenter.
Fl&fibllity of the MSGP
Several commenters raised a number
of concerns and questions related to the
flexibility provided by the MSGP for
different types of facilities. A
commenter recommended that the
MSGP only require cost-effective
requirements and that the effects on
small businesses be considered. In
response, EPA believes that the
requirements of the MSGP are
reasonable and cost-effective. The
MSGP was issued in 1995 after a
thorough consideration of the
information in the group applications
concerning available storm water
pollution controls at different types of
industries, the costs of the controls, and
the comments which were received on
the proposed MSGP. EPA concluded
that the effects on small businesses
would not be significant, both for the
original MSGP issuance and for today's
modification (see 60 FR 51067 and
Section VIII of the fact sheet
accompanying today's modification).
The commenter also recommended that
the MSGP only require structural
controls as a last resort and that non-
structural controls should be the
preferred means of pollutant control.
With regard to this Issue, EPA believes
that the MSGP does provide flexibility
to permittees in selecting an appropriate
mix of structural and non-structural
controls for their SWPPPs. Although
numerous industry-specific BMPs are
included in the MSGP. the language of
the permit usually only requires that
they be considered and included when
appropriate as opposed to being
absolute requirements. Furthermore, if
non-structural controls by themselves
adequately control pollutants in the
discharges, then a SWPPP could consist
solely of such controls.
Commenters also raised several
specific concerns regarding the MSGP.
One commenter expressed concern that
the spill prevention and response
requirements of SWPPPs could
duplicate other existing requirements
for spill prevention and response. In
response. EPA points out that SWPPPs
may Include by reference spill
prevention and response programs
which have already been developed by
a facility In accordance with another
program. Another commenter
recommended that only reportable spills
and leaks be listed when developing a
description of potential pollutant
sources for a SWPPP. In response to this
concern, EPA notes that spills and leaks
involving less than reportable quantities
may nevertheless degrade storm water
quality. The MSGP requires a listing of
"significant" spills and leaks which
EPA believes is reasonable for ensuring
appropriate consideration of this matter
when developing SWPPPs.
Commenters also recommended that
additional non-storm water discharges
should be authorized for discharge by
the MSGP. Specifically, it was
recommended that the permit authorize
minor vehicle wash water, de minimis
amounts of materials such as dirt, and
discharges associated with emergency
situations. In response, EPA believes
that the list of authorized non-storm
water discharges should be limited to
minor discharges which are expected to
pose little risk to the environment.
Discharges such as vehicle wash water
or discharges associated with emergency
situations may not fall into this
category. EPA also notes that materials
such as "dirt" are not prohibited from
storm water discharges, provided that
the amount of the material in the
discharges has been minimized through
proper implementation of pollution
prevention practices, and that water
quality standards are not exceeded.
A commenter also recommended that
the permit allow modification of
facilities without formal permit
modification. In response to this issue,
Part IV.C of the MSGP requires that
SWPPPs be modified whenever there is
a change at a facility which has a
significant effect on the potential for
discharges of pollutants to waters of the
United States. This provision is
intended to provide flexibility for
operators to accommodate changes at a
facility without formal permit
modification.
Another commenter noted that the
MSGP expires in the year 2000 and
recommended that EPA consider a
longer permit term such as 7 years
which EPA has allowed in certain
special programs such as Project XL. In
response, the flexibilities provided
under Project XL (excellence in
leadership, which is part of the
government's reinvention effort) are
intended to be used in situations where
variation from strict regulatory
requirements (such as maximum permit
terms) would be advantageous to
permittees and the environment. It is
now applied only to pilot projects after
intensive review of the specific
circumstances faced by individual
facilities. Its broad application to all
facilities regulated by the MSGP would,
at best, be premature. Furthermore, the
maximum five-year term for NPDES
permits is established within the CWA
itself in section 402(b)(l)(B) and cannot
be modified via Project XL. Also,
information was not provided in this
case that a longer permit term is needed
by permittees or that the environment
would benefit. Therefore, the expiration
date of the MSGP was not changed.
Comments Concerning Monitoring
Requirements of the MSGP
Numerous comments and questions
were received regarding the monitoring
requirements of the MSGP. The
Agency's responses to these comments
are grouped below by subject matter.
Use of Monitoring Data Collected Under
the Baseline Industrial General Permit
To Satisfy MSGP Fourth Year
Monitoring Requirements
For transitioning Baseline Industrial
General Permittees, EPA proposed (62
FR 37464) that facilities may use their
most recent monitoring results for
averaging purposes to see if monitoring
would be required on an outfall-by-
outfall, pollutant-by-pollutant basis
during the fourth year of the MSGP.
EPA clarified in Section III.D.4 of the
preamble to the proposed modification
(62 FR 37459) that the usable
monitoring data was limited to the two
most recent sampling events conducted
for the Baseline Industrial General
Permit. One commenter stated that
using only two data points was
inconsistent with the intent of the
MSGP as originally published in 1995,
which required a minimum of four data
points to determine the effectiveness of
a facility's SWPPP. In response, EPA
believes that for transitioning Baseline
Industrial General Permittees that have
been monitoring their industrial storm
water discharges, the two most recent
semi-annual or annual data points
should provide sufficient information to
reflect the effectiveness of a facility's
storm water pollution prevention plan
at reducing the release of pollutants.
The final permit modification has been
revised to clarify that monitoring results
from the last two semi-annual or annual
sampling events may be used by
transitioning Baseline Industrial General
Permittees to satisfy this requirement.
Issues Relating to the Benchmark
Criteria for Analytical Monitoring
Waivers
Several comments were received
concerning the benchmark
concentrations in Table 3 of the
proposed permit modification (62 FR
37459; reprinted from Table 5 of the
original MSGP [60 FR 50826]). The
-------
52452
federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 189/Wednesday, September 30, 1998/Notices
MSGP currently provides a waiver on a
parameter-by-parameter, outfall-by-
outfall basis from the analytical
monitoring requirements in the fourth
year of the term of the permit if the
average annual concentration of a
specific pollutant at a specific outfall
during the second year sampling period
is less than the benchmark
concentration. If it is, then the permittee
is not required to monitor for that
pollutant at that outfall during the
fourth year monitoring period. The final
modified MSGP also provides this
waiver on an outfall-by-outfall,
pollutant-by-pollutant basis for facilities
transferring to the MSGP if the average
of the two most recent sampling results
for a specific pollutant at a specific
outfall from the baseline industrial
permit is less than the MSGP's
benchmarks values, provided sampling
was required by the BGP for the
appropriate parameters.
Commenters expressed concern that
the benchmark concentrations were in
effect numeric effluent limitations for
storm water discharges. However, as
pointed out by EPA when the MSGP
was originally issued in 1995, the
benchmarks are not storm water effluent
limitations. The benchmarks provide a
means for identifying low risk
discharges for which additional
monitoring should not be required in
the fourth year of the term of the permit.
The benchmarks also provide an
incentive for facilities to implement an
effective SWPPP by eliminating the
fourth year monitoring requirement if
they comply with the benchmarks.
However, a facility would not
necessarily be in noncompliance with
the permit if the facility does not
comply with the benchmarks.
Compliance with the permit would be
based largely on whether a facility
develops and implements a SWPPP in
accordance with the permit
requirements.
Commenters also objected that some
of the benchmark concentrations were
too stringent. In response, EPA points
out that the benchmarks in the 1995
MSGP were revised from the proposed
concentrations in response to similar
comments on the proposed MSGP. EPA
believes that the benchmarks are
suitable for the primary purpose noted
above (i.e., identifying low risk
discharges).
Another commenter objected that the
benchmarks do not take into
consideration the dilution in the
receiving water. This issue was also
raised during the issuance of the
original MSGP. In addition to being
indicators of low risk discharges, the
benchmarks are also intended to be
indicators of whether an effective
SWPPP is being implemented at a
facility. The end-of-pipe concentrations
are more appropriate when judging the
effectiveness of a SWPPP than a
concentration which is adjusted based
on the available dilution in the
receiving water. As such, the MSGP's
benchmark concentrations do not
consider dilution as suggested by the
commenter.
Another commenter expressed
concern that some of the benchmarks
were based on the highest method
detection limit multiplied by a factor of
3.18. The commenter noted that based
on recent discussions with EPA, another
multiple may be recommended in future
guidance. In response, EPA points out
that the multiple used for the
benchmarks was based on the guidance
available when the MSGP was issued in
1995. EPA has not yet finalized the
additional guidance referred to by the
commenter. The benchmarks are based
on the latest available guidance and
EPA therefore believes they are
appropriate.
Another commenter argued that the
benchmark concentrations should take
into consideration the effect of naturally
occurring pollutants at different
locations. In response, the final storm
water regulations of November 16, 1990
(55 FR 48010) clarify that dischargers
are responsible for the quality of their
discharges regardless of the source of
the pollutants. As subh, the benchmark
concentrations do not consider the
effects of naturally occurring pollutants
on storm water discharges.
Visual Examinations
Several commenters objected to the
requirement in the MSGP for visual
examinations. A commenter argued that
such sampling would not be useful, nor
would permittees make meaningful
modifications to their SWPPPs based on
the results. The commenter noted that
storm water can pick up sediment and
debris naturally.
Most sectors of the MSGP require
quarterly visual examinations (except
Sector S which covers air
transportation). EPA disagrees with the
commenter concerning the usefulness of
the visual examinations. Materials such
as sediment and debris are pollutants
which can degrade downstream
receiving waters. The presence of such
materials in storm water, as well as
other indicators of pollution such as an
oil sheen, foam or scum, are a measure
of the degree to which a SWPPP is being
successfully implemented and the
potential effects of these discharges on
receiving waters. Further, the likely
origin of such materials at a facility
should be readily apparent in many
cases so that a permittee may
appropriately modify the SWPPP or its
implementation.
A commenter suggested that visual
examinations only be required at the
time a facility inspection takes place,
regardless of whether rain and
discharges are occurring at that time.
Visual examinations would only be
conducted if a sample were available. Jn
response, EPA believes that this
recommendation would be inadequate
to fulfill the intent of the visual
examinations since in most instances
rainfall would not coincide with the
regular facility inspections. As such, the
permit was not modified in accordance
with this recommendation.
A commenter also noted that
discharges from oil and gas facilities
may be controlled discharges from
bermed areas. The commenter argued
that a visual examination of the surface
of the water can be made prior to the
controlled releases and that a visual
examination of samples should not be
required in addition to such
observations. In response, EPA believes
that the visual examinations could
provide useful information beyond that
provided by observations of the surface
of the bermed water. The discharger
may observe additional indicators of
pollution (such as turbidity, odor or
color) which may be less apparent from
observations of the surface of the water.
Moreover, the visual examinations are
quick and inexpensive and should not
place a significant burden on
permittees. As such, EPA has not
modified the MSGP in response to this
comment.
Compliance Monitoring by the Timber
Industry
A commenter expressed concern
regarding the effluent limitations
guidelines (ELGs) which were proposed
to be added for discharges associated
with the spray down of lumber and
wood products in storage yards (wet
decking) used by the timber industry.
The proposal would add to the MSGP
the ELGs from 40 CFR Part 429, Subpart
I for "debris" and pH. These ELGs were
inadvertently omitted from the MSGP
when it was originally issued in 1995.
The commenter objected that the
proposed ELG for "debris" in the
discharges would be too lax. The term
"debris" refers to woody material such
as bark, twigs, branches, heartwood or
sapwood that does not pass through a
2.54 cm (1.0 inch) diameter round
opening and is present in the discharge.
The commenter recommended that the
limit be set at Vz inch instead. The
commenter also recommended more
-------
Federal Register /Vol. 63, No. 189/Wednesday, September 30, 1998/Notices
52453
frequent monitoring than once/year as
proposed. In addition, the commenter
noted that discharges would be allowed
provided no chemicals were used In the
spray and no chemicals were applied to
the wood during storage. The
commenter recommended that the
permit also prohibit discharges if
chemicals had been used prior' to
storage,
In response to these concerns, EPA
proposed the modification to include
promulgated ELGs for wet deck
discharges which were inadvertently
omitted from the MSGP. The definition
of the term "debris" was established
when the ELGs for the timber industry
were promulgated in 1981. Comments
on the ELG for "debris" should have
been submitted at the time of the
development of the guidelines. EPA also
believes that the monitoring frequency
for debris and pH is appropriate
considering the risks posed by the
discharges, and is generally consistent
with other compliance monitoring
frequencies In the MSGP.
Usefulness of Monitoring Results
Several commenters objected that the
monitoring requirements of the MSGP
may not provide useful information and
could simply divert resources away
from effective implementation of the
SWPPPs. These commenters argued that
site inspections would be adequate for
effectively controlling pollutants. The
commenters also argued that EPA
should be focusing more on receiving
water monitoring to evaluate the overall
health of the receiving waters in a given
watershed. According to the
commenters, this type of monitoring
would be more consistent with
recommendations which are being
developed by EPA's Urban Wet Weather
Flows Advisory Committee.
In response, EPA believes that the
monitoring requirements of the MSGP
are appropriate despite the points made
by the commenters. For most facilities,
as recommended by the commenters,
the MSGP only requires site inspections
as opposed to analytical monitoring. Of
the over 10,000 facilities currently
covered by the MSGP, only about 2,600
(or approximately 2696) Indicated on
their NOIs that they would fall into a
category for which monitoring is
required. The monitoring requirements
are also targeted toward the highest risk
facilities as determined by the storm
water monitoring data submitted with
the group applications. EPA does not
necessarily agree that site inspections
(or even visual examinations) are
adequate as a complete substitute for
analytical monitoring. Visual site
inspections may simply overlook
significant sources of pollutants which
contribute to storm water pollution, and
visual examinations of discharges will
not detect certain pollutants such as
dissolved metals. Analytical monitoring
is still useful in identifying and
evaluating important specific sources of
pollutants.
EPA agrees with many of the points
made the commenters regarding the
benefits of watershed and receiving
water monitoring. In 1996, EPA and the
Center for Watershed Protection
published a report entitled
Environmental Indicators to Assess
Stormwater Control Programs and
Practices" which lays out numerous
alternatives to chemical monitoring to
assess the environmental effects of
storm water discharges and measure the
progress of storm water management
programs. However, at the present time,
we also believe that the monitoring
requirements of the MSGP are
appropriate to gather additional
information on the quality of storm
water discharges from specific sources
and assess the effectiveness of the
SWPPPs which are currently being
implemented. A shift toward more
resource monitoring and less chemical
monitoring may be appropriate over
time as additional data are gathered.
Facilities wishing to pursue watershed
monitoring, or receiving water
monitoring as an alternative to the
monitoring requirements of the MSGP at
this time should pursue individual
permits or an alternate general permit.
Using Representative Outfalls
The MSGP provides that when a
facility has two or more outfalls which
are "substantially identical," only one
of the outfalls needs to be monitored.
However, a commenter objected that the
criteria for determining whether two
outfalls are "substantially identical" are
too stringent and inflexible.
EPA disagrees that the MSGP is too
inflexible in this regard. The permit
simply requires an explanation in the
SWPPP of why the discharges from the
outfalls would be similar based on a
review of the industrial activities and
pollutant controls in the drainage areas
of the outfalls. These requirements do
not impose an excessive burden on
permittees.
Arid Climate Issues
A commenter noted that in arid areas
of the country, a quarter may pass with
no measurable storm water discharges.
The commenter asked how an annual
average would be determined for
purposes of comparison with permit
benchmark values; i.e., should a zero be
included in determining the annual
average or should the average be based
solely on actual data measurements
collected during the year.
The MSGP requires that the average
concentration be determined on the
basis of all monitoring data collected
during the monitoring year. Therefore, a
zero would not be included in
determining the annual average if a
discharge did not occur within a
particular quarter; only actual
monitoring results would be used.
New Mexico Issues
A commenter asked whether the low
concentration waiver for Sector O
(steam electric power plants) would
apply to the additional monitoring
requirements set forth in Part XII of the
MSGP (State certification requirements)
for New Mexico. In response, EPA is
clarifying that the low concentration
waiver applies not only to pollutants
listed in Part XI, such as the one for total
recoverable iron found in Table O-l,
but also to the additional pollutants
listed in Part XII for dischargers located
in New Mexico.
The commenter also asked about the
basis for the list of additional pollutants
to be monitored for Sector O facilities in
New Mexico. In response, EPA points
out that monitoring for these pollutants
was determined by the State to be
necessary to ensure compliance with
State water quality standards based on
a review of the monitoring data
submitted by facilities in the sector.
The commenter also objected to the
benchmark concentration of 100 mg/1
for total suspended solids arguing that
it is not appropriate for the arid
southwest which has less vegetation
than other areas. The commenter noted
that the value of 100 mg/1 was derived
from the Nationwide Urban Runoff
Program (NURP) study which looked at
urban runoff at 28 locations around the
country, but generally excluding the
arid southwest. However, EPA believes
that it would be difficult to try to
develop different benchmarks for
different areas of the country as the
commenter suggested. In addition, many
facilities in the arid southwest are
already covered by the MSGP and we
have no evidence that the benchmark
for total suspended solids is
unworkable. Therefore, no changes were
made in response to this comment.
Miscellaneous Monitoring Issues
A number of miscellaneous comments
and questions were received concerning
the monitoring requirements of the
MSGP. One commenter objected to the
requirement to test the runoff from
storms of at least 0.1 inches of rain that
occur at least 72 hours from the
-------
52454
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 189/Wednesday. September 30, 1998 /Notices
previous such event. The commenter
noted that such restrictions can be
problematic in arid areas as well as
areas where rainfall is common. In
response, EPA believes that the MSGP's
provisions for monitoring waivers
adequately address these concerns. For
arid areas, the MSGP includes a waiver
from monitoring requirements when dry
conditions persist for extended periods
of time. A waiver is also available for
wetter areas of the country where a time
period less than 72 hours between
storms is representative of local
conditions.
Another commenter recommended
that monitoring results not be used for
enforcement purposes. In response, the
purpose of the monitoring is primarily
to assist .the facility in evaluating
whether the SWPPP is being
successfully implemented and
identifying any shortcomings. In
addition, the overall risks posed by a
given facility can be evaluated.
However, aside from the small number
of facilities subject to effluent
limitations guidelines, the MSGP
includes few numeric effluent
limitations for which permittees are
subject to enforcement action where
there are excursions above these limits.
For most facilities, compliance with the
MSGP would be based largely on
whether or not the facility had
developed and was implementing an
adequate SWPPP.
One commenter also expressed
concern regarding the effects of the
monitoring requirements on small
businesses. The effects on small
businesses of the original MSGP and
today's modification were both
considered by EPA (see 60 FR 51067
and Section VIII of the fact sheet
accompanying today's permit
modification). EPA concluded that the
permit requirements would not have a
significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
Another commenter objected to the
test method for total phenols, EPA
method 420.1. The commenter noted
that total phenols is included in Table
5 of the fact sheet which sets forth the
benchmark concentrations for the fourth
year monitoring waiver. The commenter
argued that the test method fails to
detect some priority pollutant phenols
and should not be used in the permit.
In response, NPDES regulations at 40
CFR 136 require that test methods
approved under 40 CFR 136 be used for
the monitoring which is required by
NPDES permits, unless alternate
methods have been approved. The only
currently approved method for total
phenols is EPA method 420.1 and
therefore the permit retains the
requirement for the use of this method.
Another commenter noted that
"subsectors" of a larger facility may
occupy only a small fraction of an
overall facility and may contribute little
in the way of storm water pollutants.
The commenter argued that monitoring
should not be required for such
subsectors unless there is concern that
there may be pollutants from the
activities of the subsector. In response,
a subsector of a larger, facility may be
required to monitor because the
subsector falls into a sector of the MSGP
which requires monitoring. However,
this is simply a consequence of the fact
that the industrial activity in question
was identified as a high risk activity by
the group application monitoring data.
As such, EPA believes that the
monitoring requirement is appropriate.
However, the MSGP does not require
that the entire facility monitor storm
water because of the presence of a small
subsector for which monitoring is
required. In addition; the MSGP
provides that monitoring would not be
required if permittees can certify on a
pollutant-by-pollutarit, outfall-by-outfall
basis that their industrial activities are
not exposed to storm water.
One commenter requested that the
MSGP not require that monitoring data
be submitted to the corresponding State
environmental management agency as
well as to EPA. Some States had
required submittal of monitoring data as
a requirement of their Clean Water Act
Section 401 certification for the MSGP
as originally published in 1995. In
response, EPA points out that States
may require the addition of any special
conditions in the MSGP which they
believe are necessary to ensure
compliance with applicable State
requirements. EPA believes this is not
an unreasonable condition and no
changes were made to the MSGP in
response to the comment.
Another commenter recommended
that the construction industry not be
subject to analytical monitoring
requirements. In response, EPA notes
that the MSGP only regulates onsite
construction discharges at permitted
industrial facilities consisting of less
than five acres of disturbance.
Analytical monitoring is not required at
such construction projects as
recommended by the commenter.
Construction projects disturbing five or
more acres are regulated by separate
individual or general permits in non-
NPDES delegated states which, as
recommended by the commenter,
usually do not require analytical
monitoring of storm water discharges.
Another commenter expressed
concern regarding Part J.4.a of Sector J
of the MSGP which prohibits dilution of
mine dewatering discharges with "other
storm water runoff or flows" to meet the ,
effluent limitation guideline. The
commenter was concerned that the
wording implied that dilution would be
acceptable if water sources other than
those specifically mentioned were used
as the dilution water. In response, EPA
believes that the condition is
sufficiently clear that mine dewatering
discharges are not to be diluted with
any other water sources to comply with
the effluent limitation. As such, no
changes were made to the permit in
response to the comment.
A commenter disagreed with what the
commenter perceived to be a proposal to
authorize storm water discharges from
open dumps which receive wastes from
"vehicle maintenance, truck washing
and/or recycling" facilities. In addition,
if such facilities were authorized to
discharge, the commenter recommended
monitoring for oil and grease at a
minimum. In response, EPA notes that
the July 11, 1997, proposed permit
modification included the proposal to
authorize industrial storm water from
open dumps which was one of the
categories of facilities covered by the
Baseline Industrial General Permit but
originally excluded from the MSGP.
Open dumps were not included in
Sector L of the original MSGP which
covered only landfills and land
application sites. The reference to
"vehicle maintenance, truck washing,
and/or recycling" in Sector L pertains to
the overall requirements of the MSGP
for co-located facilities. For example, if
a particular landfill includes a vehicle
maintenance facility at the same
location, the requirements of Sector P,
including its monitoring requirements,
would apply to that portion of the
overall facility. Although Sector P does
not require monitoring for oil and
grease, EPA believes that the
requirements are appropriate based on
the data received in the group
applications.
Another commenter requested a
clarification of the monitoring schedule
which would apply to new facilities
seeking coverage under the MSGP, other
than facilities transferring from the BGP.
In response, new facilities other than
baseline industrial permit facilities
which seek coverage under the MSGP at
this time would only be subject to the
monitoring requirements during the
fourth year of the MSGP (i.e., October 1,
1998—September 30, 1999). It should
also be noted, however, that the MSGP
also includes annual or quarterly
compliance monitoring for a small
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 189/Wednesday, September 30, 1998/Notices
52455
number of facilities with discharges
subject to numeric effluent limitations.
The compliance monitoring
requirements would apply immediately
upon submittal of the NOI.
Concern was also expressed regarding
the availability of laboratories to
perform the analytical tests required by
the MSGP. In response, EPA points out
that except for facilities subject to
effluent limitations guidelines, the
MSGP does not require additional
analytical testing until the last quarter of
the 1998 calendar year. This should
provide adequate lead time for
permittees to ensure the availability of
a testing laboratory for their samples.
Moreover, many transltioning baseline
industrial permit facilities will no
longer be subject to analytical
monitoring once they transfer to the
MSGP.
No Exposure Incentive
Several commenters expressed
concern regarding EPA's proposal for a
"no exposure incentive" and the
potential effects of this proposal on the
MSGP. This proposal is being developed
In connection with the development of
regulations under CWA section
402(p)(6) (aka "Phase II").
The Phase H storm water regulations
were proposed by EPA on January 9,
1998 (63 FR 1536) with a 90 day
comment period. The regulations are
scheduled to be finalized by March 1,
1999. In the meantime, the requirements
of existing storm water regulations will
continue to apply. Comments on the
"no exposure Incentive" proposal
should have been submitted during the
comment period for the Phase II
regulations.
Consistency With EPA's Long Term
NPDES Permitting Strategy
A commenter noted that EPA's long
term NPDES permitting strategy for
Industries calls for industry-specific
permitting as the third tier, with
watershed permitting as the second tier.
The commenter argued that in
accordance with this strategy, EPA
should be engaging in watershed
permitting prior to industry-specific
permitting.
In response, EPA would encourage
that special watershed permits be issued
where they are needed. However. EPA
also points out that storm water
permitting for industrial sources does
not necessarily have to follow the tiered
schedule exactly as set forth in the long
term permitting strategy. Further, the
MSGP was the end result of the group
permit application process for industrial
storm water dischargers provided by the
regulations at 40 CFR 122.26(c)(2). EPA
had a responsibility to develop timely
industry-specific storm water permits in
response to the group applications
which were submitted.
Orphan Facility Economic Advantage
Several commenters objected to the
proposed inclusion of the "orphan"
facilities in the MSGP, arguing that such
facilities would receive an economic
advantage over facilities which
participated in the group application
process. In response, EPA notes that
essentially the same issue arose during
the issuance of the MSGP in 1995.
Commenters expressed concern that the
MSGP would be open to all facilities,
not just those that had participated in
group applications. As in 1995,
however, EPA has not identified any
practical means of providing some sort
of credit for group members. EPA notes
that the "orphan" facilities have
required permit coverage under the
baseline industrial permit since 1992
and have been subject to the costs
associated with that permit for a
considerably longer period of time than
facilities which participated in the
group application process and which
have required permit coverage since
1995.
A commenter also recommended that
storm water data should be collected for
the orphan facilities to more
appropriately determine permit
conditions for them. EPA disagrees that
more storm water data are necessarily
required to determine appropriate
permit requirements for the facilities.
These facilities closely resemble other
facilities in their proposed sectors and
should be appropriately regulated by the
requirements of those sectors.
Permit as a Shield
A commenter requested that EPA
clarify that coverage under and
compliance with the MSGP would
shield the permittee for discharges
which occur and are not prohibited by
the permit. In response, EPA notes that
the MSGP authorizes storm water
discharges and certain listed non-storm
water discharges, subject to the terms
and conditions of the permit. These are
the only discharges which are
authorized by the permit. CWA section
402 (k) provides that compliance with an
NPDES permit is also considered to be
compliance, for purposes of section 309
and 505 enforcement, with sections 301,
302, 306, 307 and 403 of the Clean
Water Act (except for any standard
imposed under section 307 for a toxic
pollutant injurious to human health).
Therefore, permittees discharging in
compliance with the MSGP are not
shielded from non-compliance with the
Clean Water Act for discharges that are
not identified, and thus authorized and
limited by the permit.
Emergency Planning and Community
Right to Know Act (EPCRA)
Requirements
A commenter noted that EPCRA
reporting requirements were modified
on May 1, 1997, (62 FR 23834).
Addendum F of the MSGP provides a
list of water priority chemicals which
trigger certain additional SWPPP
requirements for facilities covered by
the permit. The list of chemicals in
Addendum F is based on EPCRA
reporting requirements in effect in
September, 1995, at the time of the
issuance of the MSGP.
The commenter also noted that the
proposed modification of the MSGP is
limited to a few selected provisions, not
including the list of chemicals in
Addendum F. The commenter requested
confirmation that Addendum F would
not be modified at this time. EPA has
reviewed this matter and confirms that
Addendum F is not being modified at
this time. The primary intent of the
current MSGP modification is to allow
coverage of "orphan" facilities (those
facilities covered by the baseline permit
but not the MSGP) under the MSGP and
for simplicity, minimize the number of
other modifications.
Addition of Sector AD to the MSGP
Several commenters expressed
concerns over the proposed addition of
Sector AD to Part XI of the MSGP. One
commenter observed that there appears
to be no need for this sector since EPA
is proposing to modify the MSGP to
cover all facilities which were covered
by the BGP but excluded from the
original MSGP. This commenter also
argued that there would be no basis for
the permit conditions if the type of
facilities to be covered were not known.
In Section III.F.4 of the draft fact
sheet, EPA indicated that the modified
MSGP should cover all the facilities
which were covered by the BGP but
excluded from the MSGP. As such, we
expect that the commenter will prove to
be correct regarding the need for Sector
AD. Nevertheless, EPA has retained the
sector in the final modified MSGP to
cover any inadvertent omissions. In
addition, the sector provides for a
readily available means for permitting
many Phase II storm water sources
which may be designated by permitting
authorities pursuant to 40 CFR
122.26(g)(l)(i). The permit requirements
for the new sector are the same as the
requirements in the baseline industrial
permit. Based on our experiences with
the BGP, these requirements should be
-------
52456
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 189/Wednesday, September 30, 1998/Notices
appropriate and sufficiently flexible to
accommodate a wide variety of facilities
which may be permitted under Sector
AD. If the requirements are
inappropriate for a given facility, an
individual permit could be issued.
Other commenters argued that general
permits may only be issued for similar
(and identified) discharges and this may
not be the case for discharges which
may be covered by this sector. However,
NPDES regulations at 40 CFR
122.28(a)(2)(i) provide broad discretion
when issuing general permits for storm
water discharges. EPA disagrees that the
facilities and discharges which may be
covered would be too dissimilar to be
covered by a general permit. The permit
conditions provide considerable
flexibility and can be applied to a wide
variety of facilities. Moreover, as
pointed out above, individual permits
could also be issued if the requirements
of Sector AD are inappropriate for a
particular facility.
Commenters also objected to some of
the specific permit requirements for
Sector AD. In particular, concerns were
expressed regarding: 1) Part XI.AD.3.a(2)
which only requires a description of
sources which may contribute
"significant" amounts of pollutants to
storm water discharges; 2) Part
XI.AD.3.a(3) which only requires
"appropriate" controls for a facility; 3)
Part XI.AD.3.a(3)(c) which provides that
clean up equipment "should" be
available for spills as opposed to "must"
be available; 4) Part XI.AD.3.a(3)(d)
which requires periodic inspections but
fails to require an inspection interval
(e.g., once per month); 5) Part
XLAD.3.a(3)(g)(i) which requires that
permittees only certify that outfalls have
been evaluated for non-storm water
discharges "if feasible"; and 6) the
perceived absence of requirements for
storm water controls to capture and
remove pollutants, and for process
changes such as changes in material
handling which could prevent pollution
of storm water.
In response to these issues, EPA
points out that Sector AD in Part XI
includes the same conditions that were
included in the Baseline Industrial
General Permit issued in 1992. Further,
EPA believes that the language is
appropriate and ensures the necessary
flexibility for the variety of facilities
which could be covered by this sector.
EPA also points out the Part
XI.AD.3.a(3) (h) does require a
consideration of structural storm water
controls to capture and remove
pollutants and requires that such
controls be included in SWPPPs when
appropriate. In addition, the permit
requires a consideration of material
management practices and whether
modified practices would be available to
reduce exposure of materials to storm
water (see Part XI.AD.3.a.(3)(c) for an
example).
One commenter requested that EPA
clarify that not all components of the
SWPPP required by Part AD are
necessarily applicable to all facilities. In
response, EPA agrees that not all
components of the SWPPP as described
may apply to all facilities. However,
each component must be considered by
permittees in developing SWPPPs and
included as appropriate.
Another commenter identified
typographical errors in Parts
XI.AD.3.a(3)(g)(i) and ,3.a(3) (i) which
EPA has subsequently corrected in the
final modified MSGP. The same
commenter also stated that Part XI.AD.4
only requires that a comprehensive site
compliance evaluation be conducted
once a year, and believed that EPA's
intention was that these evaluations be
conducted "at least once a year." In
response, EPA agrees with this comment
and has revised the final modified
permit to allow for more than one
evaluation per year in order to address
changing conditions at facilities in a
more timely manner.
Inclusion of Manufacturers of Leather.
Products Into Sector V
Several commenters inquired about
the basis for EPA's proposed inclusion
of manufacturers of leather products
into Sector V which covers textile mills,
apparel and other fabric product
manufacturing. The commenters argued
that the use of a general permit for the
facilities, at a minimum, would require
a showing that the facilities would have
similar discharges.
In response, EPA points out that
NPDES regulations at 40 CFR
122.28(a)(2)(i) provide broad discretion
when using general permits for storm
water discharges. The criteria cited by
the commenter regarding similarity of
discharges and other factors apply to
discharges other thari storm water.
Nevertheless, EPA believes that the
nature of the operations and discharges
from leather products manufacturers
would be similar to other facilities in
Sector V. EPA also notes that the
facilities which are being added to
Sector V manufacture finished products
as do the existing facilities in the sector.
Sector Z (leather tanning, which is
another sector which might have been
considered) covers facilities which
produce leather from animal hides and
skins. EPA believes Sector V is the more
appropriate sector for the leather
product manufacturers since finished
products are involved in both cases.
Requirements of Sector N
A commenter expressed concern
regarding some of the specific
requirements of Sector N (scrap and
waste recycling) and argued that some
of the requirements were too inflexible.
In response, EPA believes that the
commenter is mistaken regarding the
perceived inflexibility of this sector.
The permit generally requires that
certain BMPs be considered by
permittees and included in SWPPPs as
appropriate as opposed to being
absolute requirements.
The commenter also objected that the
requirements of this sector seemed to be
more stringent than the requirements of
another sector which, in the
commenter's view, should have been at
least as stringent. In response, EPA
conducted a thorough review of
available BMPs and monitoring
requirements for the different sectors
when the MSGP was originally issued in
1995. EPA believes that the
requirements of the different sectors,
such as Sector N, are appropriate based
on the information submitted in the
group applications concerning available
BMPs and the monitoring results which
were submitted. Therefore, no changes
were made in response to this comment.
The commenter also recommended
that the majority of the pollutants for
which monitoring is required in Sector
N should be deleted. The commenter
recommended that monitoring for lead
should be the only sampling parameter
required. Further, the commenter
recommended that only one sample
should be required during the term of
the MSGP. In response, EPA points out
that the list of pollutants for which
monitoring is required by the MSGP is
based on the data submitted in the
group permit applications. EPA believes
that the parameters selected for
monitoring for Sector N are appropriate
based on these data. EPA also believes
that one sampling event only during the
term of the permit would be inadequate
to characterize the storm water
discharges from those facilities.
Therefore, no changes have been made
to this sector in the permit.
Response to Comments on the Agency's
Separate Proposal to Modify Sector G
One commenter stated that it
generally agreed with EPA's
interpretation of the applicability of
effluent limitation guidelines to the ore
mining activities contained in Table G-
4 of the MSGP, particularly the broad
interpretation of the term "mine
drainage" to include runoff from waste
rock and overburden. The commenter
requested that EPA reiterate its position
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 189/Wednesday, September 30, 1998/Notices
52457
regarding this Issue, but believes that
use of the term "continuing
authorization" for some mining
operations which may have
misinterpreted this table as well as the
applicability of the effluent limitation
guidelines in order to obtain coverage
under the Baseline Industrial General
Permit, is incorrect and should be
deleted.
On October 22,1997, EPA proposed
revisions to Sector G of the MSGP (62
FR 54950} to (1) delete those portions of
Table G-4 that address effluent
guidelines, (2) describe only those parts
of a hard rock mining operation that
could claim coverage under the permit,
and (3) slightly expand the categories of
sources at a hard rock mining and
dressing operation that could claim
coverage under the permit. EPA
anticipates that this final permit
modification will be published in the
Federal Register in the near future and
will clarify which discharges are eligible
for coverage under the MSGP.
Signatory Requirements
One commenter recommended that
EPA finalize its proposal of December
11, 1996 (61 FR 65268). regarding
NPDES signatory requirements
concurrently with the modification of
the MSGP. This would provide some
relief by giving facility managers the
authority to sign notifications.
The proposal of December 11, 1996, is
an extensive Agency-wide effort to
respond to a directive Issued by the
President on February 21, 1995, which
directed Federal agencies to review their
regulatory programs to eliminate any
obsolete, ineffective, or unduly
burdensome regulations. However, EPA
has not yet completed its final response
to the directive. EPA's response to the
issue raised by the commenter will
accompany the Agency's overall
response to the directive.
Spill Response Requirements
Comments were received suggesting
that a restoration or remediation
requirement be incorporated into the
permit to address spills of oil or
hazardous substances which require
reporting to the National Response
Center.
In response, EPA believes that
appropriate provisions are already in
place which require MSGP permittees
to: (1) Implement measures to prevent
spills or unauthorized releases; (2)
ensure prompt clean-up of such releases
to prevent their discharge during a
subsequent storm event; and (3) revise
their SWPPPs to prevent such releases
In the future. EPA also points out that
the purpose of the NPDES permit
program is to control discharges of
pollutants before they enter waters of
the United States. Restoration could be
addressed, however, through
enforcement action against a permittee
for noncompliance with the permit.
Guidance for Louisiana, Oklahoma and
Puerto Rico Permittees
Comments were received requesting
guidance for Baseline Industrial General
Permittees in the States of Louisiana
and Oklahoma which were both
recently authorized to implement the
NPDES permitting program in lieu of
the EPA. The date when the baseline
Industrial permit was issued in Puerto
Rico was also requested. EPA's
responses follow below by area:
Louisiana
The State of Louisiana was authorized
by EPA to implement the NPDES
permitting program, including authority
over general permits such as the
baseline industrial permit and the
MSGP, on August 27, 1996, and regulate
all facilities in the State except those
located on Indian country which will
continue to be covered-by the EPA.
Operators completing an NOI for
industrial storm water discharge permit
coverage which answered "yes" to the
question of whether their facility is
located on Indian country continue to
be regulated by the EPA.
In Louisiana-, the Louisiana
Department of Environmental Quality
(LDEQ) is the State agency which
administers the NPDES program except
in Indian country. Currently, all
Baseline Industrial General Permittees
located outside of Indian country in
Louisiana which submitted an NOI
within the time frames prescribed in
Part Vn.B of the permit will remain
covered by operation of law until they
receive further instructions from the
LDEQ. MSGP permittees located outside
of Indian country in Louisiana are not
affected by today's modifications to
EPA's MSGP.
To assist the LDEQ with
administering its baseline industrial
permit and MSGP outside of Indian
country, EPA continues to maintain data
management functions such as
processing NOI and NOT forms.
Permittees will be informed by the
appropriate regulatory agency (i.e., EPA
or LDEQ) when there are changes to
their respective permits or programs.
Oklahoma
A more detailed response is needed
for industrial storm water discharge
permitting in Oklahoma. Though the
State of Oklahoma (specifically, the
Oklahoma Department of Environmental
Quality or ODEQ) was authorized by
EPA to implement the NPDES
permitting program except in Indian
country on November 19, 1996, it did
not include the authority to issue or
administer general permits such as the
Baseline Industrial General Permit or
the MSGP until September 11, 1997.
Consequently, EPA administered the
industrial storm water discharge
program in Oklahoma until that time. In
addition, EPA continues to maintain
NPDES authority over discharges from
oil, gas and pipeline operations which
are regulated at the State level by the
Oklahoma Corporation Commission,
and discharges regulated at the State
level by the Oklahoma Department of
Agriculture. Since it appears that the
only type of facilities regulated by the
Oklahoma Department of Agriculture
which require industrial storm water
discharge permitting are concentrated
animal feeding operations (CAFO), no
modifications were proposed to the
MSGP since CAFOs are covered by a
different NPDES general permit. To
summarize, the following entities will
continue to be regulated by the EPA and
not the ODEQ for industrial storm water
discharge purposes: Operators
completing an NOI for industrial storm
water discharge permit coverage which
answered "yes" to the question of
whether their facility is located in
Indian country; operators who are
regulated by the Oklahoma Corporation
Commission and submitted a Notice of
Intent with a primary Standard
Industrial Classification code in the
1300 series for oil and gas exploration
and production related industries or
pipeline operations; and facilities
regulated by the Oklahoma Department
of Agriculture. All other industrial
storm water discharges are regulated by
the ODEQ.
Currently, all Baseline Industrial
General Permittees located outside of
Indian country in Oklahoma which
submitted an NOI within the time frame
prescribed in Part Vn.B of the permit
will remain covered by operation of law
until they receive further instructions
from the ODEQ. MSGP permittees
located outside of Indian country in
Oklahoma and not regulated by
Oklahoma Corporation Commission are
not affected by today's modifications to
EPA's MSGP.
In November 1997, the ODEQ
assumed data management functions
such as processing NOI and NOT forms
for the industrial storm water facilities
which it regulates. NOIs and NOTs
received by EPA's NOI/NOT data center
for facilities regulated by the ODEQ will
be forwarded to the Department for
processing.
-------
52458
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 189/Wednesday, September 30, 1998/Notices
Puerto Rico
The Baseline Industrial General
Permit was issued in Puerto Rico on
September 25, 1992. The above
information has been incorporated into
the final Fact Sheet.
Requirements for Petroleum Refineries
Several commenters stated that the
language incorporating petroleum
refineries into the MSGP was too broad
and not restrictive enough considering
the types and amounts of pollutants
which could be discharged during storm
events.
EPA disagrees and believes that the
proposed language places a clear
boundary on the areas of refineries
which may be eligible for industrial
storm water discharge coverage under
the MSGP. As proposed, EPA cautioned
that areas eligible for coverage at
petroleum refineries will be very limited
because the term "contaminated
runoff," as defined under 40 CFR
419.11, includes storm water runoff
which comes into contact with any raw
material, intermediate product, finished
product, by-product or waste product
located on petroleum refinery property,
and is therefore not eligible for coverage
under the MSGP. To provide
clarification as to which areas at a
petroleum refinery may be eligible for
MSGP coverage, provided discharges
from these areas do not co-mingle with
contaminated runoff, EPA listed as
examples vehicle and equipment
storage, maintenance and refueling
areas. Further, EPA listed areas not
eligible for MSGP coverage including
those handling raw materials,
intermediate products, by-products,
waste materials, chemicals and material
storage; loading and unloading areas;
transmission pipelines; and processing
area.
The permit remains as proposed with
the following exception. EPA notes that
the term "finished products" was
inadvertently omitted from the list of
areas not eligible for permit coverage in
the proposal and has included it in the
final permit modification.
Accessibility of Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plans (SWPPPs)
One commenter recommended that
the MSGP provide the same type of
public access to SWPPPs as that
proposed in the reissuance of EPA's
Construction General Permit. In
response, EPA notes that the final
Construction General Permit was
revised so that it encourages but does
not require public access to SWPPPs.
The Clean Water Act grants EPA the
authority to require the submission of
information by the regulated
community. It does not, however,
require the regulated community to
provide information to private citizens
upon request. When EPA reissues the
MSGP in the year 2000, EPA will review
the current plan availability issues. The
plan access provisions currently
contained in the MSGP have not been
modified.
Permitting of Open Dumps
Several comments were received
against the inclusion of open dumps in
the expanded scope of coverage of the
modified MSGP. Reasons ranged from
the extreme variability of wastes
received; illegality of open dumps;
possibility of leachate first seeping
through the ground then surfacing and
becoming indistinguishable from other
storm water discharges; and, the high
potential for erosion. Other comments
concerned the definition of "qualified
personnel" and the dissemination of
Discharge Monitoring Reports to local
governments as well as to large and
medium Municipal Separate Storm
Sewer Systems (MS4s) that receive open
dump industrial storm water discharges.
In response, through this permit
modification EPA is neither facilitating
the continuation of open dumps nor
condoning illegal waste disposal
practices. By allowing the inclusion of
open dumps under Section XI.L of the
modified MSGP, EPA is expeditiously
providing continued permit coverage of
allowable industrial storm water
discharges from such facilities. Non-
storm water discharges such as leachate,
and vehicle and equipment wash
waters, are explicitly prohibited from
coverage under the MSGP per Section
XI.L.2.(a). Such non-storm water
discharges would require coverage
under another NPDES permit such as an
individually drafted permit with site-
specific effluent monitoring and
limitation requirements. Since
individually drafted permits are site-
specific, they are resource and time
intensive to draft and issue. Further,
Section XI.L.3.a.(2)(a)(i) requires the
identification and description of any
potential sources of pollution, including
leachate springs and open dumping
areas. Section XI.L.3:a.(3) requires the
development of measures to eliminate
or control such pollutants. To assist
permittees, a definition of "leachate"
was included in Part XI.L.2.(a) of the
permit.
With respect to the comment that
Section XI.L.2.b.(3)(h) be revised so that
sediment and erosion control plans
address areas other than those
exhibiting a high potential for
significant erosion (i.e., those areas that
may have a potential for erosion), EPA
found the language as originally
published in the September 29, 1995,
version of the MSGP to be acceptable
and did not propose any modifications.
This portion of the permit will remain
unchanged.
The term "open dump" is defined as
any solid waste disposal facility which
does not meet the criteria of Subtitle D
of RCRA. Regulations for Subtitle D are
found under 40 CFR Parts 257 and 258.
Thus, the term could be applied to any
solid waste disposal facility which does
not comply with appropriate
requirements. Implementation of the
industrial storm water discharge
management provisions contained in
the modified MSGP will assist open
dump operators with addressing
sediment and waste run-off problems
through storm water run-on and run-off
controls.
The term "qualified operator" is used
throughout the MSGP. It is a general
term which means a person who is
familiar with a facility's SWPPP and
industrial operations, and can identify
sources of pollution contacting storm
water as well as devise ways to reduce
or eliminate its impact on receiving
waters. Due to the large scope of
coverage of the MSGP, it is not feasible
nor is it necessary to require a certain
level of education, licensing or
experience to meet the definition of
"qualified personnel." Licenses,
education and experience requirements
are best required by other applicable
Federal, State, Tribal or local
government rules and regulations. As
always, EPA recommends the use of
good engineering, land and waste
management practices at all landfills,
land application sites and open dumps
to minimize impacts on the
environment.
With regard to a comment that
Section XI.L.S.b.(l) of the MSGP be
modified to require that Discharge
Monitoring Reports (DMRs)
documenting sample analyses of
industrial storm water discharges from
open dumps be also sent to local
governments that are operators of
smaller than medium or large municipal
separate storm sewer systems (i.e., based
upon a population of less than 100,000),
EPA believes that the decision to receive
such information is best made at the
local level of government. Nothing in
the MSGP precludes permittees from
complying with all applicable State,
Tribal or local laws. Further, though
EPA encourages cooperation between
local governments and facility
operators, it believes that mandating
such a requirement may be unduly
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63. No. 189/Wednesday, September 30, 1998/Notices
52459
burdensome on both facilities and local
governments.
In summary, due to the limited
allowable types of discharges that Part
Xl.L allows for open dumps and the
prohibition against the discharge of
storm water that contacts waste (i.e.,
Icachate), regulation of open dumps will
remain in the final permit modification.
Sand, Gravel and Crushed Stone Mine
Dewatering Discharges
Comments were received requesting
that EPA Region 1 be included among
the Regions allowing sand, gravel and
crushed stone mine dewatering
discharges (see 40 CFR 436 Subparts B,
C and D) under the MSGP. Currently,
such mine dewatering discharges in
Region 1 require coverage under an
Individual NPDES permit. Since Region
1 does not currently have sufficient
resources to draft and issue individual
NPDES permits to facilities solely for
such discharges and MSGP limitations
covering these discharges are adequate
to protect receiving surface water
quality, EPA is extending the coverage
under Part XI. J. to include Region 1
along with Regions 2, 6, 10 and the State
of Arizona. The permit has been revised
accordingly.
Sampling, Inspection and Reporting
Burdens Associated With the MSGP
Comments were received concerning
the increased cost and administrative
burdens placed on the regulated
community by increasing the
inspections, sampling, analysis and
reporting from annual to quarterly.
In the proposed modifications to the
MSGP, facilities transitioning to the
MSGP from the baseline industrial
permit would be required to sample
their industrial storm water discharge
on a quarterly basis only during the
fourth year of the permit (i.e., October
1,1998-September 30. 1999), provided
sampling was required in the sector(s)
which applied to a particular facility.
This would result in a maximum of four
sampling events per facility. If sampling
was required in the baseline industrial
permit, it was on either an annual or
semi-annual basis for each year a facility
was covered by the permit. This would
result in a maximum of five to ten
sampling events for a facility which is
comparable to the MSGP requirements.
In addition, EPA proposed to allow
transitioning baseline industrial
permttees to use the last two years of
annual or last year of semi-annual
monitoring data to determine if fourth
year MSGP sampling requirements
could be waived on a pollutant-by-
pollutant. outfall-by-outfall basis. This
proposal was retained in the final
modified MSGP.
As in the Baseline Industrial General
Permit, the MSGP provides sampling
waivers where a permittee can certify on
a pollutant-by-pollutant basis that their
industrial storm water discharge does
not have the potential to contain the
pollutant, thus relieving the facility
from sampling for that substance at that
outfall.
With regard to inspection frequency,
the MSGP does require more frequent
inspections for certain types of facilities
than the Baseline Industrial General
Permit. However, these inspections are
targeted toward the facilities which pose
the greatest risk to storm water and this
is generally in accord with the
recommendation of the commenter. For
reporting sampling results, the
submission of DMRs is required once
annually at the conclusion of the fourth
year of the MSGP. The Baseline
Industrial General Permit had a similar
requirement for facilities sampling on a
semi-annual basis; however, facilities
which were required to monitor on an
annual basis only needed to submit the
results when requested by EPA.
With regard to the comments that
more complex SWPPPs will not result
in decreased discharges of pollutants
through gravel pads, EPA crafted the
MSGP so that it provides general
industrial storm water discharge and
spill controls for maximum flexibility
and applicability as the Baseline
Industrial General Permit does, but also
provides more industry-specific
controls. These industry-specific
controls provide SWPPP managers with
additional information on identifying
and controlling the discharge of
pollutants which may improve water
quality when compared to the Baseline
Industrial General Permit. For facilities
with gravel pads, general spill
prevention measures from both permits
would be similar (e.g., use of drip pans
under leaking equipment until repairs
can be completed; replacement of gravel
pads with an impervious surface such as
concrete to contain pollutants rather
than allowing them to discharge or seep
into the ground).
Comments Specific to Alaska
One Alaskan commenter expressed
support of EPA's position not to require
inspections at inactive and unmanned
facilities. In response, EPA notes that
the frequency for conducting
inspections varies from sector to sector
in Part XI of the MSGP, and that some
sectors allow for a reduction of the
number of required inspections for
inactive sites. EPA encourages
permittees to carefully review the
inspection requirements for each sector
which apply to their facilities in order
to incorporate the correct inspection
frequencies into their SWPPPs.
However, in response to comments from
the Alaskan oil and gas industry, EPA
has modified Section I of the MSGP (for
Oil and Gas Extraction Facilities) to
include the same reduced inspection
frequency found in Sector J for
temporarily or permanently inactive
mineral mining facilities. The
modification provides that only annual
inspections (rather than quarterly or
semi-annual inspections) are required
for temporarily or permanently inactive
oil and gas extraction facilities, but only
those which are remotely located and
unstaffed. EPA believes that this change
is appropriate considering the similar
nature of the facilities in the two sectors
and will address the concerns of
commenters regarding the accessibility
of remote Alaskan oil and gas facilities
in winter. EPA does not intend for this
waiver to be applied merely as a cost
saving measure or for convenience to
limit the number of inspections. It
should also be noted that this
modification only applies to inactive oil
and gas extraction operations (within
major SIC group 13) and not to inactive
oil refinery operations (SIC 2911) which
are added to Sector I by today's MSGP
modification.
Another comment requested that EPA
set seasonal inspection schedules for
Alaska rather than calendar schedules.
The comment stated that during a
typical year in Alaska snow melt occurs
in May or early June, there is little
precipitation from June through August,
and the ground is frozen from
September through May. In response to
this comment, it appears that the
commenter was referring to the MSGP
requirement that permittees conduct
visual examinations of storm water on a
quarterly calendar basis for the life of
the permit unless the site is inactive or
unstaffed and that "the ability to
conduct visual examinations would be
severely hampered and result in the
inability to meet the time and
representative rainfall sampling
specifications" (see 60 FR 50829).
Another waiver, which is found
throughout the permit, allows
temporary waivers from sampling
requirements based on adverse climatic
conditions which also includes periods
of extended frozen conditions which
make sample collection impractical.
Though many facilities located in the
State of Alaska appear to have unique
climatic conditions, EPA believes that
the MSGP provides sufficient flexibility
to address those situations.
-------
5246O
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 189/Wednesday, September 30, 1998/Notices
Another comment requested that
inspections in Alaska be performed
before ice break-up occurs. Ice break-up
affects large areas simultaneously, thus
creating difficulty in reaching remote
areas. In response, EPA believes that the
MSGP provides sufficient flexibility for
scheduling inspections, and, as noted
above, the inspection frequency for
temporarily or permanently inactive oil
and gas extraction facilities which are
remotely located and unstaffed was
modified in response to comments.
One comment was received stating
that it should not be necessary to
document the inactive/unmanned status
of a facility every quarter. The comment
stated that the waiver provision
contained in the MSGP which addresses
these facilities should remain in effect
as long as the facility remains
unmanned. In response, EPA notes that
the chemical sampling waiver for such
facilities requires that permittees certify
on their Discharge Monitoring Report
(DMR) that they are utilizing the waiver
in lieu of submitting sampling results
for each monitoring period that the
waiver is used. However, permittees do
not have to submit such certifications
on DMR's when utilizing the quarterly
visual examination waiver. They are
only required to certify uses of this
waiver in the facility's SWPPP. EPA
does not believe that these provisions
create an undue burden on the regulated
community. In fact, it provides an
opportunity for permittees to maintain
an up-to-date status of their inactive and
unmanned facilities.
Commenters noted that facilities in
Alaska, such as oil and gas facilities and
mineral mining facilities, are often
located in remote, relatively
inaccessible locations and that
compliance with the monitoring
requirements of the MSGP would be
difficult. In response, the MSGP
provides a waiver from the chemical
and visual monitoring requirements for
facilities which are inactive and
unstaffed. As such, EPA believes that
the MSGP addresses this concern.
Commenters also expressed concern
that a good sampling location may be
difficult to find at the gravel pads used
by the oil and gas industry. In response,
EPA notes that the issue concerning a
suitable sampling location is not unique
to the oil and gas industry. EPA believes
that the sampling can still be
accomplished by creating an artificial
sampling site, or simply sampling at the
best available location. A sample for
testing may also be obtained by
collecting several smaller samples taken
at representative discharge locations at
the facility. For further guidance on this
issue, dischargers should refer to EPA's
storm water monitoring guidance
manual (EPA 833-B-92-001).
Several additional comments were
received from a commenter representing
the Alaska oil and gas industry stating
that EPA should recognize the special
climatic conditions in Alaska. The
commenter stated that since storm water
runoff in Alaska generally occurs only
during the months of April to
September, a five-month period,
quarterly or six-month inspections or
sampling requirements are not
appropriate. EPA notes that the MSGP
provides an adverse weather sampling
waiver which should address the
commenter's concern. As noted above,
EPA has modified Section I of the MSGP
to include the same reduced inspection
frequency for temporarily or
permanently inactive!oil and gas
extraction facilities which are remotely
located and unstaffed as is found in
Section J.
The commenter also raised the
following issues:
• Field personnel routinely perform
inspections to identify contamination to
the environment during their day-to-day
duties. The requirement for formal
inspections and supporting paperwork
duplicates ongoing efforts and provides
additional administrative burden to
produce and maintain inspection files
without providing environmental
benefit. This requirement should be
deleted in consideration of the
significant requirements the oil and gas
industry already complies with
including the Oil Pollution Act and
State of Alaska regulations 18 AAC 75.
• Chemical mixing and storage areas
are generally contained within buildings
or lined, bermed holding areas as
required by the Oil Pollution Act and
State of Alaska regulations 18 AAC 75,
and should be deleted from detailed
description requirements. The
requirements for these areas will not
provide any increased storm water
protection. The requirement for marking
hazardous materials duplicates laws and
regulations directed toward the
regulation of hazardpus materials and is
unnecessary. ;
• The reportable quantity release
requirements also duplicate the
requirements for the Oil Pollution Act
and State of Alaska regulations 18 AAC
75 and should be deleted from the
permit. ;
• The proposed site description
requirements duplicate the
requirements for the Oil Pollution Act
and State of Alaska regulations 18 AAC
75 and should be deleted from the
permit.
In response to these comments, EPA
notes that such existing requirements
may be incorporated by reference into
the SWPPP to reduce duplication.
Cost Burden
Many comments were received
regarding the cost of complying with the
MSGP versus the BGP. EPA developed
the MSGP to include sufficient
flexibility so an operator could design
and implement a storm water pollution
prevention program (SWPPP) in a cost
effective manner provided it meets the
goals of the NPDES program and the
CWA. For specific industry sectors,
costs may vary for the MSGP when
compared to the BGP depending on
whether the monitoring requirements
increased or decreased and the nature of
any sector specific BMP requirements.
The MSGP also allows dispensation
from monitoring under several scenarios
if the facility can demonstrate that it
doesn't have the potential to discharge
parameters requiring monitoring.
Requirements for protecting endangered
species and historic properties may
result in some added expenditures but
EPA has minimized that burden to the
extent consistent with providing
adequate protection of those resources.
Otherwise, the burdens and
requirements of the MSGP should
essentially be the same as for the BGP.
For the MSGP, industry specific BMP
requirements resulted from industry
supplied data, making the regulated
community a participant in the
generation of its own permit conditions.
These BMPs should be economically
attainable since they are in use already
at many facilities. Claims made by
electric generating facilities that they
would face increases of $60,000 to
$ 140,000 for compliance with the new
requirements are not felt to be valid,
especially since electric generator
monitoring requirements were reduced
compared to those required by the BGP.
Administrative and paperwork
burdens were a concern of one
commenter. In response, EPA again
notes that the flexibility inherent to
general permits largely makes these
burdens proportional to each
permittees' needs and technical and
administrative ability. Paperwork
requirements which must be submitted
to EPA to satisfy MSGP conditions are
minimal (e.g., a completed Notice of
Intent form to obtain coverage, a
completed Notice of Termination form
to end coverage, and Discharge
Monitoring Reports if storm water
monitoring is required). Since other
paperwork and record keeping
documents can be completed internally
(e.g., SWPPPs, spill and inspection
reports), savings of time and money can
be realized by permittees.
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 189/Wednesday, September 30, 1998/Notices
52461
Some comments were received
regarding the need for employing
economic analyses because pollution
control requires the use of best
conventional pollutant control
technology (BCT) or best available
control technology economically
achievable (BAT). The BAT level of
performance is the very best control and
treatment measures that have been or
are capable of being achieved for
nonconventional or toxic pollutants.
The Agency must consider the cost of
attainability, but it is not required to
balance cost against the effluent
reduction benefits. BCT is the best
technology for controlling conventional
pollutants and for this EPA must
consider the cost of attaining the
pollution reduction against the resulting
benefits. In many instances it is
Infeasible to develop numerical end-of-
plpe effluent limitations for controlling
storm water because the quality and
quantity of the storm water at specific
sites is unknown. Except for discharges
subject to effluent limitation guidelines,
the MSGP imposes BMPs as BAT/BCT
in lieu of end-of-pipe numeric
limitations consistent with 40 CFR
122.44 (k)(l) and Natural Resources
Defense Council v. Costle, 568 F.2d
1369 (D.C. Cir. 1977). The same lack of
data which justifies this use of BMPs
also renders it infeasible to precisely
quantify the costs of pollutant removal
associated with their use. The Agency
may not generally use a lack of precise
data to avoid imposing BAT/BCT
controls; CWA§401(a)(l)(B) requires it
to establish such controls in permits on
the basis of best professional judgement
(BPJ). Using its BPJ. EPA developed the
BMPs that MSGP permittees are
required to consider. Consequently, the
flexibility accorded permittees in
choosing which BMPs to implement in
specific situations should avoid
unreasonable economic consequences.
Paperwork Reduction Act Requirements
One commenter stated that many
aspects of the MSGP are cumbersome
and require unneeded paperwork. In
response, EPA has required a minimum
amount of paperwork under the MSGP
and specifically designed the permit to
be as streamlined as possible. The only
paperwork that is required to be
submitted to EPA include a one-page
Notice of Intent (NOI). discharge
monitoring reports (for some facilities)
and a Notice of Termination if a facility
Is terminating permit coverage. Each of
these documents is essential and cannot
be eliminated without compromising
the integrity of the permit.
One commenter stated that a facility
should be able to file only one NOI for
the entire facility rather than separate
NOI's for each regulated activity, and
that support activities and subsectors
can be addressed through the facility's
SWPPP. In response, EPA notes that the
MSGP already requires that only one
NOI be submitted per operator per
facility, and that multiple activities
occurring on-site are addressed through
the facility's SWPPP. When multiple
activities are conducted by different
operators at a facility, each operator is
required to submit a NOI for permit
coverage and develop a SWPPP which
addresses their regulated activities, or
work with other on-site operators to
develop a single comprehensive plan.
Such a situation would occur at an
industrial park. Accordingly, the permit
will not be revised since it already
addresses the commenter's concerns.
One commenter believes few facilities
changing from the BGP to the MSGP
have storm water discharges that will
impact historic properties, or
endangered species or critical habitats.
The commenter stated that the
requirement for all permittees to submit
two NOI forms to ensure that the
relatively few dischargers that will have
an impact are identified is counter to
EPA's effort to reduce the burden on the
regulated community. In response, the
requirement for facilities transitioning
from the BGP to the MSGP to submit
another NOI, not two NOIs, is necessary
to meet the general permit application
requirements found at 40 CFR
122.28(b)(2), and to address sections
7(a) (2) and (9) of the Endangered
Species Act (ESA) and section 106 of
the National Historic Preservation Act
(NHPA). The burden to submit an
additional NOI is minimal. EPA has
provided guidance in the permit to
minimize the burden of completing the
ESA and NHPA certifications.
Regulatory Flexibility Act Requirements
One commenter stated that EPA did
not consider the significant economic
impacts on industrial facilities that
would result from termination of the
BGP. Thus, EPA failed to comply with
rulemaking requirements mandated
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act, other applicable Federal
requirements, and the Clean Water Act.
The commenter stated that EPA must
take the administrative and paperwork
burdens imposed on these facilities into
account in the storm water program.
The commenter recommended that EPA
evaluate the costs of the proposed action
on smaller businesses.
One commenter stated that under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) and
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act (SBREFA), EPA must
prepare an initial and final regulatory
flexibility analysis when the Agency has
engaged in a notice-and-comment
rulemaking action. These analyses must
examine, among other things, the
impact of EPA's proposal on small
entities, and must evaluate other
alternatives that the Agency could
implement. EPA's decision not to
conduct the required analyses under the
RFA is contrary to the requirements of
the RFA in substantive and procedural
respects. The commenter believes the
proposed permit modification would
have a significant economic impact on
numerous types of industrial facilities,
and would therefore trigger the
requirement to conduct both an initial
and final regulatory flexibility analysis
as required under SBREFA and the RFA.
Further, EPA's assertion that its general
storm water permits are not "rules" for
RFA and Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act (UMRA) purposes is contradicted by
the applicable case law and other
authorities which make clear that all
Agency actions such as the proposal
which have general applicability and
affect the future conduct of regulated
entities are properly classified as
"rules." EPA has effectively conceded
the applicability of the RFA to this
proceeding by certifying that the
proposed permit modification will not
have a significant economic impact on
industry pursuant to Section 605 (b) of
the RFA. The commenter asked EPA to:
(1) Withdraw the proposal until an
initial regulatory flexibility analysis is
prepared and made available for public
comment; (2) provide a copy of this
analysis to the Small Business
Association for review and consultation
with affected small businesses; and (3)
if a proposed permit is issued following
an initial regulatory flexibility analysis,
conduct a final regulatory flexibility
analysis, including an analysis and
explanation of the steps that EPA has
taken to minimize the significant
economic impacts of the action on small
entities and to comply with analysis
requirements of SBREFA and RFA.
In view of the comments received,
EPA further considered whether NPDES
general permits are subject to
rulemaking requirements. The Agency
reviewed its previous NPDES general
permitting actions and related
statements in the Federal Register or
elsewhere. This review suggests that the
Agency has generally treated NPDES
general permits effectively as rules,
though at times it has given contrary
indications as to whether these actions
are rules or permits. EPA also reviewed
applicable laws, including the CWA,
-------
52462
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 189/Wednesday, September 30, 1998/Notices
relevant CWA case law and the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA), as
well as the Attorney General's Manual
on the APA (1947). On the basis of its
review, EPA has concluded that NPDES
general permits are permits under the
APA and thus not subject to APA
rulemaking requirements or the RFA.
The APA defines two broad, mutually
exclusive categories of Agency actions:
"rules" and "orders." Its definition of
"rule" encompasses "an agency
statement of general or particular
applicability and future effect designed
to implement, interpret, or prescribe law
or policy or describing the organization,
procedure, or practice requirements of
an agency * * *." APA section 551(4).
Its definition of "order" is residual: "a
final disposition * * * of an agency in
a matter other than rule making but
including licensing." APA section
551(6) (emphasis added). The APA
defines "license" to "include * * * an
agency permit * * *." APA section
551(8). The APA thus categorizes a
permit as an order, which by the APA's
definition is not a rule.
Section 553 of the APA establishes
"rule making" requirements. The APA
defines "rule making" as "the agency
process for formulating, amending, or
repealing a rule." APA § 551(5). By its
terms, then, § 553 applies only to
"rules" and not also to "orders," which
include permits. As the Attorney
General's Manual on the APA explains,
"the entire Act is based upon a
dichotomy between rule making and
adjudication [the agency process for
formulation of an order]" (p. 14).
The CWA specifies the use of permits
for authorizing the discharge of
pollutants to waters of the United
States. Section 301 (a) of the CWA
prohibits discharges of pollutants
"[except as in compliance with"
specified sections of the CWA,
including section 402.33 U.S.C.
§ 1311 (a). Section 402 of the CWA
authorizes EPA "to issue a permit for
the discharge of any pollutant * * *,
notwithstanding section [301 (a) of the
CWA]." 33 U.S.C. § 1342(a). Thus, the
only circumstances in which a
discharge of pollution may be
authorized is where the Agency has
issued a permit for the discharge.
Courts, recognizing that a permit is the
necessary condition-precedent to any
lawful discharge, specifically suggested
the use of area-wide and general permits
as a mechanism for addressing the
Agency's need to issue a substantial
number of permits. See NRDCv. Train,
396 F.Supp. 1393,1402 (D.D.C. 1975);
NRDCv. Costle, 568 F.2d 1369, 1381.
(D.C. Cir. 1977). Adopting the courts'
suggestion, EPA has made increasing
use of general permits in its CWA
regulatory program, particularly for
storm water discharges.
In the Agency's view, the fact that an
NPDES general permit may apply to a
large number of different dischargers
does not convert it from a permit into
a rule. As noted above, the courts which
have faced the issue of how EPA can
permit large numbers of discharges
under the CWA have suggested use of a
general permit, not a rule. Under the
APA, the two terms are mutually
exclusive. Moreover, an NPDES general
permit retains unique characteristics
that distinguish a permit from a rule.
First, today's modification of the MSGP
is effective only with respect to those
dischargers that choose to be bound by
the permit. Thus, unlike the typical
rule, this NPDES general permit does
not impose immediately effective
obligations of general applicability. A
discharger must choose to be covered by
this general permit and so notify EPA.
A discharger always retains the option
of obtaining its own individual permit.
Relatedly, the terms of the NPDES
general permit are enforceable only
against dischargers that choose to make
use of the permit. If a source discharges
without authorization of a general or an
individual permit, the discharger
violates § 301 of the Act for discharging
without a permit, not for violating the
terms of an NPDES general permit.
Because the CWA and its case law
make clear that NPDES permits are the
congressionally chosen vehicle for
authorizing discharges of pollutants to
waters of the United States, the APA's
rulemaking requirements are
inapplicable to issuance of such
permits, including today's general
permit. Further, while the CWA requires
that NPDES permits be issued only after
an opportunity for a hearing, it does not
require publication of a general notice of
proposed rulemaking. Thus, NPDES
permitting is not subject to the
requirement to publish a general notice
of proposed rulemaking under the APA
or any other law. Accordingly, it is not
subject to the RFA.
At the same time, the Agency
recognizes that the question of the
applicability of the APA, and thus the
RFA, to the issuance of a general permit
is a difficult one, given the fact that a
large number of dischargers may choose
to use the general permit. Indeed, the
point of issuing a general permit is to
provide a speedier means of permitting
large number of sources and save
dischargers and EPA time and effort.
Since the Agency hopes that many
dischargers will make use of a general
permit and since the CWA requires EPA
to provide an opportunity for "a
hearing" prior to issuance of a permit,
EPA provides the public with notice of
a draft general permit and an
opportunity to comment on it. From
public comments, EPA learns how to
better craft a general permit to make it
appropriate for, and acceptable to, the
largest number of potential permittees.
This same process also provides an
opportunity for EPA to consider the
potential impact of general permit terms
on small entities and how to craft the
permit to avoid any undue burden on
small entities. This process, however, is
voluntary, and does not trigger
rulemaking or RFA requirements.
In the case of the modification to the
MSGP being issued today, the Agency
has considered and addressed the
potential impact of the modification on
small entities in a manner that would
meet the requirements of the RFA if it
applied. EPA has analyzed the potential
impact of this modification to the MSGP
on small entities and found that it will
not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small
entities. Like the existing general
permit, the modification to the general
permit will make available to many
small entities a streamlined process for
obtaining authorization to discharge. Of
the possible permitting mechanisms
available to dischargers subject to the
CWA, NPDES general permits are
designed to reduce the reporting and
monitoring burden associated with
NPDES permit authorization, especially
for small entities with discharges having
comparatively less potential for
environmental degradation than
discharges typically regulated under
individual NPDES permits. Thus,
general permits like the modification of
the general permit at issue here provide
small entities with a permitting
application option that is much less
burdensome than NPDES individual
permit applications.
EPA is committed to issuing general
permits that meet the substantive and
procedural requirements of the statute
authorizing the particular general
permit and any other applicable law.
The Agency intends to review its use of
general permits across EPA programs to
ensure that its general permits meet all
applicable requirements.
Protection of Endangered Species
A large number of comments were
received regarding provisions in the
permit to protect endangered or
threatened species. For reading
convenience, similar comments have
been grouped together for response and
are listed below in items A-M.
A. Some commenters have asked
whether the permittees must address
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 189/Wednesday, September 30, 1998/Notices
52463
only those threatened and endangered
species that are listed at Addendum H.
EPA wishes to clarify that permittees
must address only those species found
in Addendum H. However, the
Addendum H list has been updated (as
part of the modification) to reflect recent
threatened and endangered species
listings and proposals and has been
expanded to include terrestrial species
wmch may be affected by storm water
discharges or construction of best
management practices (BMPs) to control
those discharges. As a result, the
Addendum H list now contains all
listed and proposed species for the
geographic areas covered by the permit.
The Addendum H list will be updated
on a regular basis and an electronic
copy of that list will be made available
at of the Office of Wastewater
Management website at "http://
www.epa,gov/owm". Information on the
availability of an electronic list is also
being added to the Addendum H
instructions.
B. A number of comments were
received regarding the area of impacts to
be considered for listed species. Some
cornmenters questioned EPA's
delineation of the area of impacts to be
considered. Some cornmenters believed
the "Endangered Species Act review"
should encompass the entire site, not
Just certain portions of the site.
The MSGP criteria of the geographic
areas to be examined for effects to
species is found in Addendum H. The
Addendum H Instructions direct
applicants to determine if species listed
in Addendum H are found in proximity
to a facility's storm water discharges. A
species would be in proximity to those
dischargers where the species is:
• Located in the path or immediate
area through which or over which
contaminated point source storm water
flo%vs from industrial activities to the
point of discharge into the receiving
water.
• Located in the immediate vicinity
of, or nearby, the point of discharge into
receiving waters.
• Located in the area of a site where
storm water BMPs are planned or are to
be constructed.
These location criteria are intended to
be flexible to allow for more accurate,
site specific determinations of effects to
species. The Addendum explicitly notes
that the area to be searched/surveyed for
listed species will vary with the size of
the facility, the nature and quantity of
the storm water discharges, and the type
of receiving waters.
EPA declines to require that
applicants consider effects to species for
the "entire" site because such criterion
may not be flexible enough to accurately
account for effects to species from storm
water discharges. Some of the facilities
covered by this permit may comprise
only a very small portion of a large
"site" or tract of land such as an
industrial park. In such instances, a
requirement that applicants examine
effects to species for the entire site
without regard to the location of storm
water discharges and BMPs may impose
unnecessary costs and other burdens on
applicants. In some situations, the
suggested criterion may not be
sufficiently protective of Addendum H
species because it does not extend
beyond the borders of a site to the point
of discharge (and immediate vicinity) in
the receiving water. EPA believes the
current criteria provide EPA and
applicants with the appropriate degree
of flexibility to determine whether
species are directly or indirectly
affected by storm water discharges and
BMPs that are regulated under this
permit.
C. Some cornmenters noted that the
species list in Addendum H was
outdated and requested that EPA
publish an updated list with specific
contacts at the Fish and Wildlife Service
to answer questions.
EPA is publishing an updated list and
is also providing an address list of Fish
and Wildlife Service and National
Marine Fisheries Service offices in the
permit. The Addendum H list will be
updated on a regular basis and an
electronic copy of the updated list will
be made available at of the Office of
Wastewater Management website at
' 'http://www.epa.gov/owm''.
Information on the availability of an
electronic list is also being added to the
Addendum H instructions.
D. Some cornmenters noted that EPA
should provide complete and up-to-date
details to applicants and permittees on
how to certify compliance with National
Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and
ESA.
EPA believes that the permit
conditions and Addendum H (including
the updated species list) provide
comprehensive, current information on
how to comply with the Notice of Intent
ESA certification provisions. EPA does
not believe that it would be possible to
provide "complete information" to
applicants/permittees for these
certifications given the number and
variety of activities covered by the
permit. With respect to the NHPA, see
EPA's response to the NHPA comments
below.
E. Some commenters have questioned
the relevancy of provisions in the MSGP
to protect endangered and threatened
species. They believe that merely
adding requirements to assess threats to
species will not enhance pollution
prevention, and if these provisions are
implemented no companies will
identify endangered species and
subsequently improve BMPs to prevent
storm water pollution. Some
commenters believed that the
requirements of the ESA apply to
applicants regardless of whether there is
a permit.
EPA disagrees with the notion that
dischargers will simply ignore the
requirements of this permit to identify
species in accordance with the terms of
the permit. Moreover, where species are
present, and steps are identified to
ensure protection of those species, this
could, contrary to these commenters'
assertions, enhance pollution prevent
efforts. The commenter's point about the
ESA applying regardless of whether
there is a permit is correct as it relates
to section 9 of the Act, which prohibits
take of listed species by any person,
regardless of whether it is authorized by
a federal agency. The NOI screening
procedures applicants must undertake
should assist them in complying with
ESA §9. In addition, this process
facilitates compliance by EPA with ESA
§ 7 (a) (2) in issuing a general permit
authorizing numerous storm water
discharges in many locations. This
process ensures that any needed
measures to protect species are
implemented, but retains the significant
advantages of reducing unnecessary
paperwork, to the advantage of both the
permittees and EPA. The benefits using
a general permit provides to both the
Agency and operators could not be
realized without these or similar
screening procedures. In the absence of
a general permit, and given the huge
administrative burden that would be
associated with permitting these
discharges individually (and the
resulting likelihood of delays in
receiving authorization, some industrial
storm water discharges would thus
likely have to choose between avoiding
the discharges altogether or subjecting
themselves to potential liability for
violating the CWA § 301 (a).
EPA believes the protection of listed
and proposed species is an integral goal
of the Clean Water Act (CWA), and it is
consistent with the goals of both of
these statutes that EPA establish the
eligibility criteria contained in this
general permit. This permit basically
establishes an optional process (i.e., an
alternative to the individual permitting
process) that dischargers may seek to
pursue, and which provides the
significant advantage for the permittees
of potentially receiving authorization to
discharge far more quickly that would
-------
52464
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 189/Wednesday, September 30, 1998/Notices
be possible through the individual
permitting process.
The primary goal of the CWA is the
restoration and maintenance of the
chemical, physical, and biological
integrity of the Nation's waters. This
includes the attainment of water quality
that provides for the protection and
propagation of fish, shellfish, wildlife.
See 33 U.S.C. 1251. In EPA's view, the
breadth of these goals are entirely
consistent with the goal of protecting
threatened and endangered species.
Moreover, EPA has broad authority
under the CWA to include conditions in
NPDES that are necessary to implement
water quality standards requirements
established by the Act, and those
standards are designed to ensure to
protect, among other things, use of
waters by aquatic-dependent wildlife.
See CWA sections 301(b)(l)(C) and
303(c).
The eligibility provisions of the MSGP
only authorize storm water discharges
and the construction of BMPs that are
not likely to adversely affect species
identified in Addendum H, or are
authorized under the ESA through the
successful conclusion of ESA § 7
consultation (formal or informal) or by
obtaining an ESA § 10 permit. See 60 FR
51112 (Sept. 29, 1995). EPA also notes
that § 9 ESA places an obligation on
applicants/permittees to ensure that
their activities do not result in any
prohibited takes of species (e.g.,
harassment or harm). This obligation
applies regardless of whether a
discharger's activities are authorized by
a federal agency that is subject to the
requirements of § 7 of the ESA.
Nonetheless, compliance with the
eligibility criteria for coverage under
this permit should facilitate permittee's
compliance with their own obligations
under § 9.
F. Some commenters complained
about the burden imposed by the
MSGP's endangered and threatened
species eligibility screening provisions.
Other commenters found the
Addendum H provisions to be
burdensome and impractical for existing
dischargers. Other commenters have
alleged that these provisions violate the
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA).
The provisions to protect species in
the MSGP were drafted in consultation
with the Services. They were written to
provide applicants the greatest degree of
flexibility in ensuring that their
activities are protective of endangered
and threatened species. The MSGP has
been in use since September 29, 1995,
and EPA has found that the ESA
provisions do not appear to have caused
any wide spread delay or difficulties in
applicants obtaining permit coverage.
Out of a total of over 10,000 applicants,
slightly more than 5% reported that
Addendum H species were found to be
in proximity to the facility. Of that total
number, EPA believes that fewer than
10 applicants where denied permit
coverage on this basis of impacts to
endangered and threatened species.
Thus, EPA believes the Addendum H
procedures are not overly burdensome
to applicants.
With respect to the PRA, EPA notes
that the MSGP is covered by current
information collection requests (OMB
Nos. 2040-0004, 2040-0086, and 2040-
0110) and is in compliance with the
PRA. ;
G. Some commenters asserted that the
review requirements of the ESA apply to
Federal actions but not to those of
individual permittees. They believe that
EPA is seeking to expand the scope of
the ESA to private businesses whose
industrial activities cannot reasonably
be viewed as actions of the Federal
Government. If EPA's approach was
consistently applied, some commenters
believed that any Federally regulated
activity would be subject to ESA review
requirements.
Section 7 (a) (2) of the ESA requires
that Federal agencies consult with the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) or
the National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS) ("the Services") to insure that
any action authorized, funded or carried
out by them (also known as "agency
actions") are not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of any listed
species or result in the destruction or
adverse modification of critical habitat.
The ESA § 7 implementing regulations
at 50 CFR 402 apply this consultation
requirement to any action authorized by
a Federal agency that may affect listed
species or critical habitat, including
permits. Those regulations also define
action to include, but are not limited to:
"the granting of licenses, contracts,
leases, easements, rights-of-way,
permits, or grants-in-aid" or "actions
directly or indirectly causing
modifications to the land, water, or air."
See 50 CFR 402.02. In light of the plain
meaning of the ESA and its
implementing regulations, EPA believes
the scope of consultations on its permit
actions must include the actions of its
permittees. As explained above, EPA
could not comply with ESA § 7 (a) (2) in
authorizing this many!discharges in a
reasonable time if it had to make "no
effect" determinations or consult on
each discharge and on each BMP
employed to control them.
By allowing them to use procedures
functionally equivalent to those EPA
uses in issuing individual permits, the
Agency has provided a mechanism
which applicants may use to avoid long
delays which are typically associated
with obtaining individual permits for -
their storm water discharges. Operators
that think the NOI screening procedures
are too onerous may choose to apply for
individual permits, but they should be
aware that it will probably take them far
longer to obtain discharge
authorizations.
With respect to actions authorized by
other Federal agencies, those agencies
must make their own determinations on
the applicability of ESA § 7. See 50 CFR
402.14(a).
H. Some commenters have also noted
that the review process selected by EPA
is irrational and creates a subsequent
risk of unequally treated dischargers.
While EPA is not sure what is meant
by "unequally treated dischargers," EPA
assumes that the commenters are
concerned that the MSGP requires some
applicants to undertake measures to
protect listed species while not
imposing such requirements on others.
EPA notes that the permit treats all
applicants fairly by requiring that all
applicants meet the same eligibility
criteria for permit coverage. However,
this permit regulates the storm water
discharges and requires site-specific
storm water controls for thousands of
facilities throughout the United States.
To require that all permittees develop
identical treatment plans would impose
unnecessary economic burdens on many
permittees and not provide sufficient
environmental controls (including those
for the protection for listed and
proposed species) for others. Instead,
the MSGP allows each facility to
develop its own individually tailored
storm water pollution prevention plan
(SWPPP). This gives applicants and
permittees the flexibility to ensure that
their permitted activities are protective
of the environment in a cost efficient
manner. Since the presence or absence
of listed species are factors that are
specific to each facility, EPA believes
that the ESA certification process in the
permit is the best way to ensure that
species are protected in a cost effective
manner.
I. Some commenters questioned the
accuracy of EPA's list of species and
allege that the list is created out of data
which is not disclosed on record, and
that such a list could impose huge
burdens on applicants. The commenters
noted that some applicants may have
the misfortune to be located in a county
which the government claims is
occupied by an endangered or
threatened species and can be required
to undertake, without regard to cost, a
full biological survey.
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 189/Wednesday, September 30, 1998/Notices
52465
The Addendum H species list is based
on a database developed by EPA's Office
of Pesticide Programs (OPP). The OPP
database was developed in close
cooperation with the Services to assist
EPA in meeting ESA § 7 consultation
requirements for its pesticides programs
and has been used successfully in that
role for a number of years. Most of the
underlying information for the OPP
database (and hence the Addendum H
list) comes from Federal Register
notices for listing and proposing
endangered and threatened species.
These "listing documents" undergo
public notice and comment and contain
information on the location of species
(usually in the form of maps). They
frequently include county location
Information. Where more specific
information was required to determine
which county(ies) species were located
in, EPA staff conducted further research,
often using the supporting
documentation for the listing
documents. Where necessary, EPA
consulted with the Services' Regional
and Field offices that authored a
particular listing document. While it is
possible that there may be some minor
errors because of inherent difficulties in
establishing location data for some
mobile species, EPA believes that the
Addendum H list is substantially
accurate for its intended purpose of
notifying applicants whether further
Inquiry is needed to assess whether
Addendum H species are in proximity
to the facility.
EPA notes that the MSGP does not
require that all applicants conduct
formal biological surveys to determine if
Addendum H species are located in
proximity to a facility. In fact, the
permit does not require that the
applicant use a specific method.
Instead, it directs applicants to use the
method or methods which best allows
them to determine to the best of their
knowledge whether species are in
proximity to their facility. See 60 FR
51278. These methods may include:
Visual inspections, contacting State
wildlife agencies or the Services,
contacting local or regional conservation
groups, as well as conducting biological
surveys. EPA notes that slightly more
than 5% of permit applicants reported
that species were in proximity to their
facilities. Overall. EPA does not believe
tills process imposes too great a burden
on applicants.
J. Some commenters noted that any
ESA review requirements do not apply
to permitting actions undertaken by
NPDES authorized States and that EPA
should not intend to impose such
procedures on States.
EPA agrees with this comment that
ESA section 7 does not apply to States
but notes that State NPDES permits are
issued under State law and are not
within the scope of this EPA permitting
action.
K. Some commenters have asked that
the ESA review procedures be
streamlined.
EPA declines to take this action for
reasons listed above in item F. above.
EPA believes the current approach
contained in the MSGP's Addendum H
review procedures provides applicants
with the greatest degree of flexibility in
ensuring the protection of threatened
and endangered species in a cost
effective manner. To assist applicants
with completing the Addendum H
review procedures, EPA has updated the
County/Species List and provided
additional sources which can be
referenced after October 8, 1998, to
identify future revisions to the list (see
comment A of this section).
L. Some commenters complained that
the ESA review process cannot provide
answers to questions regarding
distances downstream from permitted
discharges for adverse effect
assessments.
EPA cannot provide answers on how
far downstream from the point of
discharge applicants must search for the
presence of species because this area
will vary with each facility. Instead,
EPA directs applicants to check whether
Addendum H species are located in the
immediate vicinity of, or nearby, the
point of discharge into receiving waters.
EPA believes this standard is
appropriate given the large number and
variety of facilities covered the permit
and because any permitted storm water
discharges must meet water quality
standards (in the receiving waters,
including any downstream water quality
standards) which are designed to be
protective of aquatic life and
consequently listed species.
M. Some commenters have expressed
concerns about the degree of certainty
which must be made in the permit
application. The application (i.e., NOI
form) requires that applicants certify "to
the best of my knowledge" that a storm
water discharge or construction of a
BMP will not impact endangered or
threatened species, whereas ESA
§ 7(a)(3) requires that EPA consult with
the US Fish and Wildlife Service where
the applicant has "reason to believe"
that an endangered or threatened
species may be present in area affected
by his project. The commenters believe -
it is unfair to hold applicants to a higher
standard and have requested that EPA
adopt the statutory standard for the NOI.
Congress enacted ESA § 7 (a) (3) in
1982 to establish the "early
consultation" process under which a
prospective permit applicant who "has
reason to believe" a listed species may
be present in its project area may
compel the prospective permitting
agency to consult even before it receives
the permit application. This enables
prospective applicants to avoid delays
in subsequent permit actions and allows
them to resolve endangered species
issues at an early stage of project
planning when submission of a permit
application would be premature. The
"reason to believe" threshold for
initiating early consultation does not,
however, apply to a Federal agency's
obligation to consult under ESA
§ 7 (a) (2). Unless it can rely on an earlier
consultation, the agency must consult
on any action which may affect listed
species regardless of whether it has
reason to believe the species is present
in the action area. Only after it
affirmatively finds no listed species are
present may the agency forego
consultation if the action might
otherwise affect them.
As explained earlier in this notice, the
NOI screening process established at
Addendum H allows EPA to authorize
a large number of discharges in many
locations without the delays associated
with independent consideration of each
discharge and each BMP used to control
them. Although it serves some of the
same purposes as early consultation, the
NOI screening process is designed to
allow efficient EPA compliance with
ESA §7(a)(2), not ESA § 7(a)(3). All
factual assertions in NPDES permit
applications are subject to the "best of
my knowledge" standard under 40 CFR
122.22(d) and there is no apparent
reason to depart from it in NOIs
submitted to obtain coverage under the
MSGP.
Protection of Historic Properties
Many comments were received
regarding permit eligibility
requirements to protect historic
properties. For reading convenience,
similar comments have been grouped
together for response and are listed
below in items A.-H.
A. A number of commenters contend
that EPA has not provided sufficient
guidance to assist applicants in
completing the National Historic
Preservation Act (NHPA) NOI screening
process. At a minimum, EPA should
provide a list of State Historic
Preservation Officers (SHPOs) or State
Historic Preservation Agencies.
In response, EPA has included
guidance in the final permit
modification under new Addendum I
-------
52466
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 189/Wednesday, September 30, 1998/Notices
for applicants to use when determining
whether their industrial storm water
discharge or construction of Best
Management Practices (BMPs) to control
such discharges, may have an adverse
effect on historic properties. The
guidance includes a stepwise procedure,
an address list of State Historic
Preservation Officers (SHPOs), Tribal
Historic Preservation Officers (THPOs),
and the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation.
B. Some commenters have noted that
EPA has failed to mention that adverse
impacts to historic resources can
include visual impacts and that some
areas consider structures as recent as 50
years old to be potentially "historic."
EPA acknowledges that adverse
effects to historic properties, as defined
in the NHPA regulations, can include
visual impacts. EPA also acknowledges
that historic properties can include
structures that are 50 years or older.
C. Some commenters have
complained that determining the
impacts to "historic protected
resources" can be cost prohibitive for
small businesses and will require the
hiring of consultants.
EPA believes that the MSGP provides
for the consideration of historic
properties in a cost effective manner for
all applicants. The vast majority of
dischargers covered under the MSGP are
existing facilities that discharge storm
water into well defined areas or
pathways. In most of those situations,
EPA believes it is a relatively simple
matter to determine if the storm water
discharges are adversely affecting
historic properties. In many cases, a
visual inspection may suffice. While the
construction of structural BMPs may
have a greater potential impact on
historic properties, EPA believes that
only a very small percentage of sites
will have that potential. EPA expects
the likelihood of adverse effects to
historic properties will be small for
most facilities covered under the MSGP.
D. Some commenters noted that while
the MSGP requirements to protect
historic resources constitute a
significant improvement over past
practices, they questioned how EPA
intended for NHPA certification to be
accomplished. In particular, they
wondered whether this certification was
left up to the applicant, or whether
supporting documentation was
required.
EPA is not requiring that applicants
provide EPA with any documentation
for the basis of their eligibility
certifications in the NOI. However,
meeting the permit eligibility
requirements may require that an
applicant enter into a written agreement
with a SHPO or THPO! which describes
mutually agreed upon actions that the
applicant will undertake to avoid,
reduce or mitigate adverse effects to
historic properties. As a general matter,
applicants are advised to document the
basis of their eligibility certifications
since a failure to correctly certify
eligibility may render the applicant/
permittee ineligible for permit coverage
and possibly be subject to Clean Water
Act enforcement for unpermitted
discharges or other Federal actions.
E. One commenter asked for
clarification regarding what was meant
by the phrase on the NOI form that asks
"[i]s the applicant subject to and in
compliance with a written historic
preservation agreement."
A written historic preservation
agreement is an agreement in writing
between a SHPO/THPO and an
applicant which outlines all measures to
be taken by the applicant to mitigate or
prevent adverse effects to a historic
property. EPA intends for these
agreements to document and provide
assurance that effects to historic
properties from activities regulated by
the MSGP are given an appropriate level
of consideration. EPA wishes to clarify
that the NHPA does not prohibit adverse
effects to historic properties. It merely
requires that such effects be considered
so as to avoid unnecessary harm to
historic properties.
F. Some commenters recommended
that EPA develop guidance for the
NHPA certification provisions that is
similar to that which,is found at
Addendum H for endangered species.
Some commenters also complained that
EPA does not explain how applicants
are to comply with the certification
provisions of the NHPA.
As mentioned above in response to
comment B., EPA has included such
guidance in new Addendum I to the
MSGP.
G. Some commenters contend that
certifying that discharges have no
adverse effects on historic properties
has no relevance to controlling
pollution from storm water. They have
requested that the NHPA provisions be
removed from the permit.
As mentioned above in the Fact Sheet
to this permit, EPA believes that NHPA
§ 106 places obligations on it to ensure
that effects to historic properties are
considered for both the issuance of the
MSGP and for those activities regulated
by it. In light of those requirements,
EPA declines to remove the NHPA
eligibility provisions from the permit.
EPA believes its authority to include
these eligibility provisions to be well
established. The NHPA has been listed
in 40 CFR 122.49 of EPA's permit
regulations since 1979 as a Federal law
which may apply to EPA issuance of
NPDES permits. See 44 FR 32917 (June
7, 1979). EPA's regulations at 40 CFR
122.49(b) and 122.43(a) provide for
measures in procedures prior to
issuance of NPDES permits to protect
historic properties where feasible. For
purposes of NHPA section 106, EPA's
issuance of the MSGP falls within the
definition of "Federal undertakings" in
the existing NHPA regulations which
define that term to include "any project,
activity, or program that can result in
changes in the character or use of
historic properties, if any such historic
properties are located in the area of
potential effects * * * [and the project,
activity, or program is] under the direct
or indirect jurisdiction of a Federal
agency or licensed or assisted by a
Federal agency." See 36 CFR 802(o) and
16 USC section 470w(7) which contains
a reference to Federal permits in the
statutory definition of "undertaking" in
the 1992 amendments to the NHPA.
While it is possible that some NHPA
considerations may not relate to the goal
of protecting water quality, many NHPA
considerations will relate to that goal;
e.g., where BMPs are to be constructed
nearby or on historic properties.
Therefore, EPA believes that conditions
to ensure consideration of historic
properties as a precondition for
eligibility are appropriate for Federally-
issued NPDES general permits.
H. Some commenters have alleged
that these NHPA requirements violate
the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA).
In response, EPA notes that
information required by applicants to
determine if they are eligible for MSGP
coverage is authorized by current
Information Collection Requests from
the US Office of Management and
Budget (OMB Nos. 2040-0004, 2040-
0086, and 2040-0110) and is in
compliance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act.
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 189/Wednesday, September 30, 1998/Notices
APPENDIX B—SUMMARY OF MSGP AND BASELINE PERMIT REQUIREMENTS
52467
Sector
TImb«r Products Facili-
ties
apor and AHed Prod-
ucts FactMes
Monitoring
Baseline
Wood treatment fa
duties must
monitor semi-
annually for on
and grease, pH,
COD, TSS,
penta
chlorphonol,
acute WET total
recoverable; ar-
senic, chromium
and copper.
'aper and allied
products facilities
are not subject
to monitoring re-
quirements un-
less they are
EPCRA 313 fa-
cilities.
MSGP
General sawmills
and planing mills
must collect
quarterly grab
samples for the
following param-
eters: COD,
TSS, and total
recoverable zinc
during the sec-
ond and fourth
years of permit
coverage.
Wood preserving
facilities must
collect quarterly
grab samples for
the following pa-
rameters: total
recoverable ar-
senic and total
recoverable cop-
per during the
second and
fourth years of
permit coverage.
Log storage and
handling facilities
must collect
quarterly grab
samples for TSS
di.-rfng the sec-
ond and fourth
years of permit
coverage.
Mills, wood con-
tainers, and
other wood prod-
ucts must collect
quarterly grab
samples for the
following param-
eters: COD and
TSS during the
second and
fourth years of
permit coverage.
All facilities must
conduct quarterly
visual examina-
tions of storm
water discharges
unless inactive
and unstaffed.
All facilities may
exercise the low
concentration
waiver, inactive
and unstaffed
waiver, or alter-
native certifi-
cation in lieu of
analytical mon-
itoring.
Paperboard mills
must collect
quarterly grab
samples for
COD during the
second and
fourth years of
permit coverage.
MSGP sector-specific SWPPP consid
erations
• Site map: material handling; trea
ment, storage, disposal of waste
liquid storage tanks; processinc
treatment chemical storage; treatet
wood and residue storage; wet an
dry decking; untreated wood an
residue storage; treatment equip
ment storage.
• Inventory: facilities that have use
chlorophenollc, creosote, or ino
ganlc formulations In the past mu
identify contaminated soils, equip
ment, and stored materials.
• Identify specific BMPs for specif
areas of site: good housekeepin
measures to limit discharge of wooc
debris; minimize leachate from de
caying wood; minimize dust genera
tion.
• Periodic removal of debris from
storm water BMPs.
• Develop response schedules to lim
tracking of spilled materials. Treat
ment chemicals must be cleaned u
immediately.
• Develop BMPs for sediment and
erosion control in specific areas o
site.
• Discharges of boiler blowdown
water treatment, wastewaters, non
contact cooling waters, contact cool-
ing waters, wash down waters from
treatment equipment and s.w. that
have come in contact with site areas
where hand spraying of surface pro-
tection chemicals is performed are
not authorized.
• Authorized non-storm water dis-
charges include: discharges from
spray down of lumber and wood
product storage yards where no
chemical additives are used in the
spray water and no chemicals are
applied to the wood during storage.
• Periodic employee training.
No specific considerations beyond
baseline.
Performance
standards/limits
Wet deck storage are
discharge limitations
adopted from 40
CFR 429 Subpart 1
are as follows:
pH range within 6.0 to
9.0.
No discharge of debri
which can not pass
through a 1" diame-
ter opening.
(Note: Wet deck stor-
age area discharges
are only allowable
under this permit if
no chemical addi-
tives are used in th
spray water or ap-
plied to the logs).
NONE
Inspections
• Material handling and un-
loading and loading areas
daily with activity.
• Processing and treated
wood storage areas
monthly for drippage on
unprotected soils..
• Annual comprehensive
site compliance evalua-
tion.
Annual comprehensive
site compliance evalua-
tions must be conducted
at least once per year.
-------
52468
federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 189/Wednesday, September 30, 1998/Notices
APPENDIX B—SUMMARY OF MSGP AND BASELINE PERMIT REQUIREMENTS—Continued
1
Sector
Chemical and Allied
Products Manufactur-
ing Facilities
Monitoring
Baseline
Facilities with
storm water dis-
charges that
come into con-
tact with solid
chemical storage
piles must collect
annually sam-
ples for oil and
grease, COD,
TSS, pH, and
any pollutant lim-
ited in an efflu-
ent guideline to
which the facility
is subject.
MSGP
Ml facilities must
conduct quarterly
visual examina-
tions of storm
water discharges
unless inactive
and unstaffed.
All facilities may
exercise the low
concentration
waiver, Inactive
and unstaffed
waiver, or alter-
native certifi-
cation in lieu of
analytical mon-
itoring.
Industrial inorganic
chemical manu-
facturing facilities
(SIC 281) must
collect quarterly
grab samples for
the following pa-
rameters: total
recoverable alu-
minum, total re-
coverable iron,
and nitrate + ni-
trite nitrogen dur-
ing the second
and fourth years
of permit cov-
erage.
Plastic and syn-
thetic materials
manufacturing
facilities (SIC
282) must collect
quarterly grab
samples for total
recoverable zinc
during the sec-
ond and fourth
years or permit
coverage.
Soap and deter-
gent manufactur-
ing facilities (SIC
2R4) must collect
quarterly grab
samples for the
following param-
eters: total re-
coverable zinc
and nitrate + ni-
trite nitrogen dur-
ing the second
and fourth years
of permit cov-
erage.
Agricultural chemi-
cal manufactur-
ing facilities must
collect quarterly
grab samples for
the following pa-
rameters: total
recoverable lead
total recoverable
iron, total recov-
erable zinc,
phosphorus, and
nitrate + nitrite
nitrogen during
the second and
fourth years of
permit r overage.
MSGP sector-specific SWPPP consid-
; erations
Site map: location of structures, total
area of Industrial Activity
• Identify parameters associated with
pollutant sources.
• Contained areas must have valves
or other means to prevent the dis-
charge of a spill or leak.
• Schedule regular waste pickup.
• Saintain up-to-date inventory.
« Consider using berms, curbing,
hose connections points, manual
valves, drip pans, and overhangs in
material storage areas.
• Annual employee training.
:
!
'
i
Performance
standards/limits
Limits on the "con-
taminated storm
water" at phosphate
fertilizer manufactur-
ing facilities. Storm
water limits are
equivalent to 40
CFR 418. The limits
are as follows:
Total phosphorus daily
maximum = 105.0
mg/L.
Total phosphorus 30-
day average = 35.0
mg/L.
Fluoride daily max. =
75.0 mg/L.
Fluoride 30-day ave. =
25.0 mg/L.
Inspections
• 2 wet weather and 2 dry
weather inspections
throughout each year.
• Annual comprehensive
site compliance evalua-
tion.
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 189/Wednesday, September 30, 1998/Notices
52469
APPENDIX B—SUMMARY OF MSGP AND BASELINE PERMIT REQUIREMENTS—Continued
Sector
AsphaH Paving and
Roofing Materials and
Lubricant Manufactur-
ers (does not appfy to
patrotoum refineries)
Giwe, Clay, Cement,
Concrete, and Gyp-
«um Product Manu-
facturing Facilities
Monitoring
Baseline
No monitoring Is
required under
the baseline un-
less the facility Is
and EPCRA 313
facility.
Cement manufac-
turers and ready
mix concrete
manufacturers
must monitor
their discharges
annually for on
and grease,
COD. TSS, and
any pollutant In
an effluent
guideline to
which the facility
Is subject
MSGP
All facilities must
conduct quarter!
visual examina-
tions of storm
water discharges
unless inactive
and unstaffed.
All facilities may
exercise the low
concentration
waiver, Inactive
and unstaffed
waiver, or alter-
native certifi-
cation In lieu of
analytical mon-
itoring.
Asphalt paving and
roofing materials
manufacturing
facilities must
collect quarterly
grab samples for
TSS during the
second and
fourth years of
permit coverage.
All facilities must
conduct quarterly
visual examina-
tions of storm
water discharges
unless inactive
and unstaffed.
All facilities may
exercise the low
concentration
waiver, inactive
and unstaffed
waiver, or alter-
native certifi-
cation in lieu of
analytical mon-
itoring.
Clay product facili-
ties must collect
quarterly grab
samples for total
recoverable alu-
minum during
the second and
fourth years of
permit coverage.
Concrete product
facilities must
collect quarterly
grab samples for
TSS and total re-
coverable iron
during the sec-
ond and fourth
years of permit
coverage.
All facilities must
conduct quarterly
visual examina-
tion-1; of storm
water discharges
unless inactive
and unstaffed.
MSGP sector-specific SWPPP consid
erations
No specific considerations beyonc
baseline.
Portable plants are covered by permit
• Removal of spilled material in han-
dling areas by sweeping or other
equivalent measures.
• Fine solids should be stored In
areas not exposed to storm water
where practicable.
Must ensure that vehicle washwater
is not discharged with storm water-
Periodic employee training.
Performance
standards/limits
Limits for storm water
discharges from as-
phalt emulsion facili-
ties. The limits, es-
tablished in 40 CFR
Part 443 Subpart A,
are as follows:
TSS daily maximum =
23 mg/L.
TSS 30-day average =
15.
Oil and grease daily
max. = 15 mg/L.
Oil and grease 30-day
average = 10 mg/L-
pH within range of 6.0
to 9.0.
Numeric effluent limi-
tations for runoff
from storage piles at
cement manufactur-
ing facilities estab-
lished under 40
CFR Part 41 1 .37
are included:
TSS ? 50 mg/L.
iH within range of 6.0
to 9.0.
Inspections
• Periodic facility inspec-
tions.
• Annual comprehensive
site compliance evalua-
tion.
—At least once at portable
plants.
• Monthly Inspections while
the facility is In operation.
• Annual comprehensive
site compliance evalua-
tion.
Annual comprehensive site
compliance evaluation.
-------
52470
federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 189/Wednesday, September 30, 1998/Notices
APPENDIX B—SUMMARY OF MSGP AND BASELINE PERMIT REQUIREMENTS—Continued
Sector
Primary Metals Facilities
Monitoring
Baseline
'rimary metals fa-
cilities must per-
form semiannual
monitoring for:
oil and grease,
COD, TSS, pH,
WET, total re-
coverable lead,
total recoverable
cadmium, total
recoverable ar-
senic, chromium,
and any pollutant
limited in an ef-
fluent guideline
to which the fa-
cility is subject.
MSGP
All facilities may
exercise the low
concentration
waiver, inactive
and unstaffed
waiver, or alter-
native certifi-
cation in lieu of
analytical mon-
itoring.
Steel works, blast
furnaces, and
mills must collect
quarterly grab
samples for the
following param-
eters: total re-
coverable alu-
minum and zinc
during the sec-
ond and fourth
years of permit
coverage.
ron and steel
foundries must
collect quarterly
grab samples for
the following pa-
rameters: total
recoverable cop-
per, zinc, Iron,
and aluminum
and TSS during
the second and
fourth years of
permit coverage.
Non-ferrous rolling
and drawing
must collect
quarterly grab
samples for the
following param-
eters: total re-
coverable capper
and zinc during
the second and
fourth years of
permit coverage.
Non-ferrous found-
ries must collect
quarterly grab
samples for the
following param-
eters: total re-
coverable copper
and zinc during
the second and
fourth years of
permit coverage.
All facilities must
conduct quarterly
visual examina-
tions of storm
water discharges
unless inactive
and unstaffed.
All facilities may
exercise the low
concentration
waiver, inactive
and unstaffed
waiver, or alter-
native certifi-
cation in lieu of
analytical mon-
itoring.
MSGP sector-specific SWPPP consid-
erations
• Site map: identify locations of all
emissions control equipment
• Significant materials should include
areas of potential settling or deposi-
tion from paniculate emissions.
• Consider: cleaning or maintenance
program, paving areas with vehicle
traffic, relocating materials inside,
waste removal schedule, product
substitution, ;and covering stockpiles.
• Periodic employee training.
i
Performance
standards/limits
NONE
Inspections
Quarterly inspections of
facility including pollution
control equipment.
• Annual comprehensive
site compliance evalua-
tions.
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 189/Wednesday. September 30, 1998/Notices
52471
APPENDIX B—SUMMARY OF MSGP AND BASELINE PERMIT REQUIREMENTS—Continued
Sector
M»« MWng (Ore Min-
ing and Dressing) Fa-
cities SIC 10 [Dis-
charges subject to of-
lluonl guidelines for
mine dtainaga (40
CFR 440) ara not eli-
gible for coverage].
Coal Minos and Coal
MWng-Retated Facill-
t!ej (Discharges sub-
ject to 40 CFR 434
•ra not allowable.
Floor drains (ram
maintenance buildings
ara excluded).
OK and Gas Extraction
Facilities (only those
Which nod an RQ re-
toasa that was dis-
charged through a
ttorm water discharge
tv«nt)j petroleum re-
Itnorici
Monitoring
Baseline
Baseline does not
require metal
mining facilities
to perform any
monitoring.
Baseline does not
impose any
monitoring for
coal mines or re-
lated facilities.
Baseline does not
Impose any
monitoring on
these types of
facilities unless
they are EPCRA
313 facilities.
MS^P
Active copper ore
mining and
dressing facilities
must collect
quarterly grab
samples for the
following param-
eters: total re-
coverable copper
and total recov-
erable zinc dur-
ing the second
and fourth years
of permit cov-
erage.
All facilities must
conduct quarterly
visual examina-
tions of storm
water discharges
unless inactive
and unstaffed.
AN facilities may
exercise the low
concentration
waiver, Inactive
and unstaffed
waiver, or alter-
native certifi-
cation in lieu of
analytical mon-
itoring.
Coal mines and
coal mining-relat-
ed facilities must
collect quarterly
grab samples for
tlvj following pa-
rameters: TSS,
total recoverable
aluminum and
total recoverable
iron during the
second and
fourth years of
permit coverage.
All facilities must
conduct quarterly
visual examina-
tions of storm
water discharges
unless inactive
and unstaffed.
All facilities may
exercise the low
concentration
waiver, Inactive
and unstaffed
waiver, or alter-
native certifi-
cation in lieu of
analytical mon-
itoring.
All facilities must
conduct quarterly
visual examina-
tions of storm
water discharges
unless inactive
and unstaffed.
MSGP sector-specific SWPPP consid
eratlons
Active or Temporarily Inactive
Description of mining activities
• Site map-mine boundaries, all out
falls subject to effluent limitations
drainage of process water dis
charge.
• Annual employee training.
• Test for non-storm water discharges
or discharges subject to effluent lim
itatlon guidelines (such as mine
drainage or process water of any
kind).
• Limit erosion and/or remove sedi
ment.
Inactive
Description of the mining activities —
• Site map— existing structural con-
trols, process water discharge
points, storm water outfalls.
• Inventory of exposed materials--
describe significant material that
may be at site.
• Risk Identification— identify pollut-
ants and their associated sources
assess potential for storm water
contamination.
Good housekeeping
• Sweeping or road watering to keep
dust down.
Preventive maintenance
• Timely inspection.
• Periodic debris and sediment re-
moved from BMP.
• Replacement of worn BMP.
Sediment and erosion control
• Plan must contain all reasonable
and appropriate SMCRA regula-
tions.
• Passive/low maintenance treatment
for reducing pollutants from inactive
sites.
• Consider stabilization and structural
measures.
• Describe measures to clean up RQ
releases.
• Address vehicle and equipment
storage, cleaning, and maintenance
areas.
• Erosion controls (vegetative and
structural practices).
Performance
standards/limits
NONE
NONE
Inspections
Active:
• Designated equipment and
mine areas and sediment
& erosion control — month-
ly.
• Annual comprehensive
site compliance evalua-
tion.
Temporarily inactive:
• Designated equipment and
mine areas and sediment
& erosion control — quar-
terly.
• Annual comprehensive
site compliance evaluation
except where impractical
due to remoteness and in-
accessibility In which case
Inspection must be per-
formed once every 3
years.
• Quarterly Inspection for
active sites and SMCRA
inactive.
• Annual inspection for inac-
tive sites.
• Annual comprehensive
site compliance evaluation
for all.
Annual comprehensive site
compliance evaluation.
• Quarterly for equipment
and vehicles that store or
transport hazardous mate-
rials.
• Weekly Inspection of sedi-
ment and erosion controls.
• Semiannual for all equip-
ment and areas addressed
in PPP.
• Annual comprehensive
site compliance evalua-
tion.
• Annual inspections for in-
active oil and gas extrac-
tion facilities.
-------
52472
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 189/Wednesday, September 30, 1998 /Notices
APPENDIX B—SUMMARY OF MSGP AND BASELINE PERMIT REQUIREMENTS—Continued
Sector
Mineral Mining and
Processing Facilities
Hazardous Waste Treat-
ment Storage or Dis-
posal Facilities
(TSDFs)
Monitoring
Baseline
Baseline does not
impose any
monitoring on
these types of
facilities unless
they are EPCRA
313 facilities.
Storm water dis-
charges from in-
cinerators and
BIFs that bum
hazardous waste
must semiannu-
ally monitor for
ammonia, mag-
nesium (dis-
solved), TKN,
COD, TDS,
TOC, oil and
grease, pH; total
recoverable: ar-
senic, barium,
cadmium, chro-
mium, cyanide,
lead, selenium,
silver; total mer-
cury; and acute
WET.
MSGP
Dimension stone,
crushed stone,
and nonmetallic
minerals except
fuels mining and
processing facili-
ties must collect
quarterly grab
samples for TSS
during the sec-
ond and fourth
years of permit
coverage.
Sand and gravel
mining and proc-
essing facilities
must co'lect
quarterly grab
samples for TSS
and nitrate + ni-
trite nitrogen dur-
ing the second
and fourth years
of permit cov-
erage.
All facilities must
conduct quarterly
visual examina-
tions of storm
water discharges
unless inactive
and unstaffed.
All facilities may
exercise the low
concentration
waiver, inactive
and unstaffed
waiver, or alter-
native certifi-
cation in lieu of
analytical mon-
itoring.
TSDFs must col-
lect quarterly
grab samples for
the following pa-
rameters: ammo-
nia, magnesium,
COD, total re-
coverable ar-
senic, total re-
coverable cad-
mium, free cya-
nide, total recov-
erable lead, total
recoverable mer-
cury, total recov-
erable selenium,
and total recov-
erable silver dur-
ing the second
and fourth years
of permit cov-
erage.
All facilities must
conduct quarterly
visual examina-
tions of storm
water discharges
unless inactive
and unstaffed.
MSGP sector-jspecific SWPPP consid-
• erations
Site map must indicate monitoring
points.
Assess the applicability of certain
BMPs commonly used at such min-
ing sites.
Sediment and erosion control BMPs
must be planned for new activities
and implemented for existing activi-
ties.
*
1
• Specific pollutants of concern
should be identified under risk iden
tification. :
i
•
Performance
standards/limits
Numeric effluent limi-
tations for mine
dewatering dis-
charges in EPA Re-
gions 1, II, VI, X and
Arizona established
under 40 CFR Part
436 are included:
TSS daily max. = 45
mg/L.
TSS 30 day ave. = 25
mg/L,
pH within range of 6.0
to 9.0.
NONE
Inspections
Quarterly visual inspec-
tions of all BMPs for active
mines.
• Annual inspections for in-
active operations.
• Annual comprehensive
site compliance evaluation
for active sites.
• Once every 3 years com-
prehensive site compli-
ance evaluation for inac-
tive sites.
• Inspect equipment and
areas of facility at intervals
specified in plan.
• Annual comprehensive
site compliance evalua-
tion.
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63. No. 189/Wednesday, September 30, 1998/Notices
52473
APPENDIX B—SUMMARY OF MSGP AND BASELINE PERMIT REQUIREMENTS—Continued
Sector
Landfitit, Land Applica-
tion Sties, and Open
Dumps
toilomobtJa Satvags
Yards
Monitoring
Baseline
Land disposal units
must monitor
semiannual!/ for
ammonia, mag-
nesium (dis-
solved), TKN,
OOD, TDS,
TOO, o»l and
graase, pH; total
recoverable: ar-
senic, barium,
cadmium, chro-
mium, cyanide,
lead, selenium,
stiver; total mer-
cury; and acute
WET.
Automobile sal-
vage yards must
collect annual
grab and com-
posite samples
for the following
parameters: oil
and grease, pH,
COD, and TSS.
Requirements
apply only to fa-
cilities where the
following is ex-
posed to storm
water: (a) over
250 auto/truck
bodies with
drlvellnes, 250
drfvellnes, or any
combination
thereof, or (b)
over 500 auto/
truck units, or (c)
over 100 units
dismantled per
year where auto-
motive fluids are
drained or
stored.
MSGP
All facilities may
exercise the low
concentration
waiver, inactive
and unstaffed
waiver, or alter-
native certifi-
cation in lieu of
analytical mon-
itoring.
Landfills, land ap-
plication sites,
and open dumps
must collect
quarterly grab
samples for total
recoverable Iron
and TSS during
the second and
fourth years of
permit coverage.
Municipal solid
waste landfills
closed In accord-
ance with 40
CFR 258.60 are
not required to
monitor total re-
coverable iron.
All facilities must
conduct quarterly
visual examina-
tions of storm
water discharges
unless inactive
and unstaffed.
All facilities may
exercise the low
concentration
waiver, Inactive
and unstaffed
waiver, or alter-
native certifi-
cation in lieu of
analytical mon-
itoring.
Automobile sal-
vage yards must
collect quarterly
grab samples for
total recoverable
Iron, total recov-
erable aluminum,
total recoverable
lead, and TSS
during the sec-
ond and fourth
years of permit
coverage.
All facilities must
conduct quarterly
visual examina-
tions of storm
water discharges
unless inactive
and unstaffed.
All facilities may
exercise the low
concentration
waiver, inactive
and unstaffed
waiver, or alter-
native certifi-
cation In lieu of
analytical mon-
itoring.
MSGP sector-specific SWPPP consid
eratlons
—Must identify specific waste tha
have been disposed.
—Provide data on leachate generated
at the site.
— Additional sources of pollutants
must be identified under risk ident
fication.
— Tracking system for waste disposed
— Additional sediment and erosion
control requirement.
• Site map: monitoring points, total
area of industrial activities
• Identify parameters associated with
pollutant sources.
• Drain vehicles of fluids or other
equivalent measures.
Performance
standards/limits
NONE
NONE
Inspections
Active landfills:
— Inspections — weekly.
— Monthly for finally sta-
bilized facilities and those
located in arid areas.
— Monthly inspections if sta-
bilized on during arid sea-
sons.
Inactive landfills-quarterly
Annual comprehensive site
compliance evaluation.
• Cars upon arrival for
leaks.
• Oily equipment 4X/yr for
leaks.
• Storage of fluids (including
containers) 4X/yr for leaks.
• BMPs 4X/yr.
• Annual comprehensive
site compliance evalua-
tion.
-------
52474
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 189/Wednesday, September 30, 1998/Notices
APPENDIX B—SUMMARY OF MSGP AND BASELINE PERMIT REQUIREMENTS—Continued
Sector
Scrap and Waste Mate-
rial Processing and
Recycling Facilities
(Permit conditions
broken out between
facilities that handle
non-liquid recyclable
wastes and facilities
that handle liquid re-
cyclable wastes).
Steam Electric Power
Generating Facilities,
Including Coal Han-
dling Areas and Coal
Piles
Motor Freight Transpor-
tation Facilities, Pas-
senger Transportation
Facilities, Rail Trans-
portation Facilities,
and United States
Postal Service Trans-
portation Facilities
Monitoring
Baseline
Baseline imposes
monitoring re-
quirements on
facilities en-
gaged in re-
claiming bat-
teries. Battery
reclaimers must
monitor semi-
annually for oil
and grease,
COD, TSS, pH,
copper, and
lead.
Baseline requires
oil fired facilities
to sample storm
water annually
for oil and
grease, COD,
TSS, pH, and
any pollutant lim-
ited in an efflu-
ent guideline.
Baseline requires
coal-fired for
steam electric to
sample annually
for oil and
grease, pH,
TSS, total recov-
erable copper,
nickel, and zinc
from coal han-
dling sites (other
than runoff from
coal piles, which
is not eligible for
coverage).
Baseline does not
impose monitor-
ing on these fa-
cilities unless
they are EPCRA
313 facilities.
MSGP
Scrap and waste
material process-
ing and recycling
(non-liquid) facili-
ties must collect
quarterly grab
samples for the
followlnp param-
eters: total re-
coverable cop-
per, total recov-
erable aluminum,
totai recoverable
iron, total recov-
erable lead, total
recoverable zinc,
COD, and TSS
during the sec-
ond and fourth
years of permit
coverage.
All facilities must
conduct quarterly
visual examina-
tions of storm
water discharges
unless inactive
and unstaffed.
All facilities may
exercise the low
concentration
waiver, inactive
and unstaffed
waiver, or alter-
native certifi-
cation in lieu of
analytical mon-
itoring.
Steam electric gen-
erating facilities
must collect
quarterly grab
samples for total
recoverable iron
during the sec-
ond and fourth
years of permit
coverage.
All facilities must
conduct quarterly
visual examina-
tions of storm
water discharges
unless inactive
and unstaffed.
All facilities may
exercise the low
concentration
waiver, inactive
and unstaffed
waiver, or alter-
native certifi-
cation in lieu of
analytical mon-
itoring.
All facilities must
conduct quarterly
visual examina-
tions of storm
water discharges
unless inactive
and unstaffad.
MSGP sector-specific SWPPP consid-
erations
• Site map: , identify locations of all
scrap processing equipment and lo-
cations of all significant material
storage, e.g., scrap.
• Schedule preventative maintenance
of all pollution control equipment.
• Erosion and sediment controls.
• Inbound recyclable materials control
program, scrap lead-acid battery
program.
• Control of storm water discharges
from turnings piles exposed to cut-
ting fluids.
• Tracking of fugitive dusts.
• Liquid storage tank controls.
• Measures to reduce oils spills.
• Controls of oil bearing equipment in
switchyards.
• Annual employee training.
• Site Map: vehicle and equipment
storage areas
• Measures and Controls:
— Vehicle and equipment storage
areasCconfined to designated area;
prevent or minimize contamination.
— Fueling areaCprevent or minimize
contamination.
— Material Storage Areas — maintain
containers in good condition; pre-
vent or minimize contamination.
— Vehicle and equipment cleaning
areas — prevent or minimize con-
tamination!
Performance
standards/limits
NONE
Numeric effluent limi-
tations for coal pile
runoff established
under 40 CFR Part
423 effluent limita-
tions are as follows:
TSS ? 50 mg/L.
pH within range of 6.0
to 9.0.
(Note: These effluent
limitations apply to
all sectors with coal
pile runoff.)
NONE
Inspections
Non-liquid Recyclable Waste
Facilities:
• Quarterly inspections of
facility including pollution
control equipment .
• Annual comprehensive
site compliance evalua-
tions.
Liquid Recyclable Wastes:
• Site inspections.
• Annual comprehensive
site compliance evalua-
tions.
• In addition to or as part of
the comprehensive site
evaluation, the following
areas must be inspected
on a monthly basis: coal
handling areas, loading/
unloading areas, switch-
yards, fueling areas, bulk
storage areas, ash han-
dling areas, areas adja-
cent to disposal ponds
and landfills, maintenance
areas, liquid storage
tanks, and long term and
short term material stor-
age areas.
• Annual comprehensive
site compliance evalua-
tion.
• Qualified facility or com-
pany personnel shall be
identified to perform in-
spection on a quarterly
basis.
• Annual comprehensive
site compliance evalua-
tion.
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 189/Wednesday, September 30, 1998/Notices
52475
APPENDIX B—SUMMARY OF MSGP AND BASELINE PERMIT REQUIREMENTS—Continued
Sector
Water Transportation
Faotfitte* That Have
Vortfcla Maintenance
Shop* and/or Equip-
ment Cleaning Oper-
ations
Ship and Boat Building
or Repairing Yards
Monitoring
Baseline
Baseline does not
Impose monitor-
ing on these
types of facilities
unless they are
EPCRA 313 fa-
cilities.
Baseline permit re-
quires annual
monitoring for.
oil and grease,
COD, TSS, pH,
any pollutant lim-
ited in an efflu-
ent guideline to
which the facility
Is subject.
MSGP
Water transpor-
tation facilities
must collect
quarterly grab
samples for total
recoverable alu-
minum, total re-
coverable iron,
total recoverable
lead, and total
recoverable zinc
during the sec-
ond and fourth
years of permit
coverage.
All facilities must
conduct quarterly
visual examina-
tions of storm
water discharges
unless inactive
and unstaffed.
All facilities may
exercise the low
concentration
waiver, inactive
and unstaffed
waiver, or alter-
native certifi-
cation in lieu of
analytical mon-
itoring.
All facilities must
conduct quarterly
visual examina-
tions of storm
water discharges
unless inactive
and unstaffed.
MSGP sector-specific SWPPP consid-
erations
— Vehicle and equipment maintenance
areas — prevent or minimize con-
tamination.
— Sanding areas — prevent or minimize
contamination.
• Spill Prevention and Response —
SPCC plan may be referenced.
• Annual Employee Training — on
specified topics.
• Attach copy of washwater NPDES
or IU permit/application.
Site map: vessel maintenance and re-
pair, pressure washing, painting,
sanding, blasting, welding, metal
fabrication, liquid storage areas, and
material storage areas.
• Measures and Controls
— Pressure washing areas — collect
and contain discharge, remove all
visible solids, identify where
washwater is released.
— Blasting and Painting Areas — con-
sider containing activities; prevent or
minimize contamination.
— Material Storage Areas — all mate-
rials stored in protected, secured lo-
cation; prevent or minimize contami-
nation; describe containments or en-
closure.
— Engine Maintenance and Repair
Areas — prevent or minimize con-
tamination.
— Material Handling Areas — prevent or
minimize contamination.
— Drydock Activities — prevent or mini-
mize contamination.
— General Yard Area — schedule rou-
tine yard cleanup.
• Annual employee training.
Site map: vessel maintenance and re-
pair, pressure washing, painting,
sanding, blasting, welding, metal
fabrication, liquid storage areas, and
material storage areas.
• Measures and Controls
— Pressure washing areas — collect
and contain discharge, remove all
visible solids, identify where
washwater is released.
— Blasting and Painting Areas — con-
sider containing activities; prevent or
minimize contamination.
— Material Storage Areas — all mate-
rials stored in protected, secured lo-
cation; prevent or minimize contami-
nation; describe containments or en-
closure.
— Engine Maintenance and Repair
Areas — prevent or minimize con-
tamination.
— Material Handling Areas — prevent or
minimize.
— Drydock Activities — prevent or mini-
mize.
—General Yard Area— schedule rou-
tine yard cleanup.
• Annual employee training on speci-
fied topics.
Performance
standards/limits
NONE
Inspections
• Monthly in specified areas,
including:
— Pressure washing area.
— Blasting, sanding, and
painting areas.
— Material storage areas.
— Engine maintenance and
repair areas.
— Material handling areas.
— Drydock areas.
— General yard area.
• Annual comprehensive
site compliance evalua-
tion.
• Monthly in specified areas
• Annual comprehensive
site compliance evalua-
tion.
-------
52476
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 189/Wednesday, September 30, 1998/Notices
APPENDIX B—SUMMARY OF MSGP AND BASELINE PERMIT REQUIREMENTS—Continued
Sector
Vehicle Maintenance
Areas, Equipment
Cleaning Areas, or
Delcing Areas Lo-
cated at Air Transpor-
tation Facilities
Treatment Works
Food and Kindred Prod-
ucts Facilities
Monitoring
Baseline
Baseline requires
those airports
with over 50,000
flight operations
per year to sam-
ple oil and
grease, pH,
BODS, COD,
TSS, and the pri-
mary ingredient
used in deicing
materials.
Baseline does not
require monitor-
ing unless they
are EPCRA 313
facilities.
Animal handling/
meat packaging
facilities must
annually collect
grab and com-
posite samples
(where appro-
priate) for BOD,
oil and grease,
COD, TSS, TKN,
Total Phos-
phorus, pH, and
fecal conform.
MSGP
:acilities that use
more than
100,000 gallons
of glycol-based
deicing/anti-icing
chemicals and/or
more than 100
tons of urea on
an average an-
nual basis, shall
prepare annual
pollutant loading
estimates for dis-
charges of spent
deicing/anti-icing
chemicals and
collect quarterly
grab samples for
BOD, COD, am-
monia, and pH
during the sec-
ond and fourth
years of permit
coverage.
All facilities may
exercise the low
concentration
waiver, inactive
and unstaffed
waiver, or alter-
native certifi-
cation in lieu of
analytical mon-
itoring.
All facilities must
conduct quarterly
visual examina-
tions of storm
water discharges
unless inactive
and unstaffed.
Grai'i mill product
facilities must
collect quarterly
grab samples for
TSS during the
second and
fourth years of
permit coverage.
Fats and oils facili-
ties must collect
quarterly grab
samples for
BOD, COD, TSS
and nitrate + ni-
trite nitrogen dur-
ing the second
and fourth years
of permit cov-
erage.
All facilities must
conduct quarterly
visual examina-
tions of storm
water discharges
unless inactive
and unstaffed.
All facilities may
exercise the low
concent ation
waiver, inactive
and unstaffed
waiver, or alter-
native certifi-
cation in lieu of
analytical mon-
itoring.
MSGP sector-specific SWPPP consid-
erations
Site maps must be developed for
areas occupied by the tenant(s) of
the airport facility.
• Summary of potential pollutant
sources: maintain a record of the
types and quantities of deicing
chemicals used.
• Source reduction: evaluate alter-
native operating procedures which
reduce the overall amount of deicing
chemicals used and/or lessen the
environmental.
>
Annual employee training.
!
• Site map to indicate all industrial ac-
tivities exposed to storm water.
• Pest control chemical application/
storage practices.
• Annual inspections of potential pol-
lutant source areas.
• Annual employee training.
,
Performance
standards/limits
NONE
NONE
NONE
Inspections
• In addition to comprehen-
sive site evaluation and
standard inspections, 1/
week for areas where de-
icing operations are being
conducted.
• Annual comprehensive
site compliance evalua-
tion.
• Inspect equipment and in-
dustrial areas periodically.
• Annual comprehensive
site compliance evalua-
tion.
Routine inspection of:
• Loading/unloading areas.
• storage areas.
• Waste management units.
• Vents and stacks from in-
dustrial activities.
• Spoiled products and bro-
ken product container
holding areas.
• Animal holding pens.
• Staging areas.
• Air pollution control equip-
ment.
Annual comprehensive site
compliance evaluation.
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63. No. 189/Wednesday, September 30, 1998/Notices
52477
APPENDIX B—SUMMARY OF MSGP AND BASELINE PERMIT REQUIREMENTS—Continued
Sector
Twcfflo Mlfo, Apparol,
and Othw Fabric
Product Manufactur-
ing Faculties
Wood and Metal Fur-
nfturo and Flxtura
Manufacturing Facili-
ties
Printing and Publishing
FacWIas
Rubber, Miscellaneous
Plastic Products, and
Miacottextous Manu-
facturing Industries
Leather Tanning and
Finishing FacHtles
Monitoring
Baseline
Baseline does not
Impose monitor-
Ing on these
types of facilities
unless they are
EPCRA 313 fa-
cilities.
Baseline does not
require these
types of facilities
to monitor storm
water discharges
unless they are
EPCRA 313 fa-
cilities.
Baseline does not
Impose monitor-
Ing on these fa-
cilities unless
they are EPCRA
313 facilities.
Baseline requires
monitoring at
rubber manufac-
turer when storm
water contacts
solid chemical
storage areas.
3asellne does not
impose monitor-
ing requirements
on leather tan-
ning facilities un-
less they are
EPCRA 313 fa-
cilities.
MSGP
All facilities must
conduct quarterly
visual examina-
tions of storm
water discharges
unless inactive
and unstaffed.
All facilities must
conduct quarterly
visual examina-
tions of storm
water discharges
unless inactive
and unstaffed.
All facilities must
conduct quarterly
visual examina-
tions of storm
water discharges
unless Inactive
and unstaffed.
Rubber product
manufacturing
facilities must
collect quarterly
grab samples for
total recoverable
zinc during the
second and
fourth years of
permit coverage.
All facilities must
conduct quarterly
visual examina-
tions of storm
water discharges
unless inactive
and unstaffed.
All facilities may
exercise the low
concentration
waiver, inactive
and unstaffed
waiver, or alter-
native certifi-
cation In lieu of
analytical mon-
itoring.
All facilities must
conduct quarterly
visual examina-
tions of storm
water discharges
unless inactive
and unstaffed.
MSGP sector-specific SWPPP consid-
erations
• Summary of potential pollutan
sources: industry-specific-significant
materials, industrial activities (exam
pies listed).
• Measures and controls:
— Material storage area: store mate
rials in a protected area; preven
and minimize contamination; de
scribe containment of enclosure fo
materials stored outdoors.
— Fueling areas — prevent or minimize
contamination.
— Above ground storage tank areas —
prevent or minimize contamination.
— Annual employee training.
• Ineffective BMPs must be recorded
and date of corrective action noted.
• Good housekeeping; address mate-
rial handling/storage; fueling.
• Employee training annually on spec-
ified topics.
Rubber Product Manufacturers:
• Review the use of zinc and possible
means for zinc to enter s.w. dis-
charges.
• Develop specific BMPs to control
zinc.
Address:
—Material storage areas.
—Buffing/shaving areas.
—Receiving, unloading and storage
areas.
— Outdoor storage of contaminated
equipment.
— Waste management.
Annual employee training.
Performance
standards/limits
NONE
NONE
All materials must be
stored in protected
area away from
drains and labeled.
NONE
NONE
Inspections
• Monthly, include: all
containments, storage
areas, transfers, and
transmission lines; spill
prevention; good house-
keeping practices; man-
agement of process waste
products; all structural and
nonstructural management
practices.
• Annual comprehensive
site compliance evalua-
tion.
• Quarterly inspections of
designated areas.
• Annual comprehensive
site compliance evalua-
tion.
Annual inspection — all con-
tainment and material stor-
age areas, fueling areas,
loading and unloading
areas, equipment cleaning
areas.
Annual comprehensive site
compliance evaluation.
Perform routine inspections
as required within the per-
mit.
Annual comprehensive site
compliance evaluation.
Quarterly inspections of
leather processing vehicle
and equipment mainte-
nance areas, material stor-
age areas, loading and
unloading areas, and
waste management areas.
Annual comprehensive site
compliance evaluation.
-------
52478
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 189/Wednesday, September 30, 1998/Notices
APPENDIX B—SUMMARY OF MSGP AND BASELINE PERMIT REQUIREMENTS—Continued
Sector
Fabricated Metal Prod-
ucts Industry
Facilities That Manufac-
ture Transportation
Equipment, Industrial,
*or Commercial Ma-
chinery Manufacturers
Facilities That Manufac-
ture Electronic and
Electrical Equipment
and Components,
Photographic and Op-
tical Goods
Monitoring
Baseline
Baseline does not
impose monitor-
ing on these fa-
cilities unless
they are EPCRA
313 facilities.
Baseline does not
impose monitor-
ing on these fa-
cilities unless
they are EPCRA
313 facilities.
Baseline does not
impose monitor-
ing on these fa-
cilities unless
they are EPCRA
313 facilities.
MSGP
Fabricated metal
products except
coating manufac-
turing facilities
must collect
quarterly grab
samples for the
following param-
eters: total re-
coverable
iron.total recov-
erable aluminum,
total recoverable
zinc, and nitrate
+ nitrite nitrogen
during the sec-
ond and fourth
years of permit
coverage.
Fabricated metal
coating and en-
graving manu-
facturing facilities
must collect
quarterly grab
samples for the
following param-
eters: total re-
coverable zinc
and nitrate + ni-
trite nitrogen dur-
ing the second
and fourth years
of permit cov-
erage.
All facilities must
conduct quarterly
visual examina-
tions of storm
water discharges
unless inactive
and unstaffed.
All facilities may
exercise the low
concentration
waiver, inactive
and unstaffed
waiver, or alter-
native certifi-
cation in lieu of
analytical mon-
itoring.
All facilities must
conduct quarterly
visual examina-
tions of storm
water discharges
unless inactive
and unstaffed.
All facilities must
conduct quarterly
visual examina-
tions of storm
water discharges
unless inactive
and unstaffed.
MSGP sector-specific SWPPP consid-
erations
• Focus primarily on storage areas,
unloading and loading areas, and
any other area where outside oper-
ations occur:
• Address: storage areas for raw
metal, receiving, unloading, and
loading areas, storage of heavy
equipment, metal working fluid
areas, unprotected liquid storage
tanks, chemical cleaners and
wastewaters, raw steel collection,
paints and painting equipment, haz-
ardous waste storage, chemical
transportation, galvanized products,
vehicle and equipment maintenance,
wooden pallets and empty drums,
and retention ponds.
;
1
i
• Annual employee training on speci-
fied topics.
• Good housekeeping for exposed
areas.
• Spill prevention and response pro-
cedure for exposed areas.
There are no considerations beyond
the baseline.
'
Performance
standards/limits
NONE
NONE
NONE
Inspections
Periodic inspections of raw
metal storage areas, fin-
ished product storage
areas, material and chemi-
cal storage areas, recy-
cling areas, loading and
unloading areas, equip-
ment storage areas, paint
areas, fueling and mainte-
nance areas, and waste
management areas.
Annual comprehensive site
compliance evaluation.
Annual inspections for load-
ing and unloading areas,
storage areas, waste man-
agement units, and vents
and stacks.
Annual comprehensive site
compliance evaluation.
Perform routine inspections.
Annual comprehensive site
compliance evaluation.
These permit modifications shall
become effective on the date of
publication in the Federal Register.
Final Permit Modification
This permit modification shall
become effective on September 30,
1998.
Region 1
Signed and issued this 29th day of June,
1998.
Linda M. Murphy,
Director, Office of Ecosystem Protection.
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 189/Wednesday, September 30, 1998/Notices
52479
Areas of coverage
ConnecUcut Indian Country
Maba
Maine Indian Country
Massachusetts
Massachusetts Indian Country
New Hampshire
Rhode Island Indian Country...
Vermont Federal Facilities
CTR05*##F
MER05*###
MER05*##F
MAR05*###
MAR05*»F
NHR05*###
RIR05*##F
VTR05*##F
Region II
Signed this 2Ist day of July, 1998.
Kathleen C. Callahan,
Division of Environmental Planning and
Protection Director.
Areas of coverage
Permit No.
Puerto Rico .....
Federal Facilities.
PRR05*###
PRR05*##F
Region III
Signed this 6th day of August, 1998.
Thomas J. Maslany.
Water Protection Division Director.
Areas of coverage
Permit No.
District of Columbia
Federal Facilities
Delaware Federal Facilities
DCR05*###
DCR05*##F
DER05*##F
Region IV
Signed this 7th day of July. 1998.
Robert F.McGhee,
Water Management Division Director.
Areas of coverage
Permit No.
Florida
Indian country
FLR05*###
FLR05*##F
Region VI
William B. Hathaway,
Water Quality Protection Division Director.
Areas of coverage
Permit No.
Louisiana Indian country LAR05*##F
NewMexteo NMR05*###
Indian country (except Navajo and Ute Mountain Reservation lands) NMR05*##F
Oklahoma:
Indian country OKR05*##F
Oil and gas exploration and production relatsd industries and pipeline industries that are regulated by the OklahorraOKR05*###
CorporatlonCommisslon.
Toxas TXR05*###
Indian country TXR05*##F
-------
52480
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 189/Wednesday, September 30, 1998/Notices
Region IX
Signed this 17th day of July, 1998.
John Ong,
Acting Director, Water Division.
Areas of coverage
California
Indian country
Idaho
Duck Valley Reservation
New Mexico '•
Navajo Reservation
Oregon
Fort McDermitt Reservation
Utah
Goshute Reservation
Permit
No.
AZR05*###
AZR05*###F
AZR05*##F
CAR05*##F
GUR05*###
GUR05*##F
NVR05*##F
NVR05*##F
AZR05*##F
NVR05*##F
NVR05*##F
AZR05*##F
JAR05*###
JAR05*##F :
MWR05*###
MWR05*###F
Region X
Signed this 26th day of June, 1998.
Philip G. Millam,
Director, Office of Water.
Idaho
Areas of coverage
Permit No.
AKR05*###
AKR05*##F
IDR05*###
IDR05*##F ; '
IDR05*##F
ORR05*##F
WAR05*##F
WAR05*##F
Final Modification of the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) Storm Water Multi-Sector
General Permit for Industrial Activities;
Termination of the EPA NPDES Storm
Water Baseline Industrial General
Permit
For reasons set forth in the Fact Sheet,
the Table of Contents, Parts I, II, IV, VI,
and XI.A, XI.C, XI.D, XI.E, XI.I, XIJ,
XI.L. XI.P, XI.V, XI.X and XI.AA, XII,
and Addendum H of the NPDES Storm
Water Multi-Sector General Permit
(MSGP) are modified as described
below. A new Part XI.AD and
Addendum I have been added to the
MSGP. These modifications and
additional requirements will become
effective on the date of Federal Register
publication of the final modifications.
For applicant and permittee
convenience, copies of the current NOI
and NOT have been included at the end
of today's notice.
Notice is also being published of
EPA's termination of the NPDES Storm
Water Baseline Industrial General
Permit, with certain exceptions
described below in Part H.A.9, 92 days
after the effective date of these MSGP
modifications where the Baseline
Industrial General Permit is extended in
accordance with the provisions of the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
I. Modification of Permit Table of
Contents ',
Table of Contents (Amended)
The Addenda portion of the MSGP's
Table of Contents is amended to include
a reference to new Addendum I—
Historic Properties Guidance.
NPDES Storm Water Multi-Sector General
Permit for Industrial Activities Table of
Contents
*****
Addenda
*****
Addendum I—Historic Properties Guidance
H. Modification of Permit Eligibility
Language for Protection of Historic
Properties
Part I (Amended)
Part I.B.6., National Historic
Preservation Act, is amended to include
a reference to new Addendum I to the
permit which provides guidance and
references for applicants to use when
determining their facility's eligibility for
permit coverage regarding the protection
of historic properties and places. Part
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 189/Wednesday, September 30, 1998/Notices
52481
LB.6(ii) Is also amended to add the term
'Tribal Historic Preservation Officers"
to the term "State Historic Preservation
Officers" found In the original permit.
Part /. Coverage Under This Permit
B. Eligibility
*****
6. National Historic Preservation Act.
In order to be eligible for coverage under
this permit, the applicant must be in
compliance with the National Historic
Preservation Act. A discharge of storm
water associated with Industrial activity
may be covered under this permit only
(i) The discharge does not affect a
property that Is listed or is eligible for
listing on the National Register of
Historic Places as maintained by the
Secretary of the Interior; or
(il) The applicant has obtained and is
in compliance with a written agreement
between the applicant and the State
Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) or
Tribal Historic Preservation Officer
(THPO) that outlines all measures to be
undertaken by the applicant to mitigate
or prevent adverse effect to the historic
property.
Addendum I of this permit provides
guidance and references to assist
applicants with determining their
facility's permit eligibility concerning
this provision.
HI. NOI Submlttal Deadline for
FaciUUes Transferring From the
Baseline Industrial General Permit
Fart 17 (Amended)
The deadline for NOI submittal for
facilities currently covered by the
Baseline Industrial General Permit that
are being transferred to the MSGP is
established by adding Part H.A.9 to the
MSGP. Also added is Part II.A.10 which
Instructs facilities ineligible to transfer
to the MSGP because of Endangered
Species Act or National Historic
Preservation Act requirements to apply
for an individual NPDES permit from
the appropriate EPA Regional Office.
Part IF. Notification Requirements
A. Deadlines for Notification
*****
9. Facilities Being Transferred to the
Multl*Sector General Permit as a Result
of the Expiration of the Baseline
Industrial General Permit. Facilities
currently covered by the Baseline
Industrial General Permit for an existing
storm water discharge associated with
Industrial activity that have not already
submitted an NOI in accordance with
Part II.A.6 to transfer coverage to the
Multi-Sector General Permit, shall do so
on or before 90 days after the effective
date of the modification of the Multi-
Sector Permit. The requirements of the
Baseline Industrial General Permit will
continue to apply to facilities
transferring permit coverage during this
time period where an extension of the
Baseline Industrial General Permit has
been acquired by the permittee in
accordance with the Administrative
Procedure Act (APA).
Where an extension of the Baseline
Industrial General Permit has been
acquired by a permittee under the
provisions of the APA, coverage under
such extended permit shall terminate in
all applicable areas 92 days after the
effective date of the modified MSGP
with the exception of facilities subject to
Part II.A.10 and for facilities located in
the following areas: Federal facilities in
Colorado; and Indian Country lands
located in the States of Colorado
(including the portion of the Ute
Mountain Reservation located in New
Mexico), Montana, North Dakota, South
Dakota (including the portion of the
Pine Ridge Reservation, located in
Nebraska), Utah (except for the Goshute
and Navajo Reservation lands (see
Region 9)), and Wyoming.
10. Facilities Ineligible for Transfer to
the Multi-Sector General Permit from
the Baseline Industrial General Permit.
Facilities seeking storm water permit
coverage who, after attempting to
comply with all eligibility conditions of
the permit, are still ineligible for
transfer to the Multi-Sector General
Permit due to Endangered Species Act
requirements, National Historic
Preservation Act requirements or other
requirements of the permit shall submit
an application for an individual NPDES
permit to the appropriate EPA Regional
Office listed in Part LA of this permit.
These individual permit applications
shall be submitted no later than 90 days
after the effective date of the modified
Multi-Sector General Permit.
IV. Deadlines for Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan Preparation and
Compliance for Facilities Transferring
from the Baseline Industrial General
Permit
Part IV (Amended)
For facilities transferring to the MSGP
as a result of the expiration of the
Baseline Industrial General Permit, the
deadline for storm water pollution
prevention plan preparation and
compliance is established in the MSGP
by adding Part IV. A. 10 as follows:
Part IV. Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plans
A. Deadlines for Plan Preparation and
Compliance
* * # * *
10. Facilities Being Transferred from
the Baseline Industrial General Permit
to the Multi-Sector General Permit.
Facilities transferring industrial storm
water discharge coverage from the
Baseline Industrial General Permit to
the Multi-Sector General Permit shall
revise and begin implementation of
their pollution prevention plans to
address requirements under Part XI no
later than 180 days after the date of
modification of the Multi-Sector Permit.
For cases where construction is
necessary to implement measures
required by the plan, a schedule shall be
included which provides compliance
with the plan as expeditiously as
practicable but no later than October 1,
2000.
V. Modification of Monitoring and
Reporting Requirements
Part VI (Amended)
Part VI is amended by adding Part
VI.D and referencing Part VI.D in Parts
VI.A and VLB as shown below. Also, the
reporting addresses have been updated
in Part VLB. 1.
Part VI. Monitoring and Reporting
Requirements
A. Monitoring Requirements
1. Limitations on Monitoring
Requirements, a. Except as required by
paragraph b., only those facilities with
discharges or activities identified in Part
VI.C., Part VI.D. and Part XL are
required to conduct sampling of their
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity. Monitoring
requirements under Parts VI.C.,VI.D.
and XL are additive. Facilities with
discharges or activities described in
more than one monitoring section are
subject to all applicable monitoring
requirements from each section.
b. The Director can provide written
notice to any facility otherwise exempt
from the sampling requirements of Parts
VI.C., VI.D. and XL that it shall conduct
discharge sampling for a specific
monitoring frequency for specific
parameters.
B. Reporting: Where To Submit
1. Location. Signed copies of
discharge monitoring reports required
under Parts VI.C., VI.D., and XI.,
individual permit applications, and all
other reports required herein, shall be
submitted to the Director of the NPDES
program at the address of the
-------
52482
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 189/Wednesday, September 30, 1998/Notices
appropriate Regional Office listed Industrial General Permit, and other
below. For each outfall, one Discharge dischargers (i.e., new dischargers;
Monitoring Report form must be existing dischargers formerly
submitted per storm event sampled. unpermitted under either an
a. CT, MA, ME, NH, RI, VT EPA, Region individually-drafted NPDES permit or
I, Office of Ecosystem Protection,
Municipal Assistance Unit, JFK
Federal Building, Boston, MA
02203
b. PR U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Caribbean Environmental
Protection Division, Centre Europa
Building, 1492 Ponce de Leon
Avenue, Suite 417, Santurce, Puerto
Rico 00907-4127
c. DE, DCEPA, Region III, Water
Protection Division (3WP30), 841
Chestnut Building, Philadelphia,
PA 19107
d. FL EPA, Region IV, Water
Management Division, Surface
Water Permits Section (SWPFB), 61
Forsyth St., SW, Atlanta, GA
another NPDES general permit; and,
dischargers transitioning industrial
storm water discharge permit coverage
from an individually drafted NPDES
permit to the Multi-Sector General
Permit) obtaining coverage after
September 30, 1997, are required to
monitor in accordance with the
applicable requirements listed in Part
XI. during the 4th year of the Multi-
Sector Permit (October 1, 1998-
September 30, 1999). Submittal of
Discharge Monitoring Report Forms (or
certifications) reporting monitoring
results are to be postmarked no later
than March 31, 2000, and sent to the
appropriate EPA Regional Office listed
in Part VLB.
Facilities with discharges subject to
30303-3104
e. NM (except see Region IX for Navajo numeric effluent limitations that are
lands), TX; LA Indian Country eligible for coverage (see Part V.B., Part
lands; OK Indian Country lands; oilXl.AA. PartXI.C.5., PartXI.D.4., Part
and gas exploration and production XI.E.4., PartXI.J.4., and Part XI.O.4.) are
related industries, and pipeline to monitor and report as required by the
operations, which are regulated by permit.
the Oklahoma Corporation Facilities transitioning from the
Baseline Industrial General Permit to
the Multi-Sector General Permit may
use their two most recent monitoring
results, on a parameter-by-parameter,
outfall-by-outfall basis which were
obtained through Baseline Permit
monitoring requirements, to compare
with appropriate monitoring cut-off
concentrations in order to meet the
Multi-Sector's 4th year monitoring
Commission EPA, Region VI,
Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance Division (6EN-WC), EPA
SW MSGP, P.O. Box 50625, Dallas,
TX 75250
f. AZ, CA, NV, Johnson Atoll, Guam,
Midway Island, Wake Island,
American Samoa, the
Commonwealth of Northern
Mariana Islands, the Goshute
Reservation in UT and NV, the
requirements mentioned above. This
Navajo Reservation in UT, NM, andprovision is only allowable where such
AZ, the Fort McDermitt Reservation data represents current industrial storm
in OR, the Duck Valley Reservation water discharges from a facility.
in NV and MPA, Region IX, Water Facilities with discharges subject to the
Management Division, (WTR-5), numeric effluent limitations mentioned
Storm Water Staff, 75 Hawthorne above cannot use previously generated
Street, San Francisco, CA 94105 sampling data and must conduct
g. AK, ID (except see Region IX for DucAnomtoringforthelifepftheMulti-
Valley Reservation lands), OR " " ""
(except see Region IX for Fort
McDermitt Reservation lands), WA
EPA, Region X, Office of Water
(OW-130), Storm Water Staff, 1200
Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101
*****
D. Monitoring Requirements for
Dischargers Transferring Permit
Coverage to Multi-Sector General Permit
as a Result of Expiration of Baseline
Industrial General Permit, and Other
Dischargers Obtaining Multi-Sector
General Permit Coverage After
September 30, 1997.
Facilities transferring permit coverage
to the Multi-Sector General Permit as a
result of the expiration of the Baseline
Sector General Permit for those
discharges.
VI. Modification of Types of Facilities
Covered by the MSGP; Inclusion of
Effluent Limitations for Wet Deck
Storage Areas; and, Addition of New
Part XI.AD.
Part XI (Amended)
1. Parts XI.A.4 and 5 are amended to
include technology-based effluent
limitations and monitoring
requirements for non-storm water
discharges from wet deck storage areas
as currently authorized under Part
XI.A.2.a(2)oftheMSGP.
2. Part XI.C.l is amended by adding
subsector "i" which authorizes
discharges from facilities within SIC
Code 283. The previous Part XI.C.2 is
deleted which had not authorized
discharges from SIC code 283 facilities.
The previous Part XI.C. 1 .i is
renumbered as Part XI.C.2. Also,
clarification is added in Part Xl.C.l.h
that facilities with SIC code 3952 other
than those listed are covered by Part
XI.Y.
3. Part XI.D. 1 .e. is amended to show
the appropriate parts of the permit
which provide coverage for storm water
discharges from petroleum refineries
(Part XI!.), oil recycling facilities (Part
XI.N.), and fat and oil rendering
facilities (Part XI.U.).
4. Part XI.E.l is amended to authorize
discharges from manufacturers of the
following products: glass products made
of purchased glass (SIC code 3231);
vitreous china plumbing fixtures, and
china and earthenware fittings and
bathroom accessories (SIC code 3261),
lime (SIC code 3274), stone and stone
products (SIC code 3281); abrasive
products (SIC code 3291); asbestos
products (SIC code 3292), mineral wool
(SIC code 3296), and nonmetallic -
mineral products not elsewhere
classified (SIC code 3299). Also, the SIC
code exclusions in the existing Part
XI.E.l pertaining to SIC codes 3274,
3281, 3291, 3292 and 3296 are deleted.
Part XI.E.S.a. is modified to include
the following categories of facilities
among those which must conduct
analytical monitoring: manufacturers of
vitreous china plumbing fixtures, and
china and earthen ware fittings and
bathroom accessories (SIC code 3261)
and lime (3274). The monitoring
requirements for SIC code 3261 facilities
are found in Table E-l and the
requirements for SIC code 3274 facilities
are found in Table E-2.
,5. Part XI.1.1 .a. is amended to
authorize discharges from facilities in
SIC code 2911 (petroleum refineries),
except for discharges subject to effluent
limitations guidelines.
6. PartXI.J.l.a.(l) is amended to
authorize mine dewatering discharges
composed entirely of storm water or
ground water seepage from construction
sand and gravel, industrial sand, and
crushed stone mining facilities located
in EPA Regions I, H and X. Similar
revisions are made to Part XI.J.4.a.
(Numeric Effluent Limitations) and Part
Xl.J.S.b. (Monitoring and Reporting
Requirements). These discharges were
originally authorized in the MSGP from
only those facilities located in EPA
Region VI and Arizona in EPA Region
IX.
7. Parts XI.L. 1 and 2 are amended to
authorize discharges from open dumps.
Similar language changes have been
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63. No. 189/Wednesday, September 30, 1998/Notices
52483
made In Parts XI.L.3, 4 and 5 to include
applicability to open dumps.
8. Part XLP.l is amended to authorize
discharges from facilities in SIC code
4221-4225 (public warehousing and
storage) that do not have vehicle and
equipment maintenance shops and/or
equipment cleaning operations but have
areas (exclusive of access roads and rail
lines) where material handling
equipment or activities, raw materials,
Intermediate products, final products,
waste materials, by-products or
Industrial machinery are exposed to
storm water.
9, Part XI.V.l is amended to authorize
Industrial storm water discharges from
facilities in SIC code 31 (except 3111),
which covers manufacturers of finished
leather and artificial leather products.
10. Part XI.X.l is amended to clarify
that this sector authorizes industrial
storm water discharges from all SIC 27
facilities.
11. Part XI.AA.l is amended to clarify
that this sector authorizes industrial
storm water discharges from all SIC 34
facilities.
12. Part XI.AD. Is added to provide an
Industrial sector for facilities which
meet the definition of storm water
associated with industrial activity (40
CFR 122.26(b)(14)) and are required by
the Director to obtain permit coverage in
accordance with 40 CFR 122.26(a)(l)(v)
or 40 CFR 122.26(a)(9) and
122.26.(g)(I)(i). but cannot be classified
in another industrial sector of this
permit (i.e., Parts XI.A—XI.AC).
13. PartXI.I.3.a.(3)(d) is modified to
require only annual inspections (rather
than quarterly or semi-annual
Inspections) of temporarily or
permanently Inactive oil and gas
extraction facilities which are unstaffed
and remotely located.
The final revisions of the MSGP listed
above In PARTXI (AMENDED), items 1
through 13, appear in the modified
MSGP as follows:
Part XI. Specific Requirements for
Industrial Activities
A. Storm Water Discharges Associated
With Industrial Activity From Timber
Products Facilities
2. Special Conditions
a. Prohibition of Non-storm Water
Discharges.
*****
(2) In addition to the discharges
described in part in.A.2., the following
non-storm water discharges may be
authorized by this permit provided the
non-storm water component of the
discharge is in compliance with
paragraph XI.A.S.a. (3) (g)(i) (Measures
and Controls for Non-storm Water
Discharges) and the effluent limitations
described in paragraph XI.A.4.a.:
Discharges from the spray down of
lumber and wood product storage yards
where no chemical additives are used in
the spray down waters and no
chemicals are applied to the wood
during storage.
*****
4. Numeric Effluent Limitationsln
addition to the numeric effluent
limitations described in Part V.B, the
following limitations shall be met by
existing and new dischargers.
a. Wet Deck Storage Area Runoff.
Non-storm water discharges from areas
used for the storage of logs where water,
without chemical additives, is
intentionally sprayed or deposited on
logs to deter decay or infestation by
insects are required to meet the
following effluent limitations: pH shall
be within the range of 6.0-9.0, and there
will be no discharge of debris.
Chemicals are not allowed to be applied
to the stored logs. The term "debris" is
defined as woody material such as bark,
twigs, branches, heartwood or sapwood
that will not pass through a 2.54 cm (1
in.) diameter round opening and is
present in the discharge from a wet deck
storage area. Dischargers subject to these
numeric limitations must be in
compliance with these limitations
through the duration of permit coverage.
5. Monitoring and Reporting
Requirements.
*****
d. Compliance Monitoring
Requirements. Permittees with log
storage area spray water discharges
which are covered by this permit must
monitor the discharge for the presence
of debris and pH at least annually
beginning October 1, 1998, and
continuing for the duration of permit
coverage. Facilities must report in
accordance with 5.d.(2) below
(reporting). In addition to the
parameters listed above, the permittee
shall provide an estimate of the total
volume (in gallons) of the discharge
sampled.
(1) Sample Type. A minimum of one
grab sample shall be taken. All samples
shall be collected from the discharge
point of the wet deck storage area and
will not be taken during a storm water
event. The grab sample shall be taken
during the first 30 minutes of the
discharge. If the collection of a grab
sample during the first 30 minutes is
impracticable, a grab sample can be
taKen during the first hour of the
discharge, and the discharger shall
submit with the monitoring report a
description of why a grab sample during
the first 30 minutes was impracticable.
(2) Reporting. Permittees with log
storage area spray water discharges shall
submit monitoring results, obtained
during the reporting period beginning
on the effective date of permit
modification, on Discharge Monitoring
Report Form(s) postmarked no later than
November 30 of each year following
each annual monitoring period. Signed
copies of Discharge Monitoring Reports
shall be submitted to the Director of the
NPDES program at the address of the
appropriate Regional Office indicated in
Part VLB. of this permit. For each
outfall, one signed Discharge
Monitoring Report form shall be
submitted for each sampling event.
(3) Additional Notification.In
addition to filing copies of discharge
monitoring reports in accordance with
paragraph (2) (above), permittees with
discharges of log storage area spray
water through a large or medium
municipal separate storm sewer system
(systems serving a population of
100,000 or more) must submit signed
copies of discharge monitoring reports
to the operator of the municipal separate
storm sewer system in accordance with
the dates provided in paragraph 5.d.(2)
(above).
C. Storm Water Discharges Associated
With Industrial Activity From Chemical
and Allied Products Manufacturing
Facilities
1. Discharges Covered Under This
Section. The requirements listed under
this section shall apply to storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity from a facility engaged in
manufacturing the following products
and generally described by the SIC code
shown:
*****
h. Ink and paints, including china
painting enamels, India ink, drawing
ink, platinum paints for burnt wood or
leather work, paints for china painting,
artists' paints and artists' water colors
(SIC 3952, limited to those listed; for
others in SIC 3952 not listed above, see
Part XI. Y).
i. Medicinal chemicals and
pharmaceutical products, including the
grading, grinding and milling of
botanicals (including SIC 283).
2. Co-located Industrial Activities.
When an industrial facility, described
by the above coverage provisions of this
section, has industrial activities being
conducted onsite that meet the
description (s) of industrial activities in
another section(s), that industrial
facility shall comply with any and all
-------
52484
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 189/Wednesday, September 30, 1998/Notices
applicable monitoring and pollution
prevention plan requirements of the
other section(s) in addition to all
applicable requirements in this section.
The monitoring and pollution
prevention plan terms and conditions of
this multi-sector permit are additive for
industrial activities being conducted at
the same industrial facility (co-located
industrial activities). The operator of the
facility shall determine which other
monitoring and pollution prevention
plan section(s) of this permit (if any) are
applicable to the facility.
*****
D. Storm Water Discharges Associated
With Industrial Activity From Asphalt
Paving and Roofing Materials and
Lubricant Manufacturers
1. Discharges Covered Under This
Section.
*****
e. Limitations on Coverage. The
following storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity are
not authorized by this section of the
permit:
(1) Storm water discharges from
petroleum refining facilities, including
those that manufacture asphalt or
asphalt products and that are classified
as SIC code 2911 (see Part XI.I),
(2) Storm water discharges from oil
recycling facilities (see Part XI.N), and
(3) Storm water discharges associated
with fats and oils rendering (see Part
XI.U).
*****
E. Storm Water Discharges Associated
With Industrial Activity From Glass,
Clay, Cement, Concrete, and Gypsum
Product Manufacturing Facilities
1. Discharges Covered Under This
Section. The requirements listed under
this section shall apply to storm water
discharges from the following activities:
manufacturing flat, pressed, or blown
glass or glass containers; manufacturing
hydraulic cement; manufacturing clay
products including tile and brick;
manufacturing of pottery and porcelain
electrical supplies; manufacturing
concrete products; manufacturing
gypsum products; nonclay refractories;
and grinding or otherwise treating
minerals and earths. This section
generally includes the following types
of manufacturing operations: flat glass,
(SIC code 3211); glass containers, (SIC
code 3221); pressed and blown glass,
not elsewhere classified, (SIC code
3229); glass products made of purchased
glass (SIC code 3231) where material
handling equipment or activities, raw
materials, intermediate products, final
products, waste materials, by-products,
or industrial machinery are exposed to
storm water; hydraulic cement, (SIC
code 3241); brick and^ structural clay
tile, (SIC code 3251); ceramic wall and
floor tile, (SIC code 3253); clay
refractories, (SIC code 3255); structural
clay products not elsewhere classified
(SIC code 3259); vitreous china
plumbing fixtures, and china and
earthen ware fittings and bathroom
accessories (SIC code 3261); vitreous
china table and kitchen articles (SIC
code 3262); fine earthenware table and
kitchen articles (SIC code 3263);
porcelain electrical supplies, (SIC code
3264); pottery products, (SIC code
3269); concrete block and brick, (SIC
code 3271); concrete products, except
block and brick (SIC code 3272); ready-
mix concrete (SIC code 3273); lime (SIC
code 3274); gypsum products, (SIC code
3275); cut stone and stone products (SIC
code 3281); abrasive products (SIC code
3291), asbestos products (SIC code
3292); minerals and earths, ground or
otherwise treated, (SIC code 3295);
mineral wool (SIC code 3296); nonclay
refractories (SIC code 3297); and
nonmetallic mineral products not
elsewhere classified (SIC code 3299).
*****
5. Monitoring and Reporting
Requirements.
a. Analytical Monitoring
Requirements. During the period
October 1, 1996 lasting through to
September 30, 1997 and the period
beginning October 1, 1998 lasting
through September 30,1999, permittees
that manufacture clay products and
concrete products and gypsum products
must monitor their storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity at least quarterly (4 times per
year during years 2 and 4) except as
provided in paragraphs 5.a.(3)
(Sampling Waiver), 5.a.(4)
(Representative Discharge), and 5.a.(5)
(Alternative Certification).
Clay product manufacturers include;
brick and structural clay tile
manufacturers (SIC 3251), ceramic wall
and floor tile manufacturers (SIC 3253),
clay refractories (SIC 3255),
manufacturers of structural clay
products, not elsewhere classified (SIC
3259), manufacturers of vitreous china
table and kitchen articles (SIC 3232),
manufacturers of vitreous china
plumbing fixtures, and china and
earthen ware fittings and bathroom
accessories (SIC code 3261),
manufacturers of fine earthenware table
and kitchen articles (SIC 3263),
manufacturers of porcelain electrical
supplies (SIC 3264), pottery products
(SIC 3269) and non-clay refractories
(3297). Facilities with these industrial
activities must monitor for the pollutant
listed in Table E-l.
Concrete and gypsum product
manufacturers include concrete block
and brick manufacturers (SIC 3271),
concrete products manufacturers (SIC
3272), ready mix concrete
manufacturers (SIC 3273), lime (3274),
gypsum product manufacturers (SIC
3275) and manufacturers of mineral and
earth products (SIC 3295). Facilities
with these industrial activities must
monitor for the pollutants listed in
Table E-2.
*****
I. Storm Water Discharges Associated
With Industrial Activity From Oil and
Gas Extraction Facilities and Petroleum
Refineries
I. Discharges Covered Under This
Section.
(a) Coverage. This section of the
permit covers all existing point source
discharges of storm water associated
with industrial activity to waters of the
United States from oil and gas facilities
listed under Standard Industrial
Classification (SIC) Major Group 13
which are required to be permitted
under 40 CFR 122.26(c)(l)(iii). These
include "* * * oil and gas exploration,
production, processing, or treatment
operations, or transmission facilities
that discharge storm water
contaminated by contact with or that
has come into contact with any
overburden raw material, intermediate
products, finished products, by-
products or waste products located on
the site of such operations." Industries
in SIC Major Group 13 include the
extraction and production of crude oil,
natural gas, oil sands and shale; the
production of hydrocarbon liquids and
natural gas from coal; and associated oil
field service, supply and repair
industries. This section also covers
petroleum refineries listed under SIC
code 2911. Contaminated storm water
discharges from petroleum refining or
drilling operations that are subject to
nationally established BAT or BPT
guidelines found at 40 CFR 419 and 435
respectively are not included.
Note that areas eligible for coverage at
petroleum refineries will be very limited
because the term "contaminated
runoff," as defined under 40 CFR
419.11, includes"* * * runoff which
comes into contact with any raw
material, intermediate product, finished
product, by-product or waste product
located on petroleum refinery
property." Areas at petroleum refineries
which may be eligible for permit
coverage, provided discharges from
these areas are not co-mingled with
"contaminated runoff," include: vehicle
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63. No. 189/Wednesday, September 30, 1998 / Notices
52485
and equipment storage, maintenance
and refueling areas. Most areas at
refineries will not be eligible for
coverage including: raw material,
intermediate product, by-product, final
product, waste material, chemical, and
material storage areas; loading and
unloading areas; transmission pipelines;
and, processing areas.
*****
3. Storm Water Pollution Prevention
Plan Requirements.
a. Contents of Plan.
*****
(3) Measures and Controls.
*****
(d) Inspections. In addition to or as
part of the comprehensive site
evaluation required under paragraph
XU.3,a.(4) of this section, qualified
facility or plant personnel shall be
Identified to Inspect designated
equipment and areas of the facility at
appropriate intervals specified in the
plan. All equipment and areas
addressed in the pollution prevention
plan shall be inspected at a minimum of
6-month intervals. Equipment and
vehicles which store, mix, or transport
hazardous materials will be inspected
routinely, but not less than quarterly. A
set of tracking or follow-up procedures
shall be used to ensure that appropriate
actions are taken in response to the
Inspections. Records of inspections
shall be maintained. For temporarily or
permanently inactive oil and gas
extraction facilities which are remotely
located and unstaffed (within major SIC
group 13), the above inspections shall
be performed at least annually.
*****
J. Storm Water Discharges Associated
With Industrial Activity From Mineral
Mining and Processing Facilities
1. Discharges Covered Under This
Section,
*****
a. Limitations on Coverage. The
following storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity are
not authorized by this permit:
(I) Storm water discharges associated
with industrial activity which are
subject to an existing effluent limitation
guideline (40 CFR part 436), except
mine dewatering discharges composed
entirely of storm water or ground water
seepage from construction sand and
gravel, industrial sand, and crushed
stone mining facilities located in
Regions I, II, VI. X and Arizona.
*****
4. Numeric Effluent Limitations.
Except as discussed in 4a. below,
there are no additional numeric effluent
limitations beyond those described in
Part V.B of this permit.
a. Regions I, II. VI and X, and
Arizona—Construction Sand and
Gravel; Industrial Sand, and Crushed
Stone Mining, Mine Dewateringfmy
discharge composed entirely of storm
water or ground water seepage that
derives from mine dewatering activities
at construction sand and gravel,
industrial sand, or crushed stone mining
facilities located in Regions I, II, VI, and
X, and in Arizona shall not exceed a
maximum concentration for any day of
45 mg/L or an average of daily values for
30 consecutive days of 25 mg/L Total
Suspended Solids (TSS) nor the 6.0 to
9.0 range limitation for pH. The
discharge from the dewatering activity
shall not be diluted with other storm
water runoff or flows to meet this
limitation. Dischargers subject to these
numeric effluent limitations must be in
compliance with these limits upon
commencement of coverage and for the
entire term of this permit.
*****
5. Monitoring and Reporting
Requirements.
*****'
d. Compliance Monitoring
Requirements. Permittees with
construction sand and gravel, industrial
sand, and crushed stone mining
facilities in Regions I, H, VI and X, and
Arizona that have mine dewatering
discharges composed entirely of storm
water or ground water seepage which
are covered by this permit must monitor
the discharge from the dewatering
activity for the presence of TSS and pH
at least quarterly (four times per year).
Facilities must report in accordance
with 5.d.(2) below (reporting). In
addition to the parameters listed above,
the permittee shall provide the date and
duration (in hours) of the storm event(s)
sampled; rainfall measurements or
estimates (in inches) of the storm event
that generated the sampled runoff; the
duration between the storm event
sampled and the end of the previous
measurable (greater than 0.1 inch
rainfall) storm event; and an estimate of
the total volume (in gallons) of the
discharge sampled.
*****
L. Storm Water Discharges Associated
With Industrial Activity From Landfills,
Open Dumps, and Land Application
Sites
1. Discharges Covered Under This
Section.
a. Coverage. The requirements listed
under this section shall apply to storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity from waste disposal
at landfills, land application sites, and
open dumps that receive or have
received industrial wastes. Open dumps
are solid waste disposal units that are
not in compliance with State/Federal
criteria established under RCRA Subtitle
D. Landfills, land application sites, and
open dumps that have storm water
discharges from other types of industrial
activities such as vehicle maintenance,
truck washing, and/or recycling may be
subject to additional requirements
specified elsewhere in this permit.
*****
b. Limitations. Storm water discharges
associated with industrial activities
from inactive landfills, land application
sites, and open dumps occurring on
Federal lands where an operator cannot
be identified are ineligible for coverage
under this permit.
2. Special Conditions.
a. Prohibition of Non-storm Water
Discharges. In addition to the broad
non-storm water prohibition in Part
III. A of this permit, the discharge of
leachate and vehicle and equipment
washwaters to waters of the United
States or a municipal separate storm
sewer system is not authorized by this
permit. For purposes of this permit,
"leachate" is defined as any liquid
(including storm water) that has passed
through or emerged from waste material
and contains soluble, suspended or
miscible materials removed from such
wastes. Operators with such discharges
must obtain coverage under a separate
NPDES permit (other than this permit).
3. Storm Water Pollution Prevention
Plan Requirements.
a. Contents of Plan. The plan shall
include, at a minimum, the following
items:
*****
(2) Description of Potential Pollutant
Sources.
(a) Drainage.
(i) A site map indicating an outline of
the portions of the drainage area of each
storm water outfall that are within the
facility boundaries, each existing
structural control measure to reduce
pollutants in storm water runoff, surface
water bodies, locations of active and
closed landfill cells or trenches,
locations of active and closed land
application areas, locations where open
dumping is occurring or has occurred,
locations of any known leachate springs
or other areas where uncontrolled
leachate may commingle with runoff,
locations of any leachate collection and
handling systems, locations where
major spills or leaks identified under
PartXI.L.3.a.(2)(c) (Spills and Leaks) of
this permit have occurred, and locations
of the following activities where such
-------
52486
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 189/Wednesday, September 30. 1998/Notices
activities are exposed to precipitation:
fueling station, vehicle and equipment
maintenance and/or cleaning areas, and
waste and other significant material
loading/unloading and storage areas.
The map must indicate the outfall
locations and the types of discharges
contained in the drainage areas of the
outfalls.
*****
(e) Risk Identification and Summary
of Potential Pollutant Sources. Include a
narrative description of potential
pollutant sources associated with any of
the following, providing they occur at
the facility: fertilizer, herbicide and
pesticide application; earth/soil moving;
waste hauling and loading/unloading;
outdoor storage of significant materials
including daily, interim and final cover
material stockpiles as well as temporary
waste storage areas; exposure of active
and inactive landfill, land application,
or open dumping areas; uncontrolled
leachate flows; failure or leaks from
leachate collection and treatment
systems; haul roads; and vehicle
tracking of sediments. The description
shall specifically list any significant
potential sources of pollutants at the site
and for each potential source, any
pollutant or pollutant parameter (e.g.,
biochemical oxygen demand, etc.) of
concern shall be identified.
*****
(3) Measures and Controls.
*****
(d) Inspections. Qualified facility
personnel shall be identified to inspect
designated equipment and areas of the
facility at appropriate intervals specified
in the plan.
(i) For operating landfills, open
dumps, and land application sites,
inspections shall be conducted at least
once every 7 days. Qualified personnel
shall inspect areas of landfills and open
dumps that have not yet been finally
stabilized, active land application areas,
areas used for storage of materials/
wastes that are exposed to precipitation,
stabilization and structural control
measures, leachate collection and
treatment systems, and locations where
equipment and waste trucks enter and
exit the site. Where landfill areas and
open dumps have been finally stabilized
and where land application has been
completed, or during seasonal arid
periods in arid areas (areas with an
average annual rainfall of 0 to 10 inchesj
and semiarid areas (areas with an
average annual rainfall of 10 to 20
inches), inspections will be conducted
at least once every month. Erosion and
sediment control measures shall be
observed to ensure they are operating
correctly.
(ii) For inactive landfills, open
dumps, and land application sites,
inspections shall be conducted at least
quarterly, and qualified personnel shall
inspect: landfill or open dump
stabilization and structural erosion
control measures and leachate
collection and treatment systems, and
all closed land application areas.
*****
(i) Record keeping and Internal
Reporting Procedures. A description of
incidents (such as spills, or other
discharges), along with other
information describing the quality and
quantity of storm water discharges shall
be included in the plan required under
this part. Inspections and maintenance
activities shall be documented and
records of such activities shall be
incorporated into the plan. Landfill and
open dump operators shall provide for
a tracking system for the types of wastes
disposed of in each cell or trench of a
landfill or open dump. Land application
site operators shall track the types and
quantities of wastes applied in specific
areas.
*
(h) Sediment and Erosion Control.
The plan shall identify areas which, due
to topography activities, or other factors,
have a high potential for significant soil
erosion, and identify structural,
vegetative, and/or stabilization
measures to be used to limit erosion.
Landfill and open dump operators shall
provide for temporary stabilization of
materials stockpiled for daily,
intermediate, and final cover.
Stabilization practices to consider
include, but are not limited to,
temporary seeding, mulching, and
placing geotextiles on;the inactive
portions of the stockpiles. Landfill and
open dump operators shall provide for
temporary stabilization of inactive areas
of the landfill or open dump which have
an intermediate cover but no final cover.
Landfill and open dump operators shall
provide for temporary stabilization of
any landfill or open dumping areas
which have received a final cover until
vegetation has established itself. Land
application site operators shall also
stabilize areas where waste application
has been completed until vegetation has
been established.
*****
(4) Comprehensive Site Compliance
Evaluation.
*****
(a) Areas contributing to a storm water
discharge associated with industrial
activity at landfill, open dump and land
application sites shall be visually
inspected for evidence of, or the
potential for, pollutants entering the
drainage system. Measures to reduce
pollutant loadings shall be evaluated to
determine whether they are adequate
and properly implemented in
accordance with the terms of the permit
or whether additional control measures
are needed. Structural storm water
management measures, sediment and
erosion control measures, and other
structural pollution prevention
measures identified in the plan shall be
observed to ensure that they are
operating correctly. A visual inspection
of equipment needed to implement the
plan, such as spill response equipment,
shall be made.
*****
5. Monitoring and Reporting
Requirements.
(a) Analytical Monitoring
Requirements. During the period
October 1, 1996, lasting through to
September 30, 1997, and the period
beginning October 1, 1998, lasting
through September 30, 1999, permittees
with landfill/land application/open
dump sites must monitor their storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity at least quarterly (4
times per year) during years 2 and 4 of
this permit except as provided in
paragraphs 5.a.(3) (Sampling Waiver),
5.a.(4) (Representative Discharge), and
5.a.(5) (Alternative Certification).
Landfill/land application/open dump
sites are required to monitor their storm
water discharges for the pollutants of
concern listed in Table L-l below.
Facilities must report in accordance
with 5.b. (Reporting). In addition to the
parameters listed in Table L-l below,
the permittee shall provide: the date and
duration (in hours) of the storm event(s)
sampled; rainfall measurements or
estimates (in inches) of the storm event
that generated the sampled runoff; the
duration between the storm event
sampled and the end of the previous
measurable (greater than 0.1 inch
rainfall) storm event; and, an estimate of
the total volume (in gallons) of the
discharge sampled.
TABLE L-1 .—INDUSTRY MONITORING
REQUIREMENTS
Pollutants of concern
Total Suspended Solids (TSS)1
Total Recoverable Iron2
Cut-off
concentra-
tion
100 mg/L
1.0 mg/L
•"Applicable to all landfill, open dump, and
land application sites.
2 Applicable to all facilities except MSWLF
areas closed in accordance with 40 CFR
258.60 requirements.
(1) Monitoring Periods. Landfill/land
application/open dump sites shall
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 189/Wednesday, September 30, 1998/Notices
52487
monitor samples collected during the
sampling periods of: January through
March, April through June. July through
September, and October through
December for the years specified in
paragraph 5a. (above).
* * * * *
b. Reporting. Permittees with landfill/
land application/open dump sites shall
submit monitoring results for each
outfall associated with industrial
activity [or a certification in accordance
%vlth Sections (3). (4). or (5) above]
obtained during the monitoring period
beginning October 1,1996, and lasting
through September 30, 1997, on
Discharge Monitoring Report Form(s)
postmarked no later than the 31st day of
the month of March. 1998. Monitoring
results (or a certification in accordance
with Sections (3), (4), or (5) above]
obtained during the period beginning
October 1, 1998 and lasting through
September 30,1999, shall be submitted
on Discharge Monitoring Report Form(s)
postmarked no later than the 31st day of
the month of March, 2000. For each
outfall, one Discharge Monitoring
Report form must be submitted per
storm event sampled. Signed copies of
Discharge Monitoring Reports, or
alternative certifications, shall be
submitted to the Director of the NPDES
program at the address of the
appropriate EPA Regional Office listed
In Part VI.G, of the fact sheet for this
permit.
(1) Additional Notiflcatlon.ln
addition to filing copies of discharge
monitoring reports in accordance with
paragraph l.b. (above) landfill/land
application/open dump sites, with at
least one storm water discharge
associated with industrial activity
through a large or medium municipal
separate storm sewer system (systems
serving a population of 100,000 or more)
must submit signed copies of discharge
monitoring reports to the operator of the
municipal separate storm sewer system
In accordance with the dates provided
In paragraph l.b. (above).
*****
P. Storm Water Discharges Associated
With Industrial Activity From Motor
Freight Transportation Facilities,
Passenger Transportation Facilities,
Petroleum Bulk Oil Stations and
Terminals. Rail Transportation
Facilities, and United States Postal
Service Transportation Facilities
1. Discharges Covered Under This
Section. Storm water discharges from
ground transportation facilities and rail
transportation facilities (generally
Identified by Standard Industrial
Classification (SIC) codes 40, 41, 42, 43,
and 5171), that have vehicle and
equipment maintenance shops (vehicle
and equipment rehabilitation,
mechanical repairs, painting, fueling
and lubrication) and/or equipment
cleaning operations are eligible for
coverage under this section. Also
covered under this section are facilities
found under SIC code 4221-4225
(public warehousing and storage) that
do not have vehicle and equipment
maintenance shops and/or equipment
cleaning operations but have areas
(exclusive of access roads and rail lines)
where material handling equipment or
activities, raw materials, intermediate
products, final products, waste
materials, by-products or industrial
machinery are exposed to storm water.
*****
V. Storm Water Discharges Associated
With Industrial Activity From Textile
Mills, Apparel and Other Fabric Product
Manufacturing Facilities, Leather and
Leather Product Manufacturing
Facilities
1. Discharges Covered Under This
Section. The requirements listed under
this section shall apply to storm water
discharges from the following activities:
Textile Mill Products, of and regarding
facilities and establishments engaged in
the preparation of fiber and subsequent
manufacturing of yarn, thread, braids,
twine, and cordage, the manufacturing
of broad woven fabrics, narrow woven
fabrics, knit fabrics, and carpets and
rugs from yarn; processes involved in
the dyeing and finishing of fibers, yarn
fabrics, and knit apparel; the integrated
manufacturing of knit apparel and other
finished articles of yarn; the
manufacturing of felt goods (wool), lace
goods, nonwoven fabrics, miscellaneous
textiles, and other apparel products
(generally described by SIC codes 22
and 23). This section also covers
facilities engaged in manufacturing
finished leather and artificial leather
products (SIC 31, except 3111).
*****
X. Storm Water Discharges Associated
With Industrial Activity From Printing
and Publishing Facilities
1. Discharges Covered Under This
Section. The requirements listed under
this section shall apply to storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity from the following types of
facilities: newspaper, periodical, and
book publishing or publishing and
printing (SIC Codes 2711-2731); book
printing (SIC Code 2732); miscellaneous
publishing (SIC Code 2741); commercial
printing, lithographic (SIC Code 2752);
commercial printing, gravure (SIC Code
2754); commercial printing, not
elsewhere classified (SIC Code 2759);
manifold business forms, greeting cards,
bankbooks, looseleaf binders and
devices, bookbinding and related work,
and typesetting (SIC Codes 2761-2791);
and, plate making and related services
(SIC Code 2796).
*****
AA. Storm Water Discharges Associated
With Industrial Activity From
Fabricated Metal Products Industry
1. Discharges Covered Under This
Section. The requirements listed under
this section shall apply to storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity from the fabricated metals
industry listed below, except for
electrical related industries: fabricated
metal products, except machinery and
transportation equipment, SIC 34, and
jewelry, silverware, and plated ware
(SIC Code 391).
AD. Storm Water Discharges Associated
With Industrial Activity From Non-
Classified Facilities
1. Discharges Covered Under This
Section. The requirements of this
section shall apply to all storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity from facilities that: meet the
definition of storm water associated
with industrial activity (40 CFR
122.26(b)(14), except for construction
activities as defined under 40 CFR
122.26(b)(14)(x)), can not be classified
in another industrial sector of this
permit (i.e., Parts XI.A-XI.AC), and are
not excluded from permit coverage
elsewhere in this permit; or, the Director
has designated as needing a storm water
permit under 40 122.26 (g)(l)(i). Should
conditions at a facility covered by this
section change and industrial activities
in another section(s) contained in XI.A.-
XI.AC. apply, the facility shall comply
with any and all applicable monitoring
and pollution prevention plan
requirements of the other section(s) in
addition to those contained in this
section. The monitoring and pollution
prevention plan terms and conditions of
this permit are additive for industrial
activities being conducted at the same
industrial facility (co-located industrial
activities). The operator of the facility
shall determine which monitoring and
pollution prevention plan section(s) of
this permit (if any) are applicable to the
facility.
2. Special Conditions.
a. Prohibition of Non-storm Water
Discharges. Other than as provided in
use this Section III. A. of this permit,
-------
52488
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 189/Wednesday, September 30, 1998/Notices
non-storm water discharges are not
authorized by this permit.
3. Storm Water Pollution Prevention
Plan Requirements.
a. Contents of Plan. The plan shall
include, at a minimum, the following
items:
(1) Pollution Prevention Team. Each
plan shall identify a specific individual
or individuals within the facility
organization as members of a storm
water Pollution Prevention Team that
are responsible for developing the storm
water pollution prevention plan and
assisting the facility or plant manager in
its implementation, maintenance, and
revision. The plan shall clearly identify
the responsibilities of each team
member. The activities and
responsibilities of the team shall
address all aspects of the facility's storm
water pollution prevention plan.
(2) Description of Potential Pollutant
Sources. Each plan shall provide a
description of potential sources which
may reasonably be expected to add
significant amounts of pollutants to
storm water discharges or which may
result in the discharge of pollutants
during dry weather from separate storm
sewers draining the facility. Each plan
shall identify all activities and
significant materials which may
potentially be significant pollutant
sources. Each plan shall include, at a
minimum:
(a) Drainage.
(i) A site map indicating an outline of
the portions of the drainage area of each
storm water outfall that are within the
facility boundaries, each existing'
structural control measure to reduce
pollutants in storm water runoff, surface
water bodies, locations where
significant materials are exposed to
precipitation, locations where major
spills or leaks identified under Part
XI.AD.3.a.(2)(c) (Spills and Leaks) of
this section have occurred, and the
locations of the following activities
where such activities are exposed to
precipitation: fueling stations, vehicle
and equipment maintenance and/or
cleaning areas, loading/unloading areas,
locations used for the treatment, storage
or disposal of wastes, liquid storage
tanks, processing areas and storage
areas. The map must indicate the outfall
locations and the types of discharges
contained in the drainage areas of the
outfalls.
(ii) For each area of the facility that
generates storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity with
a reasonable potential for containing
significant amounts of pollutants, a
prediction of the direction of flow, and
an identification of the types of
pollutants which are likely to be present
in storm water discharges associated
with industrial activity. Factors to
consider include the toxicity of
chemical; quantity of chemicals used,
produced or discharged; the likelihood
of contact with storm water; and history
of significant leaks or spills of toxic or
hazardous pollutants. Flows with a
significant potential for causing erosion
shall be identified.
(b) Inventory of Exposed Materials.
An inventory of the types of materials
handled at the site that potentially may
be exposed to precipitation. Such
inventory shall include a narrative
description of significant materials that
have been handled, treated, stored or
disposed in a manner to allow exposure
to storm water between the time of 3
years prior to the date of the submission
of a Notice of Intent (NOI) to be covered
under this permit and the present;
method and location of onsite storage or
disposal; materials management
practices employed td minimize contact
of materials with storm water runoff
between the time of 3 years prior to the
date of the submission of a Notice of
Intent (NOI) to be covered under this
permit and the present; the location and
a description of existing structural and
nonstructural control measures to
reduce pollutants in storm water runoff;
and a description of any treatment the
storm water receives.
(c) Spills and Leaks. A list of
significant spills and significant leaks of
toxic or hazardous pollutants that
occurred at areas that are exposed to
precipitation or that otherwise drain to
a storm water conveyance at the facility
after the date of 3 years prior to the date
of the submission of a Notice of Intent
(NOI) to be covered under this permit.
Such list shall be updated as
appropriate during the term of the
permit.
(d) Sampling Data. A summary of
existing discharge sampling data
describing pollutants in storm water
discharges from the facility, including a
summary of sampling data collected
during the term of this permit.
(e) Risk Identification and Summary
of Potential Pollutant Sources^.
narrative description of the potential
pollutant sources from the following
activities: loading and unloading
operations; outdoor storage activities;
outdoor manufacturing or processing
activities; significant dust or particulate
generating processes; and onsite waste
disposal practices. The description shall
specifically list any significant potential
source of pollutants at the site and for
each potential source, any pollutant or
pollutant parameter (e.g., biochemical
oxygen demand, etc.) of concern shall
be identified.
(3) Measures and ControlsEach
facility covered by this permit shall
develop a description of storm water
management controls appropriate for
the facility, and implement such
controls. The appropriateness and
priorities of controls in a plan shall
reflect identified potential sources of :
pollutants at the facility. The
description of storm water management
controls shall address the following
minimum components, including a
schedule for implementing such
controls:
(a) Good Housekeeping. Good
housekeeping requires the maintenance
of areas which may contribute
pollutants to storm water discharges in
a clean, orderly manner.
(b) Preventive Maintenance.^.
preventive maintenance program shall
involve timely inspection and
maintenance of storm water
management devices (e.g., cleaning oil/
water separators, catch basins) as well
as inspecting and testing facility
equipment and systems to uncover
conditions that could cause breakdowns
or failures resulting in discharges of
pollutants to surface waters, and
ensuring appropriate maintenance of
such equipment and systems.
(c) Spill Prevention and Response
Procedures. Areas where potential spills
which can contribute pollutants to
storm water discharges can occur, and
their accompanying drainage points
shall be identified clearly in the storm
water pollution prevention plan. Where
appropriate, specifying material
handling procedures, storage
requirements, and use of equipment
such as diversion valves in the plan
should be considered. Procedures for
cleaning up spills shall be identified in
the plan and made available to the
appropriate personnel. The necessary
equipment to implement a clean up
should be available to personnel.
(d) Inspections. In addition to or as
part of the comprehensive site
evaluation required under paragraph
XI.AD.3.a.(4) of this section, qualified
facility personnel shall be identified to
inspect designated equipment and areas
of the facility at appropriate intervals
specified in the plan. A set of tracking
or follow-up procedures shall be used to
ensure that appropriate actions are
taken in response to the inspections.
Records of inspections shall be
maintained.
(e) Employee Training. Employee
training programs shall inform
personnel responsible for implementing
activities identified in the storm water
pollution prevention plan or otherwise
responsible for storm water management
at all levels of responsibility of the
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 189/Wednesday, September 30, 1998/Notices
52489
components and goals of the storm
water pollution prevention plan.
Training should address topics such as
spill response, good housekeeping and
material management practices. The
pollution prevention plan shall identify
periodic dates for such training.
(f) Recordkeeping and Internal
Reporting Procedures. A description of
incidents (such as spills, or other
discharges), along with other
Information describing the quality and
quantity of storm water discharges shall
be Included in the plan required under
this part. Inspections and maintenance
activities shall be documented and
records of such activities shall be
incorporated into the plan.
fe) Non-storm Water Discharges.
(1) The plan shall include a
certification that the discharge has been
tested or evaluated for the presence of
non-storm water discharges. The
certification shall include the
identification of potential significant
sources of non-storm water at the site,
a description of the results of any test
and/or evaluation for the presence of
non-storm water discharges, the
evaluation criteria or testing method
used, the date of any testing and/or
evaluation, and the onsite drainage
points that were directly observed
during the test. Certifications shall be
signed in accordance with Part VII.G. of
this permit. Such certification may not
be feasible if the facility operating the
storm water discharge associated with
industrial activity does not have access
to an outfall, manhole, or other point of
access to the ultimate conduit which
receives the discharge. In such cases,
the source identification section of the
storm water pollution prevention plan
shall Indicate why the certification
required by this part was not feasible,
along with the identification of potential
significant sources of non-storm water at
the site. A discharger that is unable to
provide the certification required by this
paragraph must notify the Director in
accordance with paragraph
XI,AD.3.a.(3)(g)(iH) (below).
(II) Except for flows from fire fighting
activities, sources of non-storm water
listed in Part ffl.A.2 (Prohibition of Non-
storm Water Discharges) of this permit
that are combined with storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity must be identified in the plan.
The plan shall identify and ensure the
Implementation of appropriate pollution
prevention measures for the non-storm
water components) of the discharge.
(HO Failure to CertlfyAny facility
that is unable to provide the
certification required (testing for non-
storm water discharges), must notify the
Director 180 days after submitting an
NOI to be covered by this permit. If the
failure to certify is caused by the
inability to perform adequate tests or
evaluations, such notification shall
describe: the procedure of any test
conducted for the presence of non-storm
water discharges; the results of such test
or other relevant observations; potential
sources of non-storm water discharges
to the storm sewer; and why adequate
tests for such storm sewers were not
feasible. Non-storm water discharges to
waters of the United States which are
not authorized by an NPDES permit are
unlawful, and must be terminated.
(h) Sediment and Erosion Control.
The plan shall identify areas which, due
to topography, activities, or other
factors, have a high potential for
significant soil erosion, and identify
structural, vegetative, and/or
stabilization measures to be used to
limit erosion.
(i) Management of RunoffThe plan
shall contain a narrative consideration
of the appropriateness of traditional
storm water management practices
(practices other than those which
control the generation or source (s) of
pollutants) used to divert, infiltrate,
reuse, or otherwise manage storm water
runoff in a manner that reduces
pollutants in storm water discharges
from the site. The plan shall provide
that measures that the permittee
determines to be reasonable and
appropriate shall be implemented and
maintained. The potential of various
sources at the facility to contribute
pollutants to storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity [see
paragraph XI.AD.3.a.(2) of this section
pescription of Potential Pollutant
Sources)] shall be considered when
determining reasonable and appropriate
measures. Appropriate measures or
equivalent measures may include:
vegetative swales, reuse of collected
storm water (such as for a process or as
an irrigation source), inlet controls
(such as oil/water separators), snow
management activities, infiltration
devices, and wet detention/retention
devices.
(4) Comprehensive Site Compliance
Evaluation. Qualified personnel shall
conduct site compliance evaluations at
appropriate intervals specified in the
plan, but in no case less than once a
year. Such evaluations shall provide:
(a) Areas contributing to a storm water
discharge associated with industrial
activity shall be visually inspected for
evidence of, or the potential for,
pollutants entering the drainage system.
Measures to reduce pollutant loadings
shall be evaluated to determine whether
they are adequate and properly
implemented in accordance with the
terms of the permit or whether
additional control measures are needed.
Structural storm water management
measures, sediment and erosion control
measures, and other structural pollution
prevention measures identified in the
plan shall be observed to ensure that
they are operating correctly. A visual
inspection of equipment needed to
implement the plan, such as spill
response equipment, shall be made.
(b) Based on the results of the
evaluation, the description of potential
pollutant sources identified in the plan
in accordance with paragraph
XI.AD.3.a.(2) of this section (Description
of Potential Pollutant Sources) and
pollution prevention measures and
controls identified in the plan in
accordance with paragraph XI.AD.3.a.(3)
of this section (Measures and Controls)
shall be revised as appropriate within 2
weeks of such evaluation and shall
provide for implementation of any
changes to the plan in a timely manner,
but in no case more than 12 weeks after
the evaluation.
(c) A report summarizing the scope of
the inspection, personnel making the
evaluation, the date(s) of the evaluation,
major observations relating to the
implementation of the storm water
pollution prevention plan, and actions
taken in accordance with paragraph
XI.AD.3.a.(4)(b) (above) of the permit
shall be made and retained as part of the
storm water pollution prevention plan
for at least 3 years from the date of the
evaluation. The report shall identify any
incidents of noncompliance. Where a
report does not identify any incidents of
noncompliance, the report shall contain
a certification that the facility is in
compliance with the storm water
pollution prevention plan and this
permit. The report shall be signed in
accordance with Part VII.G. (Signatory
Requirements) of this permit.
(d) Where compliance evaluation
schedules overlap with inspections
required under 3.a.(3)(d), the
compliance evaluation may be
conducted in place of one such
inspection.
4. Numeric Effluent Limitations.
There are no additional numeric
effluent limitations beyond those
described in Part V.B of this permit.
5. Monitoring and Reporting
Requirements.
(a) Monitoring Requirements
(1) Quarterly Visual Examination of
Storm Water QualityFacilities shall
perform and document a visual
examination of a storm water discharge
associated with industrial activity from
each outfall, except discharges
exempted below. The examination must
be made at least once in each designated
-------
524QO
Federal Register /Vol. 63, No. 189 / Wednesday, September 30, 1998/Notices
period [described in (a), below] during
daylight hours unless there is
insufficient rainfall or snow melt to
produce a runoff event.
(a) Examinations shall be conducted
in each of the following periods for the
purposes of visually inspecting storm
water quality associated with storm
water runoff or snow melt: January
through March; April through June; July
through September; and October
through December.
(b) Examinations shall be made of
samples collected within the first 30
minutes (or as soon thereafter as
practical, but not to exceed one hour) of
when the runoff or snowmelt begins
discharging. The examinations shall
document observations of color, odor,
clarity, floating solids, settled solids,
suspended solids, foam, oil sheen, and
other obvious indicators of storm water
pollution. The examination must be
conducted in a well lit area. No
analytical tests are required to be
performed on the samples. All such
samples shall be collected from the
discharge resulting from a storm event
that is greater than 0.1 inches in
magnitude and that occurs at least 72
hours from the previously measurable
(greater than 0.1 inch rainfall) storm
event. Whenever practicable the same
individual will carry out the collection
and examination of discharges for the
life of the permit.
(c) Visual examination reports must
be maintained onsite in the pollution
prevention plan. The report shall
include the examination date and time,
examination personnel, the nature of the
discharge (i.e., runoff or snow melt),
visual quality of the storm water
discharge (including observations of
color, odor, clarity, floating solids,
settled solids, suspended solids, foam,
oil sheen, and other obvious indicators
of storm water pollution), and probable
sources of any observed storm water
contamination.
(d) When a facility has two or more
outfalls that, based on a consideration of
industrial activity, significant materials,
and management practices and activities
within the area drained by the outfall,
the permittee reasonably believes
discharge substantially identical
effluents, the permittee may collect a
sample of effluent of one of such
outfalls and report that the observation
data also applies to the substantially
identical outfalls provided that the
permittee includes in the storm water
pollution prevention plan a description
of the location of the outfalls and
explaining in detail why the outfalls are
expected to discharge substantially
identical effluents. In addition, for each
outfall that the permittee believes is
representative, an estimate of the size of
the drainage area (in square feet) and an
estimate of the runoff coefficient of the
drainage area [e.g., low (under 40
percent), medium (40 to 65 percent), or
high (above 65 percent)] shall be
piovided in the plan.
(e) When a discharger is unable to
collect samples over the course of the
monitoring period as a result of adverse
climatic conditions, the discharger must
document the reason for not performing
the visual examination and retain this
documentation onsite! with the records
of the visual examination. Adverse
weather conditions which may prohibit
the collection of samples include
weather conditions that create
dangerous conditions for personnel
(such as local flooding, high winds,
hurricane, tornadoes, electrical storms,
etc.) or otherwise make the collection of
, a sample impracticable (drought,
extended frozen conditions, etc.).
(f) When a discharger is unable to
conduct visual storm water
examinations at an inactive and
unstaffed site, the operator of the facility
may exercise a waiver of the monitoring
requirement as long as the facility
remains inactive and unstaffed. The
facility must maintain a certification
with the pollution prevention plan
stating that the site is inactive and
unstaffed so that performing visual
examinations during a qualifying event
is not feasible.
* * * • * *
VII. Additional Requirements to Part
XII. Coverage Under This Permit
Part XII (Amended)
In addition to the applicable
conditions contained in Parts I-XI of
this permit, the following requirements
are placed on permittees located in the
listed States, Federal Indian
Reservations or Territories in order to
meet applicable Clean Water Act section
401 or Coastal Zone Management Act
certification requirements.
Part XII. Coverage Under This Permit
#***!#
Part XH. Coverage Under This Permit
The provisions of this Part provide
modifications or additions to the
applicable conditions'of Parts I through
XI of this permit in order to reflect
specific conditions required as part of a
State, Tribal or Territory Clean Water
Act section 401 certification process, or
Coastal Zone Management Act
certification process, or as otherwise
established by the permitting authority.
The additional revisions and
requirements listed below are set forth
in connection with, and only apply to,
the following States, Federal Indian
Reservations, Territories and Federal
facilities.
Region I
Massachusetts (MAR05*###)
The following Massachusetts 401
certification requirements revise the
permit accordingly:
1. Part II.B.8. is added to the permit
as follows:
Special Permit Eligibility
Requirements for the State of
Massachusetts. Discharges covered by
the Multi-Sector General Permit must
comply with the provisions of 314 CMR
3.00, 314 CMR 4.00, 314 CMR 9.00 and
310 CMR 10.00 and any related policies
promulgated under the authority of the
Massachusetts Clean Waters Act, M.G.L.
c.21, ss.26-53, and Wetlands Protection
Act, M.G.L. c.131, s. 40. Specifically,
new facilities or the redevelopment of
existing facilities subject to this permit
must comply with applicable storm
water performance standards prescribed
by State regulation or policy. A permit
under 314 CMR 3.04 is not required for
existing facilities which meet State
storm water performance standards; an
application for a permit under 314 CMR
3.00 is required only when required
under 314 CMR 3.04(2) (b) (designation
of a discharge on a case-by-case basis)
or is otherwise identified in 314 CMR
3.00 or Department policy as a discharge
requiring a permit application.
Department regulations and policies
may be obtained through the State
House Bookstore (617-727-2834) or on
the Internet at
"www.magnet.state.ma.us/dep''.
2. Part VI.B.3. is added to the permit
as follows:
Special Reporting Requirement for the
State of Massachusetts. The results of
any quarterly monitoring required by
this permit must be sent to the
appropriate regional office of the
Department listed below when the
monitoring identifies violations of State
Surface Water Quality Standards, 314
CMR 4.00, for any parameter which
requires monitoring under this permit.
Monitoring results must also be
submitted upon request to the
Department.
Western Region: 436 Dwight Street-
Suite 402, Springfield, MA 01103,
(413) 784-1100
Southeast Region: Lakeville Hospital—
Route 105, Lakeville, MA 02347, (508)
946-2700
Central Region: 627 Main Street,
Worcester, MA, 01608, (508) 792-
7650
Northeast Region: 10 Commerce Way,
Woburn, MA, 01801, (781) 932-7677
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 189/Wednesday, September 30, 1998/Notices
52491
3. Part IV.B.2.a. is added to the permit
as follows:
Special Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan Availability
Requirement for the State of
Massachusetts. The Department may
request a copy of the storm water
pollution prevention plan for any
facility covered by this permit to ensure
compliance with State law
requirements, including State Water
Quality Standards. The Department may
enforce its certification conditions.
4, Part VII.Q.l. is added to the permit
as follows: Special Inspection
Requirements for the State of
Massachusetts. The Department may
conduct an inspection of any facility
covered by this permit to ensure
compliance with State law
requirements, including State Water
Quality Standards. The Department may
enforce its certification conditions.
Region VI
* * * * *
Federal Indian Reservations in the
Slate of New Mexico (NMROSSffF)
1. Pueblo of Js/etaThe following
Pueblo of Isleta 401 certification
requirements revise the permit
accordingly:
(a) Part II.C.1. is added to the permit
as follows: Special NOI Requirement for
the Pueblo of Isleta. Copies NOIs shall
also be submitted to the Pueblo of
Islcta's Environment Department. Water
Quality Program, at the following
address concurrently with NOI
submission to EPA: Isleta Environment
Department, Water Quality Program,
Pueblo of Isleta. PO Box 1270. Isleta,
New Mexico 87022.
(b) Part IX.B.l. is added to the permit
as follows: Special NOT Requirement
for the Pueblo of Isleta. Copies NOTs
shall also be submitted to the Pueblo of
Isleta's Environment Department, Water
Quality Program, concurrently with
NOT submission to EPA. Copies are to
be sent to the address given in Part
II.C.1.
(c) Part IV.F. is added to the permit as
follows: Special Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan Requirement for the
Pueblo of Isleta. Storm water pollution
prevention plans must be submitted to
the Pueblo of Isleta Environment
Department, Water Quality Program,
within 30 days of plan development.
SWPPPs are to be sent to the address
given in Part II.C.1.
2. Pueblo of PoJoaqueThe following
Pueblo of Pojoaque 401 certification
requirements revise the permit
accordingly:
(a) Part II.C.1. is added to the permit
as follows: Special NOI Requirement for
the Pueblo of Pojoaque. Copies of NOIs
shall also be submitted to the Pueblo of
Pojoaque Environment Department at
the following address concurrently with
NOI submittal to EPA: Pueblo of
Pojoaque, Environment Department,
Route 11. P.O. Box 208, Santa Fe, New
Mexico 87501, Phone (505) 455-2087,
Fax (505) 455-2177.
(b) Part IX.B.l. is added to the permit
as follows: Special NOT Requirement
for the Pueblo of Pojoaque. Copies of
NOTs shall also be submitted to the
Pueblo of Pojoaque Environment
Department concurrently with NOT
submittal to EPA. Copies are to be sent
to the address given in Part II.C.1.
3. Pueblo of SandiaThe following
Pueblo of Sandia 401 certification
requirements revise the permit
accordingly:
(a) Part II.C.1. is added to the permit
as follows: Special NOI Requirement for
the Pueblo of Sandia. Copies of NOIs
shall also be submitted to the Pueblo of
Sandia Environment Department at the
following address concurrently with
NOI submittal to EPA: Pueblo of Sandia,
Environment Department, Box 6008,
Bernalillo, New Mexico 87004, Phone
(505) 867-4533; Fax (505) 867-9235.
(b) Part IX.B. 1. is added to the permit
as follows: Special NOT Requirement
for the Pueblo of Sandia. Copies of
NOTs shall also be submitted to the
Pueblo of Sandia Environment
Department concurrently with NOT
submittal to EPA. Copies are to be sent
to the address given in Part II.C. 1.
(c) Part IV.F. is added to the permit as
follows: Special Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan Requirement for the
Pueblo of Sandia. Storm water pollution
prevention plans must be submitted to
the Pueblo of Sandia Environment
Department before commencement of
the project on Pueblo of Sandia tribal
lands. SWPPPs are to be sent to the
address given in Part II.C. 1.
* * * * *
Region IX
*****
American Samoa (ASR05t##) and
Federal Facilities in American Samoa
(ASR05*##F)
The following American Samoa 401
certification requirements revise the
permit accordingly:
1. Part n.C.l. is added to the permit
as follows: Special NOI Requirement for
American Samoa. Copies of NOIs shall
also be submitted to the American
Samoa Environmental Protection
Agency at the following address
concurrently with NOI submittal to
EPA: American Samoa Environmental
Protection Agency, American Samoa
Government, Pago Pago, American
Samoa 96799.
2. Part IV.F. is added to the permit as
follows: Special Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan Requirement for
American Samoa. Storm water pollution
prevention plans must be submitted to
the American Samoa Environmental
Protection Agency at the following
address for review and approval as soon
as they are completed. American Samoa
Environmental Protection Agency,
American Samoa Government, Pago
Pago, American Samoa 96799.
The Island of Guam (GUR05###) and
Federal Facilities on Guam
(GUR05*##F)
The Island of Guam 401 certification
requirements revise the permit
accordingly:
1. Part II.A.10(a) is added to the
permit as follows: Special NOI
Requirement for Guam. Facilities
ineligible for Multi-Sector General
Permit coverage which are required to
submit an individual NPDES permit
application in accordance Part II.A. 10
must send a copy to the following
address at the time of submittal to EPA:
Guam Environmental Protection
Agency, P.O. Box 22439 GMF,
Barrigada, Guam 96921.
2. Part II.C.1. is added to the permit
as follows: Special NOI Requirement for
Guam. Copies of NOIs shall also be
submitted to the following address
concurrently with NOI submittal to
EPA: Guam Environmental Protection
Agency, P.O. Box 22439 GMF,
Barrigada, Guam 96921.
3. Part VII.M.4. is added to the permit
as follows: Special Requirement for
Guam. Permittees required by the
Director to submit an individual NPDES
permit application or alternative general
NPDES permit application must send a
copy to the following address at the
time of submittal to EPA: Guam
Environmental Protection Agency, P.O.
Box 22439 GMF, Barrigada, Guam
96921.
Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands (NIR05*###) and
Federal Facilities in the Commonwealth
of the Northern Mariana Islands
(NIR05*##F)
The Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands (CNMI) 401
certification requirements revise the
permit accordingly:
1. Part I.E.8 is added to the permit as
follows: Special Eligibility Requirement
for CNMI. Storm water pollution
prevention plans required by this permit
shall be submitted to the CNMI DEQ for
-------
52492
Federal Register/Vol. 63. No. 189/Wednesday, September 30, 1998/Notices
review and approval along with
applicable fees associated with a CNMI
401 Water Quality Certification prior to
submittal of an NOI to EPA and the
CNMI DEQ. Storm water pollution
prevention plans are to be sent to the
CNMI DEQ at the following address:
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands, Division of Environmental
Quality, P.O. Box 1304, Saipan, MP
96950.
2. Part II.C.l. is added to the permit
as follows: Special NOI Requirement for
CNMI. Copies of the facility's NOI and
letter from the CNMI DEQ approving the
facility's storm water pollution
prevention plans shall be submitted to
the following addresses. The NOI
submitted to the CNMI DEQ shall be
postmarked at least seven (7) calendar
days prior to any storm water
discharges.
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands, Division of Environmental
Quality, P.O. Box 1304, Saipan. MP
96950
US EPA, Region IX (WTR-5), 75
Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105
California Federal Indian Reservations
(CAR05*##F)
Hoopa Valley Indian Reservation 401
certification requirements revise the
permit accordingly:
1. Part H.C.I. is added to the permit
as follows: Special NOI Requirement for
Hoopa Valley Indian Reservation.
Copies of NOIs shall also be submitted
to the Tribal Environmental Protection
Agency at the following address
concurrently with NOI submittal to
EPA: Tribal Environmental Protection
Agency, P.O. Box 1348, Hoopa, CA
95546.
2. Part IV.F. is added to the permit as
follows: Special Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan Requirement for Hoopa
Valley Indian Reservation. Storm water
pollution prevention plans must be
submitted to the Tribal Environmental
Protection Agency at the following
address for review and approval as soon
as they are completed. Tribal
Environmental Protection Agency, P.O.
Box 1348, Hoopa, CA 95546.
*****
Region X
*****
The State of Alaska, Except Indian
Country (AKR05*###)
The State of Alaska 401 certification
requirements revise the permit
accordingly:
1. Part II.C. 1. is added to the permit
as follows: Special NOI Requirement for
the State of Alaska. Copies of NOIs shall
also be submitted to one of the
Department of Environmental
Conservation offices listed below at the
same time of NOI submittal to EPA:
For projects nearest to Anchorage or
Fairbanks: Alaska Department of
Environmental Conservation, Water
Quality Permitting Section/Storm,
Water, 555 Cordova Street,
Anchorage, AK 99501, (907) 563-
6529; FAX (907) 562-4026.
.-. - i • j.1 ' j. A 1 1 J-/CLKX1. L111G1H, Ul iNCll.LU.CIJL JLVCOUUH^CO
For projects in southeast Alaska, nearesC „ ,, c , ,
to /uneau:Alaska Department of Allowing address for review and
Reservation. The permittee shall be
responsible for achieving compliance
with Confederated Tribes of Chehalis
Reservation's Water Quality Standards.
(b) Part I.B.8(b) is added to the permit
as follows: Special Permit Eligibility
Requirement for the Confederated
Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation.
Storm water pollution prevention plans
shall be submitted to the Chehalis Tribal
Department of Natural Resources at the
Environmental Conservation, Water
Quality Permitting Section/Storm
Water, 410 Willoughby Avenue,
Juneau, AK 99801, (907) 465-5300;
FAX (907) 465-5274.
2. Part IV.A.3. is added to the permit
as follows: Special Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Plan Requirements
for the State of Alaska. Storm water
pollution prevention plans must be
submitted to the Department of
Environmental Conservation prior to
discharging. SWPPPs are to be sent to
the same Department office that the
facility's NOI is sent to in Part H.C.l. (18
AAC 72.600(a), 18 AAC 72.610(a)(8),
and ISAAC 72.990(32)).
3. Part IX.B.l is added to the permit
as follows: Special NOT Requirement
for the State of Alaska. Copies of NOTs
shall also be submitted to the
Department of Environmental
Conservation at the same time of NOT
submittal to EPA. NOTs copies are to be
sent to the same Department office that
the facility's NOI was sent to in Part
n.c.i.
The State of Idaho, Except Indian
Country (TOR05*##*)
The State of Idaho 401 certification
requirements revise the permit
accordingly:
1. Part IV.F. is added to the permit as
follows: Special Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan Requirement for the
State of Idaho. Storm water pollution
prevention plan design and associated
storm water discharge quality shall
demonstrate compliance with
applicable Idaho Water Quality
Standards.
Federal Indian Reservations in the
State of Washington (WAR05«#F)
approval prior to discharge:
Confederated Tribes of Chehalis
Reservation, Department of Natural
Resources, 420 Howanut Road, Oakville,
WA 98568.
2. Puyallup Tribe of IndiansThe
following Puyallup Tribe of Indians 401
certifications revise the permit
accordingly:
(a) Part I.B.8(a) is added to the permit
as follows: Special Water Quality
Standard Requirement for the Puyallup
Tribe of Indians. The permittee shall be
responsible for achieving compliance
with Puyallup Tribe's Water Quality
Standards.
(b) Part I.B.8(b) is added to the permit
as follows: Special Permit Eligibility
Requirement for the Puyallup Tribe of
Indians. Storm water pollution
prevention plans shall be submitted to
the Puyallup Tribe Environmental
Department at the following address for
review and approval prior to discharge:
Puyallup Tribe Environmental
Department, 2002 East 28th Street,
Tacoma, WA 98404.
(c) Part II.C.l. is added to the permit
as follows: Special NOI Requirement for
the Puyallup Tribe of Indians. Copies of
NOIs shall also be submitted to the
Puyallup Tribe Environmental
Department at the address listed in Part
I.B.8(b) at time of NOI submittal to EPA:
*****
VIII. Modification of Addendum H—
Endangered Species Guidance
Addendum H has been modified to
update the County/Specie list that was
published in the original MSGP on
September 29, 1995. Parti, Step 1 of the
1. Confederated Tribes of the Cftehatts Addendum H instructions has also been
Reservation. The following
Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis
Reservation 401 certification
requirements revise the permit
accordingly:
(a) Part I.B.8(a) is added to the permit
as follows: Special Water Quality
Standard Requirement for the
Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis
modified to provide additional sources
of information such as an EPA Internet
web page address and EPA Regional
Office telephone numbers which permit
applicants can use to access future list
updates. For applicant convenience, the
modified Addendum H, including the
updated County/Specie list, has been
printed in its entirety.
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 189/Wednesday, September 30, 1998/Notices
52493
Addendum H—Endangered Species
Guidance
L Instructions
Found below in Part H of this
Addendum is a list of species that EPA
has determined may be affected by the
activities covered by the Multi-Sector
General Permit (MSGP). These species
are listed by county. In order to get
MSGP coverage, applicants must:
• Indicate in box provided on the NOI
whether any species listed in this
Addendum are in proximity to the
facility, and
• Certify pursuant to Section H.B. 12
of the MSGP that their storm water
discharges, and Best Management
Practices (BMPs) constructed to control
storm water runoff, are not likely, and
will not be likely to adversely affect
species identified in Addendum H of
this permit.
To do this, please follow steps 1
through 4 below.
Step 1: Review the County Species List
To Determine if Any Species Are
Located in the Discharging Facility
County
If no species are listed in a facility's
county or if a facility's county is not
found on the list, an applicant is eligible
for MSGP coverage and may indicate in
the NOI that no species are found in
proximity and provide the necessary
certification. If species are located in the
county, follow step 2 below. Where a
facility is located in more than one
county, the lists for all counties should
be reviewed.
The enclosed list is current as of July
8,1998. Applicants applying for permit
coverage after October 8, 1998, must
also make reasonable inquiries to
determine whether new species have
been listed for their county(ies). Such
information may be available from the
following sources: U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service or National Marine
Fisheries Service offices; EPA's Office of
Wastewater Management's web page at
"http://www.epa.gov/owm" where
updates of the county-by-county list
will be posted on a periodic basis;
Federal Register notices; State wildlife
protection offices; or a biologist or
similar professional in the
environmental field. Applicants may
also call the following EPA Regional
Offices: Region 1 (Boston) 617-565-
3569; Region 2 (New York City) 800-
245-6510; Region 3 (Philadelphia) 215-
566-3392; Region 4 (Atlanta) 404-562-
9296; Region 6 (Dallas) 800-245-6510;
Region 9 (San Francisco) 415-744-1906;
Region 10 (Seattle) 206-553-8399.
Step 2: Determine if Any Species May
Be Found "In Proximity" to the Facility
A species is in proximity to a facility's
storm water discharge when the species
is:
• Located in the path or immediate
area through which or over which
contaminated point source storm water
flows from industrial activities to the
point of discharge into the receiving
water.
• Located in the immediate vicinity
of, or nearby, the point of discharge into
receiving waters.
• Located in the area of a site where
storm water BMPs are planned or are to
be constructed.
The area in proximity to be searched/
surveyed for listed species will vary
with the size of the facility, the nature
and quantity of the storm water
discharges, and the type of receiving
waters. Given the number of facilities
potentially covered by the MSGP, no
specific method to determine whether
species are in proximity is required for
permit coverage under the MSGP.
Instead, applicants should use the
method or methods whjch best allow
them to determine to the best of their
knowledge whether species are in
proximity to their particular facility.
These methods may include:
• Conducting visual inspectionsThis
method may be particularly suitable for
facilities that are smaller in size,
facilities located in non-natural settings
such as highly urbanized areas or
industrial parks where there is little or
no nature habitat; and facilities that
discharge directly into municipal storm
water collection systems. For other
facilities, a visual survey of the facility
site and storm water drainage areas may
be insufficient to determine whether
species are likely to be located in
proximity to the discharge.
• Contacting the nearest State
Wildlife Agency or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS) or National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) offices.
Many endangered and threatened
species are found in well-defined areas
or habitats. That information is
frequently known to state or federal
wildlife agencies. FWS has offices in
every state. NMFS has regional offices
in: Gloucester, Massachusetts; St.
Petersburg, Florida; Long Beach,
California; Portland, Oregon; and
Juneau, Alaska.
• Contacting local/regional
conservation groups.These groups
inventory species and their locations
and maintain lists of sightings and
habitats.
• Conducting a formal biological
survey. Larger facilities with extensive
storm water discharges may choose to
conduct biological surveys as the most
effective way to assess whether species
are located in proximity and whether
there are likely adverse effects.
If no species are in proximity, an
applicant is eligible for MSGP coverage
and may indicate that in the NOI and
provide the necessary certification. If
listed species are found in proximity to
a facility, applicants must follow step 3
below.
Step 3: Determine If Species Could Be
Adversely Affected by the Facility's
Storm Water Discharges or by BMP's To
Control Those Discharges
Scope of Adverse EffecfsPotential
adverse effects from storm water
include:
• Hydrological. Storm water may
cause siltation, sedimentation or induce
other changes in the receiving waters
such as temperature, salinity or pH.
These effects will vary with the amount
of storm water discharged and the
volume and condition of the receiving
water. Where a storm water discharge
constitutes a minute portion of the total
volume of the receiving water, adverse
hydrological effects are less likely.
• Habitat. Storm water may drain or
inundate listed species habitat.
• Toxicity. In some cases, pollutants
in storm water may have toxic effects on
listed species.
The scope of effects to consider will
vary with each site. Applicants must
also consider the likelihood of adverse
effects on species from any BMPs to
control storm water. Most adverse
impacts from BMPs are likely to occur
from the construction activities.
Using earlier ESA authorizations for
MSGP eligibility.ln some cases, a
facility may be eligible for MSGP
coverage because actual or potential
adverse affects were addressed or
discounted through an earlier ESA
authorization. Examples of such
authorization include:
• An earlier ESA section 7
consultation for that facility.
• A section 10 (a) permit issued for
the facility.
• An area-wide Habitat Conservation
Plan applicable to that facility.
• A clearance letter from the Services
(which discounts the possibility of an
adverse impact from the facility).
In order for applicants to use an
earlier ESA authorization to meet
eligibility requirements: (1) the
authorization must adequately address
impacts for storm water discharges and
BMPs from the facility on endangered
and threatened species, (2) it must be
current because there have been no
subsequent changes in facility
-------
524Q4
federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 189/Wednesday, September 30, 1998/Notices
operations or circumstances which
might impact species in ways not
considered in the earlier authorization,
and (3) the applicant must comply with
any requirements from those
authorizations to avoid or mitigate
adverse effects to species. Applicants
who wish to pursue this approach
should carefully review documentation
for those authorizations to ensure that
the above conditions are met.
If adverse effects are not likely, an
applicant is eligible for MSGP coverage
and may indicate in the NOI.that
species are found in proximity and
provide the necessary certification. If
adverse effects are likely, follow step 4
below.
Step 4: Determine If Measures Can Be
Implemented To Avoid Any Adverse
Effects ',
If an applicant determines that
adverse effects are likely, it can receive
coverage if appropriate measures are
undertaken to avoid or eliminate any
actual or potential adverse effects prior
to applying for permit coverage. These
measures may involve relatively simple
changes to facility operations such as re-
routing a storm water discharge to
bypass an area where species are
located.
At this stage, applicants may wish to
contact the FWS and/or NMFS to see
what appropriate measures might be
suitable to avoid or eliminate adverse
impacts to species.
If applicants adopt these measures,
they must continue to abide by them
during the course of permit coverage.
If appropriate measures are not
available, the applicant is not eligible at
that time for coverage under the MSGP.
Applicants should contact the
appropriate EPA regional office about
either:
• Entering into Section 7 consultation
in order to obtain MSGP coverage, or
• Obtaining an individual NPDES
storm water permit.
II. COUNTY/SPECIES LIST
[The following list identifies federally listed or proposed U.S. species by State and County. It has been updated through July 8, 1998. Species
listed below with a status of both E and T are generally either endangered or threatened within the specified county.]
State/County
ALASKA
ALEUTIAN ISLANDS
ALEUTIAN ISLANDS
ALEUTIANS, EAST
ALEUTIANS, WEST
ANCHORAGE AREA
FAIRBANKS AREA
KENAI PENINSULA
MATANUSKA SUSITNA
NORTH SLOPE
NORTHWEST ARCTIC
UNORGANIZED BOROUGH
AMERICAN SAMOA
AMERICAN SAMOA
ARIZONA
APACHE
COCHISE
COCONINO
Group name
BIRDS
PLANTS
BIRDS
BIRDS
BIRDS
BIRDS
BIRDS
BIRDS
BIRDS
BIRDS
BIRDS
REPTILES
BIRDS
FISHES
PLANTS
AMPHIBIANS
BIRDS
FISHES
MAMMALS
PLANTS
REPTILES
BIRDS
Inverse name
GOOSE, ALEUTIAN CANADA
FERN ALEUTIAN SHIELD
EIDER, STELLER'S
EIDER STELLER'S
FALCON PEREGRINE
FALCON, PEREGRINE
FALCON PEREGRINE
FALCON, PEREGRINE
CURLEW ESKIMO
EIDER SPECTACLED
FALCON PEREGRINE
EIDER SPECTACLED
EIDER SPECTACLED
FALCON PEREGRINE
TURTLE HAWKSBILL SEA
TURTLE GREEN SEA
TURTLE HAWKSBILL SEA
EAGLE BALD
FALCON PEREGRINE
OWL MEXICAN SPOTTED
MINNOW LOACH
SPINEDACE LITTLE COLORADO
TROUT APACHE
DOCK CHIRICAHUA
FLEABANE, ZUNI
SEDGE NAVAJO
SALAMANDER SONORA TIGER .
EAGLE BALD
FALCON NORTHERN APLOMADO
FALCON PEREGRINE
FLYCATCHER SOUTHWESTERN WIL-
LOW.
OWL MEXICAN SPOTTED
CATFISH YAQUI
CHUB YAQUI
PUPFISH DESERT
SHINER BEAUTIFUL
TOPMINNOW GILA (YAQUI)
BAT LESSER (-SANBORN'S) LONG-
NOSED.
JAGUARUNDI
OCELOT
WOLF GRAY
CACTUS COCHISE PINCUSHION
DOCK, CHIRICAHUA
LADIES'-TRESSES CANELO HILLS
RATTLESNAKE NEW MEXICAN
RIDGE-NOSED.
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON. PEREGRINE
Scientific name
Branta canadensis leuoopareia
Polystichum aleuticum
Polysticta stelleri
Falco peregrinus
Falco peregrinus
Falco peregrinus
Falco peregrinus
Numenius borealis
Somateria fischeri
Falco peregrinus
Somateria fischeri
Somateria fischeri
Falco peregrinus
Eretmochelys imbricata
Chelonia mydas
Eretmochelys imbricata
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Strix occidentalis lucida
Rhinichthys (— Tiaroga) cobitis
Lepidomeda vittata
Salmo apache
Rumex orthoneurus
Erigeron rhizomatus
Ambystoma tigrinum
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco fernoralis septentrionalis
Falco peregrinus
Empiodonax traillii extimus
Strix occidentalis lucida . ..
Gila purpurea
Cyprinodon macularius
Notropis formosus
Poeciliopsis occidentalis
Leptonycteris sanborni
Felis yagouaroundi tolteca
Felis pardalis
Coryphantha robbinsorum (— Cochiseia r.,
Escobaria r.).
Rumex orthoneurus
Spiranthes delitescens
Crotalus willardi obscurus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco oerearinus
Status
T
E
T
T
E
E
E
E
E
T
E
T
T
E
E
E T
E
T
E
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
E
T
E
E
E
T
T
E
E
T
E
E
E
E
E, T
T
T
E
T
T
E
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 189/Wednesday, September 30, 1998/Notices
52495
II. COUNTY/SPECIES LIST—Continued
[The following list Identifies federally listed or proposed U.S. species by State and County. It has been updated through July 8, 1998. Species
listed below with a status of both E and T are generally either endangered or threatened within the specified county.]
StaWCounty
Group name
Inverse name
Scientific name
Status
FISHES
MAMMALS
PLANTS ....
GilA.
SNAILS ..
BIRDS ....
FISHES
PLANTS
GRAHAM
BIRDS
FISHES
MAMMALS
GflEENLEE
PLANTS
BIRDS ...
FISHES
UPAZ
PLANTS
BIRDS ...
FISHES
MARICOPA
BIRDS
FISHES
MAMMALS
PLANTS
MOHAVE.
BIRDS ....
FISHES
MAMMALS
OWL, MEXICAN SPOTTED
CHUB, HUMPBACK
SPINEDACE, LITTLE COLORADO
SUCKER, RAZORBACK
VOLE, HUALAPAI MEXICAN
CACTUS, BRADY PINCUSHION
CACTUS, SILER PINCUSHION
GROUNDSEL, SAN FRANCISCO
PEAKS.
MILK-VETCH, SENTRY
MILKWEED, WELSH'S
SEDGE, NAVAJO
AMBERSNAIL, KANAB
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
FLYCATCHER, SOUTHWESTERN WIL-
LOW.
MINNOW, LOACH
SQUAWFISH, COLORADO
SUCKER, RAZORBACK
TOPMINNOW, GILA (YAQUI)
AGAVE, ARIZONA
CACTUS, ARIZONA HEDGEHOG
DOCK, CHIRICAHUA
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
OWL, MEXICAN SPOTTED
PYGMY-OWL, CACTUS FERRUGINOUS
MINNOW, LOACH
PUPFISH, DESERT
SPIKEDACE
SUCKER, RAZORBACK
TOPMINNOW, GILA (YAQUI)
TROUT, APACHE
BAT, LESSER (=SANBORN'S) LONG-
NOSED.
JAGUARUNDI
OCELOT
SQUIRREL, MOUNT GRAHAM RED
CLIFFROSE, ARIZONA
DOCK, CHIRICAHUA
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
OWL, MEXICAN SPOTTED
MINNOW, LOACH
SPIKEDACE
SUCKER, RAZORBACK
TROUT, APACHE
DOCK, CHIRICAHUA
EAGLE, BALD
RAIL, YUMA CLAPPER
CHUB, BONYTAIL
PUPFISH, DESERT
SUCKER, RAZORBACK
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
OWL, MEXICAN SPOTTED
PYGMY-OWL, CACTUS FERRUGINOUS
RAIL, YUMA CLAPPER
PUPFISH, DESERT
TOPMINNOW, GILA (YAQUI)
BAT, LESSER (=SANBORN'S) LONG-
NOSED.
PRONGHORN, SONORAN
AGAVE, ARIZONA
CACTUS, ARIZONA HEDGEHOG
CLIFFROSE, ARIZONA
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
OWL, MEXICAN SPOTTED ...
RAIL, YUMA CLAPPER
CHUB, BONYTAIL
CHUB, HUMPBACK
CHUB, VIRGIN RIVER
SUCKER, RAZORBACK
VOLE, HUALAPAI MEXICAN .
Strlx occidentals luclda
Gila cypha
Lepldomeda vlttata
Xyrauchen texanus
Mlcrotus mexicanus hualpalensis.
Pediocactus bradyi
Pediocactus sileri
Senecio franclscanus
Astragalus cremnophylax var.
cremnophylax.
Asclepias welshii
Carex speculcola
Oxyloma haydeni kanabensis
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Empiodonax traillii extimus
Rhlnlchthys (=Tiaroga) cobitis
Ptychochellus lucius
Xyrauchen texanus
Poeciliopsis occidentals
Agave arizonlca
Echinocereus trlglochldlatus
arizonicus.
Rumex orthoneurus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Strix occidental lucida
Glaucidiumbrasilianum cactorum.
Rhinichthys (=Tiaroga) cobitis
Cyprinodon macularius
Meda fulgida
Xyrauchen texanus
Poeciliopsis occidentalis
Salmo apache
Leptonycteris sanborni
Felis yagouaroundi tolteca
Felis pardalis
Tamlasciurus hudsonicus grahamensis ....
Cowania subintegra
Rumex orthoneurus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Strix occidentalis lucida
Rhinichthys (=Tiaroga) cobitis
Meda fulgida
Xyrauchen texanus
Salmo apache
Rumex orthoneurus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Rallus longlrostris yumanensis
Gila elegans
Cyprinodon macularius
Xyrauchen texanus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Strix occidentalis lucida
Glaucidiumbrasilianum cactorum
Rallus longirostris yumanensis
Cyprinodon macularius
Poeciliopsis occidentalis
Leptonycteris sanborni
Antilocapra americana sonoriensls.
Agave arizonica
Echinocereus trlglochidiatus
arizonicus.
Cowania subintegra
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Strix occidentalis lucida
Rallus longirostris yumanensis
Gila elegans
Gila cypha
Gila robusta seminuda
Xyrauchen texanus
Microtus mexicanus hualpalensis...
-------
federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 189/Wednesday, September 30, 1998/Notices
II. COUNTY/SPECIES LIST—Continued
[The following list identifies federally listed or proposed U.S. species by State and County. It has been updated through July 8, 1998. Species
listed below with a status of both E and T are generally either endangered or threatened within the specified county.]
State/County
Group name
Inverse name
Scientific name
Status
'LANTS
REPTILES
NAVAJO .
NAILS
BIRDS
FISHES
MAMMALS
'LANTS ....
PIMA
BIRDS
FISHES
MAMMALS
PLANTS
PINAL .
SNAILS
BIRDS ..
FISHES
MAMMALS
PLANTS ....
SANTA CRUZ .
AMPHIBIANS
BIRDS
FISHES
MAMMALS
YAVAPAI
PLANTS
BIRDS ...
FISHES .
YUMA.
PLANTS
BIRDS ...
3ACTUS, SILER PINCUSHION .
CLIFFROSE, ARIZONA
CYCLADENIA, JONES
'ORTOISE, DESERT
AMBERSNAIL, KANAB
EAGLE, BALD....:
:ALCON, PEREGRINE
OWL, MEXICAN SPOTTED
CHUB, HUMPBACK
WINNOW, LOACH
SPINEDACE, LITTLE COLORADO
TROUT, APACHE
AGUAR
CACTUS, PEEBLES NAVAJO
DOCK, CHIRICAHUA
GRASS, PARISH'S ALKALI
SEDGE, NAVAJO
BOBWHITE, MASKED
EAGLE, BALD ....•
FALCON, PEREGRINE
OWL, MEXICAN SPOTTED
PYGMY-OWL, CACTUS FERRUGINOUS
'UPPISH, DESERT
TOPMINNOW, GILA (YAQUI)
BAT, LESSER (=SANBORN'S) LONG-
NOSED.
PRONGHORN, SONORAN
BLUESTAR, KEARNEYS
CACTUS, NICHOL'S TURK'S HEAD
CACTUS, PIMA PINEAPPLE
TALUSSNAIL, SAN XAVIER
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
'YGMY-OWL, CACTUS FERRUGINOUS
RAIL, YUMA CLAPPER
MINNOW, LOACH
PUPFISH, DESERT
SPIKEDACE i
SUCKER, RAZORBACK
TOPMINNOW, GILA (YAQUI)
BAT, LESSER (=SANBORN'S) LONG
NOSED.
CACTUS, ARIZONA HEDGEHOG
CACTUS, NICHOL'S TURK'S HEAD
SALAMANDER, SONORA TIGER
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, NORTHERN APLOMADO
FALCON, PEREGRINE
FLYCATCHER, SOUTHWESTERN WIL
LOW.
OWL, MEXICAN SPOTTED
PYGMY-OWL, CACTUS FERRUGINOUS
CHUB, SONORA
TOPMINNOW, GILA (YAQUI)
BAT, LESSER (=SANBORN'S) LONG
NOSED.
OCELOT
CACTUS, PIMA .PINEAPPLE
LADIES'-TRESSES, CANELO HILLS ....:
UMBEL, HUACHUCA WATER
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
OWL, MEXICAN SPOTTED
PUPFISH, DESERT
SPIKEDACE
SQUAWFISH, COLORADO
SUCKER, RAZORBACK
TOPMINNOW, GILA (YAQUI)
TROUT, GILA
AGAVE, ARIZONA
CLIFFROSE, ARIZONA
EAGLE, BALD.'.
FALCON, PEREGRINE
PELICAN, BROWN
'ediocactus sileri
Cowania subintegra
Cycladenia humilis var. jonesii
Gopherus (=Xerobates, =Scaptochelys
agasslzii.
Oxyloma- haydeni kanabensis
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
:alco peregrinus
Strix occidentals luclda
Gila cypha
Ihinichthys (=Tiaroga) cobitis
.epidomeda vittata
Salmo apache
'anthera onca
'ediocactus peeblesianus var.
peeblesianus.
Rumex orthoneurus
uccinellia parish!!
Carex specuicola
Colinus virginianus ridgwayi
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
:alco peregrinus
Strix occidentalis luclda
Glaucidiumbrasilianum cactorum
Cyprinodon macularius
'oeciliopsis occidentalis
.eptonycteris sanborni
Antilocapra americana sonoriensis
Amsonia kearneyana
Echinocactus horizonthalonius var.
nicholii.
Coryphantha scheeri var. robustispina..
Sonorella eremita
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Glaucidiumbrasilianum cactorum
Rallus longirostris yumanensis
Rhinichthys (=Tiaroga) cobitis
Cyprinodon macularius
N/leda fulgida
Xyrauchen texanus
Poeciliopsis occidentalis
Leptonycteris sanbomi
triglochidiatus var
horizonthalonius var
Echinocereus
arizonicus.
Echinocactus
nicholii.
Ambystoma tigrinum
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco femoralis septentrionalis
Falco peregrinus
Empiodonax traillii extlmus
Strix occidentalis lucida
Glaucidiumbrasilianum cactorum.
Gila ditaenia
Poeciliopsis occidentalis
Leptonycteris sanborni
Fells pardalis
Coryphantha scheeri var. robustispina...
Spiranthes delitescens
Lilaeopsis schaffneriana spp. recuva
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus ,
Strix occidentalis lucida
Cyprinodon macularius
Meda fulgida
Ptychocheilus lucius
Xyrauchen texanus
Poeciliopsis occidentalis
Salmo gilae
Agave arizonica
Cowania subintegra
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Pellcanus occidentalis
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 189/Wednesday, September 30, 1998/Notices
52497
II. COUNTY/SPECIES LIST—Continued
[Th« Mowing list Identifies federally listed or proposed U.S. species by State and County. It has been updated through July 8, 1998. Species
listed below with a status of both E and T are generally either endangered or threatened within the specified county.]
StatalCounty
Group name
Inverse name
Scientific name
Status
CALIFORNIA
ALAMEDA
FISHES
MAMMALS
REPTILES
BIRDS
CRUSTACEAN
FISHES
INSECTS ...
MAMMALS
PLANTS ....
REPTILES .
ALPINE ........
AMADOR .....
BUTTE
BIRDS ...
FISHES .
BIRDS ...
FISHES .
PLANTS
BIRDS ...
CRUSTACEAN
FISHES
INSECTS .
PLANTS ..
CALAVERAS.
REPTILES .
BIRDS
iRUSTACEAN
FISHES
RAIL, YUMA CLAPPER
SUCKER, RAZORBACK
BAT, LESSER (=SANBORN'S) LONG
NOSED.
PRONGHORN, SONORAN
LIZARD, FLATTAILED HORNED
PLANTS
FALCON, PEREGRINE
PELICAN, BROWN
PLOVER, WESTERN SNOWY
RAIL, CALIFORNIA CLAPPER
TERN, CALIFORNIA LEAST
LINDERIELLA, CALIFORNIA
SHRIMP, LONGHORN FAIRY
SHRIMP, VERNAL POOL FAIRY
GOBY, TIDEWATER
SALMON, CHINOOK (CENTRAL VAL-
LEY SPRING RUN).
SALMON, CHINOOK (CENTRAL VAL-
LEY FALL RUN).
TROUT, STEELHEAD (CENTRAL VAL-
LEY RUN).
BUTTERFLY, BAY CHECKERSPOT
CALLIPPE SILVERSPOT BUTTERFLY ...
FOX, SAN JOAQUIN KIT
MOUSE, SALT MARSH HARVEST
BIRD'S-BEAK, PALMATE-BRACTED
CLARKIA, PRESIDIO
DUDLEYA, SANTA CLARA VALLEY
FIDDLENECK, LARGE-FLOWERED
GOLDFIELDS, CONTRA COSTA
MANZANITA, PALLID
NAVARRETIA, FEW-FLOWERED
NAVARRETIA, MANY-FLOWERED
STONECROP, LAKE COUNTY
WHIPSNAKE, ALAMEDA
WHIPSNAKE, ALAMEDA (STRIPED
RACER).
FALCON, PEREGRINE
TROUT, LAHONTAN CUTTHROAT
TROUT, PAIUTE CUTTHROAT
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
SALMON, CHINOOK (CENTRAL VAL-
LEY FALL RUN).
TROUT, STEELHEAD (CENTRAL VAL-
LEY RUN).
BUCKWHEAT, IONE
MANZANITA, IONE
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
GOOSE, ALEUTIAN CANADA
SHRIMP, CONSERVANCY FAIRY
SHRIMP, VERNAL POOL TADPOLE
SALMON, CHINOOK (CENTRAL VAL-
LEY FALL RUN).
SALMON, CHINOOK (CENTRAL VAL-
LEY SPRING RUN).
SALMON, CHINOOK (SACRAMENTO
RIVER WINTER RUN):
TROUT, STEELHEAD (CENTRAL VAL-
LEY RUN).
STEELHEAD, CALIFORNIA CENTRAL
VALLEY POP.
BEETLE, VALLEY ELDERBERRY LONG-
HORN.
MEADOWFOAM, BUTTE COUNTY
SPURGE, HOOVER'S
TUCTORIA, GREEN'S
SNAKE, GIANT GARTER
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
SHRIMP, VERNAL POOL TADPOLE
SALMON, CHINOOK (CENTRAL VAL-
LEY FALL RUN).
TROUT, STEELHEAD (CENTRAL VAL-
LEY RUN).
MANZANITA, IONE
Rallus longirostris yumanensis .
Xyrauchen texanus
Leptonycteris sanborni '.
Antilocapra americana sonorlensis.
Phrynosoma mcallii
Falco peregrinus
Pelicanus occidentalis
Charadrius alexandriniis nivosus.
Rallus longirostris obsoletus
Sterna antillarum brown!
Llnderiella occidentalis
Branchinecta longiantenna
Branchlnecta lynch!
Eucyclogobius newberryi
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha .
Oncorhyncus mykiss
Euphydryas editha bayensls
Speyeria callippe callippe
Vulpes macrotis mutica
Reithrodontomys raviventris
Cordylanthes palmatus
Clarkia franciscana
Dudleya setchellii
Amsinckia grandiflora
Lasthenia conjugens
Arctostaphylos pallida
Navarretja leucocephala ssp. pauciflora...
Navarretia leucocephala ssp. plleantha....
Parvisedum leiocarpum
Masticophis lateralis euryxanthus
Masticophis lateralis euryxanthus
Falco peregrinus
Salmo clarki henshawi
Salmo clarki seleniris
Haliaeetus leucocephalus ...
Falco peregrinus
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha .
Oncorhyncus mykiss .
Eriogonum apricum
Arctostaphylos myrtifolia
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Branta canadensis leucopareia .
Brancinecta conservatio
Lepidurus packardl
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha .
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha .
Oncorhyncus mykiss
Oncorhynchus mykiss, (Central Valley
ESU).
Desmocerus californicus dimorphus
Limnanthes floccosa ssp. califomica
"tiamaesyce hoover!
Tuctoria greenei
Thamnophis gigas
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Lepidurus packardi
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Oncorhyncus mykiss
Arctostaphylos myrtifolia .
-------
52498
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 189/Wednesday, September 30, 1998 /Notices
II. COUNTY/SPECIES LIST—Continued
[The following list identifies federally listed or proposed U.S. species by State and County. It has been updated through July 8,_1998. Species
listed below with a status of both E and T are generally either endangered or threatened within the specified county.]
State/County
Group name
Inverse name
Scientific name
Status
COLUSA
BIRDS
CRUSTACEAN ...
FISHES
NSECTS.
CONTRA COSTA
'LANTS ...
REPTILES
BIRDS
flUSTACEAN
FISHES
INSECTS ...
MAMMALS
PLANTS ....
REPTILES
COWLITZ
DEL NORTE
FISHES
AMPHIBIANS
BIRDS
FISHES
EL DORADO .
INSECTS .
PLANTS ..
BIRDS .....
CRUSTACEAN
FISHES
EAGLE, BALD ...'.
FALCON, PEREGRINE
GOOSE, ALEUTIAN CANADA
OWL, NORTHERN SPOTTED
SHRIMP, VERNAL POOL TADPOLE
SALMON, CHINOOK (CENTRAL VAL-
LEY FALL RUN).
SALMON, CHINOOK (CENTRAL VAL-
LEY SPRING RUN).
iTEELHEAD, CALIFORNIA CENTRAL
VALLEY POP.
TROUT, STEELHEAD (CENTRAL VAL-
LEY DRUM).
BEETLE, VALLEY ELDERBERRY LONG-
HORN.
BIRD'S-BEAK, PALMATE-BRACTED
SNAKE, GIANT GARTER
FALCON, PEREGRINE
iOOSE, ALEUTIAN CANADA
'ELICAN, BROWN
RAIL, CALIFORNIA CLAPPER
TERN, CALIFORNIA LEAST
LINDERIELLA, CALIFORNIA
iHRIMP, LONGHORN FAIRY
IHRIMP, VERNAL POOL FAIRY
GOBY, TIDEWATER
SALMON, CHINOOK (CENTRAL VAL-
LEY FALL RUN).
SALMON, CHINOOK (SACRAMENTO
RIVER WINTER RUN)
STEELHEAD, CALIFORNIA CENTRAL
VALLEY POP:
TARPLANT, SANTA CRUZ
TROUT, STEELHEAD (CENTRAL VAL-
LEY RUN).
BUTTERFLY, BAY CHECKERSPOT
BUTTERFLY, LANGE'S METALMARK....
FOX, SAN JOAQUIN KIT
MOUSE, SALT MARSH HARVEST
DUDLEYA, SANTA CLARA VALLEY
EVENING-PRIMROSE, ANTIOCH
DUNES.
FIDDLENECK, LARGE-FLOWERED
GOLDFIELDS, CONTRA COSTA
MANZANITA, PALLID
NAVARRETIA, FEW-FLOWERED
NAVARRETIA, MANY-FLOWERED
SOFT BIRD'S BEAK
STONECROP, LAKE COUNTY
WALLFLOWER, CONTRA COSTA
WHIPSNAKE, ALAMEDA
WHIPSNAKE, ALAMEDA (STRIPED
RACER).
STEELHEAD, LOWER COLUMBIA
RIVER POPULATION.
FROG, CALIFORNIA RED-LEGGED
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
GOOSE, ALEUTIAN CANADA
MURRELET, MARBLED
OWL, NORTHERN SPOTTED
PELICAN, BROWN
PLOVER, WESTERN SNOWY
GOBY, TIDEWATER
SALMON, CHINOOK (SOUTHERN OR
EGON AND CALIFORNIA COASTA
RUN).
SALMON, COHO (SOUTHERN OR
EGON/NORTHERN CALIFORNIA
COAST). •. :
BUTTERFLY, OREGON SILVERSPOT ..
WALLFLOWER, MENZIE'S
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
SHRIMP, VERNAL POOL TADPOLE
SALMON, CHINOOK (CENTRAL VAL
LEY SPRING RUN).
SALMON, CHINOOK (CENTRAL VAL
LEY FALL RUN).
laliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Branta canadensls leucopareia .
Strix occidentalis caurina
.epidurus packardi
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Oncorhynchus mykiss, (Central Valley
ESU).
Oncorhyncus mykiss
Desmocerus califomicus dimorphus
Cordylanthes palmatus
Thamnophls gigas
Falco peregrinus
Branta canadensis leucopareia .
Delicanus occidentalis
Callus longirostris obsoletus
Sterna antillarum browni
Linderiella occidentalis
3ranchinecta longlantenna
Branchinecta lynchi
Eucyclogobius newberryi
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha .
Oncorhynchus mykiss, (Central Valley
ESU).
Holocarpha macradenia
Oncorhyncus mykiss
Euphydryas editha bayensis
Apodemia mormo langei
Vulpes macrotis mutica
Reithrodontomys raviventris
Dudleya setchellii
Oenothera deltoides ssp. howellii.
Amsinckia grandiflora
Lasthenia conjugens
Arctostaphylos pallida
Navarretia leucocephala ssp. pauciflora...
Navarretia leucocephala ssp. plieantha....
Cordylanthus mollis
Parvisedum leiocarpum
Erysimum capitatum var. angustatum..
Masticophis lateralis euryxanthus
Masticophis lateralis euryxanthus
Oncorhynchus mykiss, (Lower Columbia
ESU).
Rana Aurora Draytonii
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Branta canadensis leucopareia
Brachyramphus marmoratus
Strix occidentalis caurina
Pelicanus occidentalis
Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus
Eucyclogobius newberryi
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Oncorhynchus kisutch.
Speyeria zerene hippolyta ...
Erysimum menziesii
Haliaeetus leucocephalus ....
Falco peregrinus
Lepidurus packardi
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha.
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha .
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 189/Wednesday, September 30, 1998/Notices
52499
II. COUNTY/SPECIES LIST—Continued
[The following list identifies federally listed or proposed U.S. species by State and County. It has been updated through July 8, 1998. Species
listed below with a status of both E and T are generally either endangered or threatened within the specified county.]
Stato/County
Group name
Inverse name
Scientific name
Status
INSECTS .
PLANTS ..
FRESNO
PLANTS
BIRDS ...
FISHES
INSECTS ...
MAMMALS
PLANTS
GLENN,
REPTILES
BIRDS ,
CRUSTACEAN
FISHES
INSECTS .
PLANTS ..
HOKE
HUMBOLDT ,
REPTILES
PLANTS ...
BIRDS ,
FISHES
PLANTS
IMPERIAL
REPTILES
AMPHIBIANS ....
TROUT, LAHONTAN CUTTHROAT
BEETLE, VALLEY ELDERBERRY LONG
HORN.
BEDSTRAW, EL DORADO
BUTTERWEED, LAYNE'S
CEANOTHUS, PINE HILL
FLANNELBUSH, PINE HILL
MORNING-GLORY, STEBBINS
ADOBE SUNBURST, SAN JOAQUIN
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
TROUT, LITTLE KERN GOLDEN
TROUT, PAIUTE CUTTHROAT
BEETLE, VALLEY ELDERBERRY LONG-
HORN.
FOX, SAN JOAQUIN KIT
RAT, FRESNO KANGAROO
RAT, GIANT KANGAROO
BIRD'S-BEAK, PALMATE-BRACTED
CARPENTERIA
DUDLEYA, SANTA CLARA VALLEY
GOLDEN SUNBURST, HARTWEG'S
JEWELFLOWER, CALIFORNIA
OWL'S-CLOVER, FLESHY
PUSSYPAWS, MARIPOSA
WOOLLY-STAR, HOOVER'S
WOOLLY-THREADS, SAN JOAQUIN
LIZARD, BLUNT-NOSED LEOPARD
SNAKE, GIANT GARTER
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
GOOSE, ALEUTIAN CANADA
MURRELET, MARBLED
OWL, NORTHERN SPOTTED
SHRIMP, VERNAL POOL TADPOLE
SALMON, CHINOOK (CENTRAL VAL-
LEY FALL RUN).
SALMON, CHINOOK (CENTRAL VAL-
LEY SPRING RUN).
SPRING RUN)
SALMON, CHINOOK (SACRAMENTO
RIVER WINTER RUN)
SALMON, CHINOOK (SOUTHERN OR-
EGON AND CALIFORNIA COASTAL
RUN).
STEELHEAD, CALIFORNIA CENTRAL
VALLEY POP.
TROUT, STEELHEAD (CENTRAL VAL-
LEY RUN).
BEETLE, VALLEY ELDERBERRY LONG-
HORN.
GRASS, HAIRY ORCUTT
SPURGE, HOOVER'S
SNAKE, GIANT GARTER
ADOBE SUNBURST, SAN JOAQUIN
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
GOOSE, ALEUTIAN CANADA
MURRELET, MARBLED
OWL, NORTHERN SPOTTED
PELICAN, BROWN
PLOVER, WESTERN SNOWY
GOBY, TIDEWATER
SALMON, CHINOOK (SOUTHERN OR-
EGON AND CALIFORNIA COASTAL
RUN).
SALMON, COHO (CENTRAL CALIFOR-
NIA COAST POP).
SALMON, COHO (SOUTHERN OR/
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA COAST).
STEELHEAD, NORTHERN CALIFORNIA
POPULATION.
LAYIA, BEACH
LILY, WESTERN
PENNYCRESS, KNEELAND PRAIRIE ....
WALLFLOWER, MENZIE'S
TURTLE, OLIVE (PACIFIC) RIDLEY SEA
TOAD, ARROYO SOUTHWESTERN
Salmo clarkl henshawl
Desmocerus callfornicus dimorphus
ssp.
Gallum californioum ssp. Sierrae.
Seneclo layneae
Ceanothus roderickii
Fremontodendron californicum
decumbens.
Calystegia stebbinsli
Pseudobahia pelrsonii
Hallaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Salmo aguabonlta white!
Salmo clarki seleniris
Desmocerus califomicus dimorphus
Vulpes macrotls mutica
Dipodomys nitratoldes exilis
Dipodomys ingens
Cordylanthes palmatus
Carpentaria californica
Dudleya setchellli
Pseudobahia bahiifolia
Caulanthus califomicus
Castilleja campestris ssp. succulenta
Calyptrldium pulchellum
Eriastrum hoover!
Lembertia congdonii
Gambelia (crotaphytus) silus
Thamnophis glgas
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Branta canadensis leucopareia
Brachyramphus marmoratus
Strix occidentals caurina
Lepidurus packardi
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha .
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha .
Oncorhynchus mykiss, (Central Valley
ESU).
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Desmocerus califomicus dimorphus
Orcuttia pilosa
Chamaesyce hoover!
Thamnophis glgas
Pseudobahia pelrsonii
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Branta canadensis leucopareia ...
Brachyramphus marmoratus
Strix occidentalis caurina
Pelicanus occidentalis
Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus.
Eucyclogobius newberryl
Oncorhynchus kisutch.
Oncorhynchus kisutch.
Oncorhynchus mykiss, (Northern Califor-
nia ESU).
Layia carnosa
Lilium occidentals
Thalspi californicum
Erysimum menziesii
Lepidochelys olivacea
Bufo microscaphus califomicus
E
E
E
E
E, T
E
-------
5250V>
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 189/Wednesday, September 30. 1998/Notices
II. COUNTY/SPECIES LIST—Continued
[The following list identifies federally listed or proposed U.S. species by State and County It has been updated through July 8 1998. Species
listed below with a status of bcih E and T are generally either endangered or threatened within the specified county.]
State/County
Group name
Inverse name
Scientific name
Status
BIRDS
FISHES
MAMMALS
PLANTS ....
REPTILES .
REPTILES ,
INYO
BIRDS
FISHES
MAMMALS
PLANTS ....
KERN
REPTILES ,
BIRDS
INSECTS ...
MAMMALS
PLANTS
KINGS
REPTILES
BIRDS
MAMMALS
LAKE
PLANTS
REPTILES
BIRDS
FISHES
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
GOOSE, ALEUTIAN CANADA
PELICAN, BROWN
RAIL, YUMA CLAPPER
CHUB, BONYTA1L
PUPFISH, DESERT
SQUAWFISH, COLORADO
SUCKER, RAZORBACK
SHEE DESERT BIGHORN (PENIN-
SULAR SEGMENT).
MILK-VETCH, PERSON'S
LIZARD, FLAT-TAILED HORNED
TORTOISE, DESERT
EAGLE, BALD..:
FALCON, PEREGRINE
GOOSE, ALEUTIAN CANADA
TOWHEE, INYO BROWN
VIREO, LEAST BELL'S
CHUB, OWENS TUI
DACE, ASH MEADOWS SPECKLED
PUPFISH, OWENS
TROUT, LAHONTAN CUTTHROAT
VOLE, AMARGOSA
CENTAURY, SPRING-LOVING
EVENING-PRIMROSE, EUREKA VAL-
LEY.
GRASS, EUREKA DUNE
GUMPLANT, ASH MEADOWS
IVESIA, ASH MEADOWS
MILK-VETCH, FISH SLOUGH
MILK-VETCH, SHINING
MILK-VETCH, SODAVILLE
NITERWORT, AMARGOSA
TORTOISE, DESERT
WIL-
CONDOR, CALIFORNIA
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
FLYCATCHER, SOUTHWESTERN
LOW.
VIREO, LEAST. BELL'S
MOTH, KERN PRIMROSE SPHINX
FOX, SAN JOAQUIN KIT
RAT, GIANT KANGAROO
RAT, TIPTON KANGAROO
CACTUS, BAKERSFIELD
GRASS, PARISH'S ALKALI
JEWELFLOWER, CALIFORNIA
LILY, GREENHORN ADOBE
MALLOW, KERN
MONKEY-FLOWER, KELSO CREEK
NAVARRETIA, PIUTE MOUNTAINS
WOOLLY-STAR, HOOVER'S
WOOLLY-THREADS, SAN JOAQUIN
LIZARD, BLUNT-NOSED LEOPARD
TORTOISE, DESERT
PLANTS
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Branta canadensls leucopareia .
Pelicanus occidentalis
Rallus longirostris yumanensis .,
Gila elegans
Cyprinodon macularius
Ptychocheilus lucius
Xyrauchen texanus
Ovis canadensis
Astragalus magdatenae var. piersonii
Phrynosoma mcallii
Gopherus(=Xerobates, =Scaptochelys)
agassizii.
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Branta canadensis leucopareia
Pipilo fuscus eremophilus
Vireo belli! pusillus
Gila bicolor snyderi
Rhinichthys osculus nevadensis
Cyprinodon radiosus
Salmo clarki henshawi
Microtus califomicus sclrpensis
Centaurium namophilum-var. namophilum
Oenothera avita ssp. eurekensis
Swallenia alexandrae
Grindelia fraxino-pratensis
Ivesia eremica
Astragalus lentiginosus var. Piscinensis...
Astragalus lentiginosus var. micans
Astragalus lentiginosus var.
seslquimetralis.
Nitrophila mohavensis
Gopherus (=Xerobates,=Scaptochelys]
agassizii.
Gymnogyps caiifomianus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Empiodonax traillii extimus
FALCON, PEREGRINE
GOOSE, ALEUTIAN CANADA
FOX, SAN JOAQUIN KIT
RAT, FRESNO KANGAROO
RAT GIANT KANGAROO
RAT, TIPTON KANGAROO
JEWELFLOWER, CALIFORNIA
WOOLLY-STAR, HOOVER'S
WOOLLY-THREADS, SAN JOAQUIN
LIZARD, BLUNT-NOSED LEOPARD
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
MURRELET, MARBLED
OWL, NORTHERN SPOTTED
SALMON, CHINOOK (SOUTHERN OR-
EGON AND CALIFORNIA COASTAL
RUN).
SPLITTAIL, SACRAMENTO
COYOTE-THISTLE, LOCH LOMOND
Vireo belli! pusillus
Euproserpinus euterpe
Vuipes macrotis mutica
Dipodomys ingens
Dipodomys nitratoides
Opuntia treleasei
Puccinellia parish!!
Caulanthus califomicus
Fritillaria striata
Eremalche kemensis
Mimulus shevockii
Navarretia setiloba
Eriastrum hoover!
Lembertia congdonli
Gambelia (Crotaphytus) silus
Gopherus (=Xerobates, =Scaptochelys
agassizii.
Falco peregrinus
Branta canadensis leucopareia
Vuipes macrotis mutica
Dipodomys nitratoides exilis
Dipodomys ingens
Dipodomys nitratoides
Caulanthus califomicus
Eriastrum hoover!
Lembertia congdonii
Gambelia (Crotaphytus) silus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Brachyramphus marmoratus
Strix occidentalis caurina
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Pogonichthys macrolepidotus .
Eryngium Constance!
E
T
E
E
E
E
E
E
T
E
E
T
T
E
E
T
E
T
E
E
E
E
E
T
E
E
T
E
T
T
T
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63. No. 189/Wednesday. September 30, 1998/Notices
52501
II. COUNTY/SPECIES LIST—Continued
[The following list Identifies federally listed or proposed U.S. species by State and County. It has been updated through July 8, 1998. Species
Hsted below with a status of both E and T are generally either endangered or threatened within the specified county.]
Stato/County
Group name
Inverse name
Scientific name
Status
LASSEN .—
BIRDS
LOS ANGELES.
FISHES .
PLANTS
BIRDS ...
PLANTS
BIRDS ...
AMPHIBIANS
BIRDS
FISHES
INSECTS .
MAMMALS
PLANTS ....
REPTILES ,
MADERA ..
PLANTS
BIRDS ...
FISHES
INSECTS ...
MAMMALS
PLANTS ....
GOLDFIELDS, BURKE'S
GRASS, SLENDER ORCUTT
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
OWL, NORTHERN SPOTTED
SUCKER, MODOC
CEANOTHUS, VAIL LAKE
MOUNTAIN-MAHOGANY, CATALINA IS
LAND.
RUSH-ROSE, ISLAND
SANDWORT, MARSH
WOODLAND-STAR, SAN CLEMENTE
ISLAND.
TOAD, ARROYO SOUTHWESTERN
CONDOR, CALIFORNIA
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
FLYCATCHER, SOUTHWESTERN WIL-
LOW.
GNATCATCHER, COASTAL CALIFOR-
NIA.
MURRELET, MARBLED
PELICAN, BROWN
PLOVER, WESTERN SNOWY
RAIL, LIGHT-FOOTED CLAPPER
SHRIKE, SAN CLEMENTE LOGGER-
HEAD.
SPARROW, SAN CLEMENTE SAGE
TERN, CALIFORNIA LEAST
VIREO, LEAST BELL'S
CHUB, MOHAVEfUl
GOBY, TIDEWATER
STEELHEAD, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
POPULATION.
STICKLEBACK, UNARMORED
THREESPINE.
BUTTERFLY, EL SEGUNDO BLUE
BUTTEPFLY, PALOS VERDES BLUE ....
FOX, SAN JOAQUIN KIT
MOUSE, PACIFIC POCKET
BARBERRY, NEVIN'S
BEARGRASS, DEHESA
BIRD'S-BEAK, SALT MARSH
BRODIAEA, THREAD-LEAVED
BROOM, SAN CLEMENTE ISLAND
BUSH-MALLOW, SAN CLEMENTE IS-
LAND.
CEANOTHUS, VAIL LAKE
CROWNSCALE, SAN JACINTO VALLEY
DUDLEYA, MARCESCENT
DUDLEYA, SANTA MONICA MOUN-
TAINS.
FLANNELBUSH, MEXICAN
LARKSPUR, SAN CLEMENTE ISLAND ..
MILK-VETCH, BRAUNTON'S
NAVARRETIA, SPREADING
ONION, MUNZ-S
PAINTBRUSH, SAN CLEMENTE ISLAND
INDIAN.
PENTACHAETA, LYON'S
SPINEFLOWER, SLENDER-HORNED ....
WATERCRESS, GAMBEL'S
LIZARD, BLUNT-NOSED LEOPARD
LIZARD, ISLAND NIGHT
TORTOISE, DESERT
ADOBE SUNBURST, SAN JOAQUIN
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
TROUT, LAHONTAN CUTTHROAT
TROUT, PAIUTE CUTTHROAT
BEETLE, VALLEY ELDERBERRY LONG-
HORN.
FOX, SAN JOAQUIN KIT
RAT, FRESNO KANGAROO
BIRD'S-BEAK, PALMATE-BRACTED
GOLDEN SUNBURST, HARTWEG'S
Lasthenia burkei
Orcuttia tenuis
Haliaeetus leucocephalus .
Falco peregrinus
Strix occidental^ caurina..
Catostomus microps
Ceanothus ophiochilus
Cerocarpus traskiae
Helianthemum greenei ...
Arenaria paiudicola
Lithophragma maximum
Bufo microscaphus californicus .
Gymnogyps californianus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Empiodonax tralllli extimus
Polioptila californlca californica.
Brachyramphus marmoratus
Pelicanus occidentalis
Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus.
Rallus longirostris levipes
Lanius ludovlclanus meamsl
Amphispiza belli clementeae
Sterna antillarum browni
Vireo belli! pusillus
Gila bicolor mohavensis
Eucyciogobius newberryi
Oncorhynchus mykiss, (Southern Califor-
nia) ESU.
Gasterosteus aculeatus Williamson!
lygdamus
Euphilotes (=Shijimiaeoides) battoides
allyni.
Glaucopsyche
palosverdesensis.
Vulpes macrotis mutica
Perognathus longimembris pacificus
Berberis nevinii
Nolina interrata
Cordylanthus maritimus ssp. maritimus....
Brodiaea filifolia
Lotus dendroldeus ssp. traskiae
Malacothamnus clementlnus
Ceanothus ophiochilus
Atriplex coronata var notatior
Dudleya cymosa ssp. marcescens.
Dudleya cymosa ssp. ovbatifolia....
Fremontodendron mexicanum .
Delphinium kinkiense
Astragalus brauntonli
Navarretla fossalis
Allium munzii
Castilleja grisea
Pentachaeta lyonii
Centrostegia leptoceras
Rorippa gambellii
Gambelia (Crotaphytus) sllus
Xantusia (Klaubernina) riversiana
Gopherus (=Xerobates, =Scaptochelys)
agasslzii.
Pseudobahia peirsonii
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Salmo clarki henshawi
Salmo clarki seleniris
Desmocerus californicus dimorphus
Vulpes macrotis mutica
Dipodomys nitratoides exilis .
Cordylanthes palmatus
~'seudobahia bahiifolia
-------
52SO2
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 189/Wednesday, September 30, 1998/Notices
II. COUNTY/SPECIES LIST—Continued
[The following list identifies federally listed or proposed U.S. species by State and County. It has been updated through July 8, 1998. Species
listed below with a status of both E and T are generally either endangered or threatened within the specified county.]
State/County
Group name
Inverse name
Scientific name
Status
MARIN .
REPTILES
AMPHIBIANS
BIRDS
CRUSTACEAN
FISHES
INSECTS .
MAMMALS
PLANTS ....
MARIPOSA
MENDOCINO .
BIRDS
INSECTS .
PLANTS ..
BIRDS
FISHES
INSECTS ,
MAMMALS
PLANTS ....
GRASS, HAIRY ORCUTT ..„
LUPINE, CLOVER
OWL'S-CLOVER, FLESHY
PUSSYPAWS, MARIPOSA
LIZARD, BLUNT-NOSED LEOPARD
FROG, CALIFORNIA RED-LEGGED
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
MURRELET, MARBLED
OWL, NORTHERN SPOTTED
PELICAN, BROWN
PLOVER, WESTERN SNOWY
RAIL, CALIFORNIA CLAPPER
SHRIMP, CALIFORNIA FRESHWATER ..
GOBY, TIDEWATER
SALMON, CHINOOK (CENTRAL VAL-
LEY FALL RUN).
SALMON, CHINOOK (CENTRAL VAL-
LEY SPRING RUN).
SALMON, CHINOOK (SACRAMENTO
RIVER WINTER RUN)
SALMON, CHINOOK (SOUTHERN OR-
EGON AND CALIFORNIA COASTAL
RUN).
SALMON, COHO (CENTRAL CALIFOR-
NIA COAST POP).
STEELHEAD, CENTRAL CALIFORNIA
POPULATION.
TROUT, STEELHEAD (CENTRAL VAL-
LEY RUN). i
BUTTERFLY, MISSION BLUE ....
BUTTERFLY, MYRTLE'S SILVERSPOT
MOUSE, SALT MARSH HARVEST
ALLOCARYA, CALISTOGA
ALOPECURUS, SONOMA
BLUEGRASS, NAPA
CHECKER-MALLOW, KENWOOD
MARSH.
CLARKIA, VINE HILL
CLOVER, SHOWY INDIAN
DWARF-FLAX, MARIN
JEWELFLOWER, TIBURON
LARKSPUR, BAKER'S
LAYIA, BEACH
LILY, PITKIN MARSH
LUPINE, CLOVER
MILK-VETCH, CLARA HUNT'S
PAINTBRUSH, TIBURON
PENTACHAETA, WHITE-RAYED
SEDGE, WHITE
SPINEFLOWER, SONOMA
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
BEETLE, VALLEY ELDERBERRY LONG-
HORN.
LUPINE, MARIPOSA
PUSSYPAWS, MARIPOSA
EAGLE, BALD .„
FALCON, PEREGRINE
GOOSE, ALEUTIAN CANADA
MURRELET, MARBLED
OWL, NORTHERN SPOTTED
PELICAN, BROWN
PLOVER, WESTERN SNOWY....!
GOBY, TIDEWATER
SALMON, CHINOOK (SOUTHERN OR-
EGON AND CALIFORNIA COASTAL
RUN).
STEELHEAD, NORTHERN CALIFORNIA
POPULATION.
BUTTERFLY, BEHREN'S SILVERSPOT
BUTTERFLY, LOTIS BLUE
BEAVER, POINT ARENA MOUNTAIN ....
GOLDFIELDS, BURKE'S
GOLDFIELDS, CONTRA COSTA
NAVARRETIA, FEWF-LOWERED
NAVARRETIA, MANY-FLOWERED
ROCK-CRESS, MCDONALD'S
SPINEFLOWER, HOWELL'S
Orcuttia pilosa
Lupinus tidestromii '
Castilleja campestris ssp. succulenta
Calyptridium pulchellum
Gambelia (Crotaphytus) silus
Rana Aurora Draytonii
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Brachyramphus marmoratus
Strix occidentalis caurina
Pelicanus occidentalis
Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus
Rallus longirostris obsoletus
Syncaris pacifica
Eucyclogobius newberryi
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha ,
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha ,
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha ,
Oncorhynchus kisutch.
Oncorhynchus mykiss, (Central California
Coast ESU).
Oncorhyncus mykiss
Icaricia icarioides missionensis
Speyeria zerene myrtleae
Reithrodontomys raviventris
Plagiobothrys strictus
Alopecurus aequalis var. sonotnensis
Poa napensis
Sidalcea oregana ssp. valida
Clarkia imbricata
Trifolum amoenum
Hesperolinon congestum
Streptanthus niger
Delphinium bakeri
Layia carnosa
Lilium pltklnense
Lupinus tidestromii
Astragalus clarianus
Castilleja affinis ssp. neglecta
Pentachaeta bellidiflora
Carex albida
Chorizanthe valida
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Desmocerus californicus dimorphus
Lupinus citrinus var. deftexus
Calyptridium pulchellum
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Branta canadensis leucopareia ...
Brachyramphus marmoratus
Strix occidentalis caurina
Pelicanus occidentalis
Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus.
Eucyclogobius newbertyi
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Oncorhynchus mykiss, (Northern Califor-
nia ESU).
Speyeria zerene behrensii
Lycaeides argyrognomon lotis
Aplodontia rufa nigra
Lasthenia burkei
Lasthenia conjugens
Navarretia leucocephala ssp. pauciflora...
Navarretia leucocephala ssp. plieantha....
Arabis mcdonaldiana
Chorizanthe howellii
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 189/Wednesday, September 30, 1998/Notices
52503
II. COUNTY/SPECIES LIST—Continued
(The following list Identifies federally listed or proposed U.S. species by State and County. It has been updated through July 8, 1998. Species
listed below with a status of both E and T are generally either endangered or threatened within the specified county.]
State/Coonty
Group name
Inverse name
Scientific name
Status
MERCED.
REPTILES .
BIRDS
CRUSTACEAN ...
FISHES
INSECTS ...
MAMMALS
PLANTS
MODOC
REPTILES ,
BIRDS
FISHES
MONO,..,
PLANTS
BIRDS ...
FISHES
MONTEREY ....
PLANTS
BIRDS
AMPHIBIANS
BIRDS
CRUSTACEAN ....
FISHES
INSECTS
MAMMALS ..
PLANTS
STONECROP, LAKE COUNTY
WALLFLOWER, MENZIE'S
BEHREN'S SILVERSPOT BUTTERFLY ..
TURTLE, OLIVE (PACIFIC) RIDLEY SEA
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
GOOSE, ALEUTIAN CANADA
LINDERIELLA, CALIFORNIA
SHRIMP, CONSERVANCY FAIRY
SHRIMP, VERNAL POOL FAIRY
STEELHEAD, CALIFORNIA CENTRAL
VALLEY POP.
TROUT, STEELHEAD (CENTRAL VAL-
LEY RUN).
BEETLE, VALLEY ELDERBERRY LONG-
HORN.
FOX, SAN JOAQUIN KIT
RAT, FRESNO KANGAROO
RAT, GIANT KANGAROO
GRASS, COLUSA
GRASS, HAIRY ORCUTT
OWL'S-CLOVER, FLESHY
TUCTORIA, GREEN'S
LIZARD, BLUNT-NOSED LEOPARD
SNAKE, GIANT GARTER
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
CHUB, COWHEAD LAKE TUI
SUCKER, LOST RIVER
SUCKER, MODOC
SUCKER, SHORTNOSE
BARBERRY, TRUCKEE
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
GOOSE, ALEUTIAN CANADA
CHUB, OWENS TUI
CHUB, COWHEAD LAKE TUI
PUPFISH, OWENS
TROUT, LAHONTAN CUTTHROAT
TROUT, PAIUTE CUTTHROAT
MILK-VETCH, FISH SLOUGH
POTENTILLA, HICKMANN'S
FROG, CALIFORNIA RED-LEGGED
SALAMANDER, SANTA CRUZ LONG-
TOED.
CONDOR, CALIFORNIA
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
MURRELET, MARBLED
PELICAN, BROWN
PLOVER, WESTERN SNOWY
RAIL, CALIFORNIA CLAPPER
TERN, CALIFORNIA LEAST
VIREO, LEAST BELL'S
LiNDERIELLA, CALIFORNIA
SHRIMP, VERNAL POOL FAIRY
GOBY, TIDEWATER
STEELHEAD, SOUTH-CENTRAL CALI-
FORNIA POP.
BUTTERFLY, SMITH'S BLUE
FOX, SAN JOAQUIN KIT
RAT, GIANT KANGAROO
OTTER, SOUTHERN SEA
RAT, GIANT KANGAROO
AMOLE, PURPLE
CINQUEFOIL, HICKMAN'S
CLOVER, MONTEREY
CYPRESS, GOWEN
DUDLEYA, SANTA CLARA VALLEY
GILIA, MONTEREY
LAYIA, BEACH
LUPINE, CLOVER
MILK-VETCH, COASTAL DUNES
PIPERIA, YADON'S
SPINEFLOWER, MONTEREY
SPINEFLOWER, ROBUST
TARPLANT, SANTA CRUZ
WALLFLOWER, MENZIE'S
Parvisedum leiocarpum
Erysimum menzlesii
Speyeria calllppe callippe
Lepidochelys olivacea
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Branta canadensls leucopareia
Llnderlella occidentalis
Branclnecta conservatio
Branchinecta lynch!
Oncorhynchus myklss, (Central
ESU).
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Valley
Desmocerus californicus dimorphus
Vulpes macrotis mutica T
Dlpodomys nitratoides exilis
Dipodomys ingens
Neostapfia colusana
Orcuttia pilosa
Castllleja campestris ssp. succulenta
Tuctoria greenei
Gambella (Crotaphytus) silus
Thamnophis gigas
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Gila bicolor vaccaceps
Deltistes luxatus
Catostomus microps
Chasmistes brevirostris
Berberis (=Mahonia) sonnei
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Branta canadensis leucopareia
Gila bicolor snyderl
Gila bicolor vaccaceps
Cyprinodon radiosus
Saimo clarki henshawi
Salmo clarki seleniris
Astragalus lentlginosus var. pisoinensis...
Potentilla hickmanii
Rana Aurora Draytonii
Ambystoma macrodactylum croceum
Gymnogyps californianus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Brachyramphus marmoratus
Pelicanus occidentalis
Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus
Rallus longirostris obsoletus
Sterna antiliarum browni
Vireo belli! pusillus
Linderiella occidentalis
Branchinecta lynchi
Eucyclogobius newberryi
Oncorhynchus mykiss, (South-Central
Calif. ESU).
Euphllotes (=Shijimiaeoldes) enoptes
smith!.
Vulpes macrotis mutica
Dlpodomys ingens
Enhydra lutris nereis
Dipodomys ingens
Chlorogalum purpureum
Potentilla hickmanii
Trifolium trichocalyx
Cupressus govenlana ssp. govenlana
Dudleya setchellii
Gilia tenuiflora ssp. arenaria
Layia carnosa
Lupinus tidestromii
Astragalus tener var. titi
Piperia yadonii
Chorizanthe pungens var. pungens
Chorizanthe robusta var. robusta
Holocarpha macradenia
Erysimum menziesii
E
E
LE
E, T
T
E
T
E
E
T
E
-------
52504
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 189/Wednesday, September 30, 1998/Notices
II. COUNTY/SPECIES LIST—Continued
[The following list identifies federally listed or proposed U.S. species by State and County. It has been updated through July 8, 1998. Species
listed below with a status of both E and T are generally either endangered or threatened within the specified county.]
State/County
Group name
Inverse name
Scientific name
Status
NAPA
REPTILES
3IRDS
CRUSTACEAN
FISHES
MAMMALS
PLANTS ....
NEVADA
BIRDS
FISHES
ORANGE.
PLANTS
AMPHIBIANS
BIRDS
CRUSTACEAN
FISHES
MAMMALS
PLANTS
PIMA
BIRDS
IZARD, BLACK LEGLESS
URTLE, OLIVE (PACIFIC) RIDLEY SEA
:AGLE, BALD
ALCON, PEREGRINE
OWL, NORTHERN SPOTTED
'ELICAN, BROWN
1OVER, WESTERN SNOWY
RAIL, CALIFORNIA CLAPPER
.INDERIELLA, CALIFORNIA
SHRIMP, CALIFORNIA FRESHWATER ..
SALMON, CHINOOK (CENTRAL VAL-
LEY FALL RUN).
SALMON, CHINOOK (CENTRAL VAL-
LEY SPRING RUN).
SALMON, CHINOOK (SACRAMENTO
RIVER WINTER RUN)
STEELHEAD, CALIFORNIA CENTRAL
VALLEY POP.
STEELHEAD, CENTRAL CALIFORNIA
POPULATION.
FOX, SAN JOAQUIN KIT
MOUSE, SALT MARSH HARVEST
ALLOCARYA, CALISTOGA
ALOPECURUS, SONOMA
BLUEGRASS, NAPA
CALISTOGA ALLOCARYA
CHECKER-MALLOW, KENWOOD
MARSH.
CLARKIA, VINE HILL
CLOVER, SHOWY INDIAN
GOLDFIELDS, CONTRA COSTA
LILY, PITKIN MARSH
MILK-VETCH, CLARA HUNTS
NAVARRETIA, FEW-FLOWERED
NAVARRETIA, MANY-FLOWERED
'AINTBRUSH, TIBURON
SEDGE, WHITE
SOFT BIRD'S BEAK
STONECROP, LAKE COUNTY
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
TROUT, LAHONTAN CUTTHROAT
TROUT, STEELHEAD (CENTRAL VAL
LEY RUN).
BARBERRY, TRUCKEE
TOAD, ARROYO SOUTHWESTERN
FALCON, PEREGRINE
GNATCATCHER, COASTAL CALIFOR
NIA.
MURRELET, MARBLED
PELICAN, BROWN
PLOVER, WESTERN SNOWY
RAIL, LIGHTFOOTED CLAPPER
TERN, CALIFORNIA LEAST
VIREO, LEAST BELL'S
SHRIMP, RIVERSIDE FAIRY
GOBY, TIDEWATER
MOUSE, PACIFIC POCKET
ASTER, DEL MAR SAND
BACCHARIS, ENCINITAS
BIRD'S-BEAK, SALT MARSH
BRODIAEA, THREAD-LEAVED
CROWN-BEARD, BIG-LEAVED
CROWNSCALE, SAN JACINTO,VALLEY
DUDLEYA, MARCESCENT
DUDLEYA, SANTA MONICA MOUN
TAINS.
LIVEFOREVER, LAGUNA BEACH
MANZANITA, DEL MAR
MILK-VETCH, BRAUNTON'S
MONARDELLA, WILLOWY
NAVARRETIA, SPREADING
ONION, MUNZ*S
SPINEFLOWER, ORCUTTS
TARWEED, OTAY
THORNMINT, SAN DIEGO
WOOLLY-STAR, SANTA ANA RIVER...
FLYCATCHER, SOUTHWESTERN WIL
LOW.
knniella pulchra nigra
epldochelys olivacea
laliaeetus leucocephalus
'alco peregrinus
Strix occidentalis caurina
'elicanus occidentalis
Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus,
Rallus longirostris obsoletus
.inderiella occidentalis
Syncaris pacifica
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
E, T
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha .
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha.
Oncorhynchus mykiss, (Central Valley
ESU).
Oncorhynchus mykiss, (Central California
Coast ESU).
Vulpes macrotis mutica
Reithrodontomys ravlventris
'lagiobothrys strictus
Alopecurus aequalis var. sonomensis..,
Poa napensis
lagiobothrys strictus
Sidalcea oregana ssp. valida
Clarkia imbricata
rrifolum amoenum
.asthenia conjugens
Lilium pitkinense
Astragalus clarianus
\lavarretia leucocephala ssp. pauciflora..
Mavarretia leucocephala ssp. plieantha...
Castilleja affinis ssp. neglecta
:arex albida
Cordylanthus mollis
Parvisedum leiocarpum ...t
-laliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Salmo clarki henshawi
Oncorhyncus mykiss
Berberis (=Mahonia) sonnei
Bufo microscaphus califomicus .
Falco peregrinus
Polloptila californlca californica..
Brachyramphus marmoratus
Pelicanus occidentalis
Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus
Rallus longirostris levipes
Sterna antillarum brown!
Vireo belli! pusillus
Streptocephalus woottoni
Eucyclogobius newberryi
Perognathus longlmembris pacificus
Corethrogyne filaginifolla var. llnifolia
Baccharis vanessae
Cordylanthus maritimus ssp. maritlmus...
Brodiaea filifolia
Verbesina dissita
Atriplex coronata var nptatlor
Dudleya cymosa ssp. marcescens
Dudleya cymosa ssp. ovatifolia
Dudleya stolonifera
Arctostaphylos glandulosa ssp. crassifolii
Astragalus brauntonii
Monardella linoides ssp. viminea
Navarretia fossalis
Alllum munzii
Chorizanthe orcuttiana
Hemizonia conjugens
Acanthomintha ilicifolia
Eriastrum densifolium ssp. santorum
Empiodonax traillii extimus
E
T
E
T
T
E
E
E
T
T
E
T
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
T
E
T
T
E
T
T
E
E
E
E
T
E
E
E
E
E
E
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 189/Wednesday, September 30, 1998/Notices
52505
II. COUNTY/SPECIES LIST—Continued
[The following list Identifies federally listed or proposed U.S. species by State and County. It has been updated through July 8, 1998. Species
listed below with a status of both E and T are generally either endangered or threatened within the specified county.]
State/County
Group name
Inverse name
Scientific name
Status
PLACER ,
BIRDS
CRUSTACEAN
FISHES
PLUMAS .„.,
RIVERSIDE ,
INSECTS ,
PLANTS ..
BIRDS
PLANTS
AMPHIBIANS
BIRDS
CRUSTACEAN
FISHES
INSECTS
MAMMALS ..
PLANTS
REPTILES ,
SACRAMENTO „..,....
BIRDS
CRUSTACEAN
FISHES
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
GOOSE, ALEUTIAN CANADA
LINDERIELLA, CALIFORNIA
SHRIMP, VERNAL POOL FAIRY
SHRIMP, VERNAL POOL TADPOLE
SALMON, CHINOOK (CENTRAL VAL
LEY SPRING RUN).
SALMON, CHINOOK (CENTRAL VAL-
LEY FALL RUN).
TROUT, LAHONTAN CUTTHROAT
TROUT, STEELHEAD (CENTRAL VAL-
LEY RUN).
BEETLE, VALLEY ELDERBERRY LONG-
HORN.
BARBERRY, TRUCKEE
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
GRASS, SLENDER ORCUTT
SALAMANDER, DESERT SLENDER
TOAD, ARROYO SOUTHWESTERN
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
FLYCATCHER, SOUTHWESTERN WIL-
LOW.
GNATCATCHER, COASTAL CALIFOR-
NIA.
PELICAN, BROWN
RAIL, YUMA CLAPPER
VIREO, LEAST BELL'S
LINDERIELLA, CALIFORNIA
SHRIMP, RIVERSIDE FAIRY
SHRIMP, VERNAL POOL FAIRY
CHUB, BONYTAIL
PUPFISH, DESERT
SQUAWFISH, COLORADO
SUCKER, RAZORBACK
BUTTERFLY, QUINO CHECKERSPOT...
FLY, DELHI SANDS FLOWER-LOVING..
RAT, SAN BERNARDINO KANGAROO ..
RAT, STEPHENS' KANGAROO
SHEE DESERT BIGHORN (PENIN-
SULAR SEGMENT).
BARBERRY, NEVIN'S
BEARGRASS, DEHESA
BRODIAEA, THREADLEAVED
BUTTON-CELERY, SAN DIEGO
CEANOTHUS, VAIL LAKE
CROWNSCALE, SAN JACINTO VALLEY
DAISY, PARISH'S
DOWNINGIA, CUYAMACA LAKE
FLANNELBUSH, MEXICAN
GRASS, CALIFORNIA ORCUTT
MILK-VETCH, COACHELLA VALLEY
MILK-VETCH, TRIPLE-RIBBED
MINT, OTAY MESA
NAVARRETIA, SPREADING
ONION, MUNZS
SPINEFLOWER, SLENDER-HORNED ....
WOOLLY-STAR, SANTA ANA RIVER
LIZARD, COACHELLA VALLEY FRINGE-
TOED.
LIZARD, FLAT-TAILED HORNED
TORTOISE, DESERT
EAGLE, BALD
GOOSE, ALEUTIAN CANADA
PLOVER, WESTERN SNOWY
LINDERIELLA, CALIFORNIA
SHRIMP, VERNAL POOL FAIRY
SHRIMP, VERNAL POOL TADPOLE
SALMON, CHINOOK (CENTRAL VAL-
LEY SPRING RUN).
SALMON, CHINOOK (SACRAMENTO
RIVER WINTER RUN)
SMELT, DELTA
STEELHEAD, CALIFORNIA CENTRAL
VALLEY POP.
TROUT, STEELHEAD (CENTRAL VAL-
LEY RUN).
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Branta canadensis leucopareia .
Llnderiella occidentalls
Branchinecta lynch!
Lepidurus packardi
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Salmo clarkl henshawi.
Oncorhynchus mykiss ..
Desmocerus callfornlcus dlmorphus
Berberls (=Mohonla) sonne!
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Orcuttia tenuis
Batrachoseps aridus
Bufo microscaphus californicus .
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Empiodonax traillii extimus
Polioptila californica californica.
Pelicanus occidentalis
Rallus longirostris Dyumanensis
Vireo belli! pusillus
Linderiella occidentalis
Streptocephalus woottoni
Branchinecta lynch!
Gila elegans
Cyprinodon macularius
Ptychocheilus lucius
Xyrauchen texanus
Euphydryas editha quino
Rhophiamidas terminatus abdominalis
Dipodomys merriami paravus
Dipodomys Stephens!
Ovis canadensis
Berberis nevinii
Nolina interrata
Brodiaea filifolia
Erynglum aristulatum var. parishii
Ceanothus ophiochilus
Atriplex coronata var. notatior
Erigeron parishii
Downingla concolor var. brevior
Fremontodendron mexicanum
Orcuttia californica
Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae ...
Astragalus tricarinatus
Pogogyne nudiuscula
Navarretia fossalis
Allium munzii
Centrostegia leptoceras
Eriastrum densifolium ssp. santorum
Uma inornata
Phrynosoma mcallii
Gopherus (=Xerobates,=Scaptochelys)
agassizii.
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Branta canadensis leucopareia
Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus
Linderiella occidentalis
Branchinecta lynch!
Lepidurus packardi
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Hypomesus transpacificus
Oncorhynchus mykiss, (Central Valley
ESU).
Oncorhynchus mykiss
-------
52506
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 189/Wednesday, September 30, 1998/Notices
II. COUNTY/SPECIES LIST—Continued
[The following list identifies federally listed or proposed U.S. species by State and County. It has been updated through July 8, 1998. Species
listed below with a status of both E and T are generally either endangered or threatened within the specified county.]
Slate/County
Group name
Inverse name
Scientific name
Status
INSECTS ,
PLANTS .,
SAN BENITO ,
REPTILES
BIRDS
INSECTS ...
MAMMALS
PLANTS
SAN BERNAD1NO
REPTILES
BIRDS
PLANTS
AMPHIBIANS
BIRDS
FISHES
INSECTS ...
MAMMALS
PLANTS
REPTILES
SAN DIEGO ,
AMPHIBIANS
BIRDS
BEETLE, VALLEY ELDERBERRY LONG-
HORN.
EVENING-PRIMROSE, ANTIOCH
DUNES.
GRASS, SACRAMENTO ORCUTT
GRASS, SLENDER ORCUTT
SNAKE, GIANT GARTER
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
FLY, DELHI SANDS FLOWER-LOVING..
FOX, SAN JOAQUIN KIT
RAT, GIANT KANGAROO
DUDLEYA, SANTA CLARA VALLEY
EVENING-PRIMROSE, SAN BENITO
WOOLLY-THREADS, SAN JOAQUIN
LIZARD, BLUNT-NOSED LEOPARD
FLYCATCHER, SOUTHWESTERN WIL-
LOW.
ONION, MUNZ'S
SANDWORT, MARSH
TOAD, ARROYO SOUTHWESTERN
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
FLYCATCHER, SOUTHWESTERN WIL-
LOW.
GNATCATCHER, COASTAL CALIFOR-
NIA. ;
PLOVER, WESTERN SNOWY
RAIL, YUMA CLAPPER
VIREO, LEAST BELL'S
CHUB, BONYTAIL
CHUB, MOHAVE TUI
PUPFISH, DESERT
SQUAWFISH, COLORADO
STICKLEBACK, UNARMORED
THREESPINE.
SUCKER, RAZORBACK
FLY, DELHI SANDS FLOWER-LOVING..
RAT, SAN BERNARDINO KANGAROO ..
RAT, STEPHENS' KANGAROO
VOLE, AMARGOSA
BARBERRY, NEVIN'S
BEARGRASS, DEHESA
BLADDERPOD, SAN BERNARDINO
MOUNTAINS.
BLUECURLS, HIDDEN LAKE
BLUEGRASS, SAN BERNARDINO
BRODIAEA, THREAD-LEAVED
BUCKWHEAT, CUSHENBURY
BUCKWHEAT, SOUTHERN MOUNTAIN
WILD.
CEANOTHUS, VAIL LAKE
CHECKER-MALLOW, PEDATE
CROWNSCALE, SAN JACINTO VALLEY
DAISY, PARISH'S
DANDELION, CALIFORNIA
FLANNELBUSH, MEXICAN
GRASS, PARISH'S ALKALI
MILK-VETCH, CUSHENBURY
MILK-VETCH, LANE MOUNTAIN
MILK-VETCH, TRIPLE-RIBBED
MUSTARD, SLENDER-PETALED
NAVARRETIA, SPREADING
OXYTHECA, CUSHENBURY
PAINTBRUSH, ASH-GREY INDIAN
ROCK-CRESS, JOHNSTON'S
SANDWORT, BEAR VALLEY
SPINEFLOWER, SLENDER-HORNED ....
WATERCRESS, GAMBEL'S
WOOLLY-STAR, SANTA ANA RIVER
TORTOISE, DESERT
Desmocerus californicus dimorphus
Oenothera deltoides ssp. howellii.
Orcuttia viscida
Orcuftia tenuis
Thamnophis gigas
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Rhophiamidas terminatus abdominalis...
Vulpes macrotis mutica
Dipodomys Ingens
Dudleya setehellii
Camissonia benltensis
Lembertia congdonii
Gambelia (Crotaphytus) silus
Empiodonax traillii extimus
TOAD, ARROYO SOUTHWESTERN
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
FLYCATCHER, SOUTHWESTERN WIL-
LOW.
GNATCATCHER, COASTAL CALIFOR-
NIA.
Allium munzii
Arenaria paludicola
Bufo microscaphus californicus .
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Empiodonax traillii extimus
Polioptila californica californica.
Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus
Rallus longirostris yumanensis
Vireo belli! pusillus
Gila elegans
Gila bicolor mohavensis
Cyprinodon macularius
Ptychocheilus lucius
Gasterosteus aculeatus Williamson!
Xyrauchen texanus
Rhophiamidas terminatus abdominalis
Dipodomys merriami paravus
Dipodomys Stephens!
Microtus californicus scirpensis
Berberis nevinii
Nolina interrata
Lesquerella klngii ssp. bernardina
var.
Trichostema austromontanum ssp,
compactum.
Poa atroputpurea
Brodiaea filifolia
Eriogonum ovalifolium var. vineum
Eriogonum kennedyi
austromontanum.
Ceanothus ophiochilus
Sidalcea pedata
Atriplex coronata var notatior
Erigeron parish!!
Taraxacum californicum
Fremontodendron mexicanum
Puccinellia parishii
Astragalus albens
Astragalus jaegerianus
Astragalus tricarinatus
Thelypodium stenopetalum
Navarretia fossalls
Oxytheca parishii var. goodmaniana
Castilleja cinerea
Arabis johnstonii
Arenaria ursina
Centrostegia leptoceras
Rorippa gambellii
Eriastrum densifolium ssp. santorum
Gopherus (=Xerobates, =Scaptochelys;
agassizii.
Bufo microscaphus californicus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Empiodonax traillii extimus
Polioptila californica californica.
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 189/Wednesday, September 30, 1998/Notices
52507
II. COUNTY/SPECIES LIST—Continued
fjha following list identifies federally listed or proposed U.S. species by State and County. It has been updated through July 8, 1998. Species
listed below with a status of both E and T are generally either endangered or threatened within the specified county.]
Stata'County
Group name
Inverse name
Scientific name
Status
CRUSTACEAN
FISHES
INSECTS ...
MAMMALS
PLANTS
REPTILES ,
SAN FRANCISCO
PLANTS
BIRDS ...
FISHES
INSECTS .
PLANTS
SAN JOAQUIN ,„.,.,
BIRDS
CRUSTACEAN
FISHES
GOOSE, ALEUTIAN CANADA
MURRELET, MARBLED
PELICAN, BROWN
PLOVER, WESTERN SNOWY
RAIL, LIGHT-FOOTED CLAPPER
TERN, CALIFORNIA LEAST
VIREO, LEAST BELL'S
SHRIMP, RIVERSIDE FAIRY
SHRIMP, SAN DIEGO FAIRY
CHUB, MOHAVE TUI
GOBY, TIDEWATER
PUPFISH, DESERT
STICKLEBACK, UNARMORED
THREESPINE.
SKIPPER, LAGUNA MOUNTAIN
MOUSE, PACIFIC POCKET
RAT, STEPHENS' KANGAROO
SHEE DESERT BIGHORN (PENIN-
SULAR SEGMENT).
ASTER, DEL MAR SAND
BACCHARIS, ENCINITAS
BARBERRY, NEVIN'S
BEARGRASS, DEHESA
BIRD'S-BEAK, SALT MARSH
BRODIAEA, THREAD-LEAVED
BUTTON-CELERY, SAN DIEGO
CEANOTHUS, VAIL LAKE
CROWN-BEARD, BIG-LEAVED
CROWNSCALE, SAN JACINTO VALLEY
DOWNINGIA, CUYAMACA LAKE
FLANNELBUSH, MEXICAN
GRASS, CALIFORNIA ORCUTT
LIVEFOREVER, LAGUNA BEACH
MANZANITA, DEL MAR
MEADOWFOAM, PARISH'S
MILK-VETCH, PIERSON'S
MINT, OTAY MESA
MINT, SAN DIEGO MESA
MONARDELLA, WILLOWY
NAVARRETIA, SPREADING
ONION, MUNZ'S
SPINEFLOWER, ORCUTTS
SPINEFLOWER, SLENDER-HORNED ....
TARWEED, OTAY
THORNMINT, SAN DIEGO
WATERCRESS, GAMBEL'S
LIZARD, FLAT-TAILED HORNED
TURTLE, GREEN SEA
TURTLE, OLIVE (PACIFIC) RIDLEY SEA
SANDWORT, MARSH
FALCON, PEREGRINE
GOOSE, ALEUTIAN CANADA
PELICAN, BROWN
PLOVER, WESTERN SNOWY
GOBY, TIDEWATER
STEELHEAD, CENTRAL CALIFORNIA
POPULATION.
TROUT, STEELHEAD (CENTRAL VAL-
LEY RUN).
BUTTERFLY, BAY CHECKERSPOT
BUTTERFLY, CALLIPPE SILVERSPOT..
BUTTERFLY, MISSION BLUE
BUTTERFLY, MYRTLE'S SILVERSPOT
CLARKIA, PRESIDIO
DWARF-FLAX, MARIN
JEWELFLOWER, METCALF CANYON ...
LAYIA, BEACH
LESSINGIA, SAN FRANCISCO
LILY, TIBURON MARIPOSA
MANZANITA, PRESIDIO (=RAVEN'S)
MANZANITA, SAN BRUNO MOUNTAIN
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
GOOSE, ALEUTIAN CANADA
LINDERIELLA, CALIFORNIA
SHRIMP, VERNAL POOL FAIRY
SHRIMP, VERNAL POOL TADPOLE
SALMON, CHINOOK (SACRAMENTO
RIVER WINTER RUN}
Branta canadensis leucopareia
Brachyramphus marmoratus
Pelicanus oocidentalis
Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus
Rallus longirostris levipes
Sterna antillarum brownl
Vireo belli! pusillus
Streptocephalus woottonl
Branchinecta sandlegoensis
Gila bicolor mohavensis
Eucyclogobius newberryi
Cyprinodon macularius
Gasterosteus aculeatus Williamson!.
Pyrgus ruralis lagunae
Perognathus longlmembris pacificus
Dipodomys Stephens! ,
Ovis canadensis
Corethrogyne filaginlfolia var. linifolia
Baccharis vanessae
Berberis nevinil
Molina interrata
Cordylanthus maritimus ssp. maritimus....
Brodiaea filifolia
Eryngium arlstulatum var. parish!!
Ceanothus ophiochilus
Verbeslna dissita
Atriplex coronata var notatlor
Downingia concolor var. brevlor
Fremontodendron mexlcanum
Orcuttla californica
Dudleya stolonifera
Arctostaphylos glandulosa ssp. crassifolia
Limnanthes gracilis ssp. parish!!
Astragalus magdalenae var. plersonii
Pogogyne nudiuscula
Pogogyne abramsii
Monardella linoides ssp. viminea
Navarretla fossalis
Altium munzii
Chorizanthe orcuttlana
Centrostegia leptoceras
Hemizonia conjugens
Acanthomintha ilicifolia
Rorippa gambellii
Phrynosoma mcalli!
Cheionia mydas
Lepidochelys olivacea
Arenaria paludicola
Falco peregrinus
Branta canadensis leucopareia
Pelicanus occidentalis
Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus
Eucyclogobius newberryi
Oncorhynchus mykiss, (Central California
Coast ESU).
Oncorhyncus mykiss
Euphydryas editha bayensis
Speyeria cailippe callippe
Icaricia icarioides missionensis
Speyeria zerene myttleae
Clarkia franciscana
Hesperolinon congestum
Streptanthus albidus ssp albldus
Layia carnosa
Lessingia germanorum
Calochortus tiburonensis
Arctostaphylos pungens ssp. ravenli
Arctostaphylos imbricata
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Branta canadensis leucopareia
Linderiella occidentalis
Branchinecta lynch!
Lepidurus packard!
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
T
T
E
T
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
T
E
E
T
T
T
E
T
E
T
T
E
E
T
E
E
E
T
E
E
E
E
T
E
E
E
E
E
E
T
E, T
E, T
E
E
T
E
T
E
T
-------
52508
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 189/Wednesday, September 30, 1998/Notices
II. COUNTY/SPECIES LIST—Continued
[The following list identifies federally listed or proposed U.S. species by State and County. It has been updated through July 8, 1998. Species
listed below with a status of both E and T are generally either endangered or threatened within the specified county.]
State/County
Group name
Inverse name
Scientific name
Status
INSECTS ...
MAMMALS
PLANTS
SAN LUIS OBISPO.
REPTILES
PLANTS ...
BIRDS
CRUSTACEAN
FISHES
MAMMALS
PLANTS
SAN MATED.
REPTILES
SNAILS
AMPHIBIANS
BIRDS
CRUSTACEAN
FISHES
INSECTS ,
MAMMALS
PLANTS ....
SMELT, DELTA
STEELHEAD, CALIFORNIA CENTRAL
VALLEY POP.
TROUT, STEELHEAD (CENTRAL VAL-
LEY RUN).
BEETLE, VALLEY ELDERBERRY LONG-
HORN.
FOX, SAN JOAQUIN KIT
RIPARIAN BRUSH RABBIT
RIPARIAN (SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY)
WOODRAT.
BIRD'S-BEAK, PALMATE-BRACTED
FIDDLENECK, LARGE-FLOWERED
SNAKE, GIANT GARTER
SANDWORT, MARSH
CONDOR, CALIFORNIA
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
GOOSE, ALEUTIAN CANADA
MURRELET, MARBLED
PELICAN, BROWN
PLOVER, WESTERN SNOWY
RAIL, CALIFORNIA CLAPPER
TERN, CALIFORNIA LEAST
VIREO, LEAST BELL'S
LINDERIELLA, CALIFORNIA
SHRIMP, LONGHORN FAIRY
AMOLE, PURPLE
GOBY, TIDEWATER
LOMPOC YERBA SANTA
LUPINE, NIPOMO MESA
STEELHEAD, SOUTH-CENTRAL CALI-
FORNIA POP.
STEELHEAD, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
POPULATION.
TARPLANT, GAVIOTA
THISTLE, LA GRACIOSA
FOX, SAN JOAQUIN KIT
OTTER, SOUTHERN SEA
RAT, GIANT KANGAROO
RAT, MORRO BAY KANGAROO
BIRD'S-BEAK, SALT MARSH
CLARKIA, PISMO
JEWELFLOWER, CALIFORNIA
MANZANITA, MORRO
MOUNTAINBALM, INDIAN KNOB
SANDWORT, MARSH
SEA-BLITE, CALIFORNIA
THISTLE, CHORRO CREEK BOG
WATERCRESS, GAMBEL'S
WOOLLY-STAR, HOOVER'S
WOOLLY-THREADS, SAN JOAQUIN
LIZARD, BLUNT-NOSED LEOPARD
SNAIL, MORRO SHOULDERBAND
FROG, CALIFORNIA RED-LEGGED
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
MURRELET, MARBLED
PELICAN, BROWN
PLOVER, WESTERN SNOWY
RAIL, CALIFORNIA CLAPPER
TERN, CALIFORNIA LEAST
LINDERIELLA, CALIFORNIA
GOBY, TIDEWATER
SALMON, CHINOOK (CENTRAL VAL-
LEY SPRING RUN).
SALMON, CHINOOK (CENTRAL VAL-
LEY FALL RUN).
SALMON, COHO (CENTRAL CALIFOR-
NIA COAST POP).
STEELHEAD, CENTRAL CALIFORNIA
POPULATION.
BUTTERFLY, BAY CHECKERSPOT
BUTTERFLY, MISSION BLUE
BUTTERFLY, SAN BRUNO ELFIN
CALLIPPE SILVERSPOT BUTTERFLY...
MOUSE, SALT MARSH HARVEST
CYPRESS, SANTA CRUZ
LESSINGIA, SAN FRANCISCO
Hypomesus transpacificus
Oncorhynchus mykiss, (Central Valley
ESU).
Oncorhyncus mykiss
Desmocerus californicus dimorphus
Vulpes macrotis mutica....
Sylvilagus bachmani
Meotoma fuscipes riparia.
Cordylanthes palmatus
Amsinckia grandiflora
Thamnophls gigas
Arenarla paludicola
Gymnogyps Califomianus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Branta canadensis leucopareia
Brachyramphus marmoratus
Pelicanus occidentals
Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus
Rallus longirostris obsoletus
Sterna antillarum brown!
Vireo belli! pusillus
Linderiella occidentals
Branchinecta longiantenna
Chlorogalum purpureum
Eucyclogobius newberryi
Eriodictyon capitatum
Lupinus nipomensls
Oncorhynchus mykiss, (South-Central
Calif. ESU).
Oncorhynchus mykiss, (Southern Califor-
nia ESU).
Hemizonia increscens ssp. villosa
Cirsium loncholepis
Vulpes macrotis mutica
Enhydra lutris nereis
Dipodomys ingens ,
Dipodomys heermanni morroensis
Cordylanthus maritimus ssp. maritimus...,
Clarkla speciosa ssp. immaculata
Caulanthus californicus
Arctostaphylos morroensis
Eriodictyon altissimum
Arenaria paludicola
Suaeda californica
Cirsium fontinale var. obispoense
Rorippa gambellii
Eriastrum hooveri
Lembertia congdonii
Gambelia (Crotaphytus) silus
Helminthoglypta walkeriana
Rana Aurora Draytonii
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Faico peregrinus
Brachyramphus marmoratus
Pelicanus occidentals
Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus
Rallus longirostris obsoletus
Sterna antillarum brown!
Linderiella occidentaiis
Eucyclogobius newberryi
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha .
Oncorhynchus kisutch.
Oncorhynchus mykiss, (Centra! California
Coast ESU).
Euphydryas editha bayensls
Icaricla icarioides missionensis
Callophiys moss!! bayensis
Speyeria callippe callippe
Reithrodontomys raviventris
Cupressus abramsiana
Lesslngia germanorum
-------
Federal Register /Vol. 63, No. 189/Wednesday, September 30, 1998/Notices
52509
II. COUNTY/SPECIES LIST—Continued
[Tha following list identifies federally listed or proposed U.S. species by State and County. It has been updated through July 8, 1998. Species
listed below with a status of both E and T are generally either endangered or threatened within the specified county.]
Slate/County
Group name
Inverse name
Scientific name
Status
SANTA BARBARA.
REPTILF.S
AMPHIBIANS
BIRDS
CRUSTACEAN
FISHES
MAMMALS
PLANTS
SANTA CLARA
REPTILES ,
BIRDS
FISHES
INSECTS ...
MAMMALS
MANZANITA, SAN BRUNO MOUNTAIN
PENTACHAETA, WHITE-RAYED
SUNFLOWER, SAN MATEO WOOLLY...
THISTLE, FOUNTAIN
THORNMINT, SAN MATEO
SNAKE, SAN FRANCISCO GARTER
TOAD, ARROYO SOUTHWESTERN
CONDOR, CALIFORNIA
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
GOOSE, ALEUTIAN CANADA
MURRELET, MARBLED
PELICAN, BROWN
PLOVER, WESTERN SNOWY
RAIL, LIGHT-FOOTED CLAPPER
TERN, CALIFORNIA LEAST
VIREO, LEAST BELL'S
LINDERIELLA, CALIFORNIA
GOBY, TIDEWATER
STEELHEAD, SOUTH-CENTRAL CALI-
FORNIA POP.
STEELHEAD, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
POPULATION.
STICKLEBACK, UNARMORED
THREESPINE.
FOX, SAN JOAQUIN KIT
RAT, GIANT KANGAROO
SEAL, GUADALUPE FUR
BARBERRY, ISLAND
BEDSTRAW, ISLAND
BIRD'SBEAK, SAtT MARSH
BRODIAEA, CHINESE CAMP
BUSHMALLOW, SANTA CRUZ ISLAND
CLARKIA, SPRINGVILLE
DUDLEYA, MARCESCENT
DUDLEYA, SANTA CRUZ ISLAND
FRINGEPOD, SANTA CRUZ ISLAND
GILIA, HOFFMAN'S SLENDER-FLOW-
ERED.
GOLDFIELDS, CONTRA COSTA
JEWELFLOWER, CALIFORNIA
LAYIA, BEACH
LIVEFOREVER, SANTA BARBARA IS-
LAND.
LOMPOC YERBA SANTA
LUPINE, MARIPOSA
LUPINE, NIPOMO MESA
MALACOTHRIX, ISLAND
MALACOTHRIX, SANTA CRUZ ISLAND
MANZANITA, SANTA ROSA ISLAND
MONKEY-FLOWER, KELSO CREEK
NAVARRETlA, FEW-FLOWERED
NAVARRETIA, MANY-FLOWERED
NAVARRETlA, PIUTE MOUNTAINS
ONION, RAWHIDE HILL
PAINTBRUSH, SOFT-LEAVED
PHACELIA, ISLAND
PUSSYPAWS, MARIPOSA
ROCK-CRESS, HOFFMAN'S
STONECROP, LAKE COUNTY
TARPLANT, GAVIOTA
THISTLE, FOUNTAIN
THISTLE, LA GRACIOSA
VERVAIN, RED HILLS
WOOLLY-STAR, HOOVER'S
WOOLLY-THREADS, SAN JOAQUIN
LIZARD, BLUNT-NOSED LEOPARD
LIZARD, ISLAND NIGHT
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
PELICAN, BROWN
PLOVER, WESTERN SNOWY
RAIL, CALIFORNIA CLAPPER
TERN, CALIFORNIA LEAST
GOBY, TIDEWATER
SALMON, CHINOOK (CENTRAL VAL-
LEY SPRING RUN).
BUTTERFLY, BAY CHECKERSPOT
FOX, SAN JOAQUIN KIT
Arctostaphylos Imbricata
Pentachaeta bellldiflora
Eriophyllum latllobum
Cirsium fontinale var fontinale
Acanthomintha obovata ssp. duttonli
Thamnophis sirtalls tetrataenla
Bufo microscaphus californicus
Gymnogyps californianus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Branta canadensls leucopareia
Brachyramphus marmoratus
Pelicanus occidentalis
Charadrlus alexandrinus nivosus
Rallus longirostris levipes
Sterna antillarum browni
Vireo belli! pusillus
Linderiella occidentalis
Eucyclogobius newberryi
Oncorhynchus mykiss, (South-Central
California ESU).
Oncorhynchus mykiss, (Southern Califor-
nia ESU).
Gasterosteus aculeatus Williamson!
Vulpes macrotis mutica
Dipodomys ingens
Arctocephalus townsendi
Berber's pinnata ssp. Insularis
Galium buxifolium
Cordylanthus maritimus ssp. maritimus....
Brodiaea pallida
Malacothatnnus fasciculatus nesioticus....
Clarkia springvillensis
Dudleya cymosa ssp. marcescens
Dudleya nesiotica
Thysanocarpus conchuliferus
Gilia tenuiflora ssp. hoffmannii
Lasthenia conjugens
Caulanthus californicus
Layia carnosa
Dudleya traskiae
Eriodictyon capitatum
Lupinus citrlnus var. deflexus
Lupinus nipomensis
Malacothrix squalida
Malacothrix indecora
Arctostaphylos confertiflora
Mimulus shevockii
Navarretia leucocephala ssp. pauciflora...
Navarretia leucocephala ssp. plieantha....
Navarretia setiloba
Allium tuolumnense
Castilleja mollis
Phacelia insularis ssp. insularis
Calyptridium pulchellum
Arabis hoffmannii
Parvisedum leiocarpum
Hemizonia Increscens ssp. villossa
Cirsium fontinale var. fontinale
Cirsium loncholepis
Verbena californica
Eriastrum hooveri
Lembertia congdonii
Gambelia (Crotaphytus) silus
Xantusia (Klaubernina) riversiana
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Pelicanus occidentalis
Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus
Rallus longirostris obsoletus
Sterna antillarum browni
Eucyclogobius newberryi
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Euphydryas edltha bayensis.
Vulpes macrotis mutica
-------
52510
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 189/Wednesday, September 30, 1998/Notices
II. COUNTY/SPECIES LIST—Continued
{The following list identifies federally listed or proposed U.S. species by State and County. It has been updated through July 8, 1998. Species
listed below with a status of both E and T are generally either endangered or threatened within the specified county.]
State/County
Group name
Inverse name
Scientific name
Status
PLANTS
SANTA CRUZ .
PLANTS
AMPHIBIANS
BIRDS
FISHES
INSECTS ,
MAMMALS
PLANTS ....
SHASTA.
REPTILES
AMPHIBIANS
BIRDS
CRUSTACEAN
FISHES
SIERRA ....
SISKIYOU
PLANTS
BIRDS ...
FISHES
BIRDS ..
SOLANO
FISHES .
PLANTS
BIRDS ...
CRUSTACEAN
FISHES
MOUSE, SALT MARSH HARVEST
CEANOTHUS, COYOTE
DUDLEYA, SANTA CLARA VALLEY
GOLDFIELDS, CONTRA COSTA
NAVARRETIA, FEW-FLOWERED
NAVARRETIA, MANY-FLOWERED
PAINTBRUSH, TIBURON
STONECROP, LAKE COUNTY
THISTLE, FOUNTAIN
SANDWORT, MARSH
TARPLANT, SANTA CRUZ
SALAMANDER, SANTA CRUZ LONG-
TOED.
MURRELET, MARBLED
PELICAN, BROWN ....
PLOVER, WESTERN SNOWY
GOBY, TIDEWATER
SALMON, COHO (CENTRAL CALIFOR-
NIA COAST POP).
STEELHEAD, CENTRAL CALIFORNIA
POPULATION.
STEELHEAD, SOUTH-CENTRAL CALI-
FORNIA POP.
BEETLE, MOUNT. HERMON JUNE
BEETLE, SANTA CRUZ RAIN
GRASSHOPPER, ZAYANTE BAND-
WINGED.
OTTER, SOUTHERN SEA
CYPRESS, SANTA CRUZ
PENTACHAETA, WHITE-RAYED
SPINEFLOWER, BEN LOMOND
SPINEFLOWER, MONTEREY
SPINEFLOWER, ROBUST
SPINEFLOWER, SCOTTS VALLEY
WALLFLOWER, BEN LOMOND
SNAKE, SAN FRANCISCO GARTER
FROG, CALIFORNIA RED-LEGGED
EAGLE, BALD ....;
FALCON, PEREGRINE
OWL, NORTHERN SPOTTED
CRAYFISH, SHASTA
SHRIMP, VERNAL POOL TADPOLE
SALMON, CHINOOK (SACRAMENTO
WINTER RIVER RUN^
SALMON, CHINOOK (CENTRAL VAL-
LEY FALL RUN).
STEELHEAD, CALIFORNIA CENTRAL
VALLEY POP).
TROUT, STEELHEAD (CENTRAL VAL-
LEY RUN). ;
GRASS, SLENDER ORCUTT
TUCTORIA, GREEN'S
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
TROUT, LAHONTAN CUTTHROAT
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
GOOSE, ALEUTIAN CANADA
MURRELET, MARBLED
OWL, NORTHERN SPOTTED
SALMON, CHINOOK (SOUTHERN OR-
EGON AND CALIFORNIA COASTAL
RUN).
SUCKER, LOST RIVER
GRASS, SLENDER ORCUTT
PHLOX, YREKA
FALCON, PEREGRINE
GOOSE, ALEUTIAN CANADA
PELICAN, BROWN
RAIL, CALIFORNIA CLAPPER
LINDERIELLA, CALIFORNIA
SHRIMP, VERNAL POOL FAIRY
SHRIMP, VERNAL POOL TADPOLE
SALMON, CHINOOK (CENTRAL VAL-
LEY FALL RUN).
SALMON, CHINOOK (CENTRAL VAL-
LEY SPRING RUN)
SALMON, CHINOOK (SACRAMENTO
RIVER WINTER RUN)
Reithrodontomys raviventris
Ceanothus ferrisae
Dudleya setchellii
Lasthenia conjugens
Navarretia leucooephala ssp. pauciflora...
Navarretia leucocephala ssp. plleantha....
Castilleja affinis ssp. neglecta
Parvisedum leiocarpum
Cirsium fontinale var fontinale
Arenaria paludicola
Holocarpha macradenia
Ambystoma macrodactylum croceum
Brachyramphus marmoratus
Pelicanus occidentalis
Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus.
Eucyclogobius newberryi
Oncorhynchus kisutch
Oncorhynohus mykiss, (Central California
Coast ESU).
Oncorhynchus mykiss, (South-Central
Calif. ESU).
Polyphylla barbata
Pleocoma conjugens conjugens
Trimerotropis infantillis
Enhydra lutris nereis
Cupressus abramsiana
Pentachaeta bellidiflora
Chorizanthe pungens var. hartwegiana....
Chorizanthe pungens var. pungens
Chorizanthe robusta var. robusta
Chorizanthe robusta var. hartwegii
Etysimum teretifolium
Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia
Rana Aurora Draytonii
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Strix occidentalis caurina
Pacifasticus fortis
Lepidurus packardi
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha .
Oncorhynchus mykiss, (Central Valley
ESU).
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Orcuttia tenuis
Tuctoria greenei
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Salmo clarki henshawl
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Branta canadensis leucopareia .
Brachyramphus marmoratus
Strix occidentalis caurina
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Deltistes luxatus
Orcuttia tenuis ,
Phlox hirsuta
Falco peregrinus
Branta canadensis leucopareia .
Pelicanus occidentalis
Rallus longirostris obsoletus
Linderiella occidentalis
Branchinecta lynch!
Lepidurus packardi
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha .
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha .
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 189/Wednesday, September 30, 1998/Notices
52511
II. COUNTY/SPECIES LIST—Continued
(Tha following list Identifies federally listed or proposed U.S. species by State and County. It has been updated through July 8, 1998. Species
listed below with a status of both E and T are generally either endangered or threatened within the specified county.]
State/County
Group name
Inverse name
Scientific name
Status
INSECTS .
MAMMALS
PLANTS ....
SONOMA...
FISHES
BIRDS
CRUSTACEAN
FISHES
INSECTS ....
MAMMALS .
PLANTS
STANISLAUS ,
PLANTS
BIRDS ...
CRUSTACEAN
FISHES
INSECTS .
MAMMALS
PLANTS ....
SMELT, DELTA
STEELHEAD, CALIFORNIA CENTRAL
VALLEY POP.
TROUT, STEELHEAD (CENTRAL VAL-
LEY RUN).
BEETLE, DELTA GREEN GROUND
BEETLE, VALLEY ELDERBERRY LONG-
HORN.
MOUSE, SALT MARSH HARVEST
GOLDFIELDS, CONTRA COSTA
GRASS, COLUSA
GRASS, SOLANO
NAVARRETIA, MANY-FLOWERED
SOFT BIRD'S BEAK
STONECROP, LAKE COUNTY
SUISUN THISTLE
SALMON, CHINOOK (CENTRAL VAL-
LEY SPRING RUN).
SALMON, CHINOOK (CENTRAL VAL-
LEY FALL RUN).
SALMON, CHINOOK (SOUTHERN OR-
EGON AND CALIFORNIA COASTAL
RUN).
STEELHEAD, CENTRAL CALIFORNIA
POPULATION.
TROUT, STEELHEAD (CENTRAL VAL-
LEY RUN).
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
MURRELET, MARBLED
OWL, NORTHERN SPOTTED
PELICAN, BROWN
PLOVER, WESTERN SNOWY
RAIL, CALIFORNIA CLAPPER
LINDERIELLA, CALIFORNIA
SHRIMP, CALIFORNIA FRESHWATER..
GOBY, TIDEWATER
SALMON, CHINOOK (SACRAMENTO
RIVER WINTER RUN)
SALMON, COHO (CENTRAL CALIFOR-
NIA COAST POP).
STEELHEAD, CALIFORNIA CENTRAL
VALLEY POP.
BUTTERFLY, BEHREN'S SILVERSPOT
BUTTERFLY, MYRTLE'S SILVERSPOT
MOUSE, SALT MARSH HARVEST
ALLOCARYA, CALISTOGA
ALOPECURUS, SONOMA
BIRD'S-BEAK, PENNELL'S
BLUEGRASS, NAPA
CHECKERMALLOW, KENWOOD
MARSH.
CLARKIA, VINE HILL
CLOVER, SHOWY INDIAN
GOLDFIELDS, BURKE'S
LARKSPUR, YELLOW
LILY, PITKIN MARSH
LUPINE, CLOVER
MEADOWFOAM, SEBASTOPOL
MILKVETCH, CLARA HUNTS
SEDGE, WHITE
SPINEFLOWER, SONOMA
STICKYSEED, BAKER'S
ADOBE SUNBURST, SAN JOAQUIN
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
GOOSE, ALEUTIAN CANADA
SHRIMP, VERNAL POOL TADPOLE
STEELHEAD, CALIFORNIA CENTRAL
VALLEY POP.
TROUT, STEELHEAD (CENTRAL VAL-
LEY RUN).
BEETLE, VALLEY ELDERBERRY LONG-
HORN.
FOX, SAN JOAQUIN KIT
GOLDEN SUNBURST, HARTWEG'S
GRASS, COLUSA
GRASS, HAIRY ORCUTT
OWL'S-CLOVER, FLESHY
Hypomesus transpacificus
Oncorhynchus mykiss, (Central
ESU).
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Valley
Elaphrus viridis
Desmocerus californicus dimorphus
Reithrodontomys raviventris
Lasthenia conjugens
Neostapfia colusana
Tuctoria mucronata (=Orcuttla m.)
Navarretia leucocephala ssp. plieantha....
Cordylanthus mollis
Parvisedum leiocatpum
Clrslum hydrophllum hydrophilum
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha .
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha .
Oncorhynchus mykiss, (central California
coast).
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Brachyramphus marmoratus
Strix occidentalis caurina
Pelicanus occidentalis
Charadrius alexandrinus nlvosus.
Rallus longlrostris obsoletus
Linderiella occidentalis
Syncaris pacifica
Eucyclogobius newberryi
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Oncorhynchus kisutch.
Oncorhynchus mykiss, (Central Valley
ESU).
Speyeria zerene behrensii
Speyeria zerene myrtleae
Reithrodontomys raviventris
Plagiobothrys strictus
Alopecurus aequalis var. sonomensis
Cordylanthus tenuis ssp. caplllari
Poa napensls
Sidalcea oregana ssp. valida
Clarkia imbricata
Trifolum amoenum
Lasthenia burkei
Delphinium luteum
Lilium pitkinense
Lupinus tidestromii
Limnanthes vinculans
Astragalus clarlanus
Carex alblda
Chorizanthe valida
Blennosperma baker!
Pseudobahia peirsonii
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Branta canadensis leucopareia
Lepidurus packardl
Oncorhynchus mykiss, (Central Valley
ESU).
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Desmocerus californicus dimorphus
Vulpes macrotis mutica
Pseudobahia bahiifolia
Neostapfia colusana
Orcuttia pilosa ,
Castilleja campestris ssp. succulenta
-------
52512
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 189/Wednesday, September 30, 1998/Notices
II. COUNTY/SPECIES LIST—Continued
[The following list identifies federally listed or proposed U.S. species by State and County. It has been updated through July 8, 1998. Species
listed below with a status of both E and T are generally either endangered or threatened within the specified county.]
State/County
Group name
Inverse name
Scientific name
Status
SLITTER ,
BIRDS
iRUSTACEAN
FISHES
NSECTS.
TEHAMA
REPTILES
BIRDS
CRUSTACEAN
FISHES
[NSECTS .
PLANTS .,
TRINITY
TULARE
BIRDS ..
FISHES
BIRDS ..
FISHES
MAMMALS
PLANTS
TUOLUMNE
REPTILES
BIRDS ,
FISHES
PLANTS
VENTURA ,
AMPHIB!ANS
BIRDS
SPURGE, HOOVER'S
EAGLE, BALD
:ALCON, PEREGRINE
GOOSE, ALEUTIAN CANADA
SHRIMP, VERNAL POOL TADPOLE
SALMON, CHINOOK (CENTRAL VAL-
LEY FALL RUN).
SALMON, CHINOOK (CENTRAL VAL-
LEY SPRING RUN).
SALMON, CHINOOK (SACRAMENTO
RIVER WINTER RUN)
STEELHEAD, CALIFORNIA CENTRAL
VALLEY POP.
TROUT, STEELHEAD (CENTRAL VAL-
LEY RUN).
BEETLE, VALLEY ELDERBERRY LONG-
HORN.
SNAKE, GIANT GARTER
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
OWL, NORTHERN SPOTTED
SHRIMP, VERNAL POOL TADPOLE
SALMON, CHINOOK (CENTRAL VAL-
LEY FALL RUN).
SALMON, CHINOOK (CENTRAL VAL-
LEY SPRING RUN).
SALMON, CHINOOK (SACRAMENTO
RIVER WINTER RUN>
STEELHEAD, CALIFORNIA CENTRAL
VALLEY POP.
TROUT, STEELHEAD (CENTRAL VAL-
LEY RUN).
BEETLE, VALLEY ELDERBERRY LONG-
HORN.
GRASS, HAIRY ORCUTT
iRASS, SLENDER ORCUTT
MEADOWFOAM, BUTTE COUNTY
SPURGE, HOOVER'S
TUCTORIA, GREEN'S
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
OWL, NORTHERN SPOTTED
SALMON, CHINOOK (SOUTHERN OR
EGON AND CALIFORNIA COASTAL
RUN).
CONDOR, CALIFORNIA
EAGLE, BALD...:
FALCON, PEREGRINE
TROUT, LITTLE KERN GOLDEN
FOX, SAN JOAQUIN KIT
RAT, GIANT KANGAROO
RAT, TIPTON KANGAROO
CHECKER-MALLOW, KECK'S
CHECKER-MALLOW, KECK'S
CLARKIA, SPRINGVILLE
JEWELFLOWER, CALIFORNIA
LILY, GREENHORN ADOBE ,
SPURGE, HOOVER'S
WOOLLY-THREADS, SAN JOAQUIN
LIZARD, BLUNT-NOSED LEOPARD
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
TROUT, LAHONTAN CUTTHROAT
TROUT, STEELHEAD (CENTRAL VAL
LEY RUN).
BRODIAEA, CHINESE CAMP
BUTTERWEED, LAYNE'S
CLARKIA, SPRINGVILLE
LILY, GREENHORN ADOBE
LUPINE, MARIPOSA
MONKEY-FLOWER, KELSO CREEK
NAVARRETIA, PIUTE MOUNTAINS..,
ONION, RAWHIDE HILL
PUSSYPAWS, MARIPOSA
VERVAIN, RED HILLS
TOAD, ARROYO SOUTHWESTERN
CONDOR, CALIFORNIA
FALCON, PEREGRINE
PELICAN, BROWN
Jhamaesyce hoover!
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
:alco peregrinus
iranta canadensis leucoparela .
.epidurus paokardi
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha .
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha.
Oncorhynchus mykiss, (Central Valley
ESU).
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Desmocerus califomicus dimorphus
Thamnophis gigas
Haliaeetus leucocephalus ....
:alco peregrinus
Strix occidentalis caurina
.epidurus packardi
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha .
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha .
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha .
Oncorhynchus mykiss, (Central Valley
ESU).
Oncorhyncus mykiss
Desmocerus califomicus dimorphus
Orcuttia pilosa
Orcuttia tenuls :
Limnanthes floccosa ssp. califomlca
Chamaesyce hooveri
Tuctoria greenei
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Strix occidentalis caurina
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Gymnogyps califomianus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Salmo aguabonita white!
Vulpes macrotis mutica
Dipodomys ingens
Dlpodomys nitratoides
Sidalcea keckii
Sidalcea keckii
Clarkia springvillensis
Caulanthus califomicus
Fritillaria striata
Chamaesyce hooveri
Lembertia congdonii
Gambelia (Crotaphytus) silus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Salmo clarki henshawi
Oncorhyncus mykiss
Brodiaea pallida
Senecio layneae
Clarkia springvillensis
Fritillaria striata
Lupinus citrinus var. deflexus ....
Mimulus shevockii
Navarretia setiloba
Allium tuolumnense
Calyptridium pulchellum
Verbena califomica
Bufo microscaphus califomicus .
Gymnogyps califomianus
Falco peregrinus
Pelicanus occidentalis
E
T
E
T
E
E
E
E
E
T
E
T
T
E
E
T
E
T
T
E
T
T
T
E
E
T
T
E
T
E
E
E
E
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 189/Wednesday, September 30, 1998/Notices
52513
II. COUNTY/SPECIES LIST—Continued
[The Mowing list Identifies federally listed or proposed U.S. species by State and County. It has been updated through July 8, 1998 Species
listed below with a status of both E and T are generally either endangered or threatened within the specified county.]
Stale/County
Group name
Inverse name
Scientific name
Status
CRUSTACEAN
FISHES
MAMMALS
PLANTS ....
YOCO
REPTILES ,
BIRDS
CRUSTACEAN
FISHES
INSECTS .
PLANTS ..
YUBA .....
REPTILES
BIRDS
CRUSTACEAN
FISHES
INSECTS ,
COMMONWEALTH OF THE
NORTHERN MARIANAS
NORTHERN MARIANAS
BIRDS
NSECTS ....
MAMMALS .
IANTS
REPTILES ..
CONNECTICUT
FAIRFIELD ,„
HARTFORD ,
LITCHFIELD.
BIRDS
MAMMALS .
REPTILES ..
BIRDS
FISHES
MAMMALS .
BIRDS
PLOVER, WESTERN SNOWY
RAIL, LIGHT-FOOTED CLAPPER
TERN, CALIFORNIA LEAST
VIREO, LEAST BELL'S
LINDERIELLA, CALIFORNIA
SHRIMP, CONSERVANCY FAIRY
GOBY, TIDEWATER
STEELHEAD, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
POPULATION.
FOX. SAN JOAQUIN KIT
BIRD'S-BEAK, SALT MARSH
DUDLEYA, CONEJO
DUDLEYA, SANTA MONICA MOUN
TAINS.
DUDLEYA, VERITY'S
GRASS, CALIFORNIA ORCUTT
MILK-VETCH, BRAUNTON'S
PENTACHAETA, LYON'S
WATERCRESS, GAMBEL'S
LIZARD, BLUNT-NOSED LEOPARD
LIZARD, ISLAND NIGHT
EAGLE, BALD
GOOSE, ALEUTIAN CANADA
PLOVER, WESTERN SNOWY
SHRIMP, VERNAL POOL TADPOLE
SALMON, CHINOOK (CENTRAL VAL-
LEY FALL RUN).
SALMON, CHINOOK (CENTRAL VAL-
LEY SPRING RUN).
SALMON, CHINPOK (SACRAMENTO
RIVER WINTER RUN}
SMELT, DELTA
STEELHEAD, CALIFORNIA CENTRAL
VALLEY POP.
TROUT, STEELHEAD (CENTRAL VAL-
LEY RUN).
BEETLE, VALLEY ELDERBERRY LONG-
HORN.
BIRD'S-BEAK, PALMATE-BRACTED
GRASS, COLUSA
SNAKE, GIANT GARTER
EAGLE, BALD
PELICAN, BROWN
LINDERIELLA, CALIFORNIA
SHRIMP, VERNAL POOL FAIRY
SHRIMP, VERNAL POOL TADPOLE
SALMON, CHINOOK (CENTRAL VAL-
LEY SPRING RUN).
TROUT, STEELHEAD (CENTRAL VAL-
LEY RUN).
BEETLE, VALLEY ELDERBERRY LONG-
HORN.
(=LA
CROW, MARIANA
MALLARD, MARIANA
MEGAPODE, MICRONESIAN
POROUSE'S).
MOORHEN (=GALLINULE), MARIANA
COMMON.
SWIFTLET, MARIANA GRAY
(=VANIKORO).
WARBLER, NIGHTINGALE REED
MONARCH. TINIAN
BAT, MARIANA FRUIT
HAYUN LAGU (GUAM), TRONKON
GUAFI (ROTA).
TURTLE, GREEN SEA
EAGLE, BALD
PLOVER, PIPING
BAT, INDIANA
TURTLE, BOG
EAGLE, BALD
STURGEON, SHORTNOSE
BAT, INDIANA
EAGLE, BALD
Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus
Rallus longlrostris levipes
Sterna antillarum browni
Vireo belli! pusillus
Llnderiella occidentalis
Brancinecta conservatio
Eucyclogobius newberryi
Oncorhynchus mykiss, (Southern Califor
nia ESU).
Vulpes macrotis mutica
Cordylanthus maritimus ssp. maritimus....
Dudleya abramsii ssp. parva
Dudleys oymosa ssp. ovatifolia
Dudleya verity!
Orcuttia callfornica
Astragalus brauntonli
Pentachaeta lyonli
Rorippa gambellii
Gambelia (Crotaphytus) silus
Xantusia (Klaubernina) riversiana.
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Branta canadensis leucopareia ....
Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus..
Lepidurus packardi
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha .
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha .
Hypomesus transpacificus
Oncorhynchus mykiss, (Central
ESU).
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Valley
Desmocerus californicus dlmorphus
Cordylanthes palmatus
Neostapfia colusana
Thamnophis gigas
Haliaeetus leucocephalus ....
Pelicanus occidentalis
Linderiella occidentalis
Branchinecta lynchi
Lepidurus packardi
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha .
Oncorhyncus mykiss .
Desmocerus californicus dimorphus
iorvus kubaryi
Anas oustaleti
Vlegapodius laperouse.
Gallinula chloropus guami
Aerodranus vanikorensls bartschi.
Acrocephalus luscinla
tfonarcha takatsukasae
Dteropus mariannus mariannus.
Serianthes nelsonii
Jhelonia mydas ,
Haliaeetus leucocephalus .
Jharadrius melodus
Myotis sodalis
ilemmys muhlenbergii
Haliaeetus leucocephalus .
Aclpenser brevirostrum
Ylyotis sodalis
Haliaeetus leucocephalus .
E, T
-------
52514
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 189/Wednesday, September 30. 1998/Notices
II. COUNTY/SPECIES LIST—Continued
[The following list identifies federally listed or proposed U.S. species by State and County It has been updated through July 8 1998. Species
listed below with a status of both E and T are generally either endangered or threatened within the specified county.]
State/County
MIDDLESEX
NEW HAVEN
NEW LONDON
TOLLAND
WINDHAM
DELAWARE
KENT :
NEW CASTLE
SUSSEX
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
FLORIDA
BAKER
BAY
BRADFORD
BREVARD
Group name
IRDS
BIRDS
BIRDS
MAMMALS
MAMMALS
PLANTS
BIRDS
/lAMMALS
BIRDS
FISHES
PLANTS
BIRDS
FISHES
BIRDS
BIRDS
BIRDS
CRUSTACEAN
BIRDS
CRUSTACEAN
AMPHIBIANS
BIRDS
BIRDS
cicijpq
BIRDS
BIRDS
Inverse name
AT INDIANA
OGONIA SMALL WHORLED
URTLE BOG
EAGLE, BALD
LOVER, PIPING
TURGEON SHORTNOSE
EETLE PURITAN TIGER
AT 1MH1ANA
AGLE, BALD
LOVER, PIPING
BAT INDIANA
PLOVER, PIPING
BAT, INDIANA
BAT, INDIANA
POGONIA, SMALL WHORLED
EAGLE, BALD
BAT, INDIANA
EAGLE, BALD
STURGEON, SHORTNOSE
PINK, SWAMP
TURTLE HAWKSBILL SEA
TURTLE, KEMP'S (ATLANTIC) RIDLEY
SEA.
EAGLE, BALD .,„.. »
STURGEON, SHORTNOSE
PINK1 9WAMP :
Tl IRTI P ROR
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
SQUIRREL, DELMARVA PENINSULA
FOX.
PINK SWAMP
TURTLE, KEMP'S (ATLANTIC) RIDLEY
SEA.
EAGLE, BALD
EAGLE BALD
JAY FLORIDA SCRUB
QTDRK wnnn
WOODPECKER, RED-COCKADED
OVAL PIGTOE
SHRIMP, SQUIRREL CHIMNEY CAVE..
SNAKE EASTERN INDIGO
FLATWOODS SALAMANDER
STORK, WOOD
WOODPECKER, RED-COCKADED
SNAKE EASTERN INDIGO
PLOVER, PIPING
STORK, WOOD
WOODPECKER, RED-COCKADED
STURGEON GULF
MANATEE, WEST INDIAN (FLORIDA)...
MOUSE, CHOCTAWHATCHEE BEACH
BIRDS-IN-A-NEST WHITE
cpi IP/3P TFI FPHl 1^
SNAKE EASTERN INDIGO
Tl IRTI P MA\A/K<3RII 1 ^FA
TURTLE, KEMP'S (ATLANTIC) RIDLEY
SEA.
Tl 1PTI P 1 nRRFRHFAD ^EA
EAGLE, BALD
STORK, WOOD
OVAL PIGTOE
SNAKE EASTERN INDIGO
EAGLE, BALD
Scientific name
Myotis sodalis
sotria medeoloides
Clemmys muhlenbergii
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Charadrius melodus
Acipenser brevirostrum
Cicindela puritana
Myotis sodalis
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Charadrius melodus
Sterna dougaili dougalli
Myotis sodalis
Charadrius melodus
Myotis sodalis
i/lyotis sodalis
sotria medeoloides
laliaeetus leucocephalus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Acipenser brevirostrum
lelonias bullata
Eretmochelys imbricata
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Acipenser brevirostrum
Helonias bullata
Clemmys muhlenbergii
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Charadrius melodus
Helonias bullata
Lepidochelys kempii
Caretta caretta
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Aphelocoma coerulescens coerulescens
Mycteria americana
Pleurobema pyriforme
Drymarchon corals couperi
Ambystoma cingulatum
Mycteria americana
Drymarchon corais couperi
Charadrius melodus
Mycteria americana
ACIPENSER OXYRHYNCHUS
(=OXYRHYNCHUS DESOTOI).
Trichechus manatus
Macbridea alba
P1NGUICULA IONANTHA
Euphorbia telephioides
Drymarchon corais couperi
Chelonia mydas
Eretmocheiys Imbricata
Caretta caretta
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Mycteria americana
Pleurobema pyriforme
Drymarchon corais couperi
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Status
:, T
E, T
E, T
p
E, T
•
: •
T
T
T
T
i, T
T
T
T
E
T
T
E
E
E
T
T
T
E
E •
T
E, T
E
E
T
E
E
T
T
T
T
E, T
E
E
E
T
T
E
E
T
T
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 189/Wednesday, September 30, 1998/Notices
52515
II. COUNTY/SPECIES LIST—Continued
fdtowing list Identifies federally listed or proposed U.S. species by State and County. It has been updated through July 8, 1998 Species
listed below with a status of both E and T are generally either endangered or threatened within the specffied county.] opecies
State/County
Group name
Inverse name
Scientific name
Status
MAMMALS
REPTILES .
BROWARD
BIRDS
MAMMALS
PLANTS ...
REPTILES ,
CALHOUN.
AMPHIE.ANS
BIRDS
CLAMS
FISHES
CHARtOTTE ....
PLANTS ...
REPTILES
BIRDS
MAMMALS
LANTS ....
REPTILES .
crraus....
BIRDS
ISHES
MAMMALS
REPTILES .
CLAY .....
IRDS
COLLIER.
ISHES
MAMMALS
LANTS ....
EPTILES .
IRDS ,
JAY, FLORIDA SCRUB
PLOVER, PIPING
STORK, WOOD
WOODPECKER, RED-COCKADED
MANATEE, WEST INDIAN (FLORIDA)..
MOUSE, SOUTHEASTERN BEACH
SNAKE, ATLANTIC SALT MARSH
SNAKE, EASTERN INDIGO
TURTLE, GREEN SEA
TURTLE, HAWKSBILL SEA
TURTLE, KEMP'S (ATLANTIC) RIDLE
SEA.
TURTLE, LEATHERBACK SEA
TURTLE, LOGGERHEAD SEA
EAGLE, BALD
KITE, EVERGLADE SNAIL
STORK, WOOD
WOODPECKER, RED-COCKADED ...
MANATEE, WEST INDIAN (FLORIDA)...
PANTHER, FLORIDA
JACQUEMONTIA, BEACH
CROCODILE, AMERICAN
SNAKE, EASTERN INDIGO
TURTLE, GREEN SEA
TURTLE, HAWKSBILL SEA
TURTLE, KEMP'S (ATLANTIC) RIDLE\
SEA.
TURTLE, LEATHERBACK SEA
TURTLE, LOGGERHEAD SEA
FLATWOODS SALAMANDER
STORK, WOOD
IHIPOLA SLABSHELL
FAT THREERIDGE
GULF MOCCASINSHELL
OVAL PIGTOE
PURPLE BANKCLIMBER
SHINYRAYED POCKETBOOK
STURGEON, GULF
INKROOT, GENTIAN
SNAKE, EASTERN INDIGO
CARACARA, AUDUBON'S CRESTED ....
EAGLE, BALD
JAY, FLORIDA SCRUB
STORK, WOOD
WOODPECKER, RED-COCKADED
MANATEE, WEST INDIAN (FLORIDA)....
"VWVPAW, BEAUTIFUL
INAKE, EASTERN INDIGO
URTLE, GREEN SEA
TURTLE, HAWKSBILL SEA
TURTLE, KEMP'S (ATLANTIC) RIDLEY
SEA.
TURTLE, LEATHERBACK SEA
'JRTLE, LOGGERHEAD SEA
EAGLE, BALD
AY, FLORIDA SCRUB
CITE, EVERGLADE SNAIL
ITORK, WOOD
VOODPECKER, RED-COCKADED
jTURGEON, GULF
MNATEE, WEST INDIAN (FLORIDA)....
NAKE, EASTERN INDIGO
URTLE, GREEN SEA
URTLE, KEMP'S (ATLANTIC) RIDLEY
SEA.
URTLE, LOGGERHEAD SEA
EAGLE, BALD
AY, FLORIDA SCRUB
TORK, WOOD
VOODPECKER, RED-COCKADED
TURGEON, SHORTNOSE
ANATEE, WEST INDIAN (FLORIDA)....
HODODENDRON, CHAPMAN
NAKE, EASTERN INDIGO
AGLE, BALD
AY, FLORIDA SCRUB
ITE, EVERGLADE SNAIL
Aphelocoma coerulescens coerulescens
Charadrius melodus
Mycteria americana
Picoides borealis
Trichechus manatus
Peromyscus polionotus nlveiventris
Nerodia tasclata taeniata
Drymarchon corais couperi
Chelonia mydas
Eretmochelys imbrioata
Lepidochelys kempil
Dermochelys coriacea
Caretta caretta
Haliaeetus leucooephalus
Rostrhamus sociabilis plumbeus .
Mycteria americana
Picoides borealis .'.
Trichechus manatus
Fells conconcolor cotyi
JACQUEMONTIA RECLINATA ...
Crocodylus acutus
Drymarchon corais couperi
Chelonia mydas
Eretmochelys Imbrioata
Lepidochelys kempii
Dermochelys coriacea
Caretta caretta
Ambystoma cingulatum
Mycteria americana
Elliptic chipolaensis
Amblema neislerii
tfledionidus penicillatus
'leurobema pyriforme
illiptoideus sloatianus
Lampsilis subangulata
ACIPENSER OXYRHYNCHUS
(=OXYRHYNCHUS DESOTOI).
Spigelia gentianoides
3rymarchon corais couperi
Caracara cheriway audubonii
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Aphelocoma coerulescens coerulescens
i/lycteria americana
'icoides borealis
'richechus manatus
Deeringothamus pulchellus
Drymarchon corais couperi
2helonia mydas
Eretmochelys imbricata
.epidochelys kempii ,
T
E, T
E
E
E
T
T
T
E, T
E
E
E
T
T
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
T
E, T
E
E
E
T
T
E
T
E
E, T
Jermochelys coriacea
Caretta caretta
teliaeetus leucocephalus
Aphelocoma coerulescens coerulescens
tostrhamus sociabilis plumbeus
Mycteria americana >
'icoides borealis
\CIPENSER OXYRHYNCHUS
(=OXYRHYNCHUS DESOTOI).
'richechus manatus
irymarchon corais couperi
Jhelonla mydas
epidochelys kempii
E, T
laretta caretta
laliaeetus leucocephalus
phelocoma coerulescens coerulescens
Jlycteria americana
icoides borealis
cipenser brevirostrum
richechus manatus
hododendron chapmanii
rymarchon corais couperi
aliaeetus leucocephalus
phelocoma coerulescens coerulescens
ostrhamus sociabilis plumbeus
-------
Federal Register /Vol. 63, No. 189/Wednesday. September 30. 1998/Notices
II. COUNTY/SPECIES LIST—Continued
[The following list identifies federally listed or proposed U.S. species by State and County It has been updated through July 8,1998. Species
listed below with a status of both E and T are generally either endangered or threatened within the specified county.]
State/County
Group name
Inverse name
Scientific name
Status
MAMMALS
PLANTS ...
REPTILES
COLUMBIA
DADE
BIRDS
CLAMS.
FISHES
REPTILES
BIRDS
DE SOTO.
INSECTS ...
MAMMALS
PLANTS ....
REPTILES
BIRDS
DIXIE .
DUVAL
REPTILES
BIRDS
FISHES
MAMMALS
REPTILES .
BIRDS
FISHES
MAMMALS
REPTILES .
PLOVER, PIPING
SPARROW, CAPE SABLE SEASIDE
STORK, WOOD
WOODPECKER, RED-COCKADED
MANATEE, WEST INDIAN (FLORIDA)....
PANTHER, FLORIDA
SNAKEROOT
CROCODILE, AMERICAN
SNAKE, EASTERN INDIGO
TURTLE, GREEN SEA
TURTLE, HAWKSBILL SEA
TURTLE, KEMP'S (ATLANTIC) RIDLEY
SEA.
TURTLE, LEATHERBACK SEA
TURTLE, LOGGERHEAD SEA
EAGLE, BALD
STORK, WOOD
WOODPECKER, RED-COCKADED ....
OVAL PIGTOE
STURGEON, GULF
Charadrius melodus
Ammodramus (=Ammospiza)
mirabilis.
Mycteria americana
Piooides borealis
Trichechus manatus
Fells conconcolor cotyi
Eryngium cuneifolium
Crocodylus acutus
Drymarchon corals couperi
Chelonia mydas
Eretmochelys imbricata
Lepidochelys kempii
maritimus
SNAKE, EASTERN INDIGO
EAGLE, BALD
KITE, EVERGLADE SNAIL
PLOVER, PIPING
SPARROW, CAPE SABLE SEASIDE
SPARROW, FLORIDA GRASSHOPPER
STORK, WOOD
WOODPECKER, RED-COCKADED
BUTTERFLY, SCHAUS SWALLOWTAIL
MANATEE, WEST INDIAN (FLORIDA)....
PANTHER, FLORIDA
JACQUEMONTIA, BEACH
LEAD-PLANT, CRENULATE
MILKPEA, SMALL'S
POLYGALA, TINY
SPURGE, DELTOID
SPURGE, CAREER'S
CROCODILE, AMERICAN
SNAKE, EASTERN INDIGO
TURTLE, GREEN SEA
TURTLE, HAWKSBILL SEA
TURTLE, KEMP'S (ATLANTIC) RIDLEY
SEA.
TURTLE, LEATHERBACK SEA
TURTLE, LOGGERHEAD SEA
CARACARA, AUDUBON'S CRESTED
EAGLE, BALD
JAY, FLORIDAiSCRUB
STORK, WOOD
SNAKE, EASTERN INDIGO
EAGLE, BALD:
JAY, FLORIDA, SCRUB
STORK, WOOD
WOODPECKER, RED-COCKADED ....
STURGEON, GULF
Dermochelys coriacea „
Caretta caretta '••
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Mycteria americana
Picoides borealis
Pleurobema pyriforme
ACIPENSER OXYRHYNCHUS
(=OXYRHYNCHUS DESOTOI).
Drymarchon corals couperi
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Rostrhamus sociabilis plumbeus
Charadrius melodus
Ammodramus (=Ammospiza) maritimus
mirabilis.
Ammodramus savannarum floridanus
Mycteria americana
Picoides borealis
Heraclides (Papilio) aristodemus
ponceanus.
Trichechus manatus
Felis conconcolor coryi
JACQUEMONTIA RECLINATA
Amoipha crenulata
Galactia smallii
Polygala smallii
Euphorbia (=Chamaesyce) deltoidea ssp
deltoidea.
Euphorbia (=Chamaesyce) gatfaeri
Crocodylus acutus
Drymarchon corais couperi
Chelonia mydas
Eretmochelys imbricata
Lepidochelys kempii
E, T
MANATEE, WEST INDIAN (FLORIDA)..,
SNAKE, EASTERN INDIGO
TURTLE, GREEN SEA
TURTLE, KEMP'S (ATLANTIC) RIDLEY
SEA.
TURTLE, LOGGERHEAD SEA
EAGLE, BALD
PLOVER, PIPING
STORK, WOOD
WOODPECKER, RED-COCKADED
STURGEON, SHORTNOSE
MANATEE, WEST INDIAN (FLORIDA)....
SNAKE, EASTERN INDIGO
TURTLE, GREEN SEA
TURTLE, HAWKSBILL SEA
TURTLE, KEMP'S (ATLANTIC) RIDLEY
SEA.
TURTLE, LEATHERBACK SEA
Dermochelys coriacea
Caretta caretta
Caracara cheriway audubonii
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Aphelocoma coerulescens coerulescens
Mycteria americana
Drymarchon corais couperi
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Aphelocoma coerulescens coerulescens
Mycteria americana
Picoides borealis
ACIPENSER OXYRHYNCHU:
(=OXYRHYNCHUS DESOTOI).
Trichechus manatus
Drymarchon corais couperi
Chelonia mydas
Lepidochelys kempii
Caretta caretta
Haliaeetus leucocephalus ...
Charadrius melodus
Mycteria americana
Picoides borealis
Acipenser brevirostrum
Trichechus manatus
Drymarchon corais couperi.
Chelonia mydas
Eretmochelys imbricata
Lepidochelys kempii
T
E, T
E
T
T
T
T
E
T
T
T
E
E
T
E
T
E, T
E
T
T
E, T
E
E
E
E
T
E, T
E
E
Dermochelys coriacea
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63. No. 189/Wednesday, September 30, 1998/Notices
52517
II. COUNTY/SPECIES LIST—Continued
[The foOowlnfj| list Identifies(federally| listed or proposed U.S. species by State and County. It has been updated through July 8, 1998. Species
listed below with a status of both E and T are generally either endangered or threatened within the specified county.]
State/County
Group name
Inverse name
Scientific name
Status
ESCAMBIA „
BIROS
FISHES
MAMMALS
REPTILES .,
RAGtER .
BIRDS
MAMMALS
REPTILES .
FRANKLIN
AMPHIBIANS
BIRDS
CLAMS .
FISHES .
PLANTS
REPTILES ,
GADSDEN ....
BIRDS
CLAMS
:ISHES .
PLANTS
GH.CHRIST .....
REPTILES .
URDS
ISHES
GLADES
REPTILES .
ilRDS
ISHES
MMMALS
EPTILES .,
TURTLE, LOGGERHEAD SEA
PLOVER, PIPING
STORK, WOOD
WOODPECKER, RED-COCKADED
STURGEON, GULF
MOUSE, PERDIDO KEY BEACH
SNAKE, EASTERN INDIGO
TURTLE, GREEN SEA
TURTLE, HAWKSBILL SEA
TURTLE, KEMP'S (ATLANTIC) RIDLE
SEA.
TURTLE, LEATHERBACK SEA
TURTLE, LOGGERHEAD SEA
EAGLE, BALD
JAY, FLORIDA SCRUB
STORK, WOOD
WOODPECKER, RED-COCKADED ...
MANATEE, WEST INDIAN (FLORIDA)...
SNAKE, EASTERN INDIGO
TURTLE, GREEN SEA
TURTLE, HAWKSBILL SEA
TURTLE, KEMP'S (ATLANTIC) RIDLE1
SEA.
TURTLE, LEATHERBACK SEA
TURTLE, LOGGERHEAD SEA
FLATWOODS SALAMANDER
EAGLE, BALD
PLOVER, PIPING
STORK, WOOD
WOODPECKER, RED-COCKADED ...
FAT THREERIDGE
'URPLE BANKCLIMBER
STURGEON, GULF
BEAUTY, HARPER'S
BIRDS-IN-A-NEST, WHITE
BUTTERWORT, GODFREY'S
SKULLCAP, FLORIDA
SPURGE, TELEPHUS
SNAKE, EASTERN INDIGO
TURTLE, GREEN SEA
TURTLE, HAWKSBILL SEA
"URTLE, KEMP'S (ATLANTIC) RIDLEY
SEA.
•URTLE, LEATHERBACK SEA
TURTLE, LOGGERHEAD SEA
EAGLE, BALD
TTORK, WOOD
FAT THREERIDGE
OCHOLOCKONEE MOCCASINSHELL ...
OVAL PIGTOE
PURPLE BANKCLIMBER
IHINYRAYED POCKETBOOK
STURGEON, GULF
:AMPION, FRINGED
CHAFFSEED, AMERICAN
RHODODENDRON, CHAPMAN
TORREYA, FLORIDA
NAKE, EASTERN INDIGO
AY, FLORIDA SCRUB
TORK, WOOD
VOODPECKER, RED-COCKADED
TURGEON, GULF
NAKE, EASTERN INDIGO
ARACARA, AUDUBON'S CRESTED ....
EAGLE, BALD
AY, FLORIDA SCRUB
ITE, EVERGLADE SNAIL
PARROW, FLORIDA GRASSHOPPER
TORK, WOOD
VOODPECKER, RED-COCKADED
TURGEON, GULF
ANATEE, WEST INDIAN (FLORIDA)....
ANTHER, FLORIDA
NAKE, EASTERN INDIGO
Caretta caretta
Charadrius melodus
Mycteria americana
Picoides borealis
ACIPENSER OXYRHYNCHU
(=OXYRHYNCHUS DESOTOI).
Peromyscus polionotus trissyllepsis
Drymarchon corals couperi
Chelonia mydas
Eretmochelys Imbricata
Lepldochelys kempll
Dermochelys corlacea
Caretta caretta
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Aphelocoma coerulescens coerulescens
Mycteria americana
Picoides borealis
Trichechus manatus
Drymarchon corals couperi
Chelonia mydas
Eretmochelys imbricata
Lepidochelys kempii
Dermochelys coriacea
Caretta caretta
Ambystoma clngulatum
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Oharadrius melodus
Mycteria americana
Picoides borealis
Amblema nelslerli
Elliptoideus sloatianus
ACIPENSER OXYRHYNCHUS
(=OXYRHYNCHUS DESOTI).
Harperocallls flava
Macbridea alba
'INGUICULA IONANTHA
Scutellaria floridana
Euphorbia telephioldes
3rymarchon corals couperi
Jhelonia mydas
Eretmochelys imbricata
Lepidochelys kempii
Dermochelys coriacea
:aretta caretta
teliaeetus leuoocephalus
Mycteria americana
Amblema neislerii
dedionidus simpsonlanus
=leurobema pyriforme
Elliptoideus sloatianus
Lampsilis subangulata
tCIPENSER OXYRHYNCHUS
(OXYRHYNCHUS DESOTOI).
Silene polypetala
iCHWALBEA AMERICANA
Ihododendron chapmanii
~~orreya taxifolia
)rymarchon corals couperi
\phelocoma coerulescens coerulescens
Mycteria americana
'icoides borealis
•CIPENSER OXYRHYNCHUS
(=OXYRHYNCHUS DESOTOI).
irymarchon corals couperi
iaracara cheriway audubonli
allaeetus leucocephalus
phelocoma coerulescens coerulescens
ostrhamus soclabilis plumbeus
mmodramus savannarum floridanus
tycteria americana
icoides borealis
CIPENSER OXYRHYNCHUS
(=OXYRHYNCHUS DESOTOI).
richechus manatus
ells oonconcolor coryi
rymarchon corals couperi
T
E, T
E
E
T
E
T
E, T
E
E
E
T
T
T
E
E
E
T
E, T
E
E
E
T
T
T
E, T
E
E
E
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
E, T
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 189/Wednesday, September 30, 1998/Notices -
II. COUNTY/SPECIES LIST—Continued
[The following list identifies federally listed or proposed U.S. species by State and County. It has been updated through July 8, 1998. Species
listed below with a status of both E and T are generally either endangered or threatened within the specified county.]
State/County
Group name
Inverse name
Scientific name
Status
GULF.
BIRDS
LAMS
FISHES
MAMMALS
PLANTS ....
REPTILES
HAMILTON .
BIRDS ..
FISHES
HARDEE
REPTILES
BIRDS
MAMMALS
PLANTS ....
HENDRY
REPTILES .
BIRDS
HERNANDO ,
MAMMALS
REPTILES .
BIRDS
MAMMALS
PLANTS ....
REPTILES
HIGHLANDS
BIRDS
BIRDS
MAMMALS
PLANTS ....
EAGLE, BALD
AY, FLORIDA SCRUB
'LOVER, PIPING
STORK, WOOD
WOODPECKER, RED-COCKADED
FAT THREERIDGE
tIRPLE BANKCLIMBER
STURGEON, GULF
MANATEE, WEST INDIAN (FLORIDA)....
ST. ANDREW BEACH MOUSE
BIRDS-IN-A-NEST, WHITE
BUTTERWORT, GODFREY'S
RHODODENDRON, CHAPMAN
SPURGE, TELEPHUS
SNAKE, EASTERN INDIGO
TURTLE, GREEN SEA
TURTLE, HAWKSBILL SEA
TURTLE, KEMP'S (ATLANTIC) RIDLEY
SEA.
TURTLE, LOGGERHEAD SEA
STORK, WOOD
WOODPECKER, RED-COCKADED
STURGEON, GULF
iNAKE, EASTERN INDIGO
IARACARA, AUDUBON'S CRESTED ....
EAGLE, BALD
JAY, FLORIDA SCRUB
STORK, WOOD
WOODPECKER, RED-COCKADED
MANATEE, WEST INDIAN (FLORIDA)....
BONAMIA, FLORIDA
FRINGE TREE, PYGMY
SNAKE, EASTERN INDIGO
CARACARA, AUDUBON'S CRESTED ....
EAGLE, BALD
JAY, FLORIDA SCRUB
KITE, EVERGLADE SNAIL
STORK, WOOD
WOODPECKER, RED-COCKADED
MANATEE, WEST INDIAN (FLORIDA)....
PANTHER, FLORIDA
SNAKE, EASTERN INDIGO
EAGLE, BALD
JAY, FLORIDA SCRUB
STORK, WOOD
WOODPECKER, RED-COCKADED
MANATEE, WEST INDIAN (FLORIDA)....
BEARGRASS, BRITTON'S
BELLFLOWER, BROOKSVILLE
WATER-WILLOW, COOLEY'S
SNAKE, EASTERN INDIGO ..
TURTLE, GREEN SEA
TURTLE, HAWKSBILL SEA
TURTLE, KEMP'S (ATLANTIC) RIDLE'
SEA.
TURTLE, LEATHERBACK SEA
TURTLE, LOGGERHEAD SEA
CARACARA, AUDUBON'S CRESTED ...
EAGLE, BALD
JAY, FLORIDA SCRUB
KITE, EVERGLADE SNAIL
SPARROW, FLORIDA GRASSHOPPER
STORK, WOOD
WOODPECKER, RED-COCKADED
PANTHER, FLORIDA
BEARGRASS, BRITTON'S
BLAZING STAR, SCRUB
BONAMIA, FLORIDA
BUCKWHEAT, SCRUB
CLADONIA, FLORIDA PERFORATE
FRINGE TREE, PYGMY
HAREBELLS, AVON PARK
HYPERICUM, HIGHLANDS SCRUB
MINT, GARRETTS
MINT, SCRUB :
MUSTARD, CARTER'S
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Aphelocoma coerulescens coerulescens
3haradrius melodus
vlycteria amerlcana
'icoides borealis
Amblema neislerii
EUiptoideus sloatianus
ACIPENSER OXYRHYNCHUS
(=OXYRHYNCHUS DESOTOI).
'richechus manatus
'eromyscus polionotus peninsularis
vlacbridea alba
PINGUICULA IONANTHA
Rhododendron chapmanii
Euphorbia telephioldes
3rymarchon corais couperi
Chelonia mydas
Eretmochelys imbricata
Lepidochelys kempii
aretta caretta
i/lycteria americana
Picoides borealis
ACIPENSER OXYRHYNCHUS
(=OXYRHYNCHUS DESOTOI).
Drymarchon corais couperi
Caracara cheriway audubonii
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Aphelocoma coerulescens coerulescens
Mycteria americana
'icoides borealis
Trichechus manatus
Bonamia grandiflora
Chionanthus pygmaeus
Drymarchon corais couperi
Caracara cheriway audubonii
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Aphelocoma coerulescens coerulescens
Rostrhamus sociabilis plumbeus
Mycteria americana
Picoides borealis
Trichechus manatus
Felis conconcolor coryi
Drymarchon corais couperi
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Aphelocoma coerulescens coerulescens
Mycteria americana
Picoides borealis
Trichechus manatus
NOLINA BRITTONIANA
Campanula robinsiae
Justicia cooleyi
Drymarchon corais couperi
Chelonia mydas
Eretmochelys imbricata
Lepidochelys kempii
Dermochelys coriacea
Caretta caretta
Caracara cheriway audubonii
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Aphelocoma coerulescens coerulescens
Rostrhamus sociabilis plumbeus
Ammodramus savannarum floridanus
Mycteria americana
Picoides borealis - ...
Felis conconcolor coryi
NOLINA BRITTONIANA
Liatris ohlingerae
Bonamia grandiflora
ERIOGONUM LONGIFOLIUM VAR
GNAPHALIFOLIUM.
CLADONIA PERFORATA
Chionanthus pygmaeus
CROTALARIA AVONENSIS
Hypericum cumulicola
Dicerandra christmanii
Dicerandra frutescens -.
Warea carteri
E, T
T
T
E, T
T
T
T
T
E
E
E
E
E
T
T
T
E
E
E
E
E
E
T
E, T
E
E
E
T
T
T
T
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
T
T
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 189/Wednesday, September 30, 1998/Notices
52519
II. COUNTY/SPECIES LIST—Continued
[The Mowing list Identifiesfederally listed or proposed U.S. species by State and County. It has been updated through July 8, 1998. Species
listed below with a status of both E and T are generally either endangered or threatened within the specified county.]
State/County
Group name
Inverse name
Scientific name
Status
HILLS8OROUGH .
REPTILES ,
BIRDS
FISHES ....
MAMMALS
PLANTS ....
REPTILES ,
HOLMES ..„....„
AMPHIBIANS
BIRDS
INDIAN RIVER.
REPTILES ,
BIRDS ,
MAMMALS
PLANTS ...
REPTILES ,
JACKSON
AMPHIBIANS
BIRDS
;LAMS ,
FISHES
MAMMALS
PLANTS
JEFFERSON
REPTILES .
BIRDS
FISHES
'LANTS ...
REPTILES ,
LAFAYETTE.
BIRDS ..
FISHES
PLUM, SCRUB
POLYGALA, LEWTON'S
ROSEMARY, SHORT-LEAVED
SNAKEROOT
WHITLOW-WORT, PAPERY
WINGS, PIGEON
WIREWEED
ZIZIPHUS, FLORIDA
SKINK, BLUE-TAILED MOLE
SKINK, SAND
SNAKE, EASTERN INDIGO
EAGLE, BALD
JAY, FLORIDA SCRUB
PLOVER, PIPING
STORK, WOOD
WOODPECKER, RED-COCKADED
STURGEON, GULF
MANATEE, WEST INDIAN (FLORIDA)..
ASTER, FLORIDA GOLDEN
SNAKE, EASTERN INDIGO
TURTLE, GREEN SEA
TURTLE, HAWKSBILL SEA
TURTLE, KEMP'S (ATLANTIC) RIDLEY
SEA.
TURTLE, LEATHERBACK SEA
TURTLE, LOGGERHEAD SEA
FLATWOODS SALAMANDER
STORK, WOOD
WOODPECKER, RED-COCKADED
SNAKE, EASTERN INDIGO
CARACARA, AUDUBON'S CRESTED ....
EAGLE, BALD
JAY, FLORIDA SCRUB
KITE, EVERGLADE SNAIL
STORK, WOOD
WOODPECKER, RED-COCKADED
MANATEE, WEST INDIAN (FLORIDA)....
MOUSE, SOUTHEASTERN BEACH
MINT, LAKELA'S
SNAKE, ATLANTIC SALT MARSH
SNAKE, EASTERN INDIGO
TURTLE, GREEN SEA
TURTLE, HAWKSBILL SEA
TURTLE, KEMP'S (ATLANTIC) RIDLEY
SEA.
TURTLE, LEATHERBACK SEA
TURTLE, LOGGERHEAD SEA
FLATWOODS SALAMANDER
STORK, WOOD
WOODPECKER, RED-COCKADED
CHIPOLA SLABSHELL
FAT THREERIDGE
ULF MOCCASINSHELL
OVAL PIGTOE
PURPLE BANKCLIMBER
SHINYRAYED POCKETBOOK
STURGEON, GULF
BAT, GRAY
BAT, INDIANA
PINKROOT, GENTIAN
•ORREYA, FLORIDA
SNAKE, EASTERN INDIGO.
EAGLE, BALD
STORK, WOOD
STURGEON, GULF
GOOSEBERRY, MICCOSUKEE (FLOR-
IDA).
SNAKE, EASTERN INDIGO
TURTLE, GREEN SEA
TURTLE, KEMP'S (ATLANTIC) RIDLEY
SEA.
URTLE, LOGGERHEAD SEA
STORK, WOOD
WOODPECKER, RED-COCKADED
STURGEON, GULF
Prunus geniculata
POLYGALA LEWTONII
CONRADINA BREVIFOLIA
Eryngium cuneifolium
Paronychla chartacea
CLITORIA FRAGRANS
Polygonella baslramia
Ziziphus celata
Eumeces egregius lividus
Neoseps reynoldsi
Drymarchon corals couperi
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Aphelocoma coerulescens coerulescens
Charadrius melodus
Mycteria americana
Picoldes borealis
ACIPENSER OXYRHYNCHUS
(=OXYRHYNCHUS DESOTOI).
Trichechus manatus
Chrysopsis floridana (=Heterotheca
floridana).
Drymarchon corals couperi
Chelonia mydas
Eretmochelys imbricata
Lepidochelys kempii
Dermochelys coriacea
Caretta caretta
Ambystoma cingulatum
Mycteria americana
Plcoides borealis
Drymarchon corals couperi
Caracara cheriway audubonil
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Aphelocoma coerulescens coerulescens
Rostrhamus sociabilis plumbeus
Mycteria americana
Picoides borealis
Trichechus manatus
Peromyscus pollonotus niveiventris
Dicerandra immaculata
Nerodia fasciata taeniata
Drymarchon corals couperi
Chelonia mydas
Eretmochelys imbricata
Lepidochelys kempii
Dermochelys coriacea
Caretta caretta
Ambystoma cingulatum
Wycteria americana
"fcoldes borealis
Elliptic chlpolaensis
Amblema neislerii
Wedionidus penicillatus
3leurobema pyriforme
Elliptoideus sioatianus
Lampsilis subangulata
ACIPENSER OXYRHYNCHUS
(=OXYRHYNCHUS DESOTOI).
i/lyotis grisescens
dyotis sodalis
Spigelia gentianoldes
Torreya taxifolia
Jrymarchon corals couperi
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Mycteria americana
ACIPENSER OXYRHYNCHUS
(=OXYRHYNCHUS DESOTOI).
Ribes echinellum
Drymarchon corals couperi.
Dhelonia mydas
Lepidochelys kempii
iaretta caretta
Mycteria americana
'icoides borealis
ACIPENSER OXYRHYNCHUS
(=OXYRHYNCHUS DESOTOI).
E
E
E
E
T
T
E
E
T
T
T
T
T
E, T
E
E
T
E
E
T
E, T
E
E
E
T
T
E
E
T
T
T
T
E
E
E
E
T
E
T
T
E, T
E
T
T
F
T
E, T
-------
52520
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 189/Wednesday, September 30, 1998/Notices
II. COUNTY/SPECIES LIST—Continued
[The following list identifies federally listed or proposed U.S. species by State and County. It has been updated through July 8, 1998. Species
listed below with a status of both E and T are generally either endangered or threatened within the specified county.]
State/County
Group name
Inverse name
Scientific name
Status
LAKE
REPTILES ,
BIRDS
MAMMALS
'LANTS ....
LEE
REPTILES
BIRDS
MAMMALS
LANTS ...,
REPTILES ,
LEON
BIRDS ..
CLAMS
LEVY
REPTILES .
BIRDS
FISHES
MAMMALS
REPTILES .
LIBERTY
AMPHIBIANS
BIRDS
CLAMS ..
FISHES .
PLANTS
MADISON
REPTILES .
BIRDS
FISHES
MANATEE .
REPTILES
BIRDS
SNAKE, EASTERN INDIGO
EAGLE, BALD
AY, FLORIDA SCRUB
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63. No. 189/Wednesday, September 30. 1998/Notices
52521
II. COUNTY/SPECIES LIST—Continued
[The following, list identifies federally listed or proposed U.S. species by State and County. It has been updated through July 8 1998 Species
listed below with a status of both E and T are generally either endangered or threatened within the specified county.]
State/County
Group name
Inverse name
Scientific name
Status
FISHES
MAMMALS
REPTILES .
MARION,
BIRDS ....
MAMMALS
PLANTS ....
MARTIN ....
REPTILES
BIRDS ,
MAMMALS
PLANTS ....
REPTILES ..
MONROE ....
BIRDS
INSECTS ...
MAMMALS
PLANTS ....
REPTILES .
NASSAU
SNAILS
BIRDS ..
MAMMALS
REPTILES .
JAY, FLORIDA SCRUB
PLOVER, PIPING
STORK, WOOD
WOODPECKER, RED-COCKADED
STURGEON, GULF
MANATEE, WEST INDIAN (FLORIDA)...
SNAKE, EASTERN INDIGO
TURTLE, GREEN SEA
TURTLE, HAWKSBILL SEA
TURTLE, KEMP'S (ATLANTIC) RIDLEY
SEA.
TURTLE, LEATHERBACK SEA
TURTLE, LOGGERHEAD SEA
EAGLE, BALD
JAY, FLORIDA SCRUB
KITE, EVERGLADE SNAIL
STORK, WOOD
WOODPECKER, RED-COCKADED ....
MANATEE, WEST INDIAN (FLORIDA)....
BONAMIA, FLORIDA
BUCKWHEAT, SCRUB
MINT, LONGSPURRED
POLYGALA, LEWTON'S
SKINK, SAND
SNAKE, EASTERN INDIGO
CARACARA, AUDUBON'S CRESTED ....
EAGLE, BALD
JAY, FLORIDA SCRUB
KITE, EVERGLADE SNAIL
PLOVER, PIPING
STORK, WOOD
WOODPECKER, RED-COCKADED
MANATEE, WEST INDIAN (FLORIDA)....
PAWPAW, FOUR-PETAL
SNAKE, EASTERN INDIGO
TURTLE, GREEN SEA
TURTLE, HAWKSBILL SEA
TURTLE, KEMP'S (ATLANTIC) RIDLEY
SEA.
TURTLE, LEATHERBACK SEA
TURTLE, LOGGERHEAD SEA
CARACARA, AUDUBON'S CRESTED ....
EAGLE, BALD
KITE, EVERGLADE SNAIL
PLOVER, PIPING
SPARROW, CAPE SABLE SEASIDE
STORK, WOOD
TERN, ROSEATE
WOODPECKER, RED-COCKADED
BUTTERFLY, SCHAUS SWALLOWTAIL
DEER, KEY
MANATEE, WEST INDIAN (FLORIDA)....
MOUSE, KEY LARGO COTTON
'ANTHER, FLORIDA
RABBIT, LOWER KEYS
RAT, SILVER RICE
RICE RAT (=SILVER RICE RAT)..
WOODRAT, KEY LARGO
IACTUS, KEY TREE
SPURGE, CAREER'S
ROCODILE, AMERICAN
SNAKE, EASTERN INDIGO
TURTLE, GREEN SEA
TURTLE, HAWKSBILL SEA
TURTLE, KEMP'S (ATLANTIC) RIDLEY
SEA.
TURTLE, LEATHERBACK SEA
TURTLE, LOGGERHEAD SEA
SNAIL, STOCK ISLAND
STORK, WOOD
WOODPECKER, RED-COCKADED
MANATEE, WEST INDIAN (FLORIDA)....
SNAKE, EASTERN INDIGO
Aphelocoma coerulescens coerulescens
Charadrius melodus
Mycteria americana
Plcoldes borealis
ACIPENSER OXYRHYNCHUS
(=OXYRHYNCHUS DESOTOI).
Trichechus manatus
Drymarchon corals couperi
Chelonia mydas
Eretmochelys imbrlcata
Lepidochelys kempli
Dermochelys coriacea
Caretta caretta
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Aphelocoma coerulescens coerulescens
Rostrhamus sociabllis plumbeus
Mycteria americana
Picoides borealis
Trichechus manatus
Bonamia grandiflora
Eriogonum Longifolium Var
Gnaphalifolium.
Dicerandra cornutissima
Polygala Lewtonii
Neoseps reynoldsi
Drymarchon corals couperi
Caracara cheriway audubonli
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Aphelocoma coerulescens coerulescens
Rostrhamus sociabilis plumbeus
Charadrius melodus
Mycteria americana
Picoides borealis
Trichechus manatus
Asimina tetramera
Drymarchon corals couperi
Chelonia mydas
Eretmochelys imbricata
Lepidochelys kempli
Dermochelys coriacea
Caretta caretta
Caracara cheriway audubonii
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Rostrhamus sociabilis plumbeus
Charadrius melodus ,
Ammodramus (=Ammospiza) maritimus
mirabilis.
Mycteria americana
Sterna dougalli dougalli
Picoides borealis
Heraclides (Papilio) aristodemus
ponceanus.
Ddocoileus virginianus clavlum
Trichechus manatus
3eromyscus gossypinus allapaticola
relis conconcolor cotyi
Bylvilagus palustris hefneri
Oryzomys palustris natator (=O.
argentatus).
Oryzomys palustris natator (=O.
argentatus.
vleotoma floridana small!
3ereus robinii
Euphorbia (=Chamaesyce) garberi
Drocodylus acutus
Drymarchon corals couperi
"tielonia mydas
Eretmochelys imbricata
Lepidochelys kempli
Dermochelys coriacea
Jaretta caretta
Drthalicus reses
Mycteria americana
nicoides borealis
rrichechus manatus
Drymarchon corals couperi
T
E, T
E
E
T
E
T
E, T
E
E
E
T
T
T
E
E
E
E
T
T
E
E
T
T
T
T
T
E
E, T
E
E
E
E
T
E, T
E
E
E
T
T
T
E
E, T
E
E
E, T
T
E, T
-------
52522
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 189/Wednesday, September 30, 1998/Notices
II. COUNTY/SPECIES LIST—Continued
[The following list identifies federally listed or proposed U.S. species by State and County. It has been updated through July 8, 1998. Species
listed below with a status of both E and T are generally either endangered or-threatened within the specified county.]
Stale/County
Group name
Inverse name
Scientific name
Status
OKALOOSA
AMPHIBIANS
BIRDS
FISHES
PLANTS ...
REPTILES
OKEECHOBEE
BIRDS
ORANGE.
MAMMALS
REPTILiHS .
BIRDS
PLANTS
OSCEOLA ,
REPTILES
BIRDS
PLANTS,.
PALM BEACH .
REPTILES
BIRDS
MAMMALS
PLANTS ....
REPTILES
TURTLE, GREEN SEA
TURTLE, HAWKSBILL SEA
TURTLE, KEMP'S (ATLANTIC) RIDLEY
SEA.
TURTLE, LEATHERBACK SEA
TURTLE, LOGGERHEAD SEA
FLATWOODS SALAMANDER
PLOVER, PIPING
STORK, WOOD
WOODPECKER, RED-COCKADED
DARTER, OKALOOSA
STURGEON, GULF
CLADONIA, FLORIDA PERFORATE
SNAKE, EASTERN INDIGO
TURTLE, GREEN SEA
TURTLE, HAWKSBILL SEA
TURTLE, KEMP'S (ATLANTIC) RIDLEY
SEA.
TURTLE, LEATHERBACK SEA
TURTLE, LOGGERHEAD SEA
CARACARA, AUDUBON'S CRESTED ....
EAGLE, BALD
JAY, FLORIDA SCRUB
KITE, EVERGLADE SNAIL
SPARROW, FLORIDA GRASSHOPPER
STORK, WOOD
WOODPECKER, RED-COCKADED
MANATEE, WEST INDIAN (FLORIDA)....
SNAKE, EASTERN INDIGO
CARACARA, AUDUBON'S CRESTED ....
EAGLE, BALD
JAY, FLORIDA SCRUB
KITE, EVERGLADE SNAIL
STORK, WOOD
WOODPECKER, RED-COCKADED
BEARGRASS, BRITTON'S
BONAMIA, FLORIDA
BUCKWHEAT, SCRUB
LUPINE, SCRUB
PAWPAW, BEAUTIFUL
SANDLACE
WHITLOW-WORT, PAPERY
SKINK, SAND
SNAKE, EASTERN INDIGO
CARACARA, AUDUBON'S CRESTED ....
EAGLE, BALD
JAY, FLORIDA SCRUB
KITE, EVERGLADE SNAIL
SPARROW, FLORIDA GRASSHOPPER
STORK, WOOD
WOODPECKER, RED-COCKADED
BUCKWHEAT, SCRUB
PASCO.
BIRDS
FRINGE TREE, PYGMY
POLYGALA, LEWTON'S
SANDLACE
SNAKE, EASTERN INDIGO
CARACARA, AUDUBON'S CRESTED ....
EAGLE, BALD
JAY, FLORIDA SCRUB
KITE, EVERGLADE SNAIL
PLOVER, PIPING :
STORK, WOOD
WOODPECKER, RED-COCKADED
MANATEE, WEST INDIAN (FLORIDA)....
GOURD, OKEECHOBEE
JACQUEMONTIA, BEACH
PAWPAW, FOURPETAL
SNAKE, EASTERN INDIGO
TURTLE, GREEN SEA
TURTLE, HAWKSBILL SEA
TURTLE, KEMP'S (ATLANTIC) RIDLEY
SEA.
TURTLE, LEATHERBACK SEA
TURTLE, LOGGERHEAD SEA
EAGLE, BALD
JAY, FLORIDA SCRUB
Chelonia mydas
Eretmochelys imbricata.
Lepldochelys kempii
Dermochelys coriacea
Caretfa caretta
Ambystoma cingulatum
Charadrius melodus
Mycteria americana
Picoides borealis
Etheostoma okaloosae
AC1PENSER OXYRHYNCHUS
(=OXYRHYNCHUS DESOTOI).
CLADONIA PERFORATA
Drymarchon corals couperi
Chelonia mydas
Eretmochelys imbricata
Lepidochelys kempii
Dermochelys coriacea
Caretta caretta
Caracara cheriway audubonii
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Aphelocoma coerulescens coerulescens
Rostrhamus sociabilis plumbeus
Ammodramus savannarum floridanus
Mycteria americana
Picoides borealis
Trichechus manatus
Drymarchon corais couperi
Caracara cheriway audubonii
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Aphelocoma coerulescens coerulescens
Rostrhamus sociabilis plumbeus
Mycteria americana
Picoides borealis
NOLINA BRITTON1ANA
Bonamia grandiflora
ERIOGONUM LONGIFOLIUM VAR.
GNAPHLIFOLIUM.
Lupinus aridorum
Deeringothamus pulchellus
POLYGONELLA MYRIOPHYLLA
Paronychia chartacea
Neoseps reynoldsi
Drymarchon corais couperi
Caracara cheriway audubonii
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Aphelocoma coerulescens coerulescens
Rostrhamus sociabilis plumbeus
Ammodramus savannarum floridanus
Mycteria americana
Picoides borealis
ERIOGONUM LONGIFOLIUM VAR.
GNAPHALIFOLIUM.
Chionanthus pygmaeus
POLYGALA LEWTONII
POLYGONELLA MYRIOPHYLLA
Drymarchon corais couperi
Caracara cheriway audubonii
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Aphelocoma coerulescens coerulescens
Rostrhamus sociabilis plumbeus
Charadrius melodus
Mycteria americana
Picoides borealis
Trichechus manatus
CUCURBITA OKEECHEOBEENSIS
JACQUEMONTIA RECLINATA
Asimina tetramera
Drymarchon corais couperi
Chelonia mydas
Eretmochelys imbricata
Lepidochelys kempii
Dermochelys coriacea
Caretta caretta
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Aphelocoma coerulescens coerulescens
E,T
E
E
E
T
T
E, T
E
E
E
T
E
T
E, T
E
E
E
T
T
T
T
E
E
E
E
E
T
T
T
T
E
E
E
E
T
T
E
E
E
T
T
T
T
T
T
E
E
E
E
T
E
E
E
T
T
T
T
E
E, T
E
E
E
E
E
E
T
E, T
E
E
E
T
T
T
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 189/Wednesday, September 30, 1998/Notices
52523
II. COUNTY/SPECIES LIST—Continued
fjha following list Identifies federally listed or proposed U.S. species by State and County. It has been updated through July 8, 1998. Species
listed below with a status of both E and T are generally either endangered or threatened within the specified county.]
State/County
Group name
Inverse name
Scientific name
Status
FISHES
MAMMALS
REPTILES ,
PINEUAS ,
BIRDS
FISHES
MAMMALS
REPTILES .
POLK.
BIRDS
PLANTS
PUTNAM ..„..
REPTILES
BIRDS
FISHES
MAMMALS
PLANTS ....
SANTA ROSA.
REPTILES
AMPHIBIANS
BIRDS
FISHES ....
REPTILES
SARASOTA.
BIRDS
PLOVER, PIPING
STORK, WOOD
WOODPECKER, RED-COCKADED
STURGEON, GULF
MANATEE, WEST INDIAN (FLORIDA)....
SNAKE, EASTERN INDIGO
TURTLE, GREEN SEA
TURTLE, HAWKSBILL SEA
TURTLE, KEMP'S (ATLANTIC) RIDLEY
SEA.
TURTLE, LEATHERBACK SEA
TURTLE, LOGGERHEAD SEA
EAGLE, BALD
PLOVER, PIPING
STORK, WOOD
WOODPECKER, RED-COCKADED ....
STURGEON, GULF
MANATEE, WEST INDIAN (FLORIDA)....
SNAKE, EASTERN INDIGO
TURTLE, GREEN SEA
TURTLE, HAWKSBILL SEA
TURTLE, KEMP'S (ATLANTIC) RIDLEY
SEA.
TURTLE, LEATHERBACK SEA
TURTLE, LOGGERHEAD SEA
CARACARA, AUDUBON'S CRESTED ....
EAGLE, BALD
JAY, FLORIDA SCRUB
KITE, EVERGLADE SNAIL
SPARROW, FLORIDA GRASSHOPPER
STORK, WOOD
WOODPECKER, RED-COCKADED
BEARGRASS, BRITTON'S
BLAZING STAR, SCRUB
BONAMIA, FLORIDA
FRINGE TREE, PYGMY
HAREBELLS, AVON PARK
HYPERICUM, HIGHLANDS SCRUB
LUPINE, SCRUB
MUSTARD, CARTER'S
PLUM, SCRUB
POLYGALA, LEWTON'S
ROSEMARY, SHORTLEAVED
SANDLACE
WAREA, WIDELEAF
WHITLOW-WORT, PAPERY
WINGS, PIGEON
WIREWEED
ZIZIPHUS, FLORIDA
SKINK, BLUETAILED MOLE
SKINK, SAND
SNAKE, EASTERN INDIGO
EAGLE, BALD
JAY, FLORIDA SCRUB
STORK, WOOD
WOODPECKER, RED-COCKADED
STURGEON, SHORTNOSE
MANATEE, WEST INDIAN (FLORIDA)....
ROSEMARY, ETONIA
SNAKEROOT
SNAKE, EASTERN INDIGO
FLATWOODS SALAMANDER
PLOVER, PIPING
STORK, WOOD
WOODPECKER, RED-COCKADED
STURGEON, GULF
SNAKE, EASTERN INDIGO
TURTLE, GREEN SEA
TURTLE, HAWKSBILL SEA
TURTLE, KEMP'S (ATLANTIC) RIDLEY
SEA.
TURTLE, LEATHERBACK SEA
TURTLE, LOGGERHEAD SEA
tARACARA, AUDUBON'S CRESTED ....
EAGLE, BALD
JAY, FLORIDA SCRUB
Charadrius melodus
Mycteria americana
Picoldes borealis
ACIPENSER OXYRHYNCHUS
(=OXYRHYNCHUS DESOTOI).
Trichechus manatus
Drymarchon corals couperi
Chelonia mydas
Eretmochelys imbricata
Lepldochelys kempil
Dermochelys coriacea
Caretta caretta
Hallaeetus leucocephalus
Charadrius melodus
Mycteria americana
Picoides borealis
ACIPENSER OXYRHVNCHUS
(=OXYRHYNCHUS DESOTOI).
Trichechus manatus
Drymarchon corals couperi
Chelonia mydas
Eretmochelys imbricata
Lepidochelys kempii
Dermochelys coriacea
Caretta caretta
Caracara cheriway audubonii
Hallaeetus leucocephalus
Aphelocoma coerulescens coerulescens
Rostrhamus sociabilis plumbeus
Ammodramus savannarum floridanus
Mycteria americana
Picoides borealis
NOLINA BRITTONIANA
Liatris ohlingerae
Bonamla grandiflora
Chlonanthus pygmaeus
CROTALARIA AVONENSIS
Hypericum cumulicola
Lupinus aridorum
Warea carter!
Prunus geniculata
POLYGALA LEWTONII
CONRADINA BREVIFOLIA
POLYGONELLA MYRIOPHYLLA
Warea amplexifolia
Paronychia chartacea
CLITORIA FRAGRANS
Polygonella basiramia
Ziziphus celata
Eumeces egregius lividus
Neoseps reynoldsl
Drymarchon corals couperi
Hallaeetus leucocephalus
Aphelocoma coerulescens coerulescens
Mycteria americana
Picoides borealis
Acipenser brevirostrum
Trichechus manatus
CONRADINA ETONIA
Eryngium cuneifolium
Drymarchon corals couperi
Ambystoma clngulatum
Charadrius melodus
Mycteria americana
Picoides borealis
ACIPENSER OXYRHYNCHUS
(-OXYRHYNCHUS DESOTOI).
Drymarchon corals couperi
Chelonia mydas
Eretmochelys imbricata
Lepldochelys kempii
Dermochelys coriacea
Caretta caretta
Caracara cheriway audubonii
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Aphelocoma coerulescens coerulescens
E, T
E
E
T
E
T.
E, T
E
E
E
T
T
E, T
E
E
T
E
T
E, T
E
E
E
T
T
T
T
E
E
E
E
E
E
T
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
T
T
E
E
T
T
T
T
T
E
E
E
E
E
E
T
T
E, T
E
E
T
T
E,T
E
E
E
T
T
T
T
-------
52524
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 189/Wednesday, September 30, 1998/Notices
II. COUNTY/SPECIES LIST—Continued
[The following list identifies federally listed or proposed U.S. species by State and County. It has been updated through July 8, 1998. Species
listed below with a status of both E and T are generally either endangered or threatened within the specified county.]
State/County
Group name
Inverse name
Scientific name
Status
MAMMALS
REPTILES .
SEMINOLE .
BIRDS
ST. JOHNS
MAMMALS
REPTILES .
BIRDS
MAMMALS
REPTILES .
ST. LUCIE .
BIRDS
MAMMALS
PLANTS ....
REPTILES .
SUMTER
BIRDS
SUWANNEE
REPTILES .
BIRDS
FISHES
TAYLOR .
REPTILES ,
BIRDS
FISHES
MAMMALS
REPTILES .
UNION ,
BIRDS
VOLUSIA .
CLAMS
REPTILES
BIRDS
PLOVER, PIPING ;.
STORK, WOOD
WOODPECKER, RED-COCKADED
MANATEE, WEST INDIAN (FLORIDA)....
SNAKE, EASTERN INDIGO
TURTLE, GREEN SEA
TURTLE, HAWKSBILL SEA
TURTLE, KEMP'S (ATLANTIC) RIDLEY
SEA.
TURTLE, LEATHERBACK SEA
TURTLE, LOGGERHEAD SEA
EAGLE, BALD
JAY, FLORIDA SCRUB
STORK, WOOD
WOODPECKER, RED-COCKADED
MANATEE, WEST INDIAN (FLORIDA)....
SNAKE, EASTERN INDIGO
EAGLE, BALD
JAY, FLORIDA SCRUB
PLOVER, PIPING
STORK, WOOD
WOODPECKER, RED-COCKADED
MANATEE, WEST INDIAN (FLORIDA)....
MOUSE, ANASTASIA ISLAND BEACH...
SNAKE, EASTERN INDIGO
TURTLE, GREEN SEA
TURTLE, HAWKSBILL SEA
TURTLE, KEMP'S (ATLANTIC) RIDLEY
SEA.
TURTLE, LEATHERBACK SEA
TURTLE, LOGGERHEAD SEA
CARACARA, AUDUBON'S CRESTED ....
EAGLE, BALD
JAY, FLORIDA SCRUB
KITE, EVERGLADE SNAIL
PLOVER, PIPING
STORK, WOOD
WOODPECKER, RED-COCKADED
MANATEE, WEST INDIAN (FLORIDA)....
MOUSE, SOUTHEASTERN BEACH
MINT, LAKELA'S
PRICKLY-APPLE, FRAGRANT
SNAKE, EASTERN INDIGO
TURTLE, GREEN SEA
TURTLE, HAWKSBILL SEA
TURTLE, KEMP'S (ATLANTIC) RIDLEY
SEA.
TURTLE, LEATHERBACK SEA
TURTLE, LOGGERHEAD SEA
EAGLE, BALD ......
JAY, FLORIDA SCRUB
KITE, EVERGLADE SNAIL
STORK, WOOD
WOODPECKER, RED-COCKADED ....
SNAKE, EASTERN INDIGO
EAGLE, BALD
STORK, WOOD
WOODPECKER, RED-COCKADED ....
STURGEON, GULF
SNAKE, EASTERN INDIGO
EAGLE, BALD....:
PLOVER, PIPING
STORK, WOOD
WOODPECKER, RED-COCKADED
STURGEON, GULF
MANATEE, WEST INDIAN (FLORIDA)....
SNAKE, EASTERN INDIGO
TURTLE, GREEN SEA
TURTLE, KEMP'S (ATLANTIC) RIDLEY
SEA.
TURTLE, LOGGERHEAD SEA
STORK, WOOD
WOODPECKER, RED-COCKADED
OVAL PIGTOE
SNAKE, EASTERN INDIGO
EAGLE, BALD
JAY, FLORIDA SCRUB
Charadrius melodus
Mycteria americana
Picoides borealis
Trichechus manatus
Drymarchon corals couperi.
Chelonia mydas
Eretmochelys imbricata
Lepidochelys kempii
Dermochelys coriacea
Caretta caretta
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Aphelocoma coerulescens coerulescens
Mycteria americana
Picoides borealis
Trichechus manatus
Drymarchon corals couperi
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Aphelocoma coerulescens coerulescens
Charadrius melodus
Mycteria americana
Picoides borealis
Trichechus manatus
Peromyscus polionotus phasma
Drymarchon corals couperi
Chelonia mydas
Eretmochelys imbricata
Lepidochelys kempii
Dermochelys coriacea
Caretta caretta
Caracara cheriway audubonii
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Aphelocoma coerulescens coerulescens
Rostrhamus sociabilis plumbeus
Charadrius melodus
Mycteria americana
Picoides borealis
Trichechus manatus
Peromyscus polionotus niveiventris
Dicerandra immaculata
Cereus eriophorus var. fragrans
Drymarchon corals couperi
Chelonia mydas
Eretmochelys imbricata
Lepidochelys kempii
Dermochelys coriacea
Caretta caretta
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Aphelocoma coerulescens coerulescens
Rostrhamus sociabilis plumbeus
Mycteria americana
Picoides borealis
Drymarchon corals couperi
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Mycteria americana
Picoides borealis
ACIPENSER OXYRHYNCHUS
(=OXYRHYNCHUS DESOTOI).
Drymarchon corals couperi
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Charadrius melodus
Mycteria americana
Picoides borealis
ACIPENSER OXYRHYNCHUS
(=OXYRHYNCHUS DESOTOI).
Trichechus manatus ...
Drymarchon corals couperi
Chelonia mydas
Lepidochelys kempii
Caretta caretta
Mycteria americana
Picoides borealis
Pleurobema pyriforme
Drymarchon corals couperi
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Aphelocoma coerulescens coerulescens
E, T
E
E
E
T
E, T
E
E
E
T
T
T
E
E
E
T
T
T
E, T
E
E
E
E
T
E, T
E
E
E
T
T
T
T
E
E, T
E
E
E
T
E
E
T
E, T
E
E
E
T
T
T
E
E
E
T
T
E
E
T
T
T
E, T
E
E
T
E
T
E, T
E
T
E
E
E
T
T
T
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 189/Wednesday, September 30, 1998/Notices
52525
II. COUNTY/SPECIES LIST—Continued
fTha following list identifies federally listed or proposed U.S. species by State and County. It has been updated through July 8, 1998. Species
ITsted below with a status of both E and T are generally either endangered or threatened within the specified county.]
State/County
Group name
Inverse name
Scientific name
Status
MAMMALS
PLANTS ....
REPTILES .
WAKULLA,
AMPHIBIANS
BIROS ,
FISHES
MAMMALS
REPTILES .
WALTON,
AMPHIBIANS
BIRDS
FISHES
MAMMALS
PLANTS ....
REPTILES .
WASHINGTON
AMPHIBIANS
BIRDS
GUAM
GUAM ....
REPTILES ,
BIRDS
MAMMALS
PLANTS ....
REPTILES .
IDAHO
ADA ......
ADAMS ..,„,.
BIRDS ..
FISHES
BIRDS ..
FISHES
KITE, EVERGLADE SNAIL
PLOVER, PIPING
STORK, WOOD
WOODPECKER, RED-COCKADED
MANATEE, WEST INDIAN (FLORIDA)....
PAWPAW, RUGEL'S
SNAKE, ATLANTIC SALT MARSH
SNAKE, EASTERN INDIGO
TURTLE, GREEN SEA
TURTLE, HAWKSBILL SEA
TURTLE, KEMP'S (ATLANTIC) RIDLEY
SEA.
TURTLE, LEATHERBACK SEA
TURTLE, LOGGERHEAD SEA
FLATWOODS SALAMANDER
EAGLE, BALD
PLOVER, PIPING
STORK, WOOD
WOODPECKER, RED-COCKADED ....
STURGEON, GULF
MANATEE, WEST INDIAN (FLORIDA)....
SNAKE, EASTERN INDIGO
TURTLE, GREEN SEA
TURTLE, KEMP'S (ATLANTIC) RIDLEY
SEA.
TURTLE, LOGGERHEAD SEA
FLATWOODS SALAMANDER
PLOVER, PIPING
STORK, WOOD .„
WOODPECKER, RED-COCKADED
DARTER, OKALOOSA
STURGEON, GULF
MOUSE, CHOCTAWHATCHEE BEACH
MEADOWRUE, COOLEY'S
SNAKE, EASTERN INDIGO
TURTLE, GREEN SEA
TURTLE, HAWKSBILL SEA
TURTLE, KEMP'S (ATLANTIC) RIDLEY
SEA.
TURTLE, LEATHERBACK SEA
TURTLE, LOGGERHEAD SEA
FLATWOODS SALAMANDER
STORK, WOOD
WOODPECKER, RED-COCKADED
SNAKE, EASTERN INDIGO
BROADBILL, GUAM
CROW, MARIANA
KINGFISHER, GUAM MICRONESIAN
MALLARD, MARIANA
MOORHEN, MARIANA COMMON
RAIL, GUAM
SWIFTLET, MARIANA GRAY
(=VANIKORO).
WHITE-EYE, BRIDLED (NOSSA)
BAT, LITTLE MARIANA FRUIT
BAT, MARIANA FRUIT
DUGONG
HAYUN LAGU (TRONKON GUAFI)
TURTLE, GREEN SEA
TURTLE, HAWKSBILL SEA
FALCON, PEREGRINE
TROUT, BULL (COLUMBIA RIVER POP-
ULATION).
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
SALMON, CHINOOK (SNAKE RIVER
FALL RUN).
SALMON, CHINOOK (SNAKE RIVER
SPRING/SUMMER).
STEELHEAD, SNAKE RIVER BASIN
POPULATION.
TROUT, BULL (COLUMBIA RIVER POP-
ULATION).
Rostrhamus soclabills plumbeus .
Charadrius melodus
Mycteria americana
Picoldes borealis
Trichechus manatus
Deeringothamus rugelli
Nerodia fasclata taenlata
Drymarchon corals couperi
Chelonla mydas
Eretmochelys Imbrlcata
Lepidochelys kempli
Dermochelys coriacea
Caretta caretta
Ambystoma cingulatum
Haliaeetus leuoocephalus
Charadrius melodus
Mycteria americana
Picoldes borealis
ACIPENSER OXYRHYNCHUS
(=OXYRHYNCHUS DESOTOI).
Trichechus manatus
Drymarchon corals couperi
Chelonla mydas
Lepidochelys kempii
Caretta caretta ,
Ambystoma cingulatum
Charadrius melodus
Mycteria americana
Picoides borealis
Etheostoma okaloosae
ACIPENSER OXYRHYNCHUS
(=OXYRHYNCHUS DESOTOI).
Peromyscus polionotus allophrys
Thalictrum cooleyi
Drymarchon corals couperi
Chelonia mydas
Eretmochelys imbricata
Lepidochelys kempii
Dermochelys coriacea
Caretta caretta
Ambystoma cingulatum
Mycteria americana
Picoides borealis
Drymarchon corals couperi.
Myiagra freycineti
Corvus kubaryi
Halcyon cinnamomins cinnamomina
Anas oustaleti
Gallinula chloropus guami
Rallus owstoni
Aerodramus vanikorensls bartschi
Zosterops conspicillata conspicillata
Pteropus tokudae
Pteropus mariannus mariannus
Dugong dugon
Serianthes nelsonii
Chelonia mydas
Eretmochelys imbricata
Falco peregrinus
Salvellnus confluentus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus ....
Falco peregrinus
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha .
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha .
Oncorhynchus mykiss,
Basin ESU).
Salvelinus confluentus ....
(Snake River
E
E, T
E
E
E
E
T
T
E, T
E
E
E
T
T
T
E, T
E
E
T
E
T
E, T
E
T
T
E, T
E
E
E
T
E
E
T
E, T
E
E
E
T
T
E
E
T
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E, T
E
-------
52526
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 189/Wednesday, September 30, 1998/Notices
II. COUNTY/SPECIES LIST—Continued
[The following list identifies federally listed or proposed U.S. species by State and County. It has been updated through July 8, 1998. Species
listed below with a status of both E and T are generally either endangered or threatened within the specified county.]
State/County
BANNOCK
REAR 1 AKF
RPMFWAH
BINGHAM
BLAINE
BOISE
BONNER
ROMMPVtl 1 P
nni iNinARY i
BUTTE
PAMAQ
CANYON
CARIBOU
CASSIA
CLARK
CLEARWATER
CUSTER
ELMORE
Group name
MAMMALS
BIRDS
BIRDS
BIRDS
FISHES
MAMMALS
BIRDS
BIRDS
piCLJpq
MAMMA! 9
BIRDS
iricupc
MAMMALS
BIRDS
FISHES
MAM MAI "3
BIRDS
MAMMALS
BIRDS
FISHES
MAMMALS
BIRDS
picupc
BIRDS
BIRDS
picupc
BIRDS
BIRDS
BIRDS
MAMMALS
BIRDS
FISHES
MAMMAI c.
BIRDS
FISHES
MAMMALS
BIRDS
FISHES
Inverse name
SQUIRRE NORTHERN IDAHO GROUND
WOLF GRAY
EAGLE, BALD
PAI PDN PFRPfSRINF
EAGLE BALD
FALCON PEREGRINE
EAGLE, BALD
SALMON, CHINOOK (SNAKE RIVER
FALL RUN).
TROUT, BULL (COLUMBIA RIVER ESU)
WOLF GRAY
EAGLE, BALD
EAGLE BALD ...:
SALMON, CHINOOK (SNAKE RIVER
SPRING/SUMMER).
SALMON, SNAKE RIVER SOCKEYE
TROUT, BULL (COLUMBIA RIVER ESU)
WOLF GRAY
EAGLE, BALD
TROUT, BULL (COLUMBIA RIVER POP-
ULATION). :
WOLF GRAY
EAGLE, BALD
PAI PON PFRFfSRIISlF
TROUT, BULL (COLUMBIA RIVER POP-
ULATION).
BEAR GRIZZLY
CARIBOU WOODLAND
WOLF GRAY
EAGLE BALD
FALCON PEREGRINE
WOLF GRAY
EAGLE BALD
STURGEON, WHITE (KOOTENAI RIVER
POP.).
TROUT, BULL (COLUMBIA RIVER POP-
ULATION).
BEAR GRIZZLY
CARIBOU WOODLAND
WOLF GRAY
EAGLE BALD
PAI PON PFRFRRINF
TROUT, BULL (COLUMBIA RIVER ESU)
EAGLE BALD
TROUT, BULL (COLUMBIA RIVER ESU)
EAGLE BALD
PAI POM PFRFfSRINF
TROUT BULL (COLUMBIA RIVER POP-
ULATION).
EAGLE BALD
FALCON PEREGRINE
EAGLE BALD
FALCON PEREGRINE
EAGLE BALD
FALCON PEREGRINE
WOLF GRAY
EAGLE BALD
SALMON, CHINOOK (SNAKE RIVER
FALL RUN).
SALMON, CHINOOK (SNAKE RIVER
SPRING/SUMMER).
STEELHEAD, SNAKE RIVER BASIN
POPULATION.
TROUT, BULL (COLUMBIA RIVER POP
ULATION).
BEAR GRIZZLY
WOLF GRAY
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON PEREGRINE
SALMON, CHINOOK (SNAKE RIVER
SPRING/SUMMER).
SALMON, SNAKE RIVER SOCKEYE
STEELHEAD, SNAKE RIVER BASIN
POPULATION.
TROUT, BULL (COLUMBIA RIVER POP
ULATION).
WOLF GRAY
EAGLE BALD
TROUT, BULL (COLUMBIA RIVER POP
ULATION).
Scientific name
Spermophilus brunneus brunneus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Salvelinus confluentus
Canis lupus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Oncorhynchus nerka
Salvelinus confluentus
Canis lupus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Salvelinus confluentus
Canis lupus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Salvelinus confluentus
Ursus arctos (-U.a. horribilis)
Rangifer tarandus caribou
Canis lupus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Canis lupus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Aclpenser transmontanus
Salvelinus confluentus
Ursus arctos (-U.a. horribilis)
Rangifer tarandus caribou
Canis lupus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Salvelinus confluentus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Salvelinus confluentus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Salvelinus confluentus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Canis lupus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Oncorhynchus mykiss, (Snake Rive
Basin ESU).
Salvelinus confluentus
Ursus arctos (-U.a. horribilis)
Canis lupus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Oncorhynchus nerka
Oncorhynchus mykiss, (Snake Rive
Basin ESU).
Canis lupus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Salvelinus confluentus
Status
T
E, T
T
T
T
T
T
E, T
T
T
T
T
E, T
T
T
E, T
T
E
T
T
D, E
E, T
T
E
E, T
T
E
T
T
E
E, T
T
E
T
T
T
T
E
T
T
E
T
E
T
E
E, T
T
T
T
T
T
T
E, T
T
E
T
E
T
T
E, T
T
T
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 189/Wednesday, September 30, 1998/Notices
52527
II. COUNTY/SPECIES LIST—Continued
[The Mowing list Identifies federally listed or proposed U.S. species by State and County. It has been updated through July 8, 1998. Species
Hsted below with a status of both E and T are generally either endangered or threatened within the specified county.]
State/County
FRANKLIN „
FREMONT
GEM
GOODING
IDAHO
JEFFERSON...
JEROME
KOOTENAI...
UTAH
LEMHI
LEWIS
MADISON
MtNIDOKA
NEZ PERCE
OWYHEE
Group name
SNAILS
BIRDS
BIRDS
MAMMALS
BIRDS
RSHES
BIRDS
SNAILS
BIRDS
FISHES
MAMMALS
PLANTS
BIRDS
BIRDS
BIRDS
FISHES
MAMMALS
PLANTS
FISHES
PLANTS
BIRDS
FISHES
MAMMALS
=ISHES
BIRDS
BIRDS
BIRDS
FISHES
BIRDS
FISHES
SNAILS
Inverse name
LIMPET, BANBURY SPRINGS
SNAIL, BLISS RAPIDS
SNAIL, SNAKE RIVER PHYSA
SNAIL, UTAH VALVATA
SPRINGSNAIL, IDAHO
EAGLE, BALD
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
BEAR, GRIZZLY
WOLF, GRAY
EAGLE, BALD ....
TROUT, BULL (COLUMBIA RIVER ESU)
EAGLE, BALD
LIMPET, BANBURY SPRINGS
SNAIL, BLISS RAPIDS
SNAIL. SNAKE RIVER PHYSA
SNAIL, UTAH VALVATA
EAGLE BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
SALMON, CHINOOK (SNAKE RIVER
FALL RUN).
SALMON, CHINOOK (SNAKE RIVER
SPRING/SUMMER).
SALMON, SNAKE RIVER SOCKEYE
STEELHEAD, SNAKE RIVER BASIN
POPULATION.
TROUT, BULL (COLUMBIA RIVER POP
ULATION).
BEAR, GRIZZLY
WOLF, GRAY
FOUR-O'CLOCK, MACFARLANE'S
EAGLE, BALD .
FALCON, PEREGRINE
EAGLE, BALD
EAGLE BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
TROUT, BULL (COLUMBIA RIVER POP-
ULATION).
WOLF, GRAY
HOWELLIA, WATER
SALMON CHINOOK (SNAKE RIVER
FALL RUN).
TROUT, BULL (COLUMBIA RIVER ESU)
HOWELLIA, WATER
EAGLE BALD
SALMON, CHINOOK (SNAKE RIVER
SPRING/SUMMER).
SALMON, SNAKE RIVER SOCKEYE
STEELHEAD, SNAKE RIVER BASIN
POPULATION
TROUT, BULL (COLUMBIA RIVER POP-
ULATION).
WOLF, GRAY
EAGLE, BALD
SALMON, CHINOOK (SNAKE RIVER
FALL RUN).
SALMON, CHINOOK (SNAKE RIVER
SPRING/SUMMER).
SALMON, SNAKE RIVER SOCKEYE
STEELHEAD, SNAKE RIVER BASIN
POPULATION.
TROUT, BULL (COLUMBIA RIVER POP-
ULATION).
EAGLE, BALD
EAGLE BALD
EAGLE, BALD
SALMON, CHINOOK (SNAKE RIVER
FALL RUN).
SALMON, CHINOOK (SNAKE RIVER
SPRING/SUMMER).
SALMON, SNAKE RIVER SOCKEYE
TROUT, BULL (COLUMBIA RIVER POP-
ULATION).
EAGLE BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
TROUT, BULL (JARBRIDGE RIVER
ESU).
SNAIL, SNAKE RIVER PHYSA
SPRINGSNAIL, BRUNEAU HOT
Scientific name
Lanx n sp
Family Hydrobiidae n. sp
Physa natricina
Valvata utahensls
Fontelicella Idahoensis
Falco peregrinus
Ursus arctos (— U a horribilis)
Canis lupus
Lanx n. sp
Family Hydrobiidae n sp
Physa natricina
Valvata utahensis
Falco peregrinus
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha .,
Oncorhynchus nerka
Oncorhynchus mykiss, (Snake Rive
Basin ESU).
Salvelinus confluentus
Canis lupus
Falco peregrinus
Falco peregrinus
Canis lupus
Howellia aquatilis
Salvelinus confluentus
Howellia aquatllls
Oncorhynchus nerka
Oncorhynchus mykiss, (Snake
River Basin ESU)
Salvelinus confluentus
Canis lupus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Oncorhynchus nerka
Oncorhynchus mykiss, (Snake River
Basin ESU).
Salvelinus confluentus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Hallaeetus leucocephalus
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Oncorhynchus nerka
Salvelinus confluentus
Physa natricina
Pyrgulopsis bruneauenis
Status
E
T
E
E
E
T
E
T
E T
y
f
E
T
E
E
T
E
T
T
E
T
T
T
E T
j
T
E
T
T
E
T
E T
j
T
T
y
E
T
T
E, T
T
j
T
E
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
E
-------
52528
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 189/Wednesday, September 30, 1998/Notices
II. COUNTY/SPECIES LIST—Continued
[The following list identifies federally listed or proposed U.S. species by State and County. It has been updated through July 8, 1998. Species
listed below with a status of both E and T are generally either endangered or threatened within the specified county.]
State/County
PAYETTE
POWER
SHOSHONE
TETON
TWIN FALLS
VALLEY
WASHINGTON
LOUISIANA
ACADIA
ALLEN
ASCENSION
ASSUMPTION
AVOYELLES
BEAUREGARD
BIENVILLE
BOSSIER
CADDO
CALCASIEU
CALDWELL
CAMERON
CATAHOULA .
CLAIBORNE
CONCORDIA
Group name
BIRDS
FISHES
BIRDS
SNAILS
BIRDS
FISHES
MAMMALS
MAMMALS
BIRDS
SNAILS
BIRDS
FISHES
MAMMA' S
BIRDS
FISHES
BIRDS
BIRDS
BIRDS
CLAMS
FISHES
BIRDS
MAMMALS
BIRDS
FISHES
BIRDS
BIRDS
BIRDS
FISHES
BIRDS
FISHES
BIRDS
BIRDS
FISHES
BIRDS
REPTILES
BIRDS
FISHES
MAMMALS
BIRDS
FISHES
MAMMALS
Inverse name
SPRINGSNAIL IDAHO
EAGLE BALD
SALMON CHINOOK (SNAKE RIVER
SPRING/SUMMER).
TROUT BULL (COLUMBIA RIVER ESU)
EAGLE BALD
SNAIL UTAH VALVATA
EAGLE, BALD
SALMON CHINOOK (SNAKE RIVER
FALL RUN). i
TROUT BULL (COLUMBIA RIVER ESU)
BEAR GRIZZLY
WOLF GRAY
BEAR GRIZZLY
EAGLE BALD
SNAIL BLISS RAPIDS
SNAIL, SNAKE RIVER PHYSA
EAGLE BALD
FALCON PEREGRINE
SALMON CHINOOK
SALMON CHINOOK (SNAKE RIVER
FALL RUN).
SALMON CHINOOK (SNAKE RIVER
SPRING/SUMMER).
SALMON SNAKE 'RIVER SOCKEYE
STEELHEAD, SNAKE RIVER BASIN
POPULATION.
TROUT BULL (COLUMBIA RIVER POP-
ULATION).
SQUIRREL NORTHERN IDAHO
GROUND. >
WOLF GRAY
EAGLE, BALD
TROUT BULL (COLUMBIA RIVER POP-
ULATION).
FALCON ARCTIC PEREGRINE
FALCON ARCTIC PEREGRINE
WOODPECKER RED-COCKADED
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON ARCTIC PEREGRINE
HEELSPLITTER INFLATED
STURGEON GULF
STURGEON PALLID
EAGLE BALD
FALCON ARCTIC PEREGRINE
BEAR LOUISIANA BLACK
FALCON ARCTIC PEREGRINE
STURGEON PALLID
FALCON ARCTIC PEREGRINE
WOODPECKER RED-COCKADED
EAGLE, BALD '.
FALCON ARCTIC PEREGRINE
EAGLE BALD
FALCON ARCTIC PEREGRINE
WOODPECKER RED-COCKADED
STURGEON PALLID
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON ARCTIC PEREGRINE
STURGEON PALLID
FALCON ARCTIC PEREGRINE
FALCON, ARCTIC PEREGRINE
STURGEON PALLID
FALCON ARCTIC PEREGRINE
PELICAN BROWN
PLOVER PIPING
TURTLE KEMP'S (ATLANTIC) RIDLEY
SEA.
FALCON ARCTIC PEREGRINE
STURGEON PALLID
BEAR LOUISIANA BLACK
EAGLE, BALD ...„
FALCON ARCTIC PEREGRINE
WOODPECKER RED-COCKADED
STURGEON PALLID
BEAR AMERICAN BLACK
BEAR. LOUISIANA BLACK
Scientific name
Fontelicella idahoensis
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Valvata utahensis
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Salvelinus confluentus
Ursus arctos (-U.a. horribilis)
Ursus arctos (-U.a. horribilis)
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Family Hydrobiidae n. sp
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Oncorhynchus mykiss, (Snake River
Basin ESU).
Salvelinus confluentus
Spermophilus brunneus brunneus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus tundrius
Falco peregrinus tundrius
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Potamilus inflatus
Acipenser oxyrhynchus (=oxyrhynchus
desotoi).
Scaphirhynchus albus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Ursus americanus luteolus
Falco peregrinus tundrius :
Scaphirhynchus albus
Falco peregrinus tundrius
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus tundrius
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Scaphirhynchus albus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus tundrius
Falco peregrinus tundrius
Scaphirhynchus albus
Falco peregrinus tundrius
Charadrius melodus
Falco peregrinus tundrius
Scaphirhynchus albus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Scaphirhynchus albus
Ursus americanus luteolus
Status
E
T
T
T
T .
E •
T
T
T
T
E, T
T
T
T
E
T !
E
E
T
T
E
T
T
T
E, T •
T
T
T
T
E
T ;
T
T
T
E
T
T
T
T
E
T
E
T
T
T
T
E
E
T
T
E
T
T • <
E :
T i '
E
E, T
E
T
E
T
T
T
E
E
T
T
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 189/Wednesday, September 30, 1998/Notices
52529
II. COUNTY/SPECIES LIST—Continued
[The following list Identifies federally listed or proposed U.S. species by State and County. It has been updated through July 8, 1998. Species
listed below with a status of both E and T are generally either endangered or threatened within the specified county.]
Slata.'County
DE 3OTO
EAST BATON
ROUGE ..„..,....
EAST CARROLL
EAST FEUCIANA
EVANGEUNE
FRANKLIN
GRANT ...,..,
IBERIA
I8ERV1LLE
JACKSON
JEFFERSON
JEFFERSON DAVIS
LA SALLE
LAFAYETTE
LAFOURCH6
LINCOLN „
LIVINGSTON
MADISON „
MOREHOUSE
NATCHITOCHES
ORLEANS
OUACHITA
Group name
BIRDS
BIRDS
CLAMS
FISHES
BIRDS
FISHES
BIRDS
BIRDS
BIRDS
FISHES
MAMMALS
BIRDS
CLAMS
FISHES
MAMMALS
BIRDS
FISHES
MAMMALS
BIRDS
FISHES
MAMMALS
BIRDS
BIRDS
FISHES
REPTILES
BIRDS
BIRDS
BIRDS
BIRDS
REPTILES
BIRDS
BIRDS
CLAMS
FISHES
BIRDS
FISHES
MAMMALS
BIRDS
FISHES
BIRDS
FISHES
BIRDS
FISHES
BIRDS
FISHES
Inverse name
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, ARCTIC PEREGRINE
EAGLE BALD
FALCON, ARCTIC PEREGRINE
HEELSPLITTER, INFLATED
STURGEON, GULF
STURGEON, PALLID
FALCON, ARCTIC PEREGRINE
TERN, INTERIOR (POPULATION)
LEAST.
STURGEON, PALLID
FALCON ARCTIC PEREGRINE
FALCON ARCTIC PEREGRINE
WOODPECKER, RED-COCKADED
FALCON ARCTIC PEREGRINE
STURGEON, PALLID
BEAR, LOUISIANA BLACK
FALCON ARCTIC PEREGRINE
WOODPECKER, RED-COCKADED
PEARLSHELL, LOUISIANA
STURGEON, PALLID
BEAR, LOUISIANA BLACK
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, ARCTIC PEREGRINE
PELICAN, BROWN
PLOVER, PIPING
STURGEON, PALLID
BEAR, LOUISIANA BLACK
FALCON ARCTKyPEREGRINE
STURGEON PALLID
BEAR, LOUISIANA BLACK
FALCON, ARCTIC PEREGRINE
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, ARCTIC PEREGRINE
PELICAN, BROWN
PLOVER, PIPING
STURGEON, PALLID
TURTLE, KEMP'S (ATLANTIC) RIDLEY
SEA.
FALCON, ARCTIC PEREGRINE
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, ARCTIC PEREGRINE '.
WOODPECKER, RED-COCKADED
FALCON ARCTIC PEREGRINE
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, ARCTIC PEREGRINE
PELICAN, BROWN
PLOVER, PIPING
TURTLE, KEMP'S (ATLANTIC) RIDLEY
SEA.
FALCON ARCTIC PEREGRINE
FALCON ARCTIC PEREGRINE
WOODPECKER, RED-COCKADED
HEELSPLITTER, INFLATED
STURGEON, GULF
FALCON ARCTIC PEREGRINE
TERN, CALIFORNIA LEAST
STURGEON, PALLID
BEAR, LOUISIANA BLACK
EAGLE BALD
FALCON, ARCTIC PEREGRINE
WOODPECKER, RED-COCKADED
STURGEON, PALLID
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, ARCTIC PEREGRINE
WOODPECKER, RED-COCKADED
STURGEON PALLID
FALCON, ARCTIC PEREGRINE
PELICAN, BROWN
STURGEON, GULF
STURGEON, PALLID
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, ARCTIC PEREGRINE
WOODPECKER, RED-COCKADED
STURGEON, PALLID
Scientific name
Faloo peregrinus tundrius
Falco pereQrinus tundrius
Potamilus inflatus
desotol).
Scaphlrhynchus albus .. .
Sterna antillarum . ..
Scaphirhynchus albus
Picoides borealis
ScaphErhynchus albus
Ursus americanus luteolus
Picoides borealis
Scaphlrhynchus albus
Ursus americanus luteolus
Falco peregrinus tundrius
Pelicanus occidentalis
Charadrius melodus .
Ursus americanus lutoolus
Ursus americanus luteolus
Falco peregrinus tundrius . .
Pelicanus occidentalis
Charadrius melodus
Scaphirhynchus albus
Lepidochelys kempii
Falco peregrinus tundrius
Picoides borealis
Falco peregrinus tundrius
Pelicanus occidentalis
Charadrius melodus
Lepldochelys kempii . .
Picoides borealis
Potamilus inflatus
Acipenser oxyrhynchus (—oxyrhynchus
desotoi).
Sterna antiltarum brown! ... .
Ursus amerlcanus luteolus
Falco peregrinus tundrius
Piooides borealis
Falco peregrinus tundrius
Picoides borealis
Pelicanus occidentalis
Acipenser oxyrhynchus (—oxyrhynchus
desotoi).
Scaphirhynchus albus
Falco peregrinus tundrius
Picoides borealis
Scaohirhvnchus albus
Status
T
T
T
T
T
T
E
T
E
E
T
T
E
T
E
T
T
E
T
E
T
T
T
E
E, T
E
T
T
E
T
T
T
T
E
E T
E
E
T
T
T
E
T
T
T
E
E T
E
T
T
E
T
T
T
E
E
T
j
T
E
E
T
T
E
E
T
E
T
E
T
T
E
E
-------
52530
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 189/Wednesday, September 30. 1998/Nbtices
II. COUNTY/SPECIES LIST—Continued
[The following list identifies federally listed or proposed U.S. species by State and County. It has been updated *|"aLJ^**,1l998- Species
listed below with a status of both E and T are generally either endangered or threatened within the specified county.]
State/County
PLAQUEMINES
POINTE COUPEE ..
RAPIDES
RED RIVER
HIGHLAND
SABINE
ST. BERNARD
ST CHARLES
ST. HELENA
ST. JAMES
ST. JOHN THE BAPTIST
ST. LANDRY
ST. MARTIN
ST MARY
ST TAMMANY
TANGIPAHOA
TENSAS
Group name
IRDS
IRDS
:ISHES
MAMMALS
FISHES
BIRDS
BIRDS
:ISHES
BIRDS
BIRDS
FISHES
REPTILES
BIRDS
FISHES
BIRDS
BIRDS
FISHES
BIRDS
picupq
BIRDS
FISHES
BIRDS
FISHES
BIRDS
BIRDS
FISHES
BIRDS
picucc
BIRDS
Inverse name
AGLE, BALD
ALCON, ARCTIC PEREGRINE
Tl IRRFON PA1 LID
1 IRTI F fiRFFN ^FA
URTLE, KEMP'S (ATLANTIC) RIDLEY
SEA.
ALCON, ARCTIC PEREGRINE
STURGEON, PALLID
BEAR, LOUISIANA BLACK
ALCON ARCTIC PEREGRINE
WOODPECKER, RED-COCKADED
PEARLSHELL, LOUISIANA
STURGEON, PALLID
WOODPECKER, RED-COCKADED
STURGEON PALLID
FALCON, ARCTIC PEREGRINE
STURGEON, PALLID
RPAR 1 HI II^IANA BLACK
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, ARCTIC PEREGRINE
EAGLE, BALD
:ALCON, ARCTIC PEREGRINE
PI nVFR PIPING
STURGEON GULF
QTl IHfSFnM PAI 1 ID
TURTLE, GREEN SEA
TURTLE, KEMP'S (ATLANTIC) RIDLEY
SEA.
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, ARCTIC PEREGRINE
STURGEON GULF
FALCON, ARCTIC PEREGRINE
FALCON, ARCTIC PEREGRINE
STURGEON, PALLID
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, ARCTIC PEREGRINE
STURGEON GULF
i
FALCON, ARCTIC PEREGRINE
STURGEON, PALLID
BEAR LOUISIANA BLACK
EAGLE, BALD
STURGEON, PALLID
BEAR LOUISIANA BLACK
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, ARCTIC PEREGRINE
STURGEON PALLID
BEAR LOUISIANA BLACK
TURTLE, KEMP'S (ATLANTIC) RIDLEY
SEA.
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, ARCTIC PEREGRINE
WOODPECKER, RED-COCKADED
STURGEON GULF
BEAR LOUISIANA BLACK
QUILLWORT LOUISIANA
TORTOISE GOPHER
TI mTi p QiMr^pn ^AWRAPK
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, ARCTIC PEREGRINE
WOODPECKER, RED-COCKADED
STURGEON GULF
TORTOISE GOPHER
EAGLE, BALD
Scientific name
aliaeetus leucocephalus
:alco peregrinus tundrius
elicanus occidentalis
haradrius melodus
caphirhynchus albus
Chelonia mydas
:alco peregrinus tundrius
Scaphirhynchus albus
Ursus americanus luteolus ......
•alco peregrinus tundrius
'icoides borealis
Margaritifera hembeli
Scaphirhynchus albus
'icoides borealis
Scaphirhynchus albus
Falco peregrinus tundrius
Scaphirhynchus albus
Ursus americanus luteolus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus tundrius
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus tundrius
Pelicanus occidentalis
Charadrlus melodus
Acipenser oxyrhynchus (=oxyrhynchus
desotoi).
Scaphirhynchus albus
Chelonia mydas
Lepidochelys kempii
Caretta caretta
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus tundrius
Acipenser oxyrhynchus (=oxyrhynchus
desotoi).
Falco peregrinus tundrius
halco peregrinus tundrius
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus tundrius
Acipenser oxyrhynchus (=oxyrhynchus
desotoi).
Falco peregrinus tundrius
Scaphirhynchus albus
Ursus americanus luteolus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Scaphirhynchus albus
Ursus americanus luteolus
Haliaeatus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus tundrius
Pelicanus occidentalis
Charadrius melodus
Scaphirhynchus albus
Ursus americanus luteolus
Lepidochelys kempii
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus tundrius
Pelicanus occidentalis
Acipenser oxyrhynchus (=oxyrhynchu
desotoi).
Ursus americanus luteolus
Isoetes louisianensls
Gopherus polyphemus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus tundrius
Acipenser oxyrhynchus (=oxyrhynchu
desotoi).
Gopherus polyphemus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Status
i. T
i, T
T
-
•
IT
E, T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
E
T
E
T
T
E
T
T
T
E
E, T
E
T
E
T
T
E
E
T
T
E
T
T
T
T
E
T
T
T
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63. No. 189/Wednesday, September 30. 1998/Notices
52531
II. COUNTY/SPECIES LIST—Continued
[The foWowfna list identifies federally listed or proposed U.S. species by State and County. It has been updated through July 8, 1998. Species
listed below with a status of both E and T are generally either endangered or threatened within the specified county.]
Slata'County
TERHEBONNE
UNSON
VERMIUON
VERNON™
WASHINGTON
WEBSTER
WEST BATON ROUGE
WEST CARROLL
WEST FEUC1ANA
W1NN
MAINE
ANOROSCOGGIN
AROOSTOOK
CUMBERLAND
FRANKUN
HANCOCK ,
KENNEBEC
KNOX ,. ,. ,
OXFORD
PENOBSCOT
PISCATAQU1S
SAQADAHOC
SOMERSET
WALDO ,„..„ „
WASHINGTON
YORK ..„
Group name
FISHES
MAMMALS
BIRDS
REPTILES
BIRDS
pipnc
MAMMALS
REPTILES
BIRDS
BIRDS
FISHES
MAMMALS
PLANTS
REPTILES
BIRDS
BIRDS
FISHES
BIRDS
FISHES
BIRDS
FISHES
MAMMALS
FISHES
BIRDS
BIRDS
BIRDS
FISHES
PLANTS
BIRDS
3IRDS
BIRDS
PLANTS
DIPDC
MAMMALS
BIRDS
MAMMALS
niprtQ
PLANTS
Rinno
oipnc
FISHES
MAMMALS
FISHES
5IRDS
BIRDS
PLANTS
REPTILES
Inverse name
FALCON, ARCTIC PEREGRINE
STURGEON, PALLID
BEAR, LOUISIANA BLACK
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, ARCTIC PEREGRINE
PELICAN, BROWN
PLOVER, PIPING
TURTLE, KEMP'S (ATLANTIC) RIDLE
SEA.
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, ARCTIC PEREGRINE
WOODPECKER, RED-COCKADED
PELICAN, BROWN
PLOVER, PIPING
BEAR, LOUISIANA BLACK
TURTLE, KEMP'S (ATLANTIC) RIDLEY
SEA.
FALCON PEREGRINE
WOODPECKER, RED-COCKADED
STURGEON, GULF
BEAR, LOUISIANA BLACK
QUILLWORT, LOUISIANA
TORTOISE, GOPHER
TURTLE, RINGED SAWBACK
FALCON, ARCTIC PEREGRINE
WOODPECKER, RED-COCKADED
FALCON ARCTIC PEREGRINE
STURGEON, PALLID
FALCON, ARCTIC PEREGRINE
STURGEON, PALLID
FALCON ARCTIC PEREGRINE
STURGEON, PALLID
BEAR, LOUISIANA BLACK
FALCON, ARCTIC PEREGRINE
WOODPECKER, RED-COCKADED
STURGEON, PALLID
3EOCARPON MINIMUM
EAGLE, BALD
EAGLE, BALD
LOUSEWORT, FURBISH
ORCHID. EASTERN PRAIRIE FRINGED
EAGLE BALD
PLOVER, PIPING
STURGEON, SHORTNOSE
POGONIA, SMALL WHORLED
FALCON, PEREGRINE
=AGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
EAGLE BALD
POGONIA, SMALL WHORLED
COUGAR, EASTERN
EAGLE, BALD
COUGAR, EASTERN
rALOON, PEREGRINE
POGONIA, SMALL WHORLED
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
FALCON, PEREGRINE ,.
PLOVER, PIPING
STURGEON, SHORTNOSE
COUGAR, EASTERN
STURGEON, SHORTNOSE
EAGLE, BALD
TERN, ROSEATE
EAGLE, BALD
PLOVER, PIPING
POGONIA, SMALL WHORLED
URTLE, BOG
URTLE, BOG
Scientific name
Falco peregrlnus tundrius
Scaphirhynchus albus
Ursus amerlcanus luteolus
Falco peregrinus tundrius ..
Pelicanus occidentalis
Charadrius meiodus
Lepldochelys kempii
Falco peregrinus tundrius
Picoides borealis
Falco peregrinus tundrius
Pelicanus occidentalis
Charadrius meiodus
Ursus americanus luteolus
Lepidochelys kempii
Picoides borealis
Falco peregrinus tundrius
Acipenser oxyrhynchus (=oxyrhynchus
desotoi).
Isoetes louisianensis
Graptemys oculifera
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus tundrius
Picoides borealis
Scaphirhynchus albus
Scaphirhynchus albus
Ursus americanus luteolus
Falco peregrinus tundrius
Picoides borealis
Scaphirhynchus albus
Seocarpon minimum
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Pedicularis furbishiae
Platanthera leucophaea
sotria medeoloides
Falco peregrinus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
sotria medeoloides
teliaeetus leucocephalus
Fells concolor couguar
teliaeetus leucocephalus
Fells concolor couguar
•alco peregrinus
sotria medeoloides
lallaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
laliaeetus leucocephalus
Acipenser brevlrostrum
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Fells concolor couguar
Acipenser brevirostrum
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Charadrius meiodus
sotria medeoloides
Clemmys muhlenbergii
3lemmys muhlenbergii
Status
T
E
T
T
T
E
E, T
E
T
T
E
T
E
E, T
T
E
E
E
T
T
T
E
T
T
T
T
E
T
E
T
E
T
E
T
T
E
T
T
T
T
:, T
r
r
I
E
:, T
F
£ 1"
!, T
-------
52532
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 189/Wednesday. September 30, 1998/Notices
II. COUNTY/SPECIES LIST—Continued
[The following list identifies federally listed or proposed U.S. species by State and County, it has been updated through July 8, 1998. Species
1 listed below with a status of both E and T are generally either endangered or threatened within the specified county.]
State/County
MASSACHUSETTS
BARNSTABLE
BERKSHIRE ••••
BRISTOL
DUKES
ESSEX
FRANKLIN
HAMPDEN
HAMPSHIRE
MIDDLESEX
NANTUCKET
PLYMOUTH
SUFFOLK
SUFFOLK
WORCESTER
Group name
BIRDS
MAMMALS
BIRDS
REPTILES
BIRDS
BIRDS
BIRDS
FISHES
BIRDS
BIRDS
FISHES
BIRDS
MAMMALS
BIRDS
REPTILES
BIRDS
BIRDS
REPTILES
REPTILES
BIRDS
Inverse name
TURTLE BOG
Tl IRTI F ROfi
EAGLE, BALD
PLOVER, PIPING
ftFRARniA 9ANDPLAIN
TURTLE, KEMP'S (ATLANTIC) RIDLEY
SEA.
Tl IHTI F 1 nRRFRHFAn ^F_A
BAT, INDIANA :
COUGAR, EASTERN
Tl IRTI P ROfi
EAGLE, BALD
PLOVER, PIPING
STURGEON SHORTNOSE
TURTLE, KEMP'S (ATLANTIC) RIDLEY
SEA.
EAGLE, BALD
PLOVER, PIPING
BEETLE, NORTHEASTERN BEACH
TIGER.
TURTLE, KEMP'S (ATLANTIC) RIDLEY
SEA.
EAGLE, BALD
PLOVER, PIPING
STURGEON SHORTNOSE
pnftnNIA <3IUIAI 1 WHORLED
TURTLE, KEMP'S (ATLANTIC) RIDLEY
SEA.
EAGLE, BALD
STURGEON, SHORTNOSE
RAT INDIANA
BULRUSH, NORTHEASTERN
(=BARBED BRISTLE).
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
QTI IRttFON ^HORTNQSE
RAT INDIANA
POf^nwiA QMAI 1 WHORLED
EAGLE, BALD
STURGEON, SHORTNOSE
RCpn p p| IRITAN TlfiFR
RAT INDIANA
pnnnMiA QMAI i WHORLED
EAGLE, BALD
BAT, INDIANA
EAGLE, BALD
PLOVER, PIPING
TURTLE, KEMP'S (ATLANTIC) RIDLEY
SEA.
TURTLE, KEMP'S (ATLANTIC) RIDLEY
SEA.
CURLEW, ESKIMO
EAGLE, BALD
PI rtVFP PIPING
TERN ROSEATE
TURTLE, KEMP'S (ATLANTIC) RIDLEY
SEA. ;
TURTLE, PLYMOUTH RED-BELLIED
FALCON, PEREGRINE
TURTLE, KEMP'S (ATLANTIC) RIDLEN
SEA.
TURTLE, LOGGERHEAD SEA
EAGLE, BALD
MEGAPODE; MICRONESIAN (u
PEROUSE'S).
MONARCH. TINIAN
Scientific name
Clemmys muhlenbergii
Clemmys muhlenbergii
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Charadrius melodus
Agalinus acuta
Lepidoohelys kempii
Myotis sodalis
Fells concolor couguar
Clemmys muhlenbergii
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Charadrius melodus
Acipenser brevirostrum
Lepidochelys kempii
Haliaeetus leucocephaius
Charadrius melodus
Cicindela dorsalis dorsalis
Lepidochelys kempii
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Charadrius melodus
Acipenser brevirostrum
Isotria medeoloides
Lepidochelys kempii
Caretta caretta
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Acipenser brevirostrum
Myotis sodalis
Scirpus ancistrochaetus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Acipenser brevirostrum •••
Myotis sodalis
Isotria medeoloides
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Acipenser brevirostrum
Cicindela pur'rtana
Myotis sodalis
Isotria medeoloides
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Myotis sodalis
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Charadrius melodus
Lepidochelys kempii
Lepidochelys kempii
Numenius borealis
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Charadrius melodus
Sterna dougalli dougalli
Pseudemys (Chrysemys) rubriventris
bangs!.
Falco peregrinus
' Lepidochelys kempii
Caretta caretta
Corvus kubaryi
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Monarcha takatsukasae
Status
T
T
E, T
E,T
E
T
E
E
T
T
E, T
E
E
T
T
E, T
T
E
T
T
E, T
E
T
E
T
T
E
E
E
T
E
E
E
T
T
E
T
E .
E
T
T
E
T
E, T
E
T
E
T
E -
T
E,T
E, T
E
T
E
E .
E
T
E
T
E
E
T
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 189/Wednesday. September 30, 1998 /Notices
52533
[The
II. COUNTY/SPECIES LIST—Continued
list Identifies federally listed or proposed U.S. species by State and County. It has been updated through July 8, 1998. Species
feted below with a status of both E and T are generally either endangered or threatened within the specified county.]
Stats/County
MISSOURI
BOONE ,
CALLAWAY ,
CLARK .,...„„.. ,
DAV1SSS
HARRISON
MONITEAU ,
NEW HAMPSHIRE
BBLKNAP....
CARROLL „,.,
CHESHIRE
COOS
GRAFTON™
HltlSBOROUGH
MERRIMACK
ROCKINGHAM
STRAFFOR0
SUUJVAN....,
NEW MEXICO
BERNAULLO
CATRON
CHAVES
Group name
MAMMALS
PLANTS
REPTIU-S
FISH
FISH
FISH
FISH
FISH
FISH
FISH
BIRDS
MAMMALS
PLANTS
BIRDS
PLANTS
CLAMS
MAMMALS
BIRDS
PLANTS
BIRDS
MAMMALS
PLANTS
BIRDS
MAMMALS
PLANTS
BIRDS
INSECTS
MAMMALS
PLANTS
BIRDS
PLANTC
PLANTS
BIRDS
CLAMS
MAMMALS
PLANTS
BIRDS
FISHES
MAMMALS
FISHES
MAMMALS
PLANTS
BIRDS
Inverse name
MOORHEN, MARIANA COMMON
STARLING, PONAPE MOUNTAIN
SWIFTLET, MARIANA GRAY
(=VANIKORO).
WARBLER (OLD WORLD), NIGHTIN
GALE REED.
WARBLER (OLD WORLD), NIGHTIN
GALE REED.
WHITE-EYE, PONAPE GREATER
BAT, INDIANA
BAT, LITTLE MARIANA FRUIT
BAT, MARIANA FRUIT
COUGAR, EASTERN
DUGONG
HAYUN LAGU (TRONKON GUAFI)
POGONIA, SMALL WHORLED
TURTLE, GREEN SEA
TURTLE, HAWKSBILL SEA
TOPEKA SHINER
TOPEKA SHINER
TOPEKA SHINER
TOPEKA SHINER
TOPEKA SHINER
TOPEKA SHINER
TOPEKA SHINER
EAGLE, BALD
BAT, INDIANA
POGONIA, SMALL WHORLED
FALCON, PEREGRINE
POGONIA, SMALL WHORLED
MUSSEL, DWARF WEDGE
BAT, INDIANA
EAGLE BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
CINQUEFOIL, ROBBINS'
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
BAT, INDIANA
CINQUEFOIL, ROBBINS'
EAGLE, BALD .
BAT, INDIANA
POGONIA, SMALL WHORLED
EAGLE BALD
BUTTERFLY, KARNER BLUE
BAT, INDIANA
POGONIA, SMALL WHORLED
EAGLE, BALD
POGONIA, SMALL WHORLED ..
POGONIA SMALL WHORLED
EAGLE BALD
MUSSEL, DWARF WEDGE
BAT, INDIANA
MILKVETCH, JESUP'S
FLYCATCHER SOUTHWESTERN WIL-
LOW.
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
OWL, MEXICAN SPOTTED
MINNOW, RIO GRANDE SILVERY
FERRET, BLACK-FOOTED
FALCON, PEREGRINE
FLYCATCHER, SOUTHWESTERN WIL-
LOW.
OWL, MEXICAN SPOTTED
MINNOW, LOACH
SPIKEDACE
TROUT, GILA
FERRET, BLACKFOOTED
DOCK, CHIRICAHUA
FLEABANE, ZUNI
EAGLE BALD
FALCON, NORTHERN APLOMADO
FALCON, PEREGRINE
Scientific name
Galllnula chloropus guam!
Aplonis pelzelni
Aerodramus vanikorensis bartschi
Acrocephalus lusclnla
Acrocephalus luscinia
Rukia longirostra (-sanfordi)
Myotis sodalis
Pteropus tokudae
Fells concolor couguar
Serlanthes nelsonli
Isotria medeoloides
Eretmochelys imbrEcata .
Notropis topeka
Notropls topeka
Notropis topeka
Notropis topeka
Myotis sodalis
Myotis sodalis
Falco peregrinus
Potentilla robbinsiana
Falco peregrinus
Myotis sodalis
Myotis sodalis
Isotria medeoloides
Myotis sodalis
Myotis sodalis
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Strix occidentals lucida
Mustela nigripes
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Emplodonax traillii extimus
Strix occidentalls lucida
Meda fulglda
Salmo gilae
Rumsx orthonsurus
Erigeron rhizomatus
Falco femoralis septentrlonalis
Falco pereqrinus
Status
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
T
E, T
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
T
E
T
E
T
E
E
T
E
E
T
E
E
E
T
E
T
T
E
T
T
T
T
T
E
T
T
F
£
T
T
T
r-
T
T
T
-------
52534
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 189/Wednesday, September 30. 1998/Notices
II. COUNTY/SPECIES LIST—Continued
[The following list identifies federally listed or proposed U.S. species by State and County. It has been updated through July 8, 1998. Species
listed below with a status of both E and T are generally either endangered or threatened within the specified county.]
State/County
Group name
Inverse name
Scientific name
Status
FISHES
MAMMALS
PLANTS ....
CIBOLA
BIRDS
COLFAX .
CURRY ....
DE BACA ,
DONA ANA ,
MAMMALS
PLANTS ....
BIRDS
MAMMALS
BIRDS
MAMMALS
BIRDS
FISHES
MAMMALS
BIRDS
EDDY
MAMMALS .
PLANTS
BIRDS
FISHES
MAMMALS
PLANTS ....
GRANT.
BIRDS
FISHES
MAMMALS
GUADALUPE
BIRDS
HARDING .
HIDALGO .
MAMMALS
PLANTS ....
BIRDS
MAMMALS
BIRDS
FISHES
MAMMALS
OWL, MEXICAN SPOTTED
TERN, INTERIOR (POPULATION)
LEAST.
GAMBUSIA, PECOS
'UPPISH, PECOS
SHINER, PECOS BLUNTNOSE
FERRET, BLACKFOOTED
CACTUS, KUENZLER HEDGEHOG
SUNFLOWER, PECOS
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
FLYCATCHER, SOUTHWESTERN WIL-
LOW.
OWL, MEXICAN SPOTTED
FERRET, BLACKFOOTED
SUNFLOWER, PECOS
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
OWL, MEXICAN SPOTTED
FERRET, BLACKFOOTED
EAGLE, BALD ....:
FERRET, BLACKFOOTED
EAGLE, BALD
SHINER, PECOS BLUNTNOSE
FERRET, BLACKFOOTED
EAGLE, BALD :
FALCON, NORTHERN APLOMADO
FALCON, PEREGRINE
FLYCATCHER, SOUTHWESTERN WIL-
LOW.
TERN, INTERIOR (POPULATION)
LEAST.
FERRET, BLACKFOOTED
ACTUS, SNEED PINCUSHION
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, NORTHERN APLOMADO ....
FALCON, PEREGRINE
OWL, MEXICAN SPOTTED
TERN, INTERIOR (POPULATION)
LEAST.
GAMBUSIA, PECOS
PUPFISH, PECOS
SHINER, PECOS BLUNTNOSE
FERRET, BLACKFOOTED
CACTUS, LEE PINCUSHION
CACTUS, LLOYD'S HEDGEHOG
WILDBUCKWHEAT, GYPSUM
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, NORTHERN APLOMADO ...
FALCON, PEREGRINE
FLYCATCHER, SOUTHWESTERN WIL-
LOW.
OWL, MEXICAN SPOTTED
CHUB, CHIHUAHUA
MINNOW, LOACH
SHINER, BEAUTIFUL
SPIKEDACE
TOPMINNOW, GlLA (YAQUI)
TROUT, GlLA
FERRET, BLACK-FOOTED
WOLF, GRAY ...'.
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
FERRET, BLACK-FOOTED i
SUNFLOWER, PECOS
EAGLE, BALD
FERRET, BLACK-FOOTED
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, NORTHERN APLOMADO ..
FALCON, PEREGRINE
FLYCATCHER, SOUTHWESTERN WIL
LOW.
OWL, MEXICAN SPOTTED
SPIKEDACE :
BAT, LESSER (=SANBORN'S) LONG
NOSED.
BAT, MEXICAN LONG-NOSED
FERRET, BLACK-FOOTED
WOLF, GRAY ..L
Strix occidentals lucida .
Sterna antillarum
Gambusia nobilis
Cyprinodon pecosensis
Motropis simus peconsensis
dustela nigripes
ichinocereus fendleri var. kuenzleri..
Helianthus, paradoxus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
:alco peregrinus
Empidonax traillii extimus
Strix occidentals lucida
Mustela nigripes
Helianthus, paradoxus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
ralco peregrinus
Strix occidentalis lucida
Mustela nigripes
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
i/lustela nigripes
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
•Jotropis simus peconsensis
i/lustela nigripes
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
:alco femoralls septentrionalis.
ralco peregrinus
Empidonax traillii extimus
Sterna antillarum .
Mustela nigripes
Sotyphantha sneedii var. sneedii.
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
ralco femoralis septentrionalis
=alco peregrinus
Strix occidentalis lucida
Sterna antillarum
Gambusia nobilis
Cyprinodon pecosensis
Motropis simus peconsensis
Mustela nigripes
Coryphantha sneedii var. leei...
Echinocereus lloydii
Eriogonum gypsophilum
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco femoralis septentrionalis .
Falco peregrinus
Empiodonax traillii extimus
Strix occidentalis lucida
Gila nigrescens
Rhinichthys (=Tiaroga) cobrtls ..
Notropis formosus
Meda fulgida
Poeciliopsis occidentalis
Salmo gilae
Mustela nigripes
Canis lupus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Mustela nigripes
Helianthus, paradoxus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Mustela nigripes
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco femoralis septentrionalis .
Falco peregrinus
Empiodonax traillii extimus
Strix occidentalis lucida .
Meda fulgida
Leptonycteris sanborni...
Leptonycteris nivalls.
Mustela nigripes
Canis lupus
T
E
T
E
E
E
T
E
T
E
T
T
E
E
E
T
T
T
T
T
E
E
E
E, T
T
E
E
T
T
E
T
E
E
E
T
T
E
E
E
E, T
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 189/Wednesday, September 30, 1998/Notices
52535
II. COUNTY/SPECIES LIST—Continued
[The foBowtng Ust Identifies federally listed or proposed U.S. species by State and County. It has been updated through July 8, 1998. Species
"Sted below with a status of both E and T are generally either endangered or threatened within the specified county.]
State/County
Group name
Inverse name
Scientific name
Status
LEA
LINCOLN
LOS ALAMOS.
LUNA.
MCKINLEY .
MORA ....
OTERO
QUAY ...
R!O ARRIBA .
ROOSEVELT
SAN JUAN ....
SAN MIGUEL.
SANOOVAL ...„
REPTILES ,
BIRDS
MAMMALS
BIRDS
MAMMALS
PLANTS ....
BIRDS
MAMMALS
BIRDS
FISHES
MAMMALS
BIRDS
MAMMALS
PLANTS ....
BIRDS
MAMMALS
BIRDS
MAMMALS
PLANTS ....
BIRDS
MAMMALS
BIRDS
MAMMALS
BIRDS
MAMMALS
BIRDS
FISHES
MAMMALS
PLANTS ....
BIRDS
MAMMALS
'LANTS ....
SANTA FE ....
BIRDS ..
1SHES
1AMM/
iiRDS
NEW
MEXICAN
RATTLESNAKE,
RIDGE-NOSED.
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, NORTHERN APLOMADO
FERRET, BLACK-FOOTED
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, NORTHERN APLOMADO
FALCON, PEREGRINE
OWL, MEXICAN SPOTTED
FERRET, BLACK-FOOTED
CACTUS, KUENZLER HEDGEHOG
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
OWL, MEXICAN SPOTTED
FERRET, BLACK-FOOTED
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, NORTHERN APLOMADO
FALCON, PEREGRINE
SHINER, BEAUTIFUL
FERRET, BLACK-FOOTED
WOLF, GRAY
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
OWL, MEXICAN SPOTTED
FERRET, BLACK-FOOTED
FLEABANE, ZUNI
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
FLYCATCHER, SOUTHWESTERN WIL-
LOW.
OWL, MEXICAN SPOTTED
FERRET, BLACK-FOOTED
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, NORTHERN APLOMADO
FALCON, PEREGRINE
OWL, MEXICAN SPOTTED
FERRET, BLACK-FOOTED
JACTUS, KUENZLER HEDGEHOG
'ENNYROYAL, TODSEN'S
'OPPY, SACRAMENTO PRICKLY
THISTLE, SACRAMENTO MOUNTAINS
EAGLE, BALD
FERRET, BLACK-FOOTED
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
OWL, MEXICAN SPOTTED
FERRET, BLACK-FOOTED
EAGLE, BALD
FERRET, BLACK-FOOTED
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
FLYCATCHER, SOUTHWESTERN WIL-
LOW.
OWL, MEXICAN SPOTTED
SQUAWFISH, COLORADO
SUCKER, RAZORBACK
FERRET, BLACK-FOOTED
SACTUS, KNOWLTON
iACTUS, MESA VERDE ...
MILK-VETCH, MANGOS
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
FLYCATCHER, SOUTHWESTERN WIL-
LOW.
OWL, MEXICAN SPOTTED
FERRET, BLACK-FOOTED
DOCK, CHIRICAHUA
POMOPSIS, HOLY GHOST
EAGLE, BALD
FLYCATCHER, SOUTHWESTERN WIL-
LOW.
OWL, MEXICAN SPOTTED
MINNOW, RIO GRANDE SILVERY
ERRET, BLACK-FOOTED
EAGLE, BALD
ALCON, PEREGRINE
LYCATCHER, SOUTHWESTERN WIL-
LOW.
Crotalus willardi obscurus.
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco femoralis septentrionalis
Mustela nigrlpes
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco femoralis septentrionalis
Falco peregrinus
Strix occidentalis lucida
Mustela nigripes
Echinocereus fendleri var. kuenzlerl
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Strix occidentalis lucida
Mustela nigripes
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco femoralis septentrionalis
Falco peregrinus
Notropis formosus
Mustela nigripes
Canis lupus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Strix occidentalis lucida
Mustela nigripes
Erigeron rhizomatus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Empidonax tralllii extimus
Strix occidentalis lucida
Mustela nigripes
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco femoralis septentrionalis
Falco peregrinus
Strix occidentalis lucida
Mustela nigripes
Echinocereus fendleri var. kuenzleri
Hedeoma todsenii
Argemone pleiacantha ssp. pinnatisecta..
"lirsium vinaceum
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Mustela nigripes
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
:alco peregrinus
3trix occidentalis lucida
Mustela nigripes
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Mustela nigripes
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
ralco peregrinus
Empidonax tralllii extimus
Strix occidentalis lucida ...
'tychocheilus lucius
-------
52536
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 189/Wednesday, September 30, 1998/Notices
II. COUNTY/SPECIES LIST—Continued
[The following list identifies federally listed or proposed U.S. species by State and County. It has been updated through July 8, 1998. Species
listed below with a status of both E and T are generally either endangered or threatened within the specified county.]
State/County
Group name
Inverse name
Scientific name
Status
SIERRA .
MMMALS
PLANTS ....
BIRDS
SOCORRO.
FISHES
MAMMALS
'LANTS ....
BIRDS
CRUSTACEAN
FISHES
MAMMALS
SNAILS
TAGS
BIRDS
TORRANCE
UNION
VALENCIA
MAMMALS
BIRDS
MAMMALS
BIRDS
MAMMALS
BIRDS
FISHES
MAMMALS
PLANTS ....
NEVADA
CARSON CITY
CHURCHILL
CLARK
BIRDS
BIRDS
BIRDS
FISHES
REPTILES .
DOUGLAS.
ELKO
BIRDS ...
BIRDS ..
FISHES
ESMERALDA
EUREKA
HUMBOLDT ..
REPTILES ,
BIRDS ..
FISHES
FISHES
LANDER ..
LINCOLN .
FISHES
BIRDS
OWL, MEXICAN SPOTTED
ERRET, BLACK-FOOTED
DOCK, CHIRICAHUA
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, NORTHERN APLOMADO
FALCON, PEREGRINE ,
FLYCATCHER. SOUTHWESTERN WIL-
LOW.
OWL, MEXICAN SPOTTED
ROUT, GILA ..I
FERRET, BLACK-FOOTED
'ENNYROYAL, TODSEN'S
EAGLE, BALD
•ALCON, NORTHERN APLOMADO
FALCON, PEREGRINE
FLYCATCHER, SOUTHWESTERN WIL-
LOW.
OWL, MEXICAN SPOTTED
TERN, INTERIOR (POPULATION)
LEAST.
SOPOD, SOCORRO
itrix occidentalis luclda
dustela nigripes
lumex orthoneurus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
:alco femoralis septentrionalis.
;alco peregrinus
Empidonax traillli extimus
MINNOW, RIO GRANDE SILVERY
FERRET, BLACK-FOOTED
SPRINGSNAIL, ALAMOSA
SPRINGSNAIL, SOCORRO
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON. PEREGRINE
FLYCATCHER, SOUTHWESTERN WIL-
LOW.
OWL, MEXICAN SPOTTED
FERRET, BLACK-FOOTED
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
OWL, MEXICAN SPOTTED
FERRET, BLACK-FOOTED
EAGLE, BALD
FERRET, BLACK-FOOTED
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
OWL, MEXICAN SPOTTED
MINNOW, RIO GRANDE SILVERY
FERRET, BLACK-FOOTED
SUNFLOWER, PECOS
EAGLE, BALD .'.
EAGLE, BALD
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
GOOSE, ALEUTIAN CANADA
RAIL, YUMA CLAPPER
CHUB, BONYTAIL
CHUB, VIRGIN RIVER
DACE, MOAPA
POOLFISH, PAHRUMP (=PAHRUMP
KILLIFISH).
PUPFISH, DEVILS HOLE
SUCKER, RAZORBACK
WOUNDFIN
TORTOISE, DESERT
EAGLE, BALD
EAGLE, BALD !
FALCON, PEREGRINE
DACE, CLOVER VALLEY SPECKLED...
DACE, INDEPENDENCE VALLE\
SPECKLED.
TROUT, BULL (JARBRIDGE RIVEI
ESU).
TROUT, LAHONTAN CUTTHROAT
TORTOISE, DESERT
EAGLE, BALD
TROUT, LAHONTAN CUTTHROAT ,
DACE, DESERT
TROUT, LAHONTAN CUTTHROAT
TROUT, LAHONTAN CUTTHROAT
EAGLE, BALD
Strix occidentalis lucida
5almo gilae
irtustela nigripes
Hedeoma todsenii
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
:alco femoralis septentrionalis.
:alco peregrinus
Empidonax trailtii extimus
Strix occidentalis lucida .
Sterna antillarum
Thermosphaeroma
thermophilus.
Hybognathus amarus
rfustela nigripes
Tryonia alamosae
'yrgulopsis neomexicana
•laliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Empidonax traillii extimus
(=Exosphaeroma)
Strix occidentalis lucida ....
dustela nigripes
•laliaeetus leucocephalus .
=alco peregrinus
Strix occidentalis lucida ....
Mustela nigripes
Haliaeetus leucocephalus .
Vlustela nigripes
Haliaeetus leucocephalus .
Falco peregrinus
Strix occidentalis lucida ....
Hybognathus amarus
Mustela nigripes
Helianthus, paradoxus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus ,
Falco peregrinus
Branta canadensis leucopareia .
Rallus longirostris yumanensis ..
Glla elegans
Gila robusta seminuda
Moapa coriacea
Empetrichythys latos
Cyprinodon diabolis
Xyrauchen texanus
Plagopterus argentissimus
Gopherus (=Xerobates,=Scaptochelys;
agasslzii.
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Rhinichthys osculus oligoporous
Rhinichthys osculus lethoporous
Salvelinus confluentus .
Salmo clarki henshawi
Gopherus (=Xerobates,
agassizii.
Haliaeetus leucocephalus .
Salmo clarki henshawi
Eremichthys acros
Salmo clarki henshawi
Salmo clarki henshawi
Haliaeetus leucocephalus.
Scaptochelys
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 189/Wednesday, September 30. 1998/Notices
52537
II. COUNTY/SPECIES LIST—Continued
[The following list Identifies federally listed or proposed U.S. species by State and County. It has been updated through July 8, 1998. Species
listed below with a status of both E and T are generally either endangered or threatened within the specified county.]
Stata»Courrty
Group name
Inverse name
Scientific name
Status
FISHES
PLANTS ...
REPTILES ,
LYON ......
MINERAL
NYE...
BIRDS ..
BIROS ..
FISHES
PLANTS
BIRDS
FISHES ....
INSECTS .
PLANTS ..
REPTILES ,
PERSHING „,.
STOREY
WASHOE .
BIRDS ..
FISHES
BIRDS ..
FISHES
WHITE PINE.
PLANTS
BIRDS ...
FISHES .
OKLAHOMA
ADAIR
BIRDS
MAMMALS .
ALFALFA..........
ATOKA
BEAVER
BECKHAM
ELAINE
BIRDS
BIRDS
BIRDS
BIRDS
BIRDS
BRYAN.
BIRDS ..
CHUB, PAHRANAGAT ROUNDTAIL.
DACE, MOAPA
SPINEDACE, BIG SPRING
SPRINGFISH, HIKO WHITE RIVER ..
SPRINGFISH, WHITE RIVER
LADIES'-TRESSES, UTE
TORTOISE, DESERT
EAGLE, BALD
EAGLE, BALD
SPRINGFISH, HIKO WHITE RIVER .
SPRINGFISH, RAILROAD VALLEY..
TROUT, LAHONTAN CUTTHROAT..
MILK-VETCH, SODAVILLE
EAGLE, BALD
DACE, ASH MEADOWS SPECKLED
POOLFISH, PAHRUMP (=PAHRUMP
KILLIFISH).
PUPFISH, ASH MEADOWS AMARGOSA
PUPFISH, DEVILS HOLE
PUPFISH, WARM SPRINGS
SPINEDACE, WHITE RIVER
SPRINGFISH, RAILROAD VALLEY
TROUT, LAHONTAN CUTTHROAT
NAUCORID, ASH MEADOWS
BLAZING STAR, ASH MEADOWS
CENTAURY, SPRING-LOVING
GUMPLANT, ASH MEADOWS
IVESIA, ASH MEADOWS
MILK-VETCH, ASH MEADOWS
NITERWORT, AMARGOSA
SUNRAY, ASH MEADOWS
TORTOISE, DESERT
EAGLE, BALD
TROUT, LAHONTAN CUTTHROAT
EAGLE, BALD
CUIUI
SUCKER, WARNER
TROUT, LAHONTAN CUTTHROAT
BUCKWHEAT, STEAMBOAT
EAGLE, BALD
POOLFISH, PAHRUMP (=PAHRUMP
KILLIFISH).
SPINEDACE, WHITE RIVER
NSECTS,
EAGLE, BALD
BAT, GRAY
BAT, INDIANA
BAT, OZARK BIG-EARED
CRANE, WHOOPING
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
PLOVER, PIPING
TERN, INTERIOR (POPULATION)
LEAST.
EAGLE, BALD
CRANE, WHOOPING
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
PLOVER, PIPING
TERN, INTERIOR (POPULATION)
LEAST.
VIREO, BLACK-CAPPED
CRANE, WHOOPING
CRANE, WHOOPING
EAGLE, BALD
PLOVER, PIPING
TERN, INTERIOR (POPULATION)
LEAST.
VIREO, BLACK-CAPPED
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
TERN, INTERIOR (POPULATION)
LEAST.
WOODPECKER, RED-COCKADED
BEETLE, AMERICAN BURYING
Gila robusta Jordan!
Moapa coriacea
Lepidomeda mollisplnis pratensls
Crenichthys bailey! grandis
Crenichthys baileyi baileyi
Spiranthes diluvlalis
Gopherus (=Xerobates, =Scaptochelys
agassizll.
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Crenichthys baileyi grandis
Crenichthys nevadae
Salmo clarki henshawi
Astragalus lentiginosus var,
Seslquimetralis.
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Rhinichthys osculus nevadensis
Empetrichythys latos
Cyprinodon nevadensis mionectes
Cyprinodon diabolis
Cyprinodon nevadensis pectoralis
Lepidomeda albivallis
Crenichthys nevadae
Salmo clarki henshawi
Ambrysus amargosus
Mentzelia leucophylla
Centaurium namophilum var. namophilum
Grindelia fraxin-opratensis
Ivesia eremica
Astragalus phoenix
Nitrophila mohavensis
Enceliopsis nudicaulis var. corrugata
Gopherus (=Xerobates, =Scaptochelys)
agassizii.
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Salmo clarki henshawi
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Chasmistes cujus
Catostomus warnerensls
Salmo clarki henshawi
Eriogonum ovalifolium var. williamsiae....
Haliaeetus leucocephalus '.
Empetrichythys latos
Lepidomeda albivallis.
Haliaeetus leucocephalus ...
Myotis grisescens
Myotis sodalis
Plecotus townsendii ingens .
Grus americana
Haliaeetus leucocephalus ....
Falco peregrinus
Charadrius meiodus
Sterna antillarum
Haliaeetus leucocephalus .
Grus americana
Haliaeetus leucocephalus .
Falco peregrinus
Charadrius meiodus
Sterna antillarum
Vireo atricapillus
Grus americana
irus americana
Haliaeetus leucocephalus .
Charadrius meiodus
Sterna antillarum
Vireo atricapillus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus .
ralco peregrinus
Sterna antillarum
'icoides borealis
Nicrophorus americanus ,
T
E
E
E
E
T
E
E, T
E
T
E
T
E
E, T
E
E
E
E
T
E, T
-------
52538
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 189/Wednesday, September 30, 1998/Notices
II. COUNTY/SPECIES LIST—Continued
[The following list identifies federally listed or proposed U.S. species by State and County. It has been updated through July 8, 1998. Species
listed below with a status of both E and T are generally either endangered or threatened within the specified county.]
State/County
pAnnn
PAMAHIAN
CARTER
CHOCTAW..
CIMARRON
pi PVPI AMn
POMAMPWP
pRAirj
CREEK
HFWPY
Group name
REPTILES
BIRDS
BIRDS
BIRDS
RIPHQ
NSEC7S
MAMMA1 Q
BIRDS
pi AMTQ
BIRDS
BIRDS
BIRDS
BIRDS
FISHES
MAMMAI Q
PI AMTQ
BIRDS
BIRDS
BIRDS
FISHES
MAMMALS
BIRDS
BIRDS
BIRDS
BIRDS
BIRDS
Inverse name
ALLIGATOR AMERICAN
CRANE WHOOPING
:AGLE BALD
VIREO BLACK-CAPPED
CRANE WHOOPING
EAGLE BALD
FAI PON PFRFfSRINF
PLOVER PIPING
TERN, INTERIOR (POPULATION)
LEAST.
VIREO BLACK-CAPPED
EAGLE, BALD
EAGLE BALD
BEETLE, AMERICAN BURYING
BAT GRAY
RAT INDIANA
RAT H7AHK RlfS-FARFD
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
ORCHID EASTERN PRAIRIE FRINGED
EAGLE, BALD
TERN, INTERIOR (POPULATION)
LEAST.
SHINER ARKANSAS RIVER
CRANE WHOOPING
EAGLE BALD '
FALCON PEREGRINE
PLOVER PIPING
TERN, INTERIOR (POPULATION)
LEAST.
CRANE WHOOPING
EAGLE BALD
FALCON PEREGRINE
PLOVER PIPING
TERN, INTERIOR (POPULATION)
LEAST.
VIREO BLACK-CAPPED
CRANE WHOOPING
EAGLE BALD
PLOVER PIPING
TERN, INTERIOR (POPULATION)
LEAST. i
CAVEFISH OZARK
MADTOM NEOSHO
BAT INDIANA
ORCHID, WESTERN PRAIRIE FRINGED
EAGLE, BALD
FAI PON PFRFfiRINF
PLOVER PIPING
TERN, ' INTERIOR (POPULATioN)
LEAST.
CRANE WHOOPING
FAf*l F RAI n J
FALCON PEREGRINE
PLOVER PIPING
TERN, INTERIOR (POPULATION
LEAST.
EAGLE BALD
FALCON PEREGRINE
CAVEFISH OZARK
BAT GRAY
BAT INDIANA '
CRANE WHOOPING
EAGLE BALD
PLOVER PIPING
TERN, INTERIOR (POPULATION
LEAST. .
CRANE WHOOPING
cA/^i p RAI n
PI OVFR PIPINGS
TERN, INTERIOR (POPULATION
LEAST.
CRANE WHOOPING
CRANE WHOOPING
EAGLE BALD
FAI PDN PFRFfiRINF
CRANE WHOOPING
TERN, INTERIOR (POPULATION
LEAST.
Scientific name
Alligator mississippiensis
Gms americana
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Grus americana
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Charadrius melodus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
>licrophorus americanus
Myotis grisescens
Plecotus townsendii ingens
•laliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Platanthera leucophaea
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Notropis girardi
Grus americana
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Charadrius melodus
Sterna antillarum
Grus americana
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Charadrius melodus
Vireo atricapillus
Grus americana
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Charadrius melodus
Amblyopsis rosae
Noturus placidus
Myotis sodalis
Platanthera praeclara
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Charadrius melodus
Grus americana
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Charadrius melodus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Amblyopsis rosae
Myotis grisescens
Myotis sodalis
Grus americana
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Charadrius melodus
Grus americana
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Charadrius melodus
Grus americana
Grus americana
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Grus americana
Sterna antillarum
Status
i, T
T
T
2
T
^,T
T
i, T
T
E,T
E
T
T
E
T
T
E
E, T
E
E
T
E
E, T
E
T
E
T
E
E
E
E
T
E,T
E
E
T
E, T
E
E
E
T
E
E
E
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63. No. 189/Wednesday, September 30, 1998/Notices
52539
II. COUNTY/SPECIES LIST—Continued
[The following Kst identifies federally listed or proposed U.S. species by State and County. It has been updated through July 8, 1998 Species
listed below with a status of both E and T are generally either endangered or threatened within the specified county.]
Stain/County
GRANT
GREER .„...
HARMON
HARPER
HASKEU.
HUGHES
JACKSON
JEFFERSON
JOHNSTON
KAY .............. .
WNGFISHER
K1OWA
LATIMER „„
LINCOLN ...
LOGAN
LOVE... .... .
MAJOR... —
Group name
BIRDS
BIRDS
BIRDS
BIRDS
BIRDS
INSECTS
MAMMALS
BIRDS
BIRDS
BIRDS
BIRDS
BIRDS
BIRDS
BIRDS
BIRDS
NSECTS
MAMMALS
BIRDS
CLAMS
FISHES
NSECTS
MAMMALS
BIRDS
BIRDS
BIRDS
BIRDS
Inverse name
CRANE, WHOOPING
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
CRANE, WHOOPING
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
CRANE, WHOOPING
PLOVER, PIPING
TERN, INTERIOR (POPULATION
LEAST.
CRANE, WHOOPING
FALCON, PEREGRINE
PLOVER, PIPING
TERN, INTERIOR (POPULATION
LEAST.
EAGLE, BALD
PLOVER, PIPING
TERN, INTERIOR (POPULATION
LEAST.
BEETLE, AMERICAN BURYING
BAT, INDIANA
EAGLE, BALD
TERN, INTERIOR (POPULATION)
LEAST.
CRANE WHOOPING
PLOVER, PIPING
TERN, INTERIOR (POPULATION)
LEAST.
CRANE, WHOOPING
EAGLE, BALD
PLOVER, PIPING
TERN, INTERIOR (POPULATION)
LEAST.
CRANE, WHOOPING .
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
TERN, INTERIOR (POPULATION)
LEAST.
EAGLE BALD
PLOVER, PIPING
TERN, INTERIOR (POPULATION)
LEAST.
CRANE, WHOOPING
EAGLE, BALD
TERN, INTERIOR (POPULATION)
LEAST.
CRANE, WHOOPING
EAGLE, BALD
rALCON, PEREGRINE
TERN, INTERIOR (POPULATION)
LEAST.
FALCON, PEREGRINE
WOODPECKER, RED-COCKADED
BEETLE, AMERICAN BURYING
BAT, INDIANA
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
PLOVER, PIPING
TERN, INTERIOR (POPULATION)
LEAST.
WOODPECKER, RED-COCKADED
ROCK-POCKETBOOK, OUACHITA
ROCK-POCKETBOOK, OUACHITA
(«=WHEELER'S PM).
DARTER, LEOPARD
BEETLE, AMERICAN BURYING
BAT, INDIANA
CRANE, WHOOPING
EAGLE, BALD
CRANE WHOOPING
PLOVER, PIPING
TERN, INTERIOR (POPULATION)
LEAST.
CRANE WHOOPING
EAGLE, BALD
TERN, INTERIOR (POPULATION)
LEAST.
CRANE, WHOOPING
EAGLE, BALD
Scientific name
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus ., .
HaliaeGtus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus .
Charadrius melodus
Sterna antillarum
Falco peregrinus
Charadrius metodus
Sterna antillarum
Charadrius melodus
Sterna antillarum
Sterna antillarum
Charadrius melodus
Sterna antillarum
Haliaeetus leucocephaius
Charadrius melodus
Sterna antillarum
Falco peregrinus ,
Sterna antillarum ,
Charadrius melodus
Sterna antillarum
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Sterna antillarum
Falco peregrinus .
Sterna antillarum
Picoides borealls
Myotis sodalls
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Sterna antillarum
Picoides borealis .
Arkansia (—Arcldens) wheeler!
Arkansia (=Arcidens) wheeler!
Myotis sodalls
Sterna antillarum
Sterna antillarum
Haliaeetus leucoceohalus
Status
E
T
E
E
T
E
E
E;T
E
E
E
E, T
E
T
E, T
E
E
E
T
E
E
E, T
E
E
T
E, T
E
E
T
E
E
T
E, T
T
T
;
:
.
g T
_
1 T
-------
52540
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 189/Wednesday, September 30, 1998/Notices
II. COUNTY/SPECIES LIST—Continued
[The following list identifies federally listed cr proposed U.S. species by State and County. It has been updated through July 8, 1998. Species
listed below with a status of both E and T are generally either endangered or threatened within the specified county.]
State/County
MARSHALL
MAYES
MCCLAIN
MCCURTAIN
MCINTOSH
MURRAY
MUSKOGEE
NOBLE
NOWATA
OKLAHOMA
OSAGE
OTTAWA
PAWNEE
PAYNE
PITTSBURG
Group name
BIRDS
BIRDS
FISHES
MAMMALS
BIRDS
BIRDS
FISHES
MAMMALS
REPTILES
BIRDS
MAMMALS
BIRDS
BIRDS
INSECTS
MAMMALS
BIRDS ....
BIRDS
BIRDS
BIRDS
BIRDS
FISHES
MAMMALS
BIRDS
BIRDS
BIRDS
MAMMALS
Inverse name
PLOVER, PIPING
TERN, INTERIOR (POPULATION)
LEAST.
EAGLE, BALD ..
FALCON, PEREGRINE
PLOVER, PIPING
TERN, INTERIOR (POPULATION)
LEAST.
EAGLE, BALD
CAVEFISH, OZARK
BAT, INDIANA
CRANE WHOOPING
FALCON, PEREGRINE
PLOVER, PIPING
TERN, INTERIOR (POPULATION)
LEAST
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
TERN, INTERIOR (POPULATION)
LEAST ;
WOODPECKER, RED-COCKADED
DARTER, LEOPARD
BAT, INDIANA :
ALLIGATOR AMERICAN
EAGLE, BALD
TERN, INTERIOR (POPULATION)
LEAST.
BAT, INDIANA
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
TERN, INTERIOR (POPULATION)
LEAST.
CRANE, WHOOPING
EAGLE, BALD
PLOVER, PIPING i
TERN, INTERIOR (POPULATION)
LEAST.
BEETLE, AMERICAN BURYING
BAT, INDIANA
EAGLE BALD
PLOVER, PIPING ;
TERN, INTERIOR (POPULATION)
LEAST.
EAGLE BALD
PLOVER, PIPING
CRANE WHOOPING
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
PLOVER, PIPING
TERN, INTERIOR (POPULATION)
LEAST.
CRANE WHOOPING
CURLEW, ESKIMO
EAGLE, BALD ;
FALCON, PEREGRINE
PLOVER, PIPING
TERN, INTERIOR (POPULATION)
LEAST.
EAGLE BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE . . ..
CAVEFISH, OZARK
MADTOM, NEOSHO
BAT, GRAY
BAT, INDIANA :
BAT, OZARK BIG-EARED
CRANE, WHOOPING
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
TERN, INTERIOR (POPULATION)
LEAST.
CRANE WHOOPING
PLOVER, PIPING
TERN, INTERIOR (POPULATION)
LEAST.
EAGLE BALD
TERN, INTERIOR (POPULATION)
LEAST.
WOODPECKER, RED-COCKADED .
BAT, INDIANA
Scientific name
Charadrius melodus
Sterna antillarum
Falco peregrinus
Charadrius rnelodus
Sterna antillarum
Amblyopsis rosae
Falco peregrinus
Charadrius melodus
Sterna antillarum
Falco peregrinus
Sterna antillarum
Picoides borealis
Percina pantherina
Myotis sodalis
Myotis sodalis
Hallaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Sterna antillarum
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Charadrius melodus
Sterna antillarum
Nicrophorus americanus
Myotis sodalis
Charadrius melodus
Sterna antillarum
Charadrius melodus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Charadrius melodus
Sterna antillarum
Numenius borealis
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Sterna antillarum
Falco peregrinus
Amblyopsis rosae
Noturus placfdus
Myotis sodalis
Plecotus townsendii ingens
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Sterna antillarum
Charadrius melodus
Stema antillarum
Sterna antiliarum
Mvotis sodalis
Status
E T
E
T
E
E T
E
T
T
E
E
E
E T
E
T
E
E
E
T
E
T
7
E
E
T
E
E
E
T
E, T
E
E
E
T
E, T
E
T
E T
E
T
E
E T
E
E
E
T
E
E T
E
T
E
T
T
E
E
E
E
T
E
E
E
E, T
E
•j-
E
E
E
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 189/Wednesday, September 30, 1998/Notices
52541
II. COUNTY/SPECIES LIST—Continued
[The fottowlrra list Identifies federally listed or proposed U.S. species by State and Co.unty. It has been updated through July 8, 1998. Species
listed below with a status of both E and T are generally either endangered or threatened within the specified county.]
Stata/County
POMTOTOC
POTTAWATOMIE
PUSHMATAHA
ROGER MILLS
nnncnQ
SEMINOLE
SEQUOYAH
OTCpucwq
TEXAS
TILLMAN
TULSA
U/AAOMPR
WARHlMnTOM
IA/AOUITA
WOODS
WOODWARD
OREGON
BAKER
Group name
BIRDS
BIRDS
BIRDS
CLAMS
FISHES
MAMMALS
BIRDS
BIRDS
pi AWT^
BIRDS
BIRDS
INSECTS
BIRDS
BIRDS
BIRDS
BIRDS
INSECTS
BIRDS
MAMMALS
BIRDS
BIRDS
BIRDS
BIRDS
BIRDS
Inverse name
EAGLE, BALD
TERN INTERIOR (POPULATION)
LEAST.
TERN INTERIOR (POPULATION)
LEAST.
EAGLE BALD
WOODPECKER RED-COCKADED
ROCK-POCKETBOOK OUACHITA
ROCK-POCKETBOOK OUACHITA
(=WHEELER'S PM).
DARTER LEOPARD
BAT INDIANA
CRANE, WHOOPING
EAGLE BALD
PLOVER PIPING
TERN INTERIOR (POPULATION)
LEAST.
CRANE WHOOPING
EAGLE BALD
FALCON PEREGRINE
PLOVER PIPING
TERM INTPRIOR /PnPIJI ATIOM
LEAST.
ORCHID WESTERN PRAIRIE FRINGED
TERN, INTERIOR (POPULATION)
LEAST.
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON PEREGRINE
PLOVER PIPING
TERN INTERIOR (POPULATION)
LEAST. s
BEETLE AMERICAN BURYING
BAT INDIANA
BAT OZARK BIG-EARED
CRANE WHOOPING
EAGLE BALD
FALCON PEREGRINE
CRANE WHOOPING
EAGLE BALD
FALCON PEREGRINE
PLOVER PIPING
TERN INTERIOR (POPULATION)
LEAST.
CRANE WHOOPING
PLOVER PIPING
TERN INTERIOR (POPULATION)
LEAST.
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON PEREGRINE
PLOVER PIPING
TERN INTERIOR (POPULATION)
LEAST.
BEETLE AMERICAN BURYING
CRANE WHOOPING
EAGLE BALD
FALCON PEREGRINE
PLOVER PIPING
TERN INTERIOR (POPULATION)
LEAST.
BAT INDIANA
CRANE WHOOPING
EAGLE BALD
FALCON PEREGRINE
PLOVER PIPING
CRANE WHOOPING
CRANE, WHOOPING
CURLEW ESKIMO
EAGLE BALD
PLOVER PIPING
TERN INTERIOR (POPULATION)
LEAST.
CRANE WHOOPING
EAGLE BALD
PLOVER PIPING
TERN INTERIOR (POPULATION)
LEAST.
EAGLE, BALD
Scientific name
Hallaeetus leucocephalus
Sterna antillarum
Sterna antillarum
Hallaeetus leucocephalus
PIcoides borealis
Arkansia (-Arcidens) wheeled
Percina pantherina
Grus americana
Hallaeetus leucocephalus
Charadrius melodus
Sterna antillarum
Grus americana
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Faloo peregrinus
Platanthera praeclara
Sterna antillarum
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Charadrius melodus
Sterna antillarum
Nicrophorus americanus
Myotis sodalis
Plecotus townsendii ingens
Grus americana
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Grus americana
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Charadrius melodus
Sterna antillarum
Grus americana
Charadrius melodus
Sterna antillarum
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Charadrius melodus
Sterna antillarum
Nicrophorus americanus
Grus americana
Falco peregrinus
Charadrius melodus
Myotis sodalis
Grus americana
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Charadrius melodus
Grus americana
Grus americana
Numenius borealis
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Charadrius melodus
Grus americana
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Charadrius melodus
Sterna antiliarum
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Status
T
E
E
T
E
E
E
T
E
E
T
E, T
E
E
T
E
E, T
E
T
E
T
E
E, T
E
E
E
E
E
T
E
E
T
E
E, T
E
E
E, T
E
T
E
E, T
E
E
E
T
E
E, T
E
E
E
T
E
E, T
E
E
E
T
E, T
E
E
T
E, T
E
T
-------
52542
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 189/Wednesday, September 30, 1998/Notices
II. COUNTY/SPECIES LIST—Continued
[The following list identifies federally listed or proposed U.S. species by State and County. It has been updated through July 8, 1998. Species
listed below with a status of both E and T are generally either endangered or threatened within the specified county.]
State/County
Group name
Inverse name
Scientific name
Status
BENTON
FISHES .
PLANTS
BIROS ...
FISHES
INSECTS .
PLANTS ..
CLACKAMAS
BIRDS ..
FISHES
CLATSOP
PLANTS
BIRDS ...
FISHES
COLUMBIA
INSECTS ...
MAMMALS
BIRDS
FALCON, PEREGRINE
MURRELET, MARBLED
SALMON, CHINOOK (SNAKE RIVER
FALL RUN).
SALMON, CHINOOK (SNAKE RIVER
SPRING/SUMMER).
TROUT, BULL (COLUMBIA RIVER ESU)
THELYPODY, HOWELL'S SPECTACU-
LAR.
EAGLE, BALD
GOOSE, ALEUTIAN CANADA
OWL, NORTHERN SPOTTED :
PLOVER, WESTERN SNOWY
CHUB, OREGON
SALMON, CHINOOK (UPPER WILLAM-
ETTE RIVER RUN)
STEELHEAD, KLAMATH MOUNTAINS
PROVINCE.
STEELHEAD, OREGON COAST POPU-
LATION.
TROUT, STEELHEAD (UPPER
WILLAMETE RIVER RUN)
BUTTERFLY, FENDER'S BLUE
CHECKER-MALLOW, NELSON'S
DAISY, WILLAMETTE
LOMATIUM, BRADSHAW'S
LUPINE, KINCAID'S
EAGLE, BALD
OWL, NORTHERN SPOTTED
CHUB, OREGON
SALMON, CHINOOK (LOWER COLUM-
BIA RIVER).
SALMON, CHINOOK (UPPER COLUM-
BIA RIVER SPRING RUN)
SALMON, CHINOOK (UPPER WILLAM-
ETTE RIVER RUN)
STEELHEAD, KLAMATH MOUNTAINS
PROVINCE.
STEELHEAD, LOWER COLUMBIA
RIVER POPULATION.
TROUT, BULL (COLUMBIA RIVER POP-
ULATION).
TROUT, STEELHEAD (LOWER COLUM-
BIA RIVER RUN)
TROUT, STEELHEAD (UPPER
WILLAMETE RIVER RUN)
CHECKER-MALLOW, NELSON'S
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
OWL, NORTHERN SPOTTED
PELICAN, BROWN
PLOVER, WESTERN SNOWY
SALMON, CHINOOK (LOWER COLUM-
BIA RIVER).
SALMON, CHINOOK (SNAKE RIVER
FALL RUN).
SALMON, CHINOOK (SNAKE RIVER
SPRING/SUMMER).
SALMON, CHINOOK (UPPER COLUM-
BIA RIVER SPRING RUN)
SALMON, CHINOOK (UPPER WILLAM-
ETTE RIVER RUN)
SALMON, SNAKE RIVER SOCKEYE
STEELHEAD, KLAMATH MOUNTAINS
PROVINCE.
TROUT, STEELHEAD (LOWER COLUM-
BIA RIVER RUN)
TROUT, STEELHEAD (MIDDLE COLUM-
BIA RIVER RUN)
TROUT, STEELHEAD (UPPER
WILLAMETE RIVER RUN)
STEELHEAD, OREGON COAST POPU-
LATION.
BUTTERFLY, OREGON SILVERSPOT ...
DEER, COLUMBIAN WHITE-TAILED
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
OWL, NORTHERhl SPOTTED
Falco peregrinus
Brachyramphus marmoratus.
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha ..
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha ..
Salvelinus confluentus
Thelypodium howellii ssp. spectabilis
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Branta canadensis leucopareia ...
Strix occidentalis caurlna
Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus.
Oregonichthys crameri
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Oncoryhnchus mykiss .
Oncorhynchus mykiss, (Oregon Coast
ESU).
Oncorhyncus mykiss
Icaricia icarioides
SIDALCEA NELSONIANA
Erigeron decumbens var. decumbens
Lomatium bradshawii
Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Strix occidentalis caurina
Oregonichthys crameri
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha .
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha .
Oncoryhnchus mykiss
Oncorhynchus mykiss, (Lower Columbia
ESU).
Salvelinus confluentus
Oncorhyncus mykiss.
Oncorhyncus mykiss .
Sidalcea nelsoniana
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Strix occidentalis caurina
Pelicanus occidentalis
Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus.
Onoorhynchus tshawytscha
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha .
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha .
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha .
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha .
Oncorhynchus nerka ...
Oncoryhnchus mykiss.
Oncorhyncus mykiss .
Oncorhyncus mykiss .
Oncorhyncus mykiss.
Oncorhynchus mykiss, (Oregon Coast
ESU).
Speyeria zerene hippolyta
Odocoileus virginlanus leucurus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Strix occidentalis caurina
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 189/Wednesday, September 30, 1998/Notices
52543
II. COUNTY/SPECIES LIST—Continued
[The following list identifies federally listed or proposed U.S. species by State and County. It has been updated through July 8, 1998. Species
listed below with a status of both E and T are generally either endangered or threatened within the specified county.]
Stata/County
Group name
Inverse name
Scientific name
Status
FISHES
COOS.
MAMMALS
BIRDS
CROOK,
CURRY ....
FISHES
PLANTS
BIRDS ...
FISHES .
BIRDS ..
FISHES
DESCHUTES
PLANTS
BIRDS ...
DOUGLAS.......
FISHES
BIRDS ..
FISHES ....
SALMON, CHINOOK (LOWER COLUM-
BIA RIVER).
SALMON, CHINOOK (SNAKE RIVER
FALL RUN).
SALMON, CHINOOK (SNAKE RIVER
SPRING/SUMMER).
SALMON, CHINOOK (UPPER COLUM-
BIA RIVER SPRING RUN)
SALMON, CHINOOK (UPPER WILLAM-
ETTE RIVER RUN\
SALMON, SNAKE RIVER SOCKEYE
STEELHEAD, KLAMATH MOUNTAINS
PROVINCE.
TROUT, STEELHEAD (LOWER COLUM-
BIA RIVER RUN).
TROUT, STEELHEAD (MIDDLE COLUM-
BIA RIVER RUN}
TROUT, STEELHEAD (UPPER
WILLAMETE RIVER RUN)
DEER, COLUMBIAN WHITETAILED
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
GOOSE, ALEUTIAN CANADA
OWL, NORTHERN SPOTTED
PELICAN, BROWN
PLOVER, WESTERN SNOWY
SALMON, CHINOOK (SOUTHERN OR-
EGON AND CALIFORNIA COASTAL
RUN).
STEELHEAD, KLAMATH MOUNTAINS
PROVINCE.
STEELHEAD, OREGON COAST POPU-
LATION.
LILY, WESTERN
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
TROUT, STEELHEAD (MIDDLE COLUM-
BIA RIVER RUN)
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
GOOSE, ALEUTIAN CANADA
MURRELET, MARBLED
OWL, NORTHERN SPOTTED
PELICAN, BROWN
PLOVER, WESTERN SNOWY
SALMON, CHINOOK (SOUTHERN OR-
EGON AND CALIFORNIA COASTAL
RUN).
SALMON, COHO (SOUTHERN OR/
NORTHERN CA COAST).
STEELHEAD, KLAMATH MOUNTAINS
PROVINCE.
STEELHEAD, OREGON COAST POPU-
LATION.
ROCKCRESS, RED MT
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
TROUT, BULL (COLUMBIA RIVER POP-
ULATION).
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
GOOSE, ALEUTIAN CANADA
MURRELET, MARBLED
OWL, NORTHERN SPOTTED
PLOVER, WESTERN SNOWY
SALMON, CHINOOK (SOUTHERN OR-
EGON AND CALIFORNIA COASTAL
RUN).
SALMON, CHINOOK (UPPER WILLAM-
ETTE RIVER RUN).
STEELHEAD, KLAMATH MOUNTAINS
PROVINCE.
STEELHEAD, OREGON COAST POPU-
LATION.
TROUT, BULL (COLUMBIA RIVER ESU)
TROUT, CUTTHROAT (UMPQUA RIVER
POPULATION).
TROUT, STEELHEAD (UPPER
WILLAMETE RIVER RUN).
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha .
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha .
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha .
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha .
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha .
Oncorhynchus nerka ...
Oncoryhnchus mykiss.
Oncorhyncus mykiss .
Oncorhyncus mykiss.
Oncorhyncus mykiss.
Odocoileus virginianus leucurus..
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Branta canadensis leucopareia ...
Strix occidental caurina
Pellcanus occldentalis
Charadrius alexandrlnus nivosus.
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Oncoryhnchus mykiss .
Oncorhynchus mykiss, (Oregon Coast
ESU).
Lilium occidentale
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Oncorhyncus mykiss
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Branta canadensis leucopareia ...
Brachyramphus marmoratus
Strlx occldentalis caurina
Pelicanus occidentalis
Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus,
Oncorhynchus tshawytsoha
Oncorhynchus kisutch.
Oncoryhnchus mykiss .
Oncorhynchus mykiss, (Oregon Coast
ESU).
Arabis mcdonaldiana
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Salvelinus confluentus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Branta canadensis leucopareia ...
Brachyramphus marmoratus
Strix occidentalis caurina
Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus.
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha .
Oncoryhnchus mykiss
Oncorhynchus mykiss, (Oregon Coast
ESU).
Salvelinus confluentus
Oncorhynchus clarki clarki
Oncorhyncus mykiss.
-------
52544
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 189/Wednesday, September 30, 1998/Notices
II. COUNTY/SPECIES LIST—Continued
[The following list identifies federally listed or proposed U.S. species by State and County. It has been updated through July 8, 1998. Species
listed below with a status of both E and T are generally either endangered or threatened within the specified county.]
State/County
GILLIAM
GRANT
HARNEY
HOOD RIVER
JACKSON
JEFFERSON
JOSEPHINE
KLAMATH
Group name
MAMMALS
PLANTS
FISHES
BIRDS
FISHES
BIRDS
FISHES
PLANTS
BIRDS
FISHES
BIRDS
FISHES
PLANTS
BIRDS
FISHES
BIRDS
FISHES
PLANTS
BIRDS
Inverse name
DEER COLUMBIAN WHITETAILED
LUPINE KINCAID'S
ROUGH POPCORNFLOWER
SALMON CHINOOK (SNAKE RIVER
FALL RUN).
SALMON, CHINOOK (SNAKE RIVER
SPRING/SUMMER).
SALMON CHINOOK (UPPER COLUM-
BIA RIVER SPRING RUN)
SALMON, SNAKE RIVER SOCKEYE
TROUT BULL (COLUMBIA RIVER POP-
ULATION).
TROUT STEELHEAD (MIDDLE COLUM-
BIA RIVER RUN)
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON PEREGRINE
TROUT BULL (COLUMBIA RIVER POP-
ULATION).
TROUT STEELHEAD (MIDDLE COLUM-
BIA RIVER RUN)
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON PEREGRINE
CHUB BORAX LAKE
TROUT LAHONTAN CUTTHROAT
TROUT, STEELHEAD (MIDDLE COLUM-
BIA RIVER RUN)
WIRE-LETTUCE, MALHEUR
EAGLE BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
OWL NORTHERN SPOTTED
SALMON CHINOOK (LOWER COLUM-
BIA RIVER).
SALMON CHINOOK (SNAKE RIVER
FALL RUN).
SALMON CHINOOK (SNAKE RIVER
SPRING/SUMMER).
SALMON CHINOOK (UPPER COLUM-
BIA RIVER SPRING RUN)
SALMON SNAKE RIVER SOCKEYE
STEELHEAD, LOWER COLUMBIA
RIVER POPULATION.
TROUT BULL (COLUMBIA RIVER POP-
ULATION).
TROUT STEELHEAD (LOWER COLUM-
BIA RIVER RUN)
TROUT STEELHEAD (MIDDLE COLUM-
BIA RIVER RUN)
EAGLE BALD
FALCON PEREGRINE
OWL NORTHERN SPOTTED
SALMON CHINOOK (SOUTHERN OR-
EGON AND CALIFORNIA COASTAL
RUN).
STEELHEAD KlAMATH MOUNTAINS
PROVINCE.
FRITILLARY CENTNER'S (MISSION
BELLS).
EAGLE BALD
FALCON PEREGRINE
TROUT BULL (COLUMBIA RIVER POP-
ULATION).
TROUT STEELHEAD (MIDDLE COLUM-
BIA RIVER RUN)
EAGLE BALD
FALCON PEREGRINE
OWL NORTHERN SPOTTED
SALMON CHINOOK (SOUTHERN OR-
EGON AND CALIFORNIA COASTAL
RUN).
STEELHEAD KLAMATH MOUNTAINS
PROVINCE.
STEELHEAD, OREGON COAST POPU-
LATION.
FRITILLARY CENTNER'S (MISSION
BELLS).
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON PEREGRINE
OWL. NORTHERN SPOTTED
Scientific name
Odocoileus virginianusleucurus
Lupinus sulphurous ssp kincaidii
Plagiobothrys hirtus
Oncorhynchus tshawytsoha
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Salvelinus confluentus
Oncorhyncus mykiss
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Salvelinus confluentus
Oncorhyncus mykiss
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Gila boraxobius
Oncorhyncus mykiss
Stephanomeria malheurensis
Falco peregrinus
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Oncorhynchus nerka .
Oncorhynchus mykiss, (Lower Columbia
ESU).
Oncorhyncus mykiss
Oncorhyncus mykiss . . ..
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Strix occidentalis caurina
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha . ..
Oncoryhnchus mykiss .. ....
Fritillaria gentneri
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Salvelinus confiuentus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Strix occidentalis caurina
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Oncorhynchus mykiss, (Oregon Coast
• ESU).
Fritillaria gentneri
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Strix occidentalis caurina
Status
E
T
E
T
T
E
E
T
T
T
E
T
T
T
E
E
T
T
E
T
E
T
T
T
T
E
E
T
T
T
T
T
E
T
T
T
E
T
E -
T
T
T
E
T
T
T
T
E
T
E
T
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 189/Wednesday, September 30, 1998/Notices
52545
II. COUNTY/SPECIES LIST—Continued
[The following list Identifies federally listed or proposed U.S. species by State and County. It has been updated through July 8, 1998. Species
listed below with a status of both E and T are generally either endangered or threatened within the specified county.]
State/County
Group name
Inverse name
Scientific name
Status
FISHES
LAKE ,
PUNTS
BIRDS ...
FISHES
LANE ....
BIRDS
FISHES
INSECTS .
MAMMALS
PLANTS ....
LINCOLN.
BIRDS
FISHES
LINN ........
INSECTS .
BIRDS
FISHES
INSECTS .
PLANTS ..
MALHEUR ....
BIRDS ..
FISHES
SALMON, CHINOOK (SOUTHERN OR-
EGON AND CALIFORNIA COASTAL
RUN).
STEELHEAD, KLAMATH MOUNTAINS
PROVINCE.
SUCKER, LOST RIVER
SUCKER, SHORTNOSE
TROUT, BULL (KLAMATH RIVER POPU-
LATION).
MILK-VETCH, APPLEGATE'S
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
OWL, NORTHERN SPOTTED
CHUB, HUTTON TUI ,
DACE, FOSKETT SPECKLED
SUCKER, WARNER
TROUT, BULL (KLAMATH RIVER POPU-
LATION).
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
GOOSE, ALEUTIAN CANADA
MURRELET, MARBLED
OWL, NORTHERN SPOTTED
PELICAN, BROWN
PLOVER, WESTERN SNOWY
CHUB, OREGON
SALMON, CHINOOK (UPPER WILLAM-
ETTE RIVER RUN).
STEELHEAD, KLAMATH MOUNTAINS
PROVINCE. x
STEELHEAD, OREGON COAST POPU-
LATION.
TROUT, BULL (COLUMBIA RIVER ESU)
TROUT, STEELHEAD (UPPER
WILLAMETE RIVER RUN)
BUTTERFLY, FENDER'S BLUE
BUTTERFLY, OREGON SILVERSPOT ...
DEER, COLUMBIAN WHITE-TAILED
DAISY, WILLAMETTE
LOMATIUM, BRADSHAW'S
LUPINE, KINCAID'S
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
GOOSE, ALEUTIAN CANADA
MURRELET, MARBLED
OWL, NORTHERN SPOTTED
PELICAN, BROWN
PLOVER, WESTERN SNOWY
SALMON, CHINOOK (UPPER WILLAM-
ETTE RIVER RUN)
STEELHEAD, KLAMATH MOUNTAINS
PROVINCE.
STEELHEAD, OREGON COAST POPU-
LATION.
TROUT, STEELHEAD (UPPER
WILLAMETE RIVER RUN)
BUTTERFLY, OREGON SILVERSPOT...
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
OWL, NORTHERN SPOTTED
CHUB, OREGON
SALMON, CHINOOK (UPPER WILLAM-
ETTE RIVER RUN)
STEELHEAD, KLAMATH MOUNTAINS
PROVINCE.
TROUT, BULL (COLUMBIA RIVER ESU)
TROUT, STEELHEAD (UPPER
WILLAMETE RIVER RUN)
BUTTERFLY, FENDER'S BLUE
CHECKER-MALLOW, NELSON'S
DAISY, WILLAMETTE
LOMATIUM, BRADSHAW'S
LUPINE, KINCAID'S
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
SALMON, CHINOOK (SNAKE RIVER
SPRING/SUMMER).
TROUT, BULL (COLUMBIA RIVER POP-
ULATION).
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha .
Oncoryhnchus mykiss .
Deltistes luxatus
Chasmlstes brevirostris.
Salvellnus confluentus ..
Astragalus applegatel
Hallaeetus leucocephalus .
Falco peregrinus
Strix occidentalis caurina..
Glla bioolor ssp
Rhinlchthys osculus ssp. ..
Catostomus warnerensis ..
Salvelinus confluentus
Hallaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Branta canadensis leucopareia ...
Brachyramphus marmoratus
Strix occidentalis caurina
Pelicanus occidentalis
Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus.
Oregonichthys crameri
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Oncoryhnchus mykiss .
Oncorhynchus mykiss, (Oregon Coast
ESU).
Salvelinus confluentus
Oncorhyncus mykiss
Icaricia icarioides
Speyerla zerene hippolyta
Odocoileus virginlanus leucurus
Erigeron decumbens var. decumbens
Lomatlum bradshawii
Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Branta canadensis leucopareia
Brachyramphus marmoratus
Strix occidentalis caurina
Pelicanus occidentalis
Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Oncoryhnchus mykiss
Oncorhynchus mykiss, (Oregon Coast
ESU).
Oncorhyncus mykiss
Speyeria zerene hippolyta ...
Haliaeetus leucocephalus ....
Falco peregrinus
Strix occidentalis caurina
Oregonichthys crameri
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha .
Oncoryhnchus mykiss .,
Salvelinus confluentus
Oncorhyncus mykiss ...
Icaricia icarioides
Sidalcea nelsoniana
Erigeron decumbens var. decumbens
Lomatium bradshawii
Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Salvelinus confluentus
-------
52546
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 189/Wednesday. September 30, 1998/Notices
II. COUNTY/SPECIES LIST—Continued
[The following list identifies federally listed or proposed U.S. species by State and County. It has been updated through July 8, 1998. Species
listed below with a status of both E and T are generally either endangered or threatened within the specified county.]
State/County
Group name
Inverse name
Scientific name
Status
MARION ,
IIRDS ..
1SHES
MORROW
MULTNOMAH
'LANTS
BIRDS ...
FISHES .
BIRDS ...
FISHES .
POLK.
MAMMALS
BIRDS
FISHES
INSECTS ,
PLANTS .,
SHERMAN
FISHES
EAGLE, BALD
OWL, NORTHERN SPOTTED
LOVER, WESTERN SNOWY
iHUB, OREGON
SALMON, CHINOOK (LOWER COLUM-
BIA RIVER).
SALMON, CHINOOK (UPPER WILLAM-
ETTE RIVER RUN*
3TEELHEAD, KLAMATH MOUNTAINS
PROVINCE.
ROUT, STEELHEAD (LOWER COLUM-
BIA RIVER RUN)
TROUT, STEELHEAD (UPPER
WILLAMETE RIVER RUN)
CHECKERMALLOW, NELSON'S
DAISY, WILLAMETTE
LOMATIUM, BRADSHAW'S
EAGLE, BALD
SALMON, CHINOOK (SNAKE RIVER
FALL RUN).
SALMON, CHINOOK (UPPER COLUM-
BIA RIVER SPRING RUN)
SALMON, SNAKE RIVER SOCKEYE
TROUT, STEELHEAD (MIDDLE COLUM-
BIA RIVER RUN)
EAGLE, BALD
•ALCON, PEREGRINE
OWL, NORTHERN SPOTTED
SALMON, CHINOOK (LOWER COLUM-
BIA RIVER).
SALMON, CHINOOK (SNAKE RIVER
FALL RUN).
SALMON, CHINOOK (SNAKE RIVER
SPRING/SUMMER).
SALMON, CHINOOK (UPPER COLUM-
BIA RIVER SPRING RUN)
SALMON, CHINOOK (UPPER WILLAM
ETTE RIVER RUN)
SALMON, SNAKE RIVER SOCKEYE
iTEELHEAD, KLAMATH MOUNTAINS
PROVINCE.
STEELHEAD, LOWER COLUMBIA
RIVER POPULATION.
TROUT, BULL (COLUMBIA RIVER POP
ULAT1ON).
TROUT, STEELHEAD (LOWER COLUM
BIA RIVER RUN)
TROUT, STEELHEAD
(MIDDLECOLUMBIA RIVER RUN).
TROUT, STEELHEAD (UPPER
WILLAMETE RIVER RUN)
DEER, COLUMBIAN WHITETAILED
EAGLE, BALD
MURRELET, MARBLED
OWL, NORTHERN SPOTTED
CHUB, OREGON
SALMON, CHINOOK (UPPER WILLAM
ETTE RIVER RUN)
STEELHEAD, KLAMATH MOUNTAINS
PROVINCE.
TROUT, BULL (COLUMBIA RIVER POP
ULATION).
TROUT, STEELHEAD (UPPER
WILLAMETE RIVER RUN)
BUTTERFLY, FENDER'S BLUE
CHECKERMALLOW, NELSON'S
DAISY, WILLAMETTE
LOMATIUM, BRADSHAW'S
LUPINE, KINCAID'S
SALMON, CHINOOK (SNAKE RIVE
FALL RUN).
SALMON, CHINOOK (SNAKE RIVE
SPRING/SUMMER).
SALMON, CHINOOK (UPPER COLUM
BIA RIVER SPRING RUN)
SALMON, SNAKE RIVER SOCKEYE....
TROUT, STEELHEAD (MIDDLE COLUM
BIA RIVER RUN)
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
atrix occidentalls caurina
Jharadrius alexandrinus nivosus.
Oregonlchthys crameri
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha .
Oncoryhnchus mykiss
Oncorhyncus mykiss
Oncomyncus mykiss
Sidalcea nelsoniana
Erigeron decumbens var. decumbens
.omatium bradshawii
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha .
Oncorhynchus nerka.
Oncorhyncus mykiss .
Haliaeetus leucocephalus ....
:alco peregrinus
Strix occidentalis caurina
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha .
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha .
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha.
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha .
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha .
Oncorhynchus nerka ...
Oncoryhnchus mykiss .
Oncorhynchus mykiss, (Lower Columbia
ESU).
Salvelinus confluentus
Oncorhyncus mykiss.
Oncorhyncus mykiss.
Oncorhyncus mykiss.
Odocoileus virginianus leucurus.
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Brachyramphus marmoratus
Strix occidentalls caurina
Oregonichthys crameri
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha ,
Oncoryhnchus mykiss ..
Salvelinus confluentus ,
Oncorhyncus mykiss ...
Icaricia icarioides
Sidalcea nelsoniana
Erigeron decumbens var. decumbens ....
Lomatium bradshawii
Lupinus sulphurous ssp. kincaldii
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha .
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha .
Oncorhynchus nerka.
Oncorhyncus mykiss .
T
T
T
T
T
T
E
T
T
T
E
T
T
T
T
E
T
E
E
T
T
T
E
E
T
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 189/Wednesday, September 30, 1998/Notices
52547
II. COUNTY/SPECIES LIST—Continued
[The foltowlna list Identifies federally listed or proposed U.S. species by State and County. It has been updated through July 8, 1998. Species
listed below with a status of both E and T are generally either endangered or threatened within the specified county.]
State/County
Group name
Inverse name
Scientific name
Status
THUMOOK
BIROS
FISHES
UMATH.LA.
INSECTS .
PLANTS ..
BIRDS
FISHES
UNION.
BIRDS ..
FISHES
WALLAWA
PLANTS
BIRDS ...
FISHES .
WASCO.
PLANTS .
BIRDS ....
FISHES
WASHINGTON
BIRDS ..
FISHES
TROUT, BULL (COLUMBIA RIVER POP
ULATION).
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
GOOSE, ALEUTIAN CANADA
MURRELET, MARBLED
OWL, NORTHERN SPOTTED
PELICAN, BROWN
PLOVER, WESTERN SNOWY
SALMON, CHINOOK (UPPER WILLAM
ETTE RIVER RUN).
STEELHEAD, KLAMATH MOUNTAIN
PROVINCE.
STEELHEAD, OREGON COAST POPU
LATION.
TROUT, STEELHEAD (UPPER
WILLAMETE RIVER RUN)
BUTTERFLY, OREGON SILVERSPOT...
CHECKER-MALLOW, NELSON'S
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
SALMON, CHINOOK (SNAKE RIVER
FALL RUN).
SALMON, CHINOOK (SNAKE RIVER
SPRING/SUMMER).
SALMON, CHINOOK (UPPER COLUM
BIA RIVER SPRING RUN)
SALMON, SNAKE RIVER SOCKEYE
TROUT, BULL (COLUMBIA RIVER POP
ULATION).
TROUT, STEELHEAD (MIDDLE COLUM-
BIA RIVER RUN}
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
SALMON, CHINOOK (SNAKE RIVER
FALL RUN).
SALMON, CHINOOK (SNAKE RIVER
SPRING/SUMMER).
TROUT, BULL (COLUMBIA RIVER POP
ULATION).
TROUT, STEELHEAD (MIDDLE COLUM-
BIA RIVER RUN)
THELYPODY, HOWELL'S SPECTACU-
LAR.
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
SALMON, CHINOOK (SNAKE RIVER
FALL RUN).
SALMON, CHINOOK (SNAKE RIVER
SPRING/SUMMER).
SALMON, SNAKE RIVER SOCKEYE
TROUT, BULL (COLUMBIA RIVER POP
ULATION).
T3OUT, STEELHEAD (MIDDLE COLUM-
BIA RIVER RUN).
FOUR-O'CLOCK, MACFARLANE'S
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
OWL, NORTHERN SPOTTED
SALMON, CHINOOK (LOWER COLUM-
BIA RIVER).
SALMON, CHINOOK (SNAKE RIVER
FALL RUN).
SALMON, CHINOOK (SNAKE RIVER
SPRING/SUMMER).
SALMON, CHINOOK (UPPER COLUM-
BIA RIVER SPRING RUN)
SALMON, SNAKE RIVER SOCKEYE
TROUT, BULL (COLUMBIA RIVER POP-
ULATION).
"ROUT, STEELHEAD (MIDDLE COLUM-
BIA RIVER RUN)
EAGLE, BALD
OWL, NORTHERN SPOTTED
SALMON, CHINOOK (UPPER WILLAM-
ETTE RIVER RUN).
STEELHEAD, KLAMATH MOUNTAINS
PROVINCE.
Salvelinus confluentus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Branta canadensis leucopareia ...
Brachyramphus marmoratus
Strix occidental^ caurina
Pellcanus occldentalls
Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus.
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Oncoryhnchus myklss .
Oncorhynchus myklss, (Oregon Coas
ESU).
Oncorhyncus mykiss
Speyeria zerene hlppolyta ...
Sidalcea nelsoniana
Haliaeetus leucocephalus ...,
Falco peregrinus
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha .
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha .
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha .
Oncorhynchus nerka...
Salvelinus confluentus
Oncorhyncus myklss .
Haliaeetus leucocephalus ....
Falco peregrinus
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha .
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Salvelinus confluentus
Oncorhyncus mykiss
Thelypodium howellil ssp. spectabilis
Haliaeetus leucocephalus ....
ralco peregrinus
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha .
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha .
Dncorhynchus nerka ...
Salvelinus confluentus
Oncorhyncus mykiss.
tfirabilis macfarlanei
Haliaeetus leucocephalus ....
ralco peregrinus
Strix occidental caurina
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha .
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha .
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha .
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha .
Jncorhynchus nerka
Salvelinus Confluentus
Oncorhyncus mykiss .
Haliaeetus leucocephalus ....
Strix occidentalis caurina
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha .
Oncoryhnchus myklss
-------
52548
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 189/Wednesday, September 30. 1998/Notices
II. COUNTY/SPECIES LIST—Continued
[The following list identifies federally listed or proposed U.S. species by State and County. It has been updated through July 8, 1998. Species
listed below with a status of both E and T are generally either endangered or threatened within the specified county.]
State/County
PUERTO RICO
ADJUNTAS
AGUADILLA
ANASCO
ARECIBO
ARRfWA
CAMUY
Gro'^p name
IRDS
BIRDS
AMPHIBIANS
'LANTS
DEPTH F^
BIRDS
PI AKJT^
BIRDS
REPTILES
BIRDS
REPTILES
BIRDS
MAMMALS
PI ANTQ
RPPTII FQ
MAMMALS
REPTILES
BIRDS
PLANTS
BIRDS
PI AMTQ
PLANTS
Inverse name
ROUT, STEELHEAD (LOWER COLUM-
BIA RIVER RUN).
ROUT, STEELHEAD (UPPER
WILLAMETE RIVER RUN>
HECKER-MALLOW NELSON'S
AGLE BALD
ROUT, BULL (COLUMBIA RIVER POP-
ULATION).
ROUT, STEELHEAD (MIDDLE COLUM-
BIA RIVER RUN).
OWL NORTHERN SPOTTED
SALMON, CHINOOK (UPPER WILLAM-
ETTE RIVER RUN>
STEELHEAD, KLAMATH MOUNTAINS
PROVINCE.
ULATION).
TROUT, STEELHEAD (UPPER
WILLAMETE RIVER RUN).
BUTTERFLY FENDER'S BLUE
BUTTERFLY, OREGON SILVERSPOT ...
CHECKER-MALLOW NELSON'S
LUPINE KINCAID'S
COQUI, GOLDEN
ERUBIA
WAI Ml IT NOfiAl
BOA PUERTO RICAN
PELICAN BROWN
BOXWOOD VAHL'S
TURTLE GREEN SEA
PELICAN, BROWN
TURTLE, GREEN SEA
Tl IRTI F HAWK^RII 1 ^PA
PELICAN, BROWN
TURTLE, GREEN SEA
FALCON, AMERICAN PEREGRINE
MANATEE, WEST INDIAN (FLORIDA)....
CHUPACALLOS
MVHPIA PAftAMII
PALMA DE MANACA
PAI n np NifniiA
TFPTAR1A FQTRFMFRANA
BOA PUERTO RICAN
Tt IHTI F RRFFN 9FA
Tl IRTI F WAWK9RH 1 QF_A
MANATEE, WEST INDIAN (FLORIDA)...
Tl IRTI F fnRFPN 9FA
BOA PUERTO RICAN
Tl IRTI F rtRFFN ^PA
BLACKBIRD, YELLOW-SHOULDERED .
PALO DE NIGUA
BOXWOOD VAHL'S
BOA PUERTO RICAN
BLACKBIRD, YELLOW-SHOULDERED .
FALCON PEREGRINE
PFI IPAN RROWN
PLOVER PIPING
MANATEE, WEST INDIAN (FLORIDA)...
ARISTIDA CHASEAE
BARIACO
PHRAMA NFftRA
PI if^FNiA wnnnRi IRYANA
LYON1A TRUNCATA VAR. PROCTORII
MITRAPARP1IQ MAYWPI 1 IAF
NONE
PFI OQ npi niARi n
BOA PUERTO RICAN
Tl IRTI F HAWK^RH I ^FA
PALMA DE MANACA
Scientific name
Oncorhyncus mykiss
idalcea nelsoniana
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
alvelinus confluentus
Oncorhyncus mykiss
Strix occidentalis caurina
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Oncoryhnchus mykiss
caricia icarioides
Sidalcea nelsoniana
Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii
Eleutherodactylus jasperl
Solanum drymophilum
Juglans jamaicensis
Epicrates inornatus
Pelicanus occidentalis
Buxus vahlii
Chelonia mydas
'elicanus occidentalis
Chelonia mydas
Pelicanus occidentalis
Chelonia mydas
-alco peregrinus anatum
Trichechus manatus
Pleodendron macranthum
Myrcia paganii
Calyptronoma rivalis
Tectaria estremerana
Epicrates inornatus
Chelonia mydas
Eretmochelys imbricata
Trichechus manatus
Chelonia mydas
Epicrates inornatus
Chelonia mydas
Agelaius xanthomus
Comutia obovata
Buxus vahlii
Epicrates inornatus
Agelaius xanthomus
Falco peregrinus
Pelicanus occidentalis
Charadrius melodus
Aristida chaseae
Trichilia triacantha
Stahlia monosperma
Catesbaea melanocarpa
Aristida portoricensls
Vernonia proctorii
Epicrates Inornatus
Chelonia mydas
Calyptronoma rivalis
Status
T
-
=
i, T
E, T
E
E
T
E
E
E
E, T
E
E
E
E, T
E
E, T
E
E
E
E
E,
E
E
E
E
E, T
E
E
E
T
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E, T
E
E
T
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 189/Wednesday, September 30, 1998/Notices
52549
II. COUNTY/SPECIES LIST—Continued
[Tha following list Identifies federally listed or proposed U.S. species by State and County. It has been updated through July 8, 1998 Species
listed below with a status of both E and T are generally either endangered or threatened within the specified county.]
Slato/County
(•*AtW\l 1,M A
CARTAGENA
HAVPV
CBBA
CtALES
CIDRA
COAMO „
COMERIO
CULEBRA .„
DORADO
FAJARDO
QUANICA.. ...
QUAYAMA
GUAYANILLA
QURABO
HATHJLO
HORMIGUEROS
HUMACAO
ISABELA
Group name
REPTILES
MAMMALS
REPTILES
BIRDS
MAMMALS
REPTILES
BIRDS
PLANTS
REPTILES
BIRDS
MAMMALS
PLANTS
REPTILES
BIRDS
AMPHIBIANS
PLANTS
BIRDS
BIRDS
PUNTS
REPTILES
BIRDS
MAMMALS
PLANTS
REPTILES
MAMMALS
PLANTS
REPTILES
AMPHIBIANS
BIRDS
MAMMALS
PLANTS
REPTILES
BIRDS
MAMMALS
MAMMALS ...
PLANTS
PLANTS
PLANTS
PLANTS
5IRDS
PLANTS
REPTILES
Inverse name
TURTLE, GREEN SEA
BLACKBIRD, YELLOW-SHOULDERED .
FALCON, PEREGRINE
PELICAN, BROWN
MANATEE, WEST INDIAN (FLORIDA)...
BOA, PUERTO RICAN
TURTLE, GREEN SEA
FALCON, PEREGRINE LAGOON
MANATEE, WEST INDIAN (FLORIDA)...
TURTLE, GREEN SEA
PIGEON, PUERTO RICAN PLAIN
UVILLO
BOA, PUERTO RICAN
BLACKBIRD, YELLOW-SHOULDERED ..
PELICAN, BROWN
MANATEE, WEST INDIAN (FLORIDA)....
ILEX SINTENISII
BOA, PUERTO RICAN
TURTLE, GREEN SEA
TURTLE, HAWKSBILL SEA
TURTLE, LOGGERHEAD SEA
FERN, THELYPTERIS INABONENSIS ....
FERN, THELYPTERIS YAUCOENSIS
PIGEON, PUERTO RICAN PLAIN
TOAD, PUERTO RICAN CRESTED
PRICKLY-ASH, ST. THOMAS
PIGEON, PUERTO RICAN PLAIN
PELICAN, BROWN
TERN, ROSEATE
LEPTOCEREUS GRANTIANUS
PEPEROMIA, WHEELER'S
ANOLE, CULEBRA ISLAND GIANT
TURTLE, GREEN SEA
TURTLE, HAWKSBILL SEA
TURTLE, LEATHERBACK SEA
TURTLE, LOGGERHEAD SEA
TOAD, PUERTO RICAN CRESTED
PELICAN, BROWN
MANATEE, WEST INDIAN (FLORIDA)....
CASSIA MIRABILIS
DAPHNOPSIS HELLERANA
PALO DE RAMON
BOA, PUERTO RICAN
BLACKBIRD, YELLOW-SHOULDERED ..
PELICAN, BROWN
MANATEE, WEST INDIAN (FLORIDA)....
ORTEGON
SCHOEPFIA ARENARIA
TURTLE, GREEN SEA
TOAD, PUERTO RICAN CRESTED
NIGHTJAR, PUERTO RICO
PELICAN, BROWN
MANATEE, WEST INDIAN (FLORIDA)....
BARIACO
=UGENIA WOODBURYANA
MITRACARPUS MAXWELLIAE
MITRACARPUS POLYCLADUS
PALO DE ROSA
TURTLE, GREEN SEA
TURTLE, HAWKSBILL SEA
TURTLE, LEATHERBACK SEA
BLACKBIRD, YELLOW-SHOULDERED ..
PELICAN, BROWN
MANATEE, WEST INDIAN (FLORIDA)....
PELICAN, BROWN
MANATEE, WEST INDIAN (FLORIDA)....
BARIACO
FERN, THELYPTERIS VERECUNDA
PALMA DE MANACA
PALO DE NIGUA
PELOS DEL DIABLO
:ALCON, PEREGRINE
PELICAN, BROWN
ORTEGON
'URTLE, LEATHERBACK SEA
'URTLE, LOGGERHEAD SEA
TOAD, PUERTO RICAN CRESTED
Scientific name
Chelonia mydas
Agelalus xanthomus
Falco peregrinus .. . .
Trichechus manatus
Eplcrates inornatus
Chelonia mydas
Falco peregrlnus
Trichechus manatus
Chelonia mydas
Columbia inomata wetmorei
Epicrates inornatus
Pelicanus occldentalis
Trichechus
Ilex sintenisli
Chelonia mydas
Eretmochelys imbricata
Caretta caretta
Fern, thelypteris inabonensis
Fern, thelypteris yaucoensis
Columbia inomata wetmorei
Peltophryne lemur
Zanthoxylum thomasianum
Columbia inomata wetmorei
Pelicanus occidentalls
Sterna dougalli dougalli
Leptocereus grantianus
Peperomia wheeler!
Anolis roosevelti
Chelonia mydas
Eretmochelys imbricata
Dermochelys coriacea
Caretta caretta
Peltophryne lemur
Pelicanus occidentalis
Trichechus manatus
Cassia mirabilis
Daphnopsls hellerana
Banara vanderbiitif
Epicrates inornatus
Agelaius xanthomus
Pelicanus occidentalis
Trichechus manatus
Schoepfia arenaria
Chelonia mydas
Peltophryne lemur
Caprimulgus noctitherus
Pelicanus occidentalis
Trichilia triacantha
Eugenia woodburyana
Mitracarpus maxwelliae
Mitracarpus polycladus
Ottoschulzia rhodoxylon
Chelonia mydas
Eretmochelys Imbricata
Dermochelys coriacea
Pelicanus occidentalls
Trichechus manatus
3aprimulgus noctitherus
Pelicanus occidentalis
Trichechus manatus
Trichilia triacantha
Coccolobra rugosa
-em, thelypteris verecunda
Calyptronoma rivalis
Comutia obovata
Aristlda portoricensis
Falco peregrinus
Pelicanus occidentalis
Coccolobra rugosa
Dermochelys coriacea
Caretta caretta
3eltophtyne lemur
Status
E, T
E
E
E
E
E
E, T
E
E
E, T
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E, T
E
T
E
E
E
T
E
E
E
E, T
E
E
E
E, T
E
E
T
T
E
E
E
E
E
E
i
T
T
= T
T
E
P
_
£
E T
E
i
E
-
E
~
-------
52550
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 189/Wednesday, September 30, 1998/Notices
II. COUNTY/SPECIES LIST—Continued
[The following list identifies federally listed or proposed U.S. species by State and County. It has been updated through July 8, 1998. Species
listed below with a status of both E and T are generally either endangered or threatened within the specified county.)
State/County
Group name
Inverse name
Scientific name
Status
PLANTS
JAYUYA
REPTILES
PLANTS ...
JUANA DIAZ .
LAJAS
MAMMALS
BIRDS
MAMMALS
PLANTS ....
REPTILES
LARES
LOIZA ..
PLANTS ....
MAMMALS
PLANTS ....
REPTILES .
LUQUILLO
BIRDS
MAMMALS
PLANTS ....
REPTILES ,
MANATI ....
MARICAO
PLANTS ...
REPTILES
BIRDS
PLANTS
MAUNABO ...
MAYAGUEZ.
MAMMALS
REPTILES .
BIRDS
MAMMALS
PLANTS ....
REPTILES
NAGUABO
BIRDS :
MAMMALS
PLANTS ....
AUERODENDRON PAUCIFLORUM
(NGN).
AUERODENDRON PAUCIFLORUM
(NCN).
DAPHNOPSIS HELLERANA
GOETZEA, BEAUTIFUL (MATABUEY)....
PEPEROMIA, WHEELER'S
PRICKLY-ASH, ST. THOMAS
SCHOEPFIA ARENARIA
BOA, PUERTO RICAN
TURTLE, HAWKSBILL SEA
FERN, ELAPHOGLOSSUM SERPENS ...
HOLLY, COOK'S
TREE FERN, ELFIN
MANATEE, WEST INDIAN (FLORIDA)....
BLACKBIRD, YELLOW-SHOULDERED ..
FALCON, AMERICAN PEREGRINE
NIGHT JAR, PUERTO RICO
PELICAN, BROWN
TERN, ROSEATE
MANATEE, WEST INDIAN (FLORIDA)....
ARISTIDA CHASEAE
COBANA NEGRA
EUGENIA WOODBURYANA
LYONIA TRUNCA'TA VAR. PROCTORII
MITRACARPUS MAXWELLIAE
MITRACARPUS POLYCLADUS
PELOS DEL DIABLO
VERNONIA PROCTORII
TURTLE, GREEN SEA
TURTLE, HAWKSBILL SEA
PALO DE NIGUA
MANATEE, WEST INDIAN (FLORIDA)....
SCHOEPFIA ARENARIA
TURTLE, GREEN SEA
TURTLE, LEATHERBACK SEA
TURTLE, LOGGERHEAD SEA
HAWK, PUERTO RICAN BROAD-
WINGED.
HAWK, PUERTO RICAN SHARP-
SHINNED.
MANATEE, WEST INDIAN (FLORIDA)....
COBANA NEGRA
ORTEGON
PALO COLORADO (TERNSTROEMIA
LUQUILLENSIS).
BOA, PUERTO RICAN
TURTLE, GREEN SEA
TURTLE, HAWKSBILL SEA
TURTLE, LEATHERBACK SEA
CASSIA MIRABILIS
TURTLE, GREEN SEA
HAWK, PUERTO RICAN BROAD-
WINGED.
HAWK, PUERTO RICAN SHARP-
SHINNED.
CORDIA BELLONIS (NCN)
CRANICHIS RICARTII
GESNERIA PAUCIFLORA
HIGUERO DE SIERRA
PALO DE ROSA1.
MANATEE, WEST INDIAN (FLORIDA)....
TURTLE, GREEN SEA
BLACKBIRD, YELLOWSHOULDERED ....
FALCON, AMERICAN PEREGRINE
MANATEE, WEST INDIAN (FLORIDA)....
CHUMBO, HIGO
PELOS DEL DIABLO
BOA, MONA
BOA, PUERTO RICAN
GECKO, MONITO
IGUANA, MONA GROUND
TURTLE, GREEN SEA
TURTLE, HAWKSBILL SEA
TURTLE, LEATHERBACK SEA
PELICAN, BROWN
MANATEE, WEST INDIAN (FLORIDA)....
CAPA ROSA
CHUPACALLOS
Auerodendron pauciflorum.
Auerodendron pauciflorum.
Daphnopsis helierana
Goetzea elegans
Peperomia wheeler!
Zanthoxylum thomasianum
Schoepfia arenarla
Epicrates inornatus
Eretmochelys imbricata
Fem, elaphoglossum serpens ...
Ilex cookii
Cyathea dtyopteroides
Trichechus manatus
Agelaius xanthomus
Falco peregrinus anatum
Caprimulgus noctltherus
Pelicanus occidentalis
Sterna dougalli dougalll
Trichechus manatus
Aristida chaseae
Stahlia monosperma
Eugenia woodburyana
Lyonia truncata var. proctorii
Mitracarpus maxwelliae
Mitracarpus polycladus
Aristida portoricensis
Vernonia proctorii .'.
Chelonia mydas
Eretmochelys imbricata
Comutia obovata
Trichechus manatus
Schoepfia arenaria
Chelonia mydas
Dermochelys coriacea
Caretta carelta
Buteo platypterus brunnescens .
Accipiter striatus venator.
Trichechus manatus
Stahlia monosperma
Coccolobra rugosa
Temstroemia luquillensis .
Epicrates inornatus
Chelonia mydas
Eretmochelys imbricata
Dermochelys coriacea
Cassia mirabilis
Chelonia mydas
Buteo platypterus brunnescens .
Accipiter striatus venator.
Cordia bellonis (ncn>
Cranichis ricartii
Gesneria pauciflora
Crecentia portoricensis
Ottoschulzia rhodoxyion
Trichechus manatus
Chelonia mydas
Agelaius xanthomus
Falco peregrinus anatum
Trichechus manatus
Harrisia (=Cereus) portoricensis.
Aristida portoricensis
Epicrates monensis monensls ....
Epicrates inornatus
Sphaerodactylus micropithecus ..
Cyclura stejnegeri
Chelonia mydas
Eretmochelys imbricata
Dermochelys coriacea
Pelicanus occidentalis
Trichechus manatus
Callicatpa ampla
Pieodendron macranthum
E
E
E
E
E
E
T
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E, T
E
E
T
E
E
E
E
E
E
E, T
E
E
E
T
E, T
E
T
E
E
T
T
E
E
E, T
E
E
E
E, T
E
E
E
T
E
E
E
E, T
E
E
E
T
E
T
E
E
T
E, T
E
E
E
E
E
E
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 189/Wednesday, September 30, 1998/Notices
52551
II. COUNTY/SPECIES LIST—Continued
[Tha (©flowing list Identifies federally listed or proposed U.S. species by State and County. It has been updated through July 8, 1998. Species
listed below with a status of both E and T are generally either endangered or threatened within the specified county.]
State/County
PATILLAS
PENUELAS
PONCE
QUEBRADILLAS
RtNCON
RIO GRANDE
SABANA GRANDE
SAUNAS ,.
SAN GERMAN
SAN JUAN
SAN LORENZO
SAN SEBASTIAN
SANTA ISABEL
TOA BAJA
UTUADO .....,..™...
Group name
REPTILES
MAMMALS
BIRDS
MAMMALS
PUNTS
REPTILES
BIRDS
MAMMALS
PLANTS
REPTILES
AMPHIBIANS
PLANTS
MAMMALS
PLANTS
REPTILES
BIRDS
PLANTS
REPTILES
PLANTS
BIRDS
MAMMALS
REPTILES
BIRDS
PLANTS
REPTILES
BIRDS
MAMMALS
REPTILES
AMPHIBIANS
PLANTS
BIRDS
MAMMALS
MAMMALS
PLANTS
REPTILES
BIRDS .. .
Inverse name
LEPANTHES ELTORENSIS
ORTEGON
TERNSTROEMIA SUBSESSILIS
UVILLO
TURTLE, GREEN SEA
MANATEE, WEST INDIAN (FLORIDA)....
NIGHTJAR, PUERTO RICO
PELICAN, BROWN
MANATEE, WEST INDIAN (FLORIDA)....
POLYSTICHUM CALDERONENSE
(NCN).
TURTLE, GREEN SEA
NIGHTJAR, PUERTO RICO
PELICAN, BROWN
MANATEE, WEST INDIAN (FLORIDA)....
FERN, THELYPTERIS INABONENSIS ....
HOLLY, COOK'S
TURTLE, GREEN SEA
TOAD, PUERTO RICAN CRESTED
ADIANTUM VIVESII (NCN)
FERN, ADIANTUM VIVESII
FERN, THELYPTERIS VERECUNDA
GOETZEA, BEAUTIFUL (MATABUEY) ....
MYRCIA PAGANII
PALMA DE MANACA
MANATEE, WEST INDIAN (FLORIDA)....
BOXWOOD, VAHL'S
TURTLE, GREEN SEA
TURTLE, LEATHERBACK SEA
BLACKBIRD, YELLOW-SHOULDERED ..
FALCON, AMERICAN PEREGRINE
PARROT, PUERTO RICAN
CAPA ROSA
CHUPACALLOS
COBANA NEGRA
ILEX SINTENISII
LEPANTHES ELTORENSIS
ORTEGON
PALO COLORADO (TERNSTROEMIA
LUQUILLENSIS).
PALO DE JAZMIN
PALO DE NIGUA
UVILLO
BOA, PUERTO RICAN
TURTLE, GREEN SEA
TURTLE, HAWKSBILL SEA
TURTLE, LEATHERBACK SEA
GESNERIA PAUCIFLORA
HIGUERO DE SIERRA
PALO DE ROSA
BLACKBIRD, YELLOW-SHOULDERED ..
PELICAN, BROWN
PIGEON, PUERTO RICAN PLAIN
MANATEE, WEST INDIAN (FLORIDA)....
TURTLE, GREEN SEA
TURTLE, HAWKSBILL SEA
BLACKBIRD, YELLOW-SHOULDERED ..
CRANICHIS RICARTII
HIGUERO DE SIERRA
BOA, PUERTO RICAN
BLACKBIRD, YELLOW-SHOULDERED ..
FALCON, PEREGRINE
PELICAN, BROWN
MANATEE, WEST INDIAN (FLORIDA)....
TURTLE, GREEN SEA ...
GUAJON (ELEUTHERODACTYLUS
COOKI).
FERN, THELYPTERIS VERECUNDA
PALMA DE MANACA
PELICAN BROWN
MANATEE, WEST INDIAN (FLORIDA)....
MANATEE, WEST INDIAN (FLORIDA)....
DAPHNOPSIS HELLERANA
ORTEGON
PALO DE ROSA
BOA, PUERTO RICAN .
TURTLE, GREEN SEA
TURTLE, HAWKSBILL SEA
HAWK, PUERTO RICAN BROAD-
WINGED.
Scientific name
Lepanthes eltoronsls
Coccolobra rugosa
Temstroemia subsessilis
Eugenia haematocarpa
Pellcanus occldentalis
Trichechus manatus
Polystichum calderonenense
Pelicanus occidentalis ...
Fem thelypteris inabonensls
Ilex cookli
Adiantum vivesii
Fern, adiantum vivesii
Fem, thelypteris verecunda
Goetzea elegans
Myrcia pagan!!
Calyptronoma rivalis
Chelonla mydas
Dermochelys coriacea
Falco peregrinus anatum
Amazona vittata
Stahlia monosperma
Ilex sintenisli
Lepanthes eltorensis
Coccolobra rugosa
Ternstroemla luquillensis
Styrax portoricensls
Comutia obovata
Eugenia haematocarpa
Epicrates inornatus
Chelonia mydas
Eretmochelys imbricata
Dermochelys coriacea
Crecentla portoricensis
Ottoschulzia rhodoxylon
Pellcanus occidentalis
Columbia inomata wetmorei
Trichechus manatus
Chelonia mydas
Eretmochelys Embrlcata
Cranichis ricartii
Crecentia portoricensis ... .
Epicrates inornatus
Falco peregrinus
Pelicanus occidentalis
Trichechus manatus
Calyptronoma rivalis
Trichechus manatus
Coccolobra rugosa
Ottoschulzia rhodoxylon
Chelonia mydas
Eretmochelys imbricata
Status
E
T
E
E
E, T
E
E
E
E
E
E, T
E
E
E
E
E
E, T
T
E
E
E
E
E
T
E
E
E, T
E
E
E
E
E
E
T
E
E
T
E
E
E
E
E
E, T
E
E
T
E
E
E
E
E
E
E, T
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E, T
T
E
T
E
E
E
E
T
E
E
E, T
E
-------
52552
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 189/Wednesday, September 30, 1998/Notices
II. COUNTY/SPECIES LIST—Continued
[The following list identifies federally listed or proposed U.S. species by State and County. It has been updated through July 8, 1998. Species
listed below with a status of both E and T are generally either endangered or threatened within the specified county.]
State/County
VEGA ALTA
VEGA BAJA
VI
VIEQUES
YABUCOA
YAUCO
RHODE ISLAND
KENT .
NEWPORT
PROVIDENCE
WASHINGTON
TEXAS
ANDERSON
ANGELINA
ARANSAS
ARCHER
ATASCOSA
Group name
PLANTS
REPTILES
MAMMALS
PLANTS
REPTILES
PLANTS
REPTILES
PLANTS
BIRDS
MAMMALS
PLANTS
REPTILES
AMPHIBIANS
MAMMALS
PLANTS
REPTILES
BIRDS
PLANTS
REPTILES
FISHES
MAMMALS
BIRDS
FISHES
MAMMALS
PLANTS
BIRDS
FISHES
INSECTS
MAMMALS
PLANTS
BIRDS ..
MAMMALS
BIRDS
MAMMALS
BIRDS
MAMMALS
REPTILES
BIRDS
MAMMALS
Inverse name
HAWK PUERTO RICAN SHARP-
SHINNED.
PIGEON PUERTO RICAN PLAIN
PALMA DE MANACA
PALO DE NIGUA
BOA PUERTO RICAN
MANATEE, WEST INDIAN (FLORIDA)....
CASSIA MIRABILIS ;
BOA PUERTO RICAN
TURTLE GREEN SEA
TURTLE HAWKSBILL SEA
CASSIA MIRABILIS
TURTLE GREEN SEA
TURTLE HAWKSBILL SEA
NONE
FALCON PEREGRINE
PELICAN BROWN
MANATEE WEST INDIAN (FLORIDA)
CALYPTRANTHES THOMASIANA
COBANA NEGRA
MYRCIA PAGANII
TURTLE GREEN SEA
TURTLE HAWKSBILL SEA
TURTLE LEATHERBACK SEA
TURTLE LOGGERHEAD SEA
GUAJON (ELEUTHERODACTYLUS
COOKI).
MANATEE WEST INDIAN (FLORIDA)
ORTEGON
BOA PUERTO RICAN
NIGHTJAR, PUERTO RICO
PELICAN BROWN
BARIACO
FERN THELYPTERIS YAUCOENSIS .
HIGUERO DE SIERRA
PALO DE ROSA
TURTLE HAWKSBILL SEA
TURTLE LEATHERBACK SEA
STURGEON, SHORTNOSE
BAT INDIANA
PLOVER PIPING
STURGEON SHORTNOSE
BAT INDIANA
POGONIA SMALL WHORLED
EAGLE BALD
FALCON PEREGRINE
PLOVER PIPING
STURGEON SHORTNOSE
BEETLE AMERICAN BURYING
BAT INDIANA
GERARDIA SANDPLAIN
EAGLE BALD
WOODPECKER REDCOCKADED
BEAR LOUISIANA BLACK
EAGLE BALD
WOODPECKER : REDCOCKADED
BEAR LOUISIANA BLACK
CRANE WHOOPING
CURLEW ESKIMO
EAGLE BALD
FALCON PEREGRINE i
PELICAN BROWN
PLOVER PIPING
PRAIRIE-CHICKEN ATTWATER'S
GREATER.
BEAR LOUISIANA BLACK
JAGUARUNDI :
OCELOT
TURTLE GREEN SEA
TURTLE HAWKSBILL SEA
TURTLE KEMP'S (ATLANTIC) RIDLEY
SEA.
TURTLE LOGGERHEAD SEA
CRANE WHOOPING . .
OCELOT
Scientific name
Accipiter striatus venator
Columbia inornata wetmorei
Calyptronoma rivalis
Comutia obovata
Epicrates inornatus
Trichechus manatus
Cassia mirabilis
Chelonia mydas
Eretmochelys imbricata
Cassia mirabilis
Chelonia mydas
Eretmochelys imbricata
Catesbaea melanocarpa
Falco peregrinus
Trichechus manatus
Calyptranthes thomasiana
Stahlia monosperma
Myrcia paganii
Eretmochelys imbricata
Dermochelys coriacea
Eleutherodactylus cooki
Coccolobra rugosa
Epicrates inornatus
Caprimulgus noctitherus
Pelicanus occidentalis
Trichilia triacantha
Crecentia portoricensis
Ottoschulzia rhodoxylon
Eretmochelys imbricata
Acipenser brevirostrum
Charadrius melodus
Myotis sodalis
Isotria medeoloides
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Acipenser brevirostrum
Nicrophorus americanus
Myotis sodalis
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Picoides borealls
Ursus americanus luteolus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Ursus americanus luteolus
Grus americana
Numenius boreaiis
Falco peregrinus
Tympanuchus cupido attwateri
Ursus americanus luteolus
Felis yagouaround! tolteca
Felis pardalis
Chelonia mydas
Caretta caretta
Felis pardalis
Status
E
E
T
E
E
E
E
E
E, T
E
E
E, T
E
E
E
E
E
E
T
E
E, T
E
E
T
T
E
T
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E, T
E
E
T
T
E
E, T
E
E
E
E
T
E
T
T
E
T
E
E
T
E
E
E, T
E
T
E
E
E, T
E
E
T
E
E
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 189/Wednesday, September 30, 1998/Notices
52553
II. COUNTY/SPECIES LIST—Continued
[The following list Identifies federally listed or proposed U.S. species by State and County. It has been updated through July 8, 1998. Species
listed below with a status of both E and T are generally either endangered or threatened within the specified county.]
SiatedCoonty
AUSTIN ...™
BAILEY
BANDERA
BASTROP
BAYLOR...
BEE
BELL
BEXAR
BLANCO
BOSQUE „„
BOWIE.
BRAZORIA
BRAZOS . .. .
BREWSTER..
BROOKS
BROWN
BURLESON
SUBNET
Group name
AMPHIBIANS
BIRDS
BIRDS
BIRDS
PLANTS
AMPHIBIANS
BIRDS
BIRDS
BIRDS
BIRDS
BIRDS
BIRDS
BIRDS
BIRDS
BIRDS
REPTILES
BIRDS
PLANTS
BIRDS . .
FISHES
MAMMALS
PLANTS
BIRDS
MAMMALS
BIRDS
BIRDS
REPTILES
AMPHIBIANS
BIRDS
MAMMALS
PLANTS
BIRDS
Inverse name
TOAD, HOUSTON . . .
CRANE, WHOOPING
EAGLE, BALD
PRAIRIE-CHICKEN, ATTWATER'S
GREATER.
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
VIREO, BLACK-CAPPED
CACTUS, TOBUSCH FISHHOOK
TOAD, HOUSTON
CRANE, WHOOPING
EAGLE, BALD
CRANE, WHOOPING
CRANE, WHOOPING
CRANE, WHOOPING
EAGLE, BALD
VIREO, BLACKCAPPED
WARBLER (WOOD), GOLDEN-
CHEEKED.
CRANE, WHOOPING
VIREO, BLACKCAPPED
WARBLER (WOOD), GOLDEN-
CHEEKED.
CRANE WHOOPING
VIREO, BLACKCAPPED
WARBLER (WOOD), GOLDEN-
CHEEKED.
CRANE, WHOOPING
EAGLE, BALD
VIREO, BLACKCAPPED
WARBLER (WOOD), GOLDEN-
CHEEKED.
EAGLE, BALD ..
TERN, INTERIOR (POPULATION)
LEAST.
WOODPECKER, REDCOCKADED
CRANE WHOOPING
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
PELICAN, BROWN
PLOVER, PIPING
TURTLE, GREEN SEA
TURTLE, KEMP'S (ATLANTIC) RIDLEY
SEA.
TURTLE, LEATHERBACK SEA
TURTLE, LOGGERHEAD SEA
CRANE, WHOOPING
EAGLE, BALD
LADIES'-TRESSES, NAVASOTA
FALCON, NORTHERN APLOMADO
FALCON, PEREGRINE
FLYCATCHER, SOUTHWESTERN WIL-
LOW.
VIREO, BLACK-CAPPED
GAMBUSIA, BIG BEND
BAT, MEXICAN LONG-NOSED ..
CACTUS, BUNCHED CORY
CACTUS, CHISOS MOUNTAIN HEDGE-
HOG.
CACTUS, LLOYD'S HEDGEHOG
CACTUS, LLOYD'S MARIPOSA
CACTUS, NELLIE CORY
CATS-EYE, TERLINGUA CREEK
PITAYA, DAVIS' GREEN
FALCON, NORTHERN APLOMADO
PYGMY-OWL, CACTUS FERRUGINOUS
JAGUARUNDI
OCELOT
CRANE, WHOOPING
VIREO, BLACK-CAPPED
SNAKE, CONCHO WATER
TOAD, HOUSTON
CRANE, WHOOPING
EAGLE, BALD
BEAR, LOUISIANA BLACK
LADIES'-TRESSES, NAVASOTA
CRANE WHOOPING
EAGLE, BALD
Scientific name
Grus americana
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Tympanuchus cupido attwateri
Falco peregrinus
Anclstrocactus tobuschil (=Echlnocactus
t, Mammila
Haliaeetus leucocephaius
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Vireo atricapHlus
Dendroica chrysoparia
Vireo atricapillus
Dendroica chrysoparia
Vireo atricapillus
Dendroica chrysoparia
Vireo atricapillus
Dendroica chrysoparia
Sterna antillarum
Picoldes borealis
Falco peregrinus .
Pelicanus occidentalis
Charadrius melodus
Lepidochelys kempii
Dermochelys coriacea
Caretta caretta
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Spiranthes parks!!
Falco peregrinus
Empiodonax traillii extimus
Vireo atricapillus
Echinocereus reichenbachii var.
chisoensis.
Echinocereus lloydii
Neoltoydia mariposensis
Coryphantha minima
Cryptantha crassipes
Echinocereus viridiflorus var. davisii
Glaucidlumbrasilianum cactorum
Nerodia harteri paucimaculata
Grus americana
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Spiranthes parksii
Haliaeetus leucoceohalus
Status
E
E
T
E
T
E
E
E
E
E
T
'E
E
E
T
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
T
E
E
T
E
E
E
T
E
E
E, T
E, T
E
E
T
E
T
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
T
T
E
T
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
T
E
E
T
T
E
E
T
-------
52554
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 189/Wednesday, September 30, 1998/Notices
II. COUNTY/SPECIES LIST—Continued
[The following list identifies federally listed or proposed U.S. species by State and County. It has been updated through July 8, 1998. Species
listed below with a status of both E and T are generally either endangered or threatened within the specified county.]
State/County
CALDWELL
CALHOUN
CAMERON
CASS
CHAMBERS
CHEROKEE
CHILDRESS
CLAY
COKE
COLEMAN
COLUINGSWORTH
COLORADO
COMAL
COMANCHE
Group name
BIRDS
FISHES
BIRDS
REPTILES
BIRDS
FISHES
MAMMALS
REPTILES
BIRDS
MAMMALS
BIRDS
REPTILES
BIRDS
MAMMALS
BIRDS
BIRDS
BIRDS
PLANTS
REPTILES
BIRDS
BIRDS
REPTILES
BIRDS
AMPHIBIANS
BIRDS
AMPHIBIANS
BIRDS
CRUSTACEAN
FISHES
INSECTS
REPTILES
BIRDS
Inverse name
VIREO, BLACK-CAPPED
WARBLER (WOOD), GOLDEN-
CHEEKED.
CRANE WHOOPiNG
DARTER FOUNTAIN
CRANE WHOOPING
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
PELICAN BROWN
PLOVER, PIPING
TURTLE, GREEN SEA
TURTLE, HAWKSBILL SEA
TURTLE, KEMP'S (ATLANTIC) RIDLEY
SEA.
TURTLE, LEATHERBACK SEA
TURTLE, LOGGERHEAD SEA
EAGLE BALD
FALCON, NORTHERN APLOMADO
FALCON, PEREGRINE
PELICAN, BROWN
PLOVER PIPING
PYGMY-OWL, CACTUS FERRUGINOUS
MINNOW RIO GRANDE SILVERY
JAGUARUNDI
OCELOT
TURTLE GREEN SEA
TURTLE, HAWKSBILL SEA
TURTLE, KEMP'S (ATLANTIC) RIDLEY
SEA.
TURTLE LEATHERBACK SEA
TURTLE LOGGERHEAD SEA
EAGLE BALD
WOODPECKER, RED-COCKADED
BEAR, LOUISIANA BLACK
CURLEW ESKIMO
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON PEREGRINE
PELICAN BROWN
PLOVER, PIPING
TURTLE, GREEN SEA
TURTLE, HAWKSBILL SEA
TURTLE, KEMP'S (ATLANTIC) RIDLEY
SEA. !
TURTLE LEATHERBACK SEA
TURTLE LOGGERHEAD SEA
EAGLE BALD
WOODPECKER RED-COCKADED
BEAR LOUISIANA BLACK
CRANE, WHOOPING
TERN, INTERIOR (POPULATION)
LEAST.
CRANE WHOOPING
EAGLE, BALD
TERN, INTERIOR (POPULATION)
LEAST.
VIREO BLACK-CAPPED
POPPY-MALLOW, TEXAS
SNAKE, CONCHO WATER
CRANE WHOOPING
VIREO BLACK-CAPPED
SNAKE CONCHO WATER
CRANE WHOOPING
TERN, INTERIOR (POPULATION)
LEAST.
TOAD, HOUSTON
CRANE WHOOPING
EAGLE, BALD ,
PRAIRIE-CHICKEN, ATTWATER'S
GREATER.
SALAMANDER SAN MARCOS
WARBLER (WOOD), GOLDEN-
CHEEKED.
AMPHIPOD PECK'S CAVE
DARTER FOUNTAIN
BEETLE COMAL SPRINGS DRYOPID
BEETLE, COMAL SPRINGS RIFFLE
TURTLE, CAGLFS MAP
CRANE WHOOPING
VIREO, BLACK-CAPPED
Scientific name
Vireo atricapillus
Dendroica chrysoparia
Etheostoma fonticola
Hallaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Charadrius melodus
Chelonla mydas . ...
Eretmochelys imbricata ...
Lepidochelys kempii
Dermochelys coriacea .
Caretta caretta
Falco femoralis septentrionalis
Falco peregrinus
Pelicanus occidentalis
Charadrius melodus
Glaucidiumbrasilianum cactorum
Hybognathus amarus
Fells pardalis
Eretmochelys Imbricata
Lepidochelys kempii
Dermochelys coriacea
Caretta caretta
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Picoides borealis
Ursus americanus luteolus ... .
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Peticanus occidentalis
Charadrius melodus
Chelonia mydas
Eretmochelys imbricata
Lepidochelys kempii
Dermochelys coriacea
Caretta caretta
Picoides borealis
Grus americana
Sterna antillarum
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Sterna antillarum
Callirhoe scabriuscula . .
Nerodia harteri paucitnaculata
Grus americana
Vireo atricapillus
Nerodia harteri paucimaculata
Grus americana
Sterna antillarum
Bufo houstonensis
Grus americana
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Tympanuchus cupido attwateri
Dendroica chrysoparia
Heterelmis comalensis
Graptemys caglei .
Vireo atricaoillus
Status
E
E
E
E
E
T
E
E
E T
E T
E
E
E
T
T
E
E
E
E T
E
E
E
E
E T
E
E
E
T
T
E
T
E
T
E
E
E, T
E T
E
E
E
T
T
E
T
E
E
E
T
E
E
E
T
E
E
T
E
E
E
E
T
E
T
E
E
E
E
E
T
E
E
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 189/Wednesday, September 30, 1998/Notices
52555
II. COUNTY/SPECIES LIST—Continued
[Tha following list Identifies federally listed or proposed U.S. species by State and County. It has been updated through July 8, 1998. Species
listed below with a status of both E and T are generally either endangered or threatened within the specified county.]
Stata/County
CONCHO ,
OOOKE „
CORYELL
CROCKETT
CULBERSON
DALLAS .,.„..,. , .
DE WITT ,
DWMIT
DUVAL
ECTOR . .
EDWARDS
EL PASO
EtLIS
ERATH
FALLS
FANNiN .,
FAYETTE ~
FORT BEND
FREESTONE
FRIO
QALVESTON
GILLESPIE
GOL1AD
OONZALES .
GRAY8ON
Group name
BIRDS
REPTILES
BIRDS
BIRDS
BIRDS
BIRDS
FISHES
PLANTS
BIRDS
BIRDS
REPTILES
BIRDS
MAMMALS
MAMMALS
BIRDS
BIRDS
PLANTS
BIRDS
PLANTS
BIRDS
BIRDS
BIRDS
BIRDS
BIRDS
AMPHIBIANS
BIRDS
PLANTS
AMPHIBIANS
BIRDS
PLANTS
BIRDS
BIRDS
REPTILES
BIRDS
BIRDS
BIRDS
REPTILES
BIRDS
Inverse name
WARBLER (WOOD), GOLDEN-
CHEEKED.
EAGLE BALD
SNAKE, CONCHO WATER
CRANE, WHOOPING
EAGLE, BALD .
TERN, INTERIOR (POPULATION)
LEAST.
VIREO, BLACK-CAPPED
CRANE, WHOOPING
VIREO, BLACK-CAPPED
WARBLER (WOOD), GOLDEN-
CHEEKED.
VIREO BLACK-CAPPED
FALCON, NORTHERN APLOMADO
FALCON, PEREGRINE
PUPFISH, PECOS
CACTUS, LLOYD'S HEDGEHOG
CACTUS, SNEED PINCUSHION
VIREO BLACK-CAPPED
CRANE, WHOOPING
TURTLE, CAGLE'S MAP
FALCON NORTHERN APLOMADO
OCELOT
OCELOT
FALCON NORTHERN APLOMADO
EAGLE, BALD
VIREO, BLACK-CAPPED
WARBLER (WOOD) GOLDEN-
CHEEKED.
CACTUS TOBUSCH FISHHOOK
SNOWBELLS, TEXAS
FALCON NORTHERN APLOMADO
CACTUS SNEED PINCUSHION
CRANE WHOOPING
CRANE, WHOOPING
VIREO, BLACKCAPPED
WARBLER (WOOD) GOLDEN-
CHEEKED.
CRANE, WHOOPING
EAGLE, BALD . ..
TERN, INTERIOR (POPULATION)
LEAST.
CRANE WHOOPING
EAGLE, BALD
TOAD, HOUSTON
CRANE, WHOOPING
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
DAWN-FLOWER TEXAS PRAIRIE
(=TEXAS BITTERWEED).
FLOWER TEXAS PRAIRIE DAWN
TOAD HOUSTON
EAGLE BALD
LADIES'-TRESSES NAVASOTA
SAND-VERBENA, LARGE-FRUITED
FALCON NORTHERN APLOMADO
CURLEW, ESKIMO
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
PELICAN, BROWN
PLOVER, PIPING
PRAIRIE-CHICKEN, ATTWATER'S
GREATER.
TURTLE, GREEN SEA
TURTLE, HAWKSBILL SEA
TURTLE KEMP'S (ATLANTIC) RIDLEY
SEA.
TURTLE, LEATHERBACK SEA
TURTLE, LOGGERHEAD SEA
CRANE, WHOOPING
CRANE, WHOOPING
EAGLE, BALD
PRAIRIE-CHICKEN, ATTWATER'S
GREATER.
CRANE WHOOPING
TURTLE CAGLE'S MAP
EAGLE. BALD
Scientific name
Dendrolca chrysoparia
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Nerodia harteri pauclmaculata
Grus americana
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Stema antilfarum
Vireo atricapillus
Vireo atricapillus
Dendroica chrysoparia
Vireo atricapillus
Falco femoralis septentrionalis
Falco peregrinus
Cyprinodon pecosensis
Echinocereus lloydli ..
Coryphantha sneedii var. sneedii
Grus americana
Graptemys caglei
Falco femoralis septentrionalis
Ancistrocactus tobuschii (—Echinocactus
t., Mammila
Falco femoralis septentrionalis
Coryphantha sneedii var. sneedii
Grus americana
Grus americana :
Vireo atricapillus
Dendroica chrysoparia
Grus americana
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Sterna antillarum
Grus americana
Haiiaeetus leucocephalus
Bufo houstonensis
Grus americana
Falco peregrinus
Hymenoxys texana
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Spiranthes parksii
Numenlus borealis
Charadrius melodus
Eretmochelys imbricata
Caretta caretta
Grus americana . ...
Grus americana
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Tympanuchus cupido attwateri
Grus americana
Graptemys caglei
Haliaeetus leucoceohalus
Status
E
T
T
E
T
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
T
E
E
E
E
T
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
T
E
E
T
E
E
T
E
E
E
E
T
E
E
E
E
T
E
E
E, T
E
E, T
E
E
E
T
E
E
T
E
E
T
T
-------
52556
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 189/Wednesday, September 30, 1998 /Notices
II. COUNTY/SPECIES LIST—Continued
[The following list identifies federally listed or proposed U.S. species by State and County. It has been updated through July 8, 1998. Species
listed below with a status of both E and T are generally either endangered or threatened within the specified county.]
State/County
GREGG
GRIMES
GUADALUPE
HALL
HAMILTON
HARDEMAN
HARDIN
HARRIS
HARRISON
HASKELL
HAYS
HEMPHILL
HENDERSON
HIDALGO
HILL
HOOD
HOUSTON
HUDSPETH
HUNT
HUTCHINSON
IRION
JACKSON
JASPER
Group name
BIRDS
MAMMALS
BIRDS
PLANTS
BIRDS
REPTILES
BIRDS
BIRDS
BIRDS
BIRDS
PLANTS
BIRDS
PLANTS
AMPHIBIANS
BIRDS
MAMMALS
PLANTS
BIRDS
AMPHIBIANS
BIRDS
CRUSTACEAN
FISHES
INSECTS
PLANTS
BIRDS
BIRDS
BIRDS
MAMMALS
PLANTS
BIRDS
BIRDS
BIRDS
BIRDS
PLANTS
BIRDS
BIRDS
BIRDS
REPTILES
BIRDS
BIRDS
Inverse name
PLOVER, PIPING
TERN, INTERIOR (POPULATION)
LEAST.
VIREO, BLACK-CAPPED
EAGLE BALD
BEAR, LOUISIANA BLACK
EAGLE, BALD
LADIES-TRESSES, NAVASOTA
CRANE, WHOOPING
TURTLE, CAGLE'S MAP
TERN INTERIOR (POPULATION)
LEAST.
CRANE, WHOOPING .
WARBLER (WOOD), GOLDEN-
CHEEKED.
CRANE WHOOPING
TERN, INTERIOR (POPULATION)
LEAST.
EAGLE BALD
WOODPECKER, RED-COCKADED
PHLOX, TEXAS TRAILING
FALCON, PEREGRINE
DAWN-FLOWER, TEXAS PRAIRIE
(=TEXAS BITTERWEED).
FLOWER, TEXAS PRAIRIE DAWN
TOAD, HOUSTON
CRANE, WHOOPING
EAGLE, BALD :
WOODPECKER, RED-COCKADED
BEAR, LOUISIANA BLACK
DAWN-FLOWER, TEXAS PRAIRIE
(=TEXAS BITTERWEED).
FLOWER, TEXAS PRAIRIE DAWN .........
CRANE WHOOPING
SALAMANDER SAN MARCOS
SALAMANDER, TEXAS BLIND
CRANE, WHOOPING
VIREO, BLACK-CAPPED
WARBLER (WOOD), GOLDEN-
CHEEKED.
AMPHIPOD, PECK'S CAVE
DARTER, FOUNTAIN
GAMBUSIA, SAN MARCOS
BEETLE, COMAL SPRINGS DRYOPID ..
BEETLE, COMAL SPRINGS RIFFLE
WILD-RICE, TEXAS
EAGLE BALD
TERN, INTERIOR (POPULATION)
LEAST.
EAGLE BALD
FALCON NORTHERN APLOMADO
FALCON, PEREGRINE
PYGMY-OWL, CACTUS FERRUGINOUS
JAGUARUNDI
OCELOT
AYENIA, TEXAS
MANIOC, WALKER'S
CRANE WHOOPING
EAGLE, BALD
CRANE WHOOPING
EAGLE, BALD
WOODPECKER, RED-COCKADED
EAGLE BALD
WOODPECKER, RED-COCKADED
FALCON NORTHERN APLOMADO
FALCON, PEREGRINE
CACTUS, LLOYD'S HEDGEHOG
CACTUS, SNEED PINCUSHION
EAGLE BALD
EAGLE BALD
TERN, INTERIOR (POPULATION)
LEAST.
VIREO, BLACK-CAPPED
SNAKE, CONCHO WATER
CRANE WHOOPING
EAGLE, BALD
PELICAN, BROWN
EAGLE BALD
WOODPECKER, RED-COCKADED
Scientific name
Charadrius melodus
Sterna antillarum
Vireo atricapillus
Ursus americanus luteolus
Spiranthes parksil
Graptemys caglei
Dendroica chrysoparia
Sterna antillarum
Picoides borealis
Phlox nivalls ssp texensis
Hymenoxys texana
Hymenoxys texana
Grus amerEcana
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Picoides borealis
Ursus americanus luteofus
Hymenoxys texana ...
Typhlomolge rathbuni
Vireo atricapillus
Dendroica chrysoparia
Stygobromus pecki
Etheostoma fonticola
Gambusia georgei
Stygopamus comalensis
Heterelmis comalensis
Zizania texana
Sterna antillarum
Falco peregrinus
Glaucidiumbrasilianurn cactorum
Fells yagouaroundi tolteca
Felis pardalis
Ayenia limitaris
Manihot walkerae
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Grus americana
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Picoides borealis
Picoides borealis
Falco peregrinus
Echinocereus Hoydii
Coryphantha sneedli var. sneedi!
Sterna antillarum
Vireo atricapillus
Nerodia harteri paucimaculata
Haiiaeetus leucocephalus ...
Pelicanus occidentalis
Picoides borealis
Status
E T
E
E
T
T
T
E
£
T
E
E
E
£
E
j
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
T
E
T
E
E
E
T
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
T
E
T
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
T
E
T
E
T
E
E
E
E
E
T
T
E
E
T
E
T
E
T
E
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 189/Wednesday, September 30, 1998/Notices
52557
II. COUNTY/SPECIES LIST—Continued
[The following list Identifies federally listed or proposed U.S. species by State and County. It has been updated through July 8, 1998. Species
listed below with a status of both E and T are generally either endangered or threatened within the specified county.]
State/County
Group name
Inverse name
Scientific name
Status
JEFF DAVIS ......
PLANTS
BIRDS ...
JEFFERSON ....
FISHES .
PLANTS
BIRDS ...
REPTILES ,
JIM HOGG .,
JW WELLS,
MAMMALS
MAMMALS
JOHNSON ....
JONES
KARNES
KENDALL „,„
KENEDY ..„..
PLANTS ....
BIRDS
BIRDS
BIRDS ,
REPTILES .
BIRDS
MAMMALS
REPTILES .
KERR
KtMBLE,
BIRDS
PLANTS ...,
REPTILES .
BIRDS
PLANTS
KINO ,
K1NNEY
BIRDS
BIRDS
FISHES .
PLANTS
KtEBERG
BIRDS
MAMMALS
PLANTS ....
REPTILES .
KNOX
LAMAR
BIRDS
BIRDS
LADIES-TRESSES, NAVASOTA
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, NORTHERN APLOMADO
FALCON, PEREGRINE
GAMBUSIA, PECOS
PUPFISH, COMANCHE SPRINGS
PONDWEED, LITTLE AGUJA CREEK....
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
PELICAN, BROWN
PLOVER, PIPING
TURTLE, GREEN SEA
TURTLE, HAWKSBILL SEA
TURTLE, KEMP'S (ATLANTIC) RIDLEY
SEA.
TURTLE, LEATHERBACK SEA
TURTLE, LOGGERHEAD SEA
OCELOT
JAGUARUNDI
OCELOT
CACTUS, BLACK LACE
CRANE, WHOOPING
CRANE, WHOOPING
CRANE, WHOOPING
TURTLE, CAGLE'S MAP
CURLEW, ESKIMO
FALCON, NORTHERN APLOMADO
FALCON, PEREGRINE
PELICAN, BROWN
PLOVER, PIPING
PYGMY-OWL, CACTUS FERRUGINOUS
JAGUARUNDI
OCELOT
TURTLE, GREEN SEA
TURTLE, HAWKSBILL SEA
TURTLE, KEMP'S (ATLANTIC) RIDLEY
SEA.
TURTLE, LEATHERBACK SEA
TURTLE, LOGGERHEAD SEA
VIREO,- BLACK-CAPPED
WARBLER (WOOD), GOLDEN-
CHEEKED.
CACTUS, TOBUSCH FISHHOOK
TURTLE, CAGLE'S MAP.
VIREO, BLACK-CAPPED
WARBLER (WOOD),
CHEEKED.
CACTUS, TOBUSCH FISHHOOK
GOLDEN-
SNOWBELLS, TEXAS
CRANE, WHOOPING
FALCON, NORTHERN APLOMADO
VIREO, BLACK-CAPPED
WARBLER (WOOD), GOLDEN-
CHEEKED.
MINNOW, DEVILS RIVER ;
CACTUS, TOBUSCH FISHHOOK
CURLEW, ESKIMO
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, NORTHERN APLOMADO
FALCON, PEREGRINE
PELICAN, BROWN
PLOVER, PIPING
JAGUARUNDI
OCELOT
AMBROSIA, SOUTH TEXAS
AYENIA, TEXAS
CACTUS, BLACK LACE
RUSH-PEA, SLENDER
TURTLE, GREEN SEA
TURTLE, HAWKSBILL SEA
TURTLE, KEMP'S (ATLANTIC) RIDLEY
SEA.
TURTLE, LEATHERBACK SEA
TURTLE, LOGGERHEAD SEA
CRANE, WHOOPING
CRANE, WHOOPING
Splranthes parksli
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco femoralis septentrionalls .
Falco peregrlnus
Gambusla nobllls
Cyprinodon elegans
Potamogeton clystocarpus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Pellcanus occidentalis
Charadrlus melodus
Chelonla mydas
Eretmochelys imbricata
Lepldochelys kempii
Dermochelys corlacea
Caretta caretta
Fells pardalis
Fells yagouaroundi tolteca
Fells pardalis
Echinocereus reichenbachli var. albertii...
Grus americana
Grus americana
Grus americana
Graptemys caglei
Numenlus borealls
Falco femoralis septentrlonalis
Falco peregrinus
Pellcanus occidentalis
Charadrlus melodus
Glaucidiumbraslllanum cactorum
Fells yagouaroundi tolteca
Fells pardalis
Chelonla mydas
Eretmochelys imbricata
Lepldochelys kempii
Dermochelys coriacea .
Caretta caretta
Vlreo atrlcaplllus
Dendroica chrysoparia .
Ancistrocactus tobuschll =Echinocactus t.,
Mammlla.
Graptemys caglei
Vireo atrlcaplllus
Dendroica chrysoparia
Ancistrocactus tobuschii =Echlnocactus t.,
Mammlla.
Styrax texana
Grus americana
Falco femoralis septentrlonalis
Vireo atrlcapillus
Dendroica chrysoparia
Dlonda dlaboli
Ancistrocactus tobuschii =Echinocactus t.
Mammlla.
Numenlus borealis
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco femoralis septentrionalls
Falco peregrinus
Pellcanus occidentalis
Charadrius melodus
Fells yagouaroundi tolteca
Fells pardalis
Ambrosia cheiranthifolia
Ayenla limitarls
Echinocereus reichenbachi! var. albertii...
Hoffmannseggla tenella
Chelonia mydas
Eretmochelys imbricata
Lepldochelys kempii
Dermochelys coriacea
Caretta caretta
Grus americana
Grus americana
E
T
E
E
E
E
E
T
E
E
E, T
E, T
E
E
E
T
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
T
E
E
E
E
E, T
E
E
E
E, T
E
E
E
T
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
T
E
E
E
E, T
E
E
E
E
E
E
E, T
E
E
E
T
E
E
-------
52558
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 189/Wednesday, September 30, 1998/Notices
II. COUNTY/SPECIES LIST—Continued
[The following list identifies federally listed or proposed U.S. species by State and County. It has been updated through July 8, 1998. Species
listed below with a status of both E and T are generally either endangered or threatened within the specified county.]
State/County
Group name
Inverse name
Scientific name
Status
LAMPASAS
LAVACA
LEE ...
LEON
LIBERTY
LIMESTONE
LIPSCOMB .
LIVE OAK...
LLANO
LOVING ....
MADISON
MARION ...
MASON
MATAGORDA
MAVERICK
MC LENNAN.
MC MULLEN .
MEDINA
MENARD.
MENARD.
MIDLAND
MILAM
MILLS ,
MITCHELL ...
MONTAGUE
MONTGOMERY.
MOORE
MORRIS
NACOGDOCHES.
BIRDS
REPTILES
AMPHIBIANS
BIRDS
MAMMALS ....
AMPHIBIANS
BIRDS
AMPHIBIANS
BIRDS
MAMMALS ....
PLANTS
BIRDS
BIRDS
BIRDS
MAMMALS
PLANTS
BIRDS ...
BIRDS ...
PLANTS
BIRDS ...
MAMMALS
BIRDS
BIRDS
REPTILES
BIRDS
MAMMALS
REPTILES .
BIRDS
MAMMALS
BIRDS
BIRDS ..
FISHES
BIRDS ..
AMPHIBIANS
BIRDS
REPTILES
PLANTS ...
BIRDS
BIRDS
BIRDS
BIRDS
BIRDS
EAGLE, BALD
TERN, INTERIOR (POPULATION)
LEAST.
CRANE, WHOOPING
VIREO, BLACK-CAPPED
WARBLER (WOOD), GOLDEN-
CHEEKED.
SNAKE, CONCHO WATER
TOAD, HOUSTON
CRANE, WHOOPING
BEAR, LOUISIANA BLACK
TOAD, HOUSTON
CRANE, WHOOPING
TOAD, HOUSTON
EAGLE, BALD
BEAR, LOUISIANA BLACK
LADIES'-TRESSES, NAVASOTA
SAND-VERBENA, LARGE-FRUITED
EAGLE, BALD
WOODPECKER, RED-COCKADED
CRANE, WHOOPING
EAGLE, BALD
CRANE, WHOOPING
JAGUARUNDI
OCELOT
SPIDERLING, MATHIS
CRANE, WHOOPING
VIREO, BLACK-CAPPED
WARBLER (WOOD), GOLDEN-
CHEEKED.
FALCON, NORTHERN APLOMADO
LADIES'-TRESSES, NAVASOTA
EAGLE, BALD
WOODPECKER, RED-COCKADED
BEAR, LOUISIANA BLACK
CRANE, WHOOPING
CRANE, WHOOPING
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
PELICAN, BROWN
PLOVER, PIPING
TURTLE, GREEN SEA
TURTLE, HAWKSBILL SEA
TURTLE, KEMP'S (ATLANTIC) RIDLEY
SEA. :
TURTLE, LEATHERBACK SEA
TURTLE, LOGGERHEAD SEA
CRANE, WHOOPING
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, NORTHERN APLOMADO
VIREO, BLACK-CAPPED
OCELOT
SNAKE, CONCHO WATER
VIREO, BLACK-CAPPED
WARBLER (WOOD), GOLDEN-
CHEEKED.
OCELOT
VIREO, BLACK-CAPPED
WARBLER (WOOD), GOLDEN-
CHEEKED.
VIREO, BLACK-CAPPED
GAMBUSIA, CLEAR CREEK
CRANE, WHOOPING
FALCON, NORTHERN APLOMADO
TOAD, HOUSTON
CRANE, WHOOPING
VIREO, BLACK-CAPPED
SNAKE, CONCHO WATER
POPPY-MALLOW, TEXAS
CRANE, WHOOPING
EAGLE, BALD
TERN, INTERIOR (POPULATION)
LEAST.
EAGLE, BALD
WOODPECKER, RED-COCKADED
EAGLE, BALD
EAGLE, BALD
EAGLE, BALD
WOODPECKER, RED-COCKADED
Haliaeetus leucocephalus .
Sterna antillarum
Grus americana
Vireo atricapillus
Dendroica chrysoparia .
Nerodia harteri paucimaculata.
Bufo houstonensis
Grus americana
Ursus americanus luteolus
Bufo houstonensis
Grus americana
Bufo houstonensis
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Ursus americanus luteolus
Spiranthes parksii
Abronia macrocarpa
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Picoides borealis
Grus americana
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Grus americana
Fells yagouaroundi tolteca
Felis pardalis
Boerhavia mathisiana
Grus americana
Vireo atricapillus
Dendroica chrysoparia
Falco femoralis septentrionalis.
Spiranthes parksii
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Picoides borealis
Ursus americanus luteolus
Grus americana
Grus americana
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Pelicanus occidental
Charadrius melodus
Chelonia mydas
Eretmochelys imbricata
Lepidochelys kempii
Dermochelys coriacea
Caretta caretta
Grus americana
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco femoralis septentrionalis .
Vireo atricapillus
Felis pardalis
Nerodia harteri paucimaculata..
Vireo atricapillus
Dendroica chrysoparia
Felis pardalis
Vireo atricapillus
Dendroica chrysoparia .
Vireo atricapillus
Gambusia heterochir
Grus americana
Falco femoralis septentrionalis .
Bufo houstonensis
Grus americana
Vireo atricapillus
Nerodia harteri paucimaculata..
Callirhoe scabriuscula
Grus americana
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Sterna antillarum
Haliaeetus leucocephalus .
Picoides borealis
Haliaeetus leucocephalus .
Haliaeetus leucocephalus .
Haliaeetus leucocephalus .
Picoides borealis
T
E ,
E
E
E
T
E
"E
T
E
E
E
T
T
E
E
T
E .
E
T
E
E
E
E
E
E
E •
E
E
T
E
T
E
E
T
E
E
E, T
E, T
E
E
E
T
E
T
E
E
E
T
E
E
E -
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
T
E
E '
T
E
T
E
T
T
T
E
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 189/Wednesday, September 30, 1998/Notices
52559
II. COUNTY/SPECIES LIST—Continued
[The following list Identifies federally listed or proposed U.S. species by State and County. It has been updated through July 8, 1998. Species
listed below with a status of both E and T are generally either endangered or threatened within the specified county.]
State/County
Group name
Inverse name
Scientific name
Status
NEWTON
NUECES
OCHItTREE ...
ORANGE ...„.,
PALO PINTO ,
PANOLA.
PARKER
PECOS...
POLK.
POTTER.«
PRESIDIO
RANDALL.
REAL
RED RIVER
REEVES.
R6RK3K3
ROBERTS —
ROBERTSON
MAMMALS
BIRDS
BIRDS
MAMMALS
PLANTS ....
REPTILES .
BIRDS
BIRDS
BIRDS
BIRDS
MAMMALS
BIRDS
BIRDS
FISHES .
PLANTS
BIRDS ...
PLANTS
BIRDS ...
BIRDS ...
PLANTS
BIRDS
BIRDS
PLANTS
BIRDS ..
BIRDS ..
FISHES
BIRDS ..
MAMMALS
PLANTS ....
BIRDS
AMPHIBIANS
BIRDS
BEAR, LOUISIANA BLACK
EAGLE, BALD
WOODPECKER, RED-COCKADED
FALCON, NORTHERN APLOMADO
FALCON, PEREGRINE
PELICAN, BROWN
PLOVER, PIPING
JAGUARUND1
OCELOT
AMBROSIA, SOUTH TEXAS
AYENIA, TEXAS
RUSH-PEA, SLENDER
TURTLE, GREEN SEA
TURTLE, HAWKSBILL SEA
TURTLE, KEMP'S (ATLANTIC) RIDLEY
SEA.
TURTLE, LEATHERBACK SEA
TURTLE, LOGGERHEAD SEA
CRANE, WHOOPING
EAGLE, BALD
CRANE, WHOOPING
EAGLE, BALD
VIREO, BLACK-CAPPED
WARBLER (WOOD), GOLDEN-
CHEEKED.
EAGLE, BALD
WOODPECKER, RED-COCKADED
BEAR, LOUISIANA BLACK
CRANE, WHOOPING
FALCON, NORTHERN APLOMADO
FALCON, PEREGRINE
VIREO, BLACK-CAPPED
GAMBUSIA, PECOS
PUPFISH, LEON SPRINGS
CACTUS, LLOYD'S HEDGEHOG
SUNFLOWER, PECOS
EAGLE, BALD
WOODPECKER, RED-COCKADED
PHLOX, TEXAS TRAILING
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, NORTHERN APLOMADO
FALCON, PEREGRINE
CACTUS, LLOYD'S HEDGEHOG
CACTUS, LLOYD'S MARIPOSA
OAK, HINCKLEY
EAGLE, BALD
VIREO, BLACK-CAPPED
WARBLER (WOOD), GOLDEN-
CHEEKED.
CACTUS, TOBUSCH FISHHOOK
MAMMALS
PLANTS ....
SNOWBELLS, TEXAS
EAGLE, BALD
TERN, INTERIOR (POPULATION)
LEAST.
WOODPECKER, RED-COCKADED
FALCON, NORTHERN APLOMADO
FALCON, PEREGRINE
GAMBUSIA, PECOS
PUPFISH, COMANCHE SPRINGS
PUPFISH, PECOS
CRANE, WHOOPING
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
PELICAN, BROWN
PLOVER, PIPING
PRAIRIE-CHICKEN, ATTWATER'S
GREATER.
BEAR, LOUISIANA BLACK
CACTUS, BLACK LACE
TERN, INTERIOR (POPULATION)
LEAST.
TOAD, HOUSTON
CRANE, WHOOPING
EAGLE, BALD
TERN, INTERIOR (POPULATION)
LEAST.
BEAR, LOUISIANA BLACK
LADIES'-TRESSES, NAVASOTA
Ursus amerlcanus luteolus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Picoides borealis
Falco femoralls septentrlonalis .
Falco peregrinus
Pellcanus occidentalis
Charadrius melodus
Fells yagouaroundi tolteca
Fells pardalis
Ambrosia cheiranthifolla
Ayenia limltaris
Hoffmannseggia tenella
Chelonla mydas
Eretmochelys imbricata
Lepldochelys kempii
Dermochelys coriacea
Caretta caretta
Grus amerlcana
Haliaeetus leucocephalus .
Grus americana
Haliaeetus leucocephalus .
Vireo atrlcaplllus
Dendroica chrysoparia
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Picoides borealis
Ursus amerlcanus luteolus
Grus amerlcana
Falco femoralls septentrionalis .
Falco peregrinus
Vireo atricapillus
Gambusia nobilis
Cyprinodon bovinus
Echinocereus lloydii
Helianthus, paradoxus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Picoides borealis
Phlox nivalis ssp. Texensis
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco femoralis septentrionalis .
Falco peregrinus
Echinocereus lloydii
Neolloydia mariposensis
Quercus hinckleyi
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Vireo atricapillus
Dendroica chrysoparia
Ancistrocactus tobuschii =Echinocactus t.,
Mammila.
Styrax texana
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Sterna antillarum
Picoides borealis
Falco femoralis septentrionalis .
Falco peregrinus
Gambusia nobilis
Cyprinodon elegans
Cyprinodon pecosensis
Grus americana
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Pelicanus occidentalis
Charadrius melodus
Tympanuchus cupido attwateri .
Ursus americanus luteolus
Echinocereus reichenbachii var. albertli.
Sterna antillarum
Bufo houstonensis
Grus americana
Haliaeetus leucocephalus .
Sterna antillarum
Ursus americanus luteolus
Splranthes parksii
T
T
E
E
E
E
E, T
E
E
E
E
E
E, T
E
E
E
T
E
T
E
T
E
E
T
E
T
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
T
T
E
E
T
E
E
E
T
T
T
E
E
E
T
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
T
E
E
E, T
E
T
E
E
E
E
T
E
T
E
-------
52560
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 189/Wednesday, September 30, 1998/Notices
II. COUNTY/SPECIES LIST—Continued
[The following list identifies federally listed or proposed U.S. species by State and County. It has been updated through July 8, 1998. Species
listed below with a status of both E and T are generally either endangered or threatened within the specified county.]
State/County
Group name
Inverse name
Scientific name
Status
RUNNELS
RUSK
SABINE
SAN AUGUSTINE.
SAN JACINTO ..
SAN PATRICK).
SAN SABA .
SHACKELFORD
SHELBY
SOMERVELL
STARR
STEPHENS .
TARRANT
TAYLOR ...
TERRELL .
THROCKMORTON
TOM GREEN
TRAVIS
TRINITY
TYLER ...
BIRDS
PLANTS ....
REPTILES .
BIRDS
MAMMALS
BIRDS
BIRDS ...
PLANTS
BIRDS ...
BIRDS
MAMMALS
PLANTS
BIRDS .
REPTILES ,
BIRDS
BIRDS
MAMMALS
BIRDS
BIRDS
MAMMALS
PLANTS ....
BIRDS
BIRDS
BIRDS
BIRDS
PLANTS
BIRDS ...
BIRDS
REPTILES
AMPHIBIANS
ARACHNIDS .
BIRDS
INSECTS ,
BIRDS
BIRDS
UPSHUR
PLANTS
BIRDS ...
SAND-VERBENA, LARGEFRUITED
VIREO, BLACK-CAPPED
POPPY-MALLOW, TEXAS
SNAKE, CONCHO WATER
EAGLE, BALD
BEAR, LOUISIANA BLACK
EAGLE, BALD
WOODPECKER, RED-COCKADED
EAGLE, BALD
WOODPECKER, RED-COCKADED
BLADDERPOD, WHITE
EAGLE, BALD ....:
WOODPECKER, RED-COCKADED
CRANE, WHOOPING
FALCON, NORTHERN APLOMADO
FALCON, PEREGRINE
PELICAN, BROWN
PLOVER, PIPING
JAGUARUNDI
OCELOT
SPIDERLING, MATHIS
CRANE, WHOOPING
EAGLE, BALD
VIREO, BLACK-CAPPED
WARBLER (WOOD), GOLDEN-
CHEEKED.
SNAKE, CONCHO WATER
EAGLE, BALD
EAGLE, BALD
WOODPECKER, RED-COCKADED
BEAR, LOUISIANA BLACK
CRANE, WHOOPING
VIREO, BLACK-CAPPED
WARBLER (WOOD), GOLDEN-
CHEEKED.
PYGMYOWL, CACTUS FERRUGINOUS
TERN, INTERIOR (POPULATION)
LEAST.
JAGUARUNDI
OCELOT
BLADDERPOD, 2APATA
CACTUS, STAR.:
DOGWEED, ASHY
FRANKENIA, JOHNSTON'S
MANIOC, WALKER'S
WARBLER (WOOD), GOLDEN-
CHEEKED.
CRANE, WHOOPING
PLOVER, PIPING
VIREO, BLACK-CAPPED
FALCON, NORTHERN APLOMADO
FALCON, PEREGRINE
VIREO, BLACK-CAPPED
CACTUS, BUNCHED CORY
CRANE, WHOOPING
TERN, INTERIOR (POPULATION)
LEAST.
EAGLE, BALD
VIREO, BLACK-CAPPED
SNAKE, CONCHO WATER
SALAMANDER, BARTON SPRINGS
HARVESTMAN, BEE CREEK CAVE
HARVESTMAN, BONE CAVE
PSEUDOSCORPION, TOOTH CAVE
SPIDER, TOOTH CAVE
CRANE, WHOOPING
VIREO, BLACK-CAPPED
WARBLER (WOOD), GOLDEN-
CHEEKED.
BEETLE, COFFIN CAVE MOLD
BEETLE, KRETSCHMARR CAVE MOLD
BEETLE, TOOTH CAVE GROUND
EAGLE, BALD
WOODPECKER, RED-COCKADED
EAGLE, BALD
WOODPECKER, RED-COCKADED
PHLOX, TEXAS TRAILING
EAGLE, BALD
Abronia macrocarpa
Vireo atricapillus
Callirhoe scabriuscula
Nerodia harteri paucimaculata..
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Ursus americanus luteolus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Picoides borealis
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Picoides borealis
Lesquerella pallida
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Picoides borealis
Grus americana
Falco femoralis septentrionalis .
Falco peregrinus
Pelicanus occidentalis
Charadrius melodus
Felis yagouaroundi tolteca
Felis pardalis
Boerhavia mathisiana
Grus americana ,
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Vireo atricapillus
Dendroica chtysoparia
Nerodia harteri paucimaculata.
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Picoides borealis
Ursus americanus luteolus
Grus americana
Vireo atricapillus
Dendroica chrysoparia
Glaucidiumbrasilianum cactorum .
Sterna antillarum
Felis yagouaroundi tolteca
Felis pardalis
Lesquerella thamnophila
Astrophytum asterias (=echinocactus as-
terias).
Dyssodia tephroleuca
Frankenia johnstonil
Manihot walkerae
Dendroica chrysoparia
Grus americana
Charadrius melodus
Vireo atricapillus
Falco femoralis septentrionalis .
Falco peregrinus
Vireo atricapillus
Coryphantha ramillosa
Grus americana
Sterna antillarum
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Vireo atricapillus
Nerodia harteri paucimaculata.
Eurycea sosorum
Texella reddelli
Texella reyesi
Microcreagris texana
Leptoneta myopica
Grus americana
Vireo atricapillus
Dendroica chrysoparia
Bastrisodes texanus
Texamaurops reddelli
Rhadine persephone
Haliaeetus leucocephalus ....
Picoides borealis
Haliaeetus leucocephalus ....
Picoides borealis
Phlox nlvalis ssp. Texensis..
Haliaeetus leucocephalus ....
E
E
E
T
T
T
T
E
T
E
E
T
E
E
E
E
E
E, T
E
E
E
E
T
E
E
T
T
T
E
T
E
E -
E
E
E
E
E '
E
E .
E
E
E
E
E
E, T
E
E
E
E
T
E
E
T
E
T
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E :
T
E
T
E '
E
T
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 189/Wednesday, September 30. 1998/Notices
52561
II. COUNTY/SPECIES LIST—Continued
[The following list Identifies federally listed or proposed U.S. species by State and County. It has been updated through July 8, 1998. Species
listed below with a status of both E and T are generally either endangered or threatened within the specified county.]
State/County
Group name
Inverse name
Scientific name
Status
UVALDE.
VAL VERDE.
VICTORIA
WALKER ,
WARD
WASHINGTON
WEBB.
WHAHTON....
WHEELER ....
WICHITA
WliBARQER.
WHIACY
WILLIAMSON,
WILSON ....
WINKLER ..
WISE
YOUNG .....
ZAPATA ....
MAMMALS
BIRDS
PLANTS
BIRDS
FISHES .
PLANTS
BIRDS
MAMMALS
REPTILES .
BIRDS
BIRDS ...
BIRDS ..
MAMMALS
PLANTS ....
BIRDS
MAMMALS
PLANTS ....
BIRDS
BIRDS
BIRDS
BIRDS
BIRDS
MAMMALS
REPTILES .
ARACHNIDS
BIRDS
INSECTS ,
BIRDS
BIRDS
BIRDS
BIRDS
BIRDS
BEAR, LOUISIANA BLACK
VIREO, BLACK-CAPPED
WARBLER (WOOD), GOLDEN-
CHEEKED.
CACTUS, BLACK LACE
CACTUS, TOBUSCH FISHHOOK
SNOWBELLS, TEXAS
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, NORTHERN APLOMADO
TERN, INTERIOR (POPULATION)
LEAST.
VIREO, BLACK-CAPPED
MINNOW, DEVILS RIVER
CACTUS, TOBUSCH FISHHOOK
SNOWBELLS, TEXAS
CRANE, WHOOPING
EAGLE, BALD
PELICAN, BROWN
BEAR, LOUISIANA BLACK
TURTLE, CAGLE'S MAP
EAGLE, BALD
WOODPECKER, RED-COCKADED
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, NORTHERN APLOMADO
CRANE, WHOOPING
EAGLE, BALD
PRAIRIE-CHICKEN, ATTWATER'S
GREATER.
BEAR, LOUISIANA BLACK
LADIES'-TRESSES, NAVASOTA
FALCON, NORTHERN APLOMADO
TERN, INTERIOR (POPULATION)
LEAST.
OCELOT
DOGWEED, ASHY
CRANE, WHOOPING
EAGLE, BALD
CRANE; WHOOPING
TERN, INTERIOR (POPULATION)
LEAST.
CRANE, WHOOPING
TERN, INTERIOR (POPULATION)
LEAST.
CRANE, WHOOPING
TERN, INTERIOR (POPULATION)
LEAST.
CURLEW, ESKIMO
FALCON, NORTHERN APLOMADO
FALCON, PEREGRINE
PELICAN, BROWN
PLOVER, PIPING
PYGMY-OWL, CACTUS FERRUGINOUS
JAGUARUNDI
OCELOT
TURTLE, GREEN SEA
TURTLE, HAWKSBILL SEA
TURTLE, KEMP'S (ATLANTIC) RIDLEY
SEA.
TURTLE, LEATHERBACK SEA
TURTLE, LOGGERHEAD SEA
HARVESTMAN, BEE CREEK CAVE
HARVESTMAN, BONE CAVE
PSEUDOSCORPION, TOOTH CAVE
SPIDER, TOOTH CAVE
CRANE, WHOOPING
VIREO, BLACK-CAPPED
WARBLER (WOOD), GOLDEN-
CHEEKED.
BEETLE, COFFIN CAVE MOLD
BEETLE, KRETSCHMARR CAVE MOLD
BEETLE, TOOTH CAVE GROUND
CRANE, WHOOPING
FALCON, NORTHERN APLOMADO ...
CRANE, WHOOPING
CRANE, WHOOPING
FALCON, NORTHERN APLOMADO ...
TERN, INTERIOR (POPULATION)
LEAST.
Jrsus americanus luteolus
Vireo atricapillus
Dendroica chrysoparia
Echlnocereus reichenbachli var. albertii ...
Ancistrocactus tobuschii (=Echinocactus
t, Mammila
Styrax texana
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco femoralis septentrionalis
Sterna antillarum
Vireo atricapillus
Dionda diaboli
Ancistrocactus tobuschii (=Echinocactus
t., Mammila
Styrax texana
Grus americana
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Pelicanus occidental
Ursus americanus luteolus
Graptemys caglei
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Picoides borealis
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco femoralis septentrionalis
Grus americana
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Tympanuchus cupido attwateri
Ursus americanus luteolus
Spiranthes parks!!
Falco femoralis septentrionalis .
Sterna antillarum
Felis pardalis
Dyssodia tephroleuca
Grus americana
Haliaeetus leucocephalus .
Grus americana
Sterna antillarum
Grus americana ..
Sterna antillarum .
Grus americana ..
Sterna antillarum .
Numenius borealis
Falco femoralis septentrionalis ....
Falco peregrinus
Pelicanus occidentalis
Charadrius melodus
Glaucidiumbrasilianum cactorum .
Felis yagouaroundi tolteca
Felis pardalis
Chelonia mydas
Eretmochelys imbricata
Lepidochelys kempii
Dermochelys coriacea .
Caretta caretta
Texella reddelli
Texella reyesi
Microcreagris texana....
Leptoneta myopica
Grus americana
Vireo atricapillus
Dendroica chrysoparia ,
Bastrisodes texanus
Texamaurops reddelli
Rhadine persephone
Grus americana
Falco femoralis septentrionalis .
Grus americana
Grus americana
Falco femoralis septentrionalis .
Sterna antillarum
E
T
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
T
E
T
T
T
E
T
E
E
T
E
T
E
E
E
E
E
E
T
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E, T
E
E
E
E, T
E
E
E
T
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
-------
52562
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 189/Wednesday, September 30, 1998/Notices
II. COUNTY/SPECIES LIST—Continued
[The following list identifies federally listed or proposed U.S. species by State and County. It has been updated through July 8, 1998. Species
listed below with a status of both E and T are generally either endangered or threatened within the specified county.]
State/County
Group name
Inverse name
Scientific name
Status
UTAH
BEAVER
BOX ELDER
CACHE ...
CARBON ,
DAGGETT .
DAVIS
DUCHESNE
EMERY
GARFIELD
GRAND
IRON
MAMMALS
PLANTS ....
BIRDS
MAMMALS
BIRDS
FISHES
BIRDS ..
PLANTS
BIRDS ...
FISHES
PLANTS
BIRDS ...
FISHES .
PLANTS
BIRDS ...
BIRDS
MAMMALS
PLANTS ....
BIRDS ..
FISHES
MAMMALS
PLANTS ....
BIRDS ..
FISHES
MAMMALS
PLANTS ....
BIRDS ..
FISHES
MAMMALS
PLANTS ....
BIRDS
MAMMALS
REPTILES .
JAGUARUNDI ...:
OCELOT
BLADDERPOD, ZAPATA
DOGWEED, ASHY
FRANKENIA, JOHNSTON'S
EAGLE, BALD
PRAIRIE DOG, UTAH
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
TROUT, LAHONTAN CUTTHROAT
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
PRIMROSE, MAGUIRE
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
CHUB, BONYTAIL
CHUB, HUMPBACK
SQUAWFISH, COLORADO
SUCKER, RAZORBACK
CACTUS, UINTA BASIN HOOKLESS .
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
SQUAWFISH, COLORADO
SUCKER, RAZORBACK .'
LADIES'-TRESSES, DTE
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
EAGLE, BALD
FERRET, BLACK-FOOTED
CACTUS, UINTA BASIN HOOKLESS
CRESS, TOAD-FLAX
CRESS, TOAD-FLAX
LADIES'-TRESSES, UTE
REED-MUSTARD, SHRUBBY
RIDGE-CRESS (=PEPPER-CRESS),
BARNEBY.
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
CHUB, BONYTAIL
CHUB, HUMPBACK
SQUAWFISH, COLORADO
SUCKER, RAZORBACK
FERRET, BLACK-FOOTED
CACTUS, SAN RAFAEL
CACTUS, WRIGHT FISHHOOK
CYCLADENIA, JONES
DAISY, MAGUIRE
REED-MUSTARD, BARNEBY
TOWNSENDIA, LAST CHANCE
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
OWL, MEXICAN SPOTTED
CHUB, BONYTAIL
CHUB, HUMPBACK
SQUAWFISH, COLORADO
SUCKER, RAZORBACK
FERRET, BLACK-FOOTED
PRAIRIE DOG, UTAH
BUTTERCUP, AUTUMN
CYCLADENIA, JONES
LADIES'-TRESSES, UTE
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
OWL, MEXICAN SPOTTED
CHUB, BONYTAIL
CHUB, HUMPBACK
SQUAWFISH, COLORADO
SUCKER, RAZORBACK
FERRET, BLACK-FOOTED
CYCLADENIA, JONES
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
OWL, MEXICAN SPOTTED
PRAIRIE DOG, UTAH
TORTOISE, DESERT
Felis yagouaroundi tolteca.
Fells pardalis
Lesquerella thamnophlla ....
Dyssodia tephroleuca
Frankenla johnstonii
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Cynomys parvidens
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Salmo clarki henshawi
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Primula magulrei
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Gila elegans
Gila cypha
Ptychocheilus lucius
Xyrauchen texanus
Sclerocactus glaucus (=Echinocactus g.,
s. whipplei).
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Ptychocheilus lucius
Xyrauchen texanus
Spiranthes diluvialis
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Mustela nigripes
Sclerocactus glaucus (=Echinocactus g.,
s. whipplei).
Glaucocarpum suffrutescens
Glaucocarpum suffrutescens
Spiranthes diluvialis
Schoenocrambe suffrutescens
Lepidium barnebyanum
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Gila elegans
Gila cypha
Ptychocheilus lucius
Xyrauchen texanus
Mustela nigripes
Pediocactus despainii
Sclerocactus wrightiae (=Pediocactus w.)
Cycladenia humilis var. jonesii
Erigeron maguirei var. maguirei
Schoenocrambe bamebyl
Townsendia aprica
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Strix occidentalis lucida
Gila elegans
Gila cypha
Ptychocheilus lucius
Xyrauchen texanus
Mustela nigripes
Cynomys parvidens
Ranunculus acriformis var. aestivalis
Cycladenia humilis var. jonesii
Spiranthes diluvialis
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Strix occidentalis lucida
Gila elegans
Gila cypha
Ptychocheilus lucius
Xyrauchen texanus
Mustela nigripes
Cycladenia humilis var. jonesii
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Strix occidentalis iucida
Cynomys parvidens
Gopherus (=Xerobates, =Scaptochelys)
agassizii.
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 189/Wednesday, September 30, 1998/Notices
52563
II. COUNTY/SPECIES LIST—Continued
[The following list Identifies federally listed or proposed U.S. species by State and County. It has been updated through July 8, 1998. Species
listed below with a status of both E and T are generally either endangered or threatened within the specified county.]
State/County
Group name
Inverse name
Scientific name
Status
JUAB ....
KANE ...
MILLARD.
MORGAN
PIUTE.
RICH ....
SALT LAKE.
SAN JUAN .......
SANPETE „..
SEVIER
SUMMIT .....
TOOELE
WNTAH,
UTAH
WASATCH .......
WASHINGTON
WAYNE ,
BIRDS ..
FISHES
BIRDS ..
FISHES .
PLANTS
SNAILS
BIRDS ..
BIRDS ..
BIRDS
MAMMALS
BIRDS
BIRDS
PLANTS
BIRDS ...
FISHES ....
MAMMALS
PLANTS ....
BIRDS
PLANTS ....
BIRDS
MAMMALS
PLANTS ....
BIRDS
BIRDS
PLANTS
BIRDS ...
FISHES
MAMMALS
PLANTS ....
BIRDS
FISHES
PLANTS
BIRDS
BIRDS
FISHES
MAMMALS
PLANTS ....
REPTILES .
BIRDS
EAGLE, BALD
CHUB, LEAST
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
OWL, MEXICAN SPOTTED
CHUB, BONYTAIL
SQUAWFISH, COLORADO
SUCKER, RAZORBACK
BLADDERPOD, KODACHROME
CACTUS, SILER PINCUSHION
CYCLADENIA, JONES
MILKWEED, WELSH'S
PEPPER-GRASS, KODACHROME
AMBERSNAIL, KANAB
EAGLE, BALD
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
EAGLE, BALD
PRAIRIE DOG, UTAH
EAGLE, BALD
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
LADIES'-TRESSES, UTE
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
OWL, MEXICAN SPOTTED
CHUB, BONYTAIL
CHUB, HUMPBACK
SQUAWFISH, COLORADO
SUCKER, RAZORBACK
FERRET, BLACK-FOOTED
CACTUS, SPINELESS HEDGEHOG ...
SEDGE, NAVAJO
EAGLE, BALD
MILK-VETCH, HELIOTROPE
EAGLE, BALD
PRAIRIE DOG, UTAH
CACTUS, WRIGHT FISHHOOK
MILK-VETCH, HELIOTROPE
TOWNSENDIA, LAST CHANCE
EAGLE, BALD
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
LADIES'-TRESSES, UTE
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
OWL, MEXICAN SPOTTED
CHUB, BONYTAIL
CHUB, HUMPBACK
SQUAWFISH, COLORADO
SUCKER, RAZORBACK
FERRET, BLACK-FOOTED
CACTUS, UINTA BASIN HOOKLESS .
CRESS, TOAD-FLAX
LADIES'-TRESSES, UTE
REED-MUSTARD, CLAY
REED-MUSTARD, SHRUBBY
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
SUCKER, JUNE
LADIES'-TRESSES, UTE
MILK, VETCH, DESERET
PHACELIA, CLAY
EAGLE, BALD
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
OWL, MEXICAN SPOTTED
CHUB, VIRGIN RIVER
WOUNDFIN
PRAIRIE DOG, UTAH
BEAR-POPPY, DWARF
CACTUS, PURPLE-SPINED HEDGE-
HOG.
CACTUS, SILER PINCUSHION
TORTOISE, DESERT
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE .
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Lotichthys phlegethontis
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Strix occidentalis luclda
Glla elegans
Ptychocheilus lucius
Xyrauchen texanus
Lesquerella tumulosa
Pedlocactus slier!
Cycladenia humllls var. jonesii
Asclepias welshii
Lepidium montanum var. stellae
Oxyloma haydenl kanabensis
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Cynomys parvidens
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Splranthes diluvialls
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Strix occidentalis lucida
Gila elegans
Gila cypha
Ptychocheilus lucius
Xyrauchen texanus
Mustela nigripes
Echinocereus triglochldiatus var. inermis
Carex specuicola
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Astragalus limnocharis var. montii
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Cynomys parvidens
Sclerocactus wrightiae (=Pediocactus w.)
Astragalus limnocharis var. montii
Townsendia aprica
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Haiiaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Spiranthes diluvialis
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Strix occidentalis luclda
Gila elegans
Gila cypha
Ptychocheilus lucius
Xyrauchen texanus
Mustela nigripes
Sclerocactus glaucus (=Echinocactus g.,
s. whipplei).
Glaucocarpum suffrutescens
Spiranthes diluvialis
Schoenocrambe argillacea
Schoenocrambe suffrutescens
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Chasmistes liorus
Spiranthes diluvialis
Astragalus desereticus
Phacelia argillacea
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Strix occidentalis lucida
Gila robusta semlnuda
Plagopterus argentisslmus
Cynomys parvidens
Arctomecon humilis
Echinocereus engelmannii var. Purpureus
Pediocactus slleri
Gopherus (=Xerobates,
agassizii.
Haliaeetus leucocephalus .
Falco peregrinus
=Scaptochelys]
-------
52564
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 189/Wednesday, September 30, 1998/Notlces
II. COUNTY/SPECIES LIST—Continued
[The following list identifies federally listed or proposed U.S. species by State and County. It has been updated through July 8, 1998. Species
listed below with a status of both E and T are generally either endangered or threatened within the specified county.]
State/County
WEBER
VERMONT
ADDISON
BENNINGTON
CALEDONIA
CHITTENDEN
ESSEX
FRANKLIN
GRAND ISLE
LAMOILLE
ORANGE
ORLEANS
RUTLAND
WASHINGTON
WINDHAM
WINDSOR
WASHINGTON
ADAMS
ASOTIN
BENTON
Group name
FISHES
MAMMALS
PLANTS
BIRDS
PLANTS
BIRDS
MAMMALS
BIRDS
MAMMALS
BIRDS
BIRDS . .
BIRDS . .'.
BIRDS ...
BIRDS .. .
BIRDS
BIRDS
MAMMALS
BIRDS . .
BIRDS
MAMMALS .
BIRDS ...
MAMMALS
BIRDS
MAMMALS
PLANTS
BIRDS
CLAMS
MAMMALS
PLANTS
BIRDS
FISH
BIRDS
FISHES
BIRDS
FISHES
Inverse name
OWL, MEXICAN SPOTTED
CHUB, BONYTAIL
CHUB HUMPBACK
SQUAWFISH, COLORADO
SUCKER, RAZORBACK
PRAIRIE DOG UTAH
CACTUS WRIGHT FISHHOOK
DAISY MAGUIRE
LADIES'-TRESSES UTE
REED-MUSTARD, BARNEBY
TOWNSENDIA, LAST CHANCE
EAGLE BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
LADIES'-TRESSES, UTE
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON PEREGRINE
BAT INDIANA '
EAGLE, BALD
BAT, INDIANA . . . ..
EAGLE BALD
FALCON PEREGRINE
EAGLE BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
EAGLE BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
EAGLE BALD
EAGLE BALD
EAGLE BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE ;
EAGLE BALD
FALCON PEREGRINE
BAT INDIANA
EAGLE BALD
FALCON PEREGRINE
EAGLE BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
BAT INDIANA
EAGLE BALD
BAT INDIANA
EAGLE BALD
BAT, INDIANA
BULRUSH, NORTHEASTERN
(=BARBED BRISTLE).
EAGLE BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
MUSSEL, DWARF WEDGE
BAT, INDIANA
MILK-VETCH, JESUP'S
EAGLE BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
SALMON, CHINOOK (SNAKE RIVER
FALL RUN).
TROUT BULL (COLUMBIA RIVER ESU)
EAGLE BALD '
FALCON, PEREGRINE
SALMON CHINOOK (SNAKE RIVER
FALL RUN).
SALMON, CHINOOK (SNAKE RIVER
SPRING/SUMMER).
SALMON SNAKE RIVER SOCKEYE
STEELHEAD, SNAKE RIVER BASIN
POPULATION.
TROUT BULL (COLUMBIA RIVER ESU)
EAGLE BALD
FALCON PEREGRINE
SALMON CHINOOK (SNAKE RIVER
FALL RUN).
SALMON CHINOOK (SNAKE RIVER
SPRING/SUMMER).
SALMON CHINOOK (UPPER COLUM-
BIA RIVER SPRING RUN)
SALMON, SNAKE RIVER SOCKEYE
STEELHEAD, UPPER COLUMBIA
RIVER POPULATION.
TROUT, BULL (COLUMBIA RIVER POP-
ULATION).
Scientific name
Strix occidentalis lucida
GHa elegans
Gila cypha
Ptychocheilus lucius
Xyrauchen texanus
Cynomys parvidens
Sclerocactus wrightiae (— Pediocactus w )
Erigeron maguirei var maguirei
Spiranthes diluvialis . .
Scho@nocrambe bamebyl
Townsendia aprica
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Spiranthes diluvialis
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Myotts sodalis
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Myotis sodalis
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Falco peregrinus
Myotis sodalis
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Myotis sodalis
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Scirpus ancistrochaetus
Alasmidonta heterodon
Myotis sodalis
Falco peregrinus
Salvelinus confluentus
Falco peregrinus
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha ...
Oncorhynchus nerka
Oncorhynchus mykiss, (Snake River
Basin ESU).
Falco peregrinus
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Oncorhynchus mykiss, (Upper Columbia
ESU).
Status
T
E
E
E
E
T
E
T
T
E
T
T
E
T
T
E
E
T
E
T
E
T
E
T
E
T
T
T
E
T
E
E
T
E
T
E
E
T
E
T
E
E
T
E
E
E
E
T
E
T
T
T
E
T
T
E
T
T '
T
E
T
T
E
E
E
T
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 189/Wednesday, September 30, 1998/Notices
52565
II. COUNTY/SPECIES LIST—Continued
[Tha following list Identifies federally listed or proposed U.S. species by State and County. It has been updated through July 8, 1998. Species
listed below with a status of both E and T are generally either endangered or threatened within the specified county.]
Stato/County
CHGLAN
CLALLAM
CLARK
COLUMBIA
COWUTZ
Gro-jp name
BIROS
FISHES
MAMMALS
PLANTS
BIRDS
FISHES
BIRDS
BIRDS
BIRDS
FISHES
MAMMALS
PLANTS
FISHES ....
BIRDS
FISHES
Inverse name
TROUT STEELHEAD (MIDDLE COLUM-
BIA RIVER RUN).
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
OWL NORTHERN SPOTTED .
SALMON, CHINOOK (UPPER COLUM-
BIA RIVER SPRING RUN)
STEELHEAD, UPPER COLUMBIA
RIVER POPULATION.
TROUT, BULL (COLUMBIA RIVER POP-
ULATION).
STEELHEAD, UPPER COLUMBIA
RIVER POPULATION.
BEAR, GRIZZLY
WOLF, GRAY
CHECKER-MALLOW, WENATCHEE
MOUNTAINS.
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON PEREGRINE .
MURRELET MARBLED .
OWL, NORTHERN SPOTTED
PELICAN, BROWN
SALMON, CHINOOK (PUGET SOUND
RUN).
SALMON, SOCKEYE (OZETTE LAKE,
WASHINGTON RUN).
TROUT, BULL (COASTAL/PUGET
SOUND ESU).
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON PEREGRINE
OWL, NORTHERN SPOTTED
SALMON, CHINOOK (LOWER COLUM-
BIA RIVER).
SALMON, CHINOOK (SNAKE RIVER
FALL RUN).
SALMON, CHINOOK (SNAKE RIVER
SPRING/SUMMER).
SALMON CHINOOK (UPPER COLUM-
BIA RIVER SPRING RUN)
SALMON CHINOOK (UPPER WILLAM-
ETTE RIVER RUN>
SALMON, SNAKE RIVER SOCKEYE
STEELHEAD, LOWER COLUMBIA
RIVER POPULATION
TROUT, BULL (COLUMBIA RIVER POP-
ULATION).
TROUT, STEELHEAD (LOWER COLUM-
BIA RIVER RUN)
TROUT, STEELHEAD (MIDDLE COLUM-
BIA RIVER RUN)
TROUT STEELHEAD (UPPER
WILLAMETE RIVER RUN)
WOLF GRAY
HOWELLIA, WATER
SALMON CHINOOK (SNAKE RIVER
FALL RUN).
SALMON CHINOOK (SNAKE RIVER
SPRING/SUMMER).
SALMON SNAKE RIVER SOCKEYE
TROUT, BULL (COLUMBIA RIVER POP-
ULATION).
TROUT, STEELHEAD (MIDDLE COLUM-
BIA RIVER RUN>
TROUT, STEELHEAD (UPPER
WILLAMETE RIVER RUN).
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
MURRELET, MARBLED
OWL, NORTHERN SPOTTED
SALMON, CHINOOK (LOWER COLUM-
BIA RIVER).
SALMON CHINOOK (SNAKE RIVER
FALL RUN).
SALMON CHINOOK (SNAKE RIVER
SPRING/SUMMER).
SALMON CHINOOK (UPPER COLUM-
BIA RIVER SPRING RUN)
SALMON, CHINOOK (UPPER WILLAM-
ETTE RIVER RUN)
Scientific name
Oncorhyncus mykiss
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Strix occidentalis caurina
Oncorhynchus tshawytsoha
Oncorhynchus mykiss, (Upper Columbia
ESU).
Salvelinus confluentus
Oncorhynchus mykiss, (Upper Columbia
ESU).
Ursus arctos (— U.a. horribilis)
Cants lupus
Sidalcea oregona ssp. calva
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Brachyramphus marmoratus
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Oncorhyncus nerka
Salvelinus confluentus
Haiiaeetus leucocephalus
Strix occidentalis caurina
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Oncorhynchus nerka
Oncorhynchus mykiss, (Lower Columbia
ESU).
Salveiinus confluentus
Oncorhyncus mykiss
Oncorhyncus mykiss .
Oncorhyncus mykiss
Canis lupus
Howellia aquatilis
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Oncorhynchus nerka
Salveiinus confiuentus
Oncorhyncus mykiss
Oncorhyncus mykiss
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Brachyramphus marmoratus
Strix occidentalis caurina
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha ".
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Status
T
T
E
T
E
E
T
E
T
E, T
E
T
E
T
T
E
T
T
T
T
E
T
T
T
T
E
T
E
T
T
T
T
T
E T
T
T
T
E
T
T
T
T
E
T
T
T
T .
T
E
T
-------
52566
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 189/Wednesday, September 30, 1998/Notices
II. COUNTY/SPECIES LIST—Continued
[The following list identifies federally listed or proposed U.S. species by State and County. It has been updated through July 8, 1998. Species
listed below with a status of both E and T are generally either endangered or threatened within the specified county.]
State/County
DOUGLAS
FERRY i
FRANKLIN
GARFIELD
GRANT
GRAYS HARBOR
ISLAND
JEFFERSON
KING
Group name
MAMMALS
PLANTS
BIRDS
FISHES
BIRDS
FISHES
MAMMALS
BIRDS
FISHES
FISHES
BIRDS
FISHES
BIRDS
FISHES
BIRDS
PLANTS
BIRDS
FISHES
BIRDS
Inverse name
SALMON SNAKE RIVER SOCKEYE ......
TROUT BULL (COLUMBIA RIVER POP-
ULATION).
TROUT STEELHEAD (LOWER COLUM-
BIA RIVER RUN)
TROUT STEELHEAD (MIDDLE COLUM-
BIA RIVER RUN}
TROUT STEELHEAD (UPPER
WILLAMETE RIVER RUN)
WOLF GRAY
CHECKER-MALLOW NELSON'S
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON PEREGRINE
SALMON CHINOOK (UPPER COLUM-
BIA RIVER SPRING RUN)
STEELHEAD, UPPER COLUMBIA
RIVER POPULATION.
TROUT BULL (COLUMBIA RIVER ESU)
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON PEREGRINE
STEELHEAD, UPPER COLUMBIA
RIVER POPULATION.
TROUT BULL (COLUMBIA RIVER POP-
ULATION).
BEAR GRIZZLY
WOLF GRAY
EAGLE BALD
FALCON PEREGRINE
SALMON CHINOOK (SNAKE RIVER
FALL RUN).
SALMON CHINOOK (SNAKE RIVER
SPRING/SUMMER).
SALMON CHINOOK (UPPER COLUM-
BIA RIVER SPRING RUN)
SALMON SNAKE RIVER SOCKEYE
TROUT BULL (COLUMBIA RIVER POP-
ULATION).
TROUT STEELHEAD (MIDDLE COLUM-
BIA RIVER RUN)
SALMON CHINOOK (SNAKE RIVER
FALL RUN).
SALMON CHINOOK (SNAKE RIVER
SPRING/SUMMER).
SALMON SNAKE RIVER SOCKEYE
TROUT BULL (COLUMBIA RIVER ESU)
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON PEREGRINE
SALMON CHINOOK (UPPER COLUM-
BIA RIVER SPRING RUN)
STEELHEAD, > UPPER COLUMBIA
RIVER POPULATION.
TROUT BULL (COLUMBIA RIVER ESU)
EAGLE BALD
FALCON PEREGRINE
MURRELET MARBLED
OWL NORTHERN SPOTTED
PELICAN BROWN
PLOVER WESTERN SNOWY
SALMON CHINOOK (PUGET SOUND
RUN).
TROUT BULL (COASTAL/PUGET
SOUND ESU).
EAGLE BALD
FALCON PEREGRINE
MURRELET, MARBLED
OWL NORTHERN SPOTTED
PAINTBRUSH 'GOLDEN
EAGLE BALD
FALCON PEREGRINE
MURRELET MARBLED
OWL NORTHERN SPOTTED
PELICAN BROWN
SALMON CHINOOK (PUGET SOUND
RUN).
TROUT BULL (COASTAL/PUGET
SOUND ESU).
EAGLE BALD
FALCON PEREGRINE
MURRELET. MARBLED
Scientific name
Oncorhyncus mykiss . ..
Oncorhyncus mykiss
Oncorhyncus mykiss
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Oncorhynchus mykiss, (Upper Columbia
ESU).
Salvelinus confluentus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Oncorhynchus mykiss, (Upper Columbia
ESU).
Salvelinus confluentus
Ursus arctos (-U.a. horribilis)
Canis lupus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha ;
Oncorhyncus mykiss
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Oncorhynchus nerka
Salveiinus confiuentus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Oncorhynchus mykiss, (Upper Columbia
ESU).
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Brachyramphus marmoratus
Strix occidentalis caurina
Pelicanus occidentalis
Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Salvelinus confluentus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Brachyramphus marmoratus
Strix occidentals caurina
Castilleja levisecta
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Brachyramphus marmoratus
Strix occidentalis caurina
Pelicanus occidentals
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Salvelinus confluentus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Brachvramohus marmoratus
Status
E
T
T
T
T
E, T
T
T
E
E
E
T
T
E
E
T
T
E, T
T
E
T
T
E
E
T
T
T
T
E
T
T
E
E
E
T
T
E
T
T
E
T
T
T
T
E
T
T
T
T
E
T
T
E.
T
T
T
E
T
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 189/Wednesday, September 30, 1998/Notices
52567
II. COUNTY/SPECIES LIST—Continued
[The following list Identifies federally listed or proposed U.S. species by State and County. It has been updated through July 8, 1998. Species
(feted below with a status of both E and T are generally either endangered or threatened within the specified county.]
State/County
KJTSAP
KITTITAS
KUCKITAT ...
LEWIS
LINCOLN
MASON
NEZ PERCE
OKANOQAN
Group name
FISHES
MAMMALS
BIRDS
FISHES
BIRDS
FISHES
MAMMALS
BIRDS
FISHES
MAMMALS
BIRDS
FISHES
MAMMALS
PLANTS
BIRDS
FISHES
BIRDS
FISHES
PLANTS
FISHES
BIRDS ... .
Inverse name
OWL NORTHERN SPOTTED
SALMON CHINOOK (PUGET SOUND
RUN).
TROUT BULL (COASTAL/ PUGET
SOUND ESU)
BEAR GRIZZLY
WOLF GRAY
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON PEREGRINE
MURRELET MARBLED
SALMON CHINOOK (PUGET SOUND
RUN).
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON PEREGRINE
MURRELET MARBLED
OWL NORTHERN SPOTTED
SALMON CHINOOK (UPPER COLUM-
BIA RIVER SPRING RUN)
STEELHEAD, UPPER COLUMBIA
RIVER POPULATION.
TROUT BULL (COLUMBIA RIVER POP-
ULATION).
TROUT STEELHEAD (MIDDLE COLUM-
BIA RIVER RUN)
BEAR GRIZZLY . .
WOLF, GRAY
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON PEREGRINE
OWL NORTHERN SPOTTED
SALMON CHINOOK (LOWER COLUM-
BIA RIVER).
SALMON CHINOOK (SNAKE RIVER
FALL RUN)
SALMON CHINOOK (SNAKE RIVER
SPRING/SUMMER)
SALMON CHINOOK (UPPER COLUM-
BIA RIVER SPRING RUN)
SALMON SNAKE RIVER SOCKEYE
TROUT BULL (COLUMBIA RIVER ESU)
TROUT STEELHEAD (MIDDLE COLUM-
BIA RIVER RUN)
WOLF, GRAY
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON PEREGRINE
MURRELET MARBLED
OWL NORTHERN SPOTTED
SALMON CHINOOK (LOWER COLUM-
BIA RIVER).
SALMON CHINOOK (PUGET SOUND
RUN).
STEELHEAD, LOWER COLUMBIA
RIVER POPULATION.
TROUT BULL (COLUMBIA RIVER POP-
ULATION).
TROUT STEELHEAD (LOWER COLUM-
BIA RIVER RUN)
BEAR GRIZZLY
WOLF GRAY
LUPINE, KINCAID'S
EAGLE BALD
FALCON PEREGRINE
SALMON CHINOOK (SNAKE RIVER
FALL RUN).
STEELHEAD, UPPER COLUMBIA
RIVER POPULATION
TROUT BULL (COLUMBIA RIVER POP-
ULATION).
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON PEREGRINE
OWL NORTHERN SPOTTED
SALMON CHINOOK (PUGET SOUND
RUN).
TROUT BULL (COASTAL/PUGET
SOUND ESU).
HOWELLIA WATER
STEELHEAD, SNAKE RIVER BASIN
POPULATION.
EAGLE BALD
OWL. NORTHERN SPOTTED
Scientific name
Strix occldentalis caurina
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Salvelinus confluentus
Ursus arctos (-U.a. horribilis)
Hallaeetus leucocephalus
Brachyramphus marmoratus
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Brachyramphus marmoratus
Strix occidentalis caurina
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Oncorhynchus mykiss, (Upper Columbia
ESU).
Oncorhyncus mykiss
Ursus arctos (-U.a. horribilis)
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrlnus
Strix occldentalis caurina
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Oncorhynchus nerka
Salvelinus confluentus
Canls lupus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Brachyramphus marmoratus
Strix occidontalis caurina
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Oncorhynchus mykiss, (Lower Columbia
ESU).
Salvelinus confluentus
Oncorhyncus mykiss
Ursus arctos (—U.a. horribilis)
Lupinus sulphureus ssp. Kincaidii
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Oncorhynchus mykiss, (Upper Columbia
ESU).
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Salveltnus confluentus .
Howellia aquatilis
Oncorhynchus mykiss, (Snake River
Basin ESU).
Strix occldentalis caurina
Status
T
T
T
T
E, T
T
E
T
T
T
E
T
T
E
E
T
T
T
E, T
T
E
T
T
T
T
E
E
T
T
E, T
T
E
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
E, T
T
T
E
T
E
T
T
E
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
-------
52568
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 189/Wednesday, September 30, 1998/Notices
II. COUNTY/SPECIES LIST—Continued
[The following list identifies federally listed or proposed U.S. species by State and County. It has been updated through July 8, 1998. Species
listed below with a status of both E and T are generally either endangered or threatened within the specified county.]
State/County
Group name
Inverse name
Scientific name
Status
FISHES
PACIFIC
MAMMALS
BIRDS
FISHES
PEND OREILLE.
INSECTS ...
MAMMALS
BIRDS
FISHES
PIERCE ,
MAMMALS
BIRDS
FISHES
SAN JUAN
MAMMALS
BIRDS
FISHES
SKAGIT ,
PLANTS
BIRDS ...
FISHES
SKAMANIA.
MAMMALS
BIRDS
FISHES
SALMON, CHINOOK (UPPER COLUM-
BIA RIVER SPRING RUN)
STEELHEAD, UPPER COLUMBIA
RIVER POPULATION.
TROUT, BULL (COLUMBIA RIVER POP-
ULATION). ;
BEAR, GRIZZLY
WOLF, GRAY
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
GOOSE, ALEUTIAN CANADA
MURRELET, MARBLED
OWL, NORTHERN SPOTTED
PELICAN, BROWN
PLOVER, WESTERN SNOWY
SALMON, CHINOOK (LOWER COLUM-
BIA RIVER).
SALMON, CHINOOK (SNAKE RIVER
FALL RUN).
SALMON, CHINOOK (SNAKE RIVER
SPRING/SUMMER).
SALMON, CHINOOK (UPPER COLUM-
BIA RIVER SPRING RUN)
SALMON, CHINOOK (UPPER WILLAM-
ETTE RIVER RUN}
SALMON, SNAKE RIVER SOCKEYE
TROUT, STEELHEAD (LOWER COLUM-
BIA RIVER RUN)
TROUT, STEELHEAD (MIDDLE COLUM-
BIA RIVER RUN).
TROUT, STEELHEAD (UPPER
WILLAMETE RIVER RUN)
BUTTERFLY, OREGON SILVERSPOT...
DEER, COLUMBIAN WHITETAILED
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
STEELHEAD, UPPER COLUMBIA
RIVER POPULATION.
TROUT, BULL (COLUMBIA RIVER POP
ULATION).
BEAR, GRIZZLY
CARIBOU, WOODLAND
WOLF, GRAY
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
MURRELET, MARBLED
OWL, NORTHERN SPOTTED
SALMON, CHINOOK (PUGET SOUND
RUN).
TROUT, BULL (COASTAUPUGET
SOUND ESU).
BEAR, GRIZZLY
WOLF, GRAY
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
SALMON, CHINOOK (PUGET SOUND
RUN).
PAINTBRUSH, GOLDEN
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
MURRELET, MARBLED
OWL, NORTHERN SPOTTED
SALMON, CHINOOK (PUGET SOUND
RUN).
TROUT, BULL (COASTAUPUGET
SOUND ESU).
BEAR, GRIZZLY
WOLF, GRAY
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
OWL, NORTHERN SPOTTED
SALMON, CHINOOK (LOWER COLUM
BIA RIVER).
SALMON, CHINOOK (SNAKE RIVER
FALL RUN).
SALMON, CHINOOK (SNAKE RIVER
SPRING/SUMMER).
SALMON, CHINOOK (UPPER COLUM
BfA RIVER SPRING RUN)
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha .
Oncorhynchus mykiss, (Upper Columbia
ESU).
Salvelinus confluentus
Jrsus arctos (=U.a. horribilis)
Canis lupus
laliaeetus leucocephalus
:alco peregrinus
Jranta canadensis leucoparela ...
Srachyramphus marmoratus
Strix occldentalis caurina
'elicanus occidentals
Charadrius alexandrinus nlvosus.
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha .
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha .
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha .
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha .
Oncorhynchus nerka.
Oncorhyncus mykiss.
Oncorhyncus mykiss .
Oncorhyncus mykiss.
Speyeria zerene hippolyta
Odocoileus virginianus leucurus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Oncorhynchus mykiss, (Upper Columbia
ESU).
Salvelinus confluentus
Ursus arctos (=U.a. horribilis).
Rangifer tarandus caribou
Canis lupus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Brachyramphus marmoratus...
Strix occidental caurina
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha ....
Salvelinus confluentus
Ursus arctos (=U.a. horribilis).
Canis lupus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha ....
Castilleja levisecta
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Brachyramphus marmoratus.
Strix occidentals caurina
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha..
Salvelinus confluentus
Ursus arctos (=U.a. horribilis).
Canis lupus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Strix occidentalis caurina
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha ....
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha .
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha .
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha .
T
E, T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
E
E, T
T
E
T
T
T
T
E, T
T
E
T
T
T
E
T
T
T
T
E, T
T
E
T
T
-------
Federal Reglster/Vol. 63, No. 189/Wednesday, September 30, 1998/Notices
52569
II. COUNTY/SPECIES LIST—Continued
[The foKowfng list Identifies federally listed or proposed U.S. species by State and County. It has been updated through July 8, 1998. Species
listed below with a, status of both E and T are generally either endangered or threatened within the specified county.]
Stale/County
SNOHOMISH
SPOKANE.....
STEVENS
THURSTON _
WAHK1AKUM
WAtiA WALLA „
Group name
MAMMALS
BIRDS
FISHES
MAMMALS
BIROS
FISHES
PLANTS
BIRDS
FISHES
MAMMALS
BIRDS
FISHES
PLANTS
BIRDS
FISHES
MAMMALS
BIRDS
FISHES
Inverse name
SALMON, CHINOOK (UPPER WILLAM-
ETTE RIVER RUN)
SALMON, SNAKE RIVER SOCKEYE
STEELHEAD, LOWER COLUMBIA
RIVER POPULATION
TROUT, BULL (COLUMBIA RIVER POP-
ULATION).
TROUT, STEELHEAD (LOWER COLUM-
BIA RIVER RUN}
TROUT, STEELHEAD (MIDDLE COLUM-
BIA RIVER RUN)
WOLF, GRAY
EAGLE BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
MURRELET, MARBLED
OWL, NORTHERN SPOTTED
SALMON, CHINOOK (PUGET SOUND
RUN).
TROUT, BULL (COASTAL/PUGET
SOUND ESU).
BEAR, GRIZZLY
WOLF, GRAY
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
SALMON, CHINOOK (SNAKE RIVER
FALL RUN).
TROUT, BULL (COLUMBIA RIVER POP-
ULATION).
HOWELLIA, WATER
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
STEELHEAD UPPER COLUMBIA
RIVER POPULATION.
TROUT, BULL (COLUMBIA RIVER POP-
ULATION).
BEAR, GRIZZLY
WOLF, GRAY
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
MURRELET, MARBLED
OWL, NORTHERN SPOTTED
SALMON, CHINOOK (PUGET SOUND
RUN).
TROUT, BULL (COASTAL/PUGET
SOUND ESU).
HOWELLIA, WATER
PAINTBRUSH, GOLDEN
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
MURRELET, MARBLED
OWL, NORTHERN SPOTTED
PELICAN, BROWN
SALMON, CHINOOK (LOWER COLUM-
BIA RIVER).
SALMON, CHINOOK (SNAKE RIVER
FALL RUN).
SALMON, CHINOOK (SNAKE RIVER
SPRING/SUMMER).
SALMON, CHINOOK (UPPER COLUM-
BIA RIVER SPRING RUN)
SALMON, CHINOOK (UPPER WILLAM-
ETTE RIVER RUN)
SALMON, SNAKE RIVER SOCKEYE ..
TROUT, STEELHEAD (LOWER COLUM-
BIA RIVER RUN)
TROUT, STEELHEAD (MIDDLE COLUM-
BIA RIVER RUN)
TROUT, STEELHEAD (UPPER
WILLAMETE RIVER RUN)
DEER, COLUMBIAN WHITE-TAILED
EAGLE, BALD ,.. .
FALCON, PEREGRINE
SALMON, CHINOOK (SNAKE RIVER
FALL RUN).
SALMON, CHINOOK (SNAKE RIVER
SPRING/SUMMER).
SALMON, SNAKE RIVER SOCKEYE
SALMON, CHINOOK (UPPER COLUM-
BIA RIVER SPRING RUN)
Scientific name
Oncofhynchus tshawytecha
Oncorhynchus narka
Oncorhynchus myklss, (Lower Columbia
ESU).
Salvellnus confluentus
Oncofhyncus myklss
Oncorhyncus myklss
Canls lupus . ..
Falco peregrinus
Brachyramphus marmoratus
Strix occktentalls caurlna
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Salvellnus confluentus
Ursus arctos (=U a horribills)
Canls lupus
Hallaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Salvellnus confluentus
Howellia aquatilis
Falco peregrinus
ESU).
Salvellnus confluentus
Ursus arctos (=:U.a. horrlbills)
Canis lupus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Brachyramphus marmoratus
Strix occldentalls caurlna
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Salvellnus confluentus
Howellia aquatllls
Castilleja levlsecta
Falco peregrinus
Brachyramphus marmoratus
Strix occldentalis caurlna .
Pellcanus occidentalls .
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Oncorhynchus nerka
Oncorhyncus myklss
Oncorhyncus myklss
Oncorhyncus myklss
Odocolleus vlrglnlanus leucurus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Oncorhynchus nerka
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Status
T
E
T
T
T
T
E T
E
T
7
T
T
T
E, T
T
E
T
T
T
X
E
E
T
T
E T
X
E
T
T
T
T
X
X
X
E
T
T
E
T
T
T
E
T
E
T
T
T
E
X
E
x
T
E
E
-------
52570
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 189/Wednesday, September 30, 1998/Notices
II. COUNTY/SPECIES LIST—Continued
(The following list identifies federally listed or proposed U.S. species by State and County. It has been updated throu
listed below with a status of both E and T are generally either endangered or threatened within the spec
ih July 8, 1998. Species
tied county.]
State/County
WHATCOM
WHITMAN
YAKIMA
Group name
BIRDS
FISHES
MAMMALS
BIRDS
FISHES
BIRDS
FISHES
MAMMALS
Inverse name
TROUT BULL (COLUMBIA RIVER POP-
ULATION).
TROUT STEELHEAD (MIDDLE COLUM-
BIA RIVER RUN}
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON PEREGRINE
MURRELET MARBLED
OWL NORTHERN SPOTTED
SALMON CHINOOK (PUGET SOUND
RUN).
SALMON SNAKE RIVER SOCKEYE
TROUT BULL (COASTAL/PUGET
SOUND ESU).
BEAR GRIZZLY
WOLF GRAY
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON PEREGRINE
SALMON CHINOOK (SNAKE RIVER
FALL RUN).
SALMON CHINOOK (SNAKE RIVER
SPRING/SUMMER).
SALMON SNAKE RIVER SOCKEYE
TROUT BULL (COLUMBIA RIVER ESU)
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON PEREGRINE
OWL, NORTHERN SPOTTED
STEELHEAD, UPPER COLUMBIA
RIVER POPULATION.
STEELHEAD, UPPER COLUMBIA
RIVER POPULATION.
TROUT BULL (COLUMBIA RIVER POP-
ULATION).
TROUT STEELHEAD (MIDDLE COLUM-
BIA RIVER RUN)
BEAR GRIZZLY
WOLF, GRAY
Scientific name
Salvelinus confluentus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrlnus
Strix occldentalis caurina
Ursus arctos (-U.a. horribllis)
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Oncorhynchus myklss, (Upper Columbia
ESU).
Oncorhynchus mykiss, (Upper Columbia
ESU).
Ursus arctos (-U.a, horribllis)
Canls lupus
Status
T
T
T
E
T
T
T
E
T
T
E, T
T
E
T
T
E
T
T
E
T
E
E
T
T
T
E, T
Note: Species listed above with a status of both E and T are generally either endangered or threatened within the specified county. The assignment of two status
designations for a species in a specific county is a function of the data set used to develop this list. For purposes of this permit, however, the obligation to assess the
Impact of storm water discharges on listed species does not vary based on which of the two statuses (e.g., endangered threatened) is assigned (see Addendum A In-
structions).
Key: E—Endangered, T—Threatened
IX. Addition of Addendum I—Historic
Properties Guidance
Addendum I is added to provide
guidance to help applicants determine
their permit eligibility regarding the
protection of historic properties or
places under Part I.B.6 of this permit.
Addendum I—Historic Properties
Guidance
This addendum provides guidance to
help applicants determine their permit
eligibility regarding the protection of
historic properties or places under Part
I.B.6 of this permit. In order to do this,
applicants must determine whether
their facility's industrial storm water
discharge, or construction of best
management practices (BMPs) to control
such discharge, has potential to affect a
property that is either listed or eligible
for listing on the National Register of
Historic Places.
For existing dischargers who do not
need to construct BMPs for permit
coverage, a simple visual inspection
may be sufficient to determine whether
historic properties are affected.
However, for facilities which are new
industrial storm water dischargers and
for existing facilities which are planning
to construct BMPs for permit eligibility,
applicants should conduct further
inquiry to determine whether historic
properties may be affected by the storm
water discharge or BMPs to control the
discharge. In such instances, applicants
should first determine whether there are
any historic properties or places listed
on the National Register or if any are
eligible for listing on the register (e.g.,
they are "eligible for listing"). Due to
the large number of entities seeking
coverage under this permit and the
limited number of personnel available
to State and Tribal Historic Preservation
Officers nationwide to respond to
inquiries concerning the location of
historic properties, EPA suggests that
applicants to first access the "National
Register of Historic Places" information
listed on the National Park Service's
web page (see Part I of this addendum).
Addresses for State Historic
Preservation Officers and Tribal Historic
Preservation Officers are listed in Parts
H and HI of this addendum,
respectively. In instances where a Tribe
does not have a Tribal Historic
Preservation Officer, applicants should
contact the appropriate Tribal
government office when responding to
this permit eligibility condition.
Applicants may also contact city,
county or other local historical societies
for assistance, especially when
determining if a place or property is
eligible for listing on the register.
The following three scenarios
describe how applicants can meet the
permit eligibility criteria for protection
of historic properties under this permit:
(1) If historic properties are not
identified in the path of a facility's
industrial storm water discharge or
where construction activities are
planned to install BMPs to control such
discharges (e.g., diversion channels or
retention ponds), then the applicant has
met the permit eligibility criteria under
Part I.B.6.
(2) If historic properties are identified
but it is determined that they will not
be affected by the discharge or
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 189/Wednesday, September 30, 1998/Notices
52571
construction of BMPs to control the
discharge, the applicant has met the
permit eligibility criteria under Part
18.6(0.
(3) If historic properties are identified
in the path of a facility's industrial
storm water discharge or where
construction activities are planned to
install BMPs to control such discharges,
and it Is determined that there is the
potential to adversely affect the
property, the applicant can still meet
the permit eligibility criteria under Part
1.6.6(11) if he/she obtains and complies
with a written agreement with the
appropriate State or Tribal Historic
Preservation Officer which outlines
measures the applicant will follow to
mitigate or prevent those adverse
effects. The contents of such a written
agreement must be included in the
facility's storm water pollution
prevention plan. In situations where an
agreement cannot be reached between
an applicant and the State or Tribal
Historic Preservation Officer, applicants
should contact the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation listed in Part IV of
this addendum for assistance. The term
"adverse effects" includes but is not
limited to damage, deterioration,
alteration or destruction of the historic
property or place. EPA encourages
applicants to contact the appropriate
State or Tribal Historic Preservation
Officer as soon as possible in the event
of a potential adverse effect to a historic
property.
Applicants are reminded that they
must comply with applicable State,
Tribal and local laws concerning the
protection of historic properties and
places.
L Internet Information on the National
Register of Historic Places
An electronic listing of the "National
Register of Historic Places," as
maintained by the National Park Service
on its National Register Information
System (NRIS), can be accessed on the
Internet at "http://www.nr.nps.gov/
nrlshome.htm". Remember to use small
case letters when accessing Internet
addresses.
II. State Historic Preservation Officers
(SHPO)
Alaska
Judith Bittner. SHPO, Division of Parks,
Office of History and Archeology,
3601 C St., Suite 1278, Anchorage, AK
99503-5921, Telephone: (907) 269-
8721 Fax: (907) 269-8908. E-mail:
Judyb®dnr.state.ak.us
Robert Shaw, deputy SHPO
Joan Antonson, deputy SHPO
Arizona
James W. Garrison, SHPO, Arizona State
Parks, 1300 West Washington,
Phoenix, AZ 85007, Telephone: (602)
542-4174 Fax: (602) 542-4180.
E-mail: jgarrison@pr.state.az.us
Carol Griffith, deputy SHPO
E-mail: cgriffith@pr.state.az.us
California
Cherilyn Widell. SHPO, Office of
Historic Preservation, Department of
Parks and Recreation, P.O. Box
942896, Sacramento, CA 94296-0001,
Telephone: (916) 653-6624 Fax: (916)
653-9824.
E-mail: calshpo@mail2.quiknet.com
Web site: "http://ceres.ca.gov/dpr/
programs/ohp''
Daniel Abeyta, deputy SHPO,
Telephone: (916) 653-6624
Connecticut
John W. Shannahan, SHPO, Connecticut
Historical Commission, 9 South
Prospect Street, Hartford, CT 06106 ,
Telephone: (203) 566-3005 Fax: (203)
566-5078
E-mail: cthist@neca.com
Dawn Maddox, deputy SHPO,
supervisor, Preservation Programs
Delaware
Daniel Griffith, SHPO, Division of
Historical and Cultural Affairs, P.O.
Box 1401, Dover. DE 19903,
Telephone: (302) 739-5313 Fax: (302)
739-6711
Joan Larrivee, deputy SHPO, Delaware
State Historic Preservation Office, 15
The Green, Dover, DE 19901,
Telephone: (302) 739-5685 Fax: (302)
739-5660
District of Columbia
Hampton Cross, HPO, director, DCRD/
OD, Suite 1120, 614 H Street, NW,
Washington. DC 20001, Telephone:
(202) 727-7120
Stephen J. Raiche, division chief,
Historic Preservation Division, 614 H
Street, NW, Suite 305, Washington,
DC 20001, Telephone: (202) 727-7360
Fax:(202)727-7211
Florida
George W. Percy, SHPO, director,
Division of Historical Resources,
Department of State, R.A. Gray
Building, 500 S. Bronough Street,
Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250,
Telephone: (904) 488-1480 Fax: (904)
488-3353
E-mail: fishpo@gteens.com
Judee Pettijohn, deputy SHPO,
Telephone: (904) 487-2333 Fax: (904)
922-0496
Guam
Richard D. Davis, HPO, Guam Historic
Preservation Office, Department of
Parks and Recreation, 490 Chasan
Palasyo, Agana Heights, Guam 96919,
Telephone: Oil (671) 477-9620/21
Fax: Oil (671)477-2822
E-mail: davisrd@ns.gu
Web site: "http://www.gov.gu/dpr/
dprhome.html"
Idaho
Robert M. Yohe. H, Interim SHPO, Idaho
State Historical Society, 1109 Main
Street, Suite 250, Boise, ID 83702-
5642 , Telephone: (208) 334-3847
Fax: (208) 334-2775,
E-mail: ryohe@ishs.state.id.us
Suzi Neitzel, Acting Deputy SHPO
Louisiana
Gerri Hobdy, SHPO, Department of
Culture, Recreation and Tourism, P.O.
Box 44247, Baton Rouge, LA 70804,
Telephone: (504) 342-8200 Fax: (504)
342-8173
W. Edwin Martin, Jr., deputy SHPO,
Telephone: (504) 342-8200
Jonathan Fricker, deputy SHPO.
Telephone: (504) 342-8160
E-mail: hp@crt.state.la.us
Maine
Earle G. Shettleworth, Jr., SHPO, Maine
Historic Preservation Commission, 55
Capitol Street, Station 65, Augusta,
ME 04333, Telephone: (207) 287-2132
Fax: (207) 287-2335,
E-mail: sheshet@state.me.us
Website: "http://www.state.me.us/
mhpc/homepag 1 .htm''
Robert L. Bradley, deputy SHPO
Massachusetts
Judith McDonough, SHPO,
Massachusetts Historical Commission,
220 Morrissey Boulevard, Boston, MA
02125, Telephone: (617) 727-8470;
Fax: (617) 727-5128; TTD: (800) 392-
6090,
E-mail:
jmcdonough@mhc.sec.state.ma.us
Brona Simon, deputy SHPO, director,
Technical Services
E-mail: jmcneil@mecn.mass.edu
Nevada
Ronald James, SHPO, Historic
Preservation Office, 101 S. Stewart
Street, Capitol Complex, Carson City,
NV 89710, Telephone: (702) 687-6360
Alice Baldrica, deputy SHPO,
Telephone: (702) 687-6361
E-mail: jn@scs.unr.edu
New Hampshire
Nancy Muller, SHPO, NH Division of
Historical Resources, P.O. Box 2043,
Concord, NH 03302-2043, Telephone:
-------
52572
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 189/Wednesday, September 30, 1998/Notices
(603) 271-6435; Fax: (603) 271-3433;
TTD: (800) 735-2964
Linda Ray Wilson, deputy SHPO.
Telephone: (603) 271-6434/3558
E-mail: lwilson@lilac.nhsl.lib.nh.us
New Mexico
Lynne Sebastian, SHPO, Historic
Preservation Division, Office of
Cultural Affairs, 228 East Palace
Avenue, Santa Fe, MM 87503,
Telephone: (505) 827-6320 Fax: (505)
827-6338
E-mail: sebastian@arms.state.nm.us
David Cushman, deputy SHPO
Dorothy Victor, deputy SHPO
E-mail: nmshpo@arms.state.nm.us
New York
Bernadette Castro, SHPO, Parks,
Recreation and Historic Preservation,
Agency Building #1, Empire State
Plaza, Albany, NY 12238, Telephone:
(518) 474-0443
J. Winthrop Aldrich, deputy SHPO,
Telephone: (518) 474-9113 Fax: (518)
474-4492
Ruth L. Pierpont, acting director, Bureau
of Field Services. NY State Parks,
Recreation & Historic Preservation,
Peebles Island, P.O. Box 189,
Waterford, NY 12188-1089,
Telephone: (518) 237-8643, x269 Fax:
(518) 233-9049
E-mail: rpierpont@aol.com
Oklahoma
J. Blake Wade, SHPO, Oklahoma
Historical Society, 2100 N. Lincoln
Boulevard, Oklahoma City, OK 73105,
Telephone: (405) 521-2491 Fax: (405)
521-2492
Melvena Thurman Heisch, deputy
SHPO, State Historic Preservation
Office, 2704 Villa Prom, Shepherd
Mall, Oklahoma City, OK 73105.
Telephone: (405) 521-6249 Fax: (405)
947-2918.
E-mail: mheisch@oklaosf.state.ok.us
Oregon
Bob Meinen, SHPO, State Parks and
Recreation Department, 1115
Commercial Street, NE, Salem, OR
97310-1001. Telephone: (503) 378-
5019 Fax: (503) 378-6447 James
Hamrick, deputy SHPO, Telephone:
(503) 378-5001 (x231)
E-mail: james.m.hamrick@state.or.us
Puerto Rico, Commonwealth of
Lilliane D. Lopez. HPO. Office of
Historic Preservation, Box 82, La
Fortaleza, San Juan, Puerto Rico
00901, Telephone: (809) 721-2676/
3737 Fax: (809) 723-0957
Bernice Sueiro Vazquez, deputy SHPO
Rhode Island
Frederick C. Williamson, SHPO, Rhode
Island Historical Preservation
Commission, Old State House, 150
Benefit Street, Providence, RI02903,
Telephone: (401) 277-2678, Fax: (401)
277-2968 ;
Edward F. Sanderson, deputy SHPO
Texas
Curtis Tunnell, SHPO, Texas Historical
Commission, P.O. Box 12276, Austin,
TX 78711-2276. Telephone: (512)
463-6100, Fax: (512) 475-4872,
E-mail: ctunnell@access.texas.gov
Web site: "http://www.thc.state.tx.us"
James Wright Steely, deputy SHPO,
director, National Register Program,
Telephone: (512) 463-6006. Fax: (512)
475-3122,
E-mail: jsteely@access.texas.gov
Stanley O. Graves, deputy SHPO,
director, Architecture Division.
Telephone: (512) 463-6094, Fax: (512)
463-6095,
E-mail: sgraves@access.texas.gov
James E. Bruseth, deputy SHPO,
director. Antiquities Protection,
Telephone: (512) 463-6096. Fax: (512)
463-8927,
E-mail: jbruseth@access.texas.gov
Vermont
Townsend Anderson, SHPO, Vermont
Division for Historic Preservation, 135
State Street, Fourth Floor, Drawer 33,
Montpelier, VT 05633-1201,
Telephone: (802) 828-3056.
E-mail: tanderson@gate.dca.state.vt.us
Eric Gilbertson, deputy SHPO,
Telephone: (802) 828-3043, Fax: (802)
828-3206,
E-mail: ergilbertson@gate.dca.state.vt.us
Web site: "http://www.state.vt.us/dca"
Washington ;
David M. Hansen, Acting SHPO, Office
of Archeology and Historic
Preservation, 111 West 21st Avenue,
KL-11, Olympia, WA 98504.
Telephone: (360) 753-4011. Fax: (360)
586-0250.
E-mail: davidh@cted.wa.gov
Greg Griffith, acting deputy SHPO,
E-mail: gregg@cted.wa.gov
m. Tribal Historic Preservation Officers
CTHPO)
In instances where a Tribe does not
have a Tribal Historic Preservation
Officer, please contact the appropriate
Tribal government office when
responding to this permit eligibility
condition.
John Brown. Narragansett Indian Tribe,
P.O. Box 700, Wyoming, RI 02898
Michael Burney, Confederated Tribes of
the Umatilla Reservation, P.O. Box
638, Pendleton, OR 97801
William Day, Tunica-Biloxi Indians of
Louisiana, P.O. Box 331, Marksville,
LA 71351
Alan S. Downer, Ph.D., Historic
Preservation Dept., Navajo Nation,
P.O. Box 4950, Window Rock, AZ
86515
Adeline Fredlin, Confederated Tribes of
the Colville Reservation, P.O. Box
150, Nespelem, WA 99155
Thomas Gates, Tribal Heritage
Preservation Officer, Cultural
Division, Yurok Tribe, 1034 6th St.,
Eureka. CA 95501
Monza V. Honga. Office of Cultural
Resources, Hualapai Tribe, P.O. Box
310, Peach Springs, AZ 86434
James F. Sijohn, Spokane Tribe of
Indians, P.O. Box 100. Wellpinit, WA
99040
Scott E. Stuemke, Confederated Tribes
of Warm Springs, Cultural Resources
Department, P.O. Box C, Warm
Springs, OR 97761
John Welch, White Mt. Apache Tribe,
P.O. Box 1150, Whiteriver. AZ 85941
IV. Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation
Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation, 1100 Pennsylvania
Avenue, NW., Suite 809, Washington,
DC 20004, Telephone: (202) 606-
8503/8505, Fax: (202) 606-8647/8672.
E-mail: achp@achp.gov
Authorization To Discharge Under the
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System
In compliance with the provisions of
the Clean Water Act, as amended, (33
U.S.C. 1251 et. seq., the "Act"), except
as provided in Part I.B.3 of this storm
water multi-sector general permit,
operators of point source discharges of
storm water associated with industrial
activity that discharge into waters of the
United States, represented by the
industry sectors identified in Part XI. of
this permit, are authorized to discharge
in the areas of coverage listed below in
accordance with the conditions and
requirements set forth herein.
Area of coverage
American Samoa (non-Fed-
eral Facilities).
American Samoa (Federal Fa-
cilities).
Commonwealth of the North-
em Mariana Islands (non-
Federal Facilities).
Commonwealth of the North-
em Mariana Islands (Fed-
eral Facilities).
Permit No.
ASR05*###
ASR05*##F
N1R05*###
NIR05*##F
Operators of storm water discharges
from the industrial activities covered
under this permit who intend to be
-------
Federal Reglster/Vol. 63, No. 189/Wednesday, September 30. 1998/Notices
52573
authorized by this permit must submit
a Notice of Intent (NOI) in accordance
with Part n.B of this permit. Operators
of storm water discharges associated
with industrial activity who fail to
submit an NOI in accordance with Part
H.B of this permit are not authorized
under this general multi-sector permit.
This permit shall become effective on
September 30,1998. This permit and
the authorization to discharge shall
expire at midnight, October 1, 2000.
Signed this 17th day of July, 1998.
John Ong.
Acting Director, Water QlvlSton.
For reasons set forth in this preamble.
Parts I, U, and IV of the NPDES storm
water multi-sector general permit
(MSGP), as modified elsewhere in this
notice, is further amended as follows.
I. Inclusion of American Samoa and the
Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands (CNMI) In MSGP
Part / (Amended)
Part I is amended by revising
paragraph A, Permit Area, Region DC to
include American Samoa and the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands (CNMI) after the phrase
"Midway and Wake Island" as follows:
Part I. Coverage Under This Permit
A. Permit Area
*****
Region IX—the State of Arizona; the
Territories of Johnston Atoll, Guam, and
Midway and Wake Island, American
Samoa and the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI);
* * *
H. NOI Submittal Deadline for CNMI
Part H (Amended)
The deadline for NOI submittal for
existing facilities in CNMI is established
by adding Parts H. A. 11 to the MSGP as
follows:
Part II. Notification Requirements
A. Deadlines for Notification
*****
11. Existing Facilities in CNMI.
Except as provided in paragraphs II.A.4
(New Operator), and n.A.5 (Late
Notification), individuals In CNMI who
Intend to obtain coverage for an existing
storm water discharge associated with
industrial activity under this general
permit shall submit an NOI In
accordance with the requirements of
this Part on or before December 29,
1998.
HI. Deadlines for Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Plan Preparation
and Compliance for Facilities in CNMI
Part IV (Amended)
For facilities in CNMI, the deadline
for storm water pollution prevention
plan preparation and compliance is
established in the MSGP by adding Part
IV. A. 11 as follows:
Part IV. Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plans
A. Deadlines for Plan Preparation and
Compliance
* * * * *
11. Facilities in CNMI. Except as
provided in paragraphs 3, 4, and 5
(above), all existing facilities and new
facilities that begin operation on or
before June 28, 1999 shall prepare and
implement the plan by June 28, 1999.
BMPs involving construction shall be
completed no later than October 1,
2000.
BILLING CODE B560-60-P
-------
52574
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 189/Wednesday, September 30, 1998 S Notices
THIS FORM REPLACES PREVIOUS FORM 3510-6 (8-92) Form Approved.
See Reverse for Instructions
NPDES
FORM
&EPA
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20460
Notice of Intent (NO!) for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Industrial
Activity Under a NPDES Permit
Submission of this Notice of Intent constitutes notice that the party identified in Section II of this form intends to be authorized by a NPDES permit issued ft r
storm water discharges associated with industrial activity in the State Identified in Section III of this form. Becoming a permittee obligates such discharger t
comply with the terms and conditions of the permit ALL NECESSARY INFORMATION MUST BE PROVIDED ON THIS FORM.
I. Permit Selection: Yourmnt Indicate the NPDES Storm Water general permit under which you are applying tor coverage. Check one of these.
Baseline
Industrial
D
Baseline
Construction
D
Multi-Sector
(Group Permit)
D
II. Facility Operator Information
Name: I i i i i i i
Address: I i i
City:
, , i i I Phone: I i i I i i I i i . I
Status of
i i i i i i i I Owner/Operator |
o
I
State: I , I 2IPCode: I . . . . .~i . .
III. Facility/Site Location Information
Name: I . . . i . . . i
i i i i
Address: I
Is the facility located on
Indian Lands? (Y or N)
D
ZIP Code:L
City: I i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i I State:
Latitude: I i I i I i I Longitude:! i i I i I i I Quarter:! i I Section:! i I Township:l_j_
J Range:[
IV. Site Activity Information
MS4 Operator Name: I i
Receiving Water Body: j i_
i t i i
i i i i i i i i i i I
If you are filing as a co-permittee, .
enter storm water general permit number: L
SIC or Designated .
Activity Code: Primary: I i
J
2nd:|_
Is the facility required to submit monitoring data? (1, 2, 3, or
If You Have Another Existing NPDES
Permit, Enter Permit Number. I—I I i i I i I
Mum-Sector Permit Applicants Onlv:
Based on the Instructions provided In Addendum H of the
Multi-Sector permit, are species identified in Addendum H
in proximity to the storm water discharges to be covered—™
under this permit, or the areas of BMP construction to
control those storm water discharges? (Y or N) >—
Will construction (land disturbing activities) be conductor)
for storm water controls? (Y or N) L_
Is applicant subject to and in compliance with a written I™
historic preservation agreement? (Y or N) |
V. Additional Information Required for Construction Activities Only
Project Start Date: Completion Date:
I . I . I . I t . I . I . I
Estimated Area to be,
Disturbed (in Acres): L
is the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan——
in compliance with State and/or Local I
sediment and erosion plans? (Y or N) I f
VI. Certification:
The certification statement in Box 1 applies
The certification statement In Box 2 appK
. applicants.
to facilities applying for the Multi-Sector storm water general permit.
BOX1
ALL APPLICANTS
I certify under penalty of law that this document
and all attachments were prepared under my
direction or supervision in accordance with a
system designed to assure that qualified
personnel properly gather and evaluate the
Information submitted. Based on 'my Inquiry
of the person or persons who manage the
system, or those persons directly responsible
for gathering the information, the information
submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and
belief, true, accurate, and complete. I a/n
aware that there are significant penalties for
submitting false information, including the
possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing
violations.
B°X 2 MULTI-SECTOR STORM WATER GENERAL PERMIT APPLICANTS ONLY:
I certify under penalty of law that I have read and understand Part I.B. eligibility requirement
for coverage under the Multi-Sector storm water general permit, including those requirement!
relating to the protection of species identified in Addendum H.
To the best of my knowledge, the discharges covered under this permit, and construction <
BMPs to control storm water run-off, are not likely to and will not likely adversely affect ar.
species identified in Addendum H of the Mutt-Sector storm water general permit or are otherwls >
eligible for coverage due to previous authorization under the Edangered Species Act.
To the best of my knowledge, I further certify that such discharges, and construction of BMFb
control storm water run-off, do not have an effect on properties listed or eligible for listing < i
the National Register of Historic Places under the National HIsMc Preservation Act, or are
otherwise eligible for coverage due to a previous agreement under the National Histon
Preservation Act.
I understand that continued coverage under, the Multi-Sector general permit Is contingent'upo
maintaining eligibility as provided for in Part I.B.
Print Name: I
J
Date: I . I . I . I
Sianature;
EPA Form 3510-6 (8-98)
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 189/Wednesday. September 30. 1998/Notices
52575
Instructions - EPA Form 3510-6
Notice Of Intent (NOt) For Storm Water Discharge* Associated With Industrial Activity
To Be Covered Under a NPDES General Permit
Who Must Fit* A Notice Of Inttnt (NOI) Form
Indicate the monitoring status of the faoity. Refer to the permit for information on monitoring
requirements. Indicate the monitoring status by entering one of the following:
_^_ _ _ „ „ Discharge
i Sy»«im*(NPCES) permftTTbe operator of an Industrial activjty that has such
a storm water discharge must submit a NOI to obtain coverage under a NPDES Storm
VWer General Permrt K you have questions about whether you need a permit under the
WOES Storm Wtler program, or (I you need information as to whether a particular
program Is administered by EPA or a state agency, telephone or write to the Notice of
Intent Processing Center at (703)931-3230.
Where To File NOI Form
NOI* must be sent to the following address:
Storm Water NoUce of Intent (4203)
401 M Street, S.W.
Room 2104 Northeast Mall
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-9541*
•This telephone number should be used as the recipient** number for express deiverles.
The teXohone number al the Notice of Intent Processing Canter is (703)931-3230.
Completing The Form
You must type or print using upper-case letters. In the appropriate areas only. Please
pfice each character between the marks. Abbreviate If necessary to stay within the
number of character* all owed for each Hem. Use one space for breaks between words,
but not for punctuation mark* unless they are needed to clarify your responses. If you
Ntva any questions on this form, cat the Notice of Intent Processing Center at (703)931-
3230,
Section I Permit Selection
Vbtimuet Indicate the NPDES storm water general permit under which you are applying
(or cevwage. Check one box only. The Baseline Industrial and Baseline Construction
permits were issued in September 1692. The Mum-Sector Permit became effective
October 1,1S05.
Section 11 Facility Operator Information
Provide the legal name of the person, firm, public organization, or any other entity that
entrant the tacHty or *tt» described In this application. The name of the operator may
t not be the same as the name of the facllty. The responsible party Is the legal
he fadtrty's operation, rather than the plant or site manager. Do not
«. Enter the complete address and tetsphonaumber of the operator.
Not subject to monitoring requirements under the conditions of the pennlt
Subject to monitoring requirements and required to submit data.
Subject to monitoring requrementTGut not required to submit data.
Subject to monitoring requirements buTsubmittlng certification for monitoring
exclusion.
Ust In descending order of significance, up to two 4-dkjit standard industrial classification
(SIC) codes that best describe the principal products or services provided at the- facility
or site Identified In Section III of this ap
IhTcTSnstruclion general permit, enter "
n. If you are applying for coverage under
" (which represents SIC codes 1500-1799).
For Industrial activities defined in 40 CFR 122.26{b)(14)(0-(xl) that do not have SIC codes
that accurately describe the principal products produced or services provided, use the
following 2-charactsr codes.
HZ = Hazardous waste treatment, storage, or disposal facilities, Including those that
are operating under Interim status or a permit under subtitle C of RCRA [40 CFR
122.26(b)f14)(iv)];
LF = Landfills, land application sites, and open dumps that receive or have received
any Industrial wastes, Including those that are subject to regulation under subtitle
D of RCRA [40 CFR 122^6(b)(14)(v)l; T
SE « Steam electric power generating facilities. Including coal handling sites [40 CFR
122.26(b)<14)(vi!)l;
TW - Treatment works treating domestic sewage or any other sewage sludge or
wastewater treatment device or system, used In the storage, treatment, recycling,
and reclamation of municipal or domestic sewage [40 CFR 122,26(b)(lx)); or
CO « Construction activities [40 CFR 122.26(b)(14)(x)J.
If there Is an other NPDES permit presently Issued for the facility or sKe listed In Section
III, enter the permit number. If an application for the facility has been submitted but no
permit number has been assigned, enter the application number.
FadHties applying for coverage under the Multi-Sector storm water general permit must
answer the last three questions in Section IV. Refer to Addendum H of the Mufti-Sector
general permit for a list of species that are either proposed or listed as threatened or
endangered. 'BMP" means "Best Management Practices* that are used to control storm
water discharges.
Indicate whether any construction wHI be conducted to Install or develop storm water
runoff oortfiofs.
Section V Additional Information Required for Construction
Activities Only
Construction activities must complete Section V ki addition to Sections I through IV. Only
construction activities need to complete Section V.
grttsf the appropriate letter to Indicate the toga) status of the operator of the factHty:
F-Federal; S - State; M » Public (other than federal or staleJP - Private
plan.
Provide an estimate of the total number of acres of the site on which sou will bo disturbed
(round to the nearest acre).
Section III FacIIKy/Slto Location Information
"**>«' «**»** e.rovld9 8 lor «*n*tln8 MM Information on this
appllcatton form. Federal regulations require this application to be signed as follows:
Indicate whether the storm water pollution prevention plan for the site Is In compliance
with approved state and/or local sediment and erosion plans, permits, or storm water
Enter the faculty's or tile's official or legal name and complete street address. Including m*n*9enwnt "•""*•
dry, *Me. and ZIP code. Do not provide a P.O. Box number as the street addreaV.
applying for » BceeVn* Permit and the faculty or stte lacks a street address, (ndcateoncMnn VI Certification
STsWe *nd etherthe toStude .and longitude A the facility to the nearest 15 second* &ecuon vl ^erniicawon
, _. _. „. _,. .or th* UuM-Seeter Pennlt Indlc
, i street addree* and the latitude i
15 seconds.
AH applicants must Indicate whether the facility Is located on Indian lands.
Section IV Site Activity Information
tfeSe storm water Discharge* to a munlclpsl separate- storm sewer system (MS4), enter
the name of the operator of the MS4 (e.g., municipality name, county name) and the
receiving water of the discharge from me MS4. (A MS* is defined as a conveyance or
system 01 conveyance* flncJudlng roads with drainage systems, municipal streets, catch
Mwnt. curbs, gutters, drtohet, man-made channels, or storm drains) that Is owned or
operated by a slate, oriy, town, borough, county, parish, district, association, or other
pubtle body which Is designed or used for collecting or conveygi storm water.)
K the facWy discharges storm watsr directly to receiving waters), enter the name of the
rtcsrvlng waters).
If you are fftng a* a co-permittee and a storm water general permit number has been
weued, erdM me number In the place provided.
For a corporation: by a responsible corporate officer, which means: (I) president, secretary,
treasurer, or vice-president of the corporation In charge of a principal business function,
or any other person who performs similar policy or decision making functions, or (K) the
manager of one or more manufacturing, production, or operating tadlties employing mom
than 250 persons or having gross annual sales or expenditures exceeding $25 million
(in second-quarter 1980 dollars), K authority to sign documents has been assigned or
delegated to the manager In accordance with corporate procedures;
For a partnership or sole proprietorship: by a general partner or the proprietor; or
For t municipality, state. Federal, or other public facHitjtoy either a principal executive
officer or ranking elected official.
Paperwork Reduction Act Notice
Pubfc reporting burden for this application I* estimated to average OJ hours per appfcaBon,
Inducing time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of Informmtlon.
Send comments regarding the burden estimates, any other aspect of the collection of
Information, or suggestions for Improving this form, including any suggestions which may
Increase or reduce this burden to: Chief. Information Potey Branch, 2136, US. Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460. or Director, Office of
-------
52576
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 189/Wednesday, September 30. 1998/Notices
THIS FORM REPLACES PREVIOUS FORM 3510-7 (8-92)
Form Approved. OMBi*vse<»eees
NPDES
FORM
Unltodf State* Environmental Pntacdon Agency
WwWngton. DC 20460
Nofle*} of Termination (NOT) of Cowrag* Unctor * NPDES General Permit for
Storm Water Discharge* Associated with Induatrlal Activity
tto
ALt-^EfcESSAHY INFORMATION MUST BE PROVIDED ON THIS FORM. ^
I. Permit Intermitton
NPOES Storm Water
General Porrrtt Number:
, Check Hera if You aw No longer
-i L...J.-J—A..J i ).....I th«0|witorfll*fF»cMV.
Check Hera If «io Storm Water
Discharge to Being Terminate*
II. Faculty Operator InJormatton
Name: I ••'"''
i i i i 1 Phone:
Address; J_I_J L_J—L....I.—i-.i
CHy: L.i_..!.....( I i... <..,..' ' >. i....i ...i i i ! ii i..i .i—i-J State: I I I ZIP Code: 1 i,. i l. i i..I,i....i..,.i... I.
81. FacSHy/Stte Location Information
Name: L_i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—'—i—'—I
t
Cite
i il state:
I _ i _ I
ZIPCed«:
i — l — l — l — i-i — l — I — L
Utftude: t i l
-'- I -'--I ft**: L_I_J Section: I i I TwwiWp: I i ,.i ..... i ...... I R»0»: I— L
i l
IV. CertHtartfom I certify under penalty of lawthat al atorm water dtoenamae awodated with IndusMMI activity from the jdentffledJadUty trait a»
authmlzedbvaNPOiSatMfaipnmttrtmbMneilrrilruM tund»ratandthatby
sutonttlSng ffllTNcrttelTof TemftwSon ,1 am no longer «ith«lzedtodhctarae«orinwe^^
that dl*criara!TOI»»utai>t* taster water attach^
tnedteharge It not authorlzad by « NPDES permit lateourKtoretandthatlTMsiamlttalofOTsNot^
Uabflfty for any vtolaflone of this permit or th* Ctean W
Print Name:
Signature:
Water Act
J J_,J L I_._J U...J—J 1—I—l__l—-J 1 !—1_J 1 1 1 ! 1—J—.1—
Date:
tnttruetiorw for Comptoting Notte* of TermlnaUon (NOT) Fonn
Who Key me a Notts* «f Terminaaon (MOT) Fona
PtrmKttte who are prewntty eovtmd under an EPMttati Nutonal Poluum
Dhchaig* Bhnlnttlon SytUm (NPOE8) Gwontf Permit (betiding tt» 1986
Mu»-8*«ifP«ir*} lor Storm WaWDIchargM Attodated wlih lndu»trWAe8vity
may submit a Note* of Twnttialton (NOT) tarn ,wh*n th*if tacMlM no longic
have- any norm wMtr dlKhaigw auodiM vAh MuMM aatMty u d*fln*d'to
0w Moon watw regulation* at 40 CFB 122JMf>X14)> or when tiey am no longer
the opuator of the fuKtae.
For oontmietton KtMBst, elmlnalion of an etorm waur dwhugM auoetDed
wtti InduttiW acthky occur* when cMuibed eatt at the eonMiuction eta have
been tiaay attbteed and tampeiary ttnet or tMt:M »lMi^f
water dhehanea attoewed wkh MuAW acivity horn ft* eamtnidlan sta that
wm&^*ty»WBtto»r^p«^bMt#*nitob*mtllnir»^n*l
•- • Act eft eoD-dMurbkxi adMHte at tt* *to have been
torn perennial vt»Hailveeov»rwalieo»iaBynt 70% ot
the cover fcr unpeved aiaa* and areat not oevated by permanent wucturae hat.
oMMabifaatlon ------
WAeretonieNOT Form
Send#l»fonntothe th»te»o«tna idrlratr
Storm Wtttr Nottc* o» Terrrinatfen (4203)
401M8tiMt.S.W.
WuMngton.OC 20460
CcmpWIngtlMFerm
Type or pnnt, Ming upper-emu Men. hi fte appropnate anea only. PIMM
place each crjiaiairtiehvMn the maila. AbenwMellneeet«MytoaiayM*Mt
ft» number otehametemalowed tor each tarn. UteonVoneepacefortaneka
banwen wardi, but not for punetueSon marte unlew they an needed to dartfy
voortMpoBW. » you have any quee»Mieabcutthlef6iiTi.lalephone-or write the
Notts* o»W«ntPnx»««ln8C«nl«*t{703)»31-!K3D.
been ettbMied, or equivalent t
UMO(
uret (such as the
EPA Fbm 9510-7 (S-M)
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 189/Wednesday, September 30, 1998/Notices
52577
Instruction* - EPA Form 3S10-7
Nolle* ol Termination (NOT) of Coverage Under The NPDES General Permit
for Storm Water Dischargee A*e«eleted With Induetriel Activity
Section I Permit Information
Enter the existing NPDES Storm Water General Permit number assigned to the
facility or cKe Identified In Section III. If you do not know the permit number,
telephone or write your EPA Regional storm water contact person.
Indicate your reason for submitting this Notice of Termination by checking the
appropriate box-
If tvere ha» been • change of operator and you are no longer the operator of
8ve tacKy or «;te Identified in Section III. check the corresponding box.
If a* storm water discharge* at the facility or site Identified in Section III have
be*n termintted, check trie corresponding box.
Section H Facility Operator Information
Gtv* the lest) neme of the person, firm, pubfc organization, or any other entity that
ocenriMtheficCKyorsitedosafcedlnthlsappitcatJon, The name of the operator
may ormey not be the same name at the facility- The operator of the facility is the
tegal entity which controls the fadlr/a operation, rather than ths plant or site
menagef. Donctusoicoioqulalname. Enter the complete address and telephone
number of the operator.
Section IN Facility/Site Location Information
Enter the facility's or site's official or legal name and complete address. Including
cf!y, state and ZIP code. If the facility tocks a street address, indicate the state, the
tetlhide end tongtode of the facility to the nearest 16 seconds, or the quarter,
section, township, and range (to the nearest quarter section) of the approximate
center of me site.
Section IV Certification
Federal statutes provide for severe penalties for submitting false Information on this
application form. Federal regulations require this application to be signed as
follows:
For* corporation: by a responsible corporate officer, which means: (i) president,
secretary, treasurer, or vice-president of the corporation hi charge of a principal
business function, or any other person who performs similar policy or decision
making functions, or (II) the manager of one or more manufacturing, production, or
operating tacMtiee employing more than 250 persons or having gross annual sales
or expendHures exceeding $25 milton (In second-quarter 1980 dollars), If authority
to sign documents has been assigned or delegated to the manager in accordance
with corporate procedures;
Fore partnership or sole proprietorship: by a general partner or the proprietor; or
For a munlclpelfty, Sttto, Federtl, or other public facility: by either a principal
executive officer or ranking elected official.
Paperwork Reduction Act Notice
Pubfic reporting burden for this application Is estimated to average 0.5 hours per
application, including time for reviewing Instructions, searching existing data
sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing
the collection of Information. Send comments regarding the burden estimate, any
other aspect of lie collection of Information, or suggestions for Improving this form,
including any suggestions which may Increase or reduce this burden to: Chief,
Information Policy Branch, 2136, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M
Street SW, Washington, DC 20460, or Director. Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget Washington. DC 20503.
[PR Doc. 98-25059 Filed 9-29-98; 8:45 am]
BNJJNO CODE
------- |