Burden
Comment
Response
New
Topic
Summ.
ID
Summary
Response
DocumentID
11a
32
At
Kirtland
Air
Force
Base,
and
other
federal
facilities,

numerous
construction
projects
occur
throughout
the
year
under
the
management
and
control
of
a
single
command
entity.

For
instance,
an
estimated
25
to
30
construction
projects
greater
than
one
acre
occur
each
year
on
Kirtland
AFB.
In
addition
to
the
preparation
of
the
NOI
is
the
requirement
that
each
NOI
be
terminated
through
a
Notice
of
Termination
(
NOT);
the
burden
on
both
parties
becomes
obvious.
Coverage
under
general
permits
is
the
most
efficient
and
least
burdensome
method
of
complying
with
NPDES
regulations
for
both
dischargers
and
regulators.
Applying
for
general
permit
coverage
is
via
NOIs
(
see
40
CFR
Section
122.28(
b)(
2)).
Upon
fulfilling
permit
eligibility
requirements,
submittal
of
an
NOI
involves
completing
a
one
page
form
with
information
attesting
to
that
eligibility.
Likewise,
submittal
of
an
NOT
is
merely
attesting
via
a
one
page
form
that
permit
coverage,
and
hence
compliance
burden,
has
ended
following
compliance
with
termination
requirements.
Application
and
termination
form
submittals
are
not
onerous
requirements.
1037
11a
33
To
reduce
paperwork
and
more
efficiently
use
limited
Tribal
resources,
would
EPA
accept
a
copy
of
the
project
EA
and
agency
SWPP
in
lieu
of
the
format
proposed
in
40
CFR
122.26,
Small
Construction
Activities?
As
a
general
matter
EPA
anticipates
that
this
level
of
documentation
would
not
be
sufficient.
Potential
discharges
are,
however,
free
to
attempt
to
use
a
format
somewhat
different
from
the
CGP
in
an
individual
permit
application.
1026
11b
38
A
small
construction
site,
by
its
nature,
should
be
afforded
less
stringent
SWPPP
requirements
as
compared
to
the
SWPPPs
developed
for
sites
that
disturb
5
acres
or
greater.
For
example,

generic
SWPPPs
should
include
various
best
management
practices
(
BMPs)
applicable
to
a
variety
of
sites
where
operators
can
implement
the
best
practice
for
the
site
without
having
to
provide
site
specific
information
for
each
location.
Acre
for
acre
the
erosion
potential
and
runoff
from
construction
sites
is
no
less
for
small
construction
sites.
Because
there
are
many
more
small
construction
sites
than
large
construction
sites,
the
cumulative
impact
of
small
sites
is
significant.
The
impacts
of
and
rationale
for
inclusion
of
small
construction
sites
are
contained
in
the
preamble
to
the
Phase
II
Rule.
EPA
provides
ample
examples
of
storm
water
management
controls
that
can
be
easily
incorporated
within
a
SWPPP.
However,
a
generic,
or
one­
size­
fits­
all,
SWPPP
would
not
be
effective
for
many
construction
activities.
SWPPPs
must
be
customized
for
soil
types,
slopes,
season,
climate,
type
of
construction
activity,
and
many
other
factors.
1028
11b
39
Little
distinction
is
made
between
the
permit
requirements
for
large
and
small
construction
sites.
The
reduced
impact
of
small
construction
sites
should
be
accompanied
by
reduced
burden
on
the
permittee.
However,
the
only
difference
in
requirements
between
large
and
small
sites
is
the
availability
of
very
limited
waivers
for
small
sites.
See
response
to
comment
38.
The
cumulative
effects
of
many
small
sites
on
a
receiving
water
is
the
overarching
concern.
EPA
points
out
that
SWPPP
development
and
implementation
at
smaller
sites
are
probably
much
less
involved
than
for
larger
sites.
1038
11b
40
The
proposed
CGP
does
not
recognize
the
difference
in
impact
potential
between
large
and
small
construction
sites.
The
reduced
impact
of
small
construction
sites
should
be
accompanied
by
reduced
burden
on
the
permittee.
However,

the
only
difference
in
requirements
between
large
and
small
construction
sites
is
the
availability
of
very
limited
waivers
for
small
sites.
See
response
to
comment
39.
1002
1
Burden
Comment
Response
New
Topic
Summ.
ID
Summary
Response
DocumentID
11b
41
 
[
T]
o
reduce
burden
for
small
construction
sites:
Sites
that
begin
and
end
construction
(
i.
e.,
temporary
stabilization)
within
a
30­
day
period
should
be
exempt
from
all
requirements
of
the
CGP.
EPA
disagrees.
The
commenter
fails
to
take
into
account
that
any
given
time
frame
may
actually
be
a
very
wet
period,
in
which
case
the
environmental
damage
could
be
great.
1006
11b
288
 
[
T]
o
reduce
burden
for
small
construction
sites:
Submittal
of
a
NOI
for
small
sites
is
burdensome
and
unnecessary
and
should
be
covered
by
Permit­
by­
Rule.
EPA
acknowledged
that
NOIs
might
not
be
appropriate
for
small
sites
in
the
Phase
II
rule
(
64
FR
68777,
December
8,
1999).
See
response
to
comment
289.
1006
11b
289
API
suggests
the
following
to
reduce
the
burden
for
some
small
construction
sites:
Submittal
of
NOIs
for
small
sites
or
projects
with
a
short
construction
period
that
have
little
environmental
impact
are
burdensome
and
unnecessary,
and
should
be
covered
by
Permit­
by­
Rule.
EPA
acknowledged
that
NOIs
might
not
be
appropriate
for
these
sites
in
the
Phase
II
rule
(
64
FR
68777,
December
8,
1999).
EPA
disagrees
with
the
commenter's
assertion
that
NOIs
for
small
sites
are
burdensome
and
unnecessary.
EPA's
estimate
for
completing
and
submitting
the
NOI
form
is
1.5
hours.
Additionally,
EPA
believes
the
submission
of
NOIs
provides
the
permitting
authority
with
a
useful
tool
to
oversee
and
track
construction
activity.
See
also
responses
to
comments
41
and
39.
1002
11b
387
[
T]
o
reduce
burden
for
small
construction
sites:
Inspection
of
BMP
should
be
at
a
decreased
frequency
for
small
sites
(
i.
e.,

every
two
weeks
during
active
construction
activities
and
every
two
months
after
temporary
stabilization).
EPA
does
not
believe
that
inspections
of
BMPs
are
a
more
significant
burden
to
smaller
sites
than
larger
sites.
Site
inspection
burden
is,
in
fact,
based
on
the
size
and
complexity
of
the
site
to
be
inspected.
1002
11c
1
My
company
is
a
small
independent
oil
and
gas
well
developer
which
drills
seven
to
eight
shallow
(
3,500'
deep)
gas
wells
in
western
Pennsylvania
per
year.
We
have
two
full­
time
employees.
My
company
is
not
in
a
position
to
deal
with
the
extra
costs
and
burdens
associated
with
additional
stormwater
permitting
associated
with
drilling
my
wells.
Many
small
companies
have
NPDES
permit
coverage.
The
State
of
Pennsylvania
issues
it's
own
NPDES
permits.
See
also
response
to
comment
304.
1013
11c
2
Obtaining
individual
permits
is
a
lengthy
and
potentially
costly
process
that
could
unduly
delay
construction
or
add
on
costs
disproportionate
to
the
benefits
received
from
an
individual
permit.
EPA
believes
a
vast
majority
of
projects
should
and
will
be
covered
by
the
general
permit
not
individual
permits.
Individual
permits
are
generally
used
only
when
general
permits
are
deemed
unable
to
provide
the
level
of
environmental
protection
necessary
to
protect
specific
receiving
waters.
1039
11c
3
If
the
oil
and
gas
industry
was
subject
to
NPDES
permitting
process: 
The
cost
of
drilling
oil
and
natural
gas
wells
would
increase
markedly.
See
response
to
comment
304
1043
2
Burden
Comment
Response
New
Topic
Summ.
ID
Summary
Response
DocumentID
11c
4
It
...
Best
Management
Practices
demanded
by
Pennsylvania's
Erosion
and
Sedimentation
Control
requirements
...
has
introduced
undesirable
costs
...
into
a
time
sensitive
process
and
to
date,
has
yielded
no
positive
economic
...
result
for
our
industry.
Pennsylvania's
erosion
and
sediment
requirements
are
independent
of
the
NPDES
Storm
Water
Permitting
Program.
Pennsylvania
is
authorized
to
implement
the
NPDES
program.
As
such,
the
state
is
free
to
adopt
the
EPA
baseline
regarding
scope
of
storm
water
regulations
or
it
may
choose
a
more
stringent
implementation
if
it
believes
it
is
warranted.
1012
11c
5
The
change
in
size
of
earth
disturbance
required
for
a
full
NPDES
permit
can
greatly
impact
the
industry
in
an
adverse
manor
in
additional
time
frames
and
cost
issues.
The
time
it
takes
to
work
through
the
NPDES
permit
application
and
the
required
approvals
will
make
the
drilling
of
new
wells
more
expensive
than
it
needs
be.
See
response
to
comment
304.
EPA
points
out
that
the
goal
of
NPDES
is
to
protect
and
enhance
water
quality
which
yields
many
economic
and
health
benefits.
1021
11c
6
There
are
several
changes
in
the
proposed
CGP,
which
are
unclear
and/
or
greatly
increase
the
scope
beyond
the
existing
CGP
 
63
Federal
Register
7857­
7956
(
February
1998).
 

Some
of
these
changes
are
impractical
to
implement
or
add
significant
expenses
that
were
not
considered
in
the
EPA
cost
estimate
for
the
C&
D
ELG.
Increased
clarity
is
one
of
the
goals
of
the
public
comment
process.
The
C
&
D
effluent
limitation
guideline
is
a
separate
rulemaking
effort.
See
response
to
comment
304.
1058
11c
12
The
reality
is
that
this
permit
will
serve
as
a
model
for
other
state
general
permits.
This
phenomena,
I'll
call
it
'
permit
creep'

will
significantly
increase
the
cost
of
development
and
ultimately
the
cost
of
housing.
EPA
has
the
responsibility
to
develop
NPDES
permits
based
on
the
statutory
requirements
of
the
CWA.
States
authorized
by
EPA
to
administer
the
NPDES
program
are
free
to
interpret
NPDES
requirements
as
they
see
fit,
using
EPA
requirements
as
a
baseline.
1068
11c
13
An
oil
and
gas
construction
project
 
is
typically
on
a
very
tight
schedule
and

moves
very
quickly
from
planning
to
construction
because
both
the
access
to
mineral
rights
and
the
availability
of
drilling
rigs
are
on
schedules.
Failure
to
meet
the
schedule
often
results
in
the
loss
of
opportunity
to
drill
which
could
lead
to
forfeiting
hundreds
of
thousands
of
dollars
invested
in
the
project.
See
Response
to
Comment
304.
1015
11c
14
I
urge
EPA
to
resist
imposition
of
additional
unnecessary
regulation
on
oil
and
gas
activities
that
would
have
the
potential
to
delay,
hinder,
or
choke
the
continuing
development
of
oil
and
gas
reserves
in
Texas
and
throughout
the
nation.
See
Response
to
Comment
304.
1009
11c
15
I
strongly
encourage
EPA
to
balance
the
cost
of
any
additional
requirements
with
the
potentially
adverse
impacts
on
the
ability
of
this
nation
to
satisfy
its
need
for
development
and
recovery
of
domestic
oil
and
gas
reserves,
which
I
believe
was
the
intent
of
Congress
in
enacting
the
oil
and
gas
construction
exemption.
See
Response
to
Comment
304.
1009
3
Burden
Comment
Response
New
Topic
Summ.
ID
Summary
Response
DocumentID
11c
16
Permitting
delays
would
deter
and
delay
the
development
of
domestic
oil
and
natural
gas
resources.
See
Response
to
Comment
304.
1043
11c
17
The
economic
impacts
of
the
limitations,
if
any,
placed
on
the
scope
of
section
402(
l)(
2)
arise
from
the
potential
for
delay
associated
with
the
requirement
to
obtain
permit
coverage
under
the
CGP.
The
potential
for
delay
has
the
potential
to
cause
operators
to
lose
their
leases,
suffer
drainage,
and
be
unable
to
produce
the
oil
and
gas
reserve,
ultimately
reducing
the
quantity
of
recoverable
reserves
in
the
U.
S.
In
the
year
2000,
a
total
of
31,732
exploratory
and
production
wells
were
drilled
 
over
10,000
in
Texas
and
Oklahoma
alone.
To
meet
future
natural
gas
demand,
the
National
Petroleum
Council
estimates
that
the
number
of
natural
gas
wells
alone
needs
to
increase
to
approximately
48,000
wells
annually.
The
ultimate
effect
of
EPA's
narrow
interpretation
of
section
402(
l)(
2)
could,

therefore,
be
enormous.
A
recent
industry
analysis
estimates
that
requiring
these
sites
to
submit
a
NPDES
permit
application
could
reduce
investment
in
domestic
exploration
and
production
by
as
much
as
$
8
billion
annually.
[
See
Independent
Petroleum
Association
of
America
(
IPAA),
Update
on
Stormwater
Construc
(
Sept.
6,
2002)].
See
Response
to
Comment
304.
1061
11c
20
The
industry
as
a
whole
has
a
good
record
of
following
the
current
regulation
and
has
done
nothing
to
warrant
additional
burden
of
the
changes.
What
I
have
told
to
you
can
be
checked
with
PA
IOGA,
with
POGAM,
and
with
PA
DEP.
The
changes
to
the
scope
of
the
CGP
are
largely
the
result
of
the
Storm
Water
Phase
II
Rule.
The
State
of
Pennsylvania
has
it's
own
NPDES
program.

However,
see
response
to
comment
304.
1021
11c
21
In
conclusion,
if
finalized
as
proposed
the
draft
construction
general
permit
will
hinder
the
ability
of
operators
of
construction
sites
to
get
coverage
and
force
more
operators
into
individual
permit
status,
result
in
inappropriate
reliance
on
structural
Best
Management
Practices,
which
are
costly,
take
up
large
amounts
of
land,
and
are
counter
to
innovative
site
design
methods,
and
greatly
increase
the
cost
of
development
and
ultimately,
the
cost
of
housing.
See
response
to
comment
19
­
Most
NPDES
storm
water
permits
do
not
include
mandatory
use
of
specific
structural
BMPs.
In
the
CGP,
for
instance,
it
occurs
only
in
very
limited
circumstances­­
10
acres
and
above
in
land
disturbance.

See
also
response
to
comment
20.
2001
4
Burden
Comment
Response
New
Topic
Summ.
ID
Summary
Response
DocumentID
11c
22
Nation
wide
there
could
be
20,000­
30,000
permits
required
per
year
for
gas
distribution
projects
that
disturb
between
one
and
five
acres.
AGA
encourages
EPA
to
consider
a
subcategory
for
the
linear
utility
industry
that
would
prevent
increased
burdens
on
regulatory
agencies
and
that
recognizes
the
unique
temporal
and
spatial
characteristics
of
linear
utility
projects.
This
should
include
projects
for
distribution,
transmission
and
gathering
lines
for
natural
gas
and
electric
utilities.
EPA
includes
some
special
requirements
for
linear
projects,
but
also
points
out
the
impacts
on
water
quality
from
construction
generally
occur
irrespective
of
the
geometry
of
the
land
disturbance.
1045
11c
36
It
...
Best
Management
Practices
demanded
by
Pennsylvania's
Erosion
and
Sedimentation
Control
requirements
...
has
introduced
undesirable
...
delays
into
a
time
sensitive
process
and
to
date,
has
yielded
no
positive
economic
...
result
for
our
industry.
See
response
to
comment
4.
1012
11c
37
Many
requirements
in
the
proposed
CGP,
such
as
completion
and
submittal
of
the
NOI
and
NOT,
reviews
of
endangered
species
and
historic
sites
preservation,
will
cause
significant
delay
in
an
oil
and
gas
project.
The
project
schedule
may
allow
time
for
a
cursory
review
of
endangered
species
habitats
and
historic
sites
preservation
to
ensure
compliance
with
the
respective
Federal
laws;
however,
the
delay
resulting
from
the
detailed
review
and
documentation
as
prescribed
in
the
proposed
CGP
and
its
addenda
will
jeopardize
the
success
of
the
project.
See
Response
to
Comment
304.
1015
11c
115
I
am
also
concerned
with
the
practicality
of
contractors
obtaining
the
information
required
in
a
timely
manner
for
the
proposed
GPSWD,
including
issues
regarding
the
proportionate
share
of
the
applicable
TMDL's,
knowing
what
and
where
impaired
waterbodies
are,
collecting
the
necessary
ESA
information,
and
determining
the
NHPA
eligibility.
These
are
dramatic
changes
from
the
current
Permit,
and
I
doubt
that
many
that
routinely
disturb
less
than
5­
acres
land/
jobsite
are
aware
of
these
additional
impending
requirements
or
the
time
required
to
wait
for
this
information
from
the
appropriate
or
applicable
federal
and
state
agencies.
EPA
acknowledges
the
commenter's
concerns
and
has
redefined
the
term
"
operator"
to
indicate
that
this
is,
in
most
instances,
likely
the
developer
or
land
owner.
EPA
provides
more
detailed
explanation
of
this
change
in
the
fact
sheet.

EPA
believes
this
change
will
allow
more
time
upfront
to
evaluate
TMDLs
and
ESA
provisions
and
ensure
that
appropriate
measures
are
identified
by
the
time
contractors
commence
activity
on
the
site.
1078
5
Burden
Comment
Response
New
Topic
Summ.
ID
Summary
Response
DocumentID
11c
189
The
Notice
of
Intent
(
NOI)
submission
deadlines
under
the
draft
permit
will
cause
unnecessary
expense
and
delay
to
ongoing
construction
projects.
See
Draft
CGP
Section
2.2.
The
CGP
requires
that
NOIs
be
submitted
prior
to
commencement
of
construction
activities
(
i.
e.,
the
initial
disturbance
of
soils
associated
with
clearing,
grading,
excavation
activities,
or
other
construction
activities),
allowing
enough
time
for
review
of
the
project
with
respect
to
the
Endangered
Species
Act.
EPA
considers
the
7
day
period
between
receipt
of
the
NOI
and
authorization
to
discharge
to
be
extremely
minimal,
given
that
construction
site
planning
generally
begins
months
prior
to
construction
commencement.
EPA
also
notes
that
many
states
have
much
longer
waiting
periods,
and
construction
activities
in
those
states
do
not
appear
to
have
suffered
as
a
result.
1079
11c
382.1
SWP3
Updates,
Implementation
and
Certification
Costs.

Several
specific
changes
have
been
put
into
the
proposed
CGP
that
detail
more
precisely
what
shall
be
contained
in
the
SWP3.
These
involve
several
additional
activities
that
must
be
addressed
and
implemented
over
and
above
the
existing
CGP,
and
several
of
these
items
involve
additional
time
and
expense.
The
EPA
did
not
include
many
of
these
specific
expenses
in
the
cost
models
for
either
the
C&
D
ELG
proposal
or
the
Phase
II
rule.
The
changes
to
the
SWP3
include
the
following:
Identifying
on
the
site
map
the
areas
where
intermediate
phases
of
construction
have
begun
or
the
final
stabilization
has
been
completed
and
no
further
post
construction
is
required.
The
SWP3
must
also
be
regularly
updated.
The
sequencing
and
timing
of
the
construction
activity.
EPA
addresses
the
specific
items
in
the
order
you
have
noted
them.

Including
information
on
construction
phasing
and
stabilization
in
your
SWPPP
allows
you
to
suspend
or
greatly
reduce
BMP
inspections
and
maintenance
activities
for
the
areas
that
have
been
temporarily
or
final
stabilized.
EPA
believes
that
identifying
areas
of
construction
phasing
provides
minimal
additional
burden
on
the
permittee,
while
suspending
or
reducing
BMP
inspections
and
maintenance
provides
considerable
relief
for
the
permittee.
The
new
requirement
burden
is
more
than
offset
by
the
burden
reduction
benefits.
Updating
the
SWPPP
as
site
conditions
change
or
construction
activities
are
modified
has
always
been
a
requirement
of
the
CGP.
Therefore
there
is
no
additional
burden.
Similar
to
phasing,
if
the
operator
has
described
the
sequencing
and
timing
of
various
construction
related
activities,
he/
she
may
be
able
to
identify
areas
that
can
be
temporarily
or
final
stabilized
thus
reducing
the
regulatory
burden.
1058
6
Burden
Comment
Response
New
Topic
Summ.
ID
Summary
Response
DocumentID
11c
382.2
The
additional
cost
associated
with
this
requirement
includes
additional
planning
and
phasing
of
construction
sites
before
preparing
NOI
and
SWP3
plans;
potential
installation
of
more
BMP
control
measures
due
to
smaller
areas
being
under
construction
instead
of
the
whole
site
being
graded,
etc.;
and
additional
labor
time
preparing
inspection
reports.
Sequencing
was
encouraged
in
the
existing
CGP
but
not
mandated
as
in
the
proposed
CGP.

The
EPA
did
not
include
additional
costs
for
construction
sequencing
or
phasing
in
the
C&
D
ELG
proposal.
Any
postconstruction
storm
water
measures
that
are
required
by
federal,
local,
state,
or
tribal
requirements
must
be
included
in
SWP3.
The
SWP3
must
describe
measures
to
minimize,

to
the
extent
practicable,
off­
site
vehicle
tracking
of
sediment
and
the
generation
of
dust.
This
will
likely
result
in
manned
truck
wash
stations
at
many
medium
to
large
size
construction
sites.
These
costs
were
not
estimated
by
EPA
in
the
C&
D
ELG
proposal.
Since
most
construction
operators
have
already
developed
this
information
for
purposes
of
scheduling
subcontractors,
utility
installation,
etc.
EPA
does
not
believe
this
places
additional
burden
on
the
operator.
EPA
believes
that
phasing
activities
requires
the
installation
and
maintenance
of
fewer
BMPs,
not
more,
because
stabilized
areas
are
most
effective
at
preventing
erosion.
Inspection
and
reporting
requirements
certainly
do
not
increase;
if
they
change
at
all
they
decrease
because
stabilized
areas
do
not
need
to
be
inspected.
The
CGP
does
not
require
truck
washing.
The
CGP
notes
that,
as
relevant,
construction
site
operators
should
implement
measures
to
minimize
the
amount
of
dirt
tracked
off
site.
This
has
been
a
standard
construction
site
BMP
for
a
long
time;
as
such
EPA
does
not
consider
this
to
be
a
new
requirement.
1058
11d
116
The
CGP
should
be
simplified
to
allow
the
average
construction
worker
to
understand
its
goals,
methods
and
requirements.

One
method
of
doing
this
would
be
to
remove
requirements
of
the
CGP
that
involve
compliance
with
federal
rules
other
than
the
stormwater
requirements.
These
rules
could
be
referenced
as
eligibility
requirements
but
do
not
need
to
be
rewritten
in
the
CGP
and/
or
included
in
the
NOI.
Examples
include:
(
1)
TMDL
references
and
guidance
(
2)
ESA
review
(
NOI,
3.7,
Addendum
A)
(
3)
Historic
Preservation
(
NOI,
3.8,
Addendum
B)
(
4)

Postconstruction
stormwater
management
(
3.4.
E)
(
5)
Pollutant
sources
other
than
construction
(
3.4.
I)
(
6)
Non­
stormwater
discharge
management
(
3.5)
EPA
acknowledges
the
commenter's
concerns.
The
Agency
has
reorganized
this
permit
significantly
from
the
1998
CGP
in
an
attempt
to
make
the
permit
easier
to
understand.
EPA's
NPDES
regulations
require
permit
compliance
with
TMDLs,
and
other
statutes
like
the
ESA.
See
40
CFR
122.49(
c).
Certain
pollutant
sources
other
than
construction
and
non­
storm
water
discharge
management
are
included
in
the
CGP
as
a
way
to
consolidate
permit
requirements.
Otherwise,
all
construction
sites
that
had
non­
construction
related
discharges
would
be
required
to
attain
coverage
under
a
second
nonstorm
water
discharge
permit.

EPA
acknowledges
the
commenter's
concern
regarding
post­
construction
storm
water
management
and
believes
that
this
requirement
is
a
critical
component
in
storm
water
control.
1002
7
