Methodology
Where every answer comes from, and what we do not know
This page exists to be read by somebody deciding whether to trust us with a compliance decision. It states the coverage rather than the ambition, and the gaps are as prominent as the strengths because that is the only way the strengths mean anything.
The source
EPA's 2022 Construction General Permit
What the federal dataset does NOT cover
Known gapThe source extraction contains the permit body (Parts 1-9) only. Appendices A (Definitions), B (Eligible Permit Areas), C (Small Construction Waivers), D (ESA Eligibility Procedures), E (Historic Property Screening), F (Buffer Requirements), G (Standard Permit Conditions), H (NOI Form), I (NOT Form), J (Chemical Treatment Request) and K (Turbidity Report Form) were NOT present in the extracted text. Every fact whose operative text lives only in an appendix is marked confidence "unverified" with a note naming the appendix to confirm.
In practice this is why the endangered species and historic properties screens are returned as work you must complete and document rather than as screens we can clear for you. The operative text for both lives in an appendix we did not read.
Coverage
What is verified, counted honestly
Counts are of entries confirmed against a primary source. Nothing here counts a row we merely hold.
11
Plan content sections read from the federal permit, each with its section cited
40
Jurisdictions with a preparer credential answer confirmed against a primary source, of 52
39
State construction general permits read and recorded, of 52
The third number is the honest headline of this page. The state permit registry is at the start of its life, so most state pages tell you who to ask rather than what the answer is. The credential register is much further along, and it is the answer most people cannot find elsewhere. 32 states reviewed against primary sources. States marked unverified were not confirmed and must render as not verified in the UI.
Confidence
Two states, not three
The clause was read in the source document and the section it came from was recorded. The quote shown alongside it, where there is one, is verbatim permit wording.
Not confirmed against a primary source. Rendered as not verified everywhere it appears, with the agency to confirm with. It is never presented as a checked fact and never coloured as one.
There is no third tier meaning probably, because the data has none. A requirement we are unsure of is a requirement you must confirm, and a scheme with a comfortable middle option would let us avoid saying so. Absence is handled the same way: where the engine holds no rule, the output says so rather than defaulting.
The credential register
Why this one is modelled as a gate
A boolean would misrepresent nearly half the country, and the errors would all point the same, dangerous way.
- Regulator-side credentials (agency staff) are not applicant-side gates: Michigan, Virginia plan reviewer and South Carolina certified plan reviewer are all regulator-side.
- A named role is not a credential: Colorado's Qualified Stormwater Manager and Arizona's Qualified Person are self-attested.
- Practice-act citations are conditional and routinely overstated. A PE stamp is NOT required in WA, CO, AZ, TX and most open states.
- State law is a floor. Local ordinances (e.g. Cook County MWRD in Illinois) can impose a stricter gate.
FAQ
Questions about the data
What does verified mean?
That the clause was read in the source document and the permit section it came from was recorded alongside it. Anything else is unverified, and the interface renders it as such. There is deliberately no middle tier meaning probably: a requirement we are unsure of is a requirement you must confirm with your permitting authority, and saying so is the product working correctly.
Where does the federal data come from?
The published text of EPA's 2022 Construction General Permit. Quotes are verbatim; runs of whitespace introduced by the column layout of the source PDF were collapsed, and no words were added, removed or reordered. Every fact carries the section it was read from, and a fact with no section is treated as unverified at runtime regardless of what the file claims.
Why do so many states show as not verified?
Because we have not read their permits yet, and we would rather say that than fill the gap with the federal answer. A state permit must be at least as protective as the federal one but can be considerably stricter, so borrowing the federal numbers for a state page would produce answers that are wrong in the dangerous direction. The credential dataset is further along than the permit registry, which is why a state can show a verified credential answer and an unverified permit on the same day.
Do you ever infer a requirement?
No. Every requirement is read from a permit and carries its section. Nothing is derived by analogy from a neighbouring state, from a previous version of a permit, or from what is typical. Where the engine cannot reach an answer from what it holds, it returns an explicit unknown.
How do I report an error?
Email support@basinwise.com with the jurisdiction, the requirement and the section you believe is right. A correction with a citation gets applied and the dataset version bumped. This is a dataset, and datasets are wrong in ways their authors cannot see.
Basinwise reports publicly published permit requirements and cites the permit section behind each one. It is not legal or engineering advice and it is not a permit. We do not perform the physical site inspections the permit requires; we generate the plan and keep the record. Where a jurisdiction requires a credentialed preparer, the document we generate is a draft for that person to review and sign. Always confirm against your permitting authority's current permit before you break ground.
Screen a site and read the citations yourself
Every requirement links back to the permit section it came from.