### Construction General Permit (CGP)

Page 1 of 11 Economic Analysis

– Cost Implications of the 2012 CGP

INTRODUCTION

EPA provides this “Economic Analysis” as part of the administrative record in support of
the 2012 Construction General Permit (or “ 2012 CGP”). This analysis evaluates the cost implications of the significant changes to the permit. Each significant change is examined in light of the previous permit’s (the “2008 CGP”) requirements and the requirements of the Construction and Development Ef fluent Limitations Guideline and New Source Performance
Standards (the “C&D rule”) , which for the first time is being incorporated into the CGP

. The objective of this examination is to show where or to what extent the 2012 CGP includes requirements that impose an incremental increase in costs on permittees above and beyond costs that are already accounted for in the 2008 CGP or in the C&D rule requirements, which together define the baseline of costs to which these permittees are current ly subject.

BACKGROUND

Since 1992, EPA has issued a series of CGPs that cover areas where EPA is the NPDES permitting authority. At present, EPA is the permitting authority in four states (Idaho, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and New Mexico), the Distr ict of Columbia, Puerto Rico, all other U.S. territories with the exception of the Virgin Islands, federal facilities in four states (Colorado, Delaware, Vermont, and Washington), most Indian lands and other specifically designated activities in specific states (e.g., oil and gas activities in Texas and Oklahoma). See Appendix B of the permit for a complete list of areas covered by EPA’s CGP. EPA’s previous CGP, the 2008 CGP, became effective on June 30, 2008 (see 74 FR 40338), and expire d on February 15 , 2012 . The 2012 CGP replace s the 2008 CGP.

In order to gain an understanding of the incremental differences between the 2008 CGP
and the 2012 CGP

, it is first necessary to provide summaries of the requirements in the 2008 permit and of the new requiremen ts in the C&D rule.

The 2008 CGP

The key components of the 2008 CGP are non

- numeric effluent limitations that require the permittee to minimize discharges of pollutants in stormwater discharges using stormwater controls that reflect best engineering practices based on EPA’s best professio nal judgment.
Construction sites must minimize their discharge of pollutants in stormwater using appropriate erosion and sediment controls and control measures for other pollutants such as litter, construction debris, and construction chemicals that could be exposed to stormwater and other wastewater. The 2008 CGP requires dischargers to develop a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) to document the steps they will take to comply with the terms, conditions

, and effluent limitations of the permit. EPA's guidance manual, "Developing Your Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan: A Guide for Construction Sites,” (EPA 833/R

- 060

- 04, May 2007; available on EPA's website at http://www.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater ) describes the SWPPP process in detail. As detailed in the 2008 CGP, the SWPPP must include a description of the construction site with maps showing drainage patterns, discharge points, and locations of discharge controls; a description of the control me asures used; and inspection procedures. The CGP does not require permittees to submit a SWPPP to the permitting authority; however

, a copy must be readily available to authorized inspectors during normal business hours. Other requirements in the CGP incl ude conducting regular inspections and reporting releases of reportable quantities of
hazardous substances.

### Construction General Permit (CGP)

Page 2 of 11 Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards, and t he C&D Rule

NPDES permits issued for construction stormwater discharges are required under Section 402(a)(1) of the CWA to include conditions for meeting technology

- based effluent limitations guidelines established under Section 301 and, where applicable, new source performance
standard s established under Section 306. Once an effluent limitatio ns guideline (ELG) and/ or new source performance standard is promulgated that applies to a particular point source category , NPDES permits for those point sources are required to incorporate limits based on such limitations and standards. See 40 CFR 122.4 4(a)(1). Prior to the promulgation of national ELGs and standards, permitting authorities incorporate technology

- based effluent limitations on a best professional judgment or “BPJ” basis. CWA section 402(a)(1)(B); 40 CFR 125.3(a)(2)(ii)(B).

For all of the previous EPA

- issued CGPs, there were no ELGs or new source performance
standards that applied to stormwater discharges from construction and development activity. Therefore, the effluent limits in the 2008 CGP (and its predecessors) are (and have been ) BPJ

type requirements. W ith the promulgation on December 1, 2009 of the C&D rule ( See 74 Fed. Reg. 62996, and 40 CFR 450.21)

, there was a set of national ELGs and new source performance
standards that would apply to discharges from construction sites, and therefore would have been required to be incorporated into the CGP. A summary of the C&D rule non

- numeric and numeric requirement s is included below. As discussed under the section on numeric effluent limits, the numeric turbidity limit has been stayed, and, therefore, the 2012 CGP does not include the numeric limit

.
Non

- Numeric Effluent Limits

The C&D rule’s non

- numeric effluent limitations are str uctured to require permittees to first prevent the discharges of sediment and other pollutants through the use of effective planning and erosion control measures; and second, to control discharges that do occur through the use of effective sediment control measures. Permittees are also required to implement a range of pollution prevention measures to limit or prevent discharges of pollutants including those from dry weather discharges.

The non

- numeric effluent limitations are designed to prevent the mobil ization and stormwater discharge of sediment and sediment

- bound pollutants, such as metals and nutrients, and to prevent or minimize exposure of stormwater to construction materials, debris

, and other sources of pollutants on construction sites. In additi on, these non

- numeric effluent limitations limit the generation of dissolved pollutants, such as nutrients, organics, pesticides, herbicides

, and metals that may be present naturally in the soil on construction sites, such as arsenic or selenium, or may ha ve been contributed by previous activities on the site

, such as agricultur al or industrial activities . These pollutants, once mobilized by stormwater, can detach from the soil particles and become dissolved pollutants. Once dissolved, these pollutants would not be removed by
down

- slope sediment controls. Source control through minimization of soil eros ion is therefore the most effective way of controlling the discharge of these pollutants.

The C&D rule’s non

- numeric effluent limits are as follows:

a. Erosion and Sediment Controls: Permittees are required to design, install and maintain effective er osion controls and sediment controls to minimize the discharge of pollutants. At a minimum, such controls must be designed, installed and maintained to:

i. Control stormwater volume and velocity within the site to minimize soil erosion;

ii. Control stormwater di scharges, including both peak flowrates and total stormwater volume, to minimize erosion at outlets and to minimize downstream channel and streambank erosion;

### Construction General Permit (CGP)

Page 3 of 11 iii. Minimize the amount of soil exposed during construction activity;

iv. Minimize the disturbance of steep slopes;

v. Minimize sediment discharges from the site. The design, installation and maintenance of erosion and sediment controls must address factors such as the amount, frequency, intensity and duration of precipitation, the nature of resulting stormw ater runoff, and soil characteristics, including the range of soil particle sizes expected to be present on the site;

vi. Provide and maintain natural buffers around surface waters, direct stormwater to vegetated areas to increase sediment removal and maximize stormwater infiltration, unless infeasible; and

vii. Minimize soil compaction and, unless infeasible, preserve topsoil.

b. Soil Stabilization Requirements: Permittees are required to, at a minimum, initiate soil stabilization measures immediately whenever an y clearing, grading, excavating or other earth disturbing activities have permanently ceased on any portion of the site, or temporarily ceased on any portion of the site and will not resume for a period exceeding 14 calendar days.
Stabilization must be co mpleted within a period of time determined by the permitting authority. In arid, semi

- arid, and drought

- stricken areas where initiating vegetative stabilization measures immediately is infeasible, vegetative stabilization measures must be initiated as soo n as practicable.

c. Dewatering Requirements: Permittees are required to minimize the discharge of pollutants from dewatering trenches and excavations. Discharges are prohibited unless managed by appropriate controls.

d. Pollution Prevention Measures : Permittees are required to design, install, implement, and maintain effective pollution prevention measures to minimize the discharge of pollutants. At a minimum, such measures must be designed, installed, implemented and maintained to:

i. Minimize the di scharge of pollutants from equipment and vehicle washing, wheel wash water, and other wash waters. Wash waters must be treated in a sediment basin or alternative control that provides equivalent or better treatment prior to discharge;

ii. Minimize the exposur e of building materials, building products, construction wastes, trash, landscape materials, fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, detergents, sanitary waste and other materials present on the site to precipitation and to stormwater; and

iii. Minimize the discha rge of pollutants from spills and leaks and implement chemical spill and leak prevention and response procedures.

e. Prohibited Discharges: The following discharges from C&D sites are prohibited:

i. Wastewater from washout of concrete, unless managed by an appropriate control;

ii. Wastewater from washout and cleanout of stucco, paint, form release oils, curing compounds and other construction materials;

iii. Fuels, oils, or other pollutants used in vehicle and equipment operation and maintenance; and

iv. Soaps or solve nts used in vehicle and equipment washing.

f. Surface Outlets: When discharging from basins and impoundments, permittees are required to utilize outlet structures that withdraw water from the surface, unless infeasible.

### Construction General Permit (CGP)

Page 4 of 11 Numeric Effluent Limit

EPA also finalized as part of the C&D rule a numeric limit for turbidity that applies to sites disturbing 10 or more acres at a time. Sites that are required to comply with the numeric limit
must also meet the non

- numeric effluent limits described above. EPA is phasing in the numeric effluent limit over four years to allow permitting authorities adequate time to develop monitoring requirements and to allow the regulated community time to prepare for compliance with the numeric effluent limitation. Constr uction sites that disturb 20 or more acres at one time will be required to conduct monitoring of discharges from the site and comply with the numeric effluent limitation beginning August 1, 2011 (18 months after Februeary 1, 2009, the effecte date of the

r ule). Construction sites that disturb 10 or more acres at one time will be required to conduct monitoring of discharges from the site and comply with the numeric effluent limit beginning four years after the effective date of the final rule, or February 2 , 2014.

The C&D rule’s numeric effluent limit at 40 CFR 450.22 is as follows:

a. Beginning no later than August 1, 2011 during construction activity that disturbs 20 or more acres of land at one time, including non

- contiguous land disturbances that take place at the same time and are part of a larger common plan of development or sale; and no later than February 2, 2014 during construction activity that disturbs ten or more acres of land area at one time, including non

- contiguous land disturbances that t ake place at the same time and are part of a larger common plan of development or sale, the following requirements apply:

(1) Except as provided by paragraph (b) of this section, the average turbidity of any discharge for any day must not exceed the value list ed in the following table:

Pollutant Daily Maximum Value (NTU) 1

Turbidity 280

1 Nephelometric turbidity units.

(2) Conduct monitoring consistent with requirements established by the permitting authority. Each sample must be analyzed for turbidity in accordance with methods specified by the permitting authority.

b. If stormwater discharges in any day occur as a result of a storm event in that same day that is larger than the local 2

- year, 24

- hour storm, the effluent limitation in paragraph (a)(1)
of t his section does not apply for that day. EPA notes that since the promulgation of the C&D
Rule , EPA has discovered that the data used to calculate the numeric limit for turbidity were misinterpreted, and that proper interpretation of this data will likely result in a different numeric limit for turbidity than was promulgated in December of 2009. On August 12, 2010, EPA filed a motion with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, requesting the Court issue an order vacating and remanding to the Ag ency limited portions of the final C&D rule. To address the specific issues raised by petitioners, the motion also provided that EPA:

“may address (and if necessary take further regulatory action on) certain impacts of the final rule specific to linear gas and electricity utility projects.”

will “solicit site specific information regarding the applicability of a numeric limit” to cold weather sites and to small sites that are part of a larger plan of development that is subject to the numeric limit.

On Aug ust 24, 2010 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit remanded the matter to EPA, but did not vacate the 280 NTU limit . On September 9, 2010, the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) filed a motion for clarification (which EPA did not opp ose) asking the court to (1) vacate the limit and (2) hold the case in abeyance instead of remanding

### Construction General Permit (CGP)

Page 5 of 11 the matter to EPA. On September 20, 2010, the Court granted the motion in part by ruling to hold the matter in abeyance pending EPA consideration of the n umeric limit and the other remand issues, but the Court did not vacate the 280 NTU limit. Instead, the Court stated that "EPA may make any changes to the limit it deems appropriate, as authorized by law."

EPA finalized a stay, effective January 4, 2011, of the numeric limitation of 280 NTU that was published in the December 1, 2009, Construction and Development Effluent Limitation Guideline, resulting in an indefinite postponement of the implementation of the 280 NTU limit. Since the numeric portion of the rule was stayed, states are no longer required to incorporate the numeric turbidity limitation and monitoring requirements found at §450.22(a) and §450.22(b). However, the remainder of the regulation, including the non

- numeric effluent limitations
desc ribed above, is still in effect and must be incorporated into newly issued permits.

The final CGP is directly affected by the stay in that the permit may not be issued with a numeric turbidity limit. When EPA issued the draft permit for public comment , th e Agency was uncertain whether its work to complete the recalculation of the numeric turbidity limit would be completed in time to incorporate into the final permit. To be able to implement the yet to be promulgated turbidity limit in the final permit, EP A included in the draft permit a placeholder for the effluent limit, as well as proposed implementation requirements such as turbidity monitoring and reporting protocols. Because EPA is still in the process of collecting data to support the recalculation of the numeric turbidity limit , and therefore a final numeric turbidity limit is not yet available to implement, the Agency has finalized without the numeric limit and related monitoring and reporting requirements. EPA has, however, implemented the remai ning portion of the C&D rule that was not affected by the stay of the numeric limit.

SIGNIFICANT CHANGES FROM PAST PERMITS

A precursor to examining the cost implications of moving from the 2008 CGP to the 2012
CGP is to understand the changes that were made

. The following is a summary of the significant changes that were made in the 2012 permit.

Eligibility for Emergency

- Related Construction

. The 2012 CGP authorizes discharges from earth

- disturbing activities conducted in response to a public emergency (e.g., natural disaster, disruption in essential public services), and the related work requires immediate authorization to avoid imminent endangerment to human health or the environment, or to reestablish essential public services, on the condit ion that a complete and accurate NOI is submitted within 30 days after commencing earth

disturbing activities establishing that the permittee is eligible under the permit. The permitee is also required to provide documentation in the NOI and SWPPP to subst antiate the occurrence of the public emergency.

Use of Cationic Treatment Chemicals

Sites that plan to use cationic treatment chemicals are ineligible for coverage under the CGP, unless the applicable EPA Regional Office has been notified in advance and the EPA office authorizes coverage under this permit after appropriate controls and implementation procedures designed to ensure that the use of cationic treatment chemicals will not lead to a violation of water quality standards have been included

.

Authorization Process / NOIs

. In the 2012 CGP, EPA has increased the “waiting period” for the official start date of permit coverage after submitting the NOI from 7 days to 14 days for “new projects”. The 14

- day timeframe better accommodates the endangere d species

- related reviews that must take place prior to authorization. However, if the project qualifies as an “emergency

- related project”

, as

### Construction General Permit (CGP)

Page 6 of 11 discussed above, the permittee must submit the NOI by no later than 30 days after commencing
earth

- disturbing a ctivities. In such cases, the project is considered provisionally covered under the terms and conditions of the permit immediately, and unprovisionaly covered 14 days after EPA has acknowledged receipt of the NOI, unless EPA notifies that permittee that th e authorization has been delayed or denied.

The 2012 CGP maximize s the use of EPA’s electronic NOI, or eNOI, process for authorizing construction discharges by requiring that construction operators seek coverage using the eNOI system. If applicants have a problem with the use of the eNOI system, they may contact the EPA Regional Office that corresponds to the location of the project site. If the applicant is given approval by the EPA Regional Office to use a paper NOI, the applicant must complete the for m in the appendix of the permit.

Sediment and Erosion Controls

.
The 2012 CGP includes specific requirements that implement the C&D rule’s sediment and erosion control limits. While many of these requirements are included in the 2008 CGP, the
2012 CGP in cludes more specifics in order to properly implement the C&D rule. The following is a list of requirements that can be considered the most significant modifications to the 2008 CGP:

1. Installation of Stormwater Controls

– Operators must install and make ope rational any downgradient sediment controls by the time earth

- disturbing activities in any given portion of the site have begun, unless infeasible

. Following the installation of initial controls, all other stormwater controls described in the SWPPP must be installed and made operational as soon as conditions on the site allow.

2. Buffers

– I n order to minimize discharges of pollutants

, for any surface waters locate d on or within 50 feet of a site

, operators must ensure that any discharges to surface waters through the area between the disturbed portions of the property and any surface waters are treated by an area of undisturbed natural bufer and/ or additional erosion and sediment controls to achieve a reduction in sediment load equivalent to that achieved by a 50

- foot buffer natural buffer

.
3. Sediment Track

- Out Requirements

– To minimize sediment track

- out, operators must restrict vehicle use to properly designated exit points and must use approp riate stabilization techniques at all points that exit onto pav ed roads so that sediment removal occurs prior to vehicle exit. Operators are required to remove deposited sediment
tracked

- out from the site by the end of the same work day in which the track

- out occurs or by the end of the next work day if track

- out occurs on a non

- work day

. 4. Storm Drain Inlets

– Controls must be installed and maintained to protect any storm drain inlets to which the site discharges.

5. Use of Treatment Chemicals

– Where operators will use treatment chemicals at their site, they are subj ect to minimum requirements relating to the use and storage of the chemical and operator training.

6. Dewatering Practices

– Specific controls and discharge restrictions apply to sites that will discharge groundwater or accumulated stormwater removed from e xcavations, trenches, foundations, vaults, or other points of accumulation associated with construction activity.

Stabilization Requirements

. The permit includes modified stabilization initiation and completion deadlines

. T h e permit also retains the 70 pe rcent vegetative cover method that was in the 2008 permit as an option for stabilizing the site , and also allows non

- vegetative stabilization measures.

### Construction General Permit (CGP)

Page 7 of 11 Pollution Prevention

. Beyond adopting the specific C&D rule requirements for pollution prevention and the prohibition of certain discharges, the 2012 permit requires permitees to provide an effective means of minimizing and/or eliminating the discharge of pollutants. The permit provides specific examples of practices for minimzing and/or eliminating discharges including locating activities away from waters of the U.S. and stormwater inlets or conveyances, providing secondary containment and cover, and/or having spill kits readily available a s well as design standards (e.g., install secondary containment or cover activities).

Water Quality

- Based Effluent Limits

. The permit includes specific requirements that apply to sites discharging to waters impaired for common pollutants associated with construction activities, such as sediment and nutrients

, or to water s that are identified by the state, tribe, or EPA as Tier 2, Tier 2.5, or Tier 3 for antidegredation purposes. For such sites, construction activities are subject to tighter stabilization deadlines ( permitees are required to complete the stabilization activities within 7 calendar days of the temporary or permanent cessation of eath

- disturbing activities , as opposed to 14 days) and more frequent site inspections (once every 7 calendar days a nd within 24 hours of the occurrence of a storm event of 0.25 inches or greater)

. Site Inspections

. The permit requires that site inspections be conducted once every 7 calendar days or once every 14 days and within 24 hours of the occurrence of a storm event of 0.25 inches or greater. The permit make s explicit the requirement to require operators to visually assess the quality of the discharge (e.g., color, odor, floating, settled, or suspended solids) if the site inspection occurs during a discharge

- gen erating rain event.

Corrective Actions

. Although the 2008 permit requires corrective action, it does not include specific requirements instructing the permittee as to what conditions trigger such corrective action and what deadlines apply. The 2012 permit includes specific triggering conditions for corrective action as well as deadlines to fix such problems and document what was done.

Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan

. The SWPPP requirements are modified in accordance with the changes discussed

a bove. In general, the requirements are more specific, but consistent with the 2008 permit.

Notice of Termination

. The permit include s additional requirements that affect when a site may terminate coverage under the CGP. For instance, beyond enabling s ites to terminate coverage when
earth

- disturbing activities have stopped and the site is stabilized, the permit require s the removal of all temporary stormwater controls and construction materials, waste, and waste handling devices.

COST IMPLICATIONS OF T HE SIGNIFICANT PERMIT CHANGES

In ass essing the cost implications of requiring compliance with the new permit provisions

, EPA looked for requirements that will impose a greater burden on the permittee as compared to the the 2008 CGP and any existing ELGs and NSPS (in this case, the C&D rule), with which they
will be required to comply regardless. To help portray where such “incremental” cost increases
occur in t he 2012 CGP, EPA conducted a side

- by

- side analysis of the 2012 CGP requirements and any corresponding requirements in the 2008 CGP and the C&D rule. See Appendix 1.

### Construction General Permit (CGP)

Page 8 of 11 EPA notes that the regulatory requirement to incorporate applicable ELG s and NSPS is

non

- discretionary . Because the promulgation of the C&D rule compels EPA to incorporate its requirements into any new permits, and because these requirements redefine what is
considered to be the technology

- based requirements that apply to all permitted sites , where permit provisions are an expression of the C&D rule requirements , it is unnecessary to compare
the 2012 CGP requirement to the 2008 permit requirements.

Based on the analysis in Appendix 1, with respect to requirements included in the 2012 CGP that reflect the C&D rule requirements, EPA found no significant incremental increases in
costs between the 2012 CGP ’s requirements and the costs already accounted for in either the C&D rule promulgation or the requirements of the 2008 CGP , as discusse d below

. Where EPA found there to be a quantifiable cost increase, which is not already accounted for by the 2008 permit’s requirements or by the C&D rule , is in the incremental change between 2008 CGP and
the 2012 CGP ’s frequency and scope of site inspec tions. The following is a more detailed discussion of EPA’s rationale supporting these conclusions.

Changes to the NOI Form and Authorization Process

The NOI form (Appendix J ) has been modified from the 2008 NOI to include additional questions relating to the receiving water and its impairment status. The receiving water and impairment questions are intended to inform the Agency about the eligibility status of sites discharging to impaired waters or waters designated as Tier 2 , 2.5, or 3 for antidegradati on purposes, and of sites subject to additional requirements. These questions enable EPA to better

ensure compliance with the NPDES regulations at 40 C FR 122.4(i), 122.44(d), and 131.12. Construction sites have always been subject to these requirements, and the answers to the NOI questions will have been determined in advance by the site operator in order to determine if he/she is eligible for permit coverage.

The NOI form also includes new questions relating to the use of chemical treatment and histori c properties and requires additional information regarding endangered species protection. The answers to these NOI questions will also have been determined in advance by the site operator in order to determine if he/she is eligible for permit coverage. E PA believes that any additional time needed to answer the new NOI question s will be offset by the administrative efficiency of submitting the form electronically through the eNOI system. For further information regarding EPA’s estimated costs associated w ith completing and submitting the NOI, refer to the Agency’s Information Collection Request (ICR) for the NPDES Program (OMB Control No. 2040

- 0004, EPA ICR No. 0229.19

– December 2008)

. Provide and Natural Buffers or Equivalent Controls

I n order to minimiz e discharges of pollutants

, for any surface waters locate d on or within 50 feet of a site

, operators must ensure that any discharges to surface waters through the area between the disturbed portions of the property and any surface waters are treated by an area of undisturbed natural bufer and/ or additional erosion and sediment controls to achieve a reduction in sediment load equivalent to that achieved by a 50

- foot buffer natural buffer.

EPA provides three different alternatives f or meeting this requirement, which include:

(1) P rovid e and maintain a 50

- foot natural buffer ; or
(2) Provide and m aintain an undisturbed natural buffer that is less than 50 feet that is supplemented by additional erosion and sediment controls, which in combination achieves the equivalent sediment load reduction as a 50

- foot natural buffer ; or
(3) I f it is infeasible to provide and maintain an undistur bed naturally vegetated buffer of any size , the permittee must implement sediment and erosion controls that achieve the equivalent load reduction as a 50

- foot natural buffer.

### Construction General Permit (CGP)

Page 9 of 11 As a companion to these requirements , E PA has developed guidelines in Appendix G for operators to use.

EPA believes that the buffer requirements will not impose large incremental costs on affected site operators and in many cases may not impose any additional costs, as compared to the costs already accounted for in the promulgation o f the C&D rule (see 40 CFR 450.21(a)(6)) or which are not offset by the flexibility provided in the proposed requirements, as discussed below. First, many of the sites that will be permitted under the 201 2 CGP are already subject to state and/or local buf fer or waterfront setback requirements that provide some minimum area that is to be left undisturbed and naturally vegetated. EPA notes that because these waterfront setback requirements are predominantly established at the local or county level, and
dete rmining the exact buffer width of all of these jurisdictions would have been exceedingly difficult, the Agency examined a subset of these county and local government requirements. What EPA found in its research is that these buffer requirements range in w idth from 25 to 300 feet depending on the area as well as the water being protected. See further discussion of state and local buffer requirements in Section VII.1.2 and Tables 4 and 5 of the Fact Sheet. Therefore, EPA believes that many construction ope rators are already required to leave some minimum area of land between a waterbody and their construction activities undisturbed. In areas where state and/or local setback requirements are 50 feet or more, the EPA requirement imposes no additional costs. In areas with state and/or local setback requirements of less than 50 feet, the EPA's buffer requirement only imposes a cost for the additional increment between the local requirement and the EPA's 50 foot requirement.

Second, in the cases where this buffe r requirement does impose costs, it is the lesser of either the net opportunity costs, if any, of the incremental land requirements to extend any existing buffer to 50 feet or the cost of additional BMPs to reach reduction levels equivalent to the buffer requirements

. The requirement to provide a buffer does not impose any additional costs for purchasing equipment, supplies, or staff, or to make improvements to the existing vegetated area near the water. The permit requires simply that whatever vegetatio n exists in the buffer area at the time of construction be left alone. Furthermore, if a buffer is selected, since the existence of an undeveloped vegetative buffer could provide some economic value to the developed land (e.g., the benefit of a wooded buff er next to a stream), the lost opportunity cost of the land is the difference between the value of the project with the buffer and the value of the project without the buffer.

Third, where locally established waterfront setback requirements allows for dis turbances closer than the proposed minimum 50 feet, the permit provides operators a limited exception to authorize disturbances within the 50

- foot buffer, and provides flexibility for certain already disturbed buffers where providing a buffer is infeasible . EPA also allows certain types of water

dependent structures to be built within the buffer

. These provisions help prevent extreme costs from being imposed on the construction operator as a result of the buffer requirements.

Stabilization Requirements

The 2012 CGP establishes specific deadlines for initiating and completing stabilization on the inactive portions of construction sites. The costs for the deadlines to initiate stabilization were accounted for in the promulgation of the C&D rule’s ELGs an d NSPS. The additional deadlines established for completing stabilization is EPA’s articulation of the following C&D rule requirement: “ s tabilization must be completed within a period of time determined by the permitting authority. ” See 40 CFR 450.21(b). With respect to the stabilization criteria, EPA notes that existing permittees under the 2008 CGP are already subject to the 70 percent vegetative cover criterion, which is retained in the 2012 CGP

.

Water Quality

- Based Effluent Limits

### Construction General Permit (CGP)

Page 10 of 11 The 2012 CGP in cludes requirements, similar to past CGPs, for permittees to control discharges as necessary to meet applicable water quality standards. The 2012 permit differs from its predecessors in that it imposes two additional requirements on sites discharging to waters that are impaired for sediment or nutrient

- related pollutants and for sites discharging to waters identied as Tier 2, Tier 2.5, or Tier 3 . These additional requirements include the following:

A requi rement to conduct more frequent inspections; and A requirement to initiate and complete stabilization on inactive, exposed areas

sooner than other sites

. See Part 3.2.2

. It is EPA’s view that the inclusion of these additional requ irements for ce rtain sites does not constitute an incremental increase in cost burden to affected permittees because they were already subject to the requirement to control their discharges as necessary to meet applicable water quality standards . See 40 CFR 122.44(d). The requirement in the 2008 permit to comply with these water quality standards

- related requirements imposes on its permittees the regulatory burden of taking the measures that are necessary to ensure that their discharges are
controlled as necessary to me et applicable water quality standards. The additional water quality

- based effluent limits in the 2012 permit are included as a clarification from earlier permits of what this permit requires of its pe rmittees in order to meet these regulatory mandates , and therefore are no more burdensome than the 2008 CGP requirements

. The following discussion elaborates on EPA’s rationale for arriving at the conclusion that these requirements do not impose an incremental increase in regulatory burden on CGP permittees:

A dditional Inspection Requirements: Part 4. 1.3 of the permit requires , for sites discharging
to a sediment or nutrient

- impaired water or to a water that is identified as Tier 2, Tier 2.5, or Tier 3, site inspections once every 7 calendar days and within 24 hours of the occurrence of a storm event of 0.25 inches or greater . EPA views these additional inspection requirement s as necessary to ensure compliance with the regulatory protections for water quality standards per 40 CFR 122.44(d). EPA’s basic belief is that by conducting inspections at this frequency the Agency is assured that site operators will be able to prevent problems with sediment or nutrient discharges before they occur. These additional requirements are not an incremental burden increase be cause they merely elaborate on what is necessary to comply with the 40 CFR 122.44(d) requirements.

Faster Stabilization Timeframes: Part 2.2.1.3. c of the 2012 CGP permit requires that sites discharging to a sediment or nutrient

- impaired water or to a water that is identified by the state, tribe, or EPA as Tier 2, Tier 2.5 , or Tier 3 , within 7 calendar days of the temporary or permanent cessation of earth

- disturbing activitie stabilize disturbed areas where construction activities have temporar ily or permanently ceased

. EPA believes that this tighter stabilization timeframe will help ensure that exposed areas, which are highly erodible and unless properly covered result in significant sediment discharge, are not contributing sediment to these i mpaired waters.

These tighter stabilization timeframes do not impose an incremental increase in burden. First, EPA specifically anticipated in the C&D rule preamble that, when considering how to use its discretion in translating the non

- numeric effluent limitations into construction permits, “ the permitting authority may determine that it is necessary for permitees to initiate soil stabilization measures when construction activity has permanently or temporarily ceased and will not resume for a period exc eeding 7 calendar days, as opposed to 14 calendar days.” See 74 Fed. Reg. 63016. For this reason, the 2012 permit’s adoption of the 7

- day stabilization timeframe is consistent with what EPA anticipated would be one of the ways permitting authorities could choose to implement the

### Construction General Permit (CGP)

Page 11 of 11 requirement at 40 CFR 450.21(b). Second, it is EPA’s opinion that the 7

- day stabil ization timeframe, much like the 14

- day stabilization timeframe, does not impose incremental costs on construction operators. The deadline to initiate stabilization is a function of the operator’s already ongoing construction planning process, and therefo re altering a deadline to initiate stabilization should not affect the construction operator’s bottom line costs. In other words, the requirement for certain sites to initiate stabilization of exposed areas within 7 days of ceasing earth

- disturbing activi ties rather than 14 days does not require the operator to purchase additional equipment or resources. Instead, the timeframe is absorbed as part of the other activities for which the operator must
schedule.

Site Inspections

The 2012 CGP requires permit tees to conduct inspections once every 7 calendar days or once every 14 calendar days and within 24 hours of the occurrence of a storm event of 0.25 inches or greater. These requirements differ from the 2008 permit, which provides permittees with a choice of conducting weekly inspections or bi

- weekly inspections in addition to inspections conducted within 24 hours of storm events measuring 0.50 inches or more. The 2012 CGP also requires permittees to conduct a visual observation of the discharge, to the ex tent that it occurs during normal working hours . The 2008 CGP requires permittees to include as part of the inspection report “a description of any discharges occurring at the time of the inspection”, but did not include specific requirements as to what w as supposed to be documented.” See Part 4.H.4 of the 2008 CGP. Therefore, despite the fact that the 2008 CGP included a related requirement to the requirements in the 2012 permit for visual observation, EPA will consider the new level of detail in the 20 12 CGP to amount to an increase in cost burden to affected permittees.

EPA has determined that the cost of complying with these modified inspection requirements will result in an incremental cost increase to some permittees. Appendix 2 includes an estim ate of the incremental cost increases resulting from both the change in storm size from 0.50 inches to 0.25 inches, and in the requirement to conduct visual discharge observations. EPA estimates that compared to the 0.50 inch storm threshold for conductin g inspections, the 0.25 inch threshold in the 2012 permit will result in an increase of 5,424 additional inspections annually, or 2.3 additional inspections annually per permittee. Taking into account the new requirement to visually observe the quality of the discharge, EPA estimates that the burden hours will increase by an estimated 4,896 hours annually, which amount s to an incremental increase in $146,874 of burden hours annually or $62 for each permittee. Refer to Appendix 2 for a the underlying assumptions and data used to estimate these incremental cost increases.