Results of 1/18/96 Workshop on Unusually Sensitive Areas

Guiding Principles for Determining USAs

Primary Concerns:

1a. Drinking water resources.

1b. Significant ecological resources.

1c. Economic or recreational areas will not be considered USAs in and of themselves.

Secondary Concerns

1d. Cultural resources

Concerns Tabled for Additional Research

Consider Indian tribal concerns.

PROCESS:

2a. A functional definition of significant must be developed to determine USAs.

2b. Human health and safety.

2c. Serious threat of contamination

2d. Only areas in the trajectory of a potential spill, e.g. downgradient, should be considered.

2e. Not all areas identified as USAs will require preventative measures but all candidates for USAs will require protection through response planning under 49CFR part 194. The process should clarify how sensitive areas are protected under the Pipeline Safety Act separate and apart from protection under 49 CFR part 194.

2f. Operators that have voluntarily taken measures that exceed the regulatory requirements to minimize the potential for spills in their operations should receive credit for these measures in other rulemakings, thereby resulting in exemptions from these additional rulemakings.

2g. It is expected that no pipeline operator will be required to collect natural field resource data to determine USAs.

2h. USAs should be subject to a systematic review process. USAs may change through time as species migrate, change location or for other reasons. The USA definition should be explicit and practical in application.

2i. All phases of the USA definition process should be pilot tested for validity, practicality, and workability, to the extent practical.

2j. The government agencies must describe and identify USAs so that the data will not be subject to various interpretations and will be applied consistently. The standards and criteria for resource sensitivity should be uniform on a national basis such that equivalent resources receive equivalent sensitivity assessments regardless of regionally based response priorities.

2k. Sources of USA data must be readily available to the public and uniform in criteria and standards. The standards and criteria for resource sensitivity should be uniform on a national basis such that equivalent resources receive equivalent sensitivity assessments regardless of regionally based priorities.

The following are things that we agree with but do not feel are guiding principles:

3a. Workshops for each phase of developing a USA definition should include appropriate technical experts, representatives, and field personnel with appropriate experience from agencies as well as from industry.

3b. Public workshops should be used to gather information on the criteria that will determine USAs.

3c. The USA definition should be complete before its use in a rulemaking.

3d. The implementation of resource assessment and protection under the USA definition could be phased.

3e. All terms in the USA definition should be defined.

3f. National consistency in application of the USA definition should be the goal.

3g. Guidelines for data quality should include consistency, accuracy, and scope.

3h. Risk analysis should be included when refining the definition of USAs.

3i. Encourage open communication with land or resource managers in USAs.

3j. The ranking of resources or adding of values of several resources to reach a threshold USA quantity, as proposed in the May 1995 workshop, is not practical for many pipeline operators.