833Z98002
Tuesday
February 17, 1998
Part II
Environmental
Protection Agency
Reissuance of NPDES General Permits
for Storm Water Discharges From
Construction Activities; Notice
7857
SM-X*
-------
-------
7858
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 31/Tuesday, February 17, 1998/Notices
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[FRL-5965-9]
Reissuance of NPDES General Permits
for Storm Water Discharges From
Construction Activities
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of final NPDES general
permits.
SUMMARY: The Regional Administrators
of Regions 1,2,3, 7, 8, 9 and 10 are
today issuing final National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
general permits for storm water
discharges associated with construction
activity. EPA first issued permits for
these activities in September 1992.
These permits subsequently expired in
September 1997. Today's permits,
which replace the expired permits,
authorize the discharge of pollutants in
storm water runoff from construction
activities in accordance with the terms
and conditions of these permits.
Hereinafter, the terms "permit" or
"construction general permit" or "CGP"
will replace "permits" for reasons of
readability (the pluralized form is
technically more proper, denoting the
issuance of separate general permits in
each of the Regions listed above).
DATES: This general permit shall be
effective on February 17, 1998. This
effective date is necessary to provide
dischargers with the immediate
opportunity to comply with CWA
requirements in light of the recent
expiration of the previous general
permit for storm water discharges
associated with construction activity.
Deadlines for submittal of Notices of
Intent (NOIs) are provided in section V,
Part II. A, of the Fact Sheet and Part II. A
of the general permit. Today's general
permit also provides additional dates for
compliance with the terms of the
permit.
ADDRESSES: The index to the
administrative record for this permit is
available at the appropriate Regional
Office or from the EPA Water Docket in
Washington, DC. The complete
administrative record is located at the
Water Docket, MC-4101, U.S. EPA, 401
M Street SW, Washington, DC 20460.
Copies of information in the record are
available upon request. A reasonable fee
may be charged for copying. Specific
record information can also be made
available at the appropriate Regional
Office upon request.
NOTICE OF INTENT FORMS: A Notice of
Intent (NOI) form must be submitted to
obtain coverage for storm water
discharges under this permit. Until the
U.S. Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) approves and the EPA publishes
a revised NOI form designed specifically
for this permit, operators of storm water
discharges associated with construction
activity must use the existing NOI form
to obtain permit coverage. Upon
publication of the revised NOI form in
the Federal Register, operators must use
the revised form to obtain coverage
under the Construction General Permit.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
further information on the NPDES
Construction General Permit, call the
EPA Regions 6 and 2 Storm Water
Hotline at 1-800-245-6510, or your
EPA Regional storm water coordinator.
Information is also available through the
Internet on the EPA's Office of
Wastewater Management web site at
"http://www.epa.gov/owm/cgp.htm"
and at the various EPA Regional Office
Internet web sites.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Contents
I. Introduction
II. Answers to Common Questions
III. Coverage Provided by General Permits
IV. Summary of Options for Controlling
Pollutants
V. Summary of Permit Conditions
VI. Endangered Species Protection
VII. Historic Properties Protection
VIII. Summary of Responses to Comments on
the Proposed Permit
IX. Cost Estimates
X. Regulatory Review (Executive Order
12866)
XI. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
XII. Paperwork Reduction Act
XIII. Regulatory Flexibility Act
XIV. Official Signatures
I. Introduction
The United States Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) is reissuing the
general permit which authorizes the
discharge of pollutants in storm water
associated with construction activity. As
used in this permit, "storm water
associated with construction activity"
refers to category (x) of the definition of
"discharge of storm water associated
with industrial activity." Category (x)
includes construction activity
disturbing at least five acres, or
construction activity disturbing less
than five acres which is part of a larger
common plan of development or sale
with the potential to disturb
cumulatively five or more acres (See 40
CFR 122.26(b)(14)).
This construction general permit is
written as if it was a single permit rather
than the 45 legally separate and
individually numbered general permits
it is comprised of. Unless otherwise
noted, references to "the permit" apply
to the common language of each of the
45 separate general permits. Any area-
specific conditions that apply are found
in Part X of the permit.
This permit replaces the previous
Baseline Construction General Permit
which was issued for a five-year term in
September 1992. The most significant
changes from the 1992 permit include:
• New conditions to protect listed
endangered and threatened species and
critical habitats;
• Expanded coverage to construction
sites under five acres of disturbed land
which are not part of a larger common
plan of development or sale when an
operator has been designated by the
Director to obtain coverage pursuant to
40 CFR 122.26(a)(l)(v) or 122.26(a)(9)
and 122.26(g)(l)(i);
• A requirement to post the
confirmation of permit coverage (the
permit number or copy of the Notice of
Intent (NOI) if a permit number has not
yet been assigned) including a brief
description of the project;
• Terms applicable when
transitioning from the previous permit;
• The requirement to submit a notice
of permit termination when
construction is completed;
• Automatic coverage under an
expired, but administratively-continued
permit;
• Capability to use this permit to
acquire coverage for other construction-
related industrial activities (e.g., a
concrete batch plant); and
• Storm water pollution prevention
plan performance objectives.
This general permit for storm water
discharges associated with construction
activity was proposed on June 2, 1997
(62 FR 29786), and is hereby issued
with individual permit numbers for the
following areas:
Region 1: The Commonwealth of
Massachusetts and the States of Maine
and New Hampshire; Indian Country
lands in the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts and the States of Maine,
Rhode Island and Connecticut; Federal
facilities in Vermont.
Region 2: The Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico and Indian Country lands in
the State of New York.
Region 3: District of Columbia;
Federal facilities in the State of
Delaware.
Region 7: Indian Country lands in
Iowa, Kansas and Nebraska (except Pine
Ridge Reservation Lands [see Region 8]).
Region 8: Federal facilities in
Colorado; Indian Country lands in
Colorado (including the portion of the
Ute Mountain Reservation located in
New Mexico), Montana, North Dakota
(including that portion of the Standing
Rock Reservation located in South
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63. No. 31/Tuesday, February 17, 1998/Notices
7859
Dakota and excluding the Lake Traverse
Reservation which is covered under the
permit for areas of South Dakota), South
Dakota (including the portion of the
Pine Ridge Reservation located in
Nebraska and the portion of the Lake
Traverse Reservation located in North
Dakota and excluding the Standing Rock
Reservation which is covered under the
permit for areas of North Dakota), Utah
(except Goshute and Navajo Reservation
lands [see Region 9]) and Wyoming.
Region 9: The Islands of American
Samoa and Guam, Johnston Atoll,
Midway/Wake Islands and
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands; the State of Arizona; Indian
Country Lands in Arizona (including
Navajo Reservation lands in New
Mexico and Utah), California and
Nevada (including the Duck Valley
Reservation in Idaho, the Fort
McDermitt Reservation in Oregon and
the Goshute Reservation in Utah).
Region 10: The States of Alaska and
Idaho; Indian Country lands in Alaska
and Idaho (except Duck Valley
Reservation [see Region 9]), Washington
and Oregon (except for Fort McDermitt
Reservation [see Region 9]); Federal
facilities in Washington.
II. Answers to Common Questions
In this section, EPA provides answers
to some of the more common questions
on the construction storm water
permitting program. It is intended to
help you get started in understanding
the permit. Be aware these answers are
fairly broad and may not take into
account all scenarios possible at
construction sites. More details on these
issues are provided later in this Fact
Sheet, especially in section VIII,
Summary of Responses to Comments on
the Proposed Permit.
How Do I Know If I Need a Permit?
You need a storm water permit if you
can be considered an "operator" of the
construction activity that would result
in the "discharge of storm water
associated with construction activity."
You must become a permittee if you
meet either of the following two criteria:
• You have operational control of
construction project plans and
specifications, including the ability to
make modifications to those plans and
specifications; or
• You have day-to-day operational
control of those activities at a project
which are necessary to ensure
compliance with a storm water
pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) for
the site or other permit conditions (e.g.,
you are authorized to direct workers at
a site to carry out activities required by
the SWPPP or comply with other permit
conditions).
There may be more than one party at
a site performing the tasks relating to
"operational control" as defined above.
Depending on the site and the
relationship between the parties (e.g.,
owner, developer), there can either be a
single party acting as site operator and
consequently be responsible for
obtaining permit coverage, or there can
be two or more operators with all
needing permit coverage. The following
are three general operator scenarios
(variations on any of the three are
possible as the number of "owners" and
contractors increases):
• Owner as sole permittee. The
property owner designs the structures
for the site, develops and implements
the SWPPP, and serves as general
contractor (or has an on-site
representative with full authority to
direct day-to-day operations). He may be
the only party that needs a permit, in
which case everyone else on the site
may be considered subcontractors and
not need permit coverage.
• Contractor as sole permittee. The
property owner hires a construction
company to design the project, prepare
the SWPPP, and supervise
implementation of the plan and
compliance with the permit (e.g., a
"turnkey" project). Here, the contractor
would be the only party needing a
permit. It is under this scenario that an
individual having a personal residence
built for his own use (e.g., not those to
be sold for profit or used as rental
property) would not be considered an
operator. EPA believes that the general
contractor, being a professional in the
building industry, should be the entity
rather than the individual who is better
equipped to meet the requirements of
both applying for permit coverage and
developing and properly implementing
a SWPPP. However, individuals would
meet the definition of "operator" and
require permit coverage in instances
where they perform general contracting
duties for construction of their personal
residences.
• Owner and contractor as co-
permittees. The owner retains control
over any changes to site plans, SWPPPs,
or storm water conveyance or control
designs; but the contractor is
responsible for overseeing actual earth
disturbing activities and daily
implementation of SWPPP and other
permit conditions. In this case, both
parties may need coverage.
However, you are probably not an
operator and subsequently do not need
permit coverage if:
• You are a subcontractor hired by,
and under the supervision of, the owner
or a general contractor (i.e., if the
contractor directs your activities on-site,
you probably are not an operator); or
• Your activities on site result in
earth disturbance and you are not
legally a subcontractor, but a SWPPP
specifically identifies someone other
than you (or your subcontractor) as the
party having operational control to
address the impacts your activities may
have on storm water quality (i.e.,
another operator has assumed
responsibility for the impacts of your
construction activities). This particular
provision will apply to most utility
service line installations. For further
information concerning whether utility
service line installations meet the
definition of operator and require
permit coverage, see the discussion
under "Installation of Utility Service
Lines" in section VIII, Summary
Response to Public Comments of the
Fact Sheet.
In addition, for purposes of this
permit and determining who is an
operator, "owner" refers to the party
that owns the structure being built.
Ownership of the land where
construction is occurring does not
necessarily imply the property owner is
an operator (e.g., a landowner whose
property is being disturbed by
construction of a gas pipeline).
Likewise, if the erection of a structure
has been contracted for, but possession
of the title or lease to the land or
structure is not to occur until after
construction, the would-be owner may
not be considered an operator (e.g.,
having a house built by a residential
homebuilder).
My Project Will Disturb Less Than Five
Acres, but It May Be Part of a "Larger
Common Plan of Development or Sale."
How Can I tell and What Must I Do?
If your smaller project is part of a
larger common plan of development or
sale that collectively will disturb five or
more acres (e.g., you are building on six
half-acre residential lots in a 10-acre
development or are putting in a parking
lot in a large retail center) you need
permit coverage. The "plan" in a
common plan of development or sale is
broadly defined as any announcement
or piece of documentation (including a
sign, public notice or hearing, sales
pitch, advertisement, drawing, permit
application, zoning request, computer
design, etc.) or physical demarcation
(including boundary signs, lot stakes,
surveyor markings, etc.) indicating
construction activities may occur on a
specific plot. You must still meet the
definition of operator in order to be
required to get permit coverage,
regardless of the acreage you personally
-------
7860
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 31/Tuesday, February 17. 1998/Notices
disturb. As a subcontractor, it is
unlikely you would need a permit.
For some situations where less than
five acres of the original common plan
of development remain undeveloped, a
permit may not be needed for the
construction projects "filling in" the last
parts of the common plan of
development. A case in which a permit
would not be needed is where several
empty lots totaling less than five acres
remain after the rest of the project had
been completed, providing stabilization
had also been completed for the entire
project. However, if the total area of all
the undeveloped lots in the original
common plan of development was more
than five acres, a permit would be
needed.
When Can You Consider Future
Construction on a Property To Be Part
of a Separate Plan of Development or
Sale?
In many cases, a common plan of
development or sale consists of many
small construction projects that
collectively add up to five (5) or more
acres of total disturbed land. For
example, an original common plan of
development for a residential
subdivision might lay out the streets,
house lots, and areas for parks, schools
and commercial development that the
developer plans to build or sell to others
for development. All these areas would
remain part of the common plan of
development or sale until the intended
construction occurs. After this initial
plan is completed for a particular
parcel, any subsequent development or
redevelopment of that parcel would be
regarded as a new plan of development,
and would then be subject to the five-
acre cutoff for storm water permitting
purposes.
What Must I Do To Satisfy the Permit
Eligibility Requirements Related to
Endangered Species?
In order to be eligible for this permit,
you must follow the procedures and
examples found in Addendum A for the
protection of endangered species. You
cannot submit your NOI until you are
able to certify your eligibility for the
permit. Enough lead time should be
built into your project schedule to
accomplish these procedures. If another
operator has certified eligibility for the
project (or at least the portion of the
project you will be working on) in his
NOI, you will usually be able to rely on
his certification of project eligibility and
not have to repeat the process. EPA
created this "coat tail" eligibility option
for protection of endangered species to
allow the site developer/owner to obtain
up-front "clearance" for a project,
thereby avoiding duplication of effort by
his contractors and unnecessary delays
in construction.
What Does the Permit Require
Regarding Historic Preservation?
Today's permit does not currently
impose requirements related to historic
preservation, though EPA may modify
the permit at a later date after further
discussions with the Advisory Council
on Historic Preservation. Therefore,
under today's permit, EPA will conduct
consultations as it did under the pre-
existing Baseline Construction General
Permit on a case-by-case basis as
needed. Removal of the proposed permit
provisions related to historic
preservation in no way relieves
applicants and permittees of their
obligations to comply with applicable
State, Tribal or local laws for the
preservation of historic properties. EPA
reminds permittees that according to
section 110(k) of the National Historic
Preservation Act (NHPA), an intentional
action to significantly adversely affect
historic resources with intent to avoid
Federal historic preservation
requirements may jeopardize future
permit coverage for such a permittee.
How Many Notices of Intent (NOIs) Must
I Submit? Where and When Are They
Sent?
You only need to submit one NOI to
cover all activities on any one common
plan of development or sale. The site
map you develop for the storm water
pollution prevention plan identifies
which parts of the overall project are
under your control. For example, if you
are a homebuilder in a residential
development, you need submit only one
NOI to cover all your lots, even if they
are on opposite sides of the
development.
The NOI must be postmarked two
days before you begin work on site. The
address for submitting NOIs is found in
the instruction portion of the NOI form
and in Part II.C. of the CGP. You must
also look in Part X of the permit to
determine if copies of the NOI form are
to be sent to a State or Indian Tribe.
How Do I Know Which Permit
Conditions Apply to Me?
You are responsible for complying
with all parts of the permit that are
applicable to the construction activities
you perform. Part III.E. of the permit
defines the roles of various operators at
a site. In addition, several States and
Indian Tribes require alternative or
additional permit conditions, and these
can be found in Part X of the permit.
Do I Have Flexibility in Preparing the
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP) and Selecting Best
Management Practices (BMPs) for My
Site?
Storm water pollution prevention
plan requirements were designed to
allow maximum flexibility to develop
the needed storm water controls based
on the specifics of the site. Some of the
factors you might consider include:
more stringent local development
requirements and/or building codes;
precipitation patterns for the area at the
time the project will be underway; soil
types; slopes; layout of structures for the
site; sensitivity of nearby water bodies;
safety concerns of the storm water
controls (e.g., potential hazards of water
in storm water retention ponds to the
safety of children; the potential of
drawing birds to retention ponds and
the hazards they pose to aircraft); and
coordination with other site operators.
Must Every Permittee Have His Own
Separate SWPPP or Is a Joint Plan
Allowed?
The only requirement is that there be
at least one SWPPP for a site which
incorporates the required elements for
all operators, but there can be separate
plans if individual permittees so desire.
EPA encourages permittees to explore
possible cost savings by having a joint
SWPPP for several operators. For
example, the prime developer could
assume the inspection responsibilities
for the entire site, while each
homebuilder shares in the installation
and maintenance of sediment traps
serving common areas.
If a Project Will Not Be Completed
Before This Permit Expires, How Can I
Keep Permit Coverage?
If the permit is reissued or replaced
with a new one before the current one
expires, you will need to comply with
whatever conditions the new permit
requires in order to transition coverage
from the old permit. This usually
includes submitting a new NOI. If the
permit expires before a replacement
permit can be issued, the permit will be
administratively "continued." You are
automatically covered under the
continued permit, without needing to
submit anything to EPA, until the
earliest of:
• The permit being reissued or
replaced;
• Submittal of a Notice of
Termination (NOT);
• Issuance of an individual permit for
your activity; or
• The Director issues a formal
decision not to reissue the permit, at
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 31/Tuesday, February 17, 1998/Notices
7861
which time you must seek coverage
under an alternative permit.
When Can I Terminate Permit Coverage?
Can I Terminate Coverage (i.e., Liability
for Permit Compliance) Before the Entire
Project is Finished?
You can submit an NOT for your
portion of a site providing: (1) You have
achieved final stabilization of the
portion of the site for which you are a
permittee (including, if applicable,
returning agricultural land to its pre-
construction agricultural use); (2)
another operator/permittee has assumed
control according to Part VI.G.2.C. of the
permit over all areas of the site that have
not been finally stabilized which you
were responsible for (for example, a
developer can pass permit responsibility
for lots in a subdivision to the
homebuilder who purchases those lots,
providing the homebuilder has filed his
own NOI); or (3) for residential
construction only, you have completed
temporary stabilization and the
residence has been transferred to the
homeowner.
III. Coverage Provided by General
Permits
Section 402 (p) of the Clean Water Act
(CWA) states that storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity to waters of the United States
must be authorized by an NPDES
permit. The term "discharge" when
used in the context of the NPDES
program means the discharge of
pollutants (40 CFR 122.2).
On November 16, 1990, EPA
published regulations under the NPDES
program which defined one facet of the
phrase "storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity" as
being discharges from construction
activities (including clearing, grading
and excavation activities) that result in
the disturbance of five or more acres of
total land area, including smaller areas
that are part of a larger common plan of
development or sale (40 CFR
122.26(b)(14)(x)) These types of
construction activity are commonly
referred to as Phase I construction
activities. "Storm water discharges
associated with construction activities"
will hereinafter refer to discharges from
Phase I construction activities or
support activities, including those that
meet the larger definition of a storm
water discharge associated with
industrial activity or those that are
designated under the provisions of 40
CFR 122.26.
Previously, there may have been some
confusion as to permitting requirements
for sites disturbing less than five acres
but that are part of a larger common
plan of development or sale. For
clarification, all construction activity
regulated under 40 CFR 122.26(b)(14)(x)
is eligible for coverage under this permit
including small construction sites
disturbing less than five acres that are
also a part of a larger common plan of
development or sale which has the
potential of disturbing five or more
acres collectively. Examples of these
would be lots in a subdivision or
industrial park. These are also Phase I
construction activities.
Single construction sites under five
acres that are not part of a larger plan
of development or sale with
disturbances totaling at least five acres
are not eligible for coverage under this
permit unless they are specifically
designated for coverage pursuant to 40
CFR 122.26 (a)(l)(v) or 122.26(a)(9) and
122.26(g)(l)(i). Under EPA's existing
regulations, however, these smaller
projects may be required to submit
permit applications not later than
August 7, 2001, unless an applicant is
specifically required by the Director to
submit an application before that time.
Small (Phase II) construction sites will
be addressed by EPA in the future
pursuant to a Ninth Circuit Court
mandate. EPA is employing the
assistance of a Federal Advisory
Committee to make recommendations
on how best to treat small sites vis-a-vis
the NPDES program, and will issue a
proposed rule addressing Phase II
construction activities in December
1997. Finalization of the rule is
scheduled for March 1, 1999. If
permitting is the approach adopted for
these small sites, the permits will be
issued at a future date.
EPA issued the first round of the
Phase I construction general permit on
two dates: September 9, 1992, for
certain States and territories, and
September 25, 1992, for other States and
territories where EPA is the permitting
authority. The Phase I permit was
commonly referred to as the Baseline
Construction General Permit. The new
permit is the second-round permit
(simply called the "construction general
permit," "CGP," or "permit") for use in
the States, territories and Indian
Country lands where EPA is the NPDES
permitting authority. The Agency is
expanding permit coverage to certain
Indian Country lands which were not
covered under the 1992 permit. These
new areas are listed in the areas of
coverage section of the permit and this
fact sheet.
Operators of construction projects in
EPA Region 4 should note that unlike
the Baseline Construction General
Permit, this second-round permit no
longer authorizes discharges from
construction projects on Indian Country
lands located in Florida, Mississippi or
North Carolina. The Region 4 permit
was public noticed in the Federal
Register on April 16, 1997, (62 FR
18605-18628) for construction storm
water discharges in Florida, and Indian
Country lands in Florida, Mississippi
and North Carolina. Similarly, operators
of construction projects in EPA Region
6 are not covered under this permit. A
separate Region 6 permit covering
construction project discharges located
in the following areas is currently under
development: The States of New Mexico
and Texas; Indian Country lands in
Louisiana, Oklahoma, Texas and New
Mexico (except Navajo Reservation
Lands [see Region 9] and Ute Mountain
Reservation Lands [see Region 8] which
are covered by this permit); and oil, gas,
and pipeline construction projects
regulated by the Oklahoma Corporation
Commission in the State of Oklahoma.
Both permits should be issued in the
near future.
IV. Summary of Options for Controlling
Pollutants
EPA is providing the following
information on controlling pollutants in
storm water discharges to assist
permittees in preparing storm water
pollution prevention plans (SWPPPs).
Most controls for construction activities
can be categorized in either of two
groups: sediment and erosion controls
and storm water management measures.
Sediment and erosion controls
ordinarily address pollutants in storm
water generated from the site during
active construction-related work. Storm
water management measures are
customarily installed before, and
coincident with, completion of
construction activities, but primarily
result in reductions of pollutants in
storm water discharged from the site
after the construction has been
completed. Additional measures that
should be employed throughout a
project include housekeeping best
management practices, such as materials
management and litter control.
A. Sediment and Erosion Controls
Erosion controls provide the first line
of defense in preventing off-site
sedimentation and are designed to
prevent erosion through protection and
preservation of soil. Sediment controls
are designed to remove sediment from
runoff before the runoff is discharged
from the site. Sediment and erosion
controls can be further divided into two
major classes of controls: stabilization
practices and structural practices. Major
types of sediment and erosion practices
are summarized below. A more
-------
7862
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 31/Tuesday. February 17. 1998/Notices
thorough description of these practices
is given in "Storm Water Management
for Construction Activities: Developing
Pollution Prevention Plans and Best
Management Practices," U.S. EPA, 1992.
Permittees should also consider the
construction of new projects in phases
to minimize the amount of bare soil
which is exposed at one time and the
amount of stabilization or structural
controls which would be required.
1. Stabilization Practices
Stabilization refers to covering or
maintaining an existing cover over soil.
Vegetative cover includes grass, trees,
vines, shrubs, etc. Stabilization
measures can also include
nonvegetative controls such as
geotextiles, riprap or gabions (wire mesh
boxes filled with rock). Mulches such as
straw or bark can be somewhat effectual
at stabilization in stand-alone fashion
but are most effective when used in
conjunction with vegetation.
Stabilization of exposed soil is one of
the foremost means to minimize
pollutant discharge during construction
activities. Stabilization reduces erosion
potential by absorbing the kinetic
energy of raindrops that would
otherwise mobilize unprotected soil; by
intercepting water so that it infiltrates
into the ground instead of running off
the surface; and slowing the velocity of
runoff, thereby promoting deposition of
sediment already being carried.
Stabilization provides large reductions
in the levels of suspended sediment in
discharges and receiving waters.
Examples of stabilization measures are
summarized below.
a. Temporary Seeding. Seeding of
temporary vegetation provides
stabilization by establishing vegetative
cover at areas of the site where earth
disturbing activities have temporarily
ceased, but will resume later in the
construction project. Without temporary
stabilization, soil can be exposed to
precipitation for an extended period
leaving it vulnerable to erosion, even
though earth-disturbing activities are
not occurring on these areas. Temporary
seeding practices have been found to be
up to 95% effective in reducing
erosion.'
b. Permanent Seeding. Establishing a
permanent and sustainable ground
cover at a site stabilizes the soil and
hence reduces sediment in runoff. It is
typically required at most sites for
aesthetic reasons.
c. Mulching. Mulching is often done
coupled with permanent and temporary
i Guidelines for Erosion and Sediment Control in
California"; USDA. Soil Conservation Service,
Davis, CA; revised 1985.
seeding. Where temporary or permanent
seeding is not feasible, exposed soil can
be stabilized by spreading plant
residues or other suitable materials on
the soil surface. Although generally not
as effective as vegetation, mulching by
itself provides a measure of temporary
erosion control. Mulching in
conjunction with seeding provides
erosion protection prior to the onset of
plant growth. In addition, mulching
protects newly-applied seeds, providing
a higher likelihood of successful
vegetation. To maintain its
effectiveness, mulch should be
anchored to resist wind displacement.
d. Sod Stabilization. Sod stabilization
involves establishing long-term stands
of grass by planting sod on exposed
surfaces. When maintained properly,
sod can be more than 99% effective in
reducing erosion, and is the most
immediately effective vegetation
method available.2 However, the cost of
sod stabilization (relative to other
vegetative controls) typically limits its
use to situations where a quick
vegetative cover is desired (e.g., steep or
erodible slopes) and sites which can be
maintained with ground equipment.
Sod is also sensitive to climate and may
require intensive watering and
fertilization.
e. Vegetative Buffer Strips. Vegetative
buffer strips are indigenous or replanted
strips of vegetation located at the top
and bottom of a slope, outlining
property boundaries or adjacent to
receiving waters such as streams or
wetlands. Vegetative buffer strips can
slow runoff at critical locations,
decreasing erosion and allowing
sedimentation. They can be especially
useful for very narrow linear
construction projects such as
underground utilities or pipelines.
f. Preservation of Trees. This practice
involves preserving selected trees
already on-site prior to development.
Mature trees provide extensive canopy
and root systems which protect and
hold soil in place. Shade trees also keep
soil from drying rapidly, decreasing the
soil's susceptibility to erosion. Measures
taken to protect trees can vary
significantly, from simply installing tree
armor and fences around the drip line,
to more complex measures such as
building retaining walls and tree wells.
Along with the erosion benefits
provided by trees, they can also add to
the aesthetics and value of the property.
g. Contouring and Protection of
Sensitive Areas. Contouring refers to the
practice of building in harmony with
the natural flow and contour of the land.
By minimizing changes in the natural
2 ibid.
contour of the land, existing drainage
patterns are preserved as much as
possible, thereby reducing erosion.
Minimizing the amount of regrading
done will also reduce the amount of soil
being disturbed.
The preservation of sensitive areas at
a site such as steep slopes and wetlands
should also be a priority. Disturbance of
soil on steep slopes should be avoided
due to vulnerability to erosion.
Wetlands should be protected because
they provide flood protection, pollution
mitigation and an essential aquatic
habitat.
2. Structural Practices
Structural practices involve the
installation of devices to divert, store or
limit runoff. Structural practices have
several objectives. First, structural
practices can be designed to prevent
water from flowing on disturbed areas
where erosion may occur. This involves
diverting runoff from undisturbed, up-
slope areas through use of earth dikes,
temporary swales, perimeter dikes or
other diversions to stable areas. Another
objective of structural practices may be
to cause sedimentation before the runoff
leaves the site. Methods for removing
sediment from runoff include diverting
flows to a trapping or storage device or
filtering diffuse flows through on-site
silt fences. All structural practices
require proper maintenance (e.g.,
removal of collected sediment) to
remain functional and should be
designed to avoid presenting a safety
hazard—especially in areas frequented
by children.
a. Earth Dike. Earth dikes are
temporary berms or ridges of compacted
soil that channel water to a desired
location. Earth dikes should be
stabilized with vegetation or an equally
efficacious method.
b. Silt Fence. Silt fences are a barrier
of geotextile fabric (filter cloth) used to
intercept sediment in diffuse runoff.
They must be firmly anchored and may
require additional support, such as
reinforcing with wire mesh. Used alone,
silt fences are usually inappropriate for
flows of concentrated high volume or
high velocity. They must be carefully
maintained to ensure structural stability
and be cleaned of excess sediment.
c. Drainage Swales. A drainage swale
is a channel lined with grass, riprap,
asphalt, concrete or other materials.
They are installed to convey runoff
without causing erosion.
d. Sediment Traps. Sediment traps are
installed in drainage pathways, at storm
drain inlets or other discharge points
from disturbed areas.
e. Check Dams. Check dams are small
temporary dams constructed across a
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63. No. 31/Tuesday, February 17, 1998/Notices
7863
swale or drainage ditch to reduce the
velocity of runoff, thereby reducing
erosion in the swale or ditch. They
should not be used in a permanent
stream. More elaborate erosion controls
in a flow conduit may be unnecessary
if check dams are installed due to the
decrease in energy of the runoff.
f. Level Spreader. Level spreaders are
outlets for dikes and flow channels
consisting of an excavated depression
constructed at zero grade across a slope.
Level spreaders convert concentrated
runoff into diffuse flow and release it
onto areas stabilized by existing
vegetation.
g. Subsurface Drain. Subsurface
drains transport runoff to an area where
the water can be managed effectively.
Drains can be made of tile, pipe, or
tubing.
h. Pipe Slope Drain. A pipe slope
drain is a temporary runoff conveyance
running down a slope to prevent erosion
on the face of the slope.
i. Temporary Storm Drain Diversion.
Temporary storm drain diversions are
used to re-direct flow in a storm drain
for capturing sediment in a trapping
device.
j. Storm Drain Inlet Protection. Storm
drain inlet protection reduces sediment
entering storm drainage systems prior to
permanent stabilization of disturbed
areas. Examples include a sediment
filter or an excavated detention area
around a storm drain inlet.
k. Rock Outlet Protection. Rock
protection placed at the outlet of
conduits can reduce the depth and
velocity of water so the flow will not
cause downstream erosion.
1. Other Controls. Examples of other
controls include temporary
sedimentation basins, sump pits,
entrance stabilization, waterway
crossings and wind breaks.
B. Storm Water Management Measures
Storm water management measures
are usually installed before, and
coincident with, completion of
construction activities. The measures
primarily result in reductions of
pollutants in storm water discharged
from the site after cessation of
construction activities. Storm water
management may also be needed for
compliance with local flood control
requirements (which may be unrelated
to NPDES requirements).
Construction frequently causes
significant alterations in the
characteristics of the affected land. One
such change is an increase in the overall
imperviousness of the site, which can
dramatically affect the site's flow
patterns. An increase in runoff may
increase the amount of pollutants
carried by the runoff. In addition, some
activities (e.g., automobile travel on
newly-built roads) can result in higher
pollutant concentrations in runoff
compared to pre-construction levels.
Traditional storm water management
controls attempt to limit increases in the
amount of runoff and pollution
discharged from land impacted by
construction.
Storm water management measures
include on-site infiltration of runoff,
flow attenuation by vegetation or
natural depressions, outfall velocity
dissipation devices, storm water
retention basins and artificial wetlands,
and storm water detention structures.
For many sites, a combination of these
controls may be appropriate. A
summary of storm water management
controls is provided below. A more
complete description of storm water
management controls is found in
"Storm Water Management for
Construction Activities: Developing
Pollution Prevention Plans and Best
Management Practices," U.S. EPA, 1992,
and "A Current Assessment of Urban
Best Management Practices,"
Metropolitan Washington Council of
Governments, March 1992. In designing
storm water controls, features that
would pose a safety hazard—especially
for children—should be avoided and/or
have limited public access.
a. On-Site Infiltration. Inducing
infiltration, through infiltration trenches
or basins, can reduce the volume and
pollutant loadings of storm water
discharges from a site. Infiltration
measures tend to mitigate impacts to an
area's natural hydrologic characteristics.
Properly designed and installed
infiltration constructs can reduce peak
discharges, facilitate recharging of the
groundwater, augment low flow
conditions in receiving streams, reduce
storm water discharge volumes and
pollutant loads, and inhibit downstream
erosion.
Infiltration measures are particularly
effective in permeable soils and where
the water table and bedrock are well
below the surface. Infiltration basins can
also double as sediment basins during
construction. Infiltration trenches can
be easily incorporated into less active
areas of a development and are
appropriate for small sites and in-fill
developments. However, trenches may
require regular maintenance to prevent
clogging, particularly where grass inlets
or other sedimentation measures are not
used. In some situations, such as low
density areas of parking lots, porous
pavement can provide for infiltration.
b. Flow Attenuation by Vegetation or
Natural Depressions. Flow attenuation
caused by vegetation or natural
depressions can facilitate pollutant
removal and infiltration and can reduce
the erosivity of runoff. Use of vegetative
flow attenuation measures can protect
habitats and enhance the appearance of
a site. These measures include grass
swales and filter strips as well as trees
that are either preserved or planted
during construction.
Incorporating check dams into flow
paths can provide additional infiltration
and flow attenuation. Given their
limited capacity to accept large volumes
of runoff (and the concomitant
erosivity), vegetative controls should
usually be used in combination with
other storm water devices. Grass swales
are typically used in areas such as low
or medium density residential
development and highway medians as
an alternative to curb and gutter
drainage system. In general, the costs of
vegetative controls are less than for
other storm water measures.
c. Outfall Velocity Dissipation
Devices. Outfall velocity dissipation
devices include riprap and stone or
concrete flow spreaders. They slow the
flow of water discharged from a site
thereby reducing erosion.
d. Retention Structures/Artificial
Wetlands. Retention structures are
ponds and artificial wetlands that are
designed to maintain a permanent pool
of water. Properly installed and
maintained retention structures (also
known as wet ponds) and artificial
wetlands can achieve a high removal
rate of sediment, biochemical oxygen
demand (BOD), organic nutrients and
metals, and are most cost-effective when
used to control runoff from larger,
intensively developed site. These
constructs rely on settling and biological
processes to remove pollutants.
Retention ponds and artificial wetlands
can also become wildlife habitats,
recreation, and landscape amenities,
and increase local property values.
While the Agency believes artificial
wetlands can be one of the most
effective long-term storm water
management measures, EPA also
recognizes the potential problems to
which wetlands may contribute at
certain sites. This could be the case at
airports where bird populations drawn
to wetlands proximate to runways/
taxiways may endanger moving aircraft.
EPA recommends that structures which
maintain continuous habitat for wildlife
not be constructed within 10,000 feet of
a public-use airport serving turbine-
powered aircraft, or within 5,000 feet of
a public-use airport serving piston-
powered aircraft. EPA, as always,
stresses public safety and sound
engineering judgement in the
implementation of any storm water
-------
7864
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 31/Tuesday. February 17. 1998/Notices
measure, control or best management
practice.
e. Water Quality Detention Structures.
Storm water detention structures, which
include extended detention ponds,
control the rate at which water drains
after a storm event. Extended detention
ponds are usually designed to
completely drain in about 24 to 48
hours and to remain dry at other times.
They can provide pollutant removal
efficiencies similar to those of retention
pond. Extended detention systems are
typically designed to provide both water
quality and water quantity (flood
control) benefits.
C. Housekeeping Best Management
Practices (BMPs)
Pollutants that could be discharged in
storm water from construction sites
because of poor housekeeping include
oil, grease, paints, gasoline, concrete
truck wash down, raw materials used in
the manufacture of concrete (sand,
aggregate, and cement), solvents, litter,
debris and sanitary wastes. Construction
site SWPPPs should address the
following to prevent the discharge of
pollutants:
• Designate and control areas for
equipment maintenance and repair;
• Provide waste receptacles at
convenient locations and regular
collection of wastes;
• Locate equipment wash down areas
on site, and provide appropriate control
of washwater to prevent unauthorized
dry weather discharges and avoid
mixing with storm water;
• Provide protected storage areas for
chemicals, paints, solvents, fertilizers,
and other potentially toxic materials;
and
• Provide adequately maintained
sanitary facilities.
V. Summary of Permit Conditions
This section has been written in an
informal style and follows the structure
of the CGP, but it does not always reflect
verbatim the actual language used in the
permit. It is intended to help the
regulated community and members of
the public understand the intent and
basis of the actual permit language. If
any confusion or conflicts exist between
this summary and the actual CGP
language, the permittee must comply
with the CGP as written. More detail on
permit conditions is available in section
VIII. Summary of Responses to
Comments on the Proposed Permit.
Part I. Areas Covered by Each Permit,
Eligibility for the Permit, Obtaining
Coverage and Terminating Coverage
A. Permit Areas
Each separate general permit is
individually numbered and only
provides coverage to construction
activities in the permit's designated area
or category (e.g., State, Federal facility
within a State, Indian Country Land,
etc.). Each permittee will be assigned a
permit number when his Notice of
Intent is processed.
B. Eligibility
1. Discharges and Operations Covered
These permits authorize all discharges
of storm water from construction
activities except those excluded under
the Limitations on Coverage section
(Part I.B.3) in the CGP. Any discharge
authorized by a different NPDES permit
may be commingled with discharges
authorized by this permit. The permit
also authorizes discharges from
construction support activities (e.g.,
concrete or asphalt batch plants,
equipment staging yards, material
storage areas, etc.) for local project(s) an
operator is currently involved with (e.g.,
a concrete batch plant providing
concrete to several different highway
projects in the same county).
Authorization of this discharge is
contingent upon (1) the support activity
not being a commercial operation
serving multiple, unrelated construction
projects and not operating beyond the
completion of the last related
construction project it serves; and (2)
appropriate controls are identified in
the storm water pollution prevention
plan (SWPPP) for the discharges from
the support activity areas.
2. Limitations on Coverage
Not all storm water discharges from
construction sites are audiorized by this
permit. Specifically excluded are:
1. Storm water discharges originating
from a site after construction activities
have ceased, the site has undergone
final stabilization, and an NOT
submitted. If there will be a discharge of
storm water associated with industrial
activity, or some other regulated
discharge from the completed project
(e.g., wastewater from a newly-
constructed chemical plant), coverage
under another permit (s) must be
obtained for these discharges.
2. Storm water discharges which are
mixed with non-storm water sources,
other than those identified in and
complying with the permit. Non-storm
water discharges which are authorized
under a different NPDES permit may be
commingled with discharges authorized
under this permit.
3. Storm water discharges associated
with construction activity that are
covered under an individual permit or
discharges required to be covered under
an alternative general permit.
4. Storm water discharges which the
Director (EPA) has determined, or
thinks may reasonably be expected, to
cause or contribute to a violation of
water quality standards. The discharges
may be authorized, however, if
appropriate measures to assure
compliance with water quality
standards are included in the SWPPP.
For example, the Director may
determine that, in the absence of
controls, a small construction site poses
a threat to water quality. He may then
allow coverage if control measures
addressing the threat are included in the
SWPPP and implemented.
5. Discharges which are not protective
of endangered species. Before
submitting an NOI, the operator should
follow the procedures in Addendum A
to determine his eligibility for
permitting with regard to protection of
endangered species. EPA envisions that
the project "owner" or developer would
likely do the endangered species
analysis during the planning stages of a
project (i.e., before construction is
scheduled to begin). By design, this
effort should not have to be repeated by
the contractors, homebuilders, utilities,
etc., whose involvement in the project
will not happen until later. (See section
VIII. Summary of Responses to
Comments on the Proposed Permit and
Addendum A of the permit for further
information.)
C. Obtaining Coverage
To obtain authorization to discharge
under the general permit, an operator
must develop a SWPPP or participate in
a joint plan with others, in accordance
with the requirements of the CGP. He
must then submit a complete and
accurate NOI form.
Storm water discharges are authorized
two days after the date the NOI is
postmarked, unless otherwise notified
by EPA. Permittees must implement
their SWPPP or their portion of the
plan, as soon as they begin work on site.
Coverage under the general permit
cannot be directly transferred to a new
operator; rather a new NOI must be filed
by the operator wishing to assume
responsibility for permit compliance.
During the first 90 days after the
effective date of the CGP, an operator
may use the SWPPP developed while he
was covered under the previous permit.
During the time the new general permit
was not available, any operator who has
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 31/Tuesday, February 17, 1998/Notices
7865
prepared a pollution prevention plan in
accordance with the 1992 general
permit may submit an NOI and use his
existing SWPPP as an interim plan for
90 days from the effective date of the
new permit.
EPA may deny coverage under this
permit and require an operator to
submit an individual NPDES permit
application based on the completeness
and/or content of his NOI, or other
information such as water quality data,
permittee compliance history, etc. If
EPA requires a permittee to apply for an
individual NPDES permit or an
alternative general permit, he will be
notified in writing. Coverage under this
general permit will automatically
terminate if the permittee so notified
fails to submit any required individual
or alternative permit applications in a
timely manner. If an individual permit
or alternative general permit was
applied for, the date the new permit
became effective or denied marks the
termination date of this permit.
D. Terminating Coverage
To terminate coverage, a permittee
must submit a Notice of Termination
(NOT) form. The NOT must be filed
within 30 days after cessation of
construction activities and final
stabilization of the permittee's portion
of the site (or temporary stabilization for
residential construction where a
homeowner is assuming control of a
property). An NOT must also be
submitted by a permittee before another
operator assumes the previous
permittee's liabilities. NOT
requirements are discussed later in this
fact sheet.
Part II. Notice of Intent Requirements
All applicants for NPDES general
permits for storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity are
required to submit Notices of Intent
(NOI) to obtain permit coverage (40 CFR
122.28(b)(2)). Submission of a complete
and accurate NOI eliminates the need to
apply for an individual permit for a
regulated discharge, unless the Director
specifically notifies the discharger that
an individual permit application must
be submitted.
Only NOI forms provided by EPA (or
photocopies thereof) are valid. A
revised, simplified NOI form has been
developed for the CGP but was not
available as of the effective date of this
permit (final approval had not yet been
obtained from the U.S. Office of
Management and Budget). As soon as
the revised form is approved it will be
published in the Federal Register. All
applicants thereafter must use the
revised NOI form. Until the revised NOI
form is available, operators must
continue to use the existing NOI.
Though applicants are only required to
complete information on the form
related to the previous Baseline
Construction General Permit, they must
be aware that by signing and dating the
form they certifying that they
understand and are willing to comply
with all terms and conditions of the
NPDES permit they have applied for,
namely the Construction General
Permit. These conditions include those
found in Part I.B (Permit Eligibility) of
the permit.
It is acceptable to fill in information
that will be the same for every project
(e.g., a company's name, address) and
make copies of the partially completed
form for future use. An electronic
version of the existing NOI form is
currently available on EPA's Office of
Wastewater Management web site on
the Internet and various EPA Regional
web pages. The revised NOI form will
likewise be added when it becomes
available for use.
Each entity meeting either of the two
criteria for an operator must submit an
NOI. For more details on who must file
an NOI, see section V, Part III.E of this
Fact Sheet. The proposed definition of
"operator" has been clarified in the final
permit and the existing regulatory
definitions of "owner or operator" and
"facility or activity" have also been
included. Clarifications to the definition
of "operator" were made because some
of the regulated community felt the
previous definition was nebulous. For
further discussions on "operator" as
related to construction activity, see
section VIII, Summary of Responses to
Comments, of this Fact Sheet.
EPA believes there exist situations
where a utility company installing
service lines meets the definition of
operator and must get permit coverage,
although most of the time a utility
would be considered a "subcontractor"
(i.e., non-permittee). If a utility
company is constructing a project for
itself (e.g., main transmission line,
transformer station) it must obtain
permit coverage. Otherwise, as a non-
permittee working at construction site,
EPA encourages utility companies (as it
does any subcontractor) to abide by the
site's SWPPP provisions and minimize
its impacts on storm water controls.
A. Deadlines for Submitting NOIs
An operator's Notice of Intent must be
postmarked at least two days prior to
commencement of any work on site (if
he has control over plans and
specifications) or two days prior to
commencement of his portion of the
work (if he has only day-to-day
operational control).
Permittees authorized to discharge
under the previous 1992 general permit
must submit a new NOI within 90 days
of the effective date of this permit in
order to continue authorization to
discharge after 90 days. An NOI is not
required if the permittee will be eligible
to submit an NOT (i.e., construction
finished and final stabilization
complete) before the 90th day.
Permittees authorized to discharge
under the 1992 permit and those
allowed to use a SWPPP developed in
accordance with the 1992 permit, must
continue to comply with that plan and
update it as necessary, to comply with
the requirements of the CGP within 90
days after the Federal Register
publication date of the CGP.
EPA will accept a late NOI, but the
authorization only covers discharges
from two days after the postmark date.
The authorization does not retroactively
apply to any prior, unpermitted
discharges. The Agency reserves the
right to take enforcement action for any
unpermitted discharges of pollutants to
waters to the United States.
B. Contents of the New (Revised) NOI
The revised NOI form (available
following OMB approval and
publication in the Federal Register)
requires the following information
(instructions are on NOI form):
• The operator's (applicant's) name,
address, telephone number and whether
they are a Federal, State, Tribal, public
or private entity (e.g., "XYZ
Construction, 123 South St., Anyburg,
TX, 214-555-5555, P" [P for private
company]);
• The street address (description of
location if street address is unavailable),
county, and the latitude and longitude
of the approximate center of the
construction site (e.g., "123 South St.,
Anyburg, Our County, NH" or "1 mile
south of Anyburg, NH, on County Road
No. 1; Anyburg, Our County, NH") Help
on finding your latitude and longitude
is provided in the instructions to the
NOI form. If you will be involved in
many construction projects, you may
wish to invest in a portable Global
Positioning System (GPS) unit that
provides read-outs of the latitude and
longitude. Units designed for
recreational use (e.g., boating, hiking)
can cost less than $200.
• Whether or not the construction
project is located on an Indian Country
land;
• The name of the receiving water(s),
or if the discharge is through a
municipal separate storm sewer, the
name of the municipal operator of the
-------
7866
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 31/Tuesday. February 17. 1998/Notices
storm sewer and the receiving water(s)
(e.g., "Nimby Creek" or "Anyburg, NH"
for municipal storm sewers);
• An estimate of project start date and
completion date and an estimate of the
number of acres of the site on which soil
will be disturbed. Note that the project
start and stop dates need not be exact.
EPA recognizes that many factors, often
beyond the permittee's control,
contribute to whether a project will
actually start or end on the estimated
dates. Acreage may be determined by
dividing square footage by 43,560, as
demonstrated in the following example:
Convert 54.450 ft2 to acres
• Divide 54,450 ft2 by 43,560 square feet per
acre:
« 54,450 ft2 -t- 43,560 ft2/acre = 1.25 acres
• Whether or not the SWPPP has been
prepared and (optional) the location of
where the plan can be viewed if
different from the project address;
• Whether any endangered species
identified in Addendum A of the permit
are in proximity to the construction
project and which of the listed options
enables the operator to claim eligibility
for permit coverage (see Addendum A
for instructions);
• A signature block is provided
following a certification statement that
everything on the NOI form is correct.
The proposed CGP contained multiple
certifications but these were eliminated
by incorporating an introductory
statement into the NOI that submission
of the NOI constitutes an agreement to
comply with the permit and that the
permittee is, in fact, eligible for permit
coverage.
The NOI must be signed in
accordance with the signatory
requirements of 40 CFR 122.22. A
complete description of these signatory
requirements is provided in Part VI.,
Standard Permit Conditions, of the
general permit.
C. Where To Submit the NOI
Completed NOI forms are to be sent
to the NOI Processing Center at the
address indicated in the permit, or as
otherwise indicated on the latest
approved revision to the NOI form.
Copies of NOI forms must also be sent
to certain States and Tribes as specified
in Part X of the permit.
Part III. Special Conditions,
Management Practices and Other Non-
Numeric Limitations
A. Prohibition of Non-Storm Water
Discharges
The CGP does not authorize discharge
of unpermitted, non-storm water, either
alone or mixed with storm water, except
for the specific classes of non-storm
water discharges described in the
permit. Discharges of material other
than storm water which are in
compliance with another NPDES permit
may be mixed with storm water
discharges authorized by this permit.
Authorized non-storm water discharges
could include:3
• Firefighting activity runoff;
• Fire hydrant flushings;
• Vehicle washwater if detergents are
not used;
• Dust control runoff in accordance
with permit conditions;
• Potable water sources including
waterline flushings;
• Routine external building wash-
down that did not involve detergents;
• Non-detergent pavement washwater
(where spills/leaks of toxic or hazardous
materials have not occurred, unless all
spilled material had been removed);
• Air conditioning condensate;
• Uncontaminated ground water or
spring water;
• Foundation or footer drain-water
(providing there was no contamination
with process materials such as solvent).
To be authorized for discharge under
the CGP, the above-listed sources of
non-storm water (except firefighting
runoff) must be specifically identified in
the SWPPP prepared for the facility.
Non-storm water flows from firefighting
activities are exempt from control
requirements due to the ephemeral and
exigent nature of these activities. If
practicable, however, the permittee
must take action to mitigate the impacts
of firefighting runoff on receiving water
quality.
For discharges not covered by today's
permit (e.g., industrial process
wastewater or process wastewater
mixed with storm water), the discharger
must submit the appropriate application
forms (Forms 1 and 2C) to obtain permit
coverage or discontinue the discharge.
"Allowable" non-storm water
discharges cannot be authorized under
this permit, unless they are directly
related to and originate from a
construction site or dedicated support
activity site (e.g., a pressure washing
company cannot broadly use the CGP
for their business operations, because
general vehicle washing is not
associated with a construction site).
B.&C. Releases ofReportable Quantities
of Hazardous Substances or Oil
The CGP requires the permittee to
prevent or minimize the discharge of
hazardous substances or oil from a site
3 These discharges are consistent with the
allowable classes of non-storm water discharges to
municipal separate storm sewer systems (40 CFR
lZ2.26(d)(2)(iv)(B)).
in accordance with the his SWPPP.
Furthermore, if a permitted discharge
contains a hazardous substance or oil in
an amount equal to or in excess of a
reportable quantity established under 40
CFR 110, 40 CFR 117, or 40 CFR 302,
during a 24-hour period, the National
Response Center (NRC) must be notified
(dial 800-424-8802 or 202-426-2675 in
the Washington, DC area). Also, within
14 calendar days of knowledge of the
release, the SWPPP must be modified to
include the date and description of the
release, the circumstances leading to the
release, responses to be employed for
such releases, and measures to prevent
the reoccurrence of such releases.
Where a discharge of a hazardous
substance or oil in excess of reportable
quantities is associated with a non-
storm water discharge (e.g., a spill of oil
into a separate storm sewer), the spill
would not be authorized by this permit.
Spills must still be reported as required
under 40 CFR 110. Also applicable are
Section 311 of the CWA and certain
provisions of Sections 301 and 402 of
the CWA. This approach is necessary
because of statutory requirements that
make a clear distinction between
hazardous substances typically found in
storm water discharges and spilled
hazardous substances that are not (See
40CFR117.12(d)(2)(i)).
D. Compliance With Water Quality
Standards
The previous permit did not
specifically address water quality
standards (WQS). The CGP contains an
eligibility condition that does not
authorize discharges from construction
sites that the Director determines will
cause, or have reasonable potential to
cause or contribute to, violations of
water quality standards. Where such
determinations have been made, the
Director may notify the operator(s) that
an individual permit application is
necessary. However, the Director may
authorize coverage under the permit
after appropriate controls and
implementation procedures designed to
bring the discharges into compliance
with water quality standards have been
included in the SWPPP.
If a discharge authorized under this
permit is later discovered to cause, or
have the reasonable potential to cause or
contribute to the violation of a WQS, the
permitting authority will inform the
permittee of the violation. The permittee
must then take all necessary actions to
ensure future discharges do not cause or
contribute to the violation of a WQS,
and document these actions in the
SWPPP. If violations remain or reoccur,
coverage under this permit may be
terminated by the permitting authority
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63. No. 31/Tuesday, February 17, 1998/Notices
7867
and an alternative permit issued.
Compliance with this requirement does
not preclude enforcement actions as
provided by the Clean Water Act for the
underlying violation.
E. Operator Responsibility
The proposed CGP attempted to
outline the responsibilities expected of
the variety of operators who may be
working at a construction site. For the
final permit, this section has been
clarified and acknowledges it is possible
for one operator to have operational
control over all aspects of the project
(and thus be the sole permittee), vice the
situation where multiple entities meet
the definition of operator and would
otherwise all need permits. Permittees
who intend to act as the sole "overall"
operator need to comply with both the
"plans and specifications" and
"implementation" requirements of the
SWPPP.
The permit also stipulates that an
operator with control over only a
portion of a project is only responsible
for permit/SWPPP compliance as it
relates to his activities. An operator
must also ensure he does not impact
another permittee's pollution controls
(e.g., if you knock down another
operator's silt fence, you should repair
it or at a minimum inform the operator).
Permittees must either implement their
portion of a joint SWPPP or develop and
implement their own individual
SWPPP.
Part IV. Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan Requirements
The SWPPP focuses on two major
requirements: (1) Providing a site
description that identifies sources of
pollution to storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity on
site; and
(2) Identifying and implementing
appropriate measures to reduce
pollutants in storm water discharges to
ensure compliance with the terms and
conditions of this permit. All SWPPPs
must be developed in accordance with
sound engineering practices.
In the development of this permit, the
Agency used requirements similar to
those found in numerous State and local
sediment and erosion control and storm
water management programs, covering a
variety of climates and types of
construction.
A. Deadlines for Plan Preparation
For coverage under this permit, the
SWPPP must be prepared before
submittal of an NOI and then updated
as appropriate (except as allowed for
interim plans during the first 90 days of
this permit).
B. Signature, Plan Review and Making
Plans Available
1. Signature
The SWPPP must be signed in
accordance with the signatory
requirements in the Standard Permit
Conditions section of the CGP.
2. Plan Review
The Agency may notify the permittee
at any time that his plan does not meet
one or more of the requirements. The
notification will identify which
requirements of the permit are being
unmet and which elements of the
SWPPP require modification. Within
seven calendar days of receipt of
notification from EPA (or as otherwise
requested by EPA), the required changes
to the plan must be made and a
certification submitted that the changes
have, in fact, been made and
implemented.
3. Making Plans Available
Permittees must make SWPPPs
available, upon request, to EPA, State,
Tribal or local agencies approving
sediment and erosion plans, grading
plans or storm water management plans.
Plans may also have to be sent to local
government officials or the operator of
the municipal separate storm sewer
which receives the discharge.
A notice about the permit and SWPPP
must be conspicuously posted near the
main entrance of the site. If displaying
near the main entrance is infeasible, the
notice can be posted in a local public
building such as the town hall or public
library. For linear projects, the notice
must be posted at a publicly accessible
location near the active part of the
construction project (e.g., where a
pipeline project crosses a public road).
The permit notice must include the
following information:
• The project's NPDES permit
number;
• The name and phone number of a
local contact;
• A brief project description; and
• The location of the SWPPP if not
kept on site.
The permit does not require that the
general public have access to the
construction site nor does it require that
copies of the plan be available or mailed
to members of the public. However, EPA
strongly encourages permittees to
provide public access to SWPPPs at
reasonable hours. Upon request, EPA
intends to assist members of the public
in obtaining access to permitting
information, including SWPPPs. EPA
believes this approach will create a
balance between the public's need for
information on projects potentially
impacting their water bodies and the
site operator's need for safe and
unimpeded work conditions.
C. Keeping SWPPPs Current
Storm water pollution prevention
plans must be revised whenever a
change in design, construction method,
operation, maintenance procedure, etc.,
may cause a significant effect on the
discharge of pollutants to surface waters
or municipal separate storm sewer
systems. The plan must also be
amended if inspections indicate the
SWPPP is ineffective in eliminating or
significantly reducing pollutants in the
discharges from the construction site. In
addition, the plan must be updated to
identify any new operator who will
implement a portion of the SWPPP.
D. Contents of the Plan
The storm water pollution prevention
plan must include:
• A site description;
• A description of controls that will
be used on site (i.e., the erosion and
sediment controls and storm water
management measures);
• A description of maintenance and
inspection procedures; and
• A description of pollution
prevention measures for any non-storm
water discharges present.
1. Site Description
The SWPPP must be based on an
accurate assessment of the potential for
generating and discharging pollutants
from the site. Hence, the permit requires
the identification of potential sources of
pollution at a construction site that may
reasonably be expected to impact the
quality of the site's storm water
discharges. There must also be a
description of the site and anticipated
construction activities in the SWPPP (to
provide a better understanding of site
runoff characteristics). At a minimum,
SWPPPs must contain the following:
• A description of the nature of the
construction activity including the
function of the project (e.g., low-density
residential, shopping mall, highway,
etc.);
• A description of the intended
significant activities, presented
sequentially, that disturb soil over major
portions of the site (e.g., grubbing,
excavation, grading);
• Estimates of the total area of the site
and the total area of the site that is
expected to be disturbed by excavation,
grading or other activities, including off-
site borrow/fill areas. It may be
preferable to separately describe
portions of the site as they are disturbed
at different stages of the construction
process;
-------
7868
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 31/Tuesday. February 17. 1998/Notices
• Estimates of the site's runoff
coefficient (used for calculating the
volume of runoff) during and after
construction as well as data describing
the quality of any discharge from the
site or the soil. The runoff coefficient is
defined as the fraction of total
precipitation that will appear at a
conveyance as runoff (vs. infiltrated
precipitation). Runoff coefficients can
be estimated from site plan maps, which
show where impervious surfaces,
vegetation and permeable surfaces will
be. These coefficients are used to help
determine pollutant loadings, potential
hydraulic impacts to receiving waters
and flooding impacts. They are also
used in the design of post-construction
storm water management measures;
• A site map indicating: (1)
Anticipated drainage patterns and
slopes after major grading activities; (2)
areas of soil disturbance and areas that
will not be disturbed; (3) locations of
major structural and nonstructural
controls identified in the plan; (4)
locations of planned stabilization
measures; (5) locations of surface waters
(including wetlands); (6) locations of
discharge points to surface waters; (7)
off-site locations of equipment storage,
material storage, waste storage and
borrow/fill areas. Site maps should also
include other major features and
potential pollutant sources, such as
locations of impervious structures and
soil storage piles;
• A description of any discharge
associated with industrial activity other
than construction (including storm
water discharges from dedicated asphalt
plants, concrete plants, etc.) and the
location of that activity on the
construction site;
• The name of receiving waters and
the areal extent of wetlands at the site;
and
• Information on endangered and
threatened species including whether
any endangered species are in proximity
to the permit area as defined in
Addendum A to the permit.
2. Controls to Reduce Pollutants
The SWPPP must describe the
implementation of practices that will be
used to reduce the pollutants in storm
water discharges from the site and
assure compliance with the terms and
conditions of the permit. Four classes of
controls must be developed and
implemented: (1) Erosion and sediment;
(2) storm water management; (3) a
specified set of other controls; and (4)
any applicable requirements of State,
Tribal and local sediment and erosion
plans or storm water management plans.
The SWPPP must describe the
intended sequence of major storm water
control activities and when, in relation
to the construction process, they will be
implemented. EPA recognizes that many
factors can impact the actual
construction schedule, so the permittee
need not include specific dates (e.g.,
plan could say install silt fence for area
"A" before rough grading, rather than
put up silt fences on August 15). Good
site planning and preservation of mature
vegetation are imperative for controlling
pollution in storm water discharges both
during and after construction activities.
Properly staging major earth disturbing
activities can also dramatically decrease
the costs of sediment and erosion
controls.
Permittees must develop and
implement controls in the SWPPP for
each of the four categories discussed
below.
a. Erosion and Sediment Controls.
Erosion and sediment controls include
both stabilization practices and
structural practices. The requirements
for erosion and sediment controls for
construction activities in this permit
have the following goals and criteria:
• Construction phase erosion and
sediment controls should be designed
with the objective to retain sediment on
site;
• Control measures must be properly
selected and installed in accordance
with sound engineering practices and
manufacturers specifications;
• Off-site accumulations of sediment
must be regularly removed to minimize
impacts;
• Sediment should be removed from
sediment traps when the design
capacity has been reduced by 50%;
• Litter shall be prevented from
entering a receiving water; and
• Off-site material storage areas must
be addressed in the SWPPP.
b. Stabilization Practices.
Stabilization practices are the first line
of defense in preventing erosion. The
SWPPP must include a description of
interim and permanent stabilization
practices, including a schedule of their
implementation. The permittee should
ensure that existing vegetation is
preserved wherever possible and that
disturbed portions of the site are
stabilized as quickly as practicable.
Stabilization practices include seeding
of temporary vegetation, seeding of
permanent vegetation, mulching,
geotextiles, sod stabilization, vegetative
buffer strips, preservation of trees and
mature vegetative buffer strips, and
other appropriate measures. Temporary
stabilization can be the single-most
important factor in reducing erosion at
construction sites.
Stabilization also involves preserving
and protecting selected trees on the site
prior to development. Mature trees have
extensive canopy and root systems,
which help to hold soil in place. Shade
trees also keep soil from drying rapidly
and becoming susceptible to erosion.
Measures taken to protect trees can vary
significantly, from simple ones such as
installing tree armoring and fencing
around the drip line, to more complex
measures such as building retaining
walls and tree wells.
It is imperative that stabilization be
employed as soon as possible in critical
areas. The CGP requires that, except in
three situations, stabilization measures
must be instituted on disturbed areas as
soon as practicable, but no more than 14
days after construction activity has
temporarily or permanently ceased on
any portion of the site. The three
exceptions to this requirement are the
following:
• When construction activities will
resume on a portion of the site within
21 days from suspension of previous
construction activities;
• When the initiation of stabilization
measures is precluded by snow cover or
frozen ground, in which case they must
be initiated as soon as practicable; and
• In arid areas (areas with an average
annual rainfall of 0 to 10 inches), semi-
arid areas (10 to 20 inches) and areas
experiencing droughts; where the
initiation of stabilization measures is
precluded by seasonal arid conditions.
For the last case, stabilization measures
must be initiated as soon as
precipitation becomes possible.
c. Structural Practices. The SWPPP
must include a description of structures
built to divert flows from exposed soils,
and store or otherwise limit runoff and
the discharge of pollutants from
exposed areas of the site. Structural
controls are necessary because
vegetative controls cannot be employed
where soil is continually disturbed and
because of the lag time before vegetation
becomes effective. Options for such
controls include silt fences, earth dikes,
drainage swales, check dams, subsurface
drains, pipe slope drains, level
spreaders, storm drain inlet protection,
rock outlet protection, sediment traps,
reinforced soil retaining systems,
gabions and temporary or permanent
sediment basins. Placement of structural
controls in flood plains should be
avoided, rather they should be located
on upland soils to the degree possible.
For sites with more than 10 disturbed
acres at a time, all of which are served
by a common drainage location, a
sediment basin providing 3,600 cubic
feet of storage per acre drained, or
equivalent control measures (such as
suitably-sized dry wells or infiltration
structures), must be provided where
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 31/Tuesday, February 17, 1998/Notices
7869
practicable until final stabilization of
the site has been accomplished. In lieu
of the default 3,600 cubic feet/acre, the
permittee can calculate the basin size
based on the expected runoff volume
from the local two-year, 24-hour storm
event and local runoff coefficient. Flows
from off-site or on-site areas that are
undisturbed or have undergone final
stabilization, may be diverted around
both the sediment basin and the
disturbed area. These diverted flows can
be ignored when designing the sediment
basin.
For the drainage locations which
serve more than 10 disturbed acres at a
time and where a sediment basin
designed according to the above
guidelines is not feasible, smaller
sediment basins or traps should be used.
At a minimum, silt fences, vegetative
buffer strips or equivalent sediment
controls are required for all down-slope
and appropriate mid-slope boundaries
of the construction area. Diversion
structures should be used on upland
boundaries of disturbed areas to prevent
run-on from impacting disturbed areas.
EPA does not intend to imply that silt
fences or vegetative buffer strips on
down-slope boundaries are the only
BMPs that need to be used to protect
water quality. EPA encourages the use
of a combination of sediment and
erosion control measures in order to
achieve maximum pollutant removal.
For drainage locations serving 10 or
less acres, smaller sediment basins or
sediment traps should be used and, at
a minimum, silt fences or equivalent
sediment controls are required for all
down slope and appropriate mid-slope
boundaries of the construction area.
Alternatively, the permittee may install
a sediment basin providing storage for
3,600 cubic feet (or the alternative
calculated volume) of storage per acre
drained. Diversion structures should be
installed on upland boundaries of
disturbed areas to prevent run-on. EPA
does not intend to imply that silt fences
or vegetative buffer strips on down-
slope boundaries are the only BMPs that
need to be used to protect water quality.
EPA encourages the use of a
combination of sediment and erosion
control measures in order to achieve
maximum pollutant removal.
d. Storm Water Management. The
SWPPP must include a description of
storm water management measure,
however this permit addresses only the
installation of these measures; not the
ongoing operation and maintenance of
them after cessation of construction
activities and final stabilization.
Permittees are responsible only for the
installation and maintenance of storm
water management measures prior to
final stabilization of the site. However,
when selecting storm water
management measures, the amount of
required maintenance should be
considered and whether there will be
adequate resources for maintaining
them over the longer term.
Some discharges of pollutants from
post-construction storm water
management structures may need to be
authorized under an NPDES permit
(e.g., the construction project was an
industrial facility in a sector covered by
the NPDES multi-sector general permit).
The owner/operator of such discharges
may inquire with EPA if this
requirement applies to them.
Land development can significantly
increase storm water runoff volume and
peak velocity if appropriate storm water
management measures are not
implemented. In addition, post-
development storm water discharges
will typically contain higher levels of
pollutants, including total suspended
solids (TSS), heavy metals, nutrients
and high oxygen-demand components.
Storm water management measures
installed during the construction
process can control the volume and
velocity of runoff, as well as reduce the
quantity of pollutants discharged post-
construction. Reductions in peak
discharge velocity and volume can
reduce pollutant loads as well as
diminish physical impacts such as
stream bank erosion and stream bed
scour. Storm water management
measures that mitigate changes to pre-
development runoff characteristics
assist in protecting and maintaining the
physical and biological characteristics
of receiving streams and wetlands.
Structural measures should be
installed on upland areas to the extent
feasible. The installation of such
measures may be subject to section 404
of the CWA if they will be located in
wetlands (or other waters of the United
States).
Options for storm water management
measures that should be evaluated in
the development of plans include:
• On-site infiltration of precipitation;
• Flow attenuation by use of open
vegetated swales and natural
depressions;
• Storm water retention/detention
structures (including wet ponds); and
• Sequential systems using multiple
methods.
The pollution prevention plan shall
include an explanation of the technical
basis used to select control measures,
where flows exceed pre-development
levels. This explanation should address
how a number of factors were evaluated
including the pollutant removal
efficiencies of the measures, costs of the
measures, site-specific factors that will
affect the utility of the measures,
whether the measure is economically
achievable at a particular site and any
other relevant factors.
Although not a limitation or
performance standard in the permit,
EPA anticipates that storm water
management measures at many sites
will be able to achieve removal of at
least 80% of total suspended solids. A
number of storm water management
measures can be used to achieve this
level of control, including:
• Properly designed and installed wet
ponds;
• Infiltration trenches and basins;
• Sand filter systems;
• Manmade storm water wetlands;
and
• Multiple pond systems.
The pollutant removal efficiencies of
various storm water management
measures can be estimated from a
number of sources, including "Storm
Water Management for Construction
Activities: Developing Pollution
Prevention Plans and Best Management
Practices," U.S. EPA, 1992, and "A
Current Assessment of Urban Best
Management Practices" prepared for
U.S. EPA by Metropolitan Washington
Council of Governments, March 1992.
In selecting storm water management
measures, the permittee should consider
the impacts of each method on other
water resources, such as ground water.
Although SWPPPs primarily focus on
storm water management, EPA
encourages facilities to avoid creating
groundwater pollution problems. For
example, if the water table is high in an
area or soils are especially porous, an
infiltration pond may contaminate the
groundwater unless special preventive
measures are taken. Per EPA's July 1991
Ground Water Protection Strategy,
States are encouraged to develop
Comprehensive State Ground Water
Protection Programs (CSGWPP). Efforts
to control storm water should be
compatible with State or Tribal ground
water objectives as reflected in
CSGWPPs. Storm water controls, such
as wet ponds, should also be designed
to have minimal safety risks, especially
to children.
The evaluation of whether the
pollutant loadings and the hydrologic
conditions (the volume of discharge) of
flows exceed pre-development levels
can be based on hydrologic models
which consider conditions such as the
natural vegetation endemic to the area.
Increased discharge velocities can
greatly accelerate erosion near the outlet
of structural measures. To mitigate these
effects, velocity dissipation devices
should be placed at discharge points
-------
7870
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 31/Tuesday, February 17, 1998/Notices
and along the length of a runoff
conveyance, as necessary, to provide a
non-erosive flow. Velocity dissipation
devices help protect a water body's
natural, pre-construction physical and
biological uses and characteristics (e.g.,
hydrologic conditions such as the hydro
period and hydrodynamics).
e. Other Controls. Other controls to be
addressed in SWPPPs for construction
activities are for compliance with the
requirement that nonsolid materials,
including building material wastes, not
be discharged at the site except as
authorized by a section 404 permit.
This permit requires vehicular
tracking of soil off-site and the
generation of dust must be minimized.
Dust and dirt-tracking can be minimized
by measures such as providing gravel or
paving at entrance/exit drive paths,
parking areas and unpaved transit ways
on the site carrying significant amounts
of traffic (i.e., more than 25 vehicles per
day); providing entrance wash racks or
stations for trucks; and performing street
sweeping.
In addition, the SWPPP must clearly
show compliance with applicable State/
Tribal or local sanitary sewer, septic
system and waste disposal regulations
to the extent they apply to the permitted
activity.4 The plan must also contain a
description of practices to reduce
pollutants from construction-related
materials which are stored on site,
including a description of said
construction materials (with updates as
appropriate). The plan should include a
description of pollutant sources from
areas untouched by construction and a
description of controls and measures
which will be implemented in those
areas.
The plan must also include measures
to protect listed endangered and
threatened species and/or critical
habitat (if applicable), including any
terms or conditions that are imposed
pursuant to the eligibility requirements
of Part I.B.S.e and Addendum A of this
permit, from storm water discharges or
4 In rural and suburban areas served by septic
systems, malfunctioning septic systems can
contribute pollutants to storm water discharges.
Malfunctioning septic tanks may be a more
significant surface runoff pollution problem than a
groundwater problem. This is because a
malfunctioning septic system is less likely to cause
groundwater contamination where a bacterial mat
in the soil retards the downward movement of
wastewater. Surface contamination can be caused
by clogged or impermeable soils, or when clogged
or collapsed pipes force untreated wastewater to the
surface. The extent of surface contamination can
vary in degree from occasional damp patches to
constant pooling or runoff of wastewater. These
discharges have high bacteria, nitrate and nutrient
levels and can contain a variety of household
chemicals. This permit does not establish new
criteria for septic systems, but rather requires
addressing existing State or local criteria.
BMPs to control storm water runoff.
Failure to include these measures will
result in the storm water discharges
from the construction activities being
ineligible for coverage under this
permit. (See section VI. Endangered
Species Protection and also section VIII.
Summary of Responses to Comments for
more discussion.)
f. State/Tribal and Local Controls.
Many States, Tribes, municipalities and
counties have developed sediment and
erosion control requirements for
construction activities. A significant
number have also developed storm
water management requirements. The
CGP requires that SWPPPs for facilities
that discharge storm water associated
with industrial activity from
construction activities be consistent
with procedures and requirements of
State/Tribal and local sediment and
erosion control plans and storm water
management plans. The proposed
requirement to have permit applicants
certify that their SWPPP incorporates
requirements related to protecting water
resources that are specified in State/
Tribal or local sediment and erosion
plans or storm water management plans
has been eliminated.
g. Maintenance. Erosion and sediment
controls can become ineffective if they
are damaged or not properly
maintained. The SWPPP requires all
erosion and sediment control measures
to be maintained in effective operating
condition. If site inspections identify
BMPs that are not operating effectively,
maintenance must be performed before
the next anticipated storm event. If
maintenance before the next anticipated
storm event is impracticable,
maintenance must be completed as soon
as practicable.
h. Inspections. Permittees must
inspect designated areas on the site at
least once every 14 calendar days, and
within 24 hours after any storm event of
0.5 inches or greater. EPA also
recommends that permittees perform a
"walkthrough" inspection of the
construction site before anticipated
storm events (or series of events such as
intermittent showers over a period of
days) that could potentially yield a
significant amount of runoff.
Visual inspections must comprise, at
a minimum:
• Disturbed areas;
• Areas used for storage of exposed
materials;
• Sediment and erosion control
measures; and
• Locations where vehicles enter or
exit the site.
For sites that have undergone
stabilization (temporary or final) or
experience seasonal aridity (average
annual rainfall of 0 to 10 inches) or
semi-aridity (annual rainfall of 10 to 20
inches), inspections must be conducted
at least once a month. Where
construction activity has been halted
due to frozen conditions, inspections
are not required until one month before
thawing is expected (i.e., snowmelt
runoff would commence).
Where discharge points are accessible,
they must be inspected to ascertain
whether erosion control measures are
effective in preventing impacts to
receiving waters. This can be done by
inspecting the waters for evidence of
erosion or sediment introduction. If
discharge points are inaccessible, the
permit requires that nearby downstream
locations be inspected, if practicable.
Were an inspection to reveal
inadequacies, the site description and
pollution prevention measures
identified in the SWPPP must be
revised. All necessary modifications to
the SWPPP must be made within seven
calendar days following the inspection.
If existing BMPs need to be modified or
if additional BMPs are necessary,
implementation shall be completed
before the next anticipated storm event.
If implementation before the next storm
event is impracticable, they shall be
implemented as soon as practicable.
Once an inspection has been
performed, a report containing the
following must be retained with the
SWPPP for up to three years after the
site has been finally stabilized:
• Components and scope of the
inspection;
• Names and qualifications of
personnel conducting the inspection;
• Dates of the inspection;
• Observations relating to the
implementation of the SWPP;
• Actions taken; and
• Incidents of non-compliance.
If no incidents of non-compliance
were found, the report shall contain a
certification that the facility is in
compliance with the SWPPP and this
permit. Finally, the report must be
signed in accordance with the signatory
requirements in Part VI. Standard
Permit Conditions section of the CGP.
Diligent inspections are vital for
ensuring effective implementation of
sediment and erosion controls,
particularly in the later stages of
construction when the volume of runoff
is greatest and storage capacity of
sediment basins has been reduced.
i. Non-Storm Water Discharges. The
SWPPP must identify and ensure the
implementation of appropriate pollution
prevention measures for each of the
eligible non-storm water components of
the discharge covered by this permit.
The eligible non-storm water discharges
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 31/Tuesday, February 17, 1998/Notices
7871
are discussed in section V. Part III.
Special Conditions, Management
Practices, and Other Non-Numeric
Limitations in the Fact Sheet.
j. Additional Requirements. Storm
water from a permitted industrial source
other than construction activities is
authorized for discharge when
commingled with construction storm
water only under the following
conditions: (1) The other industrial
source is located on the same site as the
construction activity; and (2) storm
water discharges from the permitted
construction site are in compliance with
the terms of this permit.
k. Contractors and Subcontractors.
The SWPPP must identify who will be
responsible for implementing each
measure contained in the plan. It is the
permittee's responsibility to provide
necessary information on complying
with their SWPPP and the permit to
their contractors and subcontractors.
Part V. Retention of Records
The permittee must retain all records
and reports required by this permit,
including SWPPPs and information
used to complete the NOI, for at least
three years from the date of final
stabilization. This period may be
extended by request of the Director.
A copy of the SWPPP must be kept at
the construction site from the date of
project initiation to the date of final
stabilization. Permittees with day-to-day
operational control over the plan's
implementation must keep a copy of the
plan readily available whenever they are
on site (a central location accessible by
all on-site operators is sufficient). If an
on-site location is unavailable to store
the SWPPP when no personnel are
present, notice of the plan's location
must be conspicuously posted at the
construction site. A copy of the SWPPP
must be readily available to authorized
inspectors during normal business
hours.
Part VI. Standard Permit Conditions
This section of the permit contains
the standard permit conditions required
by 40 CFR 122.41. One condition is the
procedure for continued coverage under
a general permit if it expires prior to a
replacement permit being issued. In
short, the expired permit would remain
in full force and effect in accordance
with the Administrative Procedures Act.
Any permittee granted coverage prior to
the permit's expiration date will
automatically remain covered by the
continued permit until the earliest of:
• The permit being reissued or
replaced;
• The permittee terminating coverage
by submitting an NOT;
• Issuance of an individual permit for
the permittee's discharges; or
• A formal decision by the Director
not to reissue the general permit, at
which time the permittee must seek
coverage under an alternative general
permit or an individual permit.
(For more information, see section VIII.
Summary of Responses to Comments on
the Proposed Permit.)
Part VII. Reopener Clause
The permit contains a reopener clause
allowing the permit to be reopened and
modified for cause during the term of
the permit. Generally, this would be
triggered by a water quality concern, a
change in NPDES statutes, or to
incorporate procedures developed by
the EPA and the Advisory Council for
Historic Preservation to provide for
additional consideration of effects to
properties either listed or eligible for
listing in the National Register of
Historic Places.
Part VIII. Notice of Termination
Requirements
Permittees must submit a completed
Notice of Termination (NOT) that is
signed according to Part VI. G of the
permit when one or more of the
conditions contained in Part I.D.2 of the
permit have been met. NOTs must be
submitted using the form provided by
the Director (i.e., use the existing NOI
form found in Appendix D of the permit
until the revised version is published in
its final form in the Federal Register),
or a photocopy thereof. NOTs provide
EPA with a useful mechanism to track
the status of projects which are actively
covered by the permit.
Significant parts of the NOT are:
• Permittee name and contact
information, and site location
information;
• The permit number which is being
terminated;
• Permittee certification that he
understands that submission of the NOT
means he no longer will have
authorization to discharge storm water
associated with construction activity;
• Clarification that the authorization
to discharge ends at midnight of the day
the NOT is postmarked; and
• The conditions under which an
NOT can be submitted.
Part IX. Definitions
The permit contains 21 definitions of
statutory, regulatory and other terms
important for understanding the permit
and its requirements. See section VIII.
Summary of Responses to Comments for
discussions on the critical definitions of
"operator" and "final stabilization."
Part X. Permit Conditions Applicable to
Specific States, Indian Country Lands
or Territories
Permit conditions that only apply to
construction projects located in a
specific State, Indian land or other area
are in Part X of the permit. These
conditions are modifications or
additions to analogous conditions in
Parts I through IX of the "generic"
portion of the CGP, and reflect
additional requirements arising from the
State section 401 (Clean Water Act) or
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)
certification processes or as otherwise
established by the permitting authority.
EPA must include any more stringent
permit conditions required by a State or
Tribe to get State/Tribal certifications of
the permit under section 401 (See 40
CFR 122.44(d)(3)) or CZMA (See 40 CFR
122.49(d)).
Areas with special area-specific
conditions are:
Region 1
• Commonwealdi of Massachusetts,
except Indian Country lands.
• State of Maine, except Indian
Country lands.
Region 8
• Indian Country lands in the State of
Montana.
Region 9
• State of Arizona, except Indian
Country lands.
• Island of Guam.
• Commonwealdi of Northern
Mariana Islands.
Region 10
• State of Alaska, except Indian
Country lands.
• State of Idaho, except Indian
Country lands.
• Federal facilities in the State of
Washington, except those located on
Indian Country lands.
• Indian Country lands in the State of
Washington.
VI. Endangered Species Protection
A. Background
The CGP also contains conditions to
ensure the activities regulated by it are
protective of species that are listed
under the Endangered Species Act
(ESA) as endangered or threatened
(known as "listed species"), and listed
species habitat that is designated under
the ESA as critical ("critical habitat"). In
addition, the permit's coverage does not
extend to discharges and discharge-
related activities likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of species proposed
but not yet listed as endangered or
threatened or result in the adverse
-------
7872
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 31/Tuesday, February 17, 1998/Notices
modification of habitat proposed to be
designated critical habitat.
The ESA places several different
requirements on activities covered by
the CGP. First, section 9 of the ESA and
the ESA implementing regulations
generally prohibit any person from
"taking" a listed animal species (e.g.,
harassing or harming it) unless the take
is authorized under the ESA. This
prohibition applies to all entities and
includes EPA, permit applicants,
permittees and the public at large.
Second, section 7(a)(2) of the ESA
requires that Federal agencies consult
with the 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.
Jeopardizing the continued existence of
a listed species means to engage in an
action that reasonably would be
expected, directly or indirectly, to
reduce appreciably the likelihood of
both the survival and recovery of a
listed species in the wild by reducing
the reproduction, numbers or
distribution of that species (See 40 CFR
402.02).
The ESA section 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. This effect, among
other things, can be beneficial,
detrimental, direct and indirect. The
issuance of the CGP by EPA is thus
subject to the ESA section 7 (a) (2)
consultation requirements. Finally, ESA
section 7(a)(l) directs Federal agencies
to use their authority to further the
purposes of the ESA by carrying out
programs for the conservation of listed
species, and section 7(a)(4) directs
Federal agencies to confer with the
Services on Agency actions likely to
jeopardize the existence of species
proposed but not yet finally listed or
result in the adverse modification of
critical habitat proposed to be
designated.
The ESA regulations provide for two
types of consultation; formal and
informal. Informal consultation is an
optional process that includes
discussions, correspondence, etc.
between the Services and a Federal
agency or a designated non-Federal
representative (NFR) to determine
whether a Federal action is likely to
have an adverse effect on listed species
or critical habitat. During informal
consultation the Services may suggest
modifications to the action that a
Federal agency, permit applicant or
non-Federal representative could
implement to avoid likely adverse
effects to listed species or critical
habitat. If adverse effects are likely and
those effects cannot be addressed
through informal consultation, then
formal consultation generally occurs.
Formal consultation is a 135-day
process that results in issuance of a
biological opinion by the Services in
which they determine whether the
Federal action is likely to jeopardize the
existence of a listed species or result in
adverse modification or destruction of
critical habitat. Formal consultation can
also provide authorization for
anticipated incidental take of listed
animal species, provided any such take
is consistent with an incidental take
statement contained in the biological
opinion. While informal consultation is
not a prerequisite to formal
consultation, most section 7
consultations are carried out as informal
consultations.
Federal permit applicants frequently
play a key role in both formal and
informal consultation. The ESA
regulations provide for permit
applicants, where designated, to carry
out informal consultations as a NFR,
which enables them to work directly
with the Services (See 50 CFR 402.08).
EPA has designated applicants for this
storm water construction general permit
as non-Federal representatives. The
regulations also provide for the
participation of permit applicants in
formal consultation (See 50 CFR 402.14
and 51 FR 19939 [June 3, 1986]).
Also of relevance for the CGP are ESA
section 10 incidental taking permits.
Section 10 of the ESA allows persons,
including non-Federal entities to
incidentally take listed animal species,
where otherwise prohibited, through the
issuance of a permit after development
of a habitat conservation plan (HCP).
These procedures were developed to
allow non-Federal entities such as
developers to, among other things, alter
habitat without incurring takings
liability where take is minimized to the
extent practicable.
B. Conditions in the June 2, 1997
Proposed Permit to Protect Species and
Critical Habitat
The CGP was proposed with a number
of conditions to ensure that storm water
discharges and best management
practices (BMPs) to control storm water
run off were protective of listed species
or critical habitat. Specifically, coverage
under the proposed CGP would be
granted only under the following
circumstances:
1. An applicant's storm water
discharges or BMPs to control storm
water runoff were not likely to adversely
affect listed species (identified in
Addendum A of the permit) or critical
habitat; or
2. The applicant's activity was
previously authorized under section 7
or section 10 of the Endangered Species
Act (ESA) and that authorization
addressed storm water discharges and
BMPs to control storm water runoff; or
3. The applicant's activity was
considered as part of a larger, more
comprehensive assessment of impacts
on endangered and threatened species
under section 7 or section 10 of the ESA
which accounted for storm water
discharges and BMPs to control storm
water runoff; or
4. Consultation under section 7 of the
ESA was conducted for the applicant's
activity which resulted in either a no
jeopardy opinion or a written
concurrence on a finding of no
likelihood of adverse effects; or
5. The applicant's activity was
considered as part of a larger, more
comprehensive site-specific assessment
of impacts on endangered and
threatened species by the owner or other
operator of the site and that permittee
certified eligibility under items 1., 2., 3.
or 4. above.
The proposal required that applicants
assess the impacts of their "storm water
discharges" and "BMPs to control storm
water run off' on listed species and
critical habitat that are located "in
proximity" to the those discharges and
BMPs when developing Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPPs) as
part of the application process. The
proposed CGP also required applicants
to include measures in SWPPPs to
protect listed species and critical
habitat. "In proximity" was defined in
Addendum A to include species:
• Located in the path or immediate
area through which or over which
contaminated point source storm water
flows from construction 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; or
• Located in the area of a site where
storm water BMPs are planned or are to
be constructed.
EPA also solicited comment on
whether the area or scope of impacts to
be considered by applicants should be
broadened to encompass listed species
found on the entire construction site
and not just those species found "in
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 31/Tuesday, February 17, 1998/Notices
7873
proximity" as currently defined in
Addendum A.
Failure by permittees to abide by
measures in their SWPPPs to protect
species and critical habitat would
invalidate permit coverage. Attached to
the proposed permits were instructions
(Addendum A) to assist permit
applicants in making this inquiry. The
proposal indicated that a county-by-
county species list would be included in
Addendum A of the final permit to
assist applicants in determining if listed
species might be "in proximity" to
storm water discharges and BMPs. EPA
did not provide a draft species list in
proposed Addendum A. Instead, EPA
referred commenters to a similar species
list that was used for an earlier EPA-
issued storm water permit, the
Multisector Storm Water General
Permit, that was issued on September
29, 1995 (see 62 FR 29792, note 12, June
2, 1997).
C. Final CGP Conditions To Protect
Listed Species
On April 28, 1997, EPA entered into
formal consultation with the Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (the
"Services") for issuance of the CGP.
After discussions with the Services,
EPA terminated formal consultation and
entered into ESA section 7 informal
consultation and conferencing with the
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the
National Fisheries Service Services
(NMFS) on June 11, 1997. On November
4, and 26, 1997, EPA completed ESA
informal consultation when NMFS and
FWS provided their respective
concurrences with EPA's finding that
issuance of the CGP was not likely to
adversely affect listed species or critical
habitat. Based on that consultation and
in consideration of comments received
on the June 2, 1997, proposal, EPA has
placed the following conditions in the
permit to protect listed species and
critical habitat (see Part I.B.3.e).
Coverage under the CGP is available
only if:
a. The storm water discharges and
storm water discharge-related activities
are not likely to adversely affect listed
species or critical habitat (Part
I.B.3.e.(2)(a));or
b. Formal or informal consultation
with the Services under section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) has been
concluded which addresses the effects
of the applicant's storm water
discharges and storm water discharge-
related activities on listed species and
critical habitat and the consultation
results in either a no jeopardy opinion
or a written concurrence by the
Service (s) on a finding that the
applicant's storm water discharges and
storm water discharge-related activities
are not likely to adversely affect listed
species or critical habitat. A section 7
consultation may occur in the context of
another Federal on (e.g., an ESA section
7 consultation was performed for
issuance of a wetlands dredge and fill
permit for the project, or as part of a
National Environmental Policy Act
[NEPA] review); or
c. The applicant's construction
activities are covered by a permit under
section 10 of the ESA and that permit
addresses the effects of the applicant's
storm water discharges and storm water
discharge-related activities on listed
species and critical habitat (Part
I.B.3.e.(2)(c));or
d. The applicant's storm water
discharges and storm water discharge-
related activities were already addressed
in another operator's certification of
eligibility under Part I.B.3.e.(2)(a), (b), or
(c) which included the applicant's
project area. By certifying eligibility
under Part I.B.3.e.(2)(d), the applicant
agrees to comply with any measures or
controls upon which the other
operator's certification under Part
I.B.3.e.(2)(a), (b) or (c) was based.
The CGP requires that applicants
consider effects to listed species and
critical habitat when developing
SWPPPs and require that those plans
include measures, as appropriate, to
protect those resources. Failure by
permittees to abide by measures in the
SWPPPs to protect species and critical
habitat may invalidate permit coverage.
Addendum A contains instructions to
assist permit applicants in making this
inquiry. Those instructions require that
applicants ascertain: (1) If their
construction activities would occur in
critical habitat; (2) whether listed
species are in the project area; and (3)
whether the applicant's storm water
discharges and discharge-related
activities are likely to adversely affect
listed species or critical habitat. If
adverse effects are likely, then
applicants would have to meet one of
the eligibility requirements of Part
I.B.3.e.(2)(b)-(d) (paragraphs b., c., and
d. above) to receive permit coverage.
"Discharge-related activities" include
activities which cause point source
storm water pollutant discharges
including but not limited to excavation,
site development, and other surface
disturbing activities, and measures to
control, reduce or prevent storm water
pollution including the siting,
construction and operation of BMPs.
The "project area" includes:
1. Area(s) on the construction site
where storm water discharges originate
and flow towards the point of discharge
into the receiving waters (this includes
the entire area or areas where
excavation, site development, or other
ground disturbance activities occur),
and the immediate vicinity;
2. Area(s) where storm water
discharges flow from the construction
site to the point of discharge into
receiving waters;
3. Area(s) where storm water from
construction activities discharges into
the receiving waters and the area(s) in
the immediate vicinity of the point of
discharge; and
4. Area(s) where storm water BMPs
will be constructed and operated,
including any area(s) where storm water
flows to and from BMPs.
The project area will vary with the
size and structure of the construction
activity, the nature and quantity of the
storm water discharges, the measures
(including BMPs) to control storm water
runoff, and the type of receiving waters.
Addendum A also contains a list of
listed and proposed species organized
by State and county to assist applicants
in determining if further inquiry
necessary as to whether listed species
are present in the project area. This list
is current as of September 1, 1997, and
will be updated periodically and made
available on the Office of Wastewater
Management's website at "http://
www.epa.gov/owm". CGP applicants
can also get updated species
information for their county by calling
the appropriate FWS or NMFS office.
EPA Region 2 applicants 5 can also
contact the EPA Region 6 and Region 2
Storm Water Hotline (1-800-245-6510)
for updated species information.
Applicants from other EPA Regions can
contact the appropriate EPA Regional
storm water office for updated species
information.
The CGP also requires that applicants
comply with any conditions imposed
under the eligibility requirements of
Part I.B.3.e.(2)a., b., c., or d. above to
remain eligible for coverage under this
permit. Such conditions must be
incorporated in the applicant's SWPPP.
The CGP does not authorize any
prohibited take (as defined under
section 3 of the ESA and 50 CFR 17.3)
of endangered or threatened species
unless such takes are authorized under
sections 7 or 10 of the ESA. The CGP
does not authorize any storm water
discharges or storm water discharge-
related activities that are likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of
any species that are listed or proposed
to be listed as endangered or threatened
5 Region 2 permit areas include Indian Country
lands in the State of New York and the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
-------
7874
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 31/Tuesday, February 17, 1998/Notices
under the ESA or result in the adverse
modification or destruction of habitat
that is designated or proposed to be
designated as critical under the ESA.
It is EPA's intention to provide permit
applicants with the greatest possible
flexibility in meeting permit
requirements for protecting listed
species and critical habitat. Thus, EPA
is allowing applicants to use either
section 7 or section 10 ESA mechanisms
to address situations where adverse
effects are likely (see Part I.B.3.e.(2)(b)
and (c)). Also, to give applicants
additional flexibility in meeting the Part
I.B.S.e. eligibility requirements and with
the timing of informal consultations, the
permit automatically designates CGP
applicants as non-Federal
representatives for the purpose of
carrying out informal consultation.
However, EPA notes that meeting ESA
requirements raise difficult
implementation issues on how to best
ensure that the permits are protective of
listed species and critical habitats
without unduly burdening permit
applicants, permittees, and State, local,
and Federal governmental entities.
Thus, EPA intends in the future to
review those permit conditions and
procedures that relate to the ESA and
the protection of historic resources to
see how well that goal has been
achieved and may revise the permits if
necessary to better achieve that goal.
VII. Historic Property Protection
A. Background
The National Historic Preservation
Act of 1966, as amended, (NHPA)
establishes a national historic
preservation program for the
identification and protection of historic
properties and resources. Under the
NHPA, identification of historic
properties is coordinated by the State
Historic Preservation Officers (SHPOs),
Tribal Historic Preservation Officers
(THPOs) or other Tribal Representatives
(in the absence of a THPO). Section 106
of the NHPA requires Federal agencies
to take into account the effects of their
actions (also known as "Federal
undertakings" in the NHPA regulations)
on historic properties that are listed or
eligible for listing on the National
Register of Historic Places and to seek
comments from an independent
reviewing agency, the Advisory Council
on Historic Preservation (ACHP). The
permit was proposed with a number of
conditions pertaining to the
consideration of historic properties.
EPA has decided to not include those
conditions because the ACHP and the
National Conference of State Historic
Preservation Officers (NCSHPO) have
requested that EPA not include such
conditions in the final permit at this
time. The ACHP and the NCSHPO have
recommended that EPA issue the permit
but recommend that EPA continue
working with them and Tribes regarding
the possible development of a more
comprehensive and efficient approach
to ensure that effects to historic
properties are given appropriate
consideration while ensuring undue
burdens are not imposed on applicants
and regulatory authorities. EPA plans to
continue working with the ACHP,
NCSHPO and Tribes on this effort and
may modify the permit to incorporate
procedures regarding the protection of
historic resources at a later date.
B. Future CGP Conditions To Protect or
Consider Effects to Historic Properties
In response to comments received on
the proposal and because the Agency is
still discussing historic preservation
with the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation (ACHP), the final permit
reserves permit requirements related to
historic preservation. The permit does
not currently include the eligibility
restrictions and evaluation requirements
from the proposed permit. After future
discussions with the ACHP, EPA may
modify the permit to reflect those
discussions.
VIII. Summary of Responses to
Comments on the Proposed Permit
The following is a summary of EPA's
response to comments received on the
proposed CGP which was published in
the Federal Register on June 2, 1997 (62
FR 29786). Due to the large number of
comments received, comments and
responses have been categorized and
placed into 10 major categories such as
"Coverage of General Permits" and
"Protection of Endangered Species."
Coverage of General Permits
Common Plan of Development or Sale
Many comments were received
regarding permitting requirements for
projects that are less than five acres but
are part of a "larger common plan of
development or sale ("Larger Common
Plan") disturbing at least 5 acres." The
volume and nature of the comments
showed that the regulated community
and the public needed additional
guidance on this issue.
Under Phase I of the storm water
program, an NPDES permit to discharge
storm water associated with
construction activity is only needed
when a "common plan of development
or sale" will disturb five or more acres.
The simple case is when the "common
plan" is to construct a single building,
etc., for a single owner. The more
complicated case needing clarification
is when the common plan consists of
several smaller construction projects
that cumulatively will disturb five or
more acres, but may or may not be
under construction at the same time.
Residential development with houses
being built by several homebuilders in
a master planned subdivision is an
excellent example of this second case.
For illustration purposes, many
examples in the explanation below
assume a more complex residential
development of single family homes
with a developer putting in die
infrastructure and common areas (e.g.,
roads, sewers, parks, etc) and selling
groups of lots to homebuilders and
single lots to individuals. The same
rationale used for these residential
construction examples would apply to
any project with multiple parts. For
example, when building a new runway,
the associated taxiways, and additional
hangers, terminals, parking lots, etc., at
an airport would be a common plan of
development.
For sites disturbing less than five
acres, the first steps in deciding if a
permit is needed for storm water
discharges associated with construction
activity are determining:
1. Is there a "common plan of
development or sale" tying individual
sites together? (e.g., Are the lots part of
a subdivision plat filed with the local
land use planning authority?) and
2. Will the total area disturbed by all
of the individual sites add up to five or
more acres? (e.g.. If you added up all of
the acreage that will need to be
disturbed to completely build out the
subdivision as planned, would there be
five or more acres disturbed?)
If the answer to both questions is no,
a storm water discharge permit is not
needed unless EPA determines that
discharges contribute to a violation of
water quality standards or are a
significant contributor of pollutants to
waters of the United States and
specifically requests a permit
application. This permit provides for
coverage of such dischargers once
designated.
Note: The disturbed acreage threshold may
be less than five acres for Phase II of the
storm water program. Proposed regulations
for Phase II are expected December 1997 with
final regulations due in March 1999.
The Larger Common Plan concept
does have to be applied with some
common sense and should not be taken
to extremes. For example, every
construction project within a city would
not be considered part of a common
plan of development just because the
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 31/Tuesday, February 17, 1998/Notices
7875
city has a land use master plan or
zoning map. EPA interprets the term
more narrowly. Building a house on a
vacant lot in a residential subdivision
plat filed by a developer would be part
of that subdivision's larger common
plan of development or sale. Any earth
disturbing activity necessary to
complete the planned project (e.g.,
grading lots, installation of utilities,
building roads, preparing storm water
control structures), plus various support
activities such as exposed materials
storage and equipment staging areas, are
considered to be part of the construction
activity that could result in a regulated
discharge of storm water.
Once a residence has been completed
and occupied by the homeowner (or
tenant), future activities by the
homeowner on their individual lot are
not considered part of the original
common plan of development (which
was the industrial activity of building
houses on each subdivided lot). After a
home is occupied by the homeowner or
a tenant, future construction activity on
that particular lot is considered a new
and distinct project and is compared to
applicable disturbed acreage limits for
permit applicability. For example, if
homeowner decides to install a
swimming pool after occupying the
house, only the disturbed area on their
lot—not the total acreage of the
subdevelopment—is considered for
determining whether a permit is
needed. Likewise, demolition and
reconstruction of individual houses
originally built as part of a common
plan of development, including those
destroyed or damaged by fire or natural
disasters, are also considered to be
"new" plans of development/
redevelopment, and not part of Larger
Common Plan.
Once the extent of the Larger
Common Plan has been determined, the
total acreage to be disturbed must be
calculated. A single l/i acre lot is not
large enough by itself to require a
permit, but since 100 such lots in a
subdivision would disturb 25 acres (if
the entire area of each lot was
disturbed), permit coverage is needed.
Please note, permit coverage under the
general permit is for all of the
permittee's activities on the Larger
Common Plan. Site-by-site permitting
(i.e., submitting a separate NOI and
preparing a separate storm water
pollution prevention plan for each
individual lot) would negate one of the
principle advantages of the general
permit and is not required by EPA.
Of particular concern to many
homebuilders is the issue of lots left
over when the original development is
substantially complete. It is EPA's
position that the unbuilt lots remain
part of the Larger Common Plan, but
total disturbed acreage can be
recalculated if: (1) All areas of the site
achieve final stabilization or are turned
over to a homeowner, and permit
coverage is or could be terminated; and
(2) the total remaining area of the Larger
Common Plan is less than five acres. A
permit is not necessary if the total
acreage remaining to be built upon out
of the Large Common Plan is less than
five acres. On the other hand, if there
were ZZ'A-acre lots left unbuilt (total
5Vz acres), permit coverage would have
to be obtained to build on even one of
the remaining lots since the "common
plan" would still be capable of
disturbing more than five acres. Once
three of these last 'A-acre lots were
completed and stabilized, the total area
remaining out of the original common
plan with the potential to be disturbed
would be only 4% acres.
EPA believes this approach maintains
the intent of regulating projects that
disturb five or more acres while
applying common sense in interpreting
the regulation. A common plan of
development must at least be
theoretically capable of having five or
more acres of land disturbed at one time
in order to trigger the need for a permit.
Requiring that all parts of the project,
including unbuilt portions of the Larger
Common Plan of development, have
achieved final stabilization before total
disturbed acreage can be "recalculated"
insures that there is a period of time
during which all discharges of storm
water associated with construction
activity from the common plan of
development or sale have ceased. The
requirement to compare disturbed
acreage to the total remaining unbuilt
acreage of the Larger Common Plan
protects against attempts to artifically
divide a project in such a way as to
avoid providing environmental controls
for construction activities.
Support Activities
EPA received several comments
requesting clarification on support
activities eligible for, or required to
obtain, permit coverage. As noted by
many of these commenters, off-site areas
are commonly used for storage of fill
material or soil excavated from the
construction site, borrow areas to obtain
fill material, storage of building
materials, concrete batch plants, or
storage of construction equipment.
Several citizens expressed concern that
erosion and sediment from off-site areas
used for storage or disposal of fill
material were not being adequately
controlled. A State highway department
questioned whether a support base used
for several nearby roadway projects
would be eligible for coverage.
EPA agrees that where activities at off-
site locations would not exist without
the construction project, discharges of
pollutants in storm water from these
areas must be controlled. Changes have
been made to part I.B. of the permit to
clarify the permit and allow coverage for
sites used by an operator to support
several nearby projects. It remains the
responsibility of the operator of the
support area to assure permit coverage
is obtained.
Off-site storage areas, support bases,
disposal areas and borrow areas used for
a construction project are considered to
be part of the Larger Common Plan and
must be addressed by the pollution
prevention plan in certain instances.
The pollution prevention plan for the
construction project must include
controls for all off-site areas directly
supporting the construction project,
unless the offsite location is a fixed base
of operations (e.g. construction
company's home office, warehouse,
commerical warehouse, landfill,
equipment yard, etc. used for all
construction projects) or can be
considered a stand-alone industrial or
commercial activity serving multiple
customers. Allowing such off-site
locations to be permitted under the
construction permit for the construction
site avoids the need for a separate
permit for the remote location.
Where the same operator uses a
temporary off-site location to support
construction activities at several nearby
locations, permit coverage may be
obtained by identifying the site and
including controls for this common site
in at least one of the pollution
prevention plans for the individual
construction projects. For example, a
common support area for three highway
projects could be permitted by
identifying the site, including
appropriate controls in at least one of
the three pollution prevention plans for
the separate projects, and insuring that
an NOT is not submitted until the
support area is finally stabilized.
Non-Storm Water
Several comments were received
about the permit's authorization of non-
storm water discharges. In response, this
permit only authorizes the discharge of
non-storm waters listed in Part III.A.3,
and only when such discharges are
identified in the storm water pollution
prevention plan and appropriate
controls are included. During the
construction process, non-storm waters
listed in Part III.A.3 are authorized for
discharge either alone or when
commingled with storm water. The
-------
7876
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 31/Tuesday, February 17, 1998/Notices
Agency also notes that EPA can request
individual permit applications for such
discharges where appropriate. The
Agency is not requiring that flows from
fire-fighting activities be identified in
plans because of the emergency nature
of such discharges and because of the
unpredictability of their occurrence.
EPA would also like to clarify certain
questions which were raised regarding
the list of non-storm water discharges
that are authorized. For example,
operators were unclear whether
dewatering of trenches is authorized
under the permit. In response, EPA
believes that discharges associated with
the dewatering of trenches is the same
type of water contemplated by the term
"ground water dewatering." As such,
EPA believes that this discharge would
be authorized by the permit. Operators
also asked whether discharges
associated with dust control are
authorized. In response, EPA would
note that this discharge is specifically
authorized by the permit.
Several commenters asked whether
detergents would be allowed in
discharges resulting from washing
vehicles. In response to this issue, EPA
believes that detergents should not be
necessary to remove sediment from
trucks which would be the primary
purpose for washing vehicles at the
construction site. The final permit was
clarified to specify that truck wash
water would only be allowed if
detergents were not included in the
discharge.
Wetlands
One commenter requested
clarification between the section 402
NPDES and section 404 Dredge and Fill
permitting programs. The NPDES and
section 404 programs are implemented
by EPA and the Department of the
Army, respectively. Activities which
involve the discharge of dredged or fill
material into wetlands are regulated
under section 404 of the CWA, which
requires a permit from the Corps.
However, construction activities (i.e.,
clearing grading, and excavation) that
result in storm water discharge into
wetlands are regulated under the
NPDES program and require a permit
from EPA.
Several commenters expressed
concern over the loss or degradation of
wetlands and how their protection
could be addressed in the construction
general permit. Another commenter
raised concern regarding the draining of
wetlands and its adverse effect on
fisheries under statistically expected
drought conditions. EPA recognizes the
commenters' concerns about
construction activity impacts to
wetlands. Because impacts to wetlands
from dredged and fill material are
already established and enforced under
section 404 of the CWA, EPA is not
incorporating any further language in
today's permit regarding such
requirements.
One commenter raised concerns about
wetlands in proximity to the
construction activity, which may
receive drainage from the site. The
commenter was concerned that such
areas be considered under the general
permit requirements. In response, EPA
agrees to change the wording in Part
IV.D.l.g. of the permit language from
"areal extent of wetlands acreage at the
site" to "an areal extent and description
of acreage of wetland or other special
aquatic sites (i.e., 40 CFR 230.3(q-l)) at
or near the site which will be disturbed,
or receive water discharged from the
disturbed areas of the site." EPA
believes this language will help clarify
this requirement in the site description
of the storm water pollution prevention
plan.
One commenter noted that a certain
amount of sediment may be necessary to
maintain the natural functioning of a
wetland. The commenter expressed
concern that under some circumstances,
a construction project may result in
decreases in the sediment load to a
wetland. In response, EPA would note
that the NPDES program requires
permits for the discharge of pollutants
from any point source into waters of the
United States. By definition, wetlands
are waters of the United States. As such,
EPA must ensure that the discharges
authorized by this permit comply with
applicable water quality standards for
the wetland, including requirements for
sediment.
One commenter requested
clarification on jurisdictional wetland
areas coverage under today's permits.
For the purposes of the CWA, wetlands
are defined as areas that are inundated
or saturated by surface water or
groundwater at a frequency and
duration sufficient to support, and that
under normal circumstances do support,
a prevalence of vegetation typically
adapted for life in saturated soil
conditions (33 CFR 328.3(b)). EPA uses
the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands
Delineation Manual to identify and
delineate wetlands. This document
establishes the specific technical criteria
that must be satisfied for an area to be
considered a jurisdictional wetland.
Therefore, storm water discharges from
a construction activity to jurisdictional
wetlands (i.e., waters of the U.S.) need
permit authorization and may be
covered under today's permit.
Other commenters expressed concern
regarding the effects on wetlands of the
development of land for agricultural
purposes. EPA would first point out that
agricultural runoff is exempt from the
NPDES permit program (See 40 CFR
122.3, CWA section 502 (14)). In
addition, the development of land for
agriculture is not considered a
construction project regulated by the
NPDES permit program.
Residential Construction
Many contractors and developers
involved in residential development felt
that the permit was geared towards large
industrial facilities, and therefore not
well suited to address small residential
construction. These commenters
generally either requested that
residential construction be exempt from
permitting, or that special consideration
of the nature of residential construction
be given in the permit.
There is no regulatory provision to
exempt any construction activities
based solely on the nature of what is
being built. The disturbance of five or
more acres in a Larger Common Plan
defines industrial activity that requires
a storm water discharge permit. The
impact on water quality is not
necessarily reduced because the
construction project is residential and
may, in some instances, proceed in a
more piecemeal fashion. However, the
Agency recognizes that there are certain
differences in how residential
development occurs, particularly with
regard to completion of individual
homes and occupation by either a
homeowner or tenant. EPA has made
several changes and clarifications of
permit requirements to address the
concerns of the residential development
industry.
The definition of final stabilization
has been changed. "Final Stabilization"
in the final permit means either: (1) All
soil disturbing activities at the site have
been completed, and that a uniform
(e.g., evenly distributed, without large
bare areas) perennial vegetative cover
with a density of 70% of the native
background vegetative cover for the area
has been established on all unpaved
areas and areas not covered by
permanent structures, or equivalent
permanent stabilization measures (such
as the use of riprap, gabions, or
geotextiles) have been employed. In
some parts of the country, background
native vegetation will cover less than
100% of the ground (e.g. arid areas).
Establishing at least 70% of the natural
cover of native vegetation meets the
vegetative cover criteria for final
stabilization. For example, if the native
vegetation covers 50% of the ground,
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63. No. 31/Tuesday, February 17, 1998/Notices
7877
70% of 50% would require 35% total
cover for final stabilization; or (2) for
individual lots in residential
construction by either: (a) the
homebuilder completing final
stabilization as specified above, or (b)
the homebuilder establishing temporary
stabilization (including perimeter
controls) for an individual lot prior to
occupation of the home by the
homeowner and informing the
homeowner of the need for and benefits
of final stabilization. EPA strongly
recommends that homeowners stabilize
as soon as practicable. (Homeowners
have a personal incentive to put in
landscaping functionally equivalent to
final stabilization as quick as possible to
keep mud out of their house and off
their sidewalks and driveway.)
Installation of Utility Service Lines
The proposed permit attempted to
more clearly define the role of utility
companies whose sole involvement in a
construction project was installation of
utility service lines. Many utility
companies challenged EPA's assertion
that they represented a special class of
operator at construction sites and
pointed out potential financial and
project delay impacts of requiring utility
companies to obtain permit coverage
before installing utility service lines at
a project. Other commenters felt that
utility companies should be held
accountable for their actions on-site and
for disturbing any storm water control
measures installed by other site
operators. In general, utility companies
agreed that they are responsible for their
actions on-site, but did not believe they
should be considered "operators" and
required to obtain permit coverage.
Several commenters felt utility
companies should be treated as
subcontractors and the party requesting
utility service should be the permittee.
In response, EPA agrees that in many
areas utility companies will not meet
the definition of operator while
installing utility service lines (the draft
permit implied that a utility company
would always be an operator when
installing utility service lines). As with
any other party involved in a
construction project, permit coverage
will only be required for utility
companies when they met the definition
of "operator." The definition of operator
in the final permit, though changed
slightly from the proposed permit for
better clarity, applies to parties at a
construction project which meet either
of the following two criteria: (1) A party
with operational control over
construction plans and specifications,
including the ability to make
modifications to those plans and
specifications; or (2) a party with day-
to-day operational control of those
activities at a project which are
necessary to ensure compliance with a
storm water pollution prevention plan
(SWPPP) for the site or other permit
conditions (e.g., they are authorized to
direct workers at the site to carry out
activities required by the storm water
pollution prevention plan or comply
with other permit conditions). To
determine if a utility company meets
either criterion, a review of the word
"control" with regard to construction
plans and specifications and day-to-day
operations is needed.
In the definition of "operator," it is
not EPA's intention to include those
parties whose function is to assure that
a project complies with previously
established standards (e.g., national,
state or municipal). For example, design
or installation standards set by
municipalities or utilities which are
based on national standards such as the
National Electric Code does not give the
municipality or utility "control" over a
construction project's plans and
specifications, but instead directs or
limits a project operator's latitude when
drafting or modifying a particular aspect
of the project's plans and specifications.
Furthermore, reviewing or applying
such standards (e.g., residential electric
lines must be capable of carrying a
specific voltage, made of certain
materials, buried a certain depth) does
not make a utility or municipality meet
the first criterion of the definition of
"operator." Also, utility companies will
often not meet the second criterion of
the definition because they are not
responsible for overall SWPPP
compliance at a project. Typically, a
project's general contractor has overall
responsibility for SWPPP
implementation and compliance.
To the extent that a utility company
needs to develop its own site-specific
plans and specifications for a service
installation at a project requiring storm
water permit coverage, the utility will
be considered to meet the definition of
"operator" and must allow for
appropriate storm water control
measures either by designing and
implementing controls themselves, or
by assuring that another project operator
has designed and will implement storm
water controls for the area disturbed by
the utility service installation. In all
cases, to ensure effective
implementation of storm water
pollution control measures, EPA
stresses the importance of cooperative
efforts by all parties involved at a
construction site, including those not
meeting the definition of "operator," to
understand and abide by SWPPP
provisions which their activities will
impact.
Other examples of where a service
line installation would require
construction storm water permit
coverage would be if the activity
disturbed five or more acres (40 CFR
122.26(b)(14)(x)), or was designated by
the Director to obtain coverage for
another reason (40 CFR 122.26(a)(l)(v),
122.26(a)(9) or 122.26(g)(l)(i)). See Part
I.B.I, of the permit for further details on
eligibility. Other utility company
activities, such as the installation of
main transmission lines, should
likewise be reviewed to see if permit
coverage is required.
After considering the comments from
the utility companies, the proposed
area-wide NOI option and SWPPP
certification statement for utility
companies in the proposed permit were
deleted in the final permit. Utility
companies were generally
uncomfortable with even the limited
requirements of the area-wide NOI since
the actual construction projects where
they would be working would not be
known at the time of the NOI submittal.
The certification statement is no longer
necessary since measures to address
utility service line installations no
longer require the statement to assign
responsibility from the utility company
to another project operator. In addition,
based on the comments from the utility
companies, the frequency of the
situations in which a utility would be
considered an operator may be
significantly less than EPA had thought.
Hence, there may not be a pressing need
for the proposed streamlined permitting
option.
Construction in Cold Climates
Several comments were received
suggesting changes to the construction
general permit to accommodate cold
weather oil and gas issues or
questioning the effectiveness and
requirement for storm water pollution
prevention plans for North Slope oil and
gas facilities in Alaska. Specifically,
commenters were questioning the need
for, and appropriateness of, the permit
for gravel pad construction on the North
Slope during frozen conditions. It was
stated that construction activities only
occur during the cold months because
access is facilitated by frozen permafrost
conditions. When the North Slope is in
a thawing condition it is essentially a
wetland, which makes overland access
activities difficult as well as very
disruptive to the ecology. Commenters
expressed concern that gravel pads
might be required to establish 70%
vegetative cover prior to submitting the
NOT.
-------
7878
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 31/Tuesday. February 17, 1998/Notices
With regards to the need for a storm
water discharge permit, EPA points out
that the definition of storm water at 40
CFR 122.26(b)(13) includes snow melt
runoff. As such, EPA believes that
construction which occurs during
frozen conditions still needs a storm
water permit since the snow will
eventually melt and be discharged.
Construction activity which involves
depositing gravel fill directly into
wetlands is regulated under section 404
of the CWA which is administered by
the US Army Corps of Engineers (COE).
COE section 404 permits all require
CWA section 401 certification providing
assurance that if the construction
activity is in compliance with the COE
404 permit, there will be no water
quality standard violations.
Once the gravel pads are constructed,
it is reasonable to consider them as
permanent structures since their surface
will be used to conduct oil and gas
activities. Therefore remediation of the
pad itself (70% restoration of vegetative
cover) is not appropriate at the end of
the construction sequence. Storm water
permitting may be required, however,
for the operational phase of the pad
activities as well as gravel extraction
activities.
Other comments regarding cold
weather issues in Alaska pertained to
the remoteness of sites that would need
to be permitted and inspected.
Commenters were concerned that
accessing such remote sites is not easily
accomplished, and overly burdensome.
In response, EPA has included a special
provision in Part IV.D.4 of the final
permit to provide a waiver of the
inspection requirements when the
ground would be expected to be frozen
for an extended period of time.
Inspections would be required to begin
one month prior to when thawing
conditions are expected to begin.
Compliance With Water Quality
Standards
Several comments objected to the
inclusion of permit eligibility and
discharge compliance requirements
related to water quality standards
(WQS). EPA is obligated under CWA
section 402 (p) (3) to ensure that all
permits for discharges associated with
industrial activity (which includes
storm water discharges from
construction sites of five acres or more)
shall meet all applicable provisions of
CWA section 301.
CWA section 301 (a) states that
discharges shall be unlawful unless in
compliance with sections 301, 302, 306,
307, 318, 402, and 404 of the Act.
Section 301 provides that discharge
permits must include effluent
limitations necessary to assure that
discharges comply with State or Tribal
WQS. Effluent limitations do not have
to be numeric, especially in cases where
numeric limitations are currently
infeasible. In such cases, EPA may
require the use of best mangement
practices (BMPs) including more
sophisticated forms of treatment in
permits to satisfy the CWA's
requirements for "any more stringent
limitations as necessary to meet State
WQS.'
If a discharge is found to be violating
a water quality standard, EPA can
require that the discharge be covered by
an individual permit, which may
include more stringent controls or
numeric effluent limitations developed
to ensure compliance with WQS. The
development of the effluent limitations
would be dependent upon adequate
characterization of the discharges and
the individual permit could also include
monitoring requirements.
Some commenters were concerned
that compliance with WQS is not
possible in some situations and
therefore WQS compliance should be
waived. As stated above, compliance
with water quality standards is a
requirement of the CWA as
implemented through the NPDES
permitting program. EPA can not waive
the requirements of the CWA. If the
permittee feels that the WQS to which
they must comply are too stringent or
the cost of that compliance is too high,
several avenues of relief can be sought.
The permittee may seek changes of
WQS through a use attainability
analysis, the development of site
specific criteria, or short term WQS
variances. All of these avenues must be
pursued through consultation with the
applicable State or Tribal environmental
agency and are subject to EPA review.
If the permittee is not able to comply
with WQS as a result of the
implementation of a certain set of BMPs,
EPA recommends installing more
effective BMPs or additional BMPs to
assure compliance with WQS. If this
effort results in discharges which
continue to violate WQS, EPA
recommends that the facility cease
discharging, apply for an individual
permit, or pursue one of the options
listed above to change the WQS. (See
also EPA's memorandum of August 1,
1996, entitled "Interim Permitting
Approach for Water Quality-Based
Effluent Limitations for Storm Water
Discharges.")
EPA received several comments
regarding salt intrusion to groundwater
discharges that might exceed standards
established by the State. One
commenter suggested that the final
permit include an affirmative statement
to specify that, in developing and
implementing storm water pollution
prevention plans, permittees are not
required to remove remove constituents
that are not added by the construction
project or related activities. In response,
EPA notes that Clean Water Act section
301(b)(l)(C) requires that NPDES
permits include any more stringent
limitation including those necessary to
meet water quality standards. The CWA
does not, however, regulate releases of
polluants to groundwater unless there is
a direct hydrological connection
between a point source and surface
waters of the United States through such
groundwater. Therefore, the
commenter's recommendations were not
included in the final permit.
The California Department of
Transportation recommended that the
general permit incorporate language
similar to that developed by the State by
California for its general industrial
storm water permit. However, EPA has
recently expressed concerns to the State
regarding the language in question and
is currently working with all
stakeholders in California on alternative
language. Since EPA believes that the
language as written is not appropriate it
was not incorporated into the final
permit.
Another commenter contended that
Part III.D of the draft permit
(compliance with water quality
standards) was too weak. The
commenter recommended that the
permit also require remedial actions by
permittees to correct any damage that
may result from the discharges not in
compliance with the permit.
EPA disagrees with the commenter
that the language addressing water
quality standards compliance needs to
be strengthened. A wide variety of
enforcement responses are available to
the Agency for discharges which violate
the terms of the permit, including
requirements for remediation of
environmental damage caused by the
discharges. As such, the requested
modifications were not incorporated
into the final permit.
Protection of Endangered Species
A large number of comments were
received regarding provisions in the
permit to protect listed species and
critical habitats. For reading
convenience, similar comments have
been grouped together for response and
are listed below in items A through V.
(A) A number of commenters have
expressed the belief that the Clean
Water Act (CWA) does not allow EPA to
place conditions in National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63. No. 31/Tuesday, February 17, 1998/Notices
7879
permits to protect listed species and
critical habitat. They believe that
requirements to protect listed species
have no relation to the CWA's goal of
protecting water quality. These
commenters have requested that EPA
remove those permit conditions or
provide a legal justification as to why
they should be included.
EPA declines to remove these
provisions because the Agency believes
that conditions to protect listed species
and critical habitat are appropriate for
Federally-issued NPDES permits such as
the CGP given the requirements placed
on them by sections 7(a)(l), 7(a) (2), and
9 of the ESA. By placing ESA
requirements on Federal agencies and
their actions, Congress intended that
Federal permits could contain
conditions to protect listed species and
critical habitat. ESA regulations at 50
CFR 402.02 define an "action" subject
to section 7 to include "permits," and
EPA first recognized the applicability of
ESA section 7 to the Federal NPDES
program in 1979, when it promulgated
regulations listing the ESA as a Federal
law which may apply to EPA-issued
permits. See 44 CFR 32917 0une 7,
1979). EPA's current regulations at 40
CFR 122.49(c)6 and 122.43(a) 1 require
that EPA adopt or consider the adoption
of permit conditions to comply with
ESA requirements.
Finally, EPA notes that 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.
6 The pertinent portions of 40 CFR 122.49 read as
follows: Considerations under Federal law. The
following is a list of Federal laws that may apply
to the issuance of permits under these rules. When
any of these laws is applicable, its procedures must
be followed. When the applicable law requires
consideration or adoption of particular permit
conditions or requires the denial of a permit, those
requirements also must be followed. * * * (c) The
Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. 1531 etseq.
section 7 of the Act and implementing regulations
(50 CFR part 402) require the Regional
Administrator to ensure, in consultation with the
Secretary of the Interior or Commerce, that any
action authorized by EPA is not likely to jeopardize
the continued existence of any endangered or
threatened species or adversely affect its critical
habitat. (Emphasis added).
7 40 CFR 122.43(a) states: "In addition to
conditions required in all permits (122.41 and
122.42). the Director shall establish conditions, as
required on a case-by-case basis, to provide for and
assure compliance with all applicable requirements
of CWA and regulations. These shall include
conditions under 122.46 (duration of permits),
122.47(a) (schedules of compliance). 122.48
(monitoring), and for EPA permits only 122.47(b)
(alternates schedule of compliance) and 122.49
(considerations under Federal law)." (Emphasis
added.)
These goals include the protection of
listed and other at-risk species.
(B) Other commenters have
characterized the ESA as a new
environmental law that permit
applicants are being required to certify
under. EPA does not believe that the
ESA is a new environmental law
because it has been listed in EPA's
regulations since 1979 as a statute
which may apply to the issuance of
NPDES permits by EPA.
(C) Some commenters have objected
to measures to protect species and
critical habitat in the proposed permit
as an impermissible delegation of EPA's
section 7 consultation responsibilities to
the permit applicant.
EPA recognizes that as the action
Federal agency, it bears the ultimate
responsibility for compliance with
section 7 of the ESA for issuance of the
CGP. It is not abrogating that
responsibility. However, given the
CGP's potential coverage of over 13,000
construction activities per year that are
scattered across eight States and
numerous other Federal permitting
jurisdictions, it is essential that permit
applicants and permittees consider the
effects of their particular actions on
listed species and critical habitat, and to
take measures to protect those
resources, if EPA is to ensure that
issuance and operation of the CGP is not
likely to adversely affect listed species
and critical habitat.
As noted above, EPA believes that
under the CWA and the ESA, it is
appropriate for NPDES permits to
require that applicants and permittees
take measures to protect listed species.
EPA also believes that such conditions
should require that applicants consider
the potential and actual effects of their
actions on listed species and critical
habitat. Storm water general permits
place substantial responsibilities on
permit applicants and permittees to
ensure that their storm water discharges
are protective of the environment. This
includes the development of
information (as part of the NOI and
SWPPP development process) to ensure
compliance with permit requirements.
The ESA regulations clearly allow for
permit applicants to develop and collect
information on the effects of their
proposed actions on listed species and
critical habitat.8 Those regulations also
provide that applicants can conduct
informal consultation as non-Federal
Representatives (NFRs). see 50 CFR
402.08.
* Applicants are listed throughout the ESA
consultation regulations and preambles as involved
parties in the consultation process.
The conditions being established by
EPA through ESA section 7 consultation
to protect listed species and critical
habitat are designed to focus EPA, Fish
and Wildlife Service (FWS), and
National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS) resources on those permitted
activities that merit a site-specific ESA
section 7 consultation or section 10
permit. Where a site-specific section 7
consultation is appropriate, the CGP
allows for either informal consultation
(with the applicant having NFR status)
or for formal consultation. EPA is
prepared to conduct site-specific
consultations where necessary to ensure
that permitted activities are protective
of listed species. However, given the
large number of expected applicants and
limits on EPA's resources, it is faster
and more efficient for the bulk of these
consultations to be carried out as
informal consultations with permit
applicants as non-Federal
representatives.
Finally, EPA notes that it has
completed section 7 consultation and
conferencing for issuance and operation
of the CGP and that the FWS and the
NMFS (the "Services") have concurred
with the approach taken in the permits
and with EPA's finding that the
issuance and operation of the CGP is not
likely to result in adverse effects to
listed species and critical habitat.
(D) Some commenters have also noted
that shifting the burden for carrying out
consultation will result in
administrative difficulties for the
Services. EPA coordinated development
of the CGP with the Services and notes
that the CGP conditions are designed to
reduce the number of site specific
consultations to those actions where
adverse effects may be likely. However,
it is possible that a large number of site-
specific consultations will be performed
for activities covered by the CGP.
(E) A number of commenters were
concerned that these conditions will be
difficult to comply with. Specifically,
commenters were concerned that
information on listed species and
critical habitat will be hard to obtain.
They have asked that EPA make species
lists, critical habitat, and other
information readily available to the
public. Some commenters have asked
that this information be placed in the
permit or on the Internet. They have
noted that many permit applicants will
not know how to comply with these
requirements. Some commenters have
also requested that EPA ensure that any
ESA guidance remain in the final permit
document.
EPA has worked closely with the
Services to give the greatest flexibility to
permittees in complying with
-------
7880
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 31/Tuesday, February 17. 1998/Notices
requirements to protect listed species
and critical habitat. While EPA realizes
that fulfilling some CGP requirements to
protect listed species and critical habitat
may seem difficult to some applicants,
the procedures to meet those
requirements are similar to those
already undertaken by many developers
and contractors to obtain ESA section 10
permits for protection from incidental
takes liability. As noted above, the CGP
allows applicants to use section 10
permits to meet permit eligibility
requirements.
There is much information on listed
species and designated critical habitat
that is publicly available. Lists of
endangered and threatened species are
published by the Fish and Wildlife
Service and the National Marine
Fisheries Service and can be found in 50
CFR 17 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFRs). The CFRs are
widely available and can be found in
many libraries or law libraries. Copies of
the CFRs can also be ordered from the
Government Printing Office which
maintains a number of book stores
throughout the country 9 or they can be
accessed for free at the GPO Website
(http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/
index.htm).
The Services also maintain electronic
copies of these lists at their respective
World Wide Web sites. Lists of species
under the FWS jurisdiction can be
accessed at the Endangered Species
Home Page (http://www.fws.gov/
-rQendspp/endspp.html) (which is also
attached to the FWS Home Page (http:/
/www.fws.gov) in the "Nationwide
Activities Category"). Lists of species
under NMFS jurisdiction can be found
on the NMFS Homepage (http://
www.nmfs.gov) under the "Protected
Resources Program." Lists and maps of
critical habitat can be found in the Code
of Federal Regulations at 50 CFR 17 and
226.
Also, information on listed species
and critical habitat can also be obtained
by contacting the FWS and NMFS
offices or by contacting the Biodiversity
Heritage Centers of the Natural Heritage
Network. The FWS has offices in every
State. NMFS has offices in certain
States. A list of NMFS and FWS office
addresses is provided in Addendum A
of the permit. The Natural Heritage
Network comprises 85 biodiversity data
'GPO bookstores are located in Atlanta, GA;
Birmingham, AL; Boston, MA; Chicago IL;
Cleveland, OH; Columbus, OH; Dallas, TX; Denver,
CO; Detroit MI; Houston TX; Jacksonville, FL;
Kansas City, MO; Laurel, MD; Los Angeles, CA;
Milwaukee, WT; New York, NY; Philadelphia, PA;
Pittsburgh, PA; Portland, OR; Pueblo, CO; San
Francisco, CA; Seattle, WA; and Washington, DC.
centers throughout the Western
Hemisphere.
These centers collect, organize, and
share data relating to endangered and
threatened species and habitat. The
network was developed to promote
informed land-use decisions by
developers, corporations,
conservationists, and government
agencies, and is also consulted for
research and educational purposes. The
centers maintain a Natural Heritage
Network Control Server Website (http:/
/www.heritage.tnc.org) which provides
website and other access to a large
number of specific biodiversity centers.
A list of biodiversity center addresses is
provided in Addendum A of the CGP.
Addendum A also contains a list by
county of all species in areas covered by
the CGP that are listed as endangered
and threatened ("listed species") or
proposed for listing as endangered and
threatened ("proposed species'). This
list is current as of September 1, 1997.
Because the status of species and
counties will change over time, EPA
will periodically update the county list
and make it electronically available on
the EPA's website. CGP applicants can
get updated species information for
their county by calling the appropriate
Fish and Wildlife Service office or
National Marine Fisheries Service
office. EPA Region 2 applicants10 can
also contact the EPA Region 6 and
Region 2 Storm Water Hotline (1-800-
245-6510) for updated species
information. Applicants from other EPA
Regions can contact the appropriate
EPA Regional Office for updated species
information.
Finally, EPA has worked with the
Services to expand Addendum A to
provide more guidance on how meet the
permit eligibility requirements and to
protect listed species. There are also a
number of guidance documents
produced by the Fish and Wildlife
Service and the National Marine
Fisheries Service to assist the public in
meeting ESA requirements. Many of
those documents are electronically
available on the Services" Internet sites.
(F) Some commenters have requested
that EPA publicly notice any species to
be included in the final county species
list that were not found in the
Addendum H of the Multi-Sector
General Permit issued on September 29,
1995 (60 FR 50804). EPA declines to
take this action because it believes
sufficient public notice was provided in
the proposal when EPA referred
reviewers to the Multi-Sector General
10 Region 2 permit areas include Indian Country
lands in the State of New York and the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
Permit's Addendum H list (62 FR 29791,
footnote #12 (June 2, 1997)), which
contains similar species on a county
basis to that contained in Addendum A
of the CGP. Furthermore, EPA notes that
all of the proposed and listed species
found on both Addendum A of the CGP
and Addendum H of the Multi-Sector
General Permit already have undergone
public notice as part of the ESA listing
process.
(G) Some commenters have noted that
the Addendum A species list may not
remain current in light of new species
listings. As noted above, EPA is
planning to provide regular updates of
the list and to make it available to
permit applicants.
(H) Commenters have also expressed
concerns with the timing of this process.
They have noted that once a project has
reached the construction stage, there is
not enough time to take action to protect
listed species. EPA encourages permit
applicants to analyze effects to listed
species and critical habitat at the
earliest possible stage. EPA has required
applicants to analyze impacts to species
when developing storm water pollution
prevention plans (SWPPPs) prior to
submitting NOIs. However, applicants
may choose to conduct this review at an
even earlier time. Any conditions to
protect species and critical habitat must
be incorporated into the SWPPP.
(I) EPA solicited comments on
whether the scope of effects to listed
species and critical habitat to be
considered by permit applicants should
encompass the entire construction site.
A number of commenters supported this
expansion. Some commenters did not
think there was anything to be gained by
broadening the scope of the area to
include the entire site. Other
commenters did not believe that storm
water regulation extended to land areas
unaffected by either storm water
discharges or best management practices
(BMPs).
EPA has revised its permit conditions
and Addendum A instructions to
require that permit applicants consider
the effects of "storm water discharges
and storm water discharge-related
activities" on listed endangered and
threatened species and critical habitat
within the "project area." The terms
"storm water discharge and storm water
discharge-related activities" replaces the
terms "storm water discharges and
construction and implementation of best
management practices" used in the
proposal. "Discharge-related activities"
include (1) activities which cause point
source storm water pollutant discharges
including but not limited to excavation,
site development, and other surface
disturbing activities, and (2) measures to
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63. No. 31/Tuesday, February 17, 1998/Notices
7881
control, reduce, or prevent storm water
pollution including the siting,
construction, and operation of BMPs.
This revision expands the scope of
effects that should be considered for
listed species when compared to the
proposed permit. The term "project
area" now replaces the proposed term,
"in proximity to." The "project area"
includes: areas on the construction site
where storm water discharges originate
and flow towards the point of discharge
into the receiving waters (this includes
all areas where excavation, site
development, or other ground
disturbance activities occur), and the
immediate vicinity; areas where storm
water discharges flow from the
construction site to the point of
discharge into receiving waters; areas
where storm water from construction
activities discharges into the receiving
waters; areas in the immediate vicinity
of the point of discharge; and areas
where storm water BMPs will be
constructed and operated, including any
areas where storm water flows to and
from BMPs.
EPA anticipates that the project area
will vary from site-to-site depending on
the size and structure of the
construction activity, the nature and
quantity of the storm water discharges,
the measures (including BMPs) to
control storm water runoff, and the type
of receiving waters. In many cases, the
project area will encompass an entire
construction site. However, there could
be situations where project area may
encompass a portion of the site (for
example, where the actual construction
disturbs only a portion of a land
development project). EPA believes the
revised scope of the permit is more
consistent with the definitions of
"effect" and "action area" found in the
ESA regulations and affords better
protection for listed species and critical
habitat while ensuring that CGP storm
water controls are not extended into
areas that bear no relation to the
discharge of polluted storm water.
Some commenters believe the scope
of effects of the permit is too narrow. In
particular, they believe that the scope
should encompass areas farther
downstream than what was proposed in
the permit, which directed permit
applicants to consider effects to listed
species and critical habitat in the
immediate vicinity or nearby the point
of discharge. EPA declines to expand
this scope beyond what was proposed
because the proposed (defining "in
proximity") and final permit language
(defining "project area") allow for a
flexible determination of effects which
can extend further downstream
depending on the circumstances
surrounding each discharge. Those
circumstances vary with the size and
structure of the construction activity,
the nature and quantity of the storm
water discharges, the measures
(including BMPs) to control storm water
runoff, and the type of receiving waters.
Also, the CGP does not authorize any
discharges that would cause or
contribute to a violation of water quality
standards. Water quality standards are
designed to be protective of use of the
water, including aquatic life and
consequently, listed species. Moreover,
under the CWA, any discharge must not
only ensure compliance with the water
quality standards of the water where the
discharge is located, but also any
downstream water quality standards.
Thus, the scope of the inquiry under
this permit is not so narrow as this
commenter suggests. EPA believes that
any downstream water quality impacts
associated with discharges of
stormwater under this permit will be
adequately accounted for.
Commenters have also requested that
EPA consider or require that applicants
consider effects to listed species from
storm water contamination that enters
into groundwater which then enters into
surface waters where those species are
found.
EPA believes it is providing for the
consideration of effects from discharges
to hydrologically connected
groundwater. EPA interprets the CWA's
NPDES permitting program to regulate
discharges to surface water via
groundwater where there is a direct and
immediate hydrologic connection
("hydrologically connected") between
the groundwater and the surface water.
However, EPA also believes that this use
of NPDES permits is highly dependent
on the facts surrounding each
permitting situation. CGP coverage can
extend to discharges to surface water via
hydrologically connected groundwater
and CGP applicants, like any other
NPDES applicant, should consider those
types of discharges when applying for
permit coverage. However, these
discharges may at times be better suited
for individual permits, and EPA may
require that applicants obtain an
individual permits as provided at Part
VI.L. of the CGP and in 40 CFR
122.28(b)(3) of EPA's general permit
regulations. Permit applicants and the
interested people can also petition EPA
under those provisions to require
coverage by an individual permit.
0) A number of commenters have
questioned why there is a need to have
specific conditions in the permit to
protect listed species and critical habitat
when there are other laws or procedures
which accomplish the same goal. Some
commenters have noted that ESA
section 10 procedures are already used
by developers and that requiring
additional procedures in the CGP to
protect species amounts to "double
regulation."
EPA intends to provide applicants
with the greatest degree of flexibility in
meeting the Part I.B.3.e.(2) eligibility
requirements for CGP coverage. The
permit allows applicants to use section
10 procedures to meet the eligibility
requirements of Part I.B.3.e.(2). As such,
EPA is not imposing "double
regulations" on permittees.
Other commenters have also
questioned whether there is a need to
have these procedures where a 404
permit is being issued or where a NEPA
review is being conducted for the same
site. EPA notes that a 404 permit or a
NEPA review can suffice for CGP
coverage under part I.B.3.(e)(2)(b),
provided, a section 7 consultation has
been performed as part of the NEPA
review or 404 permit issuance and the
consultation addresses effects from
storm water discharges and storm water
discharge-related activities.
One commenter noted that some
States have protective and stringent
environmental review laws which apply
to NPDES permits and there is no reason
for applicants in those States to
undertake additional requirements to
protect listed species and critical
habitat. EPA notes that while the
information developed for compliance
with State environmental review
statutes can be used to meet the
eligibility requirements of Part
I.B.3.e.(2)(a) for CGP coverage where
there are no listed species present or
where there is no likelihood of adverse
effects to listed species, EPA does not
believe that compliance with a State
environmental review by itself is
sufficient to substitute for section 7
consultation or a section 10 permit since
State reviews may not take Federally
listed species and critical habitat into
account. However, information
generated from a State environmental
review can also serve as a basis for a
section 7 consultation or applying for a
section 10 permit for the purposes of
meeting the eligibility requirements of
PartI.B.3.e.(2)(b)or(c).
(K) Some commenters have asked for
clarification on whether EPA is
requiring permit applicants to address
State and Federally listed endangered
and threatened species or solely
Federally listed species. One commenter
recommended that applicants should be
made aware that State laws and
regulations involving endangered
species may impact their projects. EPA
is requiring that permit applicants
-------
7882
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 31/Tuesday. February 17, 1998/Notices
consider impacts to Federally listed
species and designated critical habitat.
However, EPA notes that States have the
authority to impose their own
requirements under State law to protect
Federally or State protected species
from construction activities, and that
Part VI.M. of the CGP states that
coverage by the permit does not release
any permittee from meeting the
responsibilities or requirements
imposed under other environmental
statutes or regulations. Those
environmental statutes and regulations
include State laws for the protection of
imperiled wildlife and vegetation, and
other natural resources.
(L) One commenter has characterized
the CGP conditions as allowing any
discharge unless it is likely to adversely
affect a listed species of critical habitat.
It expressed the belief that this is not the
correct standard to use when
determining coverage under a general
permit which is meant for routine cases.
EPA notes, however, this standard
will ensure that the operation of the
permit is not likely to adversely affect
listed species and critical habitat. This
approach, which was subject to ESA
section 7 consultation with the Services,
will focus limited EPA and Service
resources on those permitting situations
where potential adverse effects are
likely. This is important given the vast
number of activities projected to be
covered by the CGP. Thus, EPA believes
this standard to be appropriate for the
CGP.
(M) Some commenters have expressed
the belief that hydrologically,
geologically, or environmentally unique
areas such as the Barton Springs
watershed near Austin, Texas, require
special protections for listed species and
critical habitat. They have requested
that either separate, more stringent
general permits be developed for these
areas or that EPA require individual
permits for construction activities
occurring there. One commenter has
also requested that a separate
consultation be conducted for the
Barton Springs segment of the Edwards
Aquifer.
EPA believes that the final CGP
conditions provide stringent protection
for the environment and listed species.
EPA closely coordinated with the
Services on which ESA section 7
approach was best suited for EPA's
issuance of the CGP. EPA and the
Services agreed that a national ESA
section 7 consultation coupled with
permit conditions to allow for
individual site-specific consultations is
the best mechanism to assure that the
CGP is protective of listed species and
the environment.
The Agency believes that the general
permit as issued insures that any area
with special site-specific circumstances
will be protected. No discharge may be
authorized under this permit that will
adversely affect any listed species,
unless those effects have been actually
addressed through an ESA section 7
consultation process or section 10
permit issuance that takes into account
the impact on the particular species of
concern. Therefore, EPA believes that
the process envisioned by this general
permit effectively provides for
consideration of site-specific issues that
are of concern to this commenter.
(N) One commenter has questioned
whether EPA complied with the ESA
section 7 conferencing requirements to
confer with the Services where an
agency action is likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of any proposed
species or result in the destruction or
adverse modification of proposed
critical habitat. In response, the CGP
does not authorize any storm water
discharges or storm water discharge-
related activities that are likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of
any proposed species or result in the
adverse modification or destruction of
proposed critical habitat. Nonetheless,
EPA entered into and completed ESA
section 7 conferencing with the Services
at the same time it undertook informal
consultation.
(O) Several commenters have asked
for clarification on the extent of their
liability if they rely on another
operator's certification with respect to
effects to listed species and critical
habitat if that certification proves to be
inadequate or contains falsehoods. Also,
utility operators have raised the issue as
to the nature and extent of their liability
where their certification is based on
another operator's certification.
Applicants/permittees who rely on
another operator's certification to meet
the eligibility requirements of the
permit may be liable for inadequacies or
falsehoods in that certification. This
potential liability is well described in
the certification language of the NOI
form which states:
I [the applicant] 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 this 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 am aware that there
are significant penalties for submitting false
information, including the possibility of fine
and imprisonment for knowing violations.
Thus, it is important for those
applicants who choose to rely on
another operator's certification that they
carefully review that certification and
its SWPPP for accuracy and
completeness. If the certification
appears to be inadequate in any way,
then EPA recommends that an applicant
provide an independent basis for its
certification in its SWPPP. EPA notes
that as a matter of enforcement
discretion it will consider the
circumstances that are unique to each
enforcement situation, and an
applicant's good faith reliance on
another operator's certification may be a
mitigating factor in such situations.
Utilities that fit the definition of
operator and who choose to rely on
another operator's certification are liable
to the same extent as any other operator
who relies on another operator's
certification.
(P) One commenter asserted that the
proposed permit is not in compliance
with section 7(a)(l) of the ESA, which
directs agencies to utilize their
authorities in furtherance of the
purposes of the ESA by carrying out
programs for the conservation of listed
species. The purposes of the ESA
include recovering listed species so that
they no longer need ESA protection, and
conserving the ecosystems upon which
listed species depend.
EPA believes that the protections built
into this permit will not only avoid or
minimize adverse effects to listed
species, but also affirmatively benefit
such species, the ecosystems upon
which they currently depend, and the
unoccupied habitat into which they may
recover. These benefits are inherent in
the fact that the function of this permit
is to reduce discharges of pollutants into
the aquatic environment. Reducing
pollution from construction activities
reduces stress on both the individuals of
listed species and aquatic ecosystems.
Moreover, the permit contemplates that
case-by-case protection may be
developed, as appropriate, when
consultation with the Service (s) occurs
prior to permit coverage. The
involvement of the Service (s)' biologists
in such cases ensures that site-specific
conservation opportunities will be
identified.
(Q) Some commenters have requested
that residential construction that occurs
on a fully developed site be exempt
from the endangered species
certification requirement.
EPA declines to provide that
exemption. EPA notes that impacts to
listed species and critical habitat can
also occur from development and
construction even on fully developed
sites (for example, at the point of
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 31/Tuesday, February 17, 1998/Notices
7883
discharge into surface waters) and thus,
residential construction operators
should not be exempted from the
endangered species certification
requirements.
(R) Some commenters are concerned
that Fish and Wildlife Offices (FWS)
may not have enough staff to respond to
queries or consultation requests from
CGP applicants regarding listed species
and critical habitat.
EPA believes that the Services have
the staffing levels to address queries
from permit applicants and notes that
the CGP was issued in close
consultation with FWS. The CGP also
provides flexiblity by allowing permit
applicants to use sources other than
FWS for obtaining information on listed
species. Applicants can use the Natural
Heritage Centers whose addresses are
listed in listed in Addendum A of diis
permit. Therefore, EPA believes that the
flexibilities built into the CGP will
ensure that the FWS offices are not
overburdened.
(S) One commenter expressed concern
regarding the obligation of NPDES storm
water permitted facilities in determining
construction site compliance with the
ESA and NHPA. The commenter
requested a clarification that the role of
an NPDES-permitted municipality is
limited to verifying that the pertinent
sections of the NOI have been
completed and that municipality is not
under an obligation of verify the
accuracy of certifications under the ESA
and NHPA.
The reference to "NPDES permitted
municipality" was intended to refer to
a Municipal Separate Storm Sewer
System (MS4) with an NPDES permit.
The CGP does not impose requirements
on MS4s to evaluate or verify NOIs
submitted by third parties. However, if
a municipality were to receive CGP
coverage as an operator (by itself
engaging in construction activities or
development) as defined in Part IX.N. of
the CGP, its obligation to meet the
eligibility requirements of Part I.E.3
would be the same as any other operator
under the CGP.
(T) Some commenters have stated that
the proper party to bear responsibility
for impacts to listed species is the
public owner or site developer.
It is not clear whether this commenter
intends for the term "public owner" to
refer to governmental entities. EPA
notes that the CGP applies to anyone
who fits the definition of "operator" in
Part IX.N of the permit. The CGP does
allow for an overall developer or public
owner to provide for a comprehensive
certification which can be adopted by
other operators on the site. While
allowing for a single comprehensive
certification to cover for other operator
certifications may be the most efficient
way to meet the certification
requirements in many cases, there will
also be situations where it is better to
allow site operators the option of
providing an independent basis for their
certifications. Some operators may be in
a better position to accurately assess the
effects of their actions on listed species
and may not want to rely on another
operator's certification. There could also
be instances where a primary contractor,
and not the developer or owner, is better
situated to develop a comprehensive
certification. For those reasons, EPA
declines to impose certification
requirements solely on the public owner
or site developer.
(U) Some commenters have stated that
complying with the ESA certification
procedures will require a substantial
increase in time and resources in many
situations and may double the
paperwork burden from that of the
earlier, first round Baseline
Construction General Permit (BCGP).
EPA acknowledges that the CGP will
impose an increased burden on
operators to meet the certification
requirements as compared to that of the
BCGP. However, the substantive
requirements for the CGP are more
flexible and allow for NPDES coverage
in more situations than the BCGP which
denied coverage to anyone whose
discharges might adversely affect listed
or proposed to be listed endangered and
threatened species or critical habitat (57
FR 41218, September 9, 1992). EPA also
notes that CGP eligibility requirements
represent a substantial improvement
over the baseline protections which
were rudimentary with respect to
protecting listed species.
EPA has worked closely with the
Services and given great consideration
of public comments to ensure that these
procedures are as flexible and least
burdensome as possible. By allowing
operators to rely on another operator's
certification, EPA believes any
additional burden imposed by these
requirements can be kept to a minimum.
EPA also notes that many of the
procedures established to meet the CGP
eligibility requirements are the same as
those that developers or contractors
would have to undergo anyway in order
to obtain a section 10 permit for
protection from ESA section 9 liability
for incidental takes. The permit does
allow for the acquisition of a section 10
permit as a way to meet the eligibility
conditions. EPA has also provided
guidance, containing species lists and
other information, to assist permittees in
meeting the eligibility requirements.
Therefore, EPA believes that an increase
in burden will be minimized for most
applicants and can be balanced against
the greater availability of CGP coverage
to applicants.
(V) Some commenters have stated that
the ESA certification requirements
violate the Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA). EPA has modified its Information
Collection Request (ICR) to account for
changes in the paperwork burden
imposed by the certification
requirements and has followed all other
procedures to ensure that the PRA
requirements are met. Therefore, EPA
has issued the CGP in full compliance
with the PRA. EPA will be analyzing
future NOIs to adjust certification
burden estimates appropriately in the
renewal of this revised ICR.
Protection of Historic Properties
EPA received numerous comments
concerning implementation of National
Historic Preservation Act (NHPA)
requirements in the CGP. To avoid any
confusion or inconsistencies that may
result after further discussions between
EPA and the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation under the NHPA,
this permit does not include eligibility
restrictions or evaluation requirements
related to historic preservation. EPA
may modify the permit at a later date
based on those discussions. In that
modification action, EPA would
respond to NHPA-related comments
submitted when EPA proposed today's
permit to the extent such comments
remain relevant.
Notice of Intent and Notice of
Termination Requirements
Notice of Intent (NOI)
Several of the comments received
regarding proposed revisions to the
Notice of Intent (NOI) form requested
clarification and questioned the need for
some of the information being
requested. It is important to note that
the revised NOI form is still undergoing
development and may not be issued in
its final form by the time the final CGP
is published. Until the revised NOI form
is finalized and published in the
Federal Register, applicants must use
the existing NOI form which does not
contain the specific certification
provisions relating to listed species,
critical habitat or historic properties at
construction projects. However, use of
the existing NOI form does not relieve
applicants of their obligation to follow
the procedures listed below to
determine if their construction storm
water discharges or storm water
discharge-related activities meet permit
eligibility requirements for the
protection of historic properties.
-------
7884
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 31/Tuesday, February 17, 1998/Notices
One commenter opposed the
requirement for a separate NOI from the
"owner/developer" and the "operator"
stating that the terminology is not
consistent with Part III.E,
Responsibilities of Operators, of the
proposed permit and that a single NOI
from the owner or operator is sufficient.
In response to this comment, when
applying the two criteria found in the
definition of "operator" (i.e., the party
that has control over construction plans
and specifications, and the party with
control over implementing SWPPP or
other permit conditions), two or more
entities may be required to submit NOI
forms for permit coverage. At a typical
construction project, the owner will
usually meet the first criterion while the
site's general contractor will meet the
second, thus requiring that both entities
submit a NOI. Where the owner is also
the project's general contractor, only
one NOI form may need to be submitted.
Since EPA believes the terminology
used in Parts III.E. 1 and III.E.2 of the
proposed permit to be consistent with
the definition of "operator," no changes
were made in the final permit.
Two commenters favored the use of
county information on the NOI form.
Another recommended that the
submission of latitude and longitude
data for a site be optional since other
legal descriptions are more readily
available. In response, EPA has found
that latitude and longitude are
universally used to describe location on
maps and are compatible with
Geographic Information Systems (CIS).
The use of latitude and longitude will
also allow EPA to interface with State
CIS systems, thus enhancing EPA's
ability to deal with projects on a
watershed basis. The NOI form
instructions provide an Internet address
which provides latitude and longitude
information as well as a toll free phone
number to obtain U.S. Geological
Survey quadrangle maps. Consequently,
requests for county and latitude/
longitude information will remain on
the NOI form.
Two commenters were concerned
with the question regarding compliance
of the Storm Water Pollution Prevention
Plan (SWPPP) with applicable local
sediment and erosion plans. One stated
that a certification cannot be given by
the general contractor who did not
design the post-construction controls or
the owner who has delegated the
authority for the construction controls
to the general contractor. The
commenter suggested rewording Part
II.B. 1 .h of the proposed permit. Upon
further consideration, EPA found this
question to be unnecessary and has
deleted it from the NOI form.
One commenter recommended
changing the term pollution prevention
plan to storm water pollution
prevention plan. EPA made this change
to the NOI form.
One commenter believes it is
sufficient that the SWPPP be completed
prior to commencing construction
activity and not before the NOI form is
submitted. EPA has deleted the question
regarding implementation of the
SWPPP. However, before the NOI form
can be submitted, the SWPPP must be
completed to ensure that appropriate
controls to meet ESA and NHPA
certification requirements, if needed, are
included to avoid or mitigate adverse
effects to listed endangered or
threatened species, critical habitat or
historic properties. Since applicants do
not have to submit their NOI's until 48
hours prior to the commencement of
construction, this is not a significant
period of time and should have no effect
on construction activities.
One commenter recommended
deleting the question regarding estimate
of the likelihood of discharges or
clarifying its purpose. In response, EPA
believes that it is important to request
such information because it requires
applicants to consider the expected
frequency of discharges from a site and
anticipate the need for inspections and
maintenance of storm water controls. In
response to another comment that
requested this question be deleted
because the environmental risk between
infrequent arid discharges and more
common temperate discharges has not
been established, EPA will not use
responses to this question as an absolute
measure of risk but only an indication
of risk at that site.
One commenter requested that EPA
expand the requirements of the NOI to
provide better accountability to the
public and government agencies and
improved oversight of a project. The
commenter noted that the Urban Wet
Weather Flows Federal Advisory
Committee (UWWFFAC) agreed upon
an "expanded NOI" for industrial
activities and agreed on this idea for
construction activities as well. However,
consensus on what the "expanded NOI"
should consist of for construction
activities was not reached. In addition,
the commenter suggested the following
items (which should be included in the
SWPPP and known at the time of
submittal of the NOI) be added to the
form: a brief description of the project;
the overall size of the project in addition
to the number of acres that will be
disturbed; if there are any permanent
water bodies including wetlands on or
near the site; how close the disturbed
areas will be to the water body or
wetland; predominant soil type (soil
conservation service soil series,
hydrological soil group and erosion
factors); maximum slope in disturbed
areas; a check-off section for
identification of principal Best
Management Practices to be used on-
site; number of phases for the project (if
10 acres or above); number of acres per
phase (if 10 acres or above) or for the
whole project (for projects less than 10
acres; die schedule of construction
activities; and for each phase the
estimated time and number of acres that
will be exposed to precipitation after
removal of vegetative cover and before
final stabilization. In response, since
these additional questions were not
proposed for public comment, will
increase the regulated community's
administrative and cost burdens
associated with completing the form,
and are subject to prior U.S. Office of
Management and Budget review and
approval, EPA is not including them on
the NOI form at this time. EPA is,
however, proceeding with an expanded
revision to the NOI form for industrial
storm water dischargers applying for
coverage under EPA's Multi-Sector
General Permit.
One commenter suggested that it
would be more efficient to administer
NOIs at the EPA Regional level and
asked if this data can be accessed or
used by the public or permit holders.
EPA has found that having a central
location for processing NOIs has been
an efficient and effective method of
managing the tremendous amount of
data which the program has generated
since its inception in 1992, and sees no
reason to change at this time. Members
of the public can request information
contained in the NOI database by
sending a signed letter to the US EPA
(4203), Storm Water NOI Center, 401 M.
Street, SW, Washington, D.C. 20460.
To streamline and clarify the NOI,
EPA intends to make other changes to
the proposed form. These changes are
contingent upon EPA receiving approval
from the US Office of Management and
Budget. The terms located underneath
the EPA logo on the form have been
revised to state that: (1) Submission of
the NOI constitutes notice that the
eligibility requirements in Part I.B. of
the general permit, including those
related to protection of endangered
species and critical habitat, are met; (2)
the applicant understands that
continued authorization to discharge is
contingent on maintaining permit
eligibility; and (3) implementation of
the SWPPP will begin at the time the
permittee begins work on the
construction project. These
clarifications were made to emphasize
-------
Federal Reglster/Vol. 63. No. 31/Tuesday, February 17, 1998/Notices
7885
the need to meet requirements
pertaining to endangered or threatened
species and critical habitat.
EPA has made information regarding
the location for viewing site SWPPPs
and contact information optional. EPA
encourages applicants to provide this
information to improve public access to
view SWPPPs. Upon request, EPA
intends to assist members of the public
in obtaining access to permitting
information, including SWPPPs.
For clarification, EPA has reworded
the question regarding listed
endangered or threatened species or
designated critical habitat in the project
area of this site. EPA has changed the
proposed certification statement to be
the same as that contained in Box 1 of
the current NOI form. The proposed
certification statement had included
information regarding the Endangered
Species Act and National Historic
Preservation Act. This information has
been moved to a different section of the
form to appear as two separate questions
where applicants can check under
which provision of the permit they
satisfy eligibility requirements with
regard to protection of endangered or
threatened species or their critical
habitat. Applicants will not be required
at this time to identify which provision
of the permit they are certifying
eligibility under for the protection of
historic properties. The Agency intends
on modifying the permit (if necessary)
after completion of the Programmatic
Agreement between EPA and the
Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation in order to provide the
certification language.
EPA deleted the following questions
because they were determined to be
unnecessary: (1) "Will construction
(land disturbing activities) be conducted
for storm water controls?"; and (2) "Is
application subject to a written historic
preservation agreement?"
EPA requested comments on
alternative time frames for NOI
submittals. One option required a 30-
day advance time frame in which to
submit a NOI. The Agency received
several comments encouraging EPA to
adopt the 30-day time frame because it
would provide the developer with a
permit number at the commencement of
construction. All other operators could
then apply for coverage 48 hours before
beginning work at the project. This
would provide a consistent tracking
mechanism for each project since the
project name and contractors may
change during the course of a project. It
would also allow EPA sufficient time to
verify that permittees are eligible for
coverage under the ESA provisions.
Another commenter suggested that the
30-day period would allow citizens
more time to find out about a project,
assess the storm water management
plans, and discuss their concerns with
the permittee if necessary. In this way,
prior notice could actually reduce
disputes and controversy. Under the 48
hour requirement contained in the
BCGP, an NOI would probably not be
received by EPA until construction had
already started.
However, most commenters stated
that the present requirement of filing a
NOI 48 hours prior to the
commencement of construction
activities should remain in effect. They
felt extending the deadline to 30 days
would hinder construction efforts, bring
about unnecessary delays, disrupt
construction schedules, and place
unnecessary additional burdens on
permittees. One commenter from Alaska
stated the Alaska construction season is
short and in some cases a 30-day
advance filing period would delay a
project for an entire year. Another
commenter stated any extension of the
two day notification time frame would
only serve to slow residential
construction activities and add interests
costs to the activities of small
businesses and home buyers. The
commenter also felt that requiring the
30-day advance notice on small, routine
construction projects would force
project teams and construction crews to
be mobilized for at least one additional
month, without much environmental
benefit and at additional expense.
After considering all comments
related to the 30-day NOI submission
requirement, EPA has retained the
permit requirement to submit an NOI at
least 48 hours prior to the start of
construction activities.
Many commenters expressed concern
about having to submit up to three NOI
forms for ongoing construction projects
in order to maintain permit coverage.
For instance, an initial NOI was
required 48 hours prior to the
commencement of construction
activities under the BCGP. Then, a
second NOI was required at least 48
hours prior to the permit's expiration
date to continue coverage for ongoing
projects. Finally, a third NOI must be
submitted for the project if it was not
completed prior to the effective date of
the reissued general permit.
A number of applicants stated the
process should be simplified. They
noted that EPA should issue a blanket
extension to cover all projects which
continue after the expiration of the
BCGP, and permittees should be
allowed to submit an abbreviated form
to receive continued permit coverage.
One commenter suggested that
permittees send in post cards requesting
extended coverage under the expired
permit, and file a new NOI when the
permit is reissued. The post card would
be a pre-printed form by EPA where the
permittee fills in the blanks.
In response to the comments
concerning the need to submit multiple
NOIs in order to maintain permit
coverage, EPA has simplified the
process for dischargers covered by the
permit prior to expiration. If EPA does
not reissue this permit prior to
expiration, EPA will presume that
covered permittees seek continuing
coverage unless and until EPA receives
a Notice of Termination (NOT) (see Part
VLB, Continuation of the Expired
General Permit). Commenters expressed
serious concern about having to submit
multiple NOIs based on the lapse
between expiration of the previous
permit and issuance of this permit. In
order to maintain continuing
authorization under the expired permit,
permittees were required to reapply
prior to expiration. Then, upon issuance
of this permit, an additional "new" NOI
for authorization under this permit is
required. To avoid this double NOI
submission near the time of permit
expiration and reissuance, EPA would
have needed to modify the earlier CGP
prior to expiration to remove the
requirement for resubmission of an NOI
prior to expiration. As a result, EPA is
making those changes in today's permit.
For more information, see the section
below tided "Continued Coverage
Under the Permit if it Expires Prior to
Reissuance or Replacement."
One utility group estimated that in
Texas alone a total of 24,400 "requests
for service" were received in 1996
where the requestor of service was
impacting five (5) or more acres of land.
If the proposed general permit were in
effect, the utility group would have to
submit 48,000 NOIs/NOTs to EPA at an
additional annual cost as high as $75 to
$100 million in order to comply with
this general permit. The utility group
stated that EPA's proposal encourages, if
not requires, a fragmented approach to
control over storm water pollution
prevention activities. In response, EPA
has re-evaluated the status of utility
company service line installations and
has found that these activities generally
do not meet the definition of operator,
thus do not require permit coverage.
The final permit has been revised to
eliminate the need for utility companies
to submit NOIs for permit area-wide
coverage.
One commenter stated there is a
provision in the regulations that allows
for a general permit to be issued without
the submittal of a NOI. The commenter
-------
7886
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 31/Tuesday, February 17, 1998/Notices
urged EPA to consider the adoption of
a general permit program that eliminates
the need to submit a NOI, particularly
in areas where State or local
governments already have sediment and
erosion control or storm water
management requirements in place. In
response to this suggestion, 40 CFR
122.28(b)(2)(v) excludes this option for
entities seeking coverage under the
general permits for discharges of storm
water associated with industrial activity
(which includes construction activity).
Consequently, the requirement that
operators seeking permit coverage
submit a NOI will remain in the permit.
NOT (Notice of Termination)
The Agency received comments
supporting the idea that permittees must
submit a Notice of Termination (NOT)
within 30 days after completion of their
construction activities and final
stabilization of their portion of the site.
The commenters stated that it would
improve permittees accountability. No
change has been made to the permit.
Several commenters recommended
that special provisions should be added
to the Notice of Termination for projects
which occur on agricultural lands. For
projects such as an underground
pipeline crossing agricultural land, the
commenters argued that the conditions
for meeting "final stabilization" should
be modified. EPA agrees that in such a
case where agriculture is final land use,
the provisions of the NOT pertaining to
final stabilization may not be
appropriate. The definition of final
stabilization in the final permit has been
modified to include a provision which
includes land that has been returned to
its previous agricultural use.
The NOT requirements of the final
permit have been modified to be
consistent with the existing NOT form.
However, the conditions under which
the NOT can be submitted have been
clarified to address concerns raised by
commenters. The current NOT form
expires on August 31, 1998. EPA is in
the process of renewing the form before
that date. For more information, refer to
the responses to comments on
residential construction, final
stabilization, and the definition of
operator.
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
Requirements
Deadlines for Compliance With the New
SWPPP Requirements
Several commenters requested
additional time to come into compliance
with the new requirements of the
SWPPP. EPA agrees that additional time
may be necessary to review the
requirements of the new permit and
achieve compliance with these
requirements. Accordingly, Part II.A. 5 of
the final permit was modified to provide
90 days to come into compliance with
the new SWPPP requirements (rather
than 30 days as proposed in the draft
permit) for permittees with ongoing
projects which are currently operating
under the previous Baseline
Construction General Permit (BCGP).
The final permit also provides (Part
II. A.6) for permittees submitting NOIs
for new projects during the 90 day
period following the effective date of the
permit. These permittees will also be
provided 90 days after the effective date
of the new permit to achieve
compliance with the new SWPPP
requirements provided that they have
developed and are ready to implement
a SWPPP based on the BCGP
requirements at the time of NOI
submittal. This provision rewards
conscientious operators who made the
effort to control their discharges and
comply with the BCGP provisions even
though the final version of the CGP was
not legally available at the time they
began construction. Requiring
compliance with an "interim" SWPPP
based on the BCGP for the first 90 days
ensures a level of environmental
protection during the time that the
permittee is updating their plan to
comply with the final CGP conditions.
Compliance with such an interim
SWPPP represents limitations based on
BAT because, as EPA explained when it
issued the previous BCGP, in
developing technology-based standards
applicable to storm water permits for
construction activity the time required
to develop and implement a SWPPP is
a necessary consideration in
determining whether a requirement is
economically and/or technologically
achievable. Development and
implementation of SWPPPs require
time. To develop the SWPPP required
by the CGP, EPA believes 90 days from
the effective date of the permit
represents a reasonable estimate of what
is economically and technologically
achievable. To implement such a
SWPPP, EPA believes that 90 days from
the effective date of the permit is
economically and technologically
achievable. In the interim period until
development and implementation of the
SWPPP required by today's permit, EPA
believes that compliance with an
interim SWPPP is economically and
technologically achievable.
Operators who do not have an interim
SWPPP at least as stringent as would
have been required under the BCGP
must prepare their SWPPP based on the
final CGP prior to submitting an NOI.
Given the short term of some
construction projects, this procedure
ensures that the Agency does not
provide a loophole under which a
permittee could receive authorization to
discharge for 90 days without having to
implement any storm water controls
whatsoever.
Retention Ponds
Several comments were received
regarding the section of the permit
describing the use of Structural
Practices (Part IV.D.2.a.(3)). The
proposed permit describes the structural
practice required for common drainage
locations that serve an area with 10 or
more acres disturbed at one time: * * *
"a temporary (or permanent) sediment
basin providing 3,600 cubic feet of
storage per acre drained, or equivalent
control measures, shall be provided
where attainable until final stabilization
of the site." One commenter referred to
this section of the proposal as a "new"
requirement. The requirement has in
fact been in place since the 1992 general
permit. Several commenters suggested
that the permit allow that the volume
requirements be adjusted in
consideration of differences in
meteorologic conditions and the runoff
coefficient. The proposed retention
requirements were based on
containment of a 2-year, 24 hour storm
which was assumed to be three inches,
and also the assumption that the runoff
coefficient would be 0.33. After
consideration of these comments, EPA
has modified the language in this
section to read "A temporary (or
permanent) sediment basin that
provides storage for the volume of
runoff calculated using the local 2-year,
24 hour storm and runoff coefficient
from each disturbed acre drained, or
equivalent control measures, shall be
provided where attainable until final
stabilization of the site. Where no such
calculation has been performed, a
temporary (or permanent) sediment
basin providing 3,600 cubic feet of
storage per acre drained, or equivalent
control measures, shall be provided
where attainable until final stabilization
of the site." Comments were also
received on the inappropriateness of
such a requirement for linear
construction projects. In response, the
requirement only applies to sites where
10 acres of disturbance share a common
drainage location. This scenario is
unlikely on a linear construction site,
where runoff is typically served by
several drainage locations. However, if
it does occur, the permit requirements
would apply.
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 31/Tuesday, February 17, 1998/Notices
7887
Sod Stabilization
A few commenters noted that sod
stabilization was listed as an erosion
control method, but was not listed as a
final stabilization method. In section
III. A. 1 .d of the draft fact sheet, EPA lists
sod stabilization as a stabilization
practice for sediment and erosion
control. Sod stabilization is again listed
in Part IV.D.2.a.(2) of the draft permit,
with other stabilization practices in the
sentence: "Stabilization practices may
include: temporary seeding, permanent
seeding, mulching, geotextiles, sod
stabilization, vegetative buffer strips,
protection of trees, preservation of
mature vegetation, and other
appropriate measures." The permit also
notes that this list is intended to include
interim and permanent stabilization
measures. As such, EPA believes that
sod stabilization was adequately
indicated as a final stabilization option
in the proposed permit.
Off-Site Vehicle Tracking of Sediments
Part IV.D.2.(c) of the draft permit
required that off-site vehicle tracking of
sediments be minimized. A commenter
noted that the draft fact sheet had
suggested that wash racks be provided
to reduce off-site tracking of sediments
from construction sites. The commenter
was unclear whether or not this was
considered a requirement of the permit.
The commenter contended that wash
racks may increase pollutant discharges
in some circumstances and that wash
racks should be optional. Other
commenters noted that the time of
arrival of delivery trucks varies, and
concern was expressed that costs could
be increased if the permit were to
require power washing of trucks at all
times of the day. Also, since there may
be insufficient space for placement of
stabilized construction entrances in
some cases, it was suggested that
shoveling of dirt from the street should
be an acceptable alternative.
The draft fact sheet noted that there
are a number of BMPs which may be
implemented to comply with Part
IV.D.2.c.(2) including gravel exits, wash
racks or stations, and street sweeping.
EPA's guidance manual entitled "Storm
Water Management for Construction
Activities, Developing Pollution
Prevention Plans and Best Management
Practices," EPA 832-R-92-005, also
mentions the scheduling of deliveries at
a time when personnel are available for
cleanup (if needed) as another BMP to
be considered.
However, the draft permit did not
specify the precise BMPs to be
implemented to comply with Part
IV.D.2.c.(2), nor did the permit
necessarily require all possible BMPs in
every circumstance. Wash racks, for
example, would be one of several
control measures to be considered by
permittees, but not necessarily required.
EPA believes that the draft permit
language provides the necessary
flexibility to allow operators to select
the most appropriate BMPs depending
on individual conditions. As such, the
proposed Part IV.D.2.c.(2) in the draft
permit was retained in the final permit.
Another commenter approved of the
requirement to remove off-site
sediments, but also recommended that
the permit should require removal
within a specified time frame such as
within 30 days. In addition, this
commenter recommended that the
permit should require sediment removal
from streams, wetlands and other waters
of the United States rather than just off-
site areas.
With regard to the issue of the time
frame for removal of off-site sediments,
the draft permit had required that
removal be conducted at a frequency
necessary to minimize impacts. The
final permit retains this requirement in
consideration of the variety of
construction projects which would be
covered by the permit and the need for
adequate flexibility.
With regard to the issue of sediment
removal from streams and wetlands, we
would point out that the purpose of the
NPDES permit program is to control
discharges of pollutants before they
enter waters of the United States. The
permit regulates discharges resulting
from activities of permittees prior to
outfalls discharging to waters of the
United States to the extent necessary to
ensure compliance with water quality
standards in the receiving waters
(including any requirements pertaining
to sediment accumulations) and
technology-based effluent limitations.
As such, the final permit does not
include the commenter's
recommendation to include
requirements for sediment removal in
the receiving waters. Removal of
sediments from the receiving waters
would be addressed outside the realm of
NPDES permit requirements such as
through enforcement action against a
permittee for noncompliance with the
permit.
Avoiding Impervious Surfaces for
Stabilization
A commenter objected to the
statement in Part IV.D.2.a.(2) of the draft
permit which reads: "Use of impervious
surfaces for stabilization should be
avoided." The commenter appears to be
interpreting the statement as a
prohibition or near prohibition of the
use of impervious surfaces for
stabilization. The following was
suggested as an alternative: "Pervious
surfaces for stabilization are preferable
to impervious surfaces when the
application is appropriate for the use."
The statement discouraging the use of
impervious surfaces is included in the
draft permit in consideration of the fact
that impervious surfaces will increase
runoff and may increase erosion and
pollutant discharges. However, the
statement does not prohibit the use of
impervious surfaces for stabilization
and EPA believes that the existing
language does not need further
clarification in this regard. As such,
EPA has retained the proposed language
in the final permit.
Flexibility in Choosing Controls
Some comments were received
requesting more flexible permit
conditions. In particular, one
commenter stated that the permit
requirements for erosion controls (e.g.
sediment basins) and performance
standards may not be appropriate to all
sites throughout the nation. EPA's
permit requirements for erosion control
are intended to be flexible enough to
allow the permittee to design site
specific controls which are appropriate
given the site topography, climate, and
geographic location. The parts of a
storm water pollution prevention plan
(SWPPP) that require stabilization
practices, structural practices, and storm
water management all include the
statement: "Such practices may include
* * *" These parts of the SWPPP list
some potential controls that should be
considered by the permittee when
designing a comprehensive plan to
minimize erosion and sedimentation.
The permit language for sediment basins
serving common drainage locations with
10 or more acres of disturbed area, also
includes the words "or equivalent
control measures, shall be provided
* * *" This language allows the
permittee the flexibility to design and
install appropriate site specific controls.
With regard to use of flexibility when
choosing appropriate storm water
controls for a construction project,
comments were received concerning
factors to consider such as public safety
and proximity to airports. Commenters
stated that storm water controls should
be designed to reduce safety risks,
especially to children. Also, structures
which maintain a continuous habitat for
wildlife, such as storm water retention
ponds, should not be constructed within
10,000 feet of a public-use airport
serving turbine powered aircraft or
within 5,000 feet of a public-use airport
serving piston powered aircraft due to
-------
7888
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 31/Tuesday, February 17, 1998/Notices
the potential hazards to aviation caused
by birds. EPA agrees with both
comments and has included language in
the Part IV.B of the Fact Sheet to
address them.
Implementation Schedules
Other commenters raised issue with
Part IV.D.2.a.(2) of the proposed permit,
which requires a record in the storm
water pollution prevention plan
(SWPPP) of the dates for
implementation of stabilization
practices for erosion control. Several
commenters interpreted this as a
requirement to predict in advance the
specific dates when the stabilization
practices would be implemented. The
commenters argued that since the pace
of a construction project cannot be
known with certainty, it would not be
possible to make such predictions.
Concern was also expressed regarding
Part FV.D.2 of die draft permit which
requires that the SWPPP include the
"timing" for the control measures which
would accompany the construction
project. Although die general timing
may be reasonably predictable, the
precise timing can not predicted.
With regard to Part IV.D.2.a.(2) of the
draft permit, it is not EPA's intent that
the dates for the implementation of the
stabilization practices be included in
the SWPPP which is prepared at the
time a construction project begins.
Rather, permittees would maintain and
update a record of such dates when the
dates for implementation are known.
The record would be attached to the
SWPPP. The final permit has been
modified to clarify this matter.
The intent of Part IV.D.2 of the draft
permit is to ensure an appropriate
sequence of construction activities and
accompanying BMPs to minimize
erosion. It is not EPA's intent that the
exact timing of the control measures be
predicted in advance. For clarity, the
final permit replaces the word "timing"
with "general timing" as was suggested
in the comments. The permit also
provides an example of the type of
sequencing of construction activities
and BMPs which is intended by this
permit requirement.
Local Requirements
Part IV D.2.c.(3) of the proposed
permit includes the requirement to
ensure and demonstrate compliance
with applicable state, tribal and/or local
waste disposal, sanitary sewer or septic
system regulations to the extent that
applicable requirements exist within the
permitted area. One commenter
requested that this language be deleted.
The comment stated that these
regulations apply regardless of the storm
water permit. EPA agrees with this,
however, EPA also believes that an
explicit statement of one's responsibility
to comply with state, tribal, and local
regulations eliminates any doubt as to
their applicability to a project. It is not
EPA's intent to require permittees to
reproduce pre-existing state, tribal, or
local plans for the sole purpose of
including them as part of the project
SWPPP. Plans affecting the permitted
activity, construction, may be
referenced in the SWPPP. The location
of the other plans/policies, etc., should
also be clearly stated in the SWPPP. The
provision for demonstration of
compliance with state, tribal and/or
local regulations remains in the permit.
Another commenter raised concerns
over what they saw as overlapping and
conflicting requirements between die
proposed permit and existing State,
Tribal, and local requirements in
general. In response, EPA draws their
attention to Part IV.D.2.d. of die
proposed permit, which states that the
permittee shall provide certification in
their storm water pollution prevention
plans that reflect appropriate State,
Tribal and local regulations. Nothing in
the permit is intended to relieve the
permittee of his obligations to comply
with appropriate State, Tribal, or local
requirements. In a situation where there
are similar requirements under different
programs, a permittee should comply
with the more stringent of the
requirements. Permittees may also use
existing plans or local approvals as part
of their pollution prevention plans
when such use is appropriate.
Signature, Plan Review and Making
Plans Available
Several comments objected to the
requirement that permittees provide
public access to SWPPPs. Some
questioned whether EPA has the
authority to require permittees to
provide such access. Others raised
liability issues with regard to allowing
the general public to enter construction
sites. The proposed requirement was
intended to provide the public with
information concerning the project and
the SWPPP. EPA does not intend to
allow the public uncontrolled and
unlimited access to construction sites or
to cause hazards or disruptions at
constructions sites. In response to the
comments, Part II.C.2 has been deleted
(62 FR 29809) and Part IV.B. 2 has been
rewritten. The changed language
requires site operators to conspicuously
post a notice near the main entrance of
the site. For linear construction projects
(e.g., pipelines or highways) the notice
must be placed in a publicly accessible
location near where construction is
actively underway and moved as
necessary. If it is infeasible for the
operator to post the notice at the main
entrance of the site, the notice shall be
posted in a local public building such
as the town hall or the public library.
The notice shall include the following
information: the project's NPDES permit
number; the local contact name and
phone number; a description of the
project; and location of the SWPPP if it
isn't maintained on site. The permit
does not require that the general public
have access to the site, nor does it
require that operators provide copies of
the plan, or to mail copies of the plan,
to members of the public. EPA strongly
encourages permittees to provide the
public widi access to SWPPPs during
reasonable hours. Upon request, EPA
intends to assist members of the public
in obtaining access to permitting
information, including SWPPPs. EPA
believes that this approach will create a
balance between the public's need for
involvement in projects potentially
impacting water bodies and the
operator's need for safe and unimpeded
work conditions.
Site Inspections
The June 2, 1997 proposed permit
required site inspections to be
conducted once every fourteen calendar
days. Several comments expressed
positive feedback that the proposed
permit decreased the frequency for
inspections from once per seven
calendar days, die requirement of the
baseline general permit promulgated in
1992, to the fourteen day period now
required. However, the feeling was that
this was still too burdensome. The
purpose of an inspection at construction
sites/projects is to ensure that the
pollution control measures described in
a project's pollution prevention plan are
operating in the manner which is
described in the plan. The high level of
activity which typically occurs at
construction sites can increase die
potential for control measures to be
displaced or disrupted. Given the
unpredictability of the weather, EPA
believes that inspections at die
proposed frequency will provide
assurance that when a storm event
occurs, control measures will be
operating properly. An inspection
frequency less than that which was
proposed is not adequate to verify
proper and continued operation of
control measures. Therefore, die
inspection frequency remains as
proposed.
Another commenter raised issue with
the frequency of inspections, in that too
many would cause damage to restored
areas of linear projects, such as pipeline
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 31/Tuesday, February 17, 1998/Notices
7889
construction. They stated that
alternative inspection schedules would
be more appropriate for these types of
projects. In reply, EPA reiterates that the
purpose of inspections is to make sure
that the storm water pollution
prevention controls and measures are
operating properly. When construction
activities are occurring along various
locations of the project, such as a
pipeline, inspections should be
conducted to ensure that control
measures in that area are operating
properly. EPA would also point out that
Part IV.D.4 of the permit provides that
inspections are only required once every
30 days for areas which are finally or
temporarily stabilized. EPA concludes
therefore, that no alternative inspection.
schedule should be included in the final
permit for such projects.
One commenter expressed concern
regarding inspections at airports and
how they could be accomplished in
compliance with FA A regulations,
particularly with regard to aspects of
safety and security. In response, EPA
notes that the inspection provisions of
the permit pertain to the operator of a
construction project inspecting his
storm water management systems and
control measures. All EPA inspectors
will produce official credentials upon
request to satisfy security concerns, and
will be able to accommodate reasonable
safety procedures consistent with the
purpose of verifying permit compliance.
EPA does not believe that additional
requirements need to be added to the
permit.
Several comments were received on
the difficulty in predicting stdrm events
and the requirement for qualified
personnel to inspect areas specified on
the site "* * * before anticipated storm
events (or series of storm events such as
intermittent showers over a period of
days) expected to cause a significant
amount of runoff * * *" Part IV.D.4.
After consideration of these comments,
EPA has modified this section to read
"Qualified personnel (provided by the
permittee or cooperatively by multiple
permittees) shall inspect disturbed areas
of the construction site that have not
been finally stabilized, areas used for
storage of materials that are exposed to
precipitation, structural control
measures, and locations where vehicles
enter or exit the site at least once every
14 calendar days and within 24 hours of
the end of a storm event of 0.5 inches
or greater." The Agency will, however,
retain the language in Part IV.D.3, which
reads"* * * maintenance shall be
performed before the next anticipated
storm event, or as necessary to maintain
the continues effectiveness of storm
water controls." EPA also recommends
that permittees perform a "walk
through" inspection of the construction
site before anticipated storm events (or
series of storm events such as
intermittent showers over a period of
days) expected to cause a significant
amount of runoff. The Agency believes
this modification will relieve regulatory
burden, while continuing to place
sufficient emphasis on the importance
pre-storm preparedness.
Another commenter supported the
proposed requirement for inspections
prior to anticipated storms. However, as
noted above, this provision was
removed from the final permit due to
concerns regarding the predictability of
the weather.
Contractor/Subcontractor Certification
of the Storm Water Pollution Prevention
Plan
Site operators indicated that they
often had difficulty in getting
contractors and subcontractors to sign
the subcontractor certifications in the
previous permit and repeated in the
proposed permit. This was a problem
for them since the permittee, and not
the subcontractor, would be liable for
violating the permit if these
subcontractor certifications were not
signed. Many also felt the certifications
were unnecessary since the quality of
the storm water and compliance with
permit conditions was ultimately the
permittee's responsibility anyway.
EPA has addressed the commenters"
concern by eliminating the requirement
for contractor/subcontractor
certification of the pollution prevention
plan. EPA also points out that the
permittee is responsible for compliance
with the terms and conditions of the
permit, and that coordination with
subcontractors will be necessary to
ensure compliance.
Special Conditions, Management
Practices, and Other Non-numeric
Limitations
Releases in Excess of Reportable
Quantities
One commenter requested more
specific references to information
regarding releases of reportable
quantities (RQ) of hazardous substances
or oil, and the National Response Center
(NRC). All necessary information related
to RQ releases and the NRC are
contained in the permit, and in 40 CFR
Parts 110, 117 and 302. The National Oil
and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (also known as the
National Contingency Plan (NCP)),
found at 40 CFR 300, provides
additional information about the
organizational structure and procedures
for preparing for and responding to
discharges of oil and releases of
hazardous substances, pollutants, and
contaminants. In addition to the NCP,
Regional Contingency Plans (RCP) exist
for every Region, and Area Contingency
Plans (ACP) may also exist. EPA
Regional offices should be contacted
directly for copies of available materials.
Additional information is available via
the Internet at the following web sites
for the U.S. National Response Team
(NRT) and the NRC: www.nrt.org and
www.dot.gov/dotinfo/uscg/hq/nrc.
Another comment was received
requesting clarification on which party
is responsible for reporting an RQ
release where more than one operator
(e.g. owner and contractor) has received
coverage for the same project. The
commenter questioned whether both
permittees need to report an RQ release.
Only one permittee for a project needs
to report an RQ release. The permittee
with the most direct authority over the
spill should make the report. Generally,
this will be the permittee with day to
day operational control of the
construction project (e.g. the general
contractor).
A further comment requested a permit
requirement that permittees report any
RQ releases to the operator of the
municipal separate storm sewer system
in addition to the National Response
Center (NRC). The NRC was created
under the National Contingency Plan
(NCP) and is charged with receiving
reports of all chemical, radiological, oil
and biological releases regulated by the
Clean Water Act. The NRC immediately
relays reports to the appropriate State
and Federal on-scene coordinators.
Depending on the type of release,
severity, location and receiving system
(soil, air or water), additional local
contacts may be notified (e.g., city fire
departments or hazardous material
teams). EPA believes that this
notification process is efficient and
effective. Individual municipalities
should contact their State or local
response departments to request that
they be provided information when RQ
releases occur to their storm sewer
systems.
Standard Permit Conditions
Requiring an Individual Permit
Some commenters recommended that
the construction general permit not
cover all construction activities and that
some activities should be publicly
noticed prior to ground-breaking. These
commenters were concerned that some
construction activities may warrant
individual permits.
-------
7890
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 31/Tuesday. February 17. 1998/Notices
According to Part VI.L of the
proposed permit, "The Director may
require any person authorized by this
permit to apply for and/or obtain either
an individual NPDES permit or an
alternative NPDES general permit. Any
interested person may petition the
Director to take action under this
paragraph* * *" However, it is a local
land use decision on whether to allow
a proposed development project. It is
only after the decision to develop has
been locally approved and the
developer is ready to break ground
would the operator(s) need to apply for
a permit. Even then, EPA's authority is
limited to placing conditions on the
discharge of pollutants from the site.
The requirement for a permit is
therefore not triggered until long after
the local land use decision has been
made. The Agency encourages
interested parties to participate in local
public participation opportunities
afforded by local land use authorities.
The draft fact sheet had noted in
section IV. C that in some situations EPA
may require dischargers authorized
under the general permit to apply for an
individual permit, and that the general
permit would continue to apply until
the individual permit becomes effective.
A commenter argued that if the general
permit is inappropriate for a particular
project, construction should cease until
the individual permit becomes effective.
The commenter also objected to the
provision allowing an unspecified
amount of time to submit the individual
application.
NPDES regulations at 40 CFR
122.28(b)(3)(iv) provide that when an
individual permit is required for a
facility covered by a general permit, the
applicability of the general permit
terminates upon the effective date of the
individual permit. Since the
commenter's recommendation is
inconsistent with the regulations in this
regard, the requested modification was
not incorporated into the final permit.
The reason for these procedures is to
provide the opportunity for public
comment on proposals to require
individual permits which EPA believes
is important in making sound
environmental decisions.
With regards to the issue of a deadline
for submittal of individual applications,
we would again point out the NPDES
regulations at 40 CFR 122.28(b)(3)(ii) do
not specify such a deadline. A deadline
was not included in the final permit due
to the wide variety of projects which the
general permit would cover, and
uncertainties and variations in the
amount of time which may be necessary
to provide the necessary information.
Any request by the director for an
individual permit application will
specify the deadline for submittal.
Penalties for Non-Compliance
Some commenters argued that the
civil and criminal penalties listed in the
permit are excessive for residential
construction contractors and seemed to
be more geared toward large project
industrial construction activities. The
penalties referenced in the permit are
simply the statutory maximums for
violations of NPDES permits as
established by Congress and required to
be included as a standard condition in
all NPDES permits (see 40 CFR
122.41 (a), as revised). Actual penalties
assessed for permit violations in
administrative enforcement actions take
into account factors such as the
economic benefit of avoiding permit
compliance, gravity of the violation, and
the compliance history of the permittee.
Continued Coverage Under the Permit if
it Expires Prior to Reissuance or
Replacement
Many parties were frustrated by the
seeming unnecessary duplication of
effort involved in submission of NOIs,
especially because the previous CGP
expired prior to reissuance. Permittees
were frustrated over having to submit
one NOI during the term of the permit
(48 hours before construction), a second
NOI to be covered by the expired but
administratively continued permit
(prior to expiration), and a third NOI to
obtain coverage under the new permit
once issued. To reduce the paperwork
and administrative burden, the Agency
has reevaluated the notification
(reapplication) procedures for effective
functioning of general permitting
consistent with applicable provisions of
the Administrative Procedure Act
(APA), 5 U.S.C. 558(c).
Under the APA, if a permittee makes
a timely and sufficient application for a
renewal or a new permit (in accordance
with agency rules), a permit for an
activity of a continuing nature does not
expire until the application has been
finally determined by the agency.
Enactment of the APA preceded the
development of general or area wide
permits to authorize a variety of similar
sources. General permits are developed
and issued prior to "application" for
coverage from individual dischargers.
The functional equivalent to an
application for coverage under a general
permit is the Notice of Intent (NOI).
Therefore, EPA general permits have
provided for continuing authorization to
discharge under an expiring general
permit by requiring resubmission of an
NOI prior to expiration. The
resubmission of the NOI indicated to the
Agency that the discharger sought to
renew its permit authorization. By
operation of law, the authorization to
discharge would continue until EPA
"finally determined" the renewal
application, for example, through
affirmative Agency action to make a
new general permit available or to
require submission of an individual
permit application. In reissuing a
general permit, however, the Agency
may revise permit requirements. Thus,
the Agency required reapplication—
submission of a new NOI—for
dischargers who elect to abide by the
terms of that new permit. If the new
general permit differed from the
previous general permit in important
ways, a discharger may elect instead to
apply for a individual permit.
For today's general permit, EPA has
revised the notification (reapplication)
procedures that would apply if the
Agency fails to reissue a new general
permit prior to expiration of this one.
Permittees will no longer be required to
file an NOI prior to expiration in order
to maintain continuing authorization.
Instead, EPA will presume that a
permittee who does not file a Notice of
Termination (NOT) or an individual
permit application seeks continuing
authorization to discharge under the
expiring permit and intends to abide by
the terms of the expiring permit until
EPA reissues the permit (or makes an
alternative general permit available).
EPA believes this procedure is
warranted under today's general permit
because: (1) The permit requires
submission of a NOT to terminate
permit coverage; (2) construction
activity (prior to final stabilization of
land surfaces) lasts for a fixed interval
that may extend beyond expiration of
the permit; (3) EPA recognizes that
circumstances beyond the control of the
permittee may result in its failure to
obtain "new" permit coverage prior to
expiration of this general permit; and (4)
the NOI requirements from today's
general permit may differ from the
general permit that would replace it.
EPA notes that general permits for storm
water discharges associated with
construction activity differ from most all
other EPA general permits because only
construction general permits require
NOTs. Given the finite and limited
duration of construction activity which
may straddle expiration of the general
permit, combined with the requirement
for submission of a NOT, EPA believes
this procedure provides permittees with
permit authorization with reduced
paperwork burdens.
The revised notification/reapplication
procedures are as follows. First, if the
permit is reissued or replaced before the
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 31/Tuesday. February 17. 1998/Notices
7891
expiration date, permittees will need to
comply with whatever conditions are in
the new permit for transitioning from
this permit (usually submission of a
new NOI). Second, if the permit is not
reissued or replaced until after the
permit expires, the permit will
"continue" in force and effect for those
permittees who have submitted an
initial NOI but have not yet submitted
an NOT or individual permit
application. A permittee will remain
subject to permit requirements until
submission of an NOT. Such permittees
remain automatically covered under the
expired general permit (and do not need
to resubmit an NOI to EPA prior to
expiration) until the earliest of: (1)
Permit reissuance or replacement; (2)
submission of a NOT; (3) issuance of an
individual permit for the activity; or (4)
the Director issues a formal permit
decision not to reissue the permit, at
which time permittees must seek
coverage under an alternative permit.
Definitions
"Operator"—the Party or Parties That
Need To Apply for Permit Coverage
Several commenters requested
clarification of the definition of
"operator." Others felt that including
the definition in the permit was an
illegal attempt to make a new regulatory
definition without going through the
formal rulemaking process. The
definition of "operator" is critical, since
it is the operator of a discharge of storm
water associated with construction
activity that is required to obtain
coverage under an NPDES permit. See
40 CFR 122.26(c)(l)(ii). The Agency
agrees some clarification is appropriate
as to how the term "operator" is applied
to construction sites. The interpretation
of "operator" as it applies to discharges
of storm water associated with
construction activity is consistent with
the statutory and regulatory
requirements for permitting of
dischargers and does not expand the
requirements of permits to anyone who
is not already legally required to obtain
permits in accordance with the Clean
Water Act and existing regulations.
The definition of storm water
associated with industrial activity was
promulgated November 16, 1990 [55 FR
47990] and is found at 40 CFR
122.26(b)(14). Category (x) of the
definition of storm water associated
with industrial activity is "construction
activity including clearing, grading, and
excavation activities except: Operations
that result in the disturbance of less
than five acres of total land area which
are not part of a larger common plan of
development or sale." In accordance
with 40 CFR 122.21 (b), "when a facility
or activity is owned by one person but
is operated by another person, it is the
operator's duty to obtain a permit."
Since the applicability of the "operator"
is important to understanding a party's
responsibilities under the permit. EPA
believes it is critical to inform
permittees of the Agency's
interpretation of how the regulatory
definitions of "owner or operator" and
"facility or activity" apply to discharges
of storm water associated with
construction activity. The definition in
the permit is not a formal regulatory
definition in and of itself.
In the context of discharges of storm
water associated with construction
activity, EPA interprets "operator" to
mean any party associated with a
construction project that meets either of
the following two criteria: (1) The party
has operational control over
construction plans and specifications,
including the ability to make
modifications to those plans and
specifications; or (2) the party has day-
to-day operational control of those
activities at a project which are
necessary to ensure compliance with a
storm water pollution prevention plan
for the site or other permit conditions
(e.g., they are authorized to direct
workers at a site to carry out activities
required by the storm water pollution
prevention plan or comply with other
permit conditions). Further, an operator
shall be considered to have operational
control over all their subcontractors.
EPA wants to make it clear that it
does not intend to include under the
definition of "operator" individuals
who hire a general contractor to
construct a home for their personal use
(e.g., not those to be sold for profit or
used as rental property). EPA believes
that the general contractor, being a
professional in the building industry,
should be the entity rather than the
individual who is better equipped to
meet the requirements of both applying
for permit coverage and developing and
properly implementing a SWPPP.
However, individuals would meet the
definition of "operator" in instances
where they performed the general
contracting duties for construction of
their personal residences.
Crosscutting Issues and Comments Not
Directly Related to a Specific Permit
Condition
Authority To Regulate Storm Water
Discharges Associated With
Construction Activity
Several commenters questioned EPA's
legal authority to require permits for
discharges of storm water associated
with construction activity. Some of
these commenters noted that EPA only
has the authority to regulate the
discharge of pollutants.
First, EPA would like to point out that
while the proposed permit referred to
"discharges," 40 CFR 122.2 defines
"discharge" to mean "discharge of
pollutants." The final permit has been
modified in several places to more
clearly reflect that it is the discharge of
pollutants that is authorized and
regulated by the permit. The regulatory
definition of "discharge" has also been
added to the permit.
Second, Clean Water Act section
301 (a) states "except in compliance
with this section and sections 302, 306,
307, 318. 402. and 404 of this Act, the
discharge of any pollutant by any
person shall be unlawful." Section
402(a)(l) authorizes the Administrator
to issue permits for the discharge of
pollutants. Section 402 (p) (2) specifically
requires permits for the discharge of
storm water associated with industrial
activity. The definition of "storm water
associated with industrial activity" was
promulgated November 16, 1990 (55 FR
47990) and is found at 40 CFR
122.26(b)(14). Category (x) of the
definition is "construction activity
including clearing, grading, and
excavation activities except operations
that result in the disturbance of less
than five acres of total land area which
are not part of a larger common plan of
development or sale." Therefore, EPA is
within its statutory and regulatory
authority to require NPDES permits for
anyone with operational control over a
discharge of pollutants in storm water
associated with construction activity.
Public Comment and Public Hearings
Several comments were received
stating that EPA did not provide enough
time for public comment, and should
extend the public comment period to
allow for more public input to the
permit. In response, EPA notes that it
has an obligation under 40 CFR 124.10
to give public notice that a draft permit
has been prepared. These regulations
require EPA to allow at least 30 days for
public comment. EPA went beyond
these requirements by allowing 60 days
for public comment, due to the level of
interest in this permit action. The
Agency believes that 60 days was an
ample amount of time for all interested
parties to submit comments. In order to
issue final permit by the time the
existing general permit expires, or soon
thereafter, EPA kept a restrictive
schedule and could not extend the
public comment period beyond the
specified date of August 1, 1997.
-------
7892
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 31/Tuesday. February 17. 1998/Notices
One commenter requested a hearing
in Austin, Texas to address issues
related to that area of the State. EPA has
an obligation under 40 CFR 124.12 to
hold public hearings upon finding, on
the basis of requests, that a significant
public interest exists in a draft permit;
or at the Director's discretion for
instance, whenever such a hearing
might clarify issues involved in the
permit decision. Many EPA Regions
scheduled public hearings in
anticipation of significant public
interest. A public hearing was held in
Dallas, Texas, and public meetings were
held in Houston and Dallas, Texas, and
Albuquerque, New Mexico. The Agency
believes that the public hearing and
meetings in Texas provided ample
opportunity for comment on issues
related to all areas of Texas. EPA further
notes that today's final permit does not
include construction projects located in
the State of Texas. These projects will
be covered under a separate general
permit which is currently under
development.
Appropriateness of the Permit for
Ensuring Protection of Environmental
Resources
Several commenters recommended
that various requirements of the permit
should be strengthened to provide
increased protection of environmental
resources. Others commenters were
unclear regarding certain requirements
and requested clarification. Following
below is a discussion of the issues and
the Agency's responses:
Performance Standards for Post-
Construction Storm Water Management
A commenter objected to the lack of
more specific criteria in the permit
related to post-construction storm water
management. For example, it was
recommended that post-construction
pollutant loadings not exceed 120% of
pre-construction loadings. Other
recommendations included a
requirement for 80% removal of total
suspended solids or that post-
development peak discharge flows not
exceed pre-development peak flows. It
was noted that such requirements
already exist in some states. Another
recommendation was for in-stream
turbidity limits (or removal of fines less
than 0.85 mm to the greatest extent
possible).
These types of permit requirements
were also considered when the Baseline
Construction General Permit was
originally issued in 1992. However,
such conditions were not included in
that permit to ensure that adequate
flexibility was provided considering the
large number of States and the variety
of geographic areas covered by the
permit. EPA continues to believe that
adequate flexibility needs to be
provided and has not included the types
of conditions recommended by the
commenter. With regards to the
proposed turbidity limits, Part III.D of
the permit requires compliance with
State water quality standards which
should ensure protection of receiving
waters.
The commenter also recommended
that Part IV.D.2.b.(2) of the draft permit
be revised to require velocity
dissipation devices at outfalls which
genuinely provide non-erosive
discharge velocities rather than devices
which are ineffective and merely
installed for this purpose. EPA agrees
that the commenter's recommendation
would strengthen and improve the
clarity of the permit. The final permit
was revised to require velocity
dissipation devices which actually
provide non-erosive discharge velocities
rather than merely installing devices
designed for that purpose but are
ineffective.
Retaining Sediment and Implementing
Permit Requirements to the Maximum
Extent Practicable
A commenter noted that Part
IV.D.2.a.(l)(a) of the draft permit had
included as a goal the retention of
sediment on-site to the maximum extent
practicable. The commenter
recommended that the permit should
require that all components of the
SWPPP to be implemented to the
maximum extent practicable level. The
commenter also argued that the
objective of retaining sediment on-site is
too weak. More specifics should be
provided such as retention of sediment
via site planning, phasing and other
control measures.
EPA disagrees that the term
"maximum extent practicable" is
necessarily appropriate in conjunction
with all other components of the
SWPPP. The term was included in Part
IV.D.2.a.(l)(a) of the draft permit to
provide guidance regarding the overall
goal of retention of sediments on the
construction site. EPA believes that the
existing language elsewhere in the
permit appropriately describes the level
of effort which is expected for other
SWPPP components. EPA is also
concerned that the use of the term
"maximum extent practicable" in Part
IV.D.2.a.(l)(a) of the construction permit
may result in confusion since this is the
technology-based level of control
required by the Clean Water Act for
pollutants discharged in storm water
from municipal separate storm sewer
systems. To avoid potential confusion,
the final construction storm water
permit uses the term "extent
practicable" in Part IV.D.2.a.(l)(a).
EPA also disagrees that specific
control measures need to be included in
Part IV.D.2.a.(l)(a) of the permit. The
purpose of this section of the permit is
only to set forth the overall objectives
for sediment and erosion control. The
permit also includes more specific
control measures which are found
elsewhere in the permit.
Excluding Coverage Based on Water
Quality Concerns of Local Officials
Part I.B.S.d of the draft general permit
excludes from coverage discharges
which the Director (EPA) determines
will cause, or have the reasonable
potential to cause excursions above
water quality standards. A commenter
recommended that the permit be
modified to provide that this
determination could also be made by
local officials who might be more
familiar with the discharges than EPA.
EPA believes that the concerns of the
commenter can be adequately
accommodated by the permit. In
situations where a local official believes
coverage under the general permit is
inappropriate, the official may petition
EPA to require an individual permit
application. As such, the
recommendation of the commenter was
not included in the final permit.
Legal Action for Late NOIs
Part II. A. 5 of the draft permit (Part
II.A.4 of the final permit) notes that the
Agency may take enforcement action for
unpermitted activities for dischargers
who submit late NOIs. A commenter
recommended that this section mention
that such actions may also be initiated
by other parties such as States or private
citizens.
While it is true that legal actions may
be initiated by interested parties such as
private citizens for unpermitted
activities, EPA does not believe that this
needs to be pointed out in the permit.
As such, the final permit was not
modified to include this
recommendation.
Protection of Habitat for Species in the
Receiving Waters
A commenter expressed concern
regarding the potential of construction
projects to alter existing flow
characteristics of the receiving waters
and degrade the habitat of aquatic
species such as fish in the process. The
commenter argued that such
degradation is not allowed by
antidegradation policy and should not
be allowed by the permit.
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 31/Tuesday, February 17, 1998/Notices
7893
In response to this concern, Part III.D
of the draft general permit requires
compliance with water quality
standards. Also, an antidegradation
policy consistent with 40 CFR 131.12 is
required to be part of water quality
standards. As such, the permit requires
that any degradation of receiving waters
caused by the discharges must be
consistent with antidegradation
requirements. Further, Part I.B.S.d of the
general permit excludes from coverage
discharges from construction sites with
a reasonable potential to cause or
contribute to violations of water quality
standards. Coverage under an individual
permit, or an alternate general permit
would be required for discharges not
authorized by the general permit in
question here. The individual permit or
alternate general permit could include
specific requirements to address the
concerns of the commenter regarding
the implications of the discharge from a
particular project for the receiving
waters. EPA believes that these
procedures and requirements
appropriately address the concerns of
the commenter and has not included
additional conditions in response to the
comment.
The commenter also recommended
that the general permit application (i.e.,
the NOI form) should be modified to
require the submittal of certain
additional information and analyses for
projects with the potential to degrade
habitat as discussed above. EPA
believes, however, for ease of use and
the cost of information collection, the
information requirements of the NOI
form should be kept to a minimum and
that the commenter's concern is best
addressed through individual, or
alternate general permitting. As such,
the NOI form was not modified in
response to this comment.
Site Data Requirements for the SWPPP
A commenter recommended that Part
IV.D.l.d of the draft permit be modified
to require certain additional site data for
the SWPPP. The draft permit had only
required existing soil data, which the
commenter believed was inadequate
because existing data may not be
available in some cases. In addition, the
commenter recommended that the
permit require slope information and a
comparison of pre-development and
post-development runoff coefficients.
In response to the first comment, EPA
has deleted the word "existing" from
the final permit in relation to the soil
data. Soil data will already exist for the
vast majority of construction projects
and lack of existing data will rarely be
a problem. However, EPA agrees that
soil data are important in developing an
appropriate SWPPP and that if existing
data are not available, the permittee
must obtain sufficient data to develop
an appropriate SWPPP by other means.
With regards to slope information at
the construction site, EPA believes that
the draft permit already requires
adequate descriptive information. The
final permit, though, does require an
estimate of the pre-construction and
post-construction runoff coefficients as
recommended by the commenter. This
information will help in assessing the
potential hydrological impacts of a
particular project.
Maintenance of Structural Storm Water
Controls
A commenter expressed concern that
the permit does not require maintenance
for structural controls which may be
included in a new development for
storm water pollution control after the
development has been completed.
Another commenter recommended that
the permit at least urge permittees to
consider long term maintenance of the
controls.
EPA believes that permittees
operating under the general
construction permit should not be
responsible for the longer term
maintenance of structural BMPs. The
permit is intended to apply to
discharges described at 40 CFR
122.26(b)(14)(x) which applies to
discharges from construction activity
only. However, the final fact sheet was
modified to include in the discussion of
structural controls a recommendation
that permittees consider longer term
maintenance in the selection of their
controls. The permit itself also notes
that discharges from the structural
controls may be subject to other
municipal or industrial storm water
permits which could address the
maintenance of the controls. EPA
strongly recommends that arrangements
be made for the long-term maintenance
of BMPs to control storm water
discharges.
Contouring and Sensitive Area
Protection
A commenter recommended that
more discussion be included in the fact
sheet concerning contouring (matching
a development to the lay of the land)
and sensitive area protection. More
discussion of these issues in the fact
sheet would increase awareness among
developers of these issues and their
importance. EPA agrees that a
discussion of these issues would be
beneficial and has included such a
discussion in the final fact sheet.
Phasing Activities at Construction Sites
A commenter contended that phasing
of construction activities for a given
project is a particularly important BMP
which should be required by the permit
(at least for sites greater than 10 acres in
size) and discussed in more detail in the
fact sheet to emphasize its importance.
While EPA agrees with the
commenter on the importance of
phasing, the Agency disagrees that it
should necessarily be required for all
projects. The general permit applies to
a wide variety of projects in many
different geographic locations, and
specific requirements for phasing may
not be appropriate or provide adequate
flexibility in some cases. However, as
recommended by the commenter,
additional discussion of phasing was
added to the final fact sheet. When
individual SWPPPs are evaluated
pursuant to Part IV.B of the permit,
phasing could be required as
appropriate for individual construction
projects.
Requirements for Minimum Control
Measures
A commenter recommended that the
permit should include certain minimum
requirements for controls. For example,
in developing SWPPPs permittees
should be required to select some
minimum number of controls from a
menu which would be provided.
EPA has provided a menu of potential
control measures from which permittees
may select appropriate controls for their
projects. These controls (which are not
necessarily an exhaustive list) are found
in Parts IV.D.2 and 3 of the permit and
are also elaborated on in the fact sheet.
However, EPA disagrees that the permit
should require some minimum number
of controls for each project. As
mentioned earlier, adequate flexibility
must be provided given the wide variety
of projects and geographic areas which
are covered by the general permit.
SWPPPs must nevertheless include an
adequate number of BMPs to comply
with the requirements of the permit.
Controls for Construction Debris and
Chemicals
A commenter noted that Part
IV.D.2.a(l)(e) of the draft permit
requires control measures for litter,
construction debris and chemicals at a
site, but then suggests screening as a
potential method for control. The
commenter argued that screening would
be inappropriate as a control measure
for construction chemicals and that
other measures should be required. In
addition, the commenter recommended
continuous litter removal rather than
daily removal as suggested.
-------
7894
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 31/Tuesday. February 17, 1998/Notices
Part IV.D.2.a(l)(e) suggests control
measures for these types of pollutants
but does not indicate that the
suggestions are the only measures
which should be considered. In
addition, Part IV.D.2.C of the permit
requires a narrative description of
practices to reduce pollutants from
construction related materials. As such,
EPA believes that the permit addresses
the concerns of the commenter. Further,
the suggestion in Part IV.D.2.a(l)(e) for
daily pick-up of litter and debris is only
a suggestion; if more frequent pick-up is
needed for adequate control of
pollutants, then it should be included in
the SWPPP.
Another commenter objected to the
requirement in Part IV.D.2.C for an
inventory of construction materials
noting that the materials may not be
known at the time the initial SWPPP is
prepared. EPA believes that this is a
valid concern, and the final permit was
modified to require a description of
construction materials expected to be
stored on-site with updates to the
description as appropriate.
Inspection of Inaccessible Discharge
Locations
A commenter objected to the
provision in Part IV.D.4.a of the draft
permit which only requires inspections
of discharge locations which are
accessible. If a discharge location is
inaccessible, the commenter
recommended that the nearest possible
downstream location be inspected.
The provision exempting inspections
of inaccessible discharge locations was
included in the permit to ensure the
safety of construction site personnel.
However, in response to the
commenter's concern, the final permit
includes a requirement for downstream
inspections to assess the impacts of the
discharges to the extent that such
inspections are practicable.
Miscellaneous Issues
Several miscellaneous comments
were also received which relate to the
issue of the level of environmental
protection provided by the permit. For
example, a commenter supported a
strong enforcement program to
accompany the permit and EPA would
agree that enforcement is a critical
element of the program which we are
also implementing to the maximum
extent which the Agency's resources
allow. A commenter also supported Part
IV.D.2 of the draft permit which
requires that the SWPPP identify the
permittees which are responsible for
implementation of each control
measure. In addition, this commenter
supported the requirement in Part
IV.D.4.b of the permit which requires
revisions of SWPPPs within 7 days if an
inspection indicates that the revisions
are necessary. EPA agrees with the
commenter on these issues and has
retained the requirements in the final
permit.
A commenter noted a discrepancy
between Part IV.D.2.a.(3) of the draft
permit and the corresponding
discussion in section IV.G.5.b.(iii) of the
draft fact sheet. Part IV.D.2.a.(3) of the
permit requires controls to the degree
attainable, while the fact sheet states
and that controls are required to the
degree economically attainable. The
commenter objected to the inclusion of
economic considerations. The
commenter also recommended that
"degree attainable" should be replaced
by "greatest degree attainable." For
consistency and in response to this
comment, EPA has revised the final fact
sheet by replacing the term "degree
economically attainable" with "degree
attainable." However, EPA believes the
words "degree attainable" are suitable
for describing the level of effort which
is required and has not included the
word "greatest" as recommended by the
commenter.
This commenter also noted another
apparent inconsistency between the
draft fact sheet (section IV.G.S.b.(iii) and
Part IV.D.2.a.(3)(a) of the draft permit).
For drainage locations which serve 10 or
more acres for which a sediment basin
(providing 3,600 cubic feet per acre
drained) is not available, the fact sheet
indicates that at a minimum silt fences
or the equivalent are required. The
permit, however, indicates that silt
fences, vegetative buffer strips or the
equivalent are required. The commenter
argued that silt fences are often
ineffective and should not be cited as
some sort of standard. In addition, the
commenter recommended that any
alternative to a sediment basin should
genuinely be the equivalent of a
sediment basin.
For consistency between the final fact
sheet and permit, EPA has modified the
final fact sheet to include vegetative
buffer strips as well as silt fences.
Reference to vegetative buffer strips was
inadvertently omitted from the draft fact
sheet. However, the permit does not
require that the alternate controls
necessarily be the equivalent of
sediment basins since this may not be
attainable. We would point out that the
permit does require that smaller basins
be used to extent that this is possible.
A commenter also recommended that
structural controls should not be placed
in wetlands. In response, EPA would
note that the placement of structures in
wetlands and other waters of the United
States is regulated under section 404 of
the CWA, rather than the NPDES permit
program. However, the fact sheet does
recommend that such controls be placed
on upland soils to the degree attainable.
A commenter also recommended that
emergency plans for erosion protection
should be required in SWPPPs when
especially heavy rainfall is predicted.
EPA, however, believes that the various
elements of the permit which address
erosion protection already require an
appropriate level of overall preparation
for the storms which may occur in a
given area. Therefore, special
requirements for especially heavy rain
(when predicted) were not included in
the final permit.
A commenter recommended that for
clarity, the definition of point source in
Part IX of the draft permit should be
modified to include swales as a type of
discharge conveyance. In response to
this comment, EPA would note that the
definition of point source which is used
in the permit was obtained from NPDES
regulations at 40 CFR 122.2 and the
Clean Water Act itself in section 502.
EPA is not at liberty to modify such
fundamental definitions of the NPDES
permit program within the context of
the issuance of a general permit.
Moreover, EPA believes that the existing
definition, and previous EPA guidance
on this matter (see for example the
discussion in the preamble to the storm
water application regulations at 55 FR
47996) are sufficient to clearly indicate
that swales could be considered point
sources.
This commenter also recommended
that Part VI.O (Inspection and Entry) of
the draft permit be modified to allow
entry by any local government official,
not just those with responsibility for an
MS4. In response to this issue, EPA
would point out that Part VI.O
originates from NPDES regulations at 40
CFR 122.41(i) which sets forth
conditions which must included in all
NPDES permits. The wording of the
condition has been modified slightly to
accommodate the storm water permit
(i.e., the MS4 operator would be acting
as an authorized representative of the
Director) while retaining the intent of
the regulations. However, EPA has not
modified the condition in accordance
with the recommendation of the
commenter since "any local government
official" would not necessarily be
considered a representative of the
Director.
Municipal Role
Several comments and questions were
received pertaining to the role of
municipalities in implementing the
requirements of the construction general
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63. No. 31/Tuesday. February 17. 1998 / Notices
7895
permit (CGP). In particular, questions
were raised regarding municipal
responsibilities to inform dischargers of
the new permit and its requirements,
and also whether municipalities would
be responsible for checking off-site
storage areas and spill reporting. A
commenter also recommended
permitting of municipal separate storm
sewer systems (MS4s) on a watershed
basis to provide better coordination
among the various MS4 programs for
construction sites within a watershed.
Additional recommendations which
were received included: (1) NOIs should
not be required in MS4s serving a
population of 100,000 or more where
the equivalent of a storm water
pollution prevention plan is already
required by municipal ordinances; (2)
construction should be exempt from
permitting if the municipality requires
100% containment of post-development
runoff; and (3) overall permitting should
be simplified, and a municipality might
serve as a suitable location where a
builder could get all required local,
State and Federal permits.
With regard to the questions
concerning municipal responsibilities
for construction projects, the operator of
the construction project is primarily
responsible for compliance with general
permit requirements such as NOI
submittal and spill reporting. However,
MS4 operators may also have a role
depending on the requirements of their
MS4 permit. NPDES regulations at 40
CFR 122.26(d)(2)(iv)(D) require that
MS4 operators develop a program for
controlling pollutants in construction
site runoff entering the MS4, including
activities such as site inspections and
educational activities. As such, MS4
operators may be required to implement
the types of activities contemplated by
the commenters. However, the specific
requirements would be determined by
the MS4 permits rather than the
construction general permit. Therefore,
no changes were made to the permit
language regarding MS4 responsibilities.
With regard to the issue of watershed
permitting, NPDES regulations already
provide the necessary authority for such
permitting. The definitions of the terms
large MS4 and medium MS4 include
any MS4s within a watershed which
need to be permitted because of factors
such as storm sewer interconnections
within a watershed (40 CFR 122.26(b)(4)
and (7)). EPA has also supported
watershed permitting in a previous
document entitled the Watershed
Approach Framework 0une 1996). In
addition, the Urban Wet Weather Flows
Federal Advisory Committee, which
EPA convened in May 1995, has
prepared a draft guidance document
specifically for wet weather flows which
also encourages permitting on
watershed basis.
EPA also considered the three other
recommendations related to the
municipal role in the regulation of
construction site runoff. EPA is
considering how to deal with qualifying
local programs in Phase II of the
Agency's storm water permitting
program. A few permitting authorities
(e.g., the State of Michigan) have
developed programs in which most of
the requirements consist of local
requirements which are referenced by
their permits. However, for the States in
which the general permit was proposed,
EPA does not have the necessary
information at this time to determine
whether such an arrangement would be
appropriate. If the commenter wishes to
explore this matter further, alternate
general permits be pursued in particular
States or municipalities.
In response to the second
recommendation, the CGP is intended to
regulate construction site runoff during
construction rather than after final
stabilization is achieved. As such,
containment of post-construction runoff
is irrelevant to the question of whether
a construction storm water permit is
needed.
With regard to the third
recommendation, EPA concurs that
regulatory agencies should try to
simplify permitting whenever possible.
Many counties have already developed
programs whereby information and
forms can be obtained at a single
location. The Urban Wet Weather Flows
Advisory Committee is also attempting
to find practical ways of streamlining
the storm water program. However, it is
not possible to completely
accommodate the recommendation
since there are also certain legal
constraints which must be observed
concerning which agency must actually
issue required permits. No changes to
the permit were made in response to
this issue.
Clarification of the Permit Language
Several commenters felt that it would
be difficult for the average permittee to
follow the terms of the SWPPP and the
permit.
The proposed permit was structured
after the 1992 permit (with
modifications reflecting new concerns
and laws), so there is five years of
industry experience in implementing
the general terms of the permit. The ease
or difficulty of following an SWPPP is
dependent on the complexity of the
permittee's self-generated plan.
However, EPA has revised various
portions of the permit, including those
related to permittee roles and
responsibilities and the SWPPP to
improve readability and clarity.
Cost Concerns
Many members of the regulated
community (particularly the building
industry and utility companies) were
concerned with the costs of controlling
the quality of storm water discharged
from construction sites, and for
certifying permit eligibility pursuant to
the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and
National Historic Preservation Act
(NHPA). Residential builders were
concerned with the impact permit
compliance would have on new home
prices. Others commented that EPA
failed to recognize the additive nature of
the costs of storm water sediment and
erosion controls and storm water
management measures, and the
economic impact they have on small
businesses. Permit compliance was
quoted to add from $1,000 to over
$1,850 to each home's price. A utility
company estimated that their
compliance cost would be
approximately $1,000 per lot, which
would need to be passed on to the
developers.
EPA recognizes that an investment
must be made to ensure erosion and
sediment runoff are minimized at
construction sites. As explained in the
ESA section of this Summary of
Response to Comments and Addendum
A of the permit, the Agency included
evaluation conditions and eligibility
restrictions in the permit based on
requirements imposed on the EPA
under other Federal laws, specifically
evaluation and consultation
requirements related to the protection of
endangered species. As discussed
previously, EPA may modify the permit
to reflect historic preservation concerns.
Enough flexibility exists in the permit
so that a permittee can design and
implement a storm water pollution
prevention plan in an efficient and cost
effective manner which will meet the
goals of the NPDES program and the
Clean Water Act, as well as the
eligibility restrictions derived from
Agency consultations with other federal
agencies pursuant to other federal laws.
EPA has also significantly reduced the
burden on utility company service line
installations by limiting the situations
when these activities would require
permit coverage. EPA believes that the
majority of these activities can be
classified as subcontractor-type work
which can be more efficiently covered
under a site operator's previously
prepared SWPPP.
EPA believes that in most cases there
is not an onerous burden caused by
-------
7896
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 31/Tuesday. February 17, 1998/Notices
cumulative expenditures for storm
water controls. Many best management
practices are single-installation only and
are nominal compared with the overall
site-development costs. In addition,
some measures such as sod
stabilization, pond construction and tree
protection add value to the
development. While storm water control
costs incurred by builders and
developers may be passed onto
consumers, the consequences of not
providing storm water controls is the
degradation of streams, lakes and
wetlands for purposes such as
recreation, fishing and sources of
drinking water. This not only upsets an
area's ecology and aesthetics, but also
ultimately devalues the area and makes
it less attractive to investors.
The per-lot cost figures cited by
developers for permit compliance were
not substantiated or correlated to a lot
or development size. Assuming the
storm water expenditures were accurate,
EPA questions whether they would
actually be prohibitive for builders or
home purchasers. For instance, in the
western United States the median new-
home price for the first three quarters of
1997 was $159,500 according to
information from the U.S. Census
Bureau as supplied by the National
Association of Homebuilders. The
minimum-sized development triggering
NPDES permitting, five acres, might
realistically be divided into ten half-acre
plots, making the development worth
nearly $1.6 million. A $1000 surcharge
assessed to a homeowner represents a
0.63% expenditure while $1,850
represents 1.16% expenditure.
According to the Economic Analysis of
the Proposed Storm Water Phase II Rule,
a 5-acre site would require soil and
erosion controls costing $6,382 (mean
cost in 1997 dollars) and $885 in costs
related to NOI submission and SWPPP
generation/implementation. The
combined total of $7,267 represents
only 0.45% of the value of the
development to the builder.
Several trade groups, utility
companies, and individuals commented
that the cumulative cost of permit
compliance was high enough that
constituted a "significant regulatory
action" and should trigger review of the
permit by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) under Executive Order
12866. Commenters felt the goal of clean
water could be attained with easier, less
costly requirements and that more
attention should be paid to a cost-
benefit analysis.
According to Executive Order 12866,
agencies must determine if a regulatory
action is "significant" and consequently
subject to the requirements of the
Executive Order. Section 3(e) of the
Executive Order defines "regulatory
action" to mean "any substantive action
by an agency (normally published in the
Federal Register) that promulgates or is
expected to lead to the promulgation of
a final rule or regulation, including
notices of inquiry, advance notices of
proposed rulemaking, and notices of
proposed rulemaking." As explained in
response to comments regarding the
Regulatory Flexibility Act. EPA believes
that today's general permit is not a
"rule." Also noted in that discussion,
however, EPA's conclusions on this
issue have not been consistent over
time. Notwithstanding any historical
inconsistency on the legal identity of a
general permit, OMB has waived review
of general permits under Executive
Order 12866 (and its predecessor,
Executive Order 12291). OMB has
reviewed some of the requirements
under the general permit under its
information collection review and
approval role under the Paperwork
Reduction Act.
Notwithstanding EPA's determination
that the permits were not subject to
formal OMB review, the Agency did
evaluate the associated cost impacts.
The major costs incurred by permittees
are for sediment and erosion controls
and for storm water management
controls. Typical costs for these control
measures are contained in the proposed
permit (62 FR 29802-29803) where it is
evident that they are nominal in relation
to the costs associated with construction
projects of five acres or more. It is
important to point out that costs for any
single project will depend on site-
specific considerations and the
expertise of permittees in preparing and
implementing storm water pollution
prevention plans. From some of the
comments received it appeared that
those commenters either did not fully
understand the flexibility built into the
permit for selecting the most cost-
effective control measures or they
simply overlooked opportunities for
cost savings.
For example, one commenter
estimated a cost based on the
assumption that the permit required
installation of silt fences on both sides
of each residential lot, even though: (1)
Silt fencing is but one acceptable
perimeter control among a variety of
options available under the CGP; (2)
perimeter controls between lots may not
be necessary when adjacent lots are
under construction at the same time;
and (3) if a silt fence is needed between
adjacent lots, its cost could reasonably
be split between the two lots. The
commenter should also consider that if
an adjoining lot was already stabilized,
a vegetative buffer strip might already
be in place for that side and could be
considered an alternative control
measure at no additional cost.
Another factor to be considered
regarding the burden the NPDES
program imposes is the time and cost
savings attainable with a general permit.
This is particularly relevant for the
endangered species protection
requirements which must be completed
before a Notice of Intent can be
submitted. While surveys and
assessments may be necessary in order
to certify compliance with the ESA-
related eligibility restrictions, the CGP
allows permittees to utilize the
investigations (and certifications) made
by other parties in lieu of performing
their own for a particular project area.
If the only other option available is an
individually drafted, site-specific
NPDES permit, endangered species and
historic preservation assessments would
still need to be completed and the
permit application would have to be
submitted at least 90 days prior to
commencement of construction per 40
CFR 122.21(c). Following application
completion and Agency review, the EPA
may need to complete potentially time-
consuming consultations on endangered
species. After completion of such
consultations, EPA would need to
prepare a draft individual permit and
make it available for public notice and
comment. The Agency would need to
conduct a public hearing if, based on
public comments received, there was
significant public interest. Finally, the
Agency would need to respond to
public comments and make a final
determination on issuance of the permit.
Given the activities listed above and the
time associated to complete each one,
the time and subsequent cost required to
issue an individual permit for a
construction project could be
significantly greater than that required
for obtaining general permit coverage.
IX. Cost Estimates
The major costs associated with
pollution prevention plans for
construction activities include the costs
of sediment and erosion controls (see
Table 1) and the costs of storm water
management measures (see Table 2).
The CGP provides flexibility in
developing controls for construction
activities. Typically, most construction
sites will employ a variety of the listed
sediment and erosion controls and
storm water management controls. In
general, the larger a site is, the lower the
per-acre cost of pollution prevention
will be.
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 31/Tuesday. February 17, 1998/Notices
7897
TABLE 1 .—SEDIMENT AND EROSION CONTROL COSTS
Temporary seeding " I... „ ~
Permanent seeding $1-°° Per square foot
Mulching 1-°° Per square foot
Sod stabilization ]•£ Per S(luare f°°t
Vegetative buffer strips 7'00 Per scluare foot
Protection of trees ^i00 Per scluare foot
Earth dikes 3ao° to $200.00 per tree set
Silt fences ... 5-50 Per linear fo°t
Drainage swales—grass". 6.00 per linear foot
Drainage swales—sod 3~°° Per scluare vard
Drainage swales—riprap 4-°°JPer sc'uare Vard
Drainage swales—asphalt ^-°° Per scluare vard
Drainage swales-«>ncrete ff-°° Per S(luare vard
Check dams-rock 65°0 per square yard
Check dams—covered straw bales I°° Per dam
Level spreader-earthen fCI per dam
Level spreader-concrete ^-°° Per s<*uare vard
Subsurface drain f5-°° Per square yard
Pipe slope drain 2.25 per .near foot
Temporary storm drain diversion """""i" °a°? P.er llnear foot
Storm drain inlet protection I".".' ™*Z in.«,
Rock outlet protection ^"° per lnlet
Sediment traps «ffr £»«• vard
Temporary sediment basins *°°J°$ 7«'°°°J*r traP
Sump pit 5'000 to $50,000 per basin
Entr^stabiiization::::::::::::: f™°t$7<;™°
Entrance wash rack ^°°.to $5-000 Per entrance
Temporary waterway crossing !IZIZI 500 toll So
Wind breaks °°°to $1.:500 .
— | 2.50 per linear foot
Practices such as sod stabilization and tree protection increase property values and satisfv consumer ae^iwtir nnnHs
t^tBZ^gESS&K .nventory of Current
TABLE 2.—ANNUALIZED COSTS OF SEVERAL STORM WATER MANAGEMENT OPTIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION SITES
Annualized *
Annualized'
Wet Ponds
Dry Ponds
Dry Ponds with Extended Detention
Infiltration Trenches
$5,872
3,240
3,110
4,134
$9,820
5,907
5,413
6,359
"Cost for 9-acre developed area.
"Cost for 20-acre developed area.
Estimates based on methodology presented in "Cost of Urban Runoff Quality Controls," Wiegand C Schueler T Chittenden W and
U°a"QUa Enhancement T*<*"°'°9y. Proceedings of an §nginWHn| FoSnd^^
C,°S»tSo«e P^ented in 1992 dollars. Annualized costs are based on a 10-year period and 10% discount rate Estimates include a continaencv
cost of 25% of the construction cost and operation and maintenance costs of 5% of the construction cost. Land 'costs are not included
X. Regulatory Review (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. It has been determined that this
re-issued general permit is not a
"significant regulatory action" under
the terms of Executive Order 12866.
EPA has initiated informal OMB review
of this general permit, specifically
portions involving the information
collection requirements under the
Paperwork Reduction Act, and will
complete a formal review for the
Paperwork Reduction Act in the near
future.
XI. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub. L.
104-4, establishes requirements for
Federal agencies to assess the effects of
their regulatory actions on State, local,
and Tribal governments and the private
sector. Under UMRA section 202, EPA
generally must prepare a written
statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules
with "Federal mandates" that may
result in expenditures to State, local,
and Tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or to the private sector, of
$100 million or more in any one year.
Before promulgating an EPA rule for
which a written statement is needed,
UMRA section 205 generally requires
EPA to identify and consider a
-------
7898
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 31/Tuesday. February 17, 1998/Notices
reasonable number of regulatory
alternatives and adopt the least costly,
most cost-effective or least burdensome
alternative that achieves the objectives
of the rule. The provisions of UMRA
section 205 do not apply when they are
inconsistent with applicable law.
Moreover, UMRA section 205 allows
EPA to adopt an alternative other than
the least costly, most cost-effective or
least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes an explanation
with the final rule why the alternative
was not adopted.
Before EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or
uniquely affect small governments,
including Tribal governments, it must
have developed under UMRA section
203 a small government agency plan.
The plan must provide for notifying
potentially affected small governments,
enabling officials of affected small
governments to have meaningful and
timely input in the development of EPA
regulatory proposals with significant
Federal intergovernmental mandates,
and informing, educating and advising
small governments on compliance with
the regulatory requirements.
A. UMRA Section 202 and the
Construction General Permit
UMRA section 202 requires a written
statement containing certain
assessments, estimates and analyses
prior to the promulgation of certain
general notices of proposed rulemaking
(2 U.S.C. 1532). UMRA section 421(10)
defines "rule" based on the definition of
rule in the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Section 601 of the Regulatory Flexibility
Act defines "rule" to mean any rule for
which an agency publishes a general
notice of proposed rulemaking pursuant
to section 553 of the Administrative
Procedure Act. EPA does not propose to
issue NPDES general permits based on
APA section 553. Instead, EPA relies on
publication of general permits in the
Federal Register in order to provide "an
opportunity for a hearing" under CWA
section 402(a), 33 U.S.C. section
1342(a). Nonetheless, EPA has evaluated
permitting alternatives for regulation of
storm water discharges associated with
construction activity. The general
permit that EPA proposes to re-issue
would be virtually the same NPDES
general permit for construction that
many construction operators have used
over the past five years. Furthermore,
general permits provide a more cost and
time efficient alternative for the
regulated community to obtain NPDES
permit coverage than that provided
through individually drafted permits.
B. UMRA Section 203 and the
Construction General Permit
Agencies are required to prepare
small government agency plans under
UMRA section 203 prior to establishing
any regulatory requirement that might
significantly or uniquely affect small
governments. "Regulatory
requirements" might, for example,
include the requirements of these
NPDES general permits for discharges
associated with construction activity,
especially if a municipality sought
coverage under one of the general
permits. EPA envisions that some
municipalities—those with municipal
separate storm sewer systems serving a
population over 100,000—may elect to
seek coverage under these proposed
general permits. For many
municipalities, however, a permit
application is not required until August
7, 2001, for a storm water discharge
associated with construction activity
where the construction site is owned or
operated by a municipality with a
population of less than 100,000. (See 40
CFR 1
In any event, any such permit
requirements would not significantly
affect small governments because most
State laws already provide for the
control of sedimentation and erosion in
a similar manner as today's general
permit. Permit requirements also would
not uniquely affect small governments
because compliance with the permit's
conditions affects small governments in
the same manner as any other entity
seeking coverage under the permit.
Thus, UMRA section 203 would not
apply.
XII. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection
requirements in this rule will be
submitted for approval to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) under
the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq. On June 2, 1997, EPA
solicited comments on the proposed
revision to the current Information
Collection Request (ICR) document for
this permit (ICR approved OMB; OMB
No. 2040-0086, expiration, August 31,
1998) to accommodate the increased
information requirements in the new
NOI for the construction general permit
(62 FR 29826). EPA estimates an
increase in the burden associated with
filling out the NOI form for the permit
due to added requirements under the
Endangered Species Act. EPA also
anticipates a small increase in the time
because of the requirement to submit an
NOT upon completion of construction
activities.
An agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number. The OMB control
numbers for EPA's regulations are listed
in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter
15. The permit explains that applicants
must use the existing NOI form until
EPA publishes a Federal Register notice
announcing OMB approval of the
revised NOI form. Applicants must use
the revised NOI form after this notice is
published.
XIII. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 etseq., a Federal
agency must prepare an initial
regulatory flexibility analysis "for any
proposed rule" for which the agency "is
required by section 553 of [the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA)],
or any other law, to publish general
notice of proposed rulemaking." The
RFA exempts from this requirement any
rule that the issuing agency certifies
"will not, if promulgated, have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities."
EPA did not prepare an initial
regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) for
the proposed CGP. (Note that in today's
action, EPA is issuing a separate general
permit for each jurisdiction where EPA
issues permits; i.e., in certain States,
Indian Country lands and Federal
facilities within certain States. However,
for purposes of readability, reference is
made to the permits in the singular form
such as "permit" or "CGP" rather than
in plural form.) In the notice of the
proposed permit, EPA explained its
view that issuance of an NPDES general
permit is not subject to rulemaking
requirements, including the requirement
for a general notice of proposed
rulemaking, under APA section 553 or
any other law, and is thus not subject to
the RFA requirement to prepare an
IRFA. Nevertheless, in keeping with
EPA's policy to consider the impact of
its actions on small entities even when
it is not legally required to do so, the
Agency considered the potential impact
of the permit on small entities that
would be eligible for coverage under the
permit. EPA concluded that the permit,
if issued as drafted, would not have a
significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities. EPA based its
conclusion on the fact that the draft
permit was largely the same as the
current permit and, to the extent it
differed, provided dischargers with
more flexibility than the current permit
allowed.
Some commenters on the proposed
CGP disagreed with EPA's conclusions
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 31/Tuesday, February 17, 1998/Notices
7899
that NPDES general permits are not
subject to rulemaking requirements and
that the proposed permit would not
have a significant impact on small
entities. They asserted that the CGP is
subject to rulemaking requirements and
thus the RFA, and that the Agency
should have prepared an IRFA for the
permit.
In light 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
again the applicable law, including the
CWA, relevant CWA case law and the
APA, as well as the Attorney General's
Manual on the APA (1947). On the basis
of its review, EPA has concluded, as set
forth in the proposal, 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 action—
"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 section 551(5).
By its terms, then, section 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. 568F.2d 1369, 1381.
p.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 NPDES general permit for
storm water discharges associated with
construction activity 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 section 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 CGP being issued
today, the Agency has considered and
addressed the potential impact of the
general permit on small entities in a
manner that would meet the
requirements of the RFA if it applied.
Specifically, EPA has analyzed the
potential impact of the general permit
on small entities and found that it will
not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small
entities. Like the previous general
permit that it replaces (the Baseline
Construction General Permit), the
permit will make available to many
small entities, particularly operators of
construction sites, 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
-------
7900
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 31/Tuesday, February 17, 1998/Notices
discharges typically regulated under
individual NPDES permits. Thus,
general permits like the permit at issue
here provide small entities with a
permitting application option that is
much less burdensome than NPDES
individual permit applications.
Furthermore, the general permit is
virtually identical to its predecessor, the
Baseline Construction General Permit,
under which many construction
operators have operated during the past
five years. Moreover, the other new
provisions of the permit have been
designed to minimize burdens on small
entities, including eliminating the
requirement that construction site
operators require that their contractors
and subcontractors sign a standard
certification statement agreeing to abide
by storm water pollution prevention
plan provisions developed for a project.
In today's general permit, only the
operator (s) of a construction site are
required to satisfy certification
requirements under the permit. EPA
believes this modification from the prior
permit should reduce any such adverse
economic impacts on both operators and
contractors/subcontractors who, in
many instances, are small entities. In
view of the foregoing, the Regional
Administrators find that the final
general permit, even if it were a rule,
will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
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.
Accordingly, I hereby certify pursuant
to the provisions of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, that this permit will not
have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
Authority: Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251
et seq.
Dated: January 21, 1998.
John DeVillars,
Regional Administrator, Region I.
XIV. Official Signatures
Accordingly, I hereby certify pursuant
to the provisions of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, that this permit will not
have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
Authority: Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251
et seq.
Dated: January 27, 1998.
Jeanne M. Fox,
Regional Administrator. Region 2.
Accordingly, I hereby certify pursuant
to the provisions of die Regulatory
Flexibility Act, that this permit will not
have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
Authority: Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251
etseq.
W. Michael McCabe,
Acting Regional Administrator. Region III.
Accordingly, I hereby certify pursuant
to the provisions of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, that this permit will not
have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
Authority: Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251
et seq.
Dated: January 16, 1998.
William W. Rice,
Acting Regional Administrator. Region 7.
Accordingly, I hereby certify pursuant
to the provisions of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, that this permit will not
have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
Authority: Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251
et seq.
Dated: January 15, 1998.
William P. Yellowtail,
Regional Administrator, Region VIII.
Accordingly, I hereby certify pursuant
to the provisions of die Regulatory
Flexibility Act, that this permit will not
have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
Authority: Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251
et seq.
Dated: January 29, 1998.
Felicia Marcus,
Regional Administrator, Region 9.
Accordingly, I hereby certify pursuant
to the provisions of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, that this permit will not
have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
Authority: Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251
et seq.
Dated: January 20. 1998.
Chuck Clarke,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.
Storm Water General Permit for
Construction Activities
Cover Page
Permit No. [See Part I.A.]
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.), except as provided
in Part I.E.3 of this permit, operators of
construction activities located in an area
specified in Part I.A. and who submit a
Notice of Intent in accordance with Part
II, are authorized to discharge pollutants
to waters of the United States in
accordance with the conditions and
requirements set forth herein.
This permit shall become effective on
February 17, 1998.
This permit and the authorization to
discharge shall expire at midnight,
February 17, 2003.
Signed and issued this 20th day of January,
1998.
Linda M. Murphy,
Director, Office of Ecosystem Protection.
This signature is for the permit conditions
in Parts I through IX and for any additional
conditions in Part X which apply to facilities
located in the corresponding State, Indian
Country land, or other area in Region 1.
Storm Water General Permit for
Construction Activities
Cover Page
Permit No. [See Part I.A.]
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.), except as provided
in Part I.B.3 of this permit, operators of
construction activities located in an area
specified in Part I.A. and who submit a
Notice of Intent in accordance with Part
II, are authorized to discharge pollutants
to waters of the United States in
accordance with the conditions and
requirements set forth herein.
This permit shall become effective on
February 17, 1998.
This permit and the authorization to
discharge shall expire at midnight,
February 17, 2003.
Signed and issued this 22nd day of
January, 1998.
Kathleen C. Callahan,
Division of Environmental Planning and
Protection Director, Region 2.
This signature is for the permit conditions
in Parts I through IX and for any additional
conditions in Part X which apply to facilities
located in the corresponding State, Indian
Country land, or other area in Region 2.
Storm Water General Permit for
Construction Activities
Cover Page
Permit No. [See Part I.A.]
Authorization To Discharge Under the
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System
In compliance with the provisions of
the Clean Water Act, as amended, (33
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 31/Tuesday, February 17, 1998/Notices
7901
U.S.C. 1251 et. seq.), except as provided
in Part I.B.3 of this permit, operators of
construction activities located in an area
specified in Part LA. and who submit a
Notice of Intent in accordance with Part
II, are authorized to discharge pollutants
to waters of the United States in
accordance with the conditions and
requirements set forth herein.
This permit shall become effective on
February 17, 1998.
This permit and the authorization to
discharge shall expire at midnight,
February 17, 2003.
Signed and issued this 22nd day of
January, 1998.
Thomas Maslany,
Water Management Director.
This signature is for the permit conditions
in Parts I through IX and for any additional
conditions in Part X which apply to facilities
located in the corresponding State, Indian
Country land, or other area in Region 3.
Storm Water General Permit for
Construction Activities
Cover Page
Permit No. [See Part I.A.]
Authorizatin 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.), except as provided
in Part I.B.3 of this permit, operators of
construction activities located in an area
specified in Part LA. and who submit a
Notice of Intent in accordance with Part
II, are authorized to discharge pollutants
to waters of the United States in
accordance with the conditions and
requirements set forth herein.
This permit shall become effective on
February 17, 1998.
This permit and the authorization to
discharge shall expire at midnight,
February 17, 2003.
Signed and issued this 16th day of January,
1998.
U. Gale Hutton,
Director. Water, Wetlands, and Pesticides
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 7.
This signature is for the permit conditions
in Parts I through IX and for any additional
conditions in Part X which apply to facilities
located in the corresponding State, Indian
Country land, or other area in Region 7.
Storm Water General Permit for
Construction Activities
Cover Page
Permit No. [See Part LA.]
Authorizatin 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.), except as provided
in Part I.B.3 of this permit, operators of
construction activities located in an area
specified in Part LA. and who submit a
Notice of Intent in accordance with Part
II, are authorized to discharge pollutants
to waters of the United States in
accordance with the conditions and
requirements set forth herein.
This permit shall become effective on
February 17, 1998.
This permit and the authorization to
discharge shall expire at midnight,
February 17, 2003.
Signed and issued this 15th day of January,
1998.
Kerrigan G. Clough,
Assistant Regional Administrator, Office of
Pollution Prevention, State and Tribal
Assistance.
This signature is for the permit conditions
in Parts I through IX and for any additional
conditions in Part X which apply to facilities
located in the corresponding State, Indian
Country land, or other area in Region 8.
Storm Water General Permit for
Construction Activities
Cover Page
Permit No. [See Part LA.]
Authorizatin 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.), except as provided
in Part I.B.3 of this permit, operators of
construction activities located in an area
specified in Part LA. and who submit a
Notice of Intent in accordance with Part
II, are authorized to discharge pollutants
to waters of the United States in
accordance with the conditions and
requirements set forth herein.
This permit shall become effective on
February 17, 1998.
This permit and the authorization to
discharge shall expire at midnight,
February 17, 2003.
Signed and issued this 29th day of January,
1998.
Alexis Strauss,
Acting Director, Water Division, Region 9.
This signature is for the permit conditions
in Parts I through IX and for any additional
conditions in Part X which apply to facilities
located in the corresponding State, Indian
Country land, or other area in Region 9.
Storm Water General Permit for
Construction Activities
Cover Page
Permit No. [See part LA.]
Authorization to Discharge Under the
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System
In accordance with the provisions of
the Clean Water Act, as amended, (33
U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), except as provided
in Part I.B.3 of this permit, operators of
construction activities located in an area
specified in Part LA. and who submit a
Notice of Intent in accordance with Part
II, are authorized to discharge pollutants
to waters of the United States in
accordance with the conditions and
requirements set forth herein.
This permit shall become effective on
February 17, 1998.
This permit and the authorization to
discharge shall expire at midnight,
February 17, 2003.
Signed and issued this 20th day of January,
1998.
Philip G. Millam,
Director, Office of Water, Region 10.
This signature is for the permit conditions
in Parts I through IX and for any additional
conditions in Part X which apply to facilities
located in the corresponding State. Indian
Country land, or other area in Region 10.
NPDES General Permits for Storm
Water Discharges From Construction
Activities
Table of Contents
Part I. Coverage Under this Permit
A. Permit Area
B. Eligibility
C. Obtaining Authorization
D. Terminating Coverage
Part II. Notice of Intent Requirements
A. Deadlines for Notification
B. Contents of Notice of Intent
C. Where to Submit
Part HI. Special Conditions, Management
Practices, and Other Non-Numeric
Limitations
A. Prohibition on Non-Storm Water
Discharges
B. Releases in Excess of Reportable
Quantities
C. Spills
D. Discharge Compliance with Water Quality
Standards
E. Responsibilities of Operators
Part IV. Storm Water Pollution Prevention
Plans
A. Deadlines for Plan Preparation and
Compliance
B. Signature. Plan Review and Making Plans
Available
C. Keeping Plans Current
D. Contents of Plan
-------
7902
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 31/Tuesday, February 17, 1998/Notices
Part V. Retention of Records
A. Documents
B. Accessibility
C. Addresses
Part VI. Standard Permit Conditions
A. Duty to Comply
B. Continuation of the Expired General
Permit
C. Need to Halt or Reduce Activity not a
Defense
D. Duty to Mitigate
E. Duty to Provide Information
F. Other Information
G. Signatory Requirements
H. Penalties for Falsification of Reports
I. Oil and Hazardous Substance Liability
J. Property Rights
K. Severability
L. Requiring an Individual Permit or an
Alternative General Permit
M. State/Tribal Environmental Laws
N. Proper Operation and Maintenance
O. Inspection and Entry
P. Permit Actions
Part VII. Reopener Clause
Part VIII. Termination of Coverage
A. Notice of Termination
B. Addresses
Part IX. Definitions
Part X. Permit Conditions Applicable to
Specific States, Indian Country Lands, or
Territories
Addenda
A. Endangered Species
B. Historic Properties (Reserved)
C. Notice of Intent (NOI) Form
D. Notice of Termination (NOT) Form
Part I. Coverage Under This Permit
A. Permit Area
The permit language is structured as
if it were a single permit, with State,
Indian Country land, or other area-
specific conditions specified in Part X.
Permit coverage is actually provided by
legally separate and distinctly
numbered permits covering each of the
following areas:
Region 1
CTR10*##I: Indian Country lands in
the State of Connecticut.
MAR10*###: Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, except Indian Country
lands.
MAR10*##I: Indian Country lands in
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
MER10*###: State of Maine, except
Indian Country lands.
MER10*##I: Indian Country lands in
the State Maine.
NHR10*###: State of New Hampshire.
RIR10*##I: Indian Country lands in
the State of Rhode Island.
VTR10*##F: Federal Facilities in the
State of Vermont.
Region 2
NYR10*##I: Indian Country lands in
the State of New York.
PRR10*###: The Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico.
Region 3
DCR10*###: The District of Columbia.
DER10*##F: Federal Facilities in the
State of Delaware.
Region 4
Coverate Not Available. Construction
activities in Region 4 must obtain
permit coverage under an alternative
general permit.
Region 5
Coverage Not Available.
Region 6
Coverage Not Available.
Region 7
IAR10*##I: Indian Country lands in
the State of Iowa.
KSR10*##I: Indian Country lands in
the State of Kansas.
NER10*##I: Indian Country lands in
the State of Nebraska, except Pine Ridge
Reservation lands (see Region 8).
Region 8
COR10*##F: Federal Facilities in the
State of Colorado, except those located
on Indian Country lands.
COR10*##I: Indian Country lands in
the State of Colorado, including the
portion of the Ute Mountain Reservation
located in New Mexico.
MTR10*##I: Indian Country lands in
the State of Montana.
NDR10*##I: Indian Country lands in
the State of North Dakota, including that
portion of the Standing Rock
Reservation located in South Dakota
(except for the Lake Traverse
Reservation which is covered under
South Dakota permit SDR10*##I listed
below).
SDR10*##I: Indian Country lands in
the State of South Dakota, including the
portion of the Pine Ridge Reservation
located in Nebraska and the portion of
the Lake Traverse Reservation located in
North Dakota (except for the Standing
Rock Reservation which is covered
under North Dakota permit NDR10*##I
listed above).
UTR10*##I: Indian Country lands in
the State of Utah, except Goshute and
Navajo Reservation lands (see Region 9).
WYR10*##I: Indian Country lands in
the State of Wyoming.
Region 9
ASR10*###: The Island of American
Samoa.
AZR10*###: The State of Arizona,
except Indian Country lands.
AZR10*##I: Indian Country lands in
the State of Arizona, including Navajo
Reservation lands in New Mexico and
Utah.
CAR10*##I: Indian Country lands in
the State of California.
GUR10*###: The Island of Guam.
JAR10*###: Johnston Atoll.
MWR10*###: Midway Island and
Wake Island.
NIR10*###: Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands.
NVR10*##I: Indian Country lands in
the State of Nevada, including the Duck
Valley Reservation in Idaho, the Fort
McDermitt Reservation in Oregon and
the Goshute Reservation in Utah.
Region 10
AKR10*###: The State of Alaska,
except Indian Country lands.
AKR10*##I: Indian Country lands in
Alaska.
IDR10*###: The State of Idaho, except
Indian Country lands.
IDR10*##I: Indian Country lands in
the State of Idaho, except Duck Valley
Reservation lands (see Region 9).
ORR10*##I: Indian Country lands in
the State of Oregon except Fort
McDermitt Reservation lands (see
Region 9).
WAR10*##F: Federal Facilities in the
State of Washington, except those
located on Indian Country lands.
WAR10*##I: Indian Country lands in
the State of Washington.
B. Eligibility
1. Permittees are authorized to
discharge pollutants in storm water
runoff associated with construction
activities as defined in 40 CFR
122.26(b)(14)(x) and those construction
site discharges designated by the
Director as needing a storm water
permit under 122.26(a)(l)(v) or under
122.26(a)(9) and 122.26(g)(l)(i).
Discharges identified under Part I.B.3
are excluded from coverage. Any
discharge authorized by a different
NPDES permit may be commingled with
discharges authorized by this permit.
2. This permit also authorizes storm
water discharges from support activities
(e.g., concrete or asphalt batch plants,
equipment staging yards, material
storage areas, excavated material
disposal areas, borrow areas) provided:
a. The support activity is directly
related to a construction site that is
required to have NPDES permit
coverage for discharges of storm water
associated with construction activity;
b. The support activity is not a
commercial operation serving multiple
unrelated construction projects by
different operators, and does not operate
beyond the completion of the
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 31/Tuesday, February 17, 1998/Notices
7903
construction activity at the last
construction project it supports; and
c. Appropriate controls and measures
are identified in a storm water pollution
prevention plan covering the discharges
from the support activity areas.
3. Limitations on Coverage. A. Post
Construction Discharges. This permit
does not authorize storm water
discharges that originate from the site
after construction activities have been
completed and the site, including any
temporary support activity site, has
undergone final stabilization. Industrial
post-construction storm water
discharges may need to be covered by a
separate NPDES permit.
B. Discharges Mixed With Non-Storm
Water. This permit does not authorize
discharges that are mixed with sources
of non-storm water, other than those
discharges which are identified in Part
II.A.2. or 3. (exceptions to prohibition
on non-storm water discharges) and are
in compliance with Part IV.D.5 (non-
storm water discharges).
C. Discharges Covered by Another
Permit. This permit does not authorize
storm water discharges associated with
construction activity that have been
covered under an individual permit or
required to obtain coverage under an
alternative general permit in accordance
with Part VI.L.
d. Discharges Threatening Water
Quality. This permit does not authorize
storm water discharges from
construction sites that the Director
(EPA) determines will cause, or have
reasonable potential to cause or
contribute to, violations of water quality
standards. Where such determinations
have been made, the Director may notify
the operators) that an individual permit
application is necessary in accordance
with Part VI.L. However, the Director
may authorize coverage under this
permit after appropriate controls and
implementation procedures designed to
bring the discharges into compliance
with water quality standards has been
included in the storm water pollution
prevention plan;
e. Storm water discharges and storm
water discharge-related activities that
are not protective of Federally listed
endangered and threatened ("listed")
species or designated critical habitat
("critical habitat").
(1) For the purposes of complying
with the Part I.B.S.e. eligibility
requirements, "storm water discharge-
related activities" include:
(a) Activities which cause, contribute
to, or result in point source storm water
pollutant discharges, including but not
limited to: excavation, site
development, grading and other surface
disturbance activities; and
(b) Measures to control storm water
including the siting, construction and
operation of best management practices
(BMPs) to control, reduce or prevent
storm water pollution.
(2) Coverage under this permit is
available only if the applicant certifies
that it meets at least one of the criteria
in paragraphs (a)-(d) below. Failure to
continue to meet one of these criteria
during the term of the permit will
render a permittee ineligible for
coverage under this permit.
(a) The storm water discharges and
storm water discharge-related activities
are not likely to adversely affect listed
species or critical habitat; or
(b) Formal or informal consultation
with the Fish and Wildlife Service and/
or the National Marine Fisheries Service
(the "Services") under section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) has been
concluded which addresses the effects
of the applicant's storm water
discharges and storm water discharge-
related activities on listed species and
critical habitat and the consultation
results in either a no jeopardy opinion
or a written concurrence by the
Service(s) on a finding that the
applicant's storm water discharges and
storm water discharge-related activities
are not likely to adversely affect listed
species or critical habitat. A section 7
consultation may occur in the context of
another Federal action (e.g., a ESA
section 7 consultation was performed
for issuance of a wetlands dredge and
fill permit for the project, or as part of
a National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) review); or
(c) The applicant's construction
activities are authorized under section
10 of the ESA and that authorization
addresses the effects of the applicant's
storm water discharges and storm water
discharge-related activities on listed
species and critical habitat; or
(d) The applicant's storm water
discharges and storm water discharge-
related activities were already addressed
in another operator's certification of
eligibility under Part I.B.3.e.(2)(a), (b), or
(c) which included the applicant's
project area. By certifying eligibility
under Part I.B.3.e.(2)(d), the applicant
agrees to comply with any measures or
controls upon which the other
operator's certification under Part
I.B.3.e.(2)(a), (b) or (c) was based.
(3) All applicants must follow the
procedures provided at Addendum A of
this permit when applying for permit
coverage.
(4) The applicant must comply with
any applicable terms, conditions or
other requirements developed in the
process of meeting eligibility
requirements of Part I.B.3.e.(2)(a), (b),
(c), or (d) above to remain eligible for
coverage under this permit. Such terms
and conditions must be incorporated in
the applicant's storm water pollution
prevention plan.
(5) Applicants who choose to conduct
informal consultation to meet the
eligibility requirements of Part
I.B.3.e.(2)(b) are automatically
designated as non-Federal
representatives under this permit. See
50 CFR 402.08. Applicants who choose
to conduct informal consultation as a
non-Federal representatives must notify
EPA and the appropriate Service office
in writing of that decision.
(6) This permit does not authorize any
storm water discharges where the
discharges or storm water discharge-
related activities cause prohibited
"take" (as defined under section 3 of the
Endangered Species Act and 50 CFR
17.3) of endangered or threatened
species unless such takes are authorized
under section 7 or 10 of the Endangered
Species Act.
(7) This permit does not authorize any
storm water discharges where the
discharges or storm water discharge-
related activities are likely to jeopardize
the continued existence of any species
that are listed or proposed to be listed
as endangered or threatened under the
ESA or result in the adverse
modification or destruction of habitat
that is designated or proposed to be
designated as critical under the ESA.
f. Storm Water Discharges and Storm
Water Discharge-Related Activities with
Unconsidered Adverse Effects on
Historic Properties. (Reserved)
C. Obtaining Authorization
1. In order for storm water discharges
from construction activities to be
authorized under this general permit, an
operator must:
a. Meet the Part I.E. eligibility
requirements;
b. Except as provided in Parts II. A.5
and II.A.6, develop a storm water
pollution prevention plan (SWPPP)
covering either the entire site or all
portions of the site for which they are
operators (see definition in Part IX.N)
according to the requirements in Part IV.
A "joint" SWPPP may be developed and
implemented as a cooperative effort
where there is more than one operator
at a site; and
c. Submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) in
accordance with the requirements of
Part II, using an NOI form provided by
the Director (or a photocopy thereof).
Only one NOI need be submitted to
cover all of the permittee's activities on
the common plan of development or
sale (e.g., you do not need to submit a
separate NOI for each separate lot in a
-------
7904
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 31/Tuesday, February 17, 1998/Notices
residential subdivision or for two
separate buildings being constructed at
a manufacturing facility, provided your
SWPPP covers each area for which you
are an operator). The SWPPP must be
implemented upon commencement of
construction activities.
2. Any new operator on site,
including those who replace an operator
who has previously obtained permit
coverage, must submit an NOI to obtain
permit coverage.
3. Unless notified by the Director to
the contrary, operators who submit a
correctly completed NOI in accordance
with the requirements of this permit are
authorized to discharge storm water
from construction activities under the
terms and conditions of this permit two
(2) days after the date that the NOI is
postmarked. The Director may deny
coverage under this permit and require
submittal of an application for an
individual NPDES permit based on a
review of the NOI or other information
(see Part VI.L).
D. Terminating Coverage
1. Permittees wishing to terminate
coverage under this permit must submit
a Notice of Termination (NOT) in
accordance with part VIII of this permit.
Compliance with this permit is required
until an NOT is submitted. The
permittee's authorization to discharge
under this permit terminates at
midnight of the day the NOT is signed.
2. All permittees must submit an NOT
within thirty (30) days after one or more
of the following conditions have been
met:
a. Final stabilization (see definition
Part IX.I) has been achieved on all
portions of the site for which the
permittee is responsible (including if
applicable, returning agricultural land
to its pre-construction agricultural use);
b. Another operator/permittee has
assumed control according to Part
VI.G.2.C. over all areas of the site that
have not been finally stabilized; or
c. For residential construction only,
temporary stabilization has been
completed and the residence has been
transferred to the homeowner.
Enforcement actions may be taken if
a permittee submits an NOT without
meeting one or more of these
conditions.
Part II. Notice of Intent Requirements
A. Deadlines for Notification
I. Except as provided in Part II.A.3,
II.A.4, II.A.5 or II.A.6 below, parties
defined as operators (see definition in
Part IX.N) due to their operational
control over construction plans and
specifications, including the ability to
make modifications to those plans and
specifications, must submit a Notice of
Intent (NOI) in accordance with the
requirements of this Part at least two (2)
days prior to the commencement of
construction activities (i.e., the initial
disturbance of soils associated with
clearing, grading, excavation activities,
or other construction activities).
2. Except as provided in parts II.A.3,
II.A.4, II.A.5 of II.A.6 below, parties
defined as operators (see definition in
Part IX.N) due to their day-to-day
operational control over activities at a
project which are necessary to ensure
compliance with a storm water
pollution prevention plan or other
permit conditions (e.g., general
contractor, erosion control contractor)
must submit an NOI at least two (2) days
prior to commencing work on-site.
3. For storm water discharges from
construction projects where the operator
changes, including instances where an
operator is added after an NOI has been
submitted under Parts II.A.I or II. A.2,
the new operator must submit an NOI at
least two (2) days before assuming
operational control over site
specifications or commencing work on-
site.
4. Operators are not prohibited from
submitting late NOIs. When a late NOI
is submitted, authorization is only for
discharges that occur after permit
coverage is granted. The Agency
reserves the right to take appropriate
enforcement for any unpermitted
activities that may have occurred
between the time construction
commenced and authorization of future
discharges is granted (typically 2 days
after a complete NOI is submitted).
5. Operators of on-going construction
projects as of the effective date of this
permit which received authorization to
discharge for these projects under the
1992 baseline construction general
permit must:
a. Submit a NOI according to Part II.B.
within 90 days of the effective date of
this permit. If the permittee is eligible
to submit a Notice of Termination (e.g.,
construction is finished and final
stabilization has been achieved) before
the 90th day, a new NOI is not required
to be submitted;
b. For the first 90 days from the
effective date of this permit, comply
with the terms and conditions of the
1992 baseline construction general
permit they were previously authorized
under; and
c. Update their storm water pollution
prevention plan to comply with the
requirements of Part IV within 90 days
after the effective date of this permit.
6. Operators of on-going construction
projects as of the effective date of this
permit which did not receive
authorization to discharge for these
projects under the 1992 baseline
construction general permit must:
a. Prepare and comply with an
interim storm water pollution
prevention plan in accordance with the
1992 baseline construction general
permit prior to submitting an NOI;
b. Submit a NOI according to Part II.B;
and
c. Update their storm water pollution
prevention plan to comply with the
requirements of Part IV within 90 days
after the effective date of this permit.
B. Contents of Notice of Intent (NOI)
1. Interim Use of Existing NOI Form
Until the revised NOI form is
published as final in the Federal
Register, operators must use EPA's
existing NOI form [EPA Form 3510-6
(8-98)] to apply for permit coverage.
Note: The revised NOI form is pending
approval by the U.S. Office of Management
and Budget as of the effective date of this
permit.
When using the existing NOI form,
operators should only submit
information that was required for parties
under the baseline construction general
permit. However, by completing and
signing the existing NOI form to obtain
permit coverage, operators are certifying
that they meet all applicable eligibility
requirements of Part I.B of today's
permit and an informing the Director of
their intent to be covered by, and
comply with, the terms and conditions
of this permit. When the revised NOI
form is available (through final
publication in the Federal Register), the
existing NOI form will no longer be
accepted for permit coverage.
2. Use of Revised NOI Form
The revised NOI form shall be signed
in accordance with Part VI.G of this
permit and shall include the following
information:
a. The name, address, and telephone
number of the operator filing the NOI
for permit coverage;
b. An indication of whether the
operator is a Federal, State, Tribal,
private, or other public entity;
c. The name (or odier identifier),
address, county, and latitude/longitude
of the construction project or site;
d. An indication of whether the
project or site is located on Indian
Country lands;
e. Confirmation that a storm water
pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) has
been developed or will be developed
prior to commencing construction
activities, and that the SWPPP will be
compliant with any applicable local
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 31/Tuesday, February 17, 1998/Notices
7905
sediment and erosion control plans.
Copies of SWPPPs or permits should not
be included with the NOI submission;
f. Optional information: the location
where the SWPPP may be viewed and
the name and telephone number of a
contact person for scheduling viewing
times;
g. The name of the receiving water(s);
h. Estimates of project start and
completion dates, and estimates of the
number of acres of the site on which soil
will be distributed (if less than 1 acre,
enter "1");
i. Based on the instructions in
Addendum A, whether any listed or
proposed threatened or endangered
species, or designated critical habitat,
are in proximity to the storm water
discharges or storm water discharge-
related activities to be covered by this
permit;
j. Under which section(s) of Part
I.B.S.e (Endangered Species) the
applicant is certifying eligibility; and
Note that as of the effective date of
this permit, reporting of information
relating to the preservation of historic
properties has been reserved and is not
required at this time. Such reservation
in no way relieves applicants or
permittees from any otherwise
applicable obligations or liabilities
related to historic preservation under
State, Tribal or local law. After further
discussions between EPA and the
Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation, the Agency may modify
the permit. Any such modification may
affect future Notice of Intent reporting
requirements.
C. Where To Submit
1. NOIs must be signed in accordance
with Part VI.G. and sent to the following
address: Storm Water Notice of Intent
(4203). US EPA, 401 M. Street, SW,
Washington, D.C. 20460.
Part III. Special Conditions,
Management Practices, and Other Non-
Numeric Limitations
A. Prohibition Non-Storm Water
Discharges
1. Except as provided in Parts I.E.2 or
3 and III.A.2 or 3, all discharges covered
by this permit shall be composed
entirely of storm water associated with
construction activity.
2. Discharges of material other than
storm water that are in compliance with
an NPDES permit (other than this
permit) issued for that discharge may be
discharged or mixed with discharges
authorized by this permit.
3. The following non-storm water
discharges from active construction sites
are authorized by this permit provided
the non-storm water component of the
discharge is in compliance with Part
IV.D.5 (non-storm water discharges):
discharges from fire fighting activities;
fire hydrant flushings; waters used to
wash vehicles where detergents are not
used; water used to control dust in
accordance with Part IV.D.2.c.(2);
potable water sources including
waterline flushings; routine external
building wash down which does not use
detergents; pavement washwaters where
spills or leaks of toxic or hazardous
materials have not occurred (unless all
spilled material has been removed) and
where detergents are not used; air
conditioning concentrate;
uncontaminated ground water or spring
water; and foundation or footing drains
where flows are not contaminated with
process materials such as solvents.
B. Releases in Excess ofReportable
Quantities
The discharge of hazardous
substances or oil in the storm water
discharge® from a facility shall be
prevented or minimized in accordance
with the applicable storm water
pollution prevention plan for the
facility. This permit does not relieve the
permittee of the reporting requirements
of 40 CFR 110, 40 CFR 117 and 40 CFR
302. Where a release containing a
hazardous substance or oil in an amount
equal to or in excess of a reportable
quality established under either 40 CFR
110, 40 CFR 117 or 40 CFR 302, occurs
during a 24 hour period.
1. The permittee is required to notify
the National Response Center (NRC)
(800-424-8802; in the Washington, DC,
metropolitan area call 202-426-2675) in
accordance with the requirements of 40
CFR 110, 40 CFR 117 and 40 CFR 302
as soon as he or she has knowledge of
the discharge;
2. The storm water pollution
prevention plan required under Part IV
of this permit must be modified within
14 calendar days of knowledge of the
release to: provide a description of the
release, the circumstances leading to the
release, and the date of the release. In
addition, the plan must be reviewed to
identify measures to prevent the
reoccurrence of such releases and to
respond to such releases, and the plan
must be modified where appropriate.
C. Spills
This permit does not authorize the
discharge of hazardous substances or oil
resulting from an on-site spill.
D. Discharge Compliance With Water
Quality Standards
Operators seeking coverage under this
permit shall not be causing or have the
reasonable potential to cause or
contribute to a violation of a water
quality standard. Where a discharge is
already authorized under this permit
and is later determined to cause or have
the reasonable potential to cause or
contribute to the violation of an
applicable water quality standard, the
Director will notify the operator of such
violation^). The permittee shall take all
necessary actions to ensure future
discharges do not cause or contribute to
the violation of a water quality standard
and document these actions in the storm
water pollution prevention plan. If
violations remain or re-occur, then
coverage under this permit may be
terminated by the Director, and an
alternative general permit or individual
permit may be issued. Compliance with
this requirement does not preclude any
enforcement activity as provided by the
Clean Water Act for the underlying
violation.
E. Responsibilities of Operators
Permittees may meet one or both of
the operational control components in
the definition of "operator" found in
Part IX.N. Either Parts III.E.l or III.E.2 or
both will apply depending on the type
of operational control exerted by an
individual permittee. Part III.E.3 applies
to all permittees.
1. Permittees witii operational control
over construction plans and
specifications, including the ability to
make modifications to those plans and
specifications (e.g., developer or owner),
must:
a. Ensure the project specifications
that they develop meet die minimum
requirements of Part IV (Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPP))
and all other applicable conditions;
b. Ensure that the SWPPP indicates
the areas of the project where they have
operational control over project
specifications (including the ability to
make modifications in specifications),
and ensure all other permittees
implementing portions of the SWPPP
impacted by any changes they make to
the plan are notified of such
modifications in a timely manner; and
c. Ensure that die SWPPP for portions
of the project where they are operators
indicates the name and NPDES permit
number for parties with day-to-day
operational control of those activities
necessary to ensure compliance with the
SWPPP or other permit conditions. If
diese parties have not been identified at
the time the SWPPP is initially
developed, the permittee with
operational control over project
specifications shall be considered to be
the responsible party until such time as
the authority is transferred to another
party (e.g., general contractor) and the
plan updated.
-------
7906
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 31/Tuesday, February 17, 1998/Notices
2. Permittee(s) with day-to-day
operational control of those activities at
a project which are necessary to ensure
compliance with a SWPPP for the site
or other permit conditions (e.g. general
contractor) must:
a. Ensure that the SWPPP for portions
of the project where they are operators
meets the minimum requirements of
Part IV (Storm Water Pollution Plan)
and identifies the parties responsible for
implementation of control measures
identified in the plan;
b. Ensure that the SWPPP indicates
areas of the project where they have
operational control over day-to-day
activities;
c. Ensure that the SWPPP for portions
of the project where they are operators
indicates the name and NPDES permit
number of the party(ies) with
operational control over project
specifications (including the ability to
make modifications in specifications).
3. Permittees with operational control
over only a portion of a larger
construction project (e.g., one of four
homebuilders in a subdivision) are
responsible for compliance with all
applicable terms and conditions of this
permit as it relates to their activities on
their portion of the construction site,
including protection of endangered
species and implementation of BMPs
and other controls required by the
SWPPP. Permittees shall ensure either
directly or through coordination with
other permittees, that their activities do
not render another party's pollution
control ineffective. Permittees must
either implement their portions of a
common SWPPP or develop and
implement their own SWPPP.
Part IV. Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plans
At least one storm water pollution
prevention plan (SWPPP) shall be
developed for each construction project
or site covered by this permit. For more
effective coordination of BMPs and
opportunities for cost sharing, a
cooperative effort by the different
operators at a site to prepare and
participate in a comprehensive SWPPP
is encouraged. Individual operators at a
site may, but are not required, to
develop separate SWPPPs that cover
only their portion of the project
provided reference is made to other
operators at the site. In instances where
there is more than one SWPPP for a site,
coordination must be conducted
between the permittees to ensure the
storm water discharge controls and
other measures are consistent with one
another (e.g., provisions to protect listed
species and critical habitat).
Storm water pollution prevention
plans shall be prepared in accordance
with good engineering practices. The
SWPPP shall identify potential sources
of pollution which may reasonably be
expected to affect the quality of storm
water discharges from the construction
site. The SWPPP shall describe and
ensure the implementation of practices
which will be used to reduce the
pollutants in storm water discharges
associated with construction activity at
the construction site and assure
compliance with the terms and
conditions of this permit.
When developing SWPPPs, applicants
must follow the procedures in
Addendum A of this permit to
determine whether listed endangered or
threatened species or critical habitat
would be affected by the applicant's
storm water discharges or storm water
discharge-related activities. Any
information on whether listed species or
critical habitat are found in proximity to
the construction site must be included
in the SWPPP. Any terms or conditions
that are imposed under the eligibility
requirements of Part I.B.S.e and
Addendum A of this permit to protect
listed species or critical habitat from
storm water discharges or storm water
discharge-related activity must be
incorporated into the SWPPP.
Permittees must implement the
applicable provisions of the SWPPP
required under this part as a condition
of this permit.
A. Deadlines for Pan Preparation and
Compliance
The storm water pollution prevention
plan shall:
1. Be completed prior to the submittal
of an NOI to be covered under this
permit (except as provided in Parts
II.A.5 and II. A.6) updated as
appropriate; and
2. Provide for compliance with the
terms and schedule of the SWPPP
beginning with the initiation of
construction activities.
B. Signature, Plan Review and Making
Plans Available
1. The SWPPP shall be signed in
accordance with Part VI.G, and be
retained on-site at the facility which
generates the storm water discharge in
accordance with Part V (Retention of
Records) or this permit.
2. The permittee shall post a notice
near the main entrance of the
construction site with the following
information:
a. The NPDES permit number for the
project or a copy of the NOI if a permit
number has not yet been assigned;
b. The name and telephone number of
a local contact person;
c. A brief description of the project;
and
d. The location of the SWPPP if the
site is inactive or does not have an on-
site location to store the plan.
If posting this information near a
main entrance is infeasible due to safety
concerns, the notice shall be posted in
a local public building. If the
construction project is a linear
construction project (e.g., pipeline,
highway, etc.), the notice must be
placed in a publicly accessible location
near where construction is actively
underway and moved as necessary. This
permit does not provide the public with
any right to trespass on a construction
site for any reason, including inspection
of a site; not does this permit require
that permittees allow members of the
public access to a construction site.
3. The permittee shall make SWPPPs
available upon request to the Director, a
State, Tribal or local agency approving
sediment and erosion plans, grading
plans, or storm water management
plans, local government officials; or the
operator of a municipal separate storm
sewer receiving discharges from the site.
The copy of the SWPPP that is required
to be kept on-site or locally available
must be made available to the Director
for review at the time of an on-site
inspection. Also, in the interest of
public involvement, EPA encourages
permittees to make their SWPPPs
available to the public for viewing
during normal business hours.
4. The Director may notify the
permittee at any time that the SWPPP
does not meet one or more of the
minimum requirements of this Part.
Such notification shall identify those
provision of this permit which are not
being met by the SWPPP as well as
those requiring modification in order to
meet the minimum requirements of this
Part. Within seven (7) calendar days of
receipt of such notification from the
Director (or as otherwise provided by
the Director), the permittee shall make
the required changes to the SWPPP and
shall submit to the Director a written
certification that the requested changes
have been made. The Director may take
appropriate enforcement action for the
period of time the permittee was
operating under a plan that did not meet
the minimum requirements of this
permit.
C. Keeping Plans Current
The permittee must amend the storm
water pollution prevention plan
whenever:
1. There is a change in design,
construction, operation, or maintenance
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 31/Tuesday, February 17, 1998/Notices
7907
which has a significant effect on the
discharge of pollutants to the waters of
the United States which has not been
addressed in the SWPPP; or
2. Inspections or investigations by site
operators, local, State, Tribal or Federal
officials indicate the SWPPP is proving
ineffective in eliminating or
significantly minimizing pollutants
from sources identified under Part
FV.D. 1 of this permit, or is otherwise not
achieving the general objectives of
controlling pollutants in storm water
discharges associated with construction
activity.
D. Contents of Plan
The storm water pollution prevention
plan (SWPPP) shall include the
following items:
1. Site Description
Each SWPPP shall provide a
description of potential pollutant
sources and other information as
indicated below:
a. A description of the nature of the
construction activity;
b. A description of the intended
sequence of major activities which
disturb soils for major portions of the
site (e.g., grubbing, excavation, grading,
utilities and infrastructure installation);
c. Estimates of the total area of the site
and the total area of the site that is
expected to be disturbed by excavation,
grading, or other activities including off-
site borrow and fill areas;
d. An estimate of the runoff
coefficient of the site for both the pre-
construction and post-construction
conditions and data describing the soil
or the quality of any discharge from the
site;
e. A general location map (e.g., a
portion of a city or county map) and a
site map indicating the following:
Drainage patterns and approximate
slopes anticipated after major grading
activities; areas of soil disturbance;
areas which will not be disturbed;
locations of major structural and
nonstructural controls identified in the
SWPPP; locations where stabilization
practices are expected to occur;
locations of off-site material, waste,
borrow or equipment storage areas;
surface waters (including wetlands); and
locations where storm water discharges
to a surface water;
f. Location and description of any
discharge associated with industrial
activity other than construction,
including storm water discharges from
dedicated asphalt plants and dedicated
concrete plants, which is covered by
this permit;
g. The name of the receiving water(s)
and the areal extent and description of
wetlands or other special aquatic sites
(as described under 40 CFR 230.3(q-l))
at or near the site which will be
disturbed or which will receive
discharges from disturbed areas of the
project;
h. A copy of the permit requirements
(attaching a copy of this permit is
acceptable); and
i. Information on whether listed
endangered or threatened species, or
critical habitat, are found in proximity
to the construction activity and whether
such species may be affected by the
applicant's storm water discharges or
storm water discharge-related activities.
2. Controls
Each SWPPP shall include a
description of appropriate control
measures (i.e., BMPs) that will be
implemented as part of the construction
activity to control pollutants in storm
water discharges. The SWPPP must
clearly describe for each major activity
identified in Part IV.D.l.b: (a)
Appropriate control measures and the
general timing (or sequence) during the
construction process that the measures
will be implemented; and (b) which
permittee is responsible for
implementation (e.g., perimeter controls
for one portion of the site will be
installed by Contractor A after the
clearing and grubbing necessary for
installation of the measure, but before
the clearing and grubbing for the
remaining portions of the site; and
perimeter controls will be actively
maintained by Contractor B until final
stabilization of those portions of the site
up-gradient of the perimeter control;
and temporary perimeter controls will
be removed by the owner after final
stabilization). The description and
implementation of control measures
shall address the following minimum
components;
a. Erosion and Sediment Controls. (1)
Short and Long Term Goals and
Criteria, (a) The construction-phase
erosion and sediment controls should be
designed to retain sediment on site to
the extent practicable.
(b) All control measures must be
properly selected, installed, and
maintained in accordance with the
manufacturers specifications and good
engineering practices. If periodic
inspections or other information
indicates a control has been used
inappropriately, or incorrectly, the
permittee must replace or modify the
control for site situations.
(c) If sediment escapes the
construction site, off-site accumulations
of sediment must be removed at a
frequency sufficient to minimize offsite
(e.g., fugitive sediment in street could be
washed into storm sewers by the next
rain and/or pose a safety hazard to users
of public streets).
(d) Sediment must be removed from
sediment traps or sedimentation ponds
when design capacity has been reduced
by 5096.
(e) Litter, construction debris, and
construction chemicals exposed to
storm water shall be prevented from
becoming a pollutant source for storm
water discharges (e.g., screening
outfalls, picked up daily).
(f) Offsite material storage areas (also
including overburden and stockpiles of
dirt, borrow areas, etc.) used solely by
the permitted project are considered a
part of the project and shall be
addressed in the SWPPP.
(2) Stabilization Practices. The
SWPPP must include a description of
interim and permanent stabilization
practices for the site, including a
schedule of when the practices will be
implemented. Site plans should ensure
that existing vegetation is preserved
where attainable and that disturbed
portions of the site are stabilized.
Stabilization practices may include but
are not limited to: establishment of
temporary vegetation, establishment of
permanent vegetation, mulching,
geotextiles, sod stabilization, vegetative
buffer strips, protection of trees,
preservation of mature vegetation, and
other appropriate measures. Use of
impervious surfaces for stabilization
should be avoided.
The following records shall be
maintained and attached to the SWPPP:
the dates when major grading activities
occur; the dates when construction
activities temporarily or permanently
cease on a portion of the site; and the
dates when stabilization measures are
initiated.
Except as provided in Parts
IV.D.2.a.(2)(a), (b), and (c) below,
stabilization measures shall be initiated
as soon as practicable in portions of the
site where construction activities have
temporarily or permanently ceased, but
in no case more than 14 days after the
construction activity in that portion of
the site has temporarily or permanently
ceased.
(a) Where the initiation of
stabilization measures by the 14th day
after construction activity temporary or
permanently ceased is precluded by
snow cover or frozen ground conditions,
stabilization measures shall be initiated
as soon as practicable.
(b) Where construction activity on a
portion of the site is temporarily ceased,
and earth disturbing activities will be
resumed within 21 days, temporary
stabilization measures do not have to be
initiated on that portion of site.
-------
7908
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 31/Tuesday, February 17, 1998/Notices
(c) In arid areas (areas with an average
rainfall of 0 to 10 inches), semiarid areas
(areas with an average annual rainfall of
10 to 20 inches), and areas experiencing
droughts where the initiation of
stabilization measures by the 14th day
after construction activity has
temporarily or permanently ceased is
precluded by seasonably arid
conditions, stabilization measures shall
be initiated as soon as practicable.
(3) Structural Practices. The SWPPP
must include a description of structural
practices to divert flows from exposed
soils, store flows or otherwise limit
runoff and the discharge of pollutants
from exposed areas of the site to the
degree attainable. Structural practices
may include but are not limited to: silt
fences, earth dikes, drainage swales,
sediment traps, check dams, subsurface
drains, pipe slope drains, level
spreaders, storm drain inlet protection,
rock outlet protection, reinforced soil
retaining systems, gabions, and
temporary or permanent sediment
basins. Placement of structural practices
in floodplains should be avoided to the
degree attainable. The installation of
these devices may be subject to section
404oftheCWA.
(a) For common drainage locations
that serve an area with ten (10) or more
acres disturbed at one time, a temporary
(or permanent) sediment basin that
provides storage for a calculated volume
of runoff from a 2 year, 24 hour storm
from each disturbed acre drained, or
equivalent control measures, shall be
provided where attainable until final
stabilization of the site. Where no such
calculation has been performed, a
temporary (or permanent) sediment
basin providing 3,600 cubic feet of
storage per acre drained, or equivalent
control measures, shall be provided
where attainable until final stabilization
of the site. When computing the number
of acres draining into a common
location it is not necessary to include
flows from offsite areas and flows from
onsite areas that are either undisturbed
or have undergone final stabilization
where such flows are diverted around
both the disturbed area and the
sediment basin.
In determining whether installing a
sediment basin is attainable, the
permittee may consider factors such as
site soils, slope, available area on site,
etc. In any event, the permittee must
consider public safety, especially as it
relates to children, as a design factor for
the sediment basin and alternative
sediment controls shall be used where
site limitations would preclude a safe
design. For drainage locations which
serve ten (10) or more disturbed acres at
one time and where a temporary
sediment basin or equivalent controls is
not attainable, smaller sediment basins
and/or sediment traps should be used.
Where neither the sediment basin nor
equivalent controls are attainable due to
site limitations, silt fences, vegetative
buffer strips, or equivalent sediment
controls are required for all down slope
boundaries of the construction area and
for those side slope boundaries deemed
appropriate as dictated by individual
site conditions. EPA encourages the use
of a combination of sediment and
erosion control measures in order to
achieve maximum pollutant removal.
(b) For drainage locations serving less
than 10 acres, smaller sediment basins
and/or sediment traps should be used.
At a minimum, silt fences, vegetative
buffer strips, or equivalent sediment
controls are required for all down slope
boundaries (and for those side slope
boundaries deemed appropriate as
dictated by individual site conditions)
of the construction area unless a
sediment basin providing storage for a
calculated volume of runoff from a 2
year, 24 hour storm or 3,600 cubic feet
of storage per acre drained is provided.
EPA encourages the use of a
combination of sediment and erosion
control measures in order to achieve
maximum pollutant removal.
b. Storm Water Management. A
description of measures that will be
installed during the construction
process to control pollutants in storm
water discharges that will occur after
construction operations have been
completed must be included in the
SWPPP. Structural measures should be
placed on upland soils to the degree
attainable. The installation of these
devices may also require a separate
permit under section 404 of the CWA.
Permittees are only responsible for the
installation and maintenance of storm
water management measures prior to
final stabilization of the site, and are not
responsible for maintenance after storm
water discharges associated with
construction activity have been
eliminated from the site. However, post-
construction storm water BMPs diat
discharge pollutants from point sources
once construction is completed, may in
themselves, need authorization under a
separate NPDES permit.
(1) Such practices may include but are
not limited to: storm water detention
structures (including wet ponds); storm
water retention structures; flow
attenuation by use of open vegetated
swales and natural depressions;
infiltration of runoff onsite; and
sequential systems (which combine
several practices). The SWPPP shall
include an explanation of the technical
basis used to select the practices to
control pollution where flows exceed
predevelopment levels.
(2) Velocity dissipation devices shall
be placed at discharge locations and
along the length of any outfall channel
to provide a non-erosive flow velocity
from the structure to a water course so
that the natural physical and biological
characteristics and functions are
maintained and protected (e.g. no
significant changes in the hydrological
regime of the receiving water).
c. Other Controls. (1) No solid
materials, including building materials,
shall be discharged to waters of the
United States, except as authorized by a
permit issued under section 404 of the
CWA.
(2) Off-site vehicle tracking of
sediments and the generation of dust
shall be minimized.
(3) The SWPPP shall be consistent
with applicable State, Tribal and/or
local waste disposal, sanitary sewer or
septic system regulations to the extent
these are located within the permitted
area.
(4) The SWAPPP shall include a
description of construction and waste
materials expected to be stored on-site
with updates as appropriate. The
SWPPP shall also include a description
of controls to reduce pollutants from
these materials including storage
practices to minimize exposure of the
materials to storm water, and spill
prevention and response.
(5) The SWPPP shall include a
description of pollutant sources from
areas other than construction (including
storm water discharges from dedicated
asphalt plants and dedicated concrete
plants), and a description of controls
and measures that will be implemented
at those sites to minimize pollutant
discharges.
(6) The SWPPP shall include a
description of measures necessary to
protect listed endangered or threatened
species, or critical habitat, including
any terms or conditions that are
imposed under the eligibility
requirements of Part I.B.3.e.(4) of this
permit. Failure to describe and
implement such measures will result in
storm water discharges from
construction activities that are ineligible
for coverage under this permit.
d. Approved State, Tribal or Local
Plans. (1) Permittees which discharge
storm water associated with
construction activities must ensure their
storm water pollution prevention plan is
consistent with requirements specified
in applicable sediment and erosion site
plans or site permits, or storm water
management site plans or site permits
approved by State, Tribal, or local
officials.
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 31/Tuesday, February 17, 1998/Notices
7909
(2) Storm water pollution prevention
plans must be updated as necessary to
remain consistent with any changes
applicable to protecting surface water
resources in sediment erosion site plans
or site permits, or storm water
management site plans or site permits
approved by State, Tribal or local
officials for which the permittee
receives written notice.
3. Maintenance
All erosion and sediment control
measures and other protective measures
identified in the SWPPP must be
maintained in effective operating
condition. If site inspections required by
Part IV.D.4. identify BMPs that are not
operating effectively, maintenance shall
be performed before the next anticipated
storm event, or as necessary to maintain
the continued effectiveness of storm
water controls. If maintenance prior to
the next anticipated storm event is
impracticable, maintenance must be
scheduled and accomplished as soon as
practicable.
4. Inspections
Qualified personnel (provided by the
permittee or cooperatively by multiple
permittees) shall inspect disturbed areas
of the construction site that have not
been finally stabilized, areas used for
storage of materials that are exposed to
precipitation, structural control
measures, and locations where vehicles
enter or exit the site, at least once every
fourteen (14) calendar days and within
24 hours of the end of a storm event of
0.5 inches or greater.
Where sites have been finally or
temporarily stabilized, runoff is unlikely
due to winter conditions (e.g., site is
covered with snow, ice, or frozen
ground exists), or during seasonal arid
periods in arid areas (areas with an
average annual rainfall of 0 to 10 inches)
and semi-arid areas (areas with an
average annual rainfall of 10 to 20
inches) such inspections shall be
conducted at least once every month.
Permittees are eligible for a waiver of
monthly inspection requirements until
one month before thawing conditions
are expected to result in a discharge if
all of the following requirements are
met: (1) The project is located in an area
where frozen conditions are anticipated
to continue for extended periods of time
(i.e., more than one month); (2) land
disturbance activities have been
suspended; and (3) the beginning and
ending dates of the waiver period are
documented in the SWPPP.
a. Disturbed areas and areas used for
storage of materials that are exposed to
precipitation shall be inspected for
evidence of, or the potential for,
pollutants entering the drainage system.
Sediment and erosion control measures
identified in the SWPPP shall be
observed to ensure that they are
operating correctly. Where discharge
locations or points are accessible, they
shall be inspected to ascertain whether
erosion control measures are effective in
preventing significant impacts to
receiving waters. Where discharge
locations are inaccessible, nearby
downstream locations shall be inspected
to the extent that such inspections are
practicable. Locations where vehicles
enter or exit the site shall be inspected
for evidence of offsite sediment
tracking.
b. Based on the results of the
inspection, the SWPPP shall be
modified as necessary (e.g., show
additional controls on map required by
Part IV.D.l; revise description of
controls required by Part IV.D.2) to
include additional or modified BMPs
designed to correct problems identified.
Revisions to the SWPPP shall be
completed within 7 calendar days
following the inspection. If existing
BMPs need to be modified or if
additional BMPs are necessary,
implementation shall be completed
before the next anticipated storm event.
If implementation before the next
anticipated storm event is
impracticable, they shall be
implemented as soon as practicable.
c. A report summarizing the scope of
the inspection, name(s) and
qualifications of personnel making the
inspection, the date(s) of the inspection,
and major observations relating to the
implementation of the SWPPP shall be
made and retained as part of the SWPPP
for at least three years from the date that
the site is finally stabilized. Major
observations should include: the
location(s) of discharges of sediment or
other pollutants from the site;
location(s) of BMPs that need to be
maintained; location(s) of BMPs that
failed to operate as designed or proved
inadequate for a particular location; and
location(s) where additional BMPs are
needed that did not exist at the time of
inspection. Actions taken in accordance
with Part IV.D.4.b of this permit shall be
made and retained as part of the storm
water pollution prevention plan for at
least three years from the date that the
site is finally stabilized. Such reports
shall identify any incidents of non-
compliance. Where a report does not
identify any incidents of non-
compliance, 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 VI.G of this
permit.
5. Non-Storm Water Discharges
Except for flows from fire fighting
activities, sources of non-storm water
listed in Part III.A.2 or 3 of this permit
that are combined with storm water
discharges associated with construction
activity must be identified in the
SWPPP. The SWPPP shall identify and
ensure the implementation of
appropriate pollution prevention
measures for the non-storm water
components) of the discharge.
Part V. Retention of Records
A. Documents
The permittee shall retain copies of
storm water pollution prevention plans
and all reports required by this permit,
and records of all data used to complete
the Notice of Intent to be covered by this
permit, for a period of at least three
years from the date that the site is
finally stabilized. This period may be
extended by request of the Director at
any time.
B. Accessibility
The permittee shall retain a copy of
the storm water pollution prevention
plan required by this permit (including
a copy of the permit language) at the
construction site (or other local location
accessible to the Director, a State, Tribal
or local agency approving sediment and
erosion plans, grading plans, or storm
water management plans; local
government officials; or the operator of
a municipal separate storm sewer
receiving discharges from the site) from
the date of project initiation to the date
of final stabilization. Permittees with
day-to-day operational control over
SWPPP implementation shall have a
copy of the SWPPP available at a central
location on-site for the use of all
operators and those identified as having
responsibilities under the SWPPP
whenever they are on the construction
site.
C. Addresses
Except for the submittal of NOIs and
NOTs (see Parts II.C and VIII.B,
respectively), all written
correspondence concerning discharges
in any State, Indian Country land or
from any Federal facility covered under
this permit and directed to the EPA,
including the submittal of individual
permit applications, shall be sent to the
address of the appropriate EPA Regional
Office listed below:
Region 1: CT, MA, ME, NH, RI, VT
United States EPA, Region 1, Office of
Ecosystem Protection, Municipal
-------
7910
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 31/Tuesday, February 17. 1998/Notices
Assistance Unit, John F. Kennedy
Federal Building-CMU, Boston, MA
02203
Region 2: NJ, NY, PR, VI
United States EPA, Region 2, Division
of Environmental Planning and
Protection, (2DEPP-WPB), Water
Programs Branch, 290 Broadway,
New York, NY 10007-1866
Region 3: DE, DC, MD, PA, VA, WV
United States EPA, Region 3, Water
Management Division, (3WM55),
Storm Water Staff, 841 Chestnut
Building, Philadelphia, PA 19107
Region 7: IA, KS, MO, NE (except see
Region 8 for Pine Ridge Reservation
Lands)
United States EPA, Region 7, Water,
Wetlands, and Pesticides Division,
NPDES and Facilities Management
Branch, Storm Water Staff, 726
Minnesota Avenue, Kansas City, KS
66101
Region 8: CO, MT, ND, SD, WY, UT
(except see Region 9 for Goshute
Reservation and Navajo Reservation
lands), the Ute Mountain
Reservation in NM, and the Pine
Ridge Reservation in NE
United States EPA, Region 8,
Ecosystems Protection Program
(8EPR-EP), Storm Water Staff, 999
18th Street, Suite 500, Denver, CO
80202-2466
Region 9: AZ, CA, HI, NV, Guam,
American Samoa, the
Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands, the Goshute
Reservation in UT and NV, the
Navajo Reservation in UT, NM, and
AZ, the Duck Valley Reservation in
ID, Fort McDermitt Reservation in
OR
United States EPA, Region 9, Water
Management Division, WTR-5,
Storm Water Staff, 75 Hawthorne
Street, San Francisco, CA 94105
Region 10: AK, WA, ID (except see
Region 9 for Duck Valley
Reservation lands), OR (except see
Region 9 for Fort McDermitt
Reservation)
United States EPA Region 10, Office
of Water OW-130, Storm Water
Staff, 1200 6th Avenue, Seattle, WA
98101
Part VI. Standard Permit Conditions
A. Duty to Comply
1. The Permittee Must Comply With All
Conditions of This Permit
Any permit noncompliance
constitutes a violation of CWA and is
grounds for reinforcement action; for
permit termination, revocation and
reissuance, or modification; or for
denial of a permit renewal application.
2. Penalties for Violations of Permit
Conditions
The Director will adjust the civil and
administrative penalties listed below in
accordance with the Civil Monetary
Penalty Inflation Adjustment Rule
Federal Register: December 31, 1996,
Volume 61, Number 252, pages 69359-
69366, as corrected, March 20, 1997,
Volume 62, Number 54, pages 13514-
13517) as mandated by the Debt
Collection Improvement Act of 1996 for
inflation on a periodic basis. This rule
allows EPA's penalties to keep pace
with inflation. The Agency is required
to review its penalties at least once
every four years thereafter and to adjust
them as necessary for inflation
according to a specified formula. The
civil and administrative penalties listed
below were adjusted for inflation
starting in 1996.
a. Criminal. (1) Negligent Violations.
The CWA provides that any person who
negligently violates permit conditions
implementing sections 301, 302, 306,
307, 308, 318, or 405 of the Act is
subject to a fine of not less than $2,500
nor more than $25,000 per day of
violation, or by imprisonment for not
more than 1 year, or both.
(2) Knowing Violations. The CWA
provides that any person who
knowingly violates permit conditions
implementing sections 301, 302, 306,
307, 308, 318, or 405 of the Act is
subject to a fine of not less than $5,000
nor more than $50,000 per day of
violation, or by imprisonment for not
more than 3 years, or both.
(3) Knowing Endangerment. The CWA
provides that any person who
knowingly violates permit conditions
implementing sections 301, 302, 306,
307, 308, 318, or 405 of the Act and who
knows at that time he is placing another
person in imminent danger of death or
serious bodily injury is subject to a fine
of not more than $250,000, or by
imprisonment for not more than 15
years, or both.
(4) False Statement. The CWA
provides that nay person who
knowingly makes any false material
statement, representation, or
certification in any application, record,
report, plan, or other document filed or
required to be maintained under the Act
or who knowingly falsifies, tampers
with, or renders inaccurate, any
monitoring device or method required
to be maintained under the Act, shall
upon conviction, be punished by a fine
of not more than $10,000 or by
imprisonment for not more than two
years, or by both. If a conviction is for
a violation committed after a first
conviction of such person under this
paragraph, punishment shall be by a
fine of not more than $20,000 per day
of violation, or by imprisonment of not
more than four years, or by both. (See
section 309 (c) (4) of the Clean Water
Act).
b. Civil Penalties. The CWA provides
that any person who violates a permit
condition implementing sections 301,
302, 306, 307, 308, 318, or 405 of the
Act is subject to a civil penalty not to
exceed $27,500 per day for each
violation.
c. Administrative Penalties. The CWA
provides that any person who violates a
permit condition implementing sections
301, 302, 306, 307, 308, 318, or 405 of
the Act is subject to an administrative
penalty, as follows:
(1) Class I Penalty. Not to exceed
$ 11,000 violation nor shall the
maximum amount exceed $27,500.
(2) Class II Penalty. Not to exceed
$ 11,000 per day for each day during
which the violation continues nor shall
the maximum amount exceed $137,500.
B. Continuation of the Expired General
Permit
If this permit is not reissued or
replaced prior to the expiration date, it
will be administratively continued in
accordance with the Administrative
Procedures Act and remain in force and
effect. Any permittee who was granted
permit coverage prior to the expiration
date will automatically remain covered
by the continued permit until the earlier
of:
1. Reissuance or replacement of this
permit, at which time the permittee
must comply with the Notice of Intent
conditions of the new permit to
maintain authorization to discharge; or
2. The permittee's submittal of a
Notice of Termination; or
3. Issuance of an individual permit for
the permittee's discharges; or
4. A formal permit decision by the
Director not to reissue this general
permit, at which time the permittee
must seek coverage under an alternative
general permit or an individual permit.
C. Need to Halt or Reduce Activity Not
a Defense
It shall not be a defense for a
permittee in an enforcement action that
it would have been necessary to halt or
reduce the permitted activity in order to
maintain compliance with the
conditions of this permit.
D. Duty to Mitigate
The permittee shall take all
reasonable steps to minimize or prevent
any discharge in violation of this permit
which has a reasonable likelihood of
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 31/Tuesday, February 17, 1998/Notices
7911
adversely affecting human health or the
environment.
E. Duty to Provide Information
The permittee shall furnish to the
Director or an authorized representative
of the Director any information which is
requested to determine compliance with
this permit or other information.
F. Other Information
When the permittee becomes aware
that he or she failed to submit any
relevant facts or submitted incorrect
information in the Notice of Intent or in
any other report to the Director, he or
she shall promptly submit such facts or
information.
G. Signatory Requirements
All Notices of Intent, Notices of
Termination, storm water pollution
prevention plans, reports, certifications
or information either submitted to the
Director or the operator of a large or
medium municipal separate storm
sewer system, or that this permit
requires be maintained by the permittee,
shall be signed as follows:
1. All Notices of Intent and Notices of
Termination shall be signed as follows:
a. For a corporation: by a responsible
corporate officer. For the purpose of this
section, a responsible corporate officer
means: a 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 for the corporation; or the
manager of one or more manufacturing,
production or operating facilities
employing more than 250 persons or
having gross annual sales or
expenditures exceeding $25,000,000 (in
second-quarter 1980 dollars) if authority
to sign documents has been assigned to
delegated to the manager in accordance
with corporate procedures;
b. For a partnership or sole
proprietorship: by a general partner or
the proprietor, respectively; or
c. For a municipality, State, Federal,
or other public agency: by either a
principal executive officer or ranking
elected official. For purposes of this
section, a principal executive officer of
a Federal agency includes (1) the chief
executive officer of the agency, or (2)
senior executive officer having
responsibility for the overall operations
of a principal geographic unit of the
agency (e.g.. Regional Administrator of
EPA).
2. All reports required by this permit
and other information requested by the
Director or authorized representative of
the Director shall be signed by a person
described above or by a duly authorized
representative of that person. A person
is a duly authorized representative onlv
if:
a. The authorization is made in
writing by a person described above and
submitted to the Director.
b. The authorization specifies either
an individual or position having
responsibility for the overall operation
of the regulated facility or activity, such
as the position of manager, operator,
superintendent, or position of
equivalent responsibility or an
individual or position having overall
responsibility for environmental matters
for the company. (A duly authorized
representative may thus be either a
named individual or any individual
occupying a named position).
c. Changes to Authorization. If an
authorization under Part II.B is no
longer accurate because a different
operator has responsibility for the
overall operation of the construction
site, a new Notice of Intent satisfying
the requirements of Part II.B must be
submitted to the Director prior to or
together with any reports, information,
or applications to be signed by an
authorized representative. The change
in authorization must be submitted
within the time frame specified in Part
II.A.3, and sent to the address specified
in Part II.C.
d. Certification. Any person signing
documents under Part VI. G shall make
the following certification:
"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 gathered
and evaluated 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 am aware that there
are significant penalties for submitting false
information, including the possibility of fine
and imprisonment for knowing violations."
H. Penalties for Falsification of Reports
Section 309(c)(4) of the Clean Water
Act provides that any person who
knowingly makes any false material
statement, representation, or
certification in any record or other
document submitted or required to be
maintained under this permit, including
reports of compliance or noncompliance
shall, upon conviction, be punished by
a fine of not more than $10,000, or by
imprisonment for not more than two
years, or by both.
/. Oil and Hazardous Substance Liability
Nothing in this permit shall be
construed to preclude the institution of
any legal action or relieve the permittee
from any responsibilities, liabilities, or
penalties to which the permittee is or
may be subject under section 311 of the
CWA or section 106 of the
Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability
Act of 1980 (CERCLA).
J. Property Rights
The issuance of this permit does not
convey any property rights of any sort,
nor any exclusive privileges, nor does it
authorize any injury to private property
nor any invasion of personal rights, nor
any infringement of Federal, State or
local laws or regulations.
K. Severability
The provisions of this permit are
severable, and if any provision of this
permit, or the application of any
provision of this permit to any
circumstance, is held invalid, the
application of such provision to other
circumstances, and the remainder of
this permit shall not be affected thereby.
L Requiring an Individual Permit or an
Alternative General Permit
1. The Director may require any
person authorized by this permit to
apply for and/or obtain either an
individual NPDES permit or an
alternative NPDES general permit. Any
interested person may petition the
Director to take action under this
paragraph. Where the Director requires
a permittee authorized to discharge
under this permit to apply for an
individual NPDES permit, the Director
shall notify the permittee in writing that
a permit application is required. This
notification shall include a brief
statement of the reasons for this
decision, an application form, a
statement setting a deadline for the
permittee to file the application, and a
statement that on the effective date of
issuance or denial of the individual
NPDES permit or the alternative general
permit as it applies to the individual
permittee, coverage under this general
permit shall automatically terminate.
Applications shall be submitted to the
appropriate Regional Office indicated in
Part V.C of this permit. The Director
may grant additional time to submit the
application upon request of the
applicant. If a permittee fails to submit
in a timely manner an individual
NPDES permit application as required
by the Director under this paragraph,
then the applicability of this permit to
the individual NPDES permittee is
automatically terminated at the end of
the day specified by the Director for
application submittal.
-------
7912
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 31/Tuesday. February 17, 1998/Notices
2. Any permittee authorized by this
permit may request to be excluded from
the coverage of this permit by applying
for an individual permit. In such cases,
the permittee shall submit an individual
application in accordance with the
requirements of 40 CFR 122.26(c)(l)(ii),
with reasons supporting the request, to
the Director at the address for the
appropriate Regional Office indicated in
Part V.C of this permit. The request may
be granted by issuance of any individual
permit or an alternative general permit
if the reasons cited by the permittee are
adequate to support the request.
3. When an individual NPDES permit
is issued to a permittee otherwise
subject to this permit, or the permittee
is authorized to discharge under an
alternative NPDES general permit, the
applicability of this permit to the
individual NPDES permittee is
automatically terminated on the
effective date of the individual permit or
the date of authorization of coverage
under the alternative general permit,
whichever the case may be. When an
individual NPDES permit is denied to
an owner or operator otherwise subject
to this permit, or the owner or operator
is denied for coverage under an
alternative NPDES general permit, the
applicability of this permit to the
individual NPDES permittee is
automatically terminated on the date of
such denial, unless otherwise specified
by the Director.
M. State/Tribal Environmental Laws
1. Nothing in this permit shall be
construed to preclude the institution of
any legal action or relieve the permittee
from any responsibilities, liabilities, or
penalties established pursuant to any
applicable State/Tribal law or regulation
under authority preserved by section
510 of the Act.
2. No condition of this permit shall
release the permittee from any
responsibility or requirements under
other environmental statutes or
regulations.
N. Proper Operation and Maintenance
The permittee shall at all times
properly operate and maintain all
facilities and systems of treatment and
control (and related appurtenances)
which are installed or used by the
permittee to achieve compliance with
the conditions of this permit and with
the requirements of storm water
pollution prevention plans. Proper
operation and maintenance also
includes adequate laboratory controls
and appropriate quality assurance
procedures. Proper operation and
maintenance requires the operation of
backup or auxiliary facilities or similar
systems, installed by a permittee only
when necessary to achieve compliance
with the conditions of this permit.
O. Inspection and Entry
The permittee shall allow the Director
or an authorized representative of EPA,
the State/Tribe, or, in the case of a
construction site which discharges
through a municipal separate storm
sewer, an authorized representative of
the municipal owner/operator or the
separate storm sewer receiving the
discharge, upon the presentation of
credentials and other documents as may
be required by law, to:
1. Enter upon the permittee's
premises where a regulated facility or
activity is located or conducted or
where records must be kept under the
conditions of this permit;
2. Have access to and copy at
reasonable times, any records that must
be kept under the conditions of this
permit; and
3. Inspect at reasonable times any
facilities or equipment (including
monitoring and control equipment).
P. Permit Actions
This permit may be modified, revoked
and reissued, or terminated for cause.
The filing of a request by the permittee
for a permit modification, revocation
and reissuance, or termination, or a
notification of planned changes or
anticipated noncompliance does not
stay any permit condition.
Part VII. Reopener Clause
A. If there is evidence indicating that
the storm water discharges authorized
by this permit cause, have the
reasonable potential to cause or
contribute to, a violation of a water
quality standard, the permittee may be
required to obtain an individual permit
or an alternative general permit in
accordance with Part I.C of this permit,
or the permit may be modified to
include different limitations and/or
requirements.
B. Permit modification or revocation
will be conducted according to 40 CFR
122.62, 122.63, 122.64 and 124.5.
C. EPA may propose a modification to
this permit after further discussions
between the Agency and the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation for the
protection of historic properties.
Part VIII. Termination of Coverage
A. Notice of Termination
Permittees must submit a completed
Notice of Termination (NOT) that is
signed in accordance with Part VI.G of
this permit when one or more of the
conditions contained in Part I.D.2.
(Terminating Coverage) have been met
at a construction project. The NOT form
found in Addendum D will be used
unless it has been replaced by a revised
version by the Director. The Notice of
Termination shall include the following
information:
1. The NPDES permit number for the
storm water discharge identified by the
Notice of Termination;
2. An indication of whether the storm
water discharges associated with
construction activity have been
eliminated (i.e., regulated discharges of
storm water are being terminated) or the
permittee is no longer an operator at the
site;
3. The name, address and telephone
number of the permittee submitting the
Notice of Termination;
4. The name of the project and street
address (or a description of location if
no street address is available) of the
construction site for which the
notification is submitted;
5. The latitude and longitude of the
construction site; and
6. The following certification.signed
in accordance with Part VI.G (signatory
requirements) of this permit. For
construction projects with more than
one permittee and/or operator, the
permittee need only make this
certification for those portions of the
construction site where the permittee
was authorized under this permit and
not for areas where the permittee was
not an operator:
"I certify under penalty of law that all
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity from the identified facility
that authorized by a general permit have been
eliminated or that I am no longer the operator
of the facility or construction site. I
understand that by submitting this notice of
termination, I am no longer authorized to
discharge storm water associated with
industrial activity under this general permit,
and that discharging pollutants in storm
water associated with industrial activity to
waters of the United States is unlawful under
the Clean Water Act where the discharge is
not authorized by a NPDES permit. I also
understand that the submittal of this Notice
of Termination does not release an operator
from liability for any violations of this permit
or the Clean Water Act."
For the purposes of this certification,
elimination of storm water discharges
associated with construction activity
means that all disturbed soils at the
portion of the construction site where
the operator had control have been
finally stabilized (as defined in Part IX.I)
and temporary erosion and sediment
control measures have been removed or
will be removed at an appropriate time
to ensure final stabilization is
maintained, or that all storm water
discharges associated with construction
activities from the identified site that
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 31/Tuesday, February 17, 1998/Notices
7913
are authorized by a NPDES general
permit have otherwise been eliminated
from the portion of the construction site
where the operator had control.
B. Addresses
1. All Notices of termination, signed
in accordance with Part VI. G of this
permit, are to be submitted using the
form provided by the Director (or a
photocopy thereof), to the address
specified on the NOT form.
Part IX. Definitions
A. Best Management Practices (BMPs)
means schedules of activities,
prohibitions of practices, maintenance
procedures, and other management
practices to prevent or reduce the
discharge of pollutants to waters of the
United States. BMPs also include
treatment requirements, operating
procedures, and practice to control
plant site runoff, spillage or leaks,
sludge or waste disposal, or drainage
from raw material storage.
B. Control Measure as used in this
permit, refers to any Best Management
Practice or other method used to
prevent or reduce the discharge of
pollutants to waters of the United
States.
C. Commencement of Construction
the initial disturbance of soils
associated with clearing, grading, or
excavating activities or other
construction activities.
D. CWA means the Clean Water Act or
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act,
33 U.S.C. section 1251 et seq.
E. Director means the Regional
Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency or an authorized
representative.
F. Discharge when used without
qualification means the "discharge of a
pollutant."
G. Discharge of Storm Water
Associated with Construction Activity as
used in this permit, refers to a discharge
of pollutants in storm water runoff from
areas where soil disturbing activities
(e.g., clearing, grading, or excavation),
construction materials or equipment
storage or maintenance (e.g., fill piles,
borrow area, concrete truck washout,
fueling), or other industrial storm water
directly related to the construction
process (e.g., concrete or asphalt batch
plants) are located.
H. Facility or Activity means any
NPDES "point source" or any other
facility or activity (including land or
appurtenances thereto) that is subject to
regulation under the NPDES program.
I. Final Stabilization means that
either:
1. All soil disturbing activities at the
site have been completed and a uniform
(e.g., evenly distributed, without large
bare areas) perennial vegetative cover
with a density of 70% of the native
background vegetative cover for the area
has been established on all unpaved
areas and areas not covered by
permanent structures, or equivalent
permanent stabilization measures (such
as the use of riprap, gabions, or
goetextiles) have been employed. In
such parts of the country, background
native vegetation will cover less than
100% of the ground (e.g., arid areas,
beaches). Establishing at least 70% of
the natural cover of the native
vegetation meets the vegetative cover
criteria for final stabilization (e.g., if the
native vegetation covers 50% of the
ground, 70% of 50% would require 35%
total cover for final stabilization; on a
beach with no natural vegetation, no
stabilization is required); or
2. For individual lots in residential
construction by either: (a) The
homebuilder completing final
stabilization as specified above, or (b)
the homebuilder establishing temporary
stabilization including perimeter
controls for an individual lot prior to
occupation of the home by the
homeowner and informing the
homeowner of the need for, and benefits
of, final stabilization. (Homeowners
typically have an incentive to put in the
landscaping functionally equivalent to
final stabilization as quick as possible to
keep mud out of their homes and off
sidewalks and driveways.); or
3. For construction projects on land
used for agricultural purposes (e.g.,
pipelines across crop or range land),
final stabilization may be accomplished
by returning the disturbed land to its
preconstruction agricultural use. Areas
disturb that were not previously used
for agricultural activities, such as buffer
strips immediately adjacent to "water of
the United States," and area which are
not being returned to their
preconstruction agricultural use must
meet the final stabilization criteria (1) or
(2) above.
J. Flow-Weighted Composite Sample
means a composite sample consisting of
a mixture of aliquots collected at a
constant time interval, where the
volume of each aliquot is proportional
to the flow rate of the discharge.
K. Large and Medium Municipal
Separate Storm Sewer System means all
municipal separate storm sewers that
are either:
1. Located in an incorporated place
(city) with a population of 100,000 or
more as determined by the latest
Decennial Census by the Bureau of
Census (these cities are listed in
Appendices F and G of 40 CFR 122); or
2. Located in the countries with
unincorporated urbanized populations
of 100,000 or more, except municipal
separate storm sewers that are located in
the incorporated places, townships or
towns within such counties (these
counties are listed in Appendices H and
I of 40 CFR 122); or
3. Owned or operated by a
municipality other than those described
in paragraph (i) and (ii) and that are
designated by the Director as part of the
large or medium municipal separate
storm sewer system.
L. NO/means Notice of Intent to be
covered by this permit (see Part II of this
permit.)
M. NOT means Notice of Termination
(see Part VIII of this permit).
N. Operator for the purpose of this
permit and in the context of storm water
associated with construction activity,
means any party associated with a
construction project that meets either of
the following two criteria:
1. The party has operational control
over construction plans and
specifications, including the ability to
make modifications to those plans and
specifications; or
2. The party has day-to-day
operational control of those activities at
a project which are necessary to ensure
compliance with a storm water
pollution prevention plan for the site or
other permit conditions (e.g., they are
authorized to direct workers at a site to
carry out activities required by the
SWPPP or comply with other permit
conditions).
This definition is provided to inform
permittees of EPA's interpretation of
how the regulatory definitions of
"owner or operator" and "facility or
activity" are applied to discharges of
storm water associated with
construction activity.
O. Owner or operator means the
owner or operator of any "facility or
activity" subject to regulation under the
NPDES program.
P. Point Source means any
discernible, confined, and discrete
conveyance, including but not limited
to, any pipe, ditch, channel, tunnel,
conduit, well, discrete fissure,
container, rolling stock concentrated
animal feeding operation, landfill
leachate collection system, vessel or
other floating craft from which
pollutants are or may be discharged.
This term does not include return flows
from irrigated agriculture or agricultural
storm water runoff.
Q. Pollutant is defined at 40 CFR
122.2. A partial listing from this
definition includes: dredged spoil, solid
waste, sweage, garbage, sewage sludge,
chemical wastes, biological materials,
-------
7914
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 31/Tuesday. February 17, 1998/Notices
heat, wrecked or discarded equipment,
rock, sand, cellar dirt, and industrial or
municipal waste.
R. Runoff coefficient means the
fraction of total rainfall that will appear
at the conveyance as runoff.
S. Storm Water means storm water
runoff, snow melt runoff, and surface
runoff and drainage.
T. Storm Water Associated with
Industrial Activity is defined at 40 CFR
122.26(b)(14) and incorporated here by
reference. Most relevant to this permit is
40 CFR 122.26(b)(14)(x), which relates
to construction activity including
clearing, grading and excavation
activities that result in the disturbance
of five (5) or more acres of total land
area, or are part of a larger common plan
of development or sale.
U. Waters of the United States means:
1. All waters which are currently
used, were used in the past, or may be
susceptible to use in interstate or foreign
commerce, including all waters which
are subject to the ebb and flow of the
tide;
2. All interstate waters, including
interstate "wetland";
3. All other waters such as interstate
lakes, rivers, streams (including
intermittent streams), mudflat,
sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie
potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or
natural ponds the use, degradation, or
destruction of which would affect or
could affect interstate or foreign
commerce including any such waters:
a. Which are or could be used by
interstate or foreign travelers for
recreational or other purposes;
b. From which fish or shellfish are or
could be taken and sold in interstate or
foreign commerce; or
c. Which are used or could be used for
industrial purposes by industries in
interstate, commerce;
4. All impoundments of waters
otherwise defined as waters of the
United States under this definition;
5. Tributaries of waters identified in
paragraphs (a) through (d) of this
definition;
6. The territorial sea; and
7. Wetlands adjacent to waters (other
than waters that are themselves
wetlands) identified in paragraph 1.
through 6. of this definition.
Waste treatment systems, including
treatment ponds or lagoons designed to
meet the requirement of the CWA (other
than cooling ponds for steam electric
generation stations per 40 CFR 423)
which also meet the criteria of this
definition) are not waters of the United
States. Waters of the United States do
not include prior converted cropland.
Notwithstanding the determination of
an area's status as prior converted
cropland by any other federal agency,
for the purposes of the Clean Water Act,
the final authority regarding Clean
Water Act jurisdiction remains with
EPA.
Part X. Permit Conditions Applicable to
Specific States, Indian Country Lands,
or Territories
The provisions of this Part provide
modifications or additions to the
applicable conditions of Parts I through
IX of this permit to reflect specific
additional conditions required as part of
the State or Tribal CWA 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,
Indian Country lands and Federal
facilities.
A. Region 1
1. CTR10*##I: Indian Country Lands in
the State of Connecticut
No additional requirements.
2. MAR10*###: Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, Except Indian Country
Lands
a. Part I.B.4 is added to the permit as
follows:
Special Requirements for the State of
Massachusetts
a. Discharges covered by the 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.23-56, and
Wetlands Protection Act, M.G.L. c.131
s.40. Specifically, construction activities
subject to this permit must comply with
applicable storm water performance
standards prescribed by State regulation
or policy. Construction activities subject
to jurisdiction under 310 CMR 10.00
must comply with an Order or
Superseding Order of Conditions. An
application for a permit under 314 CMR
3.00 is required only when required by
314 CMR 3.04(2)(b) or is otherwise
identified in 314 CMR 3.00 or
Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection policy as a
discharge requiring a permit
application.
b. The Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection may request a
copy of the storm water pollution
prevention plan or conduct an
inspection of any facility covered by
this permit to ensure compliance with
State law requirements. The Department
may enforce its certification conditions.
3. MAR10*##I: Indian Country Lands in
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
No additional requirements.
4. MER10*###: State of Maine, Except
Indian Country Lands
a. The following is added to the
introductory section of Part IV:
The applicant for a project that does
not require a permit pursuant to Maine's
Storm Water Management Law, 38
MRSA 420-D due to the exemption at
38 MRSA 490-D(7)(D), must
demonstrate to the satisfaction of the
Maine Department of Environmental
Protections (MDEP) prior to starting
construction that the project meets the
standards adopted pursuant to Maine's
Storm Water Management Law, 38
MRSA 420-D.
b. The following is added to the
introduction to Part IV. D:
For a project not requiring a permit
pursuant to Maine's Storm Water
Management Law, 38 MRSA 420-D, due
to the exemption at 38 MRSA-D(7)(D),*
the following information is provided:
Maine's storn water permit application,
as approved by MDEP, is considered to
meet the requirements of the storm
water pollution prevention plan as
described in Part IV D.I, 2a, 2b, and
2c(l-5). Maine's storm water permit
application is not considered to meet
the requirements of Part IV D.2c(6)
(threatened and endangered species
and/or critical habitat), Part IV.D.3
(maintenance), PartIV.D.4. (inspection),
or Part IV D.5. (non-storm water
discharges).
For a project requiring a permit
pursuant to Maine's Storm Water
Management Law, 38 MRSA 420-D, or
otherwise required to meet Maine's
storm water standards adopted pursuant
to 38 MRSA 420-D, the following
information is provided: a permit or
variance application addressing Storm
water, as approved by MDEP, is
considered to meet the requirements of
the storm water pollution prevention
plan as described in Part IV.D.l. 2a, 2b,
2c(l-5), 3 and 4. Maine's permit or
variance application addressing storm
water, as approved by MDEP, is not
considered to meet the requirements in
Part IV.D.2c(6) and (7) which address
threatened and endangered species and/
or critical habitat and historic sites, or
Part IV.D.5 (non storm water
discharges).
•A project that Is exempt form the Storm Water
Management Law, due to the exemption at 38
MRSA 490-D(7)(D) and some other exemptions
listed at 38 MRSA 490-D(7), Is not required to
complete a Maine storm water permit application.
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 31/Tuesday. February 17. 1998/Notices
7915
5. MER10*##I: Indian Country Lands in
the State of Maine.
No additional requirements.
6. NHR10*###: State of New Hampshire,
Except Indian County Lands
No additional requirements.
7. RIR10*##I: Indian Country Lands in
the State of Rhode Island
No additional requirements.
8. VTR10*##F: Federal Facilities in the
State of Vermont, Except Those Located
on Indian Country Lands
No additional requirements.
B. Region 2
1. NYR10*##I: Indian Country Lands in
the State of New York
No additional requirements.
2. PRR10*###: The Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico
No additional requirements.
C. Region 3
1. DCR10*###: The District of Columbia
No additional requirements.
2. DER10*##F: Federal Facilities in the
State of Delaware
No additional requirements.
D. Region 7
1. IAR10*##I: Indian Country Lands in
the State of Iowa
No additional requirements.
2. KSR10*##I: Indian Country Lands in
the State of Kansas
No additional requirements.
3. NER10*##I: Indian Country Lands in
the State of Nebraska, Except Pine Ridge
Reservation Lands (see Region 8)
No additional requirements.
E. Region 8
1. COR10*##F: Federal Facilities in the
State of Colorado, Except Those Located
on Indian Country Lands
No additional requirements.
2. COR10*##I: Indian Country Lands in
the State of Colorado, Including the
Portion of the Ute Mountain Reservation
Located in New Mexico
No additional requirements.
3. MTR10*##I: Indian Country Lands in
the State of Montana
a. Confederated Salish & Kootenai
Tribes of the Flathead Reservation.
Copies of Notices of Intent (NOI),
Notices of Termination (NOT), and
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans
(SWPPPs) must be submitted to the
Confederated Salish and Kootenai
Tribes' Natural Resources Department.
(1) Part II.C.2 is added to the permit
as follows:
Special NOI Requirements for the
Flathead Indian Reservation. NOIs shall
also be submitted to the Confederated
Salish and Kootenai Tribes at the same
time they are submitted to EPA at the
following address: Confederated Salish
and Kootenai Tribes, Natural Resources
Department, Department Head, P.O. Box
278, Pablo, MT 59855.
(2) Part VIII.B.2 is added to the permit
as follows:
Special NOT Requirements for the
Flathead Indian Reservation. NOTs shall
also be submitted to the Confederated
Salish and Kootenai Tribes at the same
time they are submitted to EPA. NOTs
are to be sent to the address given in
Part II.C.2.
(3) Part IV.A.3 is added to the permit
as follows:
Special Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan Requirements for the
Flathead Indian Reservation. Storm
Water Pollution Prevention Plans
(SWPPPs) must be submitted to the
Confederated Salish and Kootenai
Tribes' Natural Resources Department
before a project on the Flathead Indian
Reservation begins. SWPPPs are to be
sent to the address given in Part II.C.2.
b. All Other Indian Country lands in
Montana. No additional requirements.
4. NDR10*##I: Indian Country Lands in
the State of North Dakota, Including
That Portion of the Standing Rock
Reservation Located in South Dakota
(Except for the Lake Traverse
Reservation Which is Covered Under
South Dakota Permit SDR10*##I Listed
Below)
No additional requirements.
5. SDR10*##I: Indian Country Lands in
the State of South Dakota, Including the
Portion of the Pine Ridge Reservation
Located in Nebraska and the Portion of
the Lake Traverse Reservation Located
in North Dakota (Except for the
Standing Rock Reservation Which is
Covered Under North Dakota Permit
NDR10*##I Listed Above)
No additional requirements.
6. UTR10*##I: Indian Country Lands in
the State of Utah, Except Goshute and
Navajo Reservation Lands (see Region 9)
No additional requirements.
7. WYR10*##I: Indian Country Lands in
the State of Wyoming
No additional requirements.
F. Region 9
1. ASR10*###: The Island of American
Samoa
No additional requirements.
2. AZR10*###: The State of Arizona,
Except Indian Country Lands
a. Part II.C.2 is added to the permit as
follows:
Special NOI Requirements for the
State of Arizona. NOIs shall also be
submitted to the State of Arizona
Department of Environmental Quality at
the following address: Storm Water
Coordinator, Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality, 3033 North
Central Avenue, Phoenix, Arizona
85012.
NOIs submitted to the State of
Arizona shall include the well
registration number if storm water
associated with industrial activity is
discharged to a dry well or an injection
well.
b. Part VIII.B.2 is added to the permit
as follows:
Special Not Requirement for the State
of Arizona. NOTs shall also be
submitted to the State of Arizona
Department of Environmental Quality at
the following address: Storm Water
Coordinator, Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality, 3033 North
Central Avenue, Phoenix, Arizona
85012.
3. AZR10*##I: Indian Country Lands in
the State of Arizona, Including Navajo
Reservation Lands in New Mexico and
Utah
No additional requirements.
4. CAR10*##I: Indian Country Lands in
the State of California
No additional requirements.
5. GUR10*###I: The Island of Guam
a. Part II.C.2 of the permit is added as
follows:
Special NOI Requirement for Guam.
NOIs shall also be submitted to the
following address: Guam Environmental
Protection Agency, P.O. Box 22439
GMF, Barrigada, Guam 96921.
b. Part VI.L.4 is added to the permit
as follows: Special Requirement for
Guam. Individual permit applications
required under this section shall also be
submitted to the following address:
Guam Environmental Protection
Agency, P.O. Box 22439 GMF,
Barrigada, Guam 96921.
6. JAR10*###: Johnston Atoll
No additional requirements.
7. MWR10*###: Midway Island and
Wake Island
No additional requirements.
-------
7916
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 31/Tuesday, February 17, 1998/Notices
8. NIR10*###: Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands
a. Part II. A.8 of the permit is added as
follows:
NOI Deadline for CNMI. The NOI
submitted to the CNMI Department of
Environmental Quality (DEQ) shall be
postponed seven (7) calendar days prior
to any storm water discharges.
b. Part II.B.4 of the permit is added as
follows:
Additional Requirements for CNMI.
The NOI submitted to CNMI and EPA
Region 9 shall be accompanied by a
letter from the CNMI DEQ approving the
storm water pollution prevention plan
required by Part IV of this permit.
c. Part II.C.2 of the permit is added as
follows:
Special NOI Requirements for CNMI.
NOIs shall also be submitted to the
following addresses:
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands, Division of Environmental
Quality, P.O. Box 1304, Saipan, MP
96950
EPA, Region 9, Section WTR-5, 75
Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105
d. Part IV. A. 3 of the permit is added
as follows:
Special Requirements for CNMI.
Storm water pollution prevention plans
(SWPPPs) required by this permit shall
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. SWPPPs are to be sent to
the address given in Part II.C.2.
9. NVR10*##: Indian Country Lands in
the State of Nevada, including the Duck
Valley Reservation in Idaho, the Fort
McDermitt Reservation in Oregon and
the Goshute Reservation in Utah
No additional requirements.
G. Region 10
1. AKR10*###: The State of Alaska,
Except Indian Country Lands
a. Part II.C.2 is added to the permit as
follows:
Special NOI Requirements for the
State of Alaska. A copy of the Notice of
Intent must be sent to the Department of
Environmental Conservation offices as
listed below:
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.
For projects in southeast Alaska,
nearest to Juneau: Alaska Department of
Environmental Conservation, Water
Quality Permitting Section/Storm
Water, 410 Willoughby Avenue, Juneau,
AK 99801.
b. Part IV.A.3 is added to the permit
as follows:
Special Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan Requirements for the
State of Alaska. Permittees shall obtain
DEC approval of the Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Plan for the
construction site pursuant to 18 AAC
72.600(a). Plans are to be approved and
sealed by a Professional Engineer
registered in the State of Alaska, shall be
submitted to the same DEC office that
the Notice of Intent is sent to, and shall
be accompanied by any State-required
fee. A failure to secure approval as
provided in this paragraph shall be
deemed a violation of this general
permit, but shall not prevent storm
water discharges from being authorized
by this general permit. (18 AAC
72.600(a), 18 AAC 72.610(a)(8), and 18
AAC 72.990(32)).
c. Part IV. D.2.b.(3) is added to the
permit as follows:
Special Storm Water Management
Requirements for the State of Alaska.
The permittee is responsible for any
post-stabilization requirements, such as
the removal of pollution control devices
and the control of pollutant discharges
at that time, if these devices are not a
permanent part of the pollution
prevention controls after final
stabilization.
d. Part VIII.B.2 is added to the permit
as follows:
Special NOT Requirements for the
State of Alaska. NOTs shall also be
submitted to the State of Alaska at the
same time they are submitted to EPA.
NOTs are to be sent to the address given
in Part II.C.2.
s. AKR10*##I: Indian Country Lands in
Alaska
No additional requirements.
3. IDR10*###: The State of Idaho, Except
Indian Country lands
a. Part III.F is added to the permit as
follows:
Special Water Quality Standard
Requirements for the State of Idaho. In
addition to the requirements for
coverage identified in the subject
permit, the Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP) design and
associated storm water discharge quality
shall demonstrate compliance with
applicable Idaho Water Quality
Standards.
4. IDR10*##I: Indian Country Lands in
the State of Idaho, Except Duck Valley
Reservation Lands (see Region 9)
No additional requirements.
5. ORR10*##I: Indian Country Lands in
the State of Oregon Except Fort
McDermitt Reservation Lands (see
Region 9)
No additional requirements.
6. WAR*##F: Federal Facilities in the
State of Washington, Except Those
Located on Indian Country Lands
The Washington Department of
Ecology includes these conditions to
ensure compliance with R.W. 90.48.080
and rules referenced in the conditions
above established in accordance with
R.W. 90.48.035.
a. Part III.F.I is added to the permit
as follows:
Special Requirements for Federal
Facilities in the State of Washington.
The permittee is responsible for
achieving compliance with State of
Washington surface water quality
standards (Chapter 173-201A WAC),
sediment management standards
(Chapter 173-204 WAC), ground water
quality standards (Chapter 173-200
WAC), and human health based criteria
in the National Toxics Rule (Federal
Register, Vol. 57, No. 246, Dec. 22,
1992, pages 60848-609233).
b. Part III.F.2 is added to the permit
as follows:
Special Ground Water Protection
Requirements for Federal Facilities in
the State of Washington. Diversion of
storm water discharges to ground water
from existing discharges to surface
water shall not be authorized by this
permit if this causes a violation or the
potential for violation of ground water
standards (Chapter 173-200 WAC).
Such discharges below the surface of the
ground are also regulated by the
Underground Injection Control Program
(Chapter 173-218 WAC).
c. Part III.F.3 is added to the permit
as follows:
Special Numeric Limitations for
Federal Facilities in the State of
Washington.
Discharges of storm water to surface
water from concrete batch or hot mix
asphalt plants covered by this permit
shall have an average monthly or daily
maximum pH between 6.0-9.0 and a
turbidity of less than 50 NTUs.
Discharges of storm water to the
ground from concrete batch or hot mix
asphalt plants covered by this permit
shall have an average monthly or daily
maximum pH between 6.5-8.5.
It needs to be reiterated that this
permit does not authorize the discharge
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 31/Tuesday, February 17, 1998/Notices
7917
of process water from concrete batch or
hot mix asphalt plants.
d. Part III.F.4 is added to the permit
as follows:
Special Requirement for Federal
Facilities in the State of Washington.
"Comeback Asphalt" must be contained
within a lined area so that no leaching
to ground or surface water can occur.
7. WAR10*##I: Indian Country Lands in
the State of Washington
a. Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis
Reservation. Copies of Notices of Intent
(NOI) and Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plans (SWPPPs) must be
submitted to the Chehalis Tribal
Department of Natural Resources.
(1) Part II.C.2 is added to the permit
as follows:
Special NOI Requirements for the
Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis
Reservation.
NOI shall also be submitted to the
Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis
Reservation at the same time they are
submitted to EPA at the following
address: Confederated Tribes of
Chehalis Reservation, Department of
Natural Resources, 420 Howanut Road,
Oakville, WA 98568.
(2) Part IV.A.3 is added to the permit
as follows:
Special Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan Requirements for the
Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis
Reservation. Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plans (SWPPPs) must be
submitted to the Chehalis Tribal
Department of Natural Resources for
review and approval prior to the
beginning of any discharge activities
taking place. SWPPPs are to be sent to
the address given in Part II.C.2.
(3) Part III.I is added to the permit as
follows:
Special Water Quality Standard
Requirements for the Confederated
Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation. The
permittee shall be responsible for
achieving compliance with
Confederated Tribes of Chehalis
Reservation's Water Quality Standards.
b. Puyallup Tribe of Indians. Copies
of Notices of Intent (NOI) and Storm
Water Pollution Prevention Plans
(SWPPPs) must be submitted to the
Puyallup Tribe Environmental
Department.
(1) Part II.C.2 of the permit is added
as follows:
Special NOI Requirements for the
Puyallup Tribe of Indians. NOIs shall
also be submitted to the Puyallup Tribe
Environmental Department at the same
time they are submitted to EPA at the
following address: Puyallup Tribe
Environmental Department, 2002 E.
28th St., Tacoma, WA 98404.
(2) Part IV.A.3 is added to the permit
as follows:
Special Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan Requirements for the
Puyallup Tribe of Indians. Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPPs)
must be submitted to the Puyallup Tribe
Environmental Department for review
and approval prior to the beginning of
any discharge activities taking place.
SWPPPs are to be sent to the address
given in Part II.C.2.
(3) Part III.F. is added to the permit as
follows:
Special Water Quality Standard
Requirements for the Puyallup Tribe of
Indians. Each permittee shall be
responsible for achieving compliance
with the Puyallup Tribe's Water Quality
Standards.
c. All Other Indian Country lands in
Washington. No additional
requirements.
Addendum A—Endangered Species
I. Instructions for Applicants
A. Background
To meet its obligations under the
Clean Water Act and the Endangered
Species Act (ESA) and to promote these
Acts' goals, the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) is seeking to
ensure the activities regulated by the
Construction General Permit (CGP) are
protective of endangered and threatened
species and critical habitat. To ensure
that those goals are met, applicants for
CGP coverage are required under Part
I.B.3.e. to assess the impacts of their
storm water discharges and storm water
discharge-related activities on Federally
listed endangered and threatened
species ("listed species") and
designated critical habitat ("critical
habitat") by following Steps One
through Six listed below. EPA strongly
recommends that applicants follow
these steps at the earliest possible stage
to ensure that measures to protect listed
species and critical habitat are
incorporate early in the planning
process. At minimum, the procedures
should be followed when developing
the storm water pollution prevention
plan.
Permittees and applicants also have
an independent ESA obligation to
ensure that their activities do not result
in any prohibited "takes" of listed
species.1 Many of the measures required
1 Section 9 of the ESA prohibits any person from
"taking" a listed species (e.g., harassing or harming
it) unless: (1) The taking is authorized through a
"incidental take statement" as part of undergoing
ESA §7 formal consultation; (2) where an
Incidental take permit is obtained under ESA § 10
(which requires the development of a habitat
conservation plan); or (3) where otherwise
in the CGP and in these instructions to
protect species may also assist
permittees in ensuring that their
construction activities do not result in a
prohibited take of species in violation of
section 9 of the ESA. Applicants who
plan construction activities in areas that
harbor endangered and threatened
species are advised to ensure that they
are protected from potential takings
liability under ESA section 9 by
obtaining either an ESA section 10
permit or by requesting formal
consultation under ESA section 7 (as
described in more detail in Step Seven
below). Applicants who seek protection
from takings liability should be aware
that it is possible that some specific
construction activities may be too
unrelated to storm water discharges to
be afforded incidental take coverage
through an ESA section 7 consultation
that is performed to meet the eligibility
requirements for CGP coverage. In such
instances, applicants should apply for
an ESA section 10 permit. Where
applicants are not sure whether to
pursue a section 10 permit or a section
7 consultation for takings protection,
they should confer with the appropriate
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) or
National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS) office.
This permit provides for the
Possibility of multiple permittees at a
construction site. Applicants should be
aware that in many cases they can meet
the permit eligibility requirements by
relying on another operator's
certification of eligibility under Part
l.B.3.e.(2)(a), (b), or (c). this is allowed
under Part I.B.3.e.(2)(d) of the permit.
However, the other operator's
certification must apply to the
applicant's project area and must
address the effects from the applicant's
storm water discharges and storm water
discharge-related activities on listed
species and critical habitat. By
certifying eligibility under Part
I.B.3.e.(2)(d), the applicant agrees to
comply with any measures or controls
upon which the other operator's
certification under Part I.B.3.e.(2)(a), (b)
or (c) was based. This situation will
typically occur where a developer or
primary contractor, such as one for
construction of a subdivision or
industrial part, conducts a
comprehensive assessment of effects on
listed species and critical habitat for the
entire construction project, certifies
eligibility under Part I.B.3.e.(2)(a), (b) or
(c), and that certification is relied upon
by other operators (i.e., contractors) at
authorized or exempted under the ESA. This
prohibition applies to all entities including private
individuals, businesses, and governments.
-------
7918
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 31/Tuesday, February 17, 1998/Notices
the site. However, applicants that
consider relying on another operator's
certification should carefully review
that certification along with any
supporting information. If an applicant
does not believe that the operator's
certification provides adequate coverage
for the applicant's storm water
discharges and storm water discharge-
related activities or for the applicant's
particular project area, the applicant
should provide its own independent
certification under Part I.B.3.e.(2)(a), (b),
or (c).
B. Procedures
To receive coverage under the
Construction General Permit, applicants
must assess the potential effects of their
storm water discharges and storm water
discharge-related activities on listed
species and their critical habitat. To
make this assessment, applicants must
follow the steps outlined below prior to
completing and submitting Notice of
Intent (NOI) form. Applicants who are
able to certify eligibility under Parts
I.B.3.e.(2)(b), (c) or (d) because of a
previously issued ESA section 10
permit, a previously completed ESA
section 7 consultation, or because the
applicant's activities were already
addressed in another operator's
certification of eligibility may proceed
directly to Step Six.
Note—The revised NOI form which was
included in the CGP (see 62 FR 29822-29823,
June 2, 1997) requires that applicants provide
detailed certification information on listed
species. That form is still under development
and is not expected to be finalized before this
permit is issued. Until the revised NOI form
is finalized, applicants must use the existing
NOI form which does not contain the specific
certification provisions relating to listed
species and critical habitats at construction
projects. However, use of the existing NOI
form does not relieve applicants of their
obligation to follow the procedures listed
below to determine if their construction
storm water discharges or storm water
discharge-related activities meet permit
eligibility requirements for the protection of
listed species and critical habitat. By
following these instructions, applicants will
have sufficient information on listed species
and critical habitat in order to complete
either the existing or revised NOI form and
sign the certification statement.
Step One: Determine if the Construction
Site is Found Within Designated Critical
Habitat for Listed Species
Some, but not all, listed species have
designated critical habitat. Exact
locations of such habitat is provided in
the Service regulations at 50 CFR Parts
17 and 226. To determine if their
construction site occurs within
designated critical habitat, applicants
should either:
• Contact the nearest Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS) and National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Office.
A list of FWS and NMFS offices is
found in Section II of this Addendum;
or
• Contact the State or Tribal Natural
Heritage Centers. These centers compile
and disseminate information on
Federally listed and other protected
species. They frequently have the most
current information on listed species
and critical habitat. A list of these
centers is provided in Section III of this
Addendum; or
• Review those regulations (which
can be found in many larger libraries).
If the construction site is not located
in designated critical habitat, then the
applicant does not need to consider
impacts to critical habitat when
following Steps Two through Six below.
If the site is located within critical
habitat, then the applicant must look at
impacts to critical habitat when
following Steps Two through Six. Note
that many but not all measures imposed
to protect listed species under these
steps will also protect critical habitat.
Thus, meeting the eligibility
requirements of this permit may require
measures to protect critical habitat that
are separate from those to protect listed
species.
Step Two: Determine if Listed Species
are Located in the County(ies) Where
the Construction Activity Will Occur
Section IV of the Addendum contains
a county-by-county list of listed
endangered and threatened species
("listed species"), and proposed
endangered and threatened species
("proposed species"). Since the list was
current as of September 1, 1997,
applicants must also check with other
sources for updated species and county
information. These sources include:
Sections II and III of this Addendum;
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; a biologist or similar
professional in the environmental field;
or any other method which can be
reasonably expected to provide this
information. Applicants with
construction projects located in EPA
Region 2 can call the Storm Water
General Permits Hotline at (800) 245-
6510 for further assistance, while
applicants with projects located in EPA
Regions 1, 3, 7, 8, 9 and 10 may contact
the appropriate EPA Regional Office.
Where a facility is located in more
than one county, the lists for all
counties should be reviewed. Where a
facility discharges into a water body
which serves as a border between
counties or which crosses a county line
which is in the immediate vicinity of
the point of discharge, applicants
should also review the species list for
the county which lies immediately
downstream or is across the water body
from the point of discharge.
After a review of the available
information from the sources mentioned
above, if no listed species are located in
a facility's county or if a facility's
county is not listed, and the
construction site is not located in
critical habitat as described under Step
One, an applicant is eligible for CGP
coverage without further inquiry into
the presence of, or effect to, listed
species. The applicant must check the
appropriate certification item on the
revised NOI form (Part I.B.3.e.(2)(a)).
Once the applicant has determined
which listed species are located in his
or her facility's county, die applicant
must follow Step Three.
Step Three: Determine if Any Federally
Listed Endangered and Threatened
Species May Be Present in die Project
Area
The project area consists of:
• The areas on the construction site
where storm water discharges originate
and flow toward the point of discharge
into the receiving waters (including
areas where excavation, site
development, or other ground
disturbance activities occur) and the
immediate vicinity.
Example (s)
1. Where bald eagles nest in a tree that
is on or bordering a construction site
and could be disturbed by the
construction activity.
2. Where grading causes storm water
to flow into a small wedand or odier
habitat that is on the site which contains
listed species.
• The areas where storm water
discharges flow from the construction
site to the point of discharge into
receiving waters.
Example(s)
1. Where storm water flows into a
ditch, swale, or gully which leads to
receiving waters and where listed
species (such as amphibians) are found
in the ditch, swale, or gully.
• The areas where storm water from
construction activities discharge into
receiving waters and the areas in the
immediate vicinity of the point of
discharge.
Example (s)
1. Where storm water from
construction activities discharges into a
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 31/Tuesday, February 17, 1998/Notices
7919
stream segment that is known to harbor
listed aquatic species.
• The areas where storm water BMPs
will be constructed and operated,
including any areas where storm water
flows to and from BMPs.
Example (s)
1. Where a storm water retention
pond would be built.
The protect area will vary with the
size and structure of the construction
activity, the nature and quantity of the
storm water discharges, the storm water
discharge-related activities and the type
of receiving water. Given the number of
construction activities potentially
covered by the CGP, no specific method
to determine whether listed species may
be located in the project area is required
for coverage under the CGP. Instead,
applicants should use the method
which allows them to determine, to the
best of their knowledge, whether listed
species are located in their project area.
These methods may include:
• Conducting visual inspections: This
method may be particularly suitable for
construction sites that are smaller in
size or located in non-natural settings
such as highly urbanized areas or
industrial parks where there is little or
no natural habitat, or for construction
activities that discharge directly into
municipal storm water collection
systems.
• Contacting the nearest State or
Tribal wildlife agency, the Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS), or the National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). Many
endangered and threatened species are
found in well-defined areas or habitats.
Such information is frequently known
to State, Tribal, or Federal wildlife
agencies. A list of FWS and NMFS
offices is provided in section II of this
Addendum below.
• Contacting local/regional
conservation groups or the State or
Tribal Natural Heritage Centers (see
section III of this Addendum). State and
local conservation groups may have
location specific listed species
information. The Natural Heritage
Centers inventory species and their
locations and maintain lists of sightings
and habitats.
• Submitting a data request to a
Natural Heritage Center. Many of these
centers will provide site specific
information on the presence of listed
species in a project area. Some of these
centers will charge a fee for researching
data requests.
• Conducting a formal biological
survey. Larger construction sites with
extensive storm water discharges may
choose to conduct biological surveys as
the most effective way to assess whether
species are located in the project area
and whether there are likely adverse
effects. Biological surveys are frequently
performed by environmental consulting
firms. A biological survey can be used
to follow Steps Four through Six of
these instructions.
• Conducting an environmental
assessment under the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
Some construction activities may
require environmental assessments
under NEPA. Such assessments may
indicate if listed species are in the
project area. Coverage under the CGP
does not trigger such an assessment
because the permit does not regulate
any dischargers subject to New Source
Performance Standards under section
306 of the Clean Water Act, and is thus
statutorily exempted from NEPA. See
CWA section 511 (c). However, some
construction activities might require
review under NEPA because of Federal
funding or other Federal involvement in
the project.
If no species are found in the project
area, an applicant is eligible for CGP
coverage. Applicants must provide the
necessary certification on the revised
NOI form. If listed species are found in
the project area, applicants must
indicate the location and nature of this
presence in the storm water pollution
prevention plan and follow Step Four.
Step Four: Determine if Listed Species
or Critical Habitat Are Likely To Be
Adversely Affected by the Construction
Activity's Storm Water Discharges or
Storm Water Discharge-Related
Activities
To receive CGP coverage, applicants
must assess whether their storm water
discharges or storm water discharge-
related activities are likely to adversely
affect listed species or critical habitat.
"Storm water discharge-related
activities" include:
• Activities which cause, contribute
to, or result in point source storm water
pollutant discharges, including but not
limited to excavation, site development,
grading, and other surface disturbance
activities; and
• Measures to control storm water
discharges including the siting,
construction, operation of best
management practices (BMPs) to
control, reduce or prevent storm water
pollution.
Potential adverse effects from storm
water discharges and storm water
discharge-related activities include:
• Hydrological. Storm water
discharges may cause siltation,
sedimentation or induce other changes
in 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.
Construction activity itself may also
alter drainage patterns on a site where
construction occurs which can impact
listed species or critical habitat.
• Habitat. Excavation, site
development, grading, and other surface
disturbance activities from construction
activities, including the installation or
placement of storm water BMPs, may
adversely affect listed species or their
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. If the applicant is
having difficulty in determining
whether his or her project is likely to
adversely affect a listed specie or critical
habitat, then the appropriate office of
the FWS, NMFS or Natural Heritage
Center listed in sections II and III of this
Addendum should be contacted for
assistance. If adverse effects are not
likely, then the applicant should make
the appropriate certification on the
revised NOI form and apply for coverage
under the permit. If adverse effects are
likely, applicants must follow Step Five.
Step Five: Determine if Measures Can
Be Implemented to Avoid Any Adverse
Effects
If an applicant makes a preliminary
determination that adverse effects are
likely, it can still receive coverage under
Part I.B.3.e.(2)(a) of the CGP if
appropriate measures are undertaken to
avoid or eliminate the likelihood of
adverse effects prior to applying for
permit coverage. These measures may
involve relatively simple changes to
construction activities such as re-
routing a storm water discharge to
bypass an area where species are
located, relocating BMPs, or by
changing the "footprint" of the
construction activity. Applicants may
wish to contact the FWS and/or NMFS
to see what appropriate measures might
be suitable to avoid or eliminate the
likelihood of adverse impacts to listed
species and/or critical habitat. (See 50
CFR 402.13(b)). This can entail the
initiation of informal consultation with
the FWS and/or NMFS which is
described in more detail in Step Six.
If applicants adopt measures to avoid
or eliminate adverse affects, they must
continue to abide by those measures
during the course of permit coverage.
These measures must be described in
-------
7920
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 31/Tuesday, February 17, 1998/Notices
the storm water pollution prevention
plan and may be enforceable as permit
conditions. If appropriate measures to
avoid the likelihood of adverse effects
are not available to the applicant, the
applicant must follow Step Six.
Step Six: Determine if the Eligibility
Requirements of Part I.B.3.e.(2)(b)-(d)
Can Be Met
Where adverse effects are likely, the
applicant must contact the EPA and
FWS/NMFS. Applicants may still be
eligible for CGP coverage if any likely
adverse effects can be addressed
through meeting the criteria of Part
I.B.3.e.(2)(b)-(d) of the permit. These
criteria are as follows:
1. An ESA Section 7 Consultation Is
Performed for the Applicant's Activity
(See Part I.B.3.e.(2)(b).
Formal or informal ESA section 7
consultation is performed with the FWS
and/or NMFS which addresses the
effects of the applicant's storm water
discharges and storm water discharge-
related activities on listed species and
critical habitat. The formal consultation
must result in either a "no jeopardy
opinion" or a "jeopardy opinion" that
identifies reasonable and prudent
alternatives to avoid jeopardy which are
to be implemented by the applicant. The
informal consultation must result in a
written concurrence by the Service (s) on
a finding that the applicant's storm
water discharge (s) and storm water
discharge-related activities are not likely
to adversely affect listed species or
critical habitat (for informal
consultation, see 50 CFR 402.13).
Most consultations are accomplished
through informal consultation. By the
terms of this permit, EPA has
automatically designated applicants as
non-Federal representatives for the
purpose of conducting informal
consultations. See Part I.B.3.e.(5) and 50
CFR 402.08 and 402.13. When
conducting informal ESA section 7
consultation as a non-Federal
representative, applicants must follow
the procedures found in 50 CFR 402 of
the ESA regulations.
Applicants must also notify EPA and
the Services of their intention and
agreement to conduct consultation as a
non-Federal representative.
Consultation may occur in the context
of another Federal action at the
construction site (e.g., where ESA
section 7 consultation was performed
for issuance of a wetlands dredge and
fill permit for the project or where a
NEPA review is performed for the
project which incorporates a section 7
consultation). Any terms and conditions
developed through consultations to
protect listed species and critical habitat
must be incorporated into the SWPPP.
As noted above, applicants may, if they
wish, initiate consultation with the
Services at Step Five.
Whether ESA section 7 consultation
must be performed with either the FWS,
NMFS or both Services depends on the
listed species which may be affected by
the applicant's activity. In general,
NMFS has jurisdiction over marine,
estuarine, and anadromous species.
Applicants should also be aware that
while formal section 7 consultation
provides protection from incidental
takings liability, informal consultation
does not.
2. An Incidental Taking Permit Under
Section 10 of the ESA is Issued for the
Applicants Activity (See Part
The applicant's construction activities
are authorized through the issuance of
a permit under section 10 of the ESA
and that authorization addresses the
effects of the applicant's storm water
discharge (s) and storm water discharge-
related activities on listed species and
critical habitat. Applicants must follow
FWS and/or NMFS procedures when
applying for an ESA Section 10 permit
(see 50 CFR section 17.22(b)(l)(FWS)
and section 222.22(NMFS)). Application
instructions for section 10 permits for
NMFS species can be obtained by (1)
accessing the "Office of Protected
Resources" sector of the NMFS Home
Page at "http://www.nmfs.gov" or (2) by
contacting the National Marine
Fisheries Service, Office of Protected
Resources, Endangered Species
Division, F/PR3.1315 East-West
Highway, Silver Spring, Maryland
20910, telephone (301) 713-1401. fax
(301) 713-0376.
3. The Applicant is Covered Under
the Eligibility Certification of Another
Operator for the Project Area (See Part
The applicant's storm water
discharges and storm water discharge-
related activities were already addressed
in another operator's certification of
eligibility under Part I.B.3.e.(2)(b), or (c)
which also included the applicant's
project area. By certifying eligibility
under Part I.B.3.e.(2)(d), the applicant
agrees to comply with any measures or
controls upon which the other
operator's certification under Part
I.B.3.e.(2)(a), (b) or (c) was based.
Certification under Part I.B.3.e.(2)(d) is
discussed in more detail in section I.A.
of this addendum.
The applicant must comply with any
terms and conditions imposed under the
eligibility requirements of paragraphs
I.B.3.e(2)(a), (b), (c). (d) to ensure that its
storm waters discharges and storm
water discharge-related activities are
protective of listed species and/or
critical habitat. Such terms and
conditions must be incorporated in the
project's SWPPP. If the eligibility
requirements of Part I.B.3.e.(2)(a)-(d)
cannot be met, then the applicant may
not receive coverage under the CGP.
Applicants should then consider
applying to EPA for an individual
permit.
II. List of Fish and Wildlife Service and
National Marine Fisheries Service
Offices
A. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Offices
National Website for Endangered
Species Information
Endangered Species Home page:
http://www.fws.gov/-r9endspp/
endspp.html.
Regional, State, Field and Project
Offices
Region 1
Regional Office
Division Chief, Endangered Species, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, ARD Ecological
Services, 911 NE 11 Avenue, Portland, OR
97232-4181, (503) 231-6121
State. Field and Project Offices
Field Supervisor. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. P.O. Box 50088, 300 Ala Moana
Blvd.. Rm 3108, Honolulu. HI 96850
Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. Upper Columbia R. Basin F&W
Office, 11103 East Montgomery Drive, Ste
2, Spokane, WA 99306
State Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office,
2600 S.E 98th Avenue, Suite 100, Portland,
OR 97266
Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Snake River Basin F&W Office.
1387 South Vinnell Way, Room 368. Boise,
ID 83709
State Supervisor. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. Nevada State Office. 4600 Kietzke
Lane. Building C. Rm. 125. Reno, NV
89502-5093
State Supervisor. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Western Washington F&W Office,
510 Desmond Dr., Suite 102, Lacey, WA
98503-1273
Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. Klamath Falls F&W Office. 6600
Washburn Way, Klamath Falls, OR 97603
Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Klamath River F&W Office. 1215
South Main. Suite 212. Yreka, CA 96097-
1006
Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office,
2730 Loker Avenue West. Carlsbad. CA
92008
Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Ventura Field Office, 2493 Portola
Road, Suite B, Ventura, CA 93003
Project Leader. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. Coastal California Fish and
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 31/Tuesday, February 17, 1998/Notices
7921
Wildlife Office, 1125 16th St., Rm. 209.
Arcata, CA 95521-5582
Project Leader, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Northern Central Valley F&W
Office, 10959 Tyler Road. Red Bluff, CA
96080
State Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, California State Office, 3310 El
Camino Avenue, Suite 120, Sacramento,
CA 95821-6340
Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Sacramento Fish & Wildlife Office,
3310 El Camino Avenue, Suite 120,
Sacramento, CA 95821-6340
Region 2
Regional Office
Division Chief, Endangered Species, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service. ARD Ecological
Services, P.O. Box 1306, Albuquerque, NM
87103
State, Field, and Project Offices
Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Corpus Christ! Field Office, 6300
Ocean Dr.. Campus Box 338. Corpus
Christ!, TX 78412
Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. Arlington Field Office, 711
Stadium Dr.. East, Suite 252. Arlington, TX
76011
Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Clear Lake Field Office, 17629 El
Camino Real, Suite 211, Houston, TX
77058
Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Oklahoma Field Office, 222 S.
Houston, Suite A, Tulsa, OK 74127
Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, New Mexico Field Office, 2105
Osuna, NE. Albuquerque. NM 87113
Field Supervisor. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Austin Ecological Serv. Field
Office, 10711 Burnet Road, Suite 200,
Austin, TX 78758
Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. Arizona State Office, 2321 W.
Royal Palm Road, Suite 103, Phoenix, AZ
85021-4951
Region 3
Regional Office
Division Chief, Endangered Species. U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, ARD Ecological
Service, BHW Federal Bldg, 1 Federal
Drive, Fort Snelling, MN 55111-4056
State, Field, and Project Offices
Field Supervisor. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. Chicago, Illinois Field Office, 1000
Hart Rd.. Suite 180, Barrington, IL 60010
Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, East Lansing Field Office, 2651
Coolidge Road. East Lansing. MI 48823
Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Reynoldsburg Field Office. 6950
Americana Parkway, Suite H,
Reynoldsburg, OH 43068-4132
Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. Bloomington Field Office. 620
South Walker Street. Bloomington, IN
47403-2121
Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Twin Cities E.S. Field Office, 4101
East 80th Street, Bloomington, MN 55425-
1665
Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Columbia Field Office, 608 East
Cherry Street, Room 200, Columbia, MO
65201-7712
Field Supervisor. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Green Bay Field Office, 1015
Challenger Court, Green Bay, WI 54311-
8331
Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. Rock Island Field Office, 4469
48th Avenue Court, Rock Island. IL 61201
Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Marion Suboffice, Route 3, Box
328, Marion, IL 62959-4565
Region 4
Regional Office
Division Chief, Endangered Species, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service. ARD Ecological
Services, 1875 Century Blvd., Suite 200,
Atlanta, GA 30345
State, Field, and Project Offices
Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. Panama City Field Office, 1612
June Avenue. Panama City. FL 32405-3721
Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, South Florida Ecosystem Field
Office. 1360 U.S. Hwy 1. #5; P.O. Box 2676,
Vero Beach. FL 32961-2676
Field Supervisor. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Caribbean Field Office, P.O. Box
491, Boqueron, PR 00622
Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Puerto Rican Parrot Field Office.
P.O. Box 1600, Rio Grande, PR 00745
Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Brunswick Field Office, 4270
Norwich Street, Brunswick, GA 31520-
2523
Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Jacksonville Field Office, 6620
Southpoint Drive S., Suite 310,
Jacksonville, FL 32216-0912
Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Charleston Field Office. 217 Ft.
Johnson Road. P.O. Box 12559, Charleston,
SC 29422-2559
Field Supervisor. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Clemson P.O., Dept. of Forest
Resources, 261 Lehotsky Hall. Box 341003,
Clemson, SC 29634-1003
Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Ralph Field Office, P.O. Box
33726, Raleigh. NC 27636-3726
Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Cookeville Field Office. 446 Neal
Street, Cookeville, TN 38501
Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Asheville Field Office, 160
Zillicoa Street, Ashevile. NC 28801
Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Daphne Field Office, P.O. Drawer
1190, Daphne, AL 36526
Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Vicksburg Field Office. 2524 S.
Frontage Road, Suite B, Vicksburg, MS
39180-5269
Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Lafayette Field Office, Brandywine
II, Suite 102, 825 Kaliste Saloom Road,
Lafayette, LA 70508
Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Jackson Field Office, 6578
Dogwood View Pkwy, Suite A, Jackson, MS
39213
Region 5
Regional Office
Division Chief, Endangered Species. U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, ARD Ecological
Services, 300 Westgate Center Drive,
Hadley, MA 01035-9589
State, Field and Project Offices
Project Leader, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Delaware Bay Estuary Project,
2610 Whitehall Neck Road, Smyrna, DE
19977
Project Leader, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. Southern New England/NYBCE
Program, Shoreline Plaza, Route 1A, P.O.
Box 307, Charlestown. RI02813
Project Leader, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Gulf of Maine Project, 4 R Fundy
Road, Falmouth, ME 04105
Project Leader. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. Chesapeake Bay Field Office, 177
Admiral Cochrane Drive, Annapolis,
Maryland 21401
Project Leader, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Virginia Field Office. P.O. Box 99,
6669 Short Lane, Gloucester, VA 23061
Project Leader, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Southwestern Virginia Field
Office, P.O. Box 2345, Abingdon, VA
24212
Project Leader, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, New England Field Office, 22
Bridge St., Unit #1, Concord, New
Hampshire 03301-4986
Project Leader, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Main Field Office, 1033 South
Main St., Old Town, Maine 04468
Project Leader. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Rhode Island Field Office,
Shoreline Plaza, Route 1A; P.O. Box 307,
Charlestown. Rhode Island 02813
Project Leader, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Vermont Field Office, 11 Lincoln
Street. Winston Prouty Federal Building,
Essex Junction, VT 05452
Project Leader, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. New Jersey Field Office, 927 North
Main St., Bldg. Dl, Pleasantville, New
Jersey 08232
Project Leader, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, New York Field Office, 3817 Luker
Road, Cortland, New York 13045
Project Leader, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Long Island Field Office, P.O. Box
608, Islip, New York 11751-0608
Project Leader, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Pennsylvania Field Office, 315 S.
Allen St., Suite 322. State College.
Pennsylvania 16801
Project Leader, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Eastern Pennsylvania Field Office,
11 Hap Arnold Boulevard, Box H,
Tobyhanna, Pennsylvania 18466-0080
Project Leader. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, West Virginia Field Office, Route
250, S—Elkins Shopping Plaza, Elkins,
West Virginia 26241
Region 6
Regional Office
Division Chief, Endangered Species, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, ARD Ecological
Services, P.O. Box 25486, DFC, Denver, CO
80225
-------
7922
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 31/Tuesday, February 17, 1998/Notices
State, Field, and Project Offices
Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Montana Field Office, 100 N. Park,
Suite 320, Helena, MT 59601
Sub-Office Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. Billings Sub-Office, 2900 4th Ave.,
North, Rm 301. Billings, MT 59101
Sub-Office Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Kalispell Sub-Office, 780 Creston
Hatchery Road. Kalispell, MT 59901
Grizzly Bear Recovery Coordinator, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Forestry Sciences
Lab, University of Montana. Missoula, MT
59812
Field Supervisor. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, North Dakota Field Office, 1500
Capitol Avenue, Bismarck, ND 58501
Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Nebraska Field Office, 203 W. 2nd
Street, Federal Bldg., 2nd Floor, Grand
Island. NE 68801
Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. Kansas Field Office. 315 Houston.
Suite E. Manhattan, KS 66502
Field Supervisor. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. South Dakota Field Office. 420 S.
Garfield Ave., Suite 400. Pierre. SD 57501-
5408
Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Salt Lake City Field Office,
Lincoln Plaza, 145 East 1300 South. Suite
404. Salt Lake City. UT 84115
Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Colorado Field Office, 730 Simms,
Suite 290, Golden, CO 80401-4798
Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Western Colorado Field Office.
764 Horizon Drive South, Annex A, Grand
Junction, CO 81506-3946
Field Supervisor. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Wyoming Field Office, 4000
Morrie Avenue, Cheyenne, WY 82001
E.S. Coordinator, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Rocky Mountain Arsenal, National
Wildlife Area, Building 111, Commerce
City, CO 80022-1748
Colorado River Recovery Coordinator, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service. P.O. Box 25486.
DFC, Denver, CO 80225
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Laramie
Black Footed Ferret Office, 410 Grand
Ave.. Suite 315, Laramie. WY 80270
Region 7
Regional Office
Division Chief, Endangered Species, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, ARD Ecological
Services, 1011 E. Tudor Road. Anchorage,
AK 99503
State, Field, and Project Offices
Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Ecological Services, 605 West 4th
Avenue, Room G-62, Anchorage. AK
99501
Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Ecological Services, 101 12th
Avenue, Box 19 (Room 232). Fairbanks. AK
99701
Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Ketchikan Sub-office. 103 Main
Street, P.O. Box 3193. Ketchikan, AK
99901
Field Supervisor. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Ecological Services, 300 Vintage
Blvd., Suite 201, Juneau, AK 99801
Region 8
Has not yet been created out of the other
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Regions at the
time of this posting.
Region 9
Janet Ady—Outreach, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, National Conservation Training
Center, Route 3, Box 49, Kearneysville, WV
25430
Dan Benfield—Training. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, National Conservation
Training Center, Route 3, Box 49,
Kearneysville, WV 25430
B. National Marine Fisheries Service
Offices
The National Marine Fisheries Service
is a developing a database to provide
county and territorial water (up to three
miles offshore) information on the
presence of endangered and threatened
species and critical habitat, the database
is projected to be available to the public
early 1998. The database should be
found at the "Office of Protected
Resources" site on the NMFS homepage
at "http://www.nmfs.gov".
Regional and Field Offices
Northeast Region
Protected Resources Program, National
Marine Fisheries Service. Northeast
Region, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester,
Massachusetts 01930
Milford Field Office, National Marine
Fisheries Service. 212 Rogers Avenue,
Milford. Connecticut 06460
Oxford Field Office, National Marine
Fisheries Service. 904 So. Morris Street,
Oxford, Maryland 21654
Sandy Hook Field Office, James J. Howard
Marine Sciences, Laboratory, National
Marine Fisheries Service, 74 Magruder
Road, Highlands, New Jersey 07732
Protected Species Branch. National Marine
Fisheries Service. Northeast Fisheries
Science Center, 166 Water Street. Woods
Hole. Massachusetts 02543
Southeast Region
Protective Species Management Branch,
National Marine Fisheries Service,
Southeast Region, 9721 Executive Center
Drive, St. Petersburg, Florida 33702-2432
Northwest Region
Protected Species Division, National Marine
Fisheries Service. Northwest Region, 525
NE Oregon, Suite 500, Portland, Oregon
97232-2737
Boise Field Office. National Marine Fisheries
Service, 1387 S. Vinnel Way, Suite 377,
Boise, Idaho 83709
Olympia Field Office, National Marine
Fisheries Service. 510 Desmond Drive, SE,
Suite 103. Lacey, Washington 98503
Roseburg Field Office, National Marine
Fisheries Service. 2900 Stewart Parkway.
NW.. Roseburg, Oregon 97470
Rufus Field Office. National Marine Fisheries
Service. P.O. Box 67. 704 "E" 1st. Rufus,
Oregon 97050
Southwest Region
Protected Species Management Division,
Southwest Region, National Marine
Fisheries Service, 501 West Ocean Blvd.,
Suite 4200, Long Beach, California 90802-
4213
Arcata Field Office, National Marine
Fisheries Service, 1125 16th Street, Room
209. Arcata, California 95521
Eureka Field Office, National Marine
Fisheries Service, 1330 Bayshore Way,
Eureka, California 95501
Pacific Island Area Field Office, National
Marine Fisheries Service, 2570 Dole Street,
Room 106, Honolulu, Hawaii 96822-2396
Santa Rosa Field Office, Protected Resources
Program, National Marine Fisheries
Service, 777 Sonoma Avenue, Room 325,
Santa Rosa, California 95404
Alaska Region
Protected Resources Management Division,
Alaska Region, National Marine Fisheries
Service, 709 West 9th Street, Federal
Building 461, P.O. Box 21767, Juneau,
Alaska 99802
Anchorage Office, 222 West 7th Avenue. Box
10, Anchorage, Alaska 99513-7577
III. Natural Heritage Centers
The Natural Heritage Network
comprises 85 biodiversity data centers
throughout the Western Hemisphere.
These centers collect, organize, and
share data relating to endangered and
threatened species and habitat. The
network was developed to inform land-
use decisions for developers,
corporations, conservationists, and
government agencies and is also
consulted for research and educational
purposes. The centers maintain a
Natural Heritage Network Control
Server Website (http://
www.heritage.tnc.org) which provides
website and other access to a large
number of specific biodiversity centers.
Some of these centers are listed below:
Alabama Natural Heritage Program
Huntingdon College, Massey Hall, 1500 East
Fairview Avenue, Montgomery, AL 36106-
2148. (334) 834-4519, Fax: (334) 834-5439,
Internet: alnhp@wsnet, com
Alaska Natural Heritage Program
University of Alaska Anchorage. 707 A
Street, Anchorage, AK 99501. 907/257-
2702, Fax: 907/258-9139. Program
Director: David Duffy. 257-2707, Internet:
afdcdl@orion.alaska.edu
Arizona Heritage Data Management System
Arizona Game & Fish Department, WM-H,
2221 W. Greenway Road, Phoenix, AZ
85023, 602/789-3612, Fax: 602/789-3928,
Internet: hdms@gf.state.az.us, Internet:
hdmsl@gf.state.az.us
Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission
Suite 1500 Tower Building, 323 Center
Street, Little Rock, AR 72201, 501/324-
9150. Fax: 501/324-9618,
Director: Harold K. Grimmett. -9614
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 31/Tuesday, February 17, 1998/Notices
7923
California Natural Heritage Division
Department of Fish & Game, 1220 S Street,
Sacramento, CA 95814. 5916/322-2493,
Fax: 916/324-0475
Colorado Natural Heritage Program
Colorado State University. 254 General
Services Building, Fort Collins, CO 80523,
970/491-1309, Fax: 970/491-3349
Connecticut Natural Diversity Database
Natural Resources Center, Department of
Environmental Protection, 579 Elm Street,
Store Level, Hartford. CT 06106-5127, 860/
424-3540. Fax: 860/424-4058
Delaware Natural Heritage Program
Division of Fish & Wildlife, Department of
Natural Resources & Environmental
Control. 4876 Hay Point Landing Road,
Smyrna, DE 19977, 302/653-2880, Fax:
302/653-3431
District of Columbia Natural Heritage
Program
13025 Riley's Lock Road, Poolesville, MD
20837, 301/427-1320, Fax: 301/427-1355
Florida Natural Areas Inventory
1018 Thomasville Road, Suite 200-C,
Tallahassee, FL 32303. 904/224-8207. Fax:
904/681-9364
Florida Natural Areas Inventory
Eglln Air Force Base, P.O. Box 1150,
Niceville, FL 32588, 904/883-6451, Fax:
904/682-8381
Georgia Natural Heritage Program
Wildlife Resources Division, Georgia
Department of Natural Resources, 2117
U.S. Highway 278 S.E., Social Circle, GA
30279, 706/557-3032 or 770/918-6411,
Fax: 706/557-3033 or 706/557-3040,
Internet: natural
_heritage@mail.dnr.state.ga.us
Hawaii Natural Heritage Program
The Nature Conservancy of Hawaii. 1116
Smith Street, Suite 201. Honolulu, HI
96817, 808/537-4508, Fax:808/545-2019
Idaho Conservation Data Center
Department of Fish & Game. 600 South
Walnut Street. Box 25. Boise. ID 83707-
0025, 208/334-3402, Fax: 208/334-2114
Illinois Natural Heritage Division
Department of Natural Resources, Division of
Natural Heritage, 524 South Second Street,
Springfield, IL 62701-1787, 217/785-8774,
Fax: 217/785-8277
Illinois Nature Preserves Commission
Director: Carolyn Grosboll, Deputy Dir/
Steward: Randy Heidorn, Deputy Dir/
Protect: Don McFall, Office Specialist:
Karen Tish. 217/785-8774. Fax: 217/785-
8277
Indiana Natural Heritage Data Center
Division of Nature Preserves, Department of
Natural Resources. 402 West Washington
Street, Room W267. Indianapolis. IN
46204, 317/232-4052, Fax: 317/233-0133
Iowa Natural Areas Inventory
Department of Natural Resources, Wallace
State Office Building, Des Moines, IA
50319-0034, Fax: 515/281-6794,
Coordinator/Zoologist: Daryl Howell, 515/
281-8524
Kansas Natural Heritage Inventory
Kansas Biological Survey, 2041 Constant
Avenue, Lawrence. KS 66047-2906, 913/
864-3453. Fax:913/864-5093
Kentucky Natural Heritage Program
Kentucky State Nature Preserves.
Commission, 801 Schenkel Lane,
Frankfort. KY 40601. 502/573-2886, Fax:
502/573-2355
Louisiana Natural Heritage Program
Department of Wildlife & Fisheries, P.O. Box
98000, Baton Rouge, LA 70898-9000, 504/
765-2821, Fax: 504/765-2607
Maine Natural Areas Program
Department of Conservation, (FedEx/UPS:
159 Hospital Street), 93 State House
Station, Augusta, ME 04333-0093. 207/
287-8044, Fax: 207/287-8040, Internet:
mnap@state.me.us, Web site: http://
www.state.me.us/doc/mnap/home.htm
Maryland Heritage ft Biodiversity
Conservation Programs
Department of Natural Resources, Tawes
State Office Building, E-l. Annapolis. MD
21401, 410/260-8540, Fax: 410/260-8595,
Web site: http://www.heritage.tnc.org/nhp/
us/md/
Massachusetts Natural Heritage ft
Endangered Species Program
Division of Fisheries & Wildlife, Route 135,
Westborough, MA 01581, 508/792-7270
ext. 200, Fax: 508/792-7275
Michigan Natural Features Inventory
Mason Building, 5th floor, (FedEx/UPS: 530
W. Allegan, 48933), Box 30444. Lansing,
MI 48909-7944. 517/373-1552, Fax: 517/
373-6705, Director: Leni Wilsmann. 373-
7565, Internet:
wilsmanl@wildlife.dnr.state.mi.us
Minnesota Natural Heritage & Nongame
Research
Department of Natural Resources. 500
Lafayette Road, Box 7, St Paul, MN 55155,
612/297-4964, Fax:612/297-4961
Mississippi Natural Heritage Program
Museum of Natural Science, 111 North
Jefferson Street, Jackson, MS 39201-2897,
601/354-7303. Fax:601/354-7227
Missouri Natural Heritage Database
Missouri Department of Conservation, P.O.
Box 180, (FedEx: 2901 West Truman Blvd),
Jefferson City, MO 65102-0180, 573/751-
4115. Fax: 573/526-5582
Montana Natural Heritage Program
State Library Building, 1515 E. 6th Avenue,
Helena, MT 59620, 406/444-3009. Fax:
406/444-0581, Internet:
mtnhp@nris.msl.mt.gov, Homepage/World
Wide Web: http://nris.msl.mt.gov/mtnhp/
nhp-dir.html
Navajo Natural Heritage Program
P.O. Box 1480, Window Rock, Navajo Nation,
AZ 86515, (520) 871-7603, (520) 871-7069
(Fax)
Nebraska Natural Heritage Program
Game and Parks Commission, 2200 North
33rd Street, P.O. Box 30370. Lincoln, NE
68503. 402/471-5421, Fax: 402/471-5528
Nevada Natural Heritage Program
Department of Conservation & Natural,
Resources, 1550 E. College Parkway, Suite
145. Carson City, NV 89706-7921, 702/
687-4245. Fax:702/885-0868
New Hampshire Natural Heritage Inventory
Department of Resources & Economic.
Development. 172 Pembroke Street. P.O.
Box 1856, Concord, NH 03302, 603/271-
3623, Fax: 603/271-2629
New York Natural Heritage Program
Department of Environmental Conservation,
700 Troy-Schenectady Road, Latham, NY
12110-2400, 518/783-3932, Fax:518/783-
3916, Computer: 518/783-3946
North Carolina Heritage Program
NC Department of Environment. Health &
Natural Resources. Division of Parks &
Recreation, P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, NC
27611-7687, 919-733-4181. Fax: 919/715-
3085
North Dakota Natural Heritage Inventory
North Dakota Parks & Recreation Department,
1835 Bismarck Expressway, Bismarck, ND
58504, 701/328-5357, Fax: 701/328-5363
Ohio Natural Heritage Data Base
Division of Natural Areas & Preserves,
Department of Natural Resources, 1889
Fountain Square, Building F-l, Columbus,
OH 43224, 614/265-6453. Fax: 614/267-
3096
Oklahoma Natural Heritage Inventory
Oklahoma Biological Survey, 111 East
Chesapeake Street, University of
Oklahoma, Norman, OK 73019-0575, 405/
325-1985. Fax: 405/325-7702, Website:
http://obssun02.uoknor.edu/biosurvey/
onhi/home.html
Oregon Natural Heritage Program
Oregon Field Office. 821 SE 14th Avenue,
Portland, OR 97214, 503/731-3070; 230-
1221, Fax: 503/230-9639
Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Inventory
(East, West, Central)
'Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Inventory—
East
The Nature Conservancy, 34 Airport Drive,
Middletown, PA 17057, 717/948-3962,
Fax: 717/948-3957
'Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Inventory-
West
Western Pennsylvania Conservancy, Natural
Areas Program, 316 Fourth Avenue,
Pittsburgh. PA 15222, 412/288-2777, Fax:
412/281-1792
-------
7924
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 31/Tuesday, February 17, 1998/Notices
"Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Inventory—
Central
Bureau of Forestry, P.O. Box 8552,
Harrisburg. PA 17105-8552, 717/783-0388,
Fax: 717/783-5109
Puerto Rico Natural Heritage Program
Division de Patrimonio Natural, Area de
Planificacion Integral, Departamento de
Recursos Naturales y Ambientales de
Puerto Rico, P.O. Box 5887, Puerta de
Tierra, Puerto Rico 00906, Tel: 787-722-
1726, Fax: 787-725-9526
Rhode Island Natural Heritage Program
Department of Environmental Management,
Division of Planning & Development, 83
Park Street, Providence, RI02903, 401/
277-2776, x4308, Fax: 401/277-2069
South Carolina Heritage Trust
SC Department of Natural Resources, P.O.
Box 167, Columbia. SC 29202, 803/734-
3893, Fax: 803/734-6310 (Call first)
South Dakota Natural Heritage Data Base
SD Department of Game, Fish & Parks,
Wildlife Division, 523 E. Capitol Avenue.
Pierre, SD 57501-3182. 605/773-4227, Fax:
605/773-6224
Tennessee Division of Natural Heritage
Department of Environment & Conservation,
401 Church Street, Life and Casualty
Tower, 8th Floor, Nashville, TN 37243-
0447. 615/532-0431. Fax: 615/532-0614
Texas Biological and Conservation Data
System
3000 South IH-35, Suite 100, Austin, TX
78704, 512/912-7011, Fax: 512/912-7058
U.S. Virgin Islands Conservation Data
Center
Eastern Caribbean Center, University of the
Virgin Islands, No. 2 John Brewers Bay, St.
Thomas, VI00802, (809) 693-1030 [Voice],
(809) 693-1025 [Fax], Home Page:
cdc.uvi.edu, E-Mail: dbarry@uvi.edu
Utah Natural Heritage Program
Division of Wildlife Resources, 1596 West
North Temple, Salt Lake City. UT 84116,
801/538-4761, Fax:801/538-4709
Vermont Nongame ft Natural Heritage
Program
Vermont Fish & Wildlife Department, 103 S.
Main Street, 10 South, Waterbury, VT
05671-0501,802/241-3700, Fax:802/241-
3295
IV. COUNTY/SPECIES LIST
Virginia Division of Natural Heritage
Department of Conservation & Recreation.
Main Street Station, 1500 E. Main Street,
Suite 312, Richmond, VA 23219. 804/786-
7951, Fax: 804/371-2674
Washington Natural Heritage Program
Department of Natural Resources, (FedEx:
1111 Washington Street. SE), P.O. Box
47016, Olympia, WA 98504-7016. 360/
902-1340, Fax: 360/902-1783
West Virginia Natural Heritage Program
Department of Natural Resources. Operations
Center. Ward Road, P.O. Box 67, Elkins,
WV 26241, 304/637-0245, Fax: 304/637-
0250
Wisconsin Natural Heritage Program
Endangered Resources, Department of
Natural Resources. 101 S. Webster Street,
Box 7921, Madison, WI 53707, 608/266-
7012, Fax: 608/266-2925
Wyoming Natural Diversity Database
1604 Grand Avenue, Suite 2, Laramie, WY
82070, 307/745-5026, Fax: 307/745-5026
(Call first). Internet: "wyndd@lariat.org"
[The following list identifies federally listed or proposed U.S. species by State and County. It has been updated through September 1, 1997.
Note: Species listed below with a status of both E and T are generally either endangered or threatened within the specified county. The as-
signment 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 Instructions). Designation of critical habitat (CH) does not mean
that the county constitutes critical habitat, only that critical habitat has been designated for that species (see Addendum A Instructions).]
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
Group name
BIRDS
PLANTS
BIRDS
BIRDS
BIRDS
BIRDS
BIRDS
BIRDS
BIRDS
BIRDS
BIRDS
REPTILES
BIRDS
FISHES
PLANTS
AMPHIBIANS
BIRDS
FISHES
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 GREEN SEA
TURTLE HAWKSBILL SEA
EAGLE BALD
FALCON PEREGRINE
OWL MEXICAN SPOTTED
MINNOW LOACH
SPINEDACE LITTLE COLORADO
TROUT APACHE
FLEABANE ZUNI
SEDGE NAVAJO
SALAMANDER SONORA TIGER . .
EAGLE BALD ...
FALCON NORTHERN APLOMADO
FALCON PEREGRINE
FLYCATCHER SOUTHWESTERN WILLOW
OWL MEXICAN SPOTTED
CATFISH YAQUI
CHUB YAQUI
PUPFISH DESERT
SHINER BEAUTIFUL
TOPMINNOW. GILA (YAQUI)
Scientific name
Branta canadensis leucopareia
Polystichum atouticum
Polysticta steltori
Polysticta stelteri
Falco peregrinus
Falco peregrinus
Falco peregrinus
Falco peregrinus
Numenius borealis
Somateria fischeri
Falco peregrinus
Somateria fischeri
Somateria fischeri
Falco peregrinus
Chelofiia mydas
Eretmochelys imbricata
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Strix occidentalis lucida
Tiaroga cobttis
Lepldomeda vlttata
Salmo apache
Erigeron rhizomatus
Carex specuicola
Ambystoma tigrinum
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco femoralis septentrionalis
Falco peregrinus
Emptodonax traillli extimus
Strix occidentalis lucida
Ictalurus price!
Gila purpurea
Cyprinodon macularius
Notropis formosus
PoecilioDsIs occidentalis
Action/
Status
L, T
L, E
L, T
L, T
L, E
L, E
L, E
L, E
L, E
L, T
L E
L. T
L, T
L, E
L, E, T
L E CH
L, T
L, E
L, T, CH
L, T, CH
L T CH
L, T
L, T
L, T, CH
L, E
L, T
L E
L, E
L, E
L, T, CH
L, T, CH
L, E, CH
L, E, CH
L, T, CH
L. E
-------
Federal Register /Vol. 63, No. 31/Tuesday, February 17, 1998/Notices
7925
IV. COUNTY/SPECIES LIST—Continued
[The following list identifies federally listed or proposed U.S. species by State and County. It has been updated through September 1, 1997.
Note: Species listed below with a status of both E and T are generally either endangered or threatened within the specified county. The as-
signment 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 Instructions). Designation of critical habitat (CH) does not mean
that the county constitutes critical habitat, only that critical habitat has been designated for that species (see Addendum A Instructions).]
State/County
Group name
Inverse name
Scientific name
Action/
Status
MAMMALS
COCONINO
PLANTS ....
REPTILES .
BIRDS
FISHES
MAMMALS
PLANTS
GILA .
SNAILS
BIRDS ..
GRAHAM
FISHES .
PLANTS
BIRDS ...
FISHES
MAMMALS
GREENLEE
PLANTS
BIRDS ...
LAPAZ
MARICOPA .
FISHES
BIRDS ..
FISHES
BIRDS ..
FISHES
MAMMALS
PLANTS
BAT, LESSER (=SANBORN'S) LONG-
NOSED.
JAGUARUNDI
OCELOT
WOLF, GRAY
CACTUS, COCHISE PINCUSHION
LADIES'-TRESSES, CANELO HILLS
RATTLESNAKE, NEW MEXICAN RIDGE-
NOSED.
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
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 WILLOW
MINNOW, LOACH
SQUAWFISH, COLORADO
SUCKER, RAZORBACK
TOPMINNOW, GILA (YAQUI)
AGAVE, ARIZONA
CACTUS, ARIZONA HEDGEHOG
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
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
OWL, MEXICAN SPOTTED
MINNOW, LOACH
SPIKEDACE
SUCKER, RAZORBACK
TROUT, APACHE
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
Leptonycteris sanbomi
Felis yagouaroundi tolteca
Fells pardalis
Canis lupus
Coryphantha robbinsorum (=Cochiseia
Escobaria r).
Spiranthes delitescens
Crotalus willardi obscurus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Strix occidental lucida
Gila cypha
Lepidomeda vittata
Xyrauchen texanus
Microtus mexicanus hualpaiensis
Pediocactus bradyi
Pediocactus sileri
Senecio franciscanus
Astragalus cremnophylax var cremnophylax
Asclepias welshii
Carex specuicola
Oxyloma haydeni kanabensis
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Empiodonax traillii extimus
Tiaroga cobitis
Ptychocheilus lucius
Xyrauchen texanus
Poeciliopsis occidentalis
Agave arizonica
Echinocereus triglochidiatus var arizonicus ...
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Strix occidentalis lucida
Glaucidiumbrasilianum cactorum
Tiaroga cobitis
Cyprinodon macularius
Meda fulgida
Xyrauchen texanus
Poeciliopsis occidentalis
Salmo apache
Leptonycteris sanbomi
Felis yagouaroundi tolteca
Felis pardalis
Tamiasciurus hudsonicus grahamensis
Cowania subintegra
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Strix occidentalis lucida
Tiaroga cobitis
Meda fulgida
Xyrauchen texanus
Salmo apache
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Rallus tongirostris yumanensis
Gila elegans
Cyprinodon macularius
Xyrauchen texanus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Strix occidentalis lucida
Glaucidiumbrasilianum cactorum
Rallus tongirostris yumanensis
Cyprinodon macularius
Poeciliopsis occidentalis
Leptonycteris sanbomi
Antilocapra americana sonoriensis
Agave arizonica
Echinocereus triglochidiatus var arizonicus .
Cowania subintegra
L, E
L. E
L, E
L, E, T, CH
L, T
P, E
L, T, CH
L, T
L, E
L, T. CH
L, E, CH
L, T
L, E, CH
L, E
L, E
L, T
L, T, CH
L, E
L, T, CH
L, T, CH
L, E
L. T
L, E
L. E
L, T, CH
L, E, CH
L, E, CH
L, E
L, E
L, E
L, T
L, E
L, T, CH
L, E
L, T, CH
L. E, CH
L, T, CH
L, E, CH
L, E
L,T
L, E
L, E
L, E
L, E, CH
L, E
L, T
L, E
L, T, CH
L, T, CH
L, T, CH
L, E, CH
L, T
L, T
L, E
L, E, CH
L, E, CH
L, E, CH
L, T
L, E
L, T, CH
L, E
L, E
L, E, CH
L, E
L, E
L, E
L, E
L, E
L, E
-------
7926
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 31/Tuesday. February 17. 1998/Notices
IV. COUNTY/SPECIES LIST—Continued
[The following list identifies federally listed or proposed U.S. species by State and County. It has been updated through September 1 1997.
Note- Species listed below with a status of both E and T are generally either endangered or threatened within the specified county. The as-
signment 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 Instructions). Designation of cntical habitat (CH) does not mean
that the county constitutes critical habitat, only that critical habitat has been designated for that species (see Addendum A Instructions).]
State/County
Group name
Inverse name
Scientific name
Action/
Status
MOHAVE
BIRDS ...
FISHES
MAMMALS
PLANTS ....
REPTILES
NAVAJO
SNAILS
BIRDS ..
FISHES
MAMMALS
PLANTS ....
PIMA
BIRDS
FISHES
MAMMALS
PLANTS
PINAL
SNAILS
BIRDS ..
FISHES
MAMMALS
PLANTS ....
SANTA CRUZ .
AMPHIBIANS
BIRDS
FISHES
MAMMALS
YAVAPAI
PLANTS
BIRDS ...
FISHES .
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
OWL, MEXICAN SPOTTED
RAIL, YUMA CLAPPER
CHUB, BONYTAIL
CHUB, HUMPBACK
CHUB, VIRGIN RIVER
SUCKER, RAZORBACK
VOLE, HUALAPAI MEXICAN ....
CACTUS, SILER PINCUSHION
CLIFFROSE, ARIZONA
CYCLADENIA, JONES
TORTOISE, DESERT
AMBERSNAIL, KANAB
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
OWL, MEXICAN SPOTTED
CHUB, HUMPBACK
MINNOW, LOACH
SPINEDACE, LITTLE COLORADO
TROUT, APACHE
JAGUAR
CACTUS, PEEBLES NAVAJO
GRASS, PARISH'S ALKALI
SEDGE, NAVAJO
BOBWHITE, MASKED
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
OWL, MEXICAN SPOTTED
PYGMY-OWL, CACTUS FERRUGINOUS ....
PUPFISH, DESERT
TOPMINNOW, GILA (YAQUI)
BAT, LESSER (=SANBORN'S) LONG-
NOSED.
PRONGHORN, SONORAN
BLUE-STAR, KEARNEY'S
CACTUS, NICHOL'S TURK'S HEAD
CACTUS, PIMA PINEAPPLE
TALUSSNAIL, SAN XAVIER
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
PYGMY-OWL, CACTUS FERRUGINOUS ....
RAIL, YUMA CLAPPER
MINNOW, LOACH
PUPFISH, DESERT
SPIKEDACE
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 WILLOW
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
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Strix occidentals lucida
Rallus longirostris yumanensis
Gila elegans
Gilacypha
Gila robusta seminuda
Xyrauchen texanus
Microtus mexicanus hualpaiensis
'ediocactus sileri
Cowania subintegra
Cycladenia humilis var jonesii
Gopherus (=Xerobates, =Scaptochelys)
agassizii.
Oxyloma haydeni kanabensis
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
ralco peregrinus
Strix occidental lucida
illacypha
Tiaroga cobitis
Lepidomeda vittata
Salmo apache
Panthera onca
Pediocactus peeblesianus var peeblesianus
Puccinellia parishii
Carex specuicola
Colinus virginianus ridgwayi
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Strix occidental lucida
Glaucidiumbrasilianum cactorum
Cyprinodon macularius
Poeciliopsis occidental
Leptonycteris sanbomi
Antilocapra amehcana sonorlensis
Amsonia keameyana
Echinocactus horizonthalonius var nicholii
Coryphantha scheeri var robustispina
Sonorella eremita
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Glaucidiumbrasilianum cactorum
Rallus longirostris yumanensis
Tiaroga cobitis
Cyprinodon macularius
Meda fulgida
Xyrauchen texanus
Poeciliopsis occidental
Leptonycteris sanbomi
Echinocereus trlglochidiatus var arizonicus .
Echinocactus horizonthalonius var nicholii ..
Ambystoma tigrinum
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco femoralis septentrionalis
Falco peregrinus
Empiodonax traillii extimus
Strix occidental lucida
Glaucidiumbrasilianum cactorum
Gila ditaenia
Poeciliopsis occidental
Leptonycteris sanborni
Fells pardalis
Coryphantha scheeri var robustispina
Spiranthes deltescens
Lilaeopsis schatfneriana spp recuva ...
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Strix occidental lucida
Cyprinodon macularius
Meda fulgida
Ptychocheilus lucius
L, T
L. E
L, T, CH
L, E
L, E, CH
L, E, CH
L, E
L, E, CH
L, E
L, T
L, E
L, T
L, T, CH
L, E
L, T
L, E
L, T, CH
L, E, CH
L, T, CH
L, T
L, T
L, E
L, E
P, E
L, T, CH
L, E
L, T
L, E
L, T, CH
L, E
L, E, CH
L, E
L, E
L, E
L, E
L, E
L, E
L, E
L, T
L, E
L, E
L, E
L, T, CH
L, E, CH
L, T, CH
L, E, CH
L, E
L, E
L, E
L, E
L, E
L, T
L, E
L, E
L, E
L, T, CH
L, E
L, T, CH
L, E
L, E
L, E
L, E
P, E
L, E
L, T
L, E
L, T, CH
L, E, CH
L, T, CH
L, E, CH
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63. No. 31/Tuesday, February 17, 1998/Notices
7927
IV. COUNTY/SPECIES LIST—Continued
[The following list identifies federally listed or proposed U.S. species by State and County. It has been updated through September 1 1997
Note: Species listed below with a status of both E and T are generally either endangered or threatened within the specified county The as-
signment 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 Instructions). Designation of critical habitat (CH) does not mean
that the county constitutes critical habitat, only that critical habitat has been designated for that species (see Addendum A Instructions) ]
State/County
Group name
Inverse name
Scientific name
Action/
Status
YUMA
PLANTS
BIRDS ...
FISHES
MAMMALS
REPTILES .
CALIFORNIA
ALAMEDA .
BIRDS
CRUSTACEAN
FISHES
INSECTS ...
MAMMALS
PLANTS
ALPINE ...
AMADOR
BUTTE
REPTILES
BIRDS
FISHES
BIRDS ...
PLANTS
BIRDS
CRUSTACEAN
FISHES
INSECTS .
PLANTS ..
CALAVERAS
COLUSA
REPTILES .
BIRDS
CRUSTACEAN
PLANTS
BIRDS
CRUSTACEAN
FISHES
SUCKER, RAZORBACK
TOPMINNOW, GILA (YAQUI)
TROUT, GILA
AGAVE, ARIZONA
CLIFFROSE, ARIZONA
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
PELICAN, BROWN
RAIL, YUMA CLAPPER
SUCKER, RAZORBACK
BAT, LESSER (=SANBORN'S)
NOSED.
PRONGHORN, SONORAN
LIZARD, FLAT-TAILED HORNED ...
LONG-
FALCON, PEREGRINE
PELICAN, BROWN
PLOVER, WESTERN SNOWY
RAIL, CALIFORNIA CLAPPER
TERN, CALIFORNIA LEAST
LINDERIELLA, CALIFORNIA
SHRIMP, LONGHORN FAIRY
SHRIMP, VERNAL POOL FAIRY
GOBY, TIDEWATER
BUTTERFLY, BAY CHECKERSPOT
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
MANZANITA, PALLID
NAVARRETIA, FEW-FLOWERED
NAVARRETIA, MANY-FLOWERED
STONECROP, LAKE COUNTY
WHIPSNAKE, ALAMEDA
FALCON, PEREGRINE
TROUT, LAHONTAN CUTTHROAT
TROUT, PAIUTE CUTTHROAT
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
BUCKWHEAT, IONE
BUCKWHEAT, IONE
MANZANITA, IONE
MANZANITA, IONE
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
GOOSE, ALEUTIAN CANADA
SHRIMP, CONSERVANCY FAIRY
SHRIMP, VERNAL POOL TADPOLE
SALMON, CHINOOK (SACRAMENTO
RIVER WINTER RUN).
STEELHEAD, CALIFORNIA CENTRAL VAL-
LEY 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
MANZANITA, IONE
MANZANITA, IONE
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
GOOSE, ALEUTIAN CANADA
OWL, NORTHERN SPOTTED
SHRIMP, VERNAL POOL TADPOLE
STEELHEAD, CALIFORNIA CENTRAL VAL-
LEY POP.
Xyrauchen texanus
Poecillopsis occidentalis
Salmo gilae
Agave arizonlca
Cowania subintegra
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Fateo peregrinus
Pellcanus occidentalis
Rallus tongirostris yumanensis
Xyrauchen texanus
Leptonycteris sanborni
Antibcapra americana sonoriensis
Phrynosoma mcallii
Falco peregrinus
Pelicanus occidentalis
Charadrius atexandrinus nivosus
Rallus tongirostris obsoletus
Sterna antillarum browni
Linderiella occidentalis
Branchinecta longiantenna
Branchlnecta lynch!
Eucyclogobius newberryi
Euphydryas editha bayensis
Vulpes macrotis mutica
Relthrodontomys raviventris
Cordylanthes palmatus
Clarkia franciscana
Dudleya setchellii
Amsinckia grandiflora
Lasthenia conjugens
Arctostaphylos pallida
Arctostaphylos pallida
Navarretia leucocephala ssp. pauciflora
Navarretia leucocephala ssp. plieantha
Parvisedum leiocarpum
Masticophis lateralis euryxanthus
Falco peregrinus
Salmo clarki henshaw)
Salmo clarki seleniris
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Eriogonum apricum
Eriogonum apricum
Arctostaphylos myrtifolia
Arctostaphylos myrtifolia
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Branta canadensis leucopareia
Brancinecta conservatio
Lepldurus packardi
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Oncortiynchus mykiss, (Central Valley ESU)
Desmocerus califomicus dimorphus
Limnanthes floccosa ssp. califomica
Chamaesyce hooveri
Tuctoria greenei
Thamnophis gigas
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Fateo peregrinus
Lepiduais packardi
Arctostaphylos myrtifolia
Arctostaphylos myrtifolia
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Branta canadensis leucopareia
Strix occidentalis caurina
Lepidurus packardi
Oncortiynchus mykiss, (Central Valley ESU)
L. E, CH
L, E
L, E
L, E
L, E
L, T
L, E
L, E
L, E
L, E, CH
L, E
L, E
P, T
L, E
L, E
L, T
L, E
L, E
P. E
L, E
L,T
L, E
L, T
L, E
L, E
L, E
L, E
L, E
L, E, CH
L, E
P, T
P, T
L, E
L, E
L, E
P, E
L, E
L, T
L, T
L. T
L, E
P. E
P, E
P, T
P, T
L, T
L, E
L, T
L, E
L, E
L, E, CH
P, E
L, T, CH
L, E
L, T
L, E
L, T
L, T
L, E
L, E
P, T
P, T
L, T
L, E
L, T
L, T, CH
L, E
P, E
-------
7928
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 31/Tuesday, February 17, 1998/Notices
IV. COUNTY/SPECIES LIST—Continued
[The following list identifies federally listed or proposed U.S. species by State and County. It has been updated through September 1 1997.
Note- Species listed below with a status of both E and T are generally either endangered or threatened within the specified county. The as-
signment of two status designations for a spedes 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 Instructions). Designation of critical habitat (CH) does not mean
that the county constitutes critical habitat, only that critical habitat has been designated for that species (see Addendum A Instructions).]
State/County
Group name
Inverse name
Scientific name
Action/
Status
INSECTS .
CONTRA COSTA
PLANTS ....
REPTILES .
BIRDS
CRUSTACEAN
FISHES
INSECTS ...
MAMMALS
PLANTS
COWLITZ .
REPTILES ,
FISHES
DEL NORTE
AMPHIBIANS
BIRDS
FISHES
EL DORADO
INSECTS .
PLANTS ..
BIRDS
CRUSTACEAN
FISHES
INSECTS
PLANTS
FRESNO .
PLANTS
BIRDS ...
FISHES
INSECTS ...
MAMMALS
BEETLE, VALLEY ELDERBERRY LONG-
HORN.
BIRD'S-BEAK, PALMATE-BRACTED
SNAKE, GIANT GARTER
FALCON, PEREGRINE
GOOSE, ALEUTIAN CANADA
Q.ICAN, BROWN
RAIL, CALIFORNIA CLAPPER
TERN, CALIFORNIA LEAST
LINDERIELLA, CALIFORNIA
SHRIMP, LONGHORN FAIRY
SHRIMP, VERNAL POOL FAIRY
GOBY, TIDEWATER
SALMON, CHINOOK (SACRAMENTO
RIVER WINTER RUN).
STEELHEAD, CALIFORNIA CENTRAL VAL-
LEY POP.
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
MANZANITA, PALLID
NAVARRETIA, FEW-FLOWERED
NAVARRETIA, MANY-FLOWERED
STONECROP, LAKE COUNTY
WALLFLOWER, CONTRA COSTA
WHIPSNAKE, ALAMEDA
STEELHEAD, LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER
POPULATION.
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, COHO (SOUTHERN OR/NORTH-
ERN CA COAST).
BUTTERFLY, OREGON SILVERSPOT
WALLFLOWER, MENZIE'S
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
SHRIMP, VERNAL POOL TADPOLE
TROUT, LAHONTAN CUTTHROAT
BEETLE, VALLEY ELDERBERRY LONG-
HORN.
BEDSTRAW, EL DORADO
BUTTERWEED, LAYNE'S
CEANOTHUS, PINE HILL
FLANNELBUSH, PINE HILL
Desmocerus califomicus dimorphus
PLANTS
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
KANGAROO RAT. FRESNO
KANGAROO RAT, GIANT
RAT, FRESNO KANGAROO
RAT, GIANT KANGAROO
BIRD'S-BEAK, PALMATE-BRACTED
Dordylanthe» paknatus
Thamnophls glgas
rakx> peregrinus
Branta canadensis teucopareia .
Pellcanus occidental*
Callus tongirostris obsoletus
Sterna antlllarum brown!
Llnderiella occidentalis
3ranchinecta kmgiantenna
3ranchkiecta lynch!
Eucydogoblus newberryi
Oncortiynchus tshawytscha
Oncomynchus myklss, (Central Valley ESU)
Euphydryas editha bayensis
Apodemia mormo lange!
Vulpes macrotis muttea
Reithrodontomys raviventris
Dudleya setchellli
Oenothera deltokles ssp. howellii
Amslnckla grandlftora
Lasthenla conjugens
Arctostaphylos pallida
Arctostaphylos pallida
Navarretla leucocephala ssp. pauclftora
Navarretia leucocephala ssp. plieantha
Parvisedum lelocarpum
Erysimum capltatum var angustatum
Mastlcophls lateralls euryxanthus
Oncortiynchus mykiss, (Lower Columbia
ESU).
Oncomynchus myklss, (Lower Columbia
ESU).
Rana Aurora Draytonii
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Branta canadensis leucoparela
Brachyramphus marmoratus
Strix occidentalis cauhna
Pelicanus occidentalis
Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus
Eucyclogobius newberryi
Oncortiynchus kisutch
Speyeria zerene hlppolyta
Erysimum menzlesii
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Lepidurus packardi
Salmo clarki henshawi
Desmocerus califomicus dimorphus
Gallum caWomicum ssp. Sierras
Senecio layneae
Ceanothus rodertekll
Fremontodendron callfomlcum ssp.
decumbens.
Calystegia stebbinsii
Pseudobahia peirsonii
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Salmo aguabonlta whltei
Salmo clarki setoniris
Desmocerus califomicus dimorphus
Vulpes macrotis mutica
Dipodomys nltratoides exllis
Dipodomys ingens
Dipodomys nitratoides exills
Dipodomys ingens
Cordylanthes palmatus
L, T, CH
L, E
L, T
L, E
L, T
L, E
L, E
L, E
P, E
L, E
L,T
L, E
L, E, CH
P, E
L, T
L, E
L, E
L, E
L, E
L, E, CH
L, E, CH
L, E
P, T
P, T
L, E
L, E
L, E
L, E, CH
P, E
P, T
P, T
L.T
L.T
L, E
L, T
L, T, CH
L, T, CH
L, E
L,T
L, E
L, T
L, T, CH
L, E
L,T
L, E
L, E
L, T
L, T, CH
L, E
L, T
L, E
L, E
L, E
L, T
L, T
L, E
L. T, CH
L, T
L, T, CH
L, E
L, E, CH
L, E
L, E, CH
L, E
L, E
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 31/Tuesday. February 17, 1998/Notices
7929
IV. COUOTY/SPECIES LIST—Continued
[The following list identifies federally listed or proposed U.S. species by State and County. It has been updated through September 1 1997
Note: Species listed below with a status of both E and T are generally either endangered or threatened within the specified county The as-
signment 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 Instructions). Designation of critical habitat (CH) does not mean
that the county constitutes critical habitat, only that critical habitat has been designated for that species (see Addendum A Instructions) ]
State/County
Group name
Inverse name
Scientific name
Action/
Status
GLENN
REPTILES
BIRDS
CRUSTACEAN
FISHES
INSECTS .
PLANTS ..
HOKE
HUMBOLDT .
REPTILES .
PLANTS ....
BIRDS
FISHES
PLANTS
IMPERIAL
REPTILES
AMPHIBIANS
BIRDS
FISHES
PLANTS ....
REPTILES .
REPTILES .
INYO
BIRDS
FISHES
MAMMALS
PLANTS ....
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 (SACRAMENTO
RIVER WINTER RUN).
STEELHEAD, CALIFORNIA CENTRAL VAL-
LEY POP.
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, COHO (CENTRAL CALIFORNIA
COAST POP).
SALMON, COHO (SOUTHERN OR/NORTH-
ERN CA COAST).
STEELHEAD, NORTHERN CALIFORNIA
POPULATION.
LAYIA, BEACH
LILY, WESTERN
WALLFLOWER, MENZIE'S
TURTLE, OLIVE (PACIFIC) RIDLEY SEA ....
TOAD, ARROYO SOUTHWESTERN
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
GOOSE, ALEUTIAN CANADA
PELICAN, BROWN
RAIL, YUMA CLAPPER
CHUB, BONYTAIL
PUPFISH, DESERT
SQUAWFISH, COLORADO
SUCKER, RAZORBACK
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 VALLEY ...
GRASS, EUREKA DUNE
GUMPLANT, ASH MEADOWS
IVESIA, ASH MEADOWS
MILK-VETCH, FISH SLOUGH
Carpentaria califomica
Dudleya setchellii
Pseudobahia bahiifolia
Caulanthus califomicus
Castilleja campestris ssp. succulents
Calyptridium pulchellum
Eriastrum hooveri
Lembertia congdonii
Gambelia (crotaphytus) silus
Thamnophis gigas
Hallaeetus leucocephalus
Fateo peregrinus
Branta canadensis leucopareia
Brachyramphus marmoratus
Strix occidentalis caurina
Lepidurus packardi
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Oncortiynchus mykiss, (Central Valley ESU)
Desmocerus califomicus dimorphus
Orcuttia pilosa
Chamaesyce hooveri
Thamnophis gigas
Pseudobahia peirsonii
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Fateo peregrinus
Branta canadensis leucopareia ...
Brachyramphus marmoratus
Strix occidentalis caurina
Pellcanus occidentalis
Charadrius atexandrinus nivosus
Eucyclogobius newberryi
Oncortiynchus kisutch
Oncortiynchus kisutch .
Oncortiynchus mykiss, (Northern California
ESU).
Layia camosa
Lilium occidental
Erysimum menziesii
Lepldochelys olivacea
Bufo microscaphus califomicus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Fateo peregrinus
Branta canadensis leucopareia
Pelicanus occidentalis
Rallus tongirostris yumanensis
Gila elegans
Cyprinodon macularius
Ptychocheilus lucius
Xyrauchen texanus
Astragalus magdalenae var. piersonli
Phrynosoma mcallii
Gopherus (=Xerobates, =Scaptochelys)
agassizii.
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Branta canadensis leucopareia
Pipilofuscus eremophilus
Vireo belli! pusillus
Gila bicolor snyderi
Rhintehthys osculus nevadensis
Cyprinodon radiosus
Salmo clarki henshawl
Microtus califomicus scirpensis
Centaurium namophilum var. namophilum ....
Oenothera avita ssp. eurekensis
Swallenia alexandrae
Grindelia fraxino-pratensis
Ivesia eremica
Astragalus lentiginosus var. Piscinensls
P, T
L, E
L, E
L, E
L, E
P. E
L, T
L, E
L, E
L, T
L, T
L, E
L, T
L, T. CH
L, T, CH
L, E
L, E, CH
P, E
L, T, CH
L, E
L, T
L, T
L, T
L, T
L, E
L, T
L, T, CH
L, T, CH
L, E
L, T
L, E
L, E
L, T
P, T
L, E
L, E
L, E
L, E, T
L, E
L, T
L, E
L, T
L, E
L, E
L, E, CH
L, E, CH
L, E, CH
L, E, CH
P, E
P, T
L, T, CH
L, T
L, E
L, T
L, T, CH
L, E, CH
L, E, CH
L, E, CH
L, E
L, T
L, E, CH
L, T, CH
L. E
L, E
L. T, CH
L, T, CH
P, E
-------
7930
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 31/Tuesday, February 17. 1998/Notices
IV. COUNTY/SPECIES LIST—Continued
[The following list identifies federally listed or proposed U.S. species by State and County. It has been updated through September 1, 1997.
Note- Species listed below with a status or both E and T are generally either endangered or threatened within the specified county. The as-
signment 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 Instructions). Designation of critical habitat (CH) does not mean
that the county constitutes critical habitat, only that critical habitat has been designated for that species (see Addendum A Instructions).]
State/bounty
Group name
Inverse name
Scientific name
Action/
Status
KERN
REPTILES
BIRDS
INSECTS ...
MAMMALS
PLANTS
REPTILES .
KINGS .
BIRDS
MAMMALS
PLANTS
LAKE ...
REPTILES .
BIRDS
FISHES .
PLANTS
LASSEN .
BIRDS
LOS ANGELELS
FISHES .
PLANTS
BIRDS ...
PLANTS
BIRDS ...
AMPHIBIANS
BIRDS
MILK-VETCH, SHINING
MILK-VETCH, SODAVILLE .
NITERWORT, AMARGOSA .
TORTOISE, DESERT
CONDOR, CALIFORNIA
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
FLYCATCHER, SOUTHWESTERN WILLOW
VIREO, LEAST BELL'S
MOTH, KERN PRIMROSE SPHINX
FOX. SAN JOAQUIN KIT
KANGAROO RAT, GIANT
KANGAROO RAT, TIPTON
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
FALCON, PEREGRINE
GOOSE, ALEUTIAN CANADA
FOX, SAN JOAQUIN KIT
KANGAROO RAT, FRESNO
KANGAROO RAT, GIANT
KANGAROO RAT, TIPTON
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
SPLITTAIL, SACRAMENTO
COYOTE-THISTLE, LOCH LOMOND ...
GOLDFIELDS, BURKE'S
GRASS, SLENDER ORCUTT
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
OWL, NORTHERN SPOTTED
SUCKER, MODOC
CEANOTHUS, VAIL LAKE
MOUNTAIN-MAHOGANY, CATALINA
LAND.
MOUNTAIN-MAHOGANY, CATALINA IS-
LAND.
RUSH-ROSE, ISLAND
RUSH-ROSE, ISLAND
SANDWORT, MARSH
WOODLAND-STAR, SAN CLEMENTE IS-
LAND.
WOODLAND-STAR, SAN CLEMENTE IS-
LAND.
TOAD, ARROYO SOUTHWESTERN
CONDOR, CALIFORNIA
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
FLYCATCHER, SOUTHWESTERN WILLOW
GNATCATCHER, COASTAL CALIFORNIA ..
MURRELET, MARBLED
PELICAN, BROWN
PLOVER, WESTERN SNOWY
IS-
Astragalus lentiginosus var. micans
Astragalus lentiginosus var. seslquimetralis ..
Nitrophila mohavensis
Gopherus (=Xerobates, =Scaptochelys)
agassizii.
Gymnogyps califomianus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Empiodonax traillii extimus
Vireo belli! pusillus
Euproserpinus euterpe
Vulpes macrotis mutica
Dipodomys ingens
Dipodomys nitratoides
Dipodomys ingens
Dipodomys nitratoides
Opuntia treleasei
Puccinellia parishii
Caulanthus califomicus
Fritillaria striata
Eremalche kemensis
Mimulus shevockii
Navarretia setiloba
Eriastrum hoover)
Lembertia congdonii
Gambelia (Crotaphytus) silus
Gopherus (=Xerobates, =Scaptochelys)
agassizii.
Falco peregrinus
Branta canadensis leucopareia
Vulpes macrotis mutica
Dipodomys nitratoides exilis
Dipodomys ingens
Dipodomys nitratoides
Dipodomys nitratoides exilis
Dipodomys ingens
Dipodomys nitratoides
Caulanthus califomicus
Eriastrum hooveri
Lembertia congdonii
Gambelia (Crotaphytus) silus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Brachyramphus marmoratus
Strix occidental caurina
Pogonichthys macrolepidotus
Eryngium constancei
Lasthenia burkei
Orcuttia tenuis
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Strix occidentalis caurina
Catostomus microps
Ceanothus ophiochilus
Cerocarpus traskiae
Cerocarpus traskiae
Helianthemum greenei ...
Helianthemum greenei ...
Arenaria paludicola
Lithophragma maximum .
Lithophragma maximum .
Bufo microscaphus califomicus ...
Gymnogyps californianus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Empiodonax traillii extimus
Polioptila califomica californica ....
Brachyramphus marmoratus
Pelicanus occidentalis
Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus .
P, T
P, T
L, E, CH
L. T, CH
L, E, CH
L, T
L, E
L, E
L, E, CH
L, T
L, E
L, E
L, E
L, E
L, E
L, E
P, E
L, E
P, T
L, E
P, E
P, T
L, T
L, E
L, E
L, T, CH
L, E
L, T
L, E
L, E, CH
L, E
L, E
L, E, CH
L, E
L, E
L, E
L, T
L, E
L, E
L, T
L, E
L, T, CH
L, T, CH
P, T
L, T
L, E
L, T
L, T
L. E
L, T, CH
L, E, CH
P, T
L, E
L, E
L, T
L, T
L, E
L, E
L, E
L, E
L, E, CH
L, T
L, E
L, E
L, T
L, T, CH
L, E
L, T
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63. No. 31/Tuesday. February 17, 1998/Notices
7931
IV. COUNTY/SPECIES LIST—Continued
[The following list identifies federally listed or proposed U.S. species by State and County. It has been updated through September 1 1997
Note: Species listed below with a status of both E and T are generally either endangered or threatened within the specified county The as-
signment 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 Instructions). Designation of critical habitat (CH) does not mean
that the county constitutes critical habitat, only that critical habitat has been designated for that species (see Addendum A Instructions) ]
State/County
Group name
Inverse name
Scientific name
Action/
Status
FISHES
INSECTS ...
MAMMALS .
PLANTS
REPTILES .
MADERA
PLANTS
BIRDS ...
FISHES
INSECTS ...
MAMMALS
PLANTS
MARIN
REPTILES
AMPHIBIANS
BIRDS
CRUSTACEAN
FISHES
RAIL, LIGHT-FOOTED CLAPPER
SHRIKE, SAN CLEMENTE LOGGERHEAD
SPARROW, SAN CLEMENTE SAGE
TERN, CALIFORNIA LEAST
VIREO, LEAST BELL'S
CHUB, MOHAVE TUI
GOBY, TIDEWATER
STEELHEAD, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
POPULATION.
STEELHEAD, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
POPULATION.
STICKLEBACK, UNARMORED THREE-
SPINE.
BUTTERFLY, EL SEGUNDO BLUE
BUTTERFLY, PALOS VERDES BLUE
FOX, SAN JOAQUIN KIT
MOUSE, PACIFIC POCKET
BARBERRY, NEVIN'S
BARBERRY, NEVIN'S
BEARGRASS, DEHESA
BEARGRASS, DEHESA
BIRD'S-BEAK, SALT MARSH
BRODIAEA, THREAD-LEAVED
BROOM, SAN CLEMENTE ISLAND
BUSH-MALLOW, SAN CLEMENTE ISLAND
CEANOTHUS, VAIL LAKE
CROWNSCALE, SAN JACINTO VALLEY
DUDLEYA, MARCESCENT
DUDLEYA, SANTA MONICA MOUNTAINS ..
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
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 (SACRAMENTO
RIVER WINTER RUN).
SALMON, COHO (CENTRAL CALIFORNIA
COAST POP).
STEELHEAD, CENTRAL CALIFORNIA
POPULATION.
Rallus longirostris levipes
Lanius ludovteianus meamsi
Amphispiza belli clementeae
Sterna antillamm brown!
Vireo belli! pusillus
Gila bicolor mohavensis
Eucyclogobius newberryi
Oncorhynchus mykiss, (Southern California
ESU).
Oncortiynchus mykiss, (Southern California
ESU).
Gasterosteus aculeatus Williamson!
Euphilotes (=Shijimiaeoides) battoides allyni
Glaucopsyche lygdamus patosverdesensis ...
Vulpes macrotis mutica
Perognathus longlmembris pacificus
Berberis nevinii
Berberis nevinii
Nolina interrata
Nolina Interrata
Cordylanthus maritimus ssp. maritimus
Brodiaea filifolia
Lotus dendroideus ssp. traskiae
Malacothamnus clementinus
Ceanothus ophiOchilus
Atriptox coronata var. notation
Dudtoya cymosa ssp. marcescens
Dudteya cymosa ssp. ovatifolia
Fremontodendron mexicanum
Delphinium kinkiense
Astragalus brauntonii
Navarretia fossalis
Allium munzii
Castilleja grisea
Pentachaeta lyonii
Centrostegia leptoceras
Rorippa gambellii
Gambelia (Crotaphytus) silus
Xantusia (Klaubemina) riversiana
Gopherus (=Xerobates, =Scaptochelys)
agasslzii.
Pseudobahla peirsonii
Hallaeetus leucocephalus
Fateo peregrinus
Salmo dark) henshawi
Salmo clarki seleniris
Desmocerus californicus dimorphus
Vulpes macrotis mutica
Dipodomys nitratoides exilis
Cordylanthes palmatus
Pseudobahia bahiifolia
Orcuttia pllosa
Lupinus tidestromii
Castilleja campestris ssp. succulents
Calyptridium pulchellum
Gambelia (Crotaphytus) silus
Rana Aurora Draytonii
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Brachyramphus marmoratus
Strix occidentalis caurina
Pelicanus occidentalis
Charadrius atexandrlnus nivosus
Rallus longirostris obsoletus
Syncaris pacifica
Eucyclogobius newberryi
Oncortiynchus tshawytscha
Oncortiynchus kisutch
Oncortiynchus mykiss, (Central California
Coast ESU).
L, E
L, E
L, T
L, E
L, E, CH
L, E
L, E
L, E
L, E
L, E
L, E
L, E, CH
L, E
L, E
P, T
P, T
P, T
P, T
L, E
P, T
L, E
L, E
P, T
P, E
L, T
L, T
P, T
L, E
L, E
P, T
P, E
L, E
P, E
L, E
L,E
L, E
L, T
L, T, CH
L, T
L, T
L, E
L, T
L, T
L, T, CH
L, E
L, E, CH
L, E
L, E
L, E
L, E
L, E
P, E
L, E
L, T
L, T
L, E
L, T, CH
L, T, CH
L, E
L,T
L, E
L, E
L, E
L, E, CH
L, E
L, T
-------
7932
Federal Register /Vol. 63, No. 31/Tuesday, February 17. 1998/Notices
IV. COUNTY/SPECIES LIST—Continued
(The following list identifies federally listed or proposed U.S. species by State and County. It has been updated through September 1 1997.
Note- Species listed below with a status of both E and T are generally either endangered or threatened within the specified county. The as-
signment 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 Instructions). Designation of cntical habitat (CH) does not mean
that the county constitutes critical habitat, only that critical habitat has been designated for that species (see Addendum A Instructions).]
State/County
Group name
Inverse name
Scientific name
Action/
Status
NSECTS .
MAMMALS
tANTS
MARIPOSA .
MENDOCINO
BIRDS
INSECTS .
PLANTS ..
BIRDS
FISHES
INSECTS ,
MAMMALS
PLANTS
MERCED
REPTILES .
BIRDS
CRUSTACEAN
FISHES
INSECTS ....
MAMMALS .
PLANTS
REPTILES .
STEELHEAD, CENTRAL CALIFORNIA
POPULATION.
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
CLOVER, SHOWY INDIAN
DWARF-FLAX, MARIN
JEWELFLOWER, TIBURON
LARKSPUR, BAKER'S
LARKSPUR, BAKER'S
LAYIA, BEACH
LILY, PITKIN MARSH
LUPINE, CLOVER
MILK-VETCH, CLARA HUNT'S
PAINTBRUSH, TIBURON
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
STEELHEAD, NORTHERN CALIFORNIA
POPULATION.
BUTTERFLY, BEHREN'S SILVERSPOT
BUTTERFLY, LOTIS BLUE
BEAVER, POINT ARENA MOUNTAIN
GOLDFIELDS, BURKE'S
GOLDFIELDS, CONTRA COSTA
NAVARRETIA, FEW-FLOWERED
NAVARRETIA, MANY-FLOWERED
ROCK-CRESS, MCDONALD'S
SPINEFLOWER, HOWELL'S
STONECROP, LAKE COUNTY
WALLFLOWER, MENZIE'S
TURTLE, OLIVE (PACIFIC) RIDLEY SEA ....
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
GOOSE, ALEUTIAN CANADA
LINDERIELLA, CALIFORNIA
SHRIMP, CONSERVANCY FAIRY
SHRIMP, VERNAL POOL FAIRY
STEELHEAD, CALIFORNIA CENTRAL VAL-
LEY POP.
BEETLE, VALLEY ELDERBERRY LONG-
HORN.
FOX, SAN JOAQUIN KIT
KANGAROO RAT, FRESNO
KANGAROO RAT, GIANT
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
Oncomynchus mykiss, (Central California
Coast ESU).
cartcia Icarioides missionensis
Speyeria zerene myrtleae
Relthrodontomys raviventris
'lagiobothrys strictus
Atopecurus aequalis var. sonomensis
>oa napensis
Sidalcea oregana sap. valida
Clarkia imbricate
rrifolum amoenum
Trifolum amoenum
Hesperolinon congestum
Streptanthus nlger
Delphinium bakeri
Delphinium bakeri
.ayia carnosa
Lllium pitkinense
Luplnus tidestromii
Astragalus clarianus
Castilleja affinis ssp. neglecta
Castilleja affinis ssp. neglecta
Pentachaeta bellidiflora
Carex albida
Chorizanthe valida
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Desmocerus californlcus dimorphus
Lupinus cHrinus var. deflexus
Calyptridium pulchellum
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Fateo peregrinus
Branta canadensis leucopareia
Brachyramphus marmoratus
Strix occidental caurina
Pelicanus oocidentalls
Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus
Eucyclogobius newberryi
Oncomynchus mykiss, (Northern California
ESU).
Speyeria zerene behrensli
Lycaeides argyrognomon tolls
Aplodontia rufa nigra
Lasthenia burkei
Lasthenia conjugens
Navarretla leucocephala ssp. pauciflora
Navarretia leucocephala ssp. plieantha
Arabis mcdonaldiana
Chorizanthe howellii
Patvisedum leiocarpum
Erysimum menziesi!
Lepidochelys olivacea
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Branta canadensis leucopareia
Llnderiella occidental^
Brancinecta conservatio
Branchinecta lynch!
Oncomynchus mykiss, (Central Valley ESU)
Desmocerus californicus dimorphus
Vulpes macrotis mutica
Dipodomys nitratoides exilis
Dlpodomys ingens
Dipodomys nitratoides exilis
Dipodomys ingens
Neostapfia colusana
Orcuttia pilosa
Castilleja campestris ssp. succulente
Tuctoria greenei
Gambelia (Crotaphytus) silus
Thamnophis gigas
L, T
L, E
L, E
L, E
', E
P, E
'. E
,E
', E
', E
', E
L, T
P, E
P, E
P, E
L, E
P, E
L, E
P, E
L, E
L, E
L, E
P, E
L, E
L, T
L, E
L, T, CH
P, E
P, E
L. T
L, E
L, T
L, T, CH
L, T, CH
L, E
L, T
L, E
P, T
P, E
L, E
L, E
L, E
L, E
L, E
L, E
L, E
L, E
L, E
L, E
L, E, T
L, T
L, E
L, T
P, E
L, E
L, T
P, E
L, T, CH
L, E
L, E, CH
L, E
L, E, CH
L, E
L, T
L, E
L, E
L, E
L, E
L. T
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 31/Tuesday, February 17, 1998/Notices
7933
IV. COUNTY/SPECIES LIST—Continued
[The following list identifies federally listed or proposed U.S. species by State and County. It has been updated through September 1 1997
Note: Species listed below with a status of both E and T are generally either endangered or threatened within the specified county the as-
signment 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 Instructions). Designation of critical habitat (CH) does not mean
that the county constitutes cntical habitat, only that critical habitat has been designated for that species (see Addendum A Instructions) ]
State/County
Group name
Inverse name
Scientific name
Action/
Status
MODOC
BIRDS ..
FISHES
MONO .
PLANTS
BIRDS ...
FISHES
MONTEREY
PLANTS
BIRDS
AMPHIBIANS ....
BIRDS
CRUSTACEAN
FISHES
INSECTS ...
MAMMALS
PLANTS
NAPA
REPTILES .
BIRDS
CRUSTACEAN
FISHES
MAMMALS
PLANTS ....
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
SUCKER, LOST RIVER
SUCKER, MODOC
SUCKER, SHORTNOSE
BARBERRY, TRUCKEE
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
GOOSE, ALEUTIAN CANADA
CHUB, OWENS 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 CALIFOR-
NIA POP.
STEELHEAD, SOUTH-CENTRAL CALIFOR-
NIA POP.
BUTTERFLY, SMITH'S BLUE
FOX, SAN JOAQUIN KIT
KANGAROO RAT, GIANT
OTTER, SOUTHERN SEA
RAT, GIANT KANGAROO
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
WALLFLOWER, MENZIE'S
LIZARD, BLACK LEGLESS
TURTLE, OLIVE (PACIFIC) RIDLEY SEA ....
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
OWL, NORTHERN SPOTTED
PELICAN, BROWN
PLOVER, WESTERN SNOWY
RAIL, CALIFORNIA CLAPPER
LINDERIELLA, CALIFORNIA
SHRIMP, CALIFORNIA FRESHWATER
SALMON, CHINOOK (SACRAMENTO
RIVER WINTER RUN).
STEELHEAD, CALIFORNIA CENTRAL VAL-
LEY POP.
STEELHEAD, CENTRAL CALIFORNIA
POPULATION.
STEELHEAD, CENTRAL CALIFORNIA
POPULATION.
FOX, SAN JOAQUIN KIT
MOUSE, SALT MARSH HARVEST
ALLOCARYA, CALISTOGA
ALOPECURUS, SONOMA
BLUEGRASS, NAPA
CHECKER-MALLOW, KENWOOD MARSH ..
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Deltistes luxatus
Catostomus microps
Chasmistes brevirostris
Berberis (=Mahonia) sonnei
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Branta canadensis leucopareia
Gila bicolor snyderi
Cyprinodon radiosus
Salmo clarki henshawi
Salmo clarki seleniris
Astragalus lentiginosus var. piscinensis
Potentilla hickmanii
Rana Aurora Draytonii
Ambystoma macrodactylum croceum
Gymnogyps californianus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Brachyramphus marmoratus
Pelicanus occidental
Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus
Rallus longirostris obsoletus
Sterna antillarum browni
Vireo belli! pusillus
Linderiella occidental
Branchinecta lynchi
Eucyclogobius newberryi
Oncorhynchus mykiss, (South-Central Calif.
ESU).
Oncorhynchus mykiss, (South-Central Calif.
ESU).
Euphilotes (=Shijimiaeoides) enoptes smith!
Vulpes macrotis mutica
Dipodomys ingens
Enhydra lutris nereis
Dipodomys ingens
Potentilla hickmanii
Trifolium trichocalyx
Cupressus goveniana ssp. goveniana
Dudleya setchellii
Gilia tenuiflora ssp. arenaria
Layia carnosa
Lupinus tidestromii
Astragalus tener var. titi
Piperia yadonii
Chorizanthe pungens var. pungens
Chorizanthe robusta var. robusta
Erysimum menziesii
Anniella pulchra nigra
Lepidochelys olivacea
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Strix occidental caurina
Pelicanus occidental
Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus
Rallus longirostris obsoletus
Linderiella occidentalis
Syncaris pacifica
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Oncorhynchus mykiss, (Central Valley ESU)
Oncorhynchus mykiss, (Central California
Coast ESU).
Oncorhynchus mykiss, (Central California
Coast ESU).
Vulpes macrotis mutica
Reithrodontomys raviventris
Plagiobothrys strictus
Alopecurus aequalis var. sonomensis
Poa napensis
Sidalcea oregana ssp. valida
L, T
L, E
L, E
L, E, CH
L, E
L, E
L, T
L, E
L, T
L, E, CH
L. E
L, T
L, T
P, E
P, E
L, T
L, E
L, E, CH
L, T
L, E
L, T, CH
L, E
L, T
L, E
L, E
L, E, CH
P, E
L, T
L, E
L, T
L, T
L, E
L, E
L, E
L, T
L, E
P. E
P, E
P. T
L, E
L, E
L, E
L, E
P, E
P, E
L, T
L, E
L, E
P, E
L, E,T
L, T
L, E
L, T, CH
L, E
L, T
L, E
P, E
L, E
L, E, CH
P, E
L, T
L, T
L, E
L, E
P, E
P, E
P, E
P, E
-------
7934
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 31/Tuesday, February 1.7, 1998/Notices
IV. COUNTY/SPECIES LIST—Continued
[The following list identifies federally listed or proposed U.S. species by State and County. It has been updated through September 1, 1997.
Note- Species listed below with a status of both E and T are generally either endangered or threatened within the specified county. The as-
signment 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 Instructions). Designation of critical habitat (CH) does not mean
that the county constitutes critical habitat, only that critical habitat has been designated for that species (see Addendum A Instructions).]
State/County
Group name
Inverse name
Scientific name
Action/
Status
DNEVADA
BIRDS
DORANGE.
FISHES
PLANTS
AMPHIBIANS
BIRDS
CRUSTACEAN
FISHES
MAMMALS
PLANTS
PIMA
PLACER
BIRDS
BIRDS
CRUSTACEAN
FISHES ...
INSECTS .
PLUMAS
RIVERSIDE
PLANTS
BIRDS ...
PLANTS
AMPHIBIANS ...
BIRDS
CRUSTACEAN
FISHES
CLARKIA, VINE HILL
CLOVER, SHOWY INDIAN
GOLDFIELDS, CONTRA COSTA
LILY, PITKIN MARSH
MILK-VETCH, CLARA HUNTS
NAVARRETIA, FEW-FLOWERED
NAVARRETIA, MANY-FLOWERED
PAINTBRUSH, TIBURON
PAINTBRUSH, TIBURON
SEDGE, WHITE
STONECROP, LAKE COUNTY
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
TROUT, LAHONTAN CUTTHROAT
BARBERRY, TRUCKEE
TOAD, ARROYO SOUTHWESTERN
FALCON, PEREGRINE
GNATCATCHER, COASTAL CALIFORNIA ..
MURRELET, MARBLED
PELICAN, BROWN
PLOVER, WESTERN SNOWY
RAIL, LIGHT-FOOTED 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 MOUNTAINS ..
LIVEFOREVER, LACUNA BEACH
MANZANITA, DEL MAR
MILK-VETCH, BRAUNTON'S
MONARDELLA, WILLOWY
NAVARRETIA, SPREADING
ONION, MUNZ'S
SPINEFLOWER, ORCUTT'S
TARWEED, OTAY
THORNMINT, SAN DIEGO
WOOLLY-STAR, SANTA ANA RIVER
FLYCATCHER, SOUTHWESTERN WILLOW
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
GOOSE, ALEUTIAN CANADA
LINDERIELLA, CALIFORNIA
SHRIMP, VERNAL POOL FAIRY
SHRIMP, VERNAL POOL TADPOLE
TROUT, LAHONTAN CUTTHROAT
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 WILLOW
FLYCATCHER, SOUTHWESTERN WILLOW
GNATCATCHER, COASTAL CALIFORNIA ..
PELICAN. BROWN
RAIL. YUMA CLAPPER
VIREO, LEAST BELL'S
LINDERIELLA, CALIFORNIA
SHRIMP, RIVERSIDE FAIRY
SHRIMP, VERNAL POOL FAIRY
CHUB. BONYTAIL
PUPFISH, DESERT
Clarkia imbricata
Trifolum amoenum
.asthenia conjugens
Lilium pltkinense
Astragalus clarianus
Navarretla leucocephala ssp. pauclflora
Navarretia leucocephala ssp. plieantha
Castilteja affinis ssp. neglecta
Castlltoja affinis ssp. neglecta
Carex albida
Parvisedum leiocarpum
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Salmo clarki henshawl
Berberis (=Mahonia) sonnei
Bufo mlcroscaphus califomicus
Falco peregrinus
Polioptila califomica califomica
Brachyramphus marmoratus
Pelicanus occidentalis
Charadrius alexandrinus nlvosus
Rallus longirostris levipes
Sterna antillarum brown!
Vireo belli! pusillus
Streptocephalus woottoni
Eucyclogoblus newberryi
Perognathus tongimembris paclficus
Corethrogyne filaginifolia var. linlfolia
Baccharis vanessae
Cordylanthus maritimus ssp. maritimus
Brodiaea fillfolla
Verbesina dissita
Atriptex coronata var. notattor
Dudleya cymosa ssp. marcescens
Dudleya cymosa ssp. ovatifolia
Dudleya stotonifera
Arctostaphylos glandulosa ssp. crassifolia ....
Astragalus brauntonii
Monardella linoides ssp. viminea
Navarretia fossalis
Allium munzii
Chorizanthe orcuttiana
Hemlzonia conjugens
Acanthomintha ilicifolia
Eriastrum densifolium ssp. santorum
Empiodonax traillii extimus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Branta canadensis leucopareia
Linderiella occidentalis
Branchinecta lynch!
Lepidurus packardi
Salmo clarki henshawi
Desmocerus califomicus dimorphus
Berberis (=Mohonia) sonnei
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Orcuttia tenuis
Batrachoseps aridus
Bufo microscaphus califomicus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Empiodonax traillii extimus
Empiodonax traillii extimus
Polioptila califomica califomica .
Pelicanus occidentalis
Rallus longirostris yumanensis .
Vireo bellii pusillus
Linderiella occidentalis
Streptocephalus woottoni
Branchinecta lynch!
Gila elegans
Cyprinodon macularius
P, E
P, E
L, E
P, E
P, E
L, E
L, E
L, E
L, E
P, E
L, E
L, T
L, E
U, T
U. E
L, E
L, E
L, T
L, T, CH
L, E
L, T
L, E
L, E
L, E, CH
L, E
L, E
L, E
P, E
L, T
L, E
P. T
L, T
P, E
L, T
L, T
P, E
L, E
L, E
P, E
P, T
P, E
L, E
P, E
P, E
L.E
L, E
U. T
L, E
L, T
P, E
L. T
L, E
L, T
L, T, CH
L, E
L, T
L, E
L, T
L, E
L, E
L, T
L, E
L, E
L, E
L,T
L, E
L, E
L, E, CH
P, E
L, E
L. T
L, E, CH
L, E, CH
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63. No. 31/Tuesday, February 17, 1998/Notices
7935
IV. COUNTY/SPECIES LIST—Continued
[The following list identifies federally listed or proposed U.S. species by State and County. It has been updated through September 1 1997
Note: Species listed below with a status of both E and T are generally either endangered or threatened within the specified county The as-
signment 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 Instructions). Designation of critical habitat (CH) does not mean
that the county constitutes critical habitat, only that critical habitat has been designated for that species (see Addendum A Instructions) ]
State/County
Group name
Inverse name
Scientific name
Action/
Status
INSECTS ...
MAMMALS
PLANTS
REPTILES .
SACRAMENTO
BIRDS
CRUSTACEAN
FISHES
INSECTS .
PLANTS ..
SAN BENITO
REPTILES
BIRDS
INSECTS ...
MAMMALS
PLANTS
SAN BERNADINO
REPTILES
BIRDS
PLANTS ....
AMPHIBIANS
BIRDS
FISHES
SQUAWFISH, COLORADO
SUCKER, RAZORBACK
BUTTERFLY, QUINO CHECKERSPOT
FLY, DELHI SANDS FLOWER-LOVING
KANGAROO RAT, STEPHENS'
RAT, STEPHENS' KANGAROO
BARBERRY, NEVIN'S
BARBERRY, NEVIN'S
BEARGRASS, DEHESA
BEARGRASS, DEHESA
BRODIAEA, THREAD-LEAVED
BUTTON-CELERY, SAN DIEGO
CEANOTHUS, VAIL LAKE
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, MUNZ'S
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 (SACRAMENTO
RIVER WINTER RUN).
SMELT, DELTA
STEELHEAD, CALIFORNIA CENTRAL VAL-
LEY POP.
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
KANGAROO RAT, GIANT
RAT, GIANT KANGAROO
DUDLEYA, SANTA CLARA VALLEY
EVENING-PRIMROSE, SAN BENITO
WOOLLY-THREADS, SAN JOAQUIN
LIZARD, BLUNT-NOSED LEOPARD
FLYCATCHER, SOUTHWESTERN WILLOW
ONION, MUNZ'S
SANDWORT, MARSH
TOAD, ARROYO SOUTHWESTERN
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
FLYCATCHER, SOUTHWESTERN WILLOW
GNATCATCHER, COASTAL CALIFORNIA ..
PLOVER, WESTERN SNOWY
RAIL, YUMA CLAPPER
VIREO, LEAST BELL'S
CHUB, BONYTAIL
CHUB, MOHAVETUI
PUPFISH, DESERT
SQUAWFISH, COLORADO
STICKLEBACK, UNARMORED
THREESPINE.
Ptychocheilus luclus
Xyrauchen texanus
Euphydryas edltha qulno
Rhophlamidas terminatus abdomlnalis ..
Dipodomys Stephens!
Dipodomys Stephens!
Berberis nevlnii
Berberis nevinli
Nolina internals
Nolina interrata
Brodiaea filifolia
Eryngium aristulatum var. parishii
Ceanothus ophiochilus
Ceanothus ophiOchilus
Atriptex coronata var. notatior
Erigeron parishii
Downingia concotor var. brevior
Fremontodendron mexicanum
Orcuttia califomica
Astragalus lentlginosus var. coachellae .
Astragalus tricarinatus
Pogogyne nudluscula
Navarretia fossalis
Allium munzii
Centrostegia leptoceras
Eriastrum densifolium ssp. santorum
Uma Inomata
Phrynosoma mcallii
Gopherus (=Xerobates,=Scaptochelys)
agassizii.
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Branta canadensis leucopareia
Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus
Linderiella occidentalis
Branchinecta lynch!
Lepidurus packardi
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Hypomesus transpacificus
Oncorhynchus mykiss, (Central Valley ESU)
Desmocerus calrfomicus dimorphus
Oenothera deltoides ssp. howellii
Orcuttia viscida
Orcuttia tenuis
Thamnophis gigas
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Rhophiamldas terminatus abdominalis
Vulpes macrotis mutica
Dipodomys ingens
Dipodomys Ingens
Dudleya setchellil
Camissonla benitensis
Lembertia congdonli
Gambella (Crotaphytus) silus
Empiodonax trallli! extimus
Allium munzii
Arenaria paludicola
Bufo microscaphus califomicus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Empiodonax traillii extimus
Polioptila califomica califomica
Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus
Rallus longirostris yumanensis
Vireo belli! pusillus
Gila elegans
Gila blcolor mohavensls
Cyprinodon maculan'us
Ptychocheilus lucius
Gasterosteus aculeatus Williamson!
L. E, CH
L, E, CH
L, E
L, E
L, T
L, T
P, T
P, T
P, T
P, T
P, T
L, E
P, T
P. T
P, E
L, T
P, E
P, T
L, E
P, E
P, E
L, E
P, T
P, E
L, E
L, E
L, T, CH
P, T
L, T, CH
L, T
L, T
L, T
P. E
L, T
L, E
L, E, CH
L, T, CH
P, E
L, T, CH
L, E, CH
L, E
L, T
L, T
L, T
L, E
L, E
L, E
L, E
L, E
L, E
L, T
L, E
L, E
L, E
P, E
L, E
L, E
L, T
L, E
L, E
L, T
L, T
L, E
L, E, CH
L, E, CH
L, E
L, E, CH
L, E, CH
L, E
-------
7936
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 31/Tuesday, February 17, 1998/Notices
IV. COUNTY/SPECIES LIST—Continued
[The following list identifies federally listed or proposed U.S. species by State and County. It has been updated through September 1, 1997.
Note: Species listed below with a status of both E and T are generally either endangered or threatened within the specified county. The as-
signment 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 Instructions). Designation of critical habitat (CH) does not mean
that the county constitutes critical habitat, only that critical habitat has been designated for that species (see Addendum A Instructions).]
State/County
Group name
Inverse name
Scientific name
Action/
Status
INSECTS ...
MAMMALS
PLANTS
REPTILES .
SAN DIEGO .
AMPHIBIANS ...
BIRDS
CRUSTACEAN
FISHES
INSECTS ...
MAMMALS
PLANTS
SUCKER, RAZORBACK
FLY, DELHI SANDS FLOWER-LOVING
KANGAROO RAT, STEPHENS'
RAT, STEPHENS' KANGAROO
VOLE, AMARGOSA
BARBERRY, NEVIN'S
BARBERRY, NEVIN'S
BEARGRASS, DEHESA
BLADDERPOD, SAN BERNARDINO MOUN-
TAINS.
BLUECURLS, HIDDEN LAKE
BLUEGRASS, SAN BERNARDINO
BRODIAEA, THREAD-LEAVED
BUCKWHEAT, CUSHENBURY
BUCKWHEAT, SOUTHERN MOUNTAIN
WILD.
CEANOTHUS, VAIL LAKE
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
TOAD, ARROYO SOUTHWESTERN
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
FLYCATCHER, SOUTHWESTERN WILLOW
GNATCATCHER, COASTAL CALIFORNIA ..
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
KANGAROO RAT, STEPHENS'
MOUSE, PACIFIC POCKET
RAT, STEPHENS' KANGAROO
ASTER, DEL MAR SAND
BACCHARIS, ENCINITAS
BARBERRY, NEVIN'S
BARBERRY, NEVIN'S
BEARGRASS, DEHESA
BEARGRASS, DEHESA
BIRD'S-BEAK. SALT MARSH
BRODIAEA. THREAD-LEAVED
BUTTON-CELERY, SAN DIEGO
CEANOTHUS, VAIL LAKE
CEANOTHUS, VAIL LAKE
CROWN-BEARD, BIG-LEAVED
Xyrauchen texanus
RhophiamWas termlnatus abdomlnalis
Dipodomys Stephens!
Dlpodomys Stephens!
Microtus califomicus scirpensls
Berterls nevlnll
Berberis nevlnll
Nolina interrata
Lesquerella king!! ssp. bemardlna
Trichostema austromontanum ssp.
compactum.
Poa atropurpurea
Brodiaea fillfolia
Eriogonum ovallfolium var. vineum
Eriogonum Kennedy! var. austromontanum ...
Ceanothus ophiochilus
ceanothus ophiochilus
Sidalcea pedata
Atriptox coronata var. notattor
Erigeron parishll
Taraxacum califomicum
Fremontodendron mexlcanum
Pucdnellia parish!!
Astragalus albens
Astragalus Jaegerianus
Astragalus tricarlnatus
Thelypodlum stenopetalum
Navarretla fossalis
Oxytheca parishll var. goodmaniana
Castilleja cinerea
Arabls Johnston!!
Arenaria urslna
Centrostegla leptoceras
Rorippa gambellil
Eriastrum densffolium ssp. santorum
Gopherus (»Xerobates,=Scaptochelys)
agassizil.
Bufo mlcroscaphus callfomicus
Hallaeetus toucocephalus
Fateo peregrinus
Emplodonax traillii extimus
Polloptlla califomica callfornica
Branta canadensls teucopareia
Brachyramphus marmoratus
Pellcanus occldentalls
Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus
Rallus longlrostris levipes
Sterna antillarum brown)
Vireo belli! puslllus .-
Streptocephalus woottoni
Branchlnecta sandlegoensls
Glla bicolor mohavensls
Eucyclogoblus newbenyi
Cyprinodon macularius
Gasterosteus aculeatus Williamson!
Pyrgus raralis lagunae
Dipodomys Stephens!
Perognathus tongimembris pacificus
Dipodomys Stephens!
Corethrogyne filaginlfolia var. linlfolia
Baccharis vanessae
Berberis nevlnii
Berberis nevinii
Nolina interrata
Nolina Interrata
Cordylanthus marttimus ssp. maritlmus ...
Brodiaea fillfolia
Erynglum aristulatum var. parish!!
Ceanothus ophiochilus
Ceanothus ophiochllus
Verbeslna dlsslta
L, E, CH
L, E
L,T
L, T
L, E, CH
P. T
P, T
P, T
L, E
P, T
P, E
P, T
L, E
P, T
P, T
P, T
L. E
P, E
L, T
P, E
P, T
P, E
L, E
P, E
P, E
L, E
P.T
L, E
P, T
P, T
P, T
L,E
L, E
L, E
L, T, CH
L, E
L, T
L, E
L, E
L, T
L, T
L, T, CH
L, E
L, T
L, E
L, E
L, E, CH
L, E
P, E
L, E
L, E
L, E, CH
L, E
L, E
L,T
L, E
L, T
P. E
L.T
P, T
P, T
P, T
P, T
L, E
P, T
L, E
P, T
P.T
L.T
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 31/Tuesday, February 17, 1998/Notices
7937
IV. COUNTY/SPECIES LIST—Continued
[The following list identifies federally listed or proposed U.S. species by State and County. It has been updated through September 1, 1997
Note: Species listed below with a status of both E and T are generally either endangered or threatened within the specified county. The as-
signment 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 Instructions). Designation of critical habitat (CH) does not mean
that the county constitutes critical habitat, only that critical habitat has been designated for that species (see Addendum A Instructions).]
State/County
Group name
Inverse name
Scientific name
Action/
Status
REPTILES
SAN FRANCISCO
PLANTS
BIRDS ...
FISHES
INSECTS .
PLANTS
DSAN JOAQUIN .
BIRDS
CRUSTACEAN
FISHES
INSECTS
MAMMALS
PLANTS
DSAN LUIS OBISPO .
REPTILES .
PLANTS ....
BIRDS
CRUSTACEAN
FISHES
CROWNSCALE, SAN JACINTO VALLEY
DOWNINGIA, CUYAMACA LAKE
FLANNELBUSH, MEXICAN
GRASS, CALIFORNIA ORCUTT
LIVEFOREVER, LACUNA BEACH
MANZANITA, DEL MAR
MEADOWFOAM, PARISH'S
MILK-VETCH, PERSON'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.
STEELHEAD, CENTRAL CALIFORNIA
POPULATION.
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).
SMELT, DELTA
STEELHEAD, CALIFORNIA CENTRAL VAL-
LEY POP.
BEETLE, VALLEY ELDERBERRY LONG-
HORN.
FOX, SAN JOAQUIN KIT
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
GOBY, TIDEWATER
Atriplex coronata var. notatior
Downingia concotorvar. brevior
Fremontodendron mexicanum
Orcuttia califomica
Dudleys stotonifera
Arctostaphylos glandulosa ssp. crassffolia ....
Limnanthes gracilis ssp. parishii
Astragalus magdalenae var. piersonii
Pogogyne nudiuscula
Pogogyne abramsli
Monardella linoides ssp. viminea
Navarretia fossalls
Allium munzil
Chorizanthe orcuttiana
Centrostegia leptoceras
Hemizonia conjugens
Acanthomintha ilicifolia
Rorippa gambellii
Phrynosoma mcallii
Chelonia mydas
Lepidochelys olivacea
Arenaria paludicola
Falco peregrinus
Branta canadensis leucopareia
Pellcanus occidentalis
Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus
Eucyclogobkis newberryi
Oncorhynchus mykiss, (Central California
Coast ESU).
Oncorhynchus mykiss, (Central California
Coast ESU).
Euphydryas editha bayensis
Speyeria callippe callippe
Icaricia icarioides mlssionensis
Speyeria zerene myrtleae
Clarkia franciscana
Hesperolinon congestum
Streptanthus albidus ssp. albidus
Layia camosa
Lessingia germanorum
Calochortus tiburonensis
Arctostaphylos pungens ssp. ravenii
Arctostaphylos imbricata
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Branta canadensis leucopareia
Linderiella occidentalis
Branchinecta lynch!
Lepidurus packardi
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Hypomesus transpacific^
Oncorhynchus mykiss, (Central Valley ESU)
Desmocerus califomicus dimorphus
Vulpes macrotis mutica
Cordylanthes palmatus
Amsinckia grand flora
Thamnophis gigas
Arenaria paludicola
Gymnogyps califomianus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Branta canadensis leucopareia ....
Brachyramphus marmoratus
Pelicanus occidentalis
Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus .
Rallus longirostris obsoletus
Sterna antillarum browni
Vireo belli! puslllus
Linderiella occidentalis
Branchinecta longiantenna
Eucyclogobius newberryi
P, E
P, E
P, T
L, E
P, E
L, E
P, T
P, E
L, E
L, E
P, E
P, T
P, E
L, E
L, E
P, E
P, E
L, E
P, T
L, E, T
L, E, T
L, E
L, E
L, T
L, E
L, T
L, E
L, T
L, T
L, T
P, E
L, E
L, E
L, E
L, T
P. E
L, E
L, E
L, T
L, E
P. E
L, T
L, E
L, T
P. E
L, T
L, E
L, E, CH
L, T, CH
P, E
L, T, CH
L, E
L, E
L, E, CH
L, T
L, E
L, E, CH
L, T
L, E
L, T
L, T, CH
L, E
L, T
L, E
L, E
L, E, CH
P, E
L, E
L, E
-------
7938
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 31/Tuesday, February 17, 1998/Notices
IV. COUNTY/SPECIES LIST—Continued
[The following list identifies federally listed or proposed U.S. species by State and County. It has been updated through September 1, 1997.
Note: Species listed below with a status of both E and T are generally either endangered or threatened within the specified county. The as-
signment 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 Instructions). Designation of critical habitat (CH) does not mean
that the county constitutes critical habitat, only that critical habitat has been designated for that species (see Addendum A Instructions).]
State/County
Group name
Inverse name
Scientific name
Action/
Status
MAMMALS
PLANTS
SAN MATEO
REPTILES
SNAILS
AMPHIBIANS
BIRDS
CRUSTACEAN
FISHES
INSECTS .
MAMMALS
PLANTS ....
REPTILES
SANTA BARBARA
BIRDS
STEELHEAD, SOUTH-CENTRAL CALIFOR-
NIA POP.
STEELHEAD, SOUTH-CENTRAL CALIFOR-
NIA POP.
STEELHEAD, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
POPULATION.
STEELHEAD, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
POPULATION.
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, COHO (CENTRAL CALIFORNIA
COAST POP).
STEELHEAD, CENTRAL CALIFORNIA
POPULATION.
STEELHEAD, CENTRAL CALIFORNIA
POPULATION.
BUTTERFLY, BAY CHECKERSPOT
BUTTERFLY, MISSION BLUE
BUTTERFLY, SAN BRUNO ELFIN
MOUSE, SALT MARSH HARVEST
CYPRESS, SANTA CRUZ
LESSINGIA. SAN FRANCISCO
MANZANITA, SAN BRUNO MOUNTAIN
PENTACHAETA, WHITE-RAYED
SUNFLOWER, SAN MATEO WOOLLY
THISTLE, FOUNTAIN
THISTLE, FOUNTAIN
THORNMINT, SAN MATEO
SNAKE, SAN FRANCISCO GARTER
BARBERRY, ISLAND
BARBERRY, ISLAND
BEDSTRAW, ISLAND
BEDSTRAW, ISLAND
BUSHMALLOW, SANTA CRUZ ISLAND
BUSHMALLOW, SANTA CRUZ ISLAND
FRINGEPOD, SANTA CRUZ ISLAND
FRINGEPOD, SANTA CRUZ ISLAND
GILIA, HOFFMAN'S SLENDER-FLOWERED
GILIA, HOFFMAN'S SLENDER-FLOWERED
MALACOTHRIX, ISLAND
MALACOTHRIX, ISLAND
MALACOTHRIX, SANTA CRUZ ISLAND
MALACOTHRIX, SANTA CRUZ ISLAND
MANZANITA, SANTA ROSA ISLAND
MANZANITA, SANTA ROSA ISLAND
PAINTBRUSH, SOFT-LEAVED
PAINTBRUSH, SOFT-LEAVED
PHACELIA, ISLAND
PHACELIA, ISLAND
Oncorhynchus mykiss, (South-Central Calif.
ESU).
Oncomynchus mykiss, (South-Central Calif.
ESU).
Oncomynchus mykiss, (Southern California
ESU).
Oncorhynchus mykiss, (Southern California
ESU).
Vulpes macrotis mutica
Enhydra lutris nereis
Dlpodomys ingens
Dipodomys heermanni morroensis
Cordylanthus maritimus ssp. maritimus
Clarkia speciosa ssp. immaculate
Caulanthus caWomicus
Arctostaphylos morroensis
Eriodictyon altissimum
Arenaria paludicola
Suaeda califomica
Cirsium fontinale var. obispoense
Rorippa gambellii
Eriastrum hooveri
Lembertia congdonii
Gambelia (Crotaphytus) silus
Helminthoglypta walkeriana
Rana Aurora Draytonii
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Brachyramphus marmoratus
Pelicanus occidental
Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus
Rallus longirostris obsoletus
Sterna antillarum browni
Linderiella occidentalis
Eucyclogobius newberryi
Oncomynchus kisutcn
Oncorhynchus mykiss, (Central California
Coast ESU).
Oncorhynchus mykiss, (Central California
Coast ESU).
Euphydryas editha bayensis
Icaricia icarioides missionensis
Callophrys mossii bayensis
Reithrodontomys raviventris
Cupressus abramsiana
Lessingia germanorum
Arctostaphylos imbricata
Pentachaeta bellidiflora
Eriophyllum latilobum
Cirsium fontinale var. fontinale
Cirsium fontinale var. fontinale
Acanthomintha obovata ssp. duttonii
Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia
Berberis pinnata ssp. insularis
Berberis pinnata ssp. insularis
Galium buxifolium
Galium buxifolium
Malacothamnus fasciculatus nesioticus
Malacothamnus fasciculatus nesioticus
Thysanocarpus conchuliferus
Thysanocarpus conchuliferus
Gilia tenuiflora ssp. hoffmannii
Gilia tenuiflora ssp. hoffmannii
Malacothrix squalida
Malacothrix squalida
Malacothrix indecora
Malacothrix indecora
Arctostaphylos confertiflora
Arctostaphylos confertiflora
Castilleja mollis
Castilleja mollis
Phacelia insularis ssp. insularis
Phacelia insularis ssp. insularis
L, T
L, T
L, E
L, E
L, E
L, T
L, E
L, E, CH
L, E
L, E
L, E
L, T
L, E
L, E
L, E
L, E
L, E
L, T
L, E
L, E
L, E
L, T
L, T
L, E
L, T, CH
L, E
L. T
L, E
L, E
P, E
L, E
L, E
L.T
L, T
L, T
L, E
L, E
L, E
L, E
L, E
P, E
L, E
L, E
L, E
L, E
L. E
L. E
L, E
L, E
L, E
L, E
L, E
L, E
L, E
L, E
L, E
L, E
L, E
L, E
L, E
L, E
L, E
L, E
L, E
L, E
L, E
L, E
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 31/Tuesday, February 17, 1998/Notices
7939
IV. COUNTY/SPECIES LIST—Continued
[The following list identifies federally listed or proposed U.S. species by State and County. It has been updated through September 1 1997
Note: Species listed below with a status of both E and T are generally either endangered or threatened within the specified county The as-
signment 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 Instructions). Designation of critical habitat (CH) does not mean
that the county constitutes critical habitat, only that critical habitat has been designated for that species (see Addendum A Instructions) ]
State/County
Group name
Inverse name
Scientific name
Action/
Status
AMPHIBIANS ...
BIRDS
CRUSTACEAN
FISHES
MAMMALS
PLANTS
BIRDS ...
PLANTS
SANTA CLARA .
REPTILES .
BIRDS
FISHES
INSECTS ...
MAMMALS
PLANTS
SANTA CRUZ ...
PLANTS
AMPHIBIANS
ROCK-CRESS, HOFFMAN'S
ROCK-CRESS, HOFFMAN'S
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 CALIFOR-
NIA POP.
STEELHEAD, SOUTH-CENTRAL CALIFOR-
NIA POP.
STEELHEAD, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
POPULATION.
STEELHEAD, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
POPULATION.
STICKLEBACK, UNARMORED
THREESPINE.
FOX, SAN JOAQUIN KIT
KANGAROO RAT, GIANT
RAT, GIANT KANGAROO
SEAL, GUADALUPE FUR
BIRD'S-BEAK, SALT MARSH
BRODIAEA, CHINESE CAMP
CLARKIA, SPRINGVILLE
DUDLEYA, MARCESCENT
DUDLEYA, SANTA CRUZ ISLAND
DUDLEYA, SANTA CRUZ ISLAND
GOLDFIELDS, CONTRA COSTA
JEWELFLOWER, CALIFORNIA
LAYIA, BEACH
LIVEFOREVER, SANTA BARBARA ISLAND
LUPINE, MARIPOSA
MONKEY-FLOWER, KELSO CREEK
NAVARRETIA, FEW-FLOWERED
NAVARRETIA, MANY-FLOWERED
NAVARRETIA, PIUTE MOUNTAINS
ONION, RAWHIDE HILL
PUSSYPAWS, MARIPOSA
STONECROP, LAKE COUNTY
THISTLE, FOUNTAIN
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
BUTTERFLY, BAY CHECKERSPOT
FOX, SAN JOAQUIN KIT
MOUSE, SALT MARSH HARVEST
CEANOTHUS, COYOTE
DUDLEYA, SANTA CLARA VALLEY
GOLDFIELDS, CONTRA COSTA
NAVARRETIA, FEW-FLOWERED
NAVARRETIA, MANY-FLOWERED
PAINTBRUSH, TIBURON
PAINTBRUSH, TIBURON
STONECROP, LAKE COUNTY
THISTLE, FOUNTAIN
SANDWORT, MARSH
SALAMANDER, SANTA CRUZ LONG-TOED
Arabis hoffmannii
Arabis hoffmannii
Bufo microscaphus califomicus
Gymnogyps califomianus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Branta canadensis teucopareia
Brachyramphus marmoratus
Pelicanus occidentalis
Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus
Rallus tongirostris levipes
Sterna antillarum browni
Vireo belli! pusillus
Linderiella occidentalis
Eucyclogobius newberryi
Oncorhynchus mykiss, (South-Central Calif.
ESU).
Oncorhynchus mykiss, (South-Central Calif.
ESU).
Oncorhynchus mykiss, (Southern California
ESU).
Oncorhynchus mykiss, (Southern California
ESU).
Gasterosteus aculeatus Williamson*
Vulpes macrotis mutica
Dipodomys ingens
Dipodomys ingens
Arctocephalus townsendi
Cordylanthus maritimus ssp. maritimus
Brodiaea pallida
Clarkia springvillensis
Dudleya cymosa ssp. marcescens
Dudleya nesiotica
Dudleya nesiotica
Lasthenia conjugens
Caulanthus califomicus
Layia camosa
Dudleya traskiae
Lupinus citrinus var. deflexus
Mimulus shevockii
Navarretla leucocephala ssp. pauciflora
Navarretia leucocephala ssp. plieantha
Navarretia setiloba
Allium tuolumnense
Calyptridium pulchellum
Parvlsedum leiocarpum
Cirsium fontinale var. fontinale
Verbena califomica
Eriastrum hooveri
Lembertia congdonii
Gambelia (Crotaphytus) silus
Xantusia (Klaubemina) riversiana
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Pelicanus occidentalis
Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus
Rallus tongirostris obsoletus
Sterna antillarum browni
Eucyclogobius newberryi
Euphydryas editha bayensis
Vulpes macrotis mutica
Reithrodontomys raviventris
Ceanothus ferrisae
Dudleya setchellil
Lasthenia conjugens
Navarretia leucocephala ssp. pauciflora
Navarretia leucocephala ssp. plieantha
Castilleja affinis ssp. neglecta
Castilleja affinis ssp. neglecta
Parvisedum leiocarpum
Cirsium fontinale var. fontinale
Arenaria paludicola
Ambystoma macrodactylum croceum
L, E
L, E
L, E
L, E, CH
L, T
L, E
L, T
L, T, CH
L, E
L, T
L, E
L, E
L, E, CH
P. E
L, E
L, T
L, T
L, E
L, E
L, E
L, E
L, E
L, E
L, T
L, E
P, E
P, T
L, T
L, T
L, T
L, E
L, E
L, E
L, E
P, E
P, E
L, E
L, E
P, T
P, T
P, E
L, E
L, E
P, T
L, T
L, E
L, E
L, T
L, T
L, E
L, E
L, T
L, E
L, E
L, E
L. T
L, E
L, E
L, E
L, E
L, E
L, E
L, E
L, E
L. E
L, E
L, E
L, E
L, E
-------
7940
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 31/Tuesday, February 17, 1998/Notices
IV. COUNTY/SPECIES LIST—Continued
(The following list identifies federally listed or proposed U.S. species by State and County. It has been updated through September 1, 1997.
Note: Species listed below with a status of both E and T are generally either endangered or threatened within the specified county. The as-
signment 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 Instructions). Designation of critical habitat (CH) does not mean
that the county constitutes critical habitat, only that critical habitat has been designated for that species (see Addendum A Instructions).]
State/County
Group name
Inverse name
Scientific name
Action/
Status
BIRDS ..
FISHES
INSECTS .
MAMMALS
PLANTS ....
SHASTA
REPTILES
AMPHIBIANS ...
BIRDS
CRUSTACEAN
FISHES
SIERRA ....
SISKIYOU .
PLANTS
BIRDS ...
FISHES
BIRDS ..
SOLANO
FISHES .
PLANTS
BIRDS ...
CRUSTACEAN
FISHES
INSECTS .
MAMMALS .
PLANTS
SONAMA
FISHES
MURRELET, MARBLED
PELICAN, BROWN
PLOVER, WESTERN SNOWY
GOBY, TIDEWATER
SALMON, COHO (CENTRAL CALIFORNIA
COAST POP).
STEELHEAD, CENTRAL CALIFORNIA
POPULATION.
STEELHEAD, CENTRAL CALIFORNIA
POPULATION.
STEELHEAD, SOUTH-CENTRAL CALIFOR-
NIA POP.
STEELHEAD, SOUTH-CENTRAL CALIFOR-
NIA 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
RIVER WINTER RUN).
STEELHEAD, CALIFORNIA CENTRAL VAL-
LEY POP.
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
SUCKER, LOST RIVER
GRASS, SLENDER ORCUTT
FALCON, PEREGRINE
GOOSE, ALEUTIAN CANADA
PELICAN, BROWN
RAIL, CALIFORNIA CLAPPER
LINDERIELLA, CALIFORNIA
SHRIMP, VERNAL POOL FAIRY
SHRIMP, VERNAL POOL TADPOLE
SALMON, CHINOOK (SACRAMENTO
RIVER WINTER RUN).
SMELT, DELTA
STEELHEAD, CALIFORNIA CENTRAL VAL-
LEY POP.
BEETLE, DELTA GREEN GROUND
BEETLE, VALLEY ELDERBERRY LONG-
HORN.
MOUSE, SALT MARSH HARVEST
GOLDFIELDS, CONTRA COSTA
GRASS, COLUSA
GRASS. SOLANO
NAVARRETIA, FEW-FLOWERED
NAVARRETIA, MANY-FLOWERED
STONECROP, LAKE COUNTY
STEELHEAD, CENTRAL CALIFORNIA
POPULATION.
STEELHEAD. CENTRAL CALIFORNIA
POPULATION.
Brachyramphus marmoratus
Pelicanus occidental
Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus .
Eucyclogoblus newberryi
Oncortiynchus kisutch
Oncorhynchus mykiss, (Central California
Coast ESU).
Oncortiynchus mykiss, (Central California
Coast ESU).
Oncorhynchus mykiss, (South-Central Calif.
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
Erysimum teretifolium
Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia
Rana Aurora Draytonii
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Strix occidentalis caurina
Pacifasticus fortis
Lepidurus packardi
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Oncortiynchus mykiss, (Central Valley ESU)
Orcuttia tenuis
Tuctoria greenei
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Salmo clarki henshawi
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Branta canadensis leucoparela .
Brachyramphus marmoratus
Strix occidentalis caurina
Dettistes luxatus
Orcuttia tenuis
Falco peregrinus
Branta canadensis leucopareia .
Pelicanus occidentalis
Rallus longlrostris obsoletus
Linderiella occidentalis
Branchinecta lynch!
Lepidurus packardi
Oncortiynchus tshawytscha
Hypomesus transpaclficus
Oncortiynchus mykiss, (Central Valley ESU)
Elaphrus viridis
Desmocerus califomicus dimorphus .
Reithrodontomys raviventris
Lasthenia conjugens
Neostapfia colusana
Tuctoria mucronata (=0rcuttia m)
Navarretia leucocephala ssp. paucrflora
Navarretia leucocephala ssp. plieantha
Parvisedum leiocarpum
Oncortiynchus mykiss, (central California
coast es.
Oncortiynchus mykiss. (central California
coast es.
L, T, CH
L, E
L, T
L, E
L. E
L, T
L, T
L, T
L. T
L. E
P, E
L, E
L, T
L, E
L, E
L, E
L, T
L, E
L, E
L, E
L, E
L, T
L, T
L, E
L, T, CH
L, E
L, E
L, E, CH
P, E
L, T
L, E
L, T
L, E
L. T
L, T
L, E
L, T
L, T, CH
L, T, CH
L, E
L, T
L, E
L, T
L, E
L, E
P, E
L, T
L, E
L. E, CH
L, T, CH
P, E
L, T, CH
L, T, CH
L, E
L, E
L, T
L. E
L, E
L, E
L, E
L, T
L, T
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 31/Tuesday. February 17, 1998/Notices
7941
IV. COUNTY/SPECIES LIST— Continued
%f±^<&Ji£Jtt^ species by State and County. It has been updated through September 1, 1997.
Note: Species listed below with a status of both E and T are generally either endangered or threatened within the specified county The as-
signment of fora status designator* for a spedes in a specific countyis a function til the data set used to develop this Hst FoV purposes of
toTs permit, however, the obligation to assess the impact of storm water discharges on listed spedes does not vary based on whSi of the
towo statuses (e.g., endangered threatened) is assigned (see Addendum A Instructions). Designation of critical habitat (CH) does hot mean
that the county constitutes critical habitat, only that critfcai habitat has been designated for that spedes (see Addendum Abstractions) ]
SMC/County
Group name
Inverse name
Scientific name
Action/
Status
BIRDS
CRUSTACEAN
FISHES
INSECTS .
MAMMALS
PLANTS ....
STANISLAUS
PLANTS
BIRDS ...
CRUSTACEAN
FISHES
INSECTS .
MAMMALS
PLANTS
BUTTER
BIRDS
CRUSTACEAN
FISHES
INSECTS
TEHAMA .
REPTILES .
BIRDS
CRUSTACEAN
FISHES
INSECTS .
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 CALIFORNIA
COAST POP).
STEELHEAD, CALIFORNIA CENTRAL VAL-
LEY POP.
BUTTERFLY, BEHREN'S SILVERSPOT
BUTTERFLY, MYRTLE'S SILVERSPOT
MOUSE, SALT MARSH HARVEST
ALLOCARYA, CALISTOGA
ALOPECURUS, SONOMA
BIRD'S-BEAK, PENNELL'S
BIRD'S-BEAK, PENNELL'S
BLUEGRASS, NAPA
CHECKER-MALLOW, KENWOOD MARSH ..
CHECKER-MALLOW, KENWOOD MARSH ..
CLARKIA, VINE HILL
CLOVER, SHOWY INDIAN
GOLDFIELDS, BURKE'S
LARKSPUR, YELLOW
LARKSPUR, YELLOW
LILY, PITKIN MARSH
LUPINE, CLOVER
MEADOWFOAM, SEBASTOPOL
MILK-VETCH. 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 VAL-
LEY POP.
BEETLE, VALLEY ELDERBERRY LONG-
HORN.
FOX, SAN JOAQUIN KIT
GOLDEN SUNBURST, HARTWEG'S
GRASS, COLUSA
GRASS, HAIRY ORCUTT
OWL'S-CLOVER, FLESHY
SPURGE, HOOVER'S
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
GOOSE, ALEUTIAN CANADA
SHRIMP, VERNAL POOL TADPOLE
SALMON, CHINOOK (SACRAMENTO
RIVER WINTER RUN).
STEELHEAD, CALIFORNIA CENTRAL VAL-
LEY POP.
BEETLE, VALLEY ELDERBERRY LONG-
HORN.
SNAKE, GIANT GARTER
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
OWL, NORTHERN SPOTTED
SHRIMP, VERNAL POOL TADPOLE
SALMON, CHINOOK (SACRAMENTO
RIVER WINTER RUN).
STEELHEAD, CALIFORNIA CENTRAL VAL-
LEY POP.
BEETLE, VALLEY ELDERBERRY LONG-
HORN.
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Brachyramphus marmoratus
Strix occidentalis caurina
Pelicanus occidentalis
Charadrius alexandrinus nlvosus .
Rallus tongirostris obsoletus
Linderiella occidentalis
Syncaris pacifica
Eucyclogobius newberryi
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Oncorhyncgus kisutch .
Oncorhynchus mykiss, (central valley esu) ..
Speyeria zerene behrensii
Speyeria zerene myrtleae
Retthrodontomys raviverrtris
Plagiobothrys strictus
Atopecurus aequalis var. sonomensis
Cordylanthus tenuis ssp. capillari
Cordylanthus tenuis ssp. capillari
Poa napensis
Sidalcea oregana ssp. valida
Sidalcea oregana ssp. valida
Clarkia imbrlcata
Trifolum amoenum
Lasthenia burkei
Delphinium luteum
Delphinium luteum
Lilium pitkinense
Lupinus tidestromii
Limnanthes vinculans
Astragalus clarianus
Carex albida
Chorizanthe valida
Btennosperma bakeri
Pseudobahia pelrsonll
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Branta canadensis leucopareia
Lepldurus packardi
Oncorhynchus mykiss, (Central Valley ESU)
Desmocerus califomicus dimorphus
Vulpes macrotis muttea
Pseudobahia bahiifolia
Neostapfia colusana
Orcuttia pitosa
Castilleja campestris ssp. succulenta
Chamaesyce hooveri
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Branta canadensis leucopareia
Lepidurus packardi
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Oncorhynchus mykiss, (Central Valley ESU)
Desmocerus califomicus dimorphus
Thamnophis gigas
Haliaeetus leucocephalus ...
Falco peregrinus
Strix occidentalis caurina ....
Lepidurus packardi
Oncofhynchus tshawytscha
Oncorhynchus mykiss, (Central Valley ESU)
Desmocerus califomicus dimorphus
L, T
L, E
L, T, CH
L, T, CH
L, E
L, T
L, E
P, E
L, E
L, E
L, E, CH
L, E
P, E
P, E
L, E
L, E
P, E
P, E
L, E
L, E
P, E
P, E
P. E
P, E
P. E
L, E
P, E
P, E
P, E
L, E
L, E
P, E
P, E
L, E
L, E
L, T
L. T
L, E
L, T
L. E
P, E
L, T, CH
L, E
L, E
L, T
L, E
L, E
L, T
L,T
L, E
L, T
L, E
L, E, CH
P, E
L, T, CH
L, T
L, T
L, E
L, T, CH
L, E
L, E, CH
P, E
L, T, CH
-------
7942
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 31/Tuesday, February 17, 1998/Notices
IV. COUNTY/SPECIES LIST—Continued
[The following list identifies federally listed or proposed U.S. species by State and County. It has been updated through September 1, 1997.
Note- Species listed below with a status of both E and T are generally either endangered or threatened within the specified county. The as-
signment 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 Instructions). Designation of critical habitat (CH) does not mean
that the county constitutes critical habitat, only that critical habitat has been designated for that species (see Addendum A Instructions).]
State/County
Group name
Inverse name
Scientific name
Action/
Status
TRINITY ....
TULARE ....
PLANTS
BIRDS ...
BIRDS ...
FISHES
MAMMALS
PLANTS
TUOLUMNE.
REPTILES .
BIRDS
FISHES .
PLANTS
VENTURA.
AMPHIBIANS ...
BIRDS
CRUSTACEAN
FISHES
MAMMALS
PLANTS
YOLO
REPTILES .
BIRDS
CRUSTACEAN
FISHES
INSECTS .
GRASS, HAIRY ORCUTT
GRASS, SLENDER ORCUTT
MEADOWFOAM, BUTTE COUNTY
SPURGE, HOOVER'S
TUCTORIA, GREEN'S
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
OWL, NORTHERN SPOTTED
CONDOR, CALIFORNIA
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
TROUT, LITTLE KERN GOLDEN
FOX, SAN JOAQUIN KIT
KANGAROO RAT, GIANT
KANGAROO RAT, TIPTON
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
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
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.
STEELHEAD, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
POPULATION.
FOX, SAN JOAQUIN KIT
BIRD'S-BEAK, SALT MARSH
DUDLEYA, CONEJO
DUDLEYA, SANTA MONICA MOUNTAINS ..
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 (SACRAMENTO
RIVER WINTER RUN).
SMELT, DELTA
STEELHEAD, CALIFORNIA CENTRAL VAL-
LEY POP.
BEETLE, VALLEY ELDERBERRY LONG-
HORN.
Orcuttia pilosa
Orcuttia tenuis
Limnanthes floccosa ssp. califomica
Chamaesyce hoover!
Tuctoria greenei
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Strix occidentalis caurina
Gymnogyps califomianus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Salmo aguabonita white!
Vulpes macrotis mutica
Dipodomys ingens
Dipodomys nitratoides
Dipodomys ingens
Dipodomys nitratoides
Sidalcea keckii
Sldalcea keckii
Clarkia springvillensis
Caulanthus callfomicus
Fritillaria striata
Chamaesyce hooveri
Lembertia congdonii
Gambelia (Crataphytus) silus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Salmo clarki henshawi
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
Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus
Rallus longirostris levipes
Sterna antillarum browni
Vireo bellii pusillus
Linderiella occidentalis
Brancinecta conservatio
Eucyclogobius newberryi
Oncorhynchus mykiss, (Southern California
ESU).
Oncorhynchus mykiss, (Southern California
ESU).
Vulpes macrotis mutica
Cordylanthus maritimus ssp. maritimus
Dudleya abramsii ssp. parva
Dudleya cymosa ssp. ovatifolia
Dudleya verity!
Orcuttia califomica
Astragalus brauntonii
Pentachaeta lyonii
Rorippa gambelll!
Gambelia (Crotaphytus) silus
Xantusia (Klaubemina) riversiana
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Branta canadensis leucopareia
Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus
Lepidurus packardi
Oncortiyncnus tshawytscha
Hypomesus transpacificus
Oncorhynchus mykiss, (Central Valley ESU)
L, E
L, T
L, E
L, T
L, E
L, T
L, E
L, T, CH
L, E, CH
L, T
L, E
L, T, CH
L, E
L, E
L, E
L, E
L, E
P, E
P, E
P, T
L, E
P, T
L, T
L, E
L, E
L, T
L, E
L, T
P, E
L, T
P, T
P, T
P, E
P, E
P, T
P, T
P, E
P, T
L, E
L, E, CH
L, E
L, E
L, T
L, E
L, E
L, E, CH
P, E
L, E
L, E
L, E
L, E
L, E
L, E
L, T
L, T
L, T
L, E
L, E
P, E
L, E
L, E
L, T
L, T
L, T
L, T
L, E
L. E,
CH
Desmocerus califomicus dimorphus
L, T, CH
P, E
L, T, CH
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 31/Tuesday, February 17, 1998/Notices
7943
IV. COUNTY/SPECIES LIST—Continued
[The following list identifies federally listed or proposed U.S. species by State and County. It has been updated through September 1 1997
Note: Spec.es listed below with a status of both E and T are generally either endangered or threatened within the specified county. The as-
signment 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
twoi statuses (e.g., endangered threatened) is assigned (see Addendum A Instructions). Designation of critical habitat (CH) does not mean
that the county constitutes critical habitat, only that critical habitat has been designated for that species (see Addendum A Instructions) ]
State/County
Group name
Inverse name
Scientific name
Action/
Status
YUBA
COLORADO
ADAMS
ALAMOSA
ARCHULETA
BACA
BENT
BOULDER
CHAFFEE .
CHEYENNE
CLEAR CREEK
CONEJOS
COSTILLA
CUSTER ...
DELTA
DOLORES
DOUGLAS
EAGLE
EL PASO ..
FREMONT
GARFIELD
GRAND
PLANTS
REPTILES
BIRDS
BIRDS
BIRDS
MAMMALS
BIRDS
MAMMALS
BIRDS
BIRDS
FISHES
PLANTS ....
BIRDS
INSECTS .
BIRDS ..
FISHES
BIRDS ..
MAMMALS
MAMMALS
BIRDS
FISHES
BIRDS ..
FISHES
MAMMALS
PLANTS ....
BIRDS
MAMMALS
BIRDS
FISHES
INSECTS ...
BIRDS
INSECTS ...
BIRDS
FISHES
BIRDS ..
BIRDS ..
BIRDS ..
FISHES
MAMMALS
PLANTS
BIRDS ...
PLANTS
CRUSTACEAN ....
INSECTS
BIRD'S-BEAK, PALMATE-BRACTED
GRASS, COLUSA
SNAKE, GIANT GARTER
EAGLE, BALD
PELICAN, BROWN
LINDERIELLA, CALIFORNIA
SHRIMP, VERNAL POOL FAIRY
SHRIMP, VERNAL POOL TADPOLE
BEETLE, VALLEY ELDERBERRY LONG-
HORN.
EAGLE, BALD
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
OWL, MEXICAN SPOTTED
FERRET, BLACK-FOOTED
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
OWL, MEXICAN SPOTTED
FERRET, BLACK-FOOTED
EAGLE, BALD
EAGLE, BALD
TROUT, GREENBACK CUTTHROAT
LADIES'-TRESSES, UTE
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
OWL, MEXICAN SPOTTED
BUTTERFLY, UNCOMPAHGRE
FRITILLARY.
EAGLE, BALD
TROUT, GREENBACK CUTTHROAT
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
OWL, MEXICAN SPOTTED
FERRET, BLACK-FOOTED
FERRET, BLACK-FOOTED
FALCON, PEREGRINE
OWL, MEXICAN SPOTTED
TROUT, GREENBACK CUTTHROAT
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
SQUAWFISH, COLORADO
SUCKER, RAZORBACK
FERRET, BLACK-FOOTED
CACTUS, SPINELESS HEDGEHOG
CACTUS, UINTA BASIN HOOKLESS
WILD-BUCKWHEAT, CLAY-LOVING
EAGLE, BALD
OWL, MEXICAN SPOTTED
FERRET, BLACK-FOOTED
EAGLE, BALD
TROUT, GREENBACK CUTTHROAT
SKIPPER, PAWNEE MONTANE
EAGLE, BALD
BUTTERFLY, UNCOMPAHGRE
FRITILLARY.
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
OWL, MEXICAN SPOTTED
TROUT, GREENBACK CUTTHROAT
EAGLE, BALD
OWL, MEXICAN SPOTTED
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
SQUAWFISH, COLORADO
SUCKER, RAZORBACK
FERRET, BLACK-FOOTED
CACTUS, UINTA BASIN HOOKLESS
EAGLE, BALD
BEARDTONGUE, PENLAND
MILK-VETCH, OSTERHOUT .
Cordylanthes palmatus
Neostapfia colusana
Thamnophis gtgas
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Pelicanus occidentalis
Linderiella occidentalis
Branchinecta lynchi
Lepidurus packardi
Desmocerus califomicus dimorphus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Strix occidentalis lucida
Mustela nighpes
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Strix occidentalis lucida
Mustela nigripes
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus .
Salmo clarki stomias
Spiranthes diluvialis
Haliaeetus leucocephalus .
Fateo peregrinus
Strix occidentalis lucida
Boloria acrocnema
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Salmo clarki stomias
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Strix occidentalis lucida
Mustela nigripes
Mustela nigripes
Falco peregrinus
Strix occidentalis lucida
Salmo clarki stomias
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Fateo peregrinus
Ptychocheilus lucius
Xyrauchen texanus
Mustela nigripes
Echinocereus triglochidiatus var. inermis
Sclerocactus glaucus (-Echinocactus g, S.
whipplei).
Eriogonum pelinophilum
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Strix occidentalis lucida
Mustela nigripes
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Salmo clarki stomias
Hesperia leonardus (=pawnee) montana
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Boloria acrocnema
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Strix occidentalis lucida
Salmo clarki stomias
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Strix occidentalis lucida
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Ptychocheilus lucius
Xyrauchen texanus
Mustela nigripes
Sclerocactus glaucus (^Echinocactus g, S.
whipplei).
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Penstemon penlandii
Astragalus osterhoutii
L, E
L, T
L, T
L, T
L, E
P, E
L. T
L, E
L, T, CH
L, T
L, T
L, E
L, T, CH
L, E
L, T
L, E
L, T, CH
L, E
L, T
L, T
L, T
L, T
L, T
L, E
L, T, CH
L, E
L, T
L, T
L, T
L, E
L, T, CH
L, E
L. E
L, E
L, T, CH
L, T
L, T
L, E
L, CH
L, E, CH
L, E
L, E
L, T
L, E, CH
L, T
L, T, CH
L, E
L, T
L, T
L, T
L, T
L, E
L, T
L, E
L, T, CH
L, T
L, T
L, T, CH
L, T
L, E
L, CH
L, E, CH
L, E
L, T
L, T
L, E
L, E
-------
7944
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 31/Tuesday, February 17, 1998/Notices
IV. COUNTY/SPECIES LIST—Continued
[The following list identifies federally listed or proposed U.S. species by State and County. It has been updated through September 1, 1997.
Note: Species listed below with a status of both E and T are generally either endangered or threatened within the specified county. The as-
signment 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 Instructions). Designation of critical habitat (CH) does not mean
that the county constitutes critical habitat, only that critical habitat has been designated for that species (see Addendum A Instructions).]
State/County
HINSDALE
HUERFANO
JACKSON
JEFFERSON
KIOWA
LAKE
LARIMER
LAS ANIMAS
LINCOLN
LOGAN
MESA
MOFFAT
MONTEZUMA
MONTROSE
MORGAN
OTERO
OURAY
Group name
BIRDS
INSECTS
MAMMALS
BIRDS
INSECTS
BIRDS
FISHES
BIRDS
PLANTS
BIRDS
INSECTS
PLANTS
BIRDS
BIRDS
MAMMALS
PLANTS
BIRDS
FISHES
INSECTS
BIRDS
FISHES
BIRDS
BIRDS
BIRDS
BIRDS
FISHES
MAMMALS
PLANTS
BIRDS
FISHES
MAMMALS
BIRDS
FISHES
MAMMALS
PLANTS
BIRDS
MAMMALS
PLANTS
BIRDS
PLANTS
BIRDS
BIRDS
Inverse name
EAGLE BALD
FALCON PEREGRINE
BUTTERFLY UNCOMPAHGRE
FRITILLARY.
FERRET BLACK-FOOTED
EAGLE, BALD
OWL MEXICAN SPOTTED
BUTTERFLY UNCOMPAHGRE
FRITILLARY.
EAGLE BALD
FALCON PEREGRINE
OWL MEXICAN SPOTTED
TROUT GREENBACK CUTTHROAT
EAGLE BALD
FALCON PEREGRINE
PHACELIA NORTH PARK
EAGLE BALD
SKIPPER PAWNEE MONTANE
LADIES'-TRESSES UTE
EAGLE BALD
EAGLE BALD
FALCON PEREGRINE
OWL MEXICAN SPOTTED
FERRET BLACK-FOOTED
CACTUS KNOWLTON
OWL, MEXICAN SPOTTED
TROUT GREENBACK CUTTHROAT
BUTTERFLY UNCOMPAHGRE
FRITILLARY.
EAGLE BALD
FALCON PEREGRINE
TROUT GREENBACK CUTTHROAT
EAGLE BALD
EAGLE BALD
EAGLE BALD
EAGLE BALD
FALCON PEREGRINE
CHUB BONYTAIL
CHUB HUMPBACK
SQUAWFISH COLORADO
SUCKER RAZORBACK
FERRET BLACK-FOOTED
CACTUS SPINELESS HEDGEHOG
CACTUS UINTA BASIN HOOKLESS
EAGLE BALD
FALCON PEREGRINE
OWL MEXICAN SPOTTED
CHUB BONYTAIL
CHUB HUMPBACK
SQUAWFISH COLORADO
SUCKER RAZORBACK
FERRET BLACK-FOOTED
EAGLE BALD
FALCON PEREGRINE
OWL MEXICAN SPOTTED
SQUAWFISH COLORADO
FERRET BLACK-FOOTED
CACTUS MESA VERDE
MILK-VETCH MANGOS
EAGLE BALD
FALCON PEREGRINE
OWL MEXICAN SPOTTED
FERRET BLACK-FOOTED
CACTUS, SPINELESS HEDGEHOG
CACTUS UINTA BASIN HOOKLESS
WILD-BUCKWHEAT CLAY-LOVING
EAGLE BALD
LADIES'-TRESSES UTE
EAGLE BALD
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON. PEREGRINE
Scientific name
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Mustela nigripes
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Strix occidentalis lucida . ..
Boloria acrocnema
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Strix occidentalis lucida
Salmo dark! stomias
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Phacelia formosula
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Hesperia leonardus (-pawnee) montana
Spiranthes diluvialis '.
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Strix occidentalis lucida
Mustela nigripes
Pediocactus knowttonii
Strix occidentalis lucida
Salmo dark! stomias
Boloria acrocnema
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Salmo dark! stomias
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Gila elegans
Gila cvoha
Ptychocheilus lucius
Mustela nigripes
Echinocereus trigtochidiatus var. inermis
Sclerocactus glaucus (=Echinocactus g, S.
whlpplei).
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Strix occidentalis lucida
Gila elegans
Gilacypha
Ptychocheilus lucius
Xyrauchen texanus
Mustela nigripes
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Strix occidentalis lucida
Ptychocheilus lucius
Mustela nigripes
Sclerocactus mesae-verdae («Pedk>cactus
m).
Astragalus humillimus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Strix occidentalis lucida
Mustela nigripes
Echinocereus trigtochidiatus var. inermis
Sclerocactus glaucus (=Echinocactus g, S.
whipplei).
Eriogonum pelinophilum
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Spiranthes diluvialis
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco oerearinus
Action/
Status
L, T
L, E
L, E
L, E
L, T
L, T, CH
L, E
L, T
L E
L, T, CH
L, T
L, T
L, E
L, E
L, T
L,T
L, T
L.T
L, T
L, E
L, T, CH
L, E
L, E
L, T, CH
L, T
L, E
L,T
L, E
L, T
L,T
L, T
L.T
L,T
L E
L, E, CH
L, E, CH
L, CH
L E, CH
L, E
L, E
L, T
L, T
L E
L, T, CH
L, E, CH
L, E, CH
L, CH
L, E, CH
L, E
L,T
L E
L, T, CH
L, CH
L, E
L, T
L, E
L, T
L, E
L, T, CH
L, E
L, E
L, T
L, E, CH
L.T
L, T
L, T
L, T
L. E
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 31/Tuesday, February 17, 1998/Notices
7945
IV. COUNTY/SPECIES LIST—Continued
[The following list identifies federally listed or proposed U.S. species by State and County. It has been updated through September 1 1997
Note: Species listed below with a status of both E and T are generally either endangered or threatened within the specified county The as-
signment 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
^fffh!tUSeS^f'9" e/!dfngervd 'f'FSjfT0 !Mss,i9n.?d (see Addendum A Instructions). Designation of critical habitat (CH) does not mean
that the county constitutes cntical habitat, only that critical habitat has been designated for that species (see Addendum A Instructions) ]
State/County
PARK
PITKIN
PROWERS
PUEBLO
RIO BLANCO
RIO GRANDE
ROUTT
SAGUACHE
SAN JUAN
SAN MIGUEL
SEDGWICK
SUMMIT
TELLER
WASHINGTON
WELD
YUMA
CONNECTICUT
FAIRFIELD
HARTFORD
LITCHFIELD
MIDDLESEX
NEW HAVEN
NEW LONDON
TOLLAND
Group name
INSECTS
MAMMALS
BIRDS
FISHES
INSECTS
PLANTS
INSECTS
BIRDS
BIRDS
BIRDS
FISHES
MAMMALS
PLANTS
BIRDS
MAMMALS
BIRDS
MAMMALS
BIRDS
INSECTS
MAMMALS
BIRDS
BIRDS
INSECTS
MAMMALS
PLANTS
BIRDS
BIRDS
PLANTS
BIRDS ..
INSECTS
BIRDS
BIRDS
PLANTS
BIRDS
BIRDS
MAMMALS
BIRDS
FISHES
MAMMALS
BIRDS
MAMMALS
PLANTS
BIRDS
FISHES
INSECTS
MAMMALS
BIRDS
MAMMALS
BIRDS
MAMMALS
MAMMALS
PLANTS
Inverse name
OWL, MEXICAN SPOTTED
BUTTERFLY, UNCOMPAHGRE FRI-
TILLARY
FERRET, BLACK-FOOTED
EAGLE, BALD
TROUT, GREENBACK CUTTHROAT
SKIPPER, PAWNEE MONTANE
MUSTARD, PENLAND ALPINE FEN
BUTTERFLY, UNCOMPAHGRE FRI-
TILLARY.
EAGLE, BALD
EAGLE, BALD
OWL, MEXICAN SPOTTED
EAGLE, BALD
SQUAWFISH, COLORADO
FERRET, BLACK-FOOTED
BLADDERPOD, DUDLEY BLUFFS
TWINPOD, DUDLEY BLUFFS
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
OWL, MEXICAN SPOTTED
FERRET, BLACK-FOOTED
EAGLE, BALD
FERRET, BLACK-FOOTED
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
OWL, MEXICAN SPOTTED ... .
BUTTERFLY, UNCOMPAHGRE FRI-
TILLARY.
FERRET, BLACK-FOOTED
EAGLE, BALD ....
OWL, MEXICAN SPOTTED
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
OWL, MEXICAN SPOTTED
BUTTERFLY, UNCOMPAHGRE FRI-
TILLARY.
FERRET, BLACK-FOOTED
CACTUS SPINELESS HEDGEHOG
EAGLE, BALD
EAGLE, BALD
MUSTARD, PENLAND ALPINE FEN
FALCON, PEREGRINE
OWL, MEXICAN SPOTTED
SKIPPER, PAWNEE MONTANE
EAGLE, BALD
CRANE, WHOOPING
EAGLE, BALD
LADIES'-TRESSES UTE
EAGLE, BALD
EAGLE, BALD
PLOVER PIPING
BAT, INDIANA
EAGLE, BALD
STURGEON, SHORTNOSE
BAT, INDIANA
EAGLE, BALD
BAT, INDIANA
POGONIA, SMALL WHORLED
EAGLE, BALD
PLOVER, PIPING
STURGEON, SHORTNOSE
BEETLE, PURITAN TIGER
BAT, INDIANA
EAGLE, BALD
PLOVER, PIPING
TERN, ROSEATE
BAT, INDIANA
PLOVER, PIPING
BAT, INDIANA
BAT, INDIANA
POGONIA, SMALL WHORLED
Scientific name
Strix occidentalis lucida
Boloria acrocnema
Mustela nigripes
Salmo clarki stomias
Eutrema penlandii
Strix occidentalis lucida
Ptychocheilus lucius
Mustela nigripes
Lesquerella congesta
Physaria obcordata
Falco peregrinus
Strix occidentalis lucida
Mustela nigripes
Mustela nigripes
Falco peregrinus
Strix occidentalis lucida
Boloria acrocnema
Mustela nigripes
Strix occidentalis lucida
Falco peregrinus
Strix occidentalis lucida
Boloria acrocnema
Mustela nigripes
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Eutrema penlandii
Strix occidentalis lucida
Grus americana
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Spiranthes diluvialis
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Myotis sodalis
Myotis sodalis
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Myotis sodalis
Isotria medeoloides
Acipenser brevirostrum
Cicindela puritana
Myotis sodalis
Charadrius melodus
Sterna dougalli dougalli
Myotis sodalis
Charadrius melodus
Myotis sodalis
Isotria medeoloides
Action/
Status
L T CH
L £
l_ E
|_ T
L T
L T CH
L CH
L E
l_ f
L T
L E
L T CH
L E
|_ E
[_ T
L E
L T CH
L E
L E
[_ -j-
L T CH
L T
L E
L T CH
l_ E
L E
L E
L f
|_ T
L T
L E
L T CH
L T
L T
L E CH
L T
L T
L T
L T
LET
L E CH
L T
L E
L E CH
L T
L E CH
L T
L T
LET
L E
L T
L E CH
L -|-
L E T
LET
L E CH
LET
L E CH
L E CH
L. T
-------
7946
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 31/Tuesday. February 17. 1998/Notices
IV. COUNTY/SPECIES LIST—Continued
[The following
Note: Species I
sianment of two siaius aesignauuns iui a ducuco m a o^cunw \*\«uiii; •*» » ,«,•«««.. «. «•« —-•—— ;—- — —i'~r ~""u~ ~ j ' u-^u «« u*A
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 sTaSs ("^endangered threatened) is assigned (see Addendum A Instructions). Designation o cntical habitat (CH) does no mean
mat the county constitutes critical habitat, only that critical habitat has been designated for that species (see Addendum A Instructions).]
State/County
WINDHAM
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
DELAWARE
KENT
NEW CASTLE
SUSSEX
GUAM
GUAM
IOWA
ADAMS
BUTLER
Group name
BIRDS
MAMMALS
BIRDS
CRUSTACEAN ....
BIRDS
FISHES
BIRDS
FISHES
BIRDS
3IRDS
BIRDS
REPTILES
MAMMALS
PLANTS
BIRDS
BIRDS
MAMMALS
PLANTS
PLANTS
PLANTS
PLANTS
PLANTS
PLANTS
Inverse name
EAGLE, BALD
BAT, INDIANA
EAGLE, BALD
EAGLE, BALD
STURGEON, SHORTNOSE
PINK SWAMP
TURTLE, KEMP'S (ATLANTIC) RIDLEY
SEA.
EAGLE, BALD
STURGEON, SHORTNOSE
PINK SWAMP
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
PLOVER PIPING
SQUIRREL, DELMARVA PENINSULA FOX
PINK SWAMP
TURTLE, KEMP'S (ATLANTIC) RIDLEY
SEA.
BROADBILL, GUAM
CROW, MARIANA
KINGFISHER, GUAM MICRONESIAN
SWIFTLET, MARIANA GRAY (=VANIKORO)
WHITE EYE BRIDLED (NOSSA)
BAT MARIANA FRUIT
DUGONG
HAYUN LAGU (TRONKON GUAFI)
TURTLE GREEN SEA
BAT INDIANA
BUSH CLOVER PRAIRIE
ORCHID, WESTERN PRAIRIE FRINGED ....
BAT, INDIANA
BUSH-CLOVER, PRAIRIE
EAGLE BALD
PEARLYMUSSEL HIGGINS' EYE
MONKSHOOD NORTHERN WILD
EAGLE BALD
BAT INDIANA
BUSH-CLOVER PRAIRIE
ORCHID, EASTERN PRAIRIE FRINGED ....
ORCHID, WESTERN PRAIRIE FRINGED ...
BUSH-CLOVER PRAIRIE
ORCHID, WESTERN PRAIRIE FRINGED ...
BUSH-CLOVER, PRAIRIE
ORCHID, WESTERN PRAIRIE FRINGED ...
BUSH-CLOVER PRAIRIE
ORCHID, WESTERN PRAIRIE FRINGED ...
BUSH-CLOVER PRAIRIE
ORCHID, WESTERN PRAIRIE FRINGED ...
BUSH-CLOVER PRAIRIE
ORCHID, WESTERN PRAIRIE FRINGED ...
BUSH-CLOVER PRAIRIE
ORCHID, WESTERN PRAIRIE FRINGED ...
BUSH-CLOVER PRAIRIE
ORCHID, WESTERN PRAIRIE FRINGED ...
BUSH-CLOVER, PRAIRIE
Scientific name
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Myotis sodalis
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Acipenser brevirostrum
Helonias bullata
Eretmochelys imbricata
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Acipenser brevirostrum
Helonias bullata
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Charadrius melodus
Heionias bullata
Lepidochelys kempii
Myiagra freycineti
Con/us kubaryi
Halcyon cinnamomina cinnamomina
Rallus owstoni
Zosterops conspicillata conspicillata
Zosterops conspicillata conspicillata
Pteropus tokudae
Pteropus mariannus mariannus
Dugong dugon
Serianthes nelsonii
Chelonia mydas
Eretmochelys imbricata
Myotis sodalis
Lespedeza leptostachya
Asclepias meadii
Myotis sodalis
Lespedeza leptostachya
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Lampsilis higginsi
Lespedeza leptostachya
Aconitum noveboracense
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Myotis sodalis
Lespedeza leptostachya
Lespedeza leptostachya
Lespedeza leptostachya
Lespedeza leptostachya
Lespedeza leptostachya
Lespedeza leptostachya
Lespedeza leptostachya
Platanthera praeclara
Lespedeza leptostachya
Lespedeza leptostachya
Action/
Status
L, T
L, E, CH
L, T
L, E
L, T
L, E
L, T
L, E, CH
L, E
L, T
L, T
L, E
L, T
L, T
L, T
L, E
L, E, T
L, E
L, T
L, E
L, T
L, E
L, E
L, E
L, E
L, E
L, E
L, E
L, E
L, E
L, E
L, E
L, E
L, E, T
L, E, CH
L, E, CH
L, T
L, T
L, T
L, E, CH
L, T
L, T
L, E
L, T
L, T
L, T
L, E, CH
L, T
L, T
L, T
L, T
L, T
L, T
L, T
L, T
L, T
L, T
L, T
L, T
L, T
L, T
L, T
L, T
L, T
L, T
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63. No. 31/Tuesday, February 17, 1998/Notices
7947
IV. COUNTY/SPECIES LIST—Continued
State/County
Group name
Inverse name
Scientific name
Action/
Status
CALHOUN
CARROLL .
CASS
CEDAR
CERRO GORDO
CHEROKEE ...
CHICKASAW .
CLARKE
CLAY
CLAYTON
CLINTON
CRAWFORD .
DALLAS
DAVIS
DECATUR
DELAWARE ...
DES MOINES
DICKINSON ....
DUBUQUE
EMMET ....
FAYETTE .
PLANTS
PLANTS
MAMMALS
PLANTS
MAMMALS
PLANTS
PLANTS
PLANTS
PLANTS
MAMMALS
PLANTS
PLANTS
BIRDS ...
CLAMS ..
PLANTS
SNAILS
BIRDS
CLAMS
'LANTS ....
SNAILS .
LANTS
MAMMALS
'LANTS
MAMMALS
PLANTS
MAMMALS
'LANTS
PLANTS
BIRDS
CLAMS
MAMMALS
'LANTS
ISHES .
'LANTS
BIRDS ...
CLAMS
MAMMALS
'LANTS ....
iNAILS .
LANTS
LANTS
NAILS .
ORCHID, WESTERN PRAIRIE FRINGED
BUSH-CLOVER, PRAIRIE
ORCHID, WESTERN PRAIRIE FRINGED
BUSH-CLOVER, PRAIRIE
ORCHID, WESTERN PRAIRIE FRINGED
BAT, INDIANA
BUSH-CLOVER, PRAIRIE
ORCHID, WESTERN PRAIRIE FRINGED
BAT, INDIANA
BUSH-CLOVER, PRAIRIE
ORCHID, EASTERN PRAIRIE FRINGED ..
ORCHID, WESTERN PRAIRIE FRINGED
BUSH-CLOVER, PRAIRIE
FERN, AMERICAN HARTS-TONGUE
ORCHID, WESTERN PRAIRIE FRINGED
BUSH-CLOVER, PRAIRIE
ORCHID, WESTERN PRAIRIE FRINGED .
BUSH-CLOVER, PRAIRIE
ORCHID, WESTERN PRAIRIE FRINGED
BAT, INDIANA
BUSH-CLOVER, PRAIRIE
MILKWEED, MEAD'S
ORCHID, WESTERN PRAIRIE FRINGED
BUSH-CLOVER, PRAIRIE
EAGLE, BALD
PEARLYMUSSEL, HIGGINS' EYE
BUSH-CLOVER, PRAIRIE
MONKSHOOD. NORTHERN WILD
ORCHID, WESTERN PRAIRIE FRINGED ..
SNAIL, IOWA PLEISTOCENE
EAGLE, BALD
PEARLYMUSSEL, HIGGINS' EYE
BUSH-CLOVER, PRAIRIE
ORCHID, WESTERN PRAIRIE FRINGED ..
SNAIL, IOWA PLEISTOCENE
BUSH-CLOVER, PRAIRIE
ORCHID, WESTERN PRAIRIE FRINGED ..
BAT, INDIANA
BUSH-CLOVER, PRAIRIE
ORCHID, WESTERN PRAIRIE FRINGED
BAT, INDIANA
BUSH-CLOVER, PRAIRIE
ORCHID, EASTERN PRAIRIE FRINGED ...
ORCHID, WESTERN PRAIRIE FRINGED ..
BAT, INDIANA
BUSH-CLOVER, PRAIRIE
MILKWEED, MEAD'S
ORCHID, EASTERN PRAIRIE FRINGED ..
ORCHID, WESTERN PRAIRIE FRINGED ...
BUSH-CLOVER, PRAIRIE
MONKSHOOD, NORTHERN WILD
ORCHID, WESTERN PRAIRIE FRINGED ...
EAGLE, BALD
'EARLYMUSSEL, HIGGINS' EYE
'OCKETBOOK, FAT
BAT, INDIANA
BUSH-CLOVER, PRAIRIE ....
ORCHID, EASTERN PRAIRIE FRINGED ....
ORCHID, WESTERN PRAIRIE FRINGED
SALMON, SNAKE RIVER SOCKEYE
BUSH-CLOVER, PRAIRIE
ORCHID, WESTERN PRAIRIE FRINGED
EAGLE, BALD
PEARLYMUSSEL, HIGGINS' EYE
3AT, INDIANA
IUSH-CLOVER, PRAIRIE
MONKSHOOD, NORTHERN WILD
ORCHID, WESTERN PRAIRIE FRINGED
MAIL, IOWA PLEISTOCENE
USH-CLOVER, PRAIRIE
IRCHID, WESTERN PRAIRIE FRINGED ....
USH-CLOVER, PRAIRIE
IRCHID, WESTERN PRAIRIE FRINGED
NAIL. IOWA PLEISTOCENE
Platanthera praeclara
Lespedeza leptostachya
Platanthera praeclara
Lespedeza leptostachya
Platanthera praeclara
Myotis sodalis
Lespedeza leptostachya
Platanthera praeclara
Myotis sodalis
Lespedeza leptostachya
Platanthera leucophaea
Platanthera praeclara
Lespedeza leptostachya
Phyllitis scolopendrium var. americana
Platanthera praeclara
Lespedeza leptostachya
Platanthera praeclara
Lespedeza leptostachya
Platanthera praeclara
Myotis sodalis
Lespedeza leptostachya
Asclepias meadii
Platanthera praeclara
Lespedeza leptostachya
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Lampsilis higginsi
Lespedeza leptostachya
Aconitum noveboracense
Platanthera praeclara
Discus macclintocki
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Lampsilis higginsi
Lespedeza leptostachya
3latanthera praeclara
Discus macclintocki
Lespedeza leptostachya
latanthera praeclara
Myotis sodalis
.espedeza leptostachya
'latanthera praeclara
Myotis sodalis
Lespedeza leptostachya
"latanthera leucophaea
Platanthera praeclara
Myotis sodalis
Lespedeza leptostachya
Asclepias meadii
'latanthera leucophaea
'latanthera praeclara
Lespedeza leptostachya
Aconitum noveboracense
'latanthera praeclara
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Lampsilis higginsi
Potamilus (=Proptera) capax
Myotis sodalis
.espedeza leptostachya
'latanthera leucophaea
'latanthera praeclara
Oncomynchus nerka
.espedeza leptostachya
'latanthera praeclara
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
ampsilis higginsi
rfyotis sodalis
espedeza leptostachya
Vconitum noveboracense
'latanthera praeclara
)iscus macclintocki
espedeza leptostachya
latanthera praeclara
espedeza leptostachya
'latanthera praeclara
ilscus macclintocki
L, T
L, T
L, T
L, T
L, T
L, E, CH
L, T
L, T
L, E, CH
L, T
L, T
L, T
L, T
L, T
L, T
L, T
L, T
L, T
L, T
L, E, CH
L, T
L, T
L, T
L, T
L, T
L, E
L, T
L, T
L, T
L, E
L, T
L, E
L, T
L, T
L, E
L, T
L, T
L, E, CH
L, T
L, T
L, E, CH
,T
,T
,T
,E. CH
,T
,T
,T
,T
,T
,T
,T
,T
,E
,E
,E, CH
,T
,T
T
E, CH
T
T
T
E
E, CH
T
T
T
E
T
T
T
T
E
-------
7948
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 31/Tuesday, February 17, 1998/Notices
IV. COUNTY/SPECIES LIST—Continued
[The following list identifies federally listed or proposed U.S. species by State and County. It has been updated through September 1, 1997.
1 Note-Species listed below with a status of both E and T are generally either endangered or threatened within the specified county. The as-
signment 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
f& penriit, howewr, the obligation to assess the impact of storm water discharges on listed species does not vary based on "•»*"*•»
hwo statuses (e.g., endangered threatened) is assigned (see Addendum A Instructions). Designation of cntical habitat (CH) does not mean
ttiat the county constitutes critical habitat, only that critical habitat has been designated for that species (see Addendum A Instructions).]
State/County
Group name
PLANTS
BIRDS
PLANTS
PLANTS
MAMMALS
PLANTS
PLANTS
BIRDS
BIRDS
MAMMALS
PLANTS
PLANTS
PLANTS
BIRDS
BIRDS
CLAMS
MAMMALS
PLANTS
BIRDS
BIRDS
CLAMS
BIRDS
MAMMALS
PLANTS
BIRDS
MAMMALS
Inverse name
BUSH-CLOVER PRAIRIE
BUSH-CLOVER PRAIRIE
ORCHID WESTERN PRAIRIE FRINGED
EAGLE BALD
STURGEON PALLID
BAT INDIANA
BUSH-CLOVER PRAIRIE
ORCHID WESTERN PRAIRIE FRINGED
BUSH-CLOVER PRAIRIE
BUSH-CLOVER PRAIRIE
BAT INDIANA
BUSH-CLOVER PRAIRIE
nprmn UUPQTPRN PRAIRIF FRINGED
BUSH-CLOVER PRAIRIE
BUSH-CLOVER PRAIRIE
EAGLE BALD
BUSH-CLOVER PRAIRIE
ORCHID WESTERN PRAIRIE FRINGED
EAGLE BALD
STURGEON PALLID
BAT INDIANA
BUSH-CLOVER PRAIRIE
BAT INDIANA
BUSH-CLOVER PRAIRIE
BUSH-CLOVER PRAIRIE
BUSH-CLOVER PRAIRIE
BUSH-CLOVER PRAIRIE
EAGLE BALD
BAT INDIANA
BUSH-CLOVER PRAIRIE
nnrHin FA^TFRN PRAIRIF FRINGED
ORCHID WESTERN PRAIRIE FRINGED
EAGLE BALD
PEARLYMUSSEL HIGGINS' EYE
BUSH-CLOVER PRAIRIE
MONKSHOOD NORTHERN WILD
SNAIL IOWA PLEISTOCENE
BAT INDIANA
BUSH-CLOVER PRAIRIE
ORCHID WESTERN PRAIRIE FRINGED
EAGLE BALD
BAT INDIANA
BUSH-CLOVER PRAIRIE
ORCHID WESTERN PRAIRIE FRINGED
EAGLE BALD
POCKETBOOK FAT
BAT INDIANA
BUSH-CLOVER PRAIRIE
ORCHID WESTERN PRAIRIE FRINGED
EAGLE BALD
BUSH-CLOVER PRAIRIE
BAT INDIANA
BUSH-CLOVER PRAIRIE
ORCHID WESTERN PRAIRIE FRINGED
BUSH-CLOVER, PRAIRIE
ORCHID WESTERN PRAIRIE FRINGED
EAGLE BALD
PEARLYMUSSEL HIGGINS' EYE
BAT. INDIANA
Scientific name
Lespedeza leptostachya
Lespedeza leptostachya
Hallaeetus leucocephalus
Scaphirhynchus albus
Myotls sodalis
Lespedeza leptostachya
Platanthena praeclara
Lespedeza leptostachya
Lespedeza leptostachya
Myotis sodalis
Lespedeza leptostachya
Platanthera praeclara
Lespedeza leptostachya
Lespedeza leptostachya
Hallaeetus leucocephalus
Lespedeza leptostachya
Platanthera praeclara
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Scaphirtiynchus albus
Myotls sodalis
Lespedeza leptostachya
Myotis sodalis
Lespedeza leptostachya
Lespedeza leptostachya
Platanthera praeclara
Lespedeza leptostachya
Platanthera praeclara
Lespedeza leptostachya
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Myotis sodalis
Lespedeza leptostachya
Platanthera praeclara
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Lampsilis higginsi
Lespedeza leptostachya
Aconitum noveboracense
Discus macclintocki
Myotis sodalis
Lespedeza leptostachya
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Myotis sodalis
Lespedeza leptostachya
Platanthera praeclara
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Potamilus (=Proptera) capax
Myotis sodalis
Lespedeza leptostachya
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Lespedeza leptostachya
Myotis sodalis
Lespedeza leptostachya
Platanthera praeclara
Lespedeza leptostachya
Platanthera praeclara
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Myotis sodalis
Action/
Status
., T
., T
L, T
L, T
L, T
L, E
L, E, CH
L, T
L, T
L, T
•j-
L, T
-, T
L, E, CH
-, T
L, T
L, T
-, T
L, T
-, T
L, T
-, T
L, T
L, T
L, E
L, E, CH
L, T
L, T
L, E, CH
L, T
L, T
L, T
L, T
L, T
L,T
L, T
L, T
L, T
L, T
L, E, CH
L, T
L, T
L, T
L, T
L. E
L, T
L, T
L, T
L, E
L, E, CH
L, T
L, T
L, T
L, E, CH
L, T
L, T
L, T
L, T
L, E
L, E, CH
L, T
L, T
L. T
L, T
L, T
L, E, CH
L, T
L T
L. T
L. T
L, T
L, T
L, E
L, E, CH
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 31/Tuesday, February 17, 1998/Notices
7949
IV. COUNTY/SPECIES LIST—Continued
[The following list identifies federally listed or proposed U.S. species by State and County. It has been updated throuah Sentember 1 IQQ?
2±; Spe
-------
7950
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 31/Tuesday, February 17, 1998/Notices
IV. COUNTY/SPECIES LIST—Continued
[The following list identifies federally listed or proposed U.S. species by State and County. It has been updated through September 1\ 1997.
Note- Species listed below with a status of both E and T are generally either endangered or threatened within the specified county. The as-
signment 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 Instructions). Designation of cntical habitat (CH) does not mean
that the county constitutes critical habitat, only that critical habitat has been designated for that species (see Addendum A Instructions).]
State/County
SAC
Group name
MAMMALS
MAMMALS
PLANTS
BIRDS
PLANTS
PISI_II=S
PLANTS
PLANTS
MAMMALS
MAMMALS
BIRDS
BIRDS
MAMMALS
PLANTS
MAMMALS
MAMMALS
PLANTS
PLANTS
PLANTS
PLANTS
BIRDS
PLANTS
Inverse name
EAGLE BALD
PLOVER PIPING
TERN INTERIOR (POPULATION) LEAST
STURGEON PALLID
BAT INDIANA
BUSH-CLOVER PRAIRIE
ORCHID WESTERN PRAIRIE FRINGED
BAT INDIANA
BUSH-CLOVER PRAIRIE
ORCHID WESTERN PRAIRIE FRINGED
BAT INDIANA
BUSH-CLOVER PRAIRIE
MILKWEED MEAD'S
BUSH-CLOVER, PRAIRIE
ORCHID, WESTERN PRAIRIE FRINGED ....
EAGLE BALD
FALCON PEREGRINE
PEARLYMUSSEL HIGGINS1 EYE
BAT INDIANA
BUSH-CLOVER PRAIRIE
ORCHID WESTERN PRAIRIE FRINGED
BUSH-CLOVER PRAIRIE
STURGEON PALLID
BUSH-CLOVER PRAIRIE
ORCHID WESTERN PRAIRIE FRINGED ..
BUSH-CLOVER PRAIRIE
BUSH-CLOVER, PRAIRIE
BAT INDIANA
BUSH-CLOVER PRAIRIE
BAT INDIANA
BUSH-CLOVER PRAIRIE
MILKWEED MEAD'S
EAGLE BALD
BAT INDIANA
BUSH-CLOVER PRAIRIE
ORCHID WESTERN PRAIRIE FRINGED
EAGLE, BALD
BAT INDIANA
BUSH-CLOVER PRAIRIE
ORCHID EASTERN PRAIRIE FRINGED
ORCHID WESTERN PRAIRIE FRINGED
BAT INDIANA
BUSH-CLOVER PRAIRIE
MILKWEED MEAD'S
BAT INDIANA
BUSH-CLOVER PRAIRIE
BAT INDIANA
BUSH-CLOVER PRAIRIE
MILKWEED MEAD'S
ORCHID EASTERN PRAIRIE FRINGED
ORCHID WESTERN PRAIRIE FRINGED
BUSH-CLOVER PRAIRIE
ORCHID WESTERN PRAIRIE FRINGED
BUSH-CLOVER, PRAIRIE
ORCHID WESTERN PRAIRIE FRINGED
BUSH-CLOVER, PRAIRIE
SNAIL IOWA PLEISTOCENE
EAGLE BALD
PLOVER PIPING
TERN INTERIOR (POPULATION) LEAST
STURGEON PALLID
BUSH-CLOVER, PRAIRIE
Scientific name
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Charadrius melodus
Sterna antillarum
Scaphirhynchus albus
Myotis sodalis
Lespedeza leptostachya
Platanthera praeclara
Myotis sodalis
Lespedeza leptostachya
Platanthera praeclara
Myotis sodalis
Lespedeza leptostachya
Asclepias meadii
Lespedeza leptostachya
Platanthera praeclara
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Lampsilis higginsi
Myotis sodalis
Lespedeza leptostachya
Lespedeza leptostachya
Scaphirtiynchus albus
Lespedeza leptostachya
Platanthera praeclara
Lespedeza leptostachya
Lespedeza leptostachya
Myotis sodalis
Lespedeza leptostachya
Myotis sodalis
Lespedeza leptostachya
Asclepias meadii
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Myotis sodalis
Lespedeza leptostachya
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Myotis sodalis
Lespedeza leptostachya
Platanthera leucophaea
Platanthera praeclara
Myotis sodalis
Lespedeza leptostachya
Asclepias meadii
Myotis sodalis
Lespedeza leptostachya
Myotis sodalis
Lespedeza leptostachya
Asclepias meadii
Platanthera leucophaea
Platanthera praeclara
Lespedeza leptostachya
Lespedeza leptostachya
Lespedeza leptostachya
Discus macclintocki
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Charadrius melodus
Scaphirhynchus albus
Lespedeza leptostachya
Action/
Status
-, T
L, T
L, E, T
L, E
L, E
L, E, CH
L, T
L, T
L, E, CH
L, T
L, T
L, E, CH
L, T
L, T
L, T
L, T
L, T
L, T
-, E
L, E
L, E, CH
L, T
L, T
L, T
L, T
L, T
L, E
L, T
L, T
L, T
L, T
L, T
L, T
L, E, CH
L, T
L, T
L, E, CH
L, T
L, T
L, T
U, T
L, E, CH
L, T
L, T
L, T
L, T
L, E, CH
L. T
L, T
L. T
L, E, CH
L, T
L, T
L, T
L, E, CH
L. T
L, T
L T
L, E, CH
L, T
L, T
L, T
L, T
L, T
L, T
L, T
L, T
L, T
L, E
L, T
L, E, T
L, E
L, E
L, T
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63. No. 31/Tuesday, February 17, 1998/Notices
7951
IV. COUNTY/SPECIES LIST—Continued
State/County
WORTH
WRIGHT
IDAHO
ADA
ADAMS
BANNOCK
BEAR LAKE
BENEWAH
BINGHAM
BLAINE
BOISE
BONNER
BONNEVILLE
BOUNDARY
BUTTE
CAMAS
CANYON
CARIBOU
CASSIA
CLARK
CLEARWATER
Group name
PLANTS .
PLANTS
BIRDS
FISHES
BIRDS
FISHES
MAMMALS
BIRDS
BIRDS
MAMMALS
BIRDS
BIRDS
FISHES
MAMMALS
FISHES
MAMMALS
FISHES
MAMMALS
BIRDS
MAMMALS
FISHES
MAMMALS
BIRDS
BIRDS
IIRDS
ISHES
BIRDS
IRDS
MAMMALS
JIRDS
Inverse name
ORCHID, WESTERN PRAIRIE FRINGED
BUSH-CLOVER PRAIRIE
ORCHID, WESTERN PRAIRIE FRINGED ...
BUSH-CLOVER PRAIRIE
ORCHID, WESTERN PRAIRIE FRINGED ...
FALCON, PEREGRINE
TROUT, BULL (COLUMBIA RIVER POPU
LATION).
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
SALMON, CHINOOK (SNAKE RIVER FALL
RUN).
SALMON, CHINOOK (SNAKE RIVER
SPRING/SUMMER).
STEELHEAD, SNAKE RIVER BASIN POPU-
LATION.
STEELHEAD, SNAKE RIVER BASIN POPU-
LATION.
TROUT, BULL (COLUMBIA RIVER POPU-
LATION).
WOLF, GRAY
FALCON, PEREGRINE
FALCON, PEREGRINE
WOLF, GRAY
EAGLE, BALD
EAGLE, BALD
SALMON, CHINOOK (SNAKE RIVER
SPRING/SUMMER).
SALMON, SNAKE RIVER SOCKEYE
WOLF, GRAY
TROUT, BULL (COLUMBIA RIVER POPU-
LATION).
WOLF, GRAY
:AGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
TROUT, BULL (COLUMBIA RIVER POPU-
LATION).
BEAR, GRIZZLY
CARIBOU, WOODLAND ...
WOLF. GRAY
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
WOLF, GRAY
STURGEON, WHITE (KOOTENAI RIVER
POP).
STURGEON, WHITE (KOOTENAI RIVER
POP).
TROUT, BULL (COLUMBIA RIVER POPU-
LATION).
BEAR, GRIZZLY
CARIBOU, WOODLAND ..
WOLF, GRAY
EAGLE, BALD
:ALCON, PEREGRINE
EAGLE, BALD
EAGLE, BALD
ALCON, PEREGRINE
TROUT, BULL (COLUMBIA RIVER POPU-
LATION).
EAGLE, BALD
ALCON. PEREGRINE
ALCON, PEREGRINE
ALCON, PEREGRINE
/OLF, GRAY
AGI F RAI n
Scientific name
Platanthera praeclara
Lespedeza leptostachya
Platanthera praeclara
Lespedeza leptostachya
Platanthera praeclara
Salvelinus confluentus
Falco peregrinus
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Oncorhynchus mykiss, (Snake River Basin
ESU).
Oncorhynchus mykiss, (Snake River Basin
ESU).
Salvelinus confluentus
Canis lupus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Canis lupus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Oncorhynchus nerka ..
Canis lupus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus ...
Salvelinus confluentus
Canis lupus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Rangifer tarandus caribou
Falco peregrinus
Canis lupus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Acipenser transmontanus
Salvelinus confluentus
Rangifer tarandus caribou
Falco peregrinus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Salvelinus confluentus
alco peregrinus
laliaeetus leucocephalus
alco peregrinus
laliaeetus leucocephalus
alco peregrinus
Action/
Status
L, T
L, T
L, T
L, T
L, T
U, E
P, T
L, T
L, E
L, E, CH
L, E, CH
L, T
L, T
P, T
L, E, T, CH
L, T
L, E
L. T
L, E
L, T
L, E, T, CH
L, T
L, T
L, E, CH
L, E, CH
L, E, T, CH
L, T
P, T
L, E, T, CH
L, T
L, E
P, T
L, T
D, E
L, E, T, CH
L, T
L, E
L, E, T, CH
L, T
L, E
L, E
P, T
L, T
L, E
L, E, T, CH
L, T
, E
L T
,T
L, E
P, T
,T
,E
,T
, E
,T
, E
, E, T, CH
-------
7952
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 31/Tuesday, February 17, 1998/Notices
IV. COUNTY/SPECIES LIST—Continued
[The following list identifies federally listed or proposed U.S. species by State and County. It has been updated through September 1, 1997.
Note: Species listed below with a status of both E and T are generally either endangered or threatened within the specified county. The as-
signment 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 Instructions). Designation of critical habitat (CH) does not mean
that the county constitutes critical habitat, only that critical habitat has been designated for that species (see Addendum A Instructions).]
State/County
CUSTER
ELMORE
FRANKLIN
FREMONT
GEM
GOODING
IDAHO
JEFFERSON
JEROME
KOOTENAI
LATAH
LEMHI
Group name
FISHES
MAMMALS
BIRDS
FISHES
MAMMALS
BIRDS
FISHES
SNAILS
BIRDS
BIRDS
MAMMALS
BIRDS
BIRDS
SNAILS
BIRDS
FISHES
MAMMALS
PLANTS
BIRDS
BIRDS
BIRDS
FISHES
MAMMALS
PLANTS
PLANTS
BIRDS
FISHES
Inverse name
SALMON, CHINOOK (SNAKE RIVER FALL
RUN).
SALMON, CHINOOK (SNAKE RIVER
SPRING/SUMMER).
STEELHEAD, SNAKE RIVER BASIN POPU-
LATION.
STEELHEAD, SNAKE RIVER BASIN POPU-
LATION.
TROUT, BULL (COLUMBIA RIVER POPU-
LATION).
BEAR GRIZZLY
WOLF GRAY
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON PEREGRINE
SALMON CHINOOK (SNAKE RIVER
SPRING/SUMMER).
SALMON SNAKE RIVER SOCKEYE
STEELHEAD, SNAKE RIVER BASIN POPU-
LATION.
STEELHEAD, SNAKE RIVER BASIN POPU-
LATION.
TROUT BULL (COLUMBIA RIVER POPU-
LATION).
WOLF GRAY
EAGLE, BALD
TROUT BULL (COLUMBIA RIVER POPU-
LATION).
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
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 POPU-
LATION.
STEELHEAD, SNAKE RIVER BASIN POPU-
LATION.
TROUT, BULL (COLUMBIA RIVER POPU-
LATION).
BEAR GRIZZLY
WOLF GRAY
FOUR-O'CLOCK, MACFARLANE'S
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
EAGLE BALD
EAGLE BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE . .
TROUT, BULL (COLUMBIA RIVER POPU-
LATION).
WOLF, GRAY
HOWELLIA WATER
HOWELLIA, WATER
EAGLE BALD
SALMON CHINOOK (SNAKE RIVER
SPRING/SUMMER).
SALMON SNAKE RIVER SOCKEYE
STEELHEAD, SNAKE RIVER BASIN POPU-
LATION.
Scientific name
Oncomynchus tshawytscha
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Oncorhynchus mykiss, (Snake River Basin
ESU).
Oncortiynchus mykiss, (Snake River Basin
ESU).
Salvelinus confluentus
Ursus arctos (=Ua horribilis)
Canis lupus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Oncortiynchus tshawytscha
Oncorhynchus nerka
Oncorhynchus mykiss, (Snake River Basin
ESU).
Oncorhynchus mykiss, (Snake River Basin
ESU).
Salvelinus confluentus
Canis lupus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Salvelinus confluentus
Lanx n sp
Family Hydrobiidae n sp
Physa natricina
Valvata utahensis
Fontelicella idahoensis
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Ursus arctos (=Ua horribilis)
Canis lupus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Lanx n sp . .
Family Hydrobiidae n sp
Physa natricina
Valvata utahensis
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Oncortiynchus tshawytscha
Oncortiynchus tshawytscha
Oncortiynchus nerka
Oncortiynchus mykiss, (Snake River Basin
ESU).
Oncomynchus mykiss, (Snake River Basin
ESU).
Salvelinus confluentus
Ursus arctos (=Ua hombilis)
Canis lupus
Mirabilis macfarianei
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Satvelinus confluentus
Canis lupus
Howellia aquatilis
Howellia aquatilis
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Oncortiynchus tshawytscha
Oncortiynchus nerka
Oncortiynchus mykiss, (Snake River Basin
ESU).
Action/
Status
L, E, CH
L E, CH
L, T
L, T
P T
L T
L E T CH
L, T
L E
L E CH
L E CH
L, T
L, T
P T
L E T CH
L, T
P T
L E
L T
L E
L, E
L E
L T
L, T
L E
L T
L E T CH
L T
L, T
L E
L T
L E
L, E
L T
L E
L E CH
L E CH
L E CH
L, T
L, T
P T
L T
L E T CH
L, T
L T
L, E
L T
L T
L E
P T
L, E, T, CH
L T
L T
L T
L E CH
L E CH
L, T
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 31/Tuesday, February 17, 1998/Notices
7953
IV. COUNTY/SPECIES LIST—Continued
[The following list identifies federally listed or proposed U.S. species by State and County. It has been updated through September 1 1997
Note: Species listed below with a status of both E and T are generally either endangered or threatened within the specified county The as-
signment 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 Instructions). Designation of critical habitat (CH) does not mean
that the county constitutes critical habitat, only that critical habitat has been designated for that species (see Addendum A Instructions) ]
State/County
LEWIS
MADISON
MINIDOKA
NEZ PERCE
OWYHEE
PAYETTE
POWER
SHOSHONE
TETON
TWIN FALLS
VALLEY
WASHINGTON
JOHNSON ATOLL
KANSAS
ALLEN
ANDERSON
ATCHISON
BARBER
Group name
MAMMALS
BIRDS
FISHES
BIRDS
BIRDS
BIRDS
FISHES
BIRDS
SNAILS
BIRDS
FISHES
BIRDS
SNAILS
BIRDS
MAMMALS
MAMMALS
BIRDS
SNAILS
BIRDS
FISHES
MAMMALS
BIRDS
FISHES
BIRDS
FISHES
PLANTS
BIRDS
PLANTS
BIRDS
FISHES
PLANTS
BIRDS
Inverse name
STEELHEAD, SNAKE RIVER BASIN POPU-
LATION.
TROUT, BULL (COLUMBIA RIVER POPU-
LATION).
WOLF, GRAY
EAGLE BALD
SALMON, CHINOOK (SNAKE RIVER
SPRING/SUMMER).
SALMON, SNAKE RIVER SOCKEYE
STEELHEAD, SNAKE RIVER BASIN POPU-
LATION.
STEELHEAD, SNAKE RIVER BASIN POPU-
LATION.
TROUT, BULL (COLUMBIA RIVER POPU-
LATION).
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 POPU-
LATION).
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
SNAIL, SNAKE RIVER PHYSA
SPRINGSNAIL, BRUNEAU HOT
SPRINGSNAIL, IDAHO
EAGLE, BALD
SALMON, CHINOOK (SNAKE RIVER
SPRING/SUMMER).
EAGLE BALD
SNAIL, UTAH VALVATA
EAGLE, BALD
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
SPRING/SUMMER).
STEELHEAD, SNAKE RIVER BASIN POPU-
LATION.
STEELHEAD, SNAKE RIVER BASIN POPU-
LATION.
TROUT, BULL (COLUMBIA RIVER POPU-
LATION).
WOLF, GRAY
EAGLE, BALD
TROUT, BULL (COLUMBIA RIVER POPU-
LATION).
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
MADTOM, NEOSHO
MILKWEED MEAD'S
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
MILKWEED, MEAD'S
ORCHID, WESTERN PRAIRIE FRINGED ....
EAGLE, BALD . ...
FALCON, PEREGRINE
STURGEON, PALLID
ORCHID WESTERN PRAIRIE FRINGED
CRANE, WHOOPING .
EAGLE, BALD
Scientific name
Oncorhynchus mykiss, (Snake River Basin
ESU).
Salvelinus confluentus
Canis lupus
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Oncorhynchus nerka
Oncorhynchus mykiss, (Snake River Basin
ESU).
Oncorhynchus mykiss, (Snake River Basin
ESU).
Salvelinus confluentus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Oncorhynchus nerka
Salvelinus confluentus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Physa natricina
Pyrgulopsis bruneauenis
Fontelicella idahoensis
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Valvata utahensis
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Ursus arctos (=Ua horribilis)
Canis lupus
Ursus arctos (=Ua horribilis)
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Family Hydrobiidae n sp
Physa natricina
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Oncorhynchus mykiss, (Snake River Basin
ESU).
Oncorhynchus mykiss, (Snake River Basin
ESU).
Salvelinus confluentus
Canis lupus ..
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Salvelinus confluentus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Noturus placidus
Asclepias meadii
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Asclepias meadii
Platanthera praeclara
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Scaphirhynchus albus
Platanthera praeclara
Grus americana
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Action/
Status
L, T
P T
LET CH
L j
L E CH
L E CH
L. T
L, T
P T
L T
L T
L T
L E CH
L E CH
L E CH
P T
L T
L E
L E
L E
L E
L T
L E CH
L T
L E
L T
L T
L E T CH
L T
L T
L T
L E
L T
L E
L E CH
L E CH
L, T
L, T
P T
L E T CH
L T
P T
L T
L, E
L T
L T
L T
L E
L T
L T
L T
L E
L E
L T
L E CH
L. T
-------
7954
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 31/Tuesday, February 17, 1998/Notices
IV. COUNTY/SPECIES LIST—Continued
[The following list identifies federally listed or proposed U.S. species by State and County. It has been updated through September 1, 1997.
Note: Species listed below with a status of both E and T are generally either endangered or threatened within the specified county. The as-
signment 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 Instructions). Designation of critical habitat (CH) does not mean
that the county constitutes critical habitat, only that critical habitat has been designated for that species (see Addendum A Instructions).]
State/County
BOURBON
DECATUR
DICKINSON
DONIPHAN
DOUGLAS
Group name
BIRDS
BIRDS
MAMMALS
PLANTS
BIRDS
BIRDS
BIRDS
FISHES
BIRDS
BIRDS
FISHES
MAMMALS
BIRDS
MAMMALS
BIRDS
BIRDS
BIRDS
BIRDS
FISHES
PLANTS
BIRDS
MAMMALS
BIRDS
BIRDS
MAMMALS
PLANTS
BIRDS
BIRDS
BIRDS
FISHES
INSECTS
BIRDS
Inverse name
FALCON PEREGRINE
CRANE WHOOPING
EAGLE BALD
FALCON PEREGRINE
PLOVER PIPING
TERN INTERIOR (POPULATION) LEAST
EAGLE BALD
FALCON PEREGRINE
BAT GRAY
MILKWEED MEAD'S
EAGLE BALD
FALCON PEREGRINE
EAGLE BALD
FALCON PEREGRINE
CRANE WHOOPING
EAGLE BALD
FALCON PEREGRINE
MADTOM NEOSHO
EAGLE BALD
FALCON PEREGRINE
EAGLE BALD
FALCON PEREGRINE
MADTOM NEOSHO
BAT GRAY
CRANE WHOOPING
EAGLE BALD
FALCON PEREGRINE
FERRET BLACK-FOOTED
CRANE, WHOOPING
EAGLE BALD
FALCON PEREGRINE
PLOVER PIPING
TERN INTERIOR (POPULATION) LEAST
FERRET BLACK-FOOTED
CRANE WHOOPING
EAGLE BALD
FALCON PEREGRINE
CRANE WHOOPING
EAGLE BALD
FALCON PEREGRINE
CRANE WHOOPING
EAGLE BALD
FALCON PEREGRINE
MADTOM NEOSHO
MILKWEED MEAD'S
ORCHID WESTERN PRAIRIE FRINGED
CRANE WHOOPING
EAGLE BALD
FALCON PEREGRINE
PLOVER PIPING
TERN INTERIOR (POPULATION) LEAST
FERRET BLACK-FOOTED
CRANE WHOOPING
EAGLE BALD
FALCON PEREGRINE
PLOVER PIPING
TERN INTERIOR (POPULATION) LEAST
EAGLE BALD
FALCON PEREGRINE
BAT GRAY
MILKWEED MEAD'S
ORCHID WESTERN PRAIRIE FRINGED
CRANE WHOOPING
EAGLE BALD
FALCON PEREGRINE
FERRET BLACK-FOOTED
CRANE WHOOPING
EAGLE BALD
FALCON PEREGRINE
EAGLE BALD
FALCON PEREGRINE
STURGEON PALLID
BEETLE AMERICAN BURYING
CRANE, WHOOPING
Scientific name
Falco peregrinus
Grus americana
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Charadrius melodus
Sterna antillarum
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Myotis grisescens
Asclepias meadii
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Fateo peregrinus
Grus americana
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Noturus placidus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Notunjs placidus
Myotis grisescens
Grus americana
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Mustela nigripes
Grus americana
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Charadrius melodus
Mustela nigripes
Grus americana
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Fateo peregrinus
Grus americana
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Gms americana
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Noturus placidus
Asclepias meadii
Platanthera praeclara
Gnjs americana
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Charadrius melodus
Sterna antillarum
Mustela nigripes
Gius americana
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Charadrius melodus
Sterna antillarum
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Myotis grisescens
Asclepias meadii
Platanthera praeclara
Grus americana
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Mustela nigripes
Grus americana
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Scaphiriiynchus albus
Nicrophoais americanus
Grus americana
Action/
Status
L, E
L, E, CH
L, T
L, E
L, E, T
L, E
L, T
L, E
L, E
L, T
L, T
L, E
L, T
L, E
L, E, CH
L, T
L, E
L, T
L, T
L, E
L, T
L, E
L, T
L, E
L, E, CH
L, T
L, E
L, E
L, E, CH
L, T
L, E
L, E, T
L E
L, E
L, E, CH
L, T
L, E
L, E, CH
L, T
L, E
L, E, CH
L, T
L, E
L, T
L, T
L, T
L, E, CH
L, T
L, E
L, E, T
L, E
L, E
L. E, CH
L, T
L, E
L, E, T
L, E
L, T
L, E
L, E
L, T
L, T
L, E, CH
L, T
L, E
L, E
L, E, CH
L, T
L, E
U T
L, E
L, E
L, E
L, E, CH
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63. No. 31/Tuesday, February 17, 1998/Notices
7955
IV. COUNTY/SPECIES LIST—Continued
[The following list identifies federally listed or proposed U.S. spedes by State and County. It has been updated through September 1 1997
Note: Species listed below with a status of both E and T are generally either endangered or threatened within me spedfled rounty f heH
signment of two status designations for a species in a spedfic 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 spedes does not vary based on whSi of the
twoi statuses (e.g., endangered threatened) is assigned (see Addendum A Instructions). Designation of critical habitat (CH) does not mean
that the county constitutes critical habitat, only that critical habitat has been designated for that spedes (see Addendum A tostructions) ]
State/County
EDWARDS
ELK
ELLIS
ELLSWORTH
FINNEY
FORD
FRANKLIN
GEARY
GOVE
GRAHAM
GRANT
GRAY
GREELEY
GREENWOOD
HAMILTON
HARPER
HARVEY
HASKELL
Group name
FISHES
INSECTS
PLANTS
BIRDS
BIRDS
BIRDS
BIRDS
BIRDS
MAMMALS
BIRDS
MAMMALS
BIRDS
PLANTS
PLANTS
BIRDS
BIRDS
MAMMALS
BIRDS
MAMMALS
BIRDS
MAMMALS
BIRDS
MAMMALS
BIRDS
MAMMALS
BIRDS
BIRDS
MAMMALS
BIRDS
BIRDS
BIRDS
Inverse name
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
STURGEON, PALLID
BEETLE, AMERICAN BURYING
MILKWEED, MEAD'S
ORCHID, WESTERN PRAIRIE FRINGED ....
CRANE, WHOOPING
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
PLOVER, PIPING
TERN, INTERIOR (POPULATION) LEAST ...
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
CRANE, WHOOPING ....
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
CRANE, WHOOPING
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
CRANE, WHOOPING
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
PLOVER, PIPING
TERN, INTERIOR (POPULATION) LEAST ...
FERRET, BLACK-FOOTED
CRANE, WHOOPING
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
PLOVER, PIPING
TERN, INTERIOR (POPULATION) LEAST ...
FERRET, BLACK-FOOTED
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
MILKWEED, MEAD'S
ORCHID, WESTERN PRAIRIE FRINGED ....
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
CRANE, WHOOPING
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
FERRET, BLACK-FOOTED
CRANE, WHOOPING
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
FERRET, BLACK-FOOTED
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
FERRET, BLACK-FOOTED
CRANE, WHOOPING
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
PLOVER, PIPING
TERN, INTERIOR (POPULATION) LEAST ...
FERRET, BLACK-FOOTED
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
FERRET, BLACK-FOOTED
CRANE, WHOOPING
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
EAGLE, BALD ..
FALCON, PEREGRINE
PLOVER, PIPING
TERN, INTERIOR (POPULATION) LEAST ...
FERRET, BLACK-FOOTED
CRANE, WHOOPING . .
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
CRANE, WHOOPING
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
CRANE, WHOOPING
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
Scientific name
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Nlcrophorus americanus
Asclepias meadii
Platanthera praeclara
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Charadrius melodus
Sterna antillarum
Falco peregrinus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Falco peregrinus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Charadrius melodus
Sterna antillarum
Mustela nigripes
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Charadrius melodus
Sterna antillarum
Mustela nigripes
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Asclepias meadii
Platanthera praeclara
Falco peregrinus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Mustela nigripes
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Falco peregrinus
Mustela nigripes
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Charadrius melodus
Sterna antillarum
Mustela nigripes
Falco peregrinus .. .
Mustela nigripes .
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Falco peregrinus
Charadrius melodus
Sterna antillarum
Mustela nigripes
Haliaeetus leucocephatus
Falco peregrinus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Action/
Status
{_ T
L E
j_ y
|_ T
L T
L E
LET
L E
L E
L T
L E
L T
L E
L T
L E
LET
|_ E
L E
l_ T
L E
LET
|_ E
L E
L T
L E
l_ T
L T
L E
L E CH
L T
L E
L E
L E CH
L T
l_ E
L E
L T
L E
L E
L E CH
L T
L E
LET
L E
L E
L E
L E
L E CH
L T
L E
|_ T
L E
LET
L E
L E
Epu
L T
L E
L E CH
L T
L E
L E CH
L T
L. E
-------
7956
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 31/Tuesday, February 17, 1998/Notices
IV. COUNTY/SPECIES LIST—Continued
[The following list identifies federally listed or proposed U.S. species by State and County. It has been updated through September 1, 1997.
Note: Species listed below with a status of both E and T are generally either endangered or threatened within the specified county. The as-
signment 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 Instructions). Designation of critical habitat (CH) does not mean
that the county constitutes critical habitat, only that critical habitat has been designated for that species (see Addendum A Instructions).]
State/County
HODGEMAN
JACKSON
JEFFERSON
JEWELL
JOHNSON
KEARNY
KINGMAN
KIOWA
LABETTE
LANE
LEAVENWORTH
LINCOLN
LINN
LOGAN
LYON
MARION
MARSHALL
MCPHERSON
MEADE
Group name
MAMMALS
BIRDS
MAMMALS
BIRDS
PLANTS
BIRDS
PLANTS
BIRDS
BIRDS
FISHES
PLANTS
BIRDS
MAMMALS
BIRDS
BIRDS
BIRDS
FISHES
MAMMALS
BIRDS
MAMMALS
BIRDS
FISHES
PLANTS
BIRDS
BIRDS
PLANTS
BIRDS
MAMMALS
BIRDS
FISHES
PLANTS
BIRDS
FISHES
BIRDS
BIRDS
BIRDS
Inverse name
FERRET BLACK-FOOTED
CRANE WHOOPING
EAGLE, BALD ...
FALCON, PEREGRINE
FERRET, BLACK-FOOTED
EAGLE, BALD .
FALCON, PEREGRINE
ORCHID WESTERN PRAIRIE FRINGED
CRANE WHOOPING
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
MILKWEED, MEAD'S .
ORCHID, WESTERN PRAIRIE FRINGED ....
CRANE WHOOPING
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
STURGEON PALLID
MILKWEED, MEAD'S
ORCHID, WESTERN PRAIRIE FRINGED ....
CRANE, WHOOPING
EAGLE BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE .
PLOVER, PIPING
TERN, INTERIOR (POPULATION) LEAST
FERRET, BLACK-FOOTED
CRANE, WHOOPING
EAGLE BALD
FALCON PEREGRINE
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
EAGLE BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
MADTOM, NEOSHO
BAT, GRAY
CRANE, WHOOPING
EAGLE BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
FERRET, BLACK-FOOTED
EAGLE BALD
FALCON PEREGRINE
STURGEON, PALLID
MILKWEED, MEAD'S
ORCHID, WESTERN PRAIRIE FRINGED ....
CRANE, WHOOPING
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
EAGLE BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
MILKWEED, MEAD'S
CRANE, WHOOPING . .
EAGLE BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE .
FERRET, BLACK-FOOTED
EAGLE, BALD .
FALCON, PEREGRINE
MADTOM, NEOSHO
ORCHID, WESTERN PRAIRIE FRINGED
CRANE, WHOOPING
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
MADTOM, NEOSHO
CRANE WHOOPING
EAGLE BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
CRANE, WHOOPING
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
CRANE, WHOOPING
EAGLE, BALD
FALCON, PEREGRINE
PLOVER, PIPING
TERN, INTERIOR (POPULATION) LEAST ...
Scientific name
Mustela nigripes
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Mustela nigripes
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Platanthera praeclara
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Asclepias meadii
Platanthera praeclara
Grus americana
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Scaphirtiynchus albus
Asclepias meadii
Platanthera praeclara
Grus americana
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Charadrius melodus
Sterna antillarum
Mustela nigripes
Grus americana
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Noturus placidus
Myotis grisescens
Grus americana
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Mustela nigripes
Falco peregrinus
Scaphirtiynchus albus
Asclepias meadii
Platanthera praeclara
Grus americana
Falco peregrinus
Falco peregrinus
Asclepias meadii
Grus americana
Fateo peregrinus
Mustela nigripes
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Noturus placidus
Platanthera praeclara
Grus americana
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Noturus placidus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Grus americana
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Grus americana
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Charadrius melodus
Sterna antillarum
Action/
Status
L E
L E CH
L T
L E
L E
L T
L E
L T
L E CH
L T
L E
L T
L T
L E CH
L T
L E
L T
L E
L E
L T
L T
L E CH
|_ T
L E
LET
L E
L, E
L E CH
L T
L E
L T
L E
L T
L E
L T
L E
L E CH
L T
L E
L E
|_ T
L E
L E
L T
L T
L E CH
L T
L E
L T
L E
L T
L E CH
L T
L E
L E
L T
|_ E
L T
L T
L E CH
L T
L E
L T
L E CH
L T
L E
L E CH
L T
L E
L E CH
L T
L E
LET
L. E
-------
-------
-------
c/EPA
United States
Environmental Protection Agency
(4203)
Washington, DC 20460
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use
$300
------- |