Document ID: EPA-HQ-OW-2002-0055-0129
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2003-06-27T04:00Z

Environmental
Impacts
Comment
Response
New
Topic
Summ.
ID
Summary
Response
DocumentID
10
18
the
most
important
thing
to
keep
in
mind
is
that
this
Permit
is
not
just
about
water
quality.
It
is
also
about
housing,
jobs
and
economic
growth.
The
absence
of
any
meaningful
consideration
of
these
issues,
in
an
effort
to
improve
water
quality
at
any
cost,
will
have
an
immediate
and
significant
impact
on
affordable
housing,
jobs,
wages
and
livability.
Meanwhile,
there
would
be
little,
if
any,
certainty
as
to
just
how
much
water
quality
improvement
would
really
be
achieved.
The
cost
of
compliance
with
new
requirements
for
small
construction
are
contained
in
the
Phase
II
Economic
Analysis.
Impacts
of
storm
water
discharges
and
an
explanation
of
covered
activities
are
contained
in
the
Preamble
to
the
Phase
II
Rule.
These
documents
and
similar
cost
comments
and
responses
can
be
found
either
at
www.
epa.
gov/
npdes/
stormwater
or
in
the
Administrative
Record
for
the
Phase
II
Rule
in
EPA's
Office
of
Water
Docket.
1039
10
253
The
Fact
Sheet
assumes
that
post­
development
flows
will
contain
higher
levels
of
pollutants,
including
total
suspended
solids,
metals,
nutrients,
and
oxygen
demanding
substances
either
during
construction
or
under
background
conditions
(
fact
sheet
3.14(
G)).

This
assumption
does
not
ring
true
in
all
instances
and
stands
to
unfairly
cloud
the
issue
of
post­
development
water
quality.
Numerous
studies
of
pre­
and
post­
development
storm
water
runoff
indicate
that
there
are
higher
concentrations
and
loads
of
many
pollutants
in
postdevelopment
areas.
While
loads
of
nutrients
and
sediment
CAN
be
reduced
from
a
pre­
development
condition
of
POOR
agricultural
land
management
to
a
post­
development
condition
with
state
of
the
art
storm
water
management
controls,
this
is
not
currently
the
standard
land
conversion
situation
in
the
United
States.
There
are
many
other
pollutants
(
copper,
zinc,
PAHs)
that
are
always
more
common
in
typical
post­
development
runoff
than
in
typical
predevelopment
runoff.
1033
10
254
The
Fact
Sheet
assumes
that
post­
development
flows
will
contain
higher
levels
of
pollutants,
including
total
suspended
solids,
metals,
nutrients,
and
oxygendemanding
substances
either
during
construction
or
under
background
conditions.
This
assumption
does
not
ring
true
in
all
instances
and
stands
to
unfairly
cloud
the
issue
of
post­
development
water
quality 

For
example,
in
areas
where
agricultural
lands
are
converted
to
urban
uses,
the
levels
of
both
sediment
and
nutrients
can
be
dramatically
reduced
over
predevelopment
conditions.
The
Fact
Sheet
should
not
contain
such
unjustified
and
incorrect
speculation,
and
should
be
revised
to
remove
such
assumptions.
See
response
to
comments
253
and
255
1039
1
Environmental
Impacts
Comment
Response
New
Topic
Summ.
ID
Summary
Response
DocumentID
10
255
There
would
be
no
benefit
to
the
environment
as
a
result
of
the
implementation
of
the
NPDES
permit
requirements
because
the
construction
standards
and
procedures
currently
in
effect
would
not
change.
EPA
does
believe
that
there
would
be
a
benefit
to
the
environment
as
a
result
of
implementation
of
the
CGP
requirements.
Permit
requirements
would
be
applied
to
many
more
construction
sites.
EPA
also
believes
that
current
standards
are
generally
adequate;
unfortunately
they
are
not
always
fully
implemented.

EPA
has
postponed
for
2
years
a
final
decision
on
the
coverage
of
small
(
less
than
5
acres)
oil
and
gas
construction
activities
in
order
to
more
closely
study
the
issue.
1043
10
256
It
...
Best
Management
Practices
demanded
by
Pennsylvania's
Erosion
and
Sedimentation
Control
requirements
...
to
date,
has
yielded
no
positive
 

environmental
result
for
our
industry.
EPA
does
not
have
results
of
any
formal
evaluation
of
Pennsylvania's
Erosion
and
Sedimentation
Control
program.
EPA
knows
that
BMPs,
if
properly
designed,
implemented
and
maintained,
are
generally
effective
at
controlling
erosion
and
sedimentation.
1012
10
257
Utility
construction
activities
off
the
property
of
the
development
commonly
occur
in
paved
areas,
with
a
short
construction
duration
and
reduced
exposure
to
disturbed
soil
and
therefore
present
extremely
low
potential
for
adverse
impacts
to
surface
waters
from
their
storm
water
runoff.
Utility
construction
activities
in
largely
paved
areas
often
result
in
notable
discharge
of
construction
site
contaminants
because
of
their
immediate
proximity
to
municipal
storm
drains
and
other
drainage
features
(
swales,

ditches).
These
drainage
systems
typically
convey
sediment
and
other
pollutants
directly
to
surface
waters.
1027
10
258
Considering
the
minimal
environmental
risk
from
storm
water
discharges
from
residential
construction
sites,
it
is
reasonable
for
the
regulated
public
to
expect
EPA
to
make
the
permitting
process
as
simple
and
reasonable
as
possible,
yet
this
is
not
the
case
here.
EPA
strives
to
make
the
permitting
process
as
simple
and
reasonable
as
practicable
for
everyone.
EPA
believes
that
notable
environmental
degradation
has
and
is
occurring
from
residential
construction
activities
across
the
country.
1068
2
Environmental
Impacts
Comment
Response
New
Topic
Summ.
ID
Summary
Response
DocumentID
10
259
Construction
sites
are
not
a
major
source
of
water
quality
impairments.
In
the
National
Water
Quality
Inventory,
2000
Report
(
October
3,
2002)
each
state
and
tribe
provide
detailed
information
to
EPA
regarding
the
 
leading
pollutants
and 
sources
impairing
rivers
and
streams,
and
lakes 
While
three
of
these
pollutants
are
relevant
to
storm
water
runoff
from
construction
sites,
it
seems
clear
that
the
states
and
tribes
do
not
believe
construction
sites
are
a
major
source
of
impairment.
It
is
important
to
note
that
the
analysis
 
is
in
line
with
EPA's
own
assessment 
In
the
final
report
estimating
the
cost
of
the
offset
provision
in
the
proposed
rule
on
the
construction
industry
 
It
was
concluded
that
"...
it
seems
reasonable
to
assume
that
2­
3%
of
construction
activity
might
be
contributing
to
impairments."'
(
Page
13­
14,
Final
Draft,
Analysis
of
the
Incremental
Cost
of
Proposed
Revisions
to
the
NPDES
Permit
and
Water
Quality
Standards
Rules,
prepared
for
the
US
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Office
of
Wastewater
Management
by
Environomics,
Inc.,
July
30,
1999).
EPA
has
concluded
that
construction
sites
are
a
major
source
of
water
quality
impairments.
Many
states'
National
Water
Quality
Inventory
Reports
do
not
identify
construction
sites
specifically
as
major
sources,
because
construction
sites
are
not
one
of
the
report
categories.
Also,
because
many
state
monitoring
programs
take
place
on
5
year
cycles,
and
construction
activities
take
place
over
shorter
periods
of
time,
states
often
do
not
have
the
necessary
information
to
draw
conclusions
about
the
relative
impacts
of
construction
activities.
However,

urban
storm
water
runoff
is
identified
as
a
major
source
of
impairment,
and
sediment
is
identified
as
a
major
pollutant
(#
1
for
rivers
and
streams
nationwide
#
3
for
lakes).
EPA
undertook
a
very
comprehensive
analysis
of
storm
water
sources,
proposed
remedies,
costs
and
benefits
prior
to
promulgation
of
the
Phase
II
regulations.
Much
data
and
many
literature
reviews
supporting
the
need
for
permitting
are
available
on
EPA's
website.
1079
10
260
It
would
be
additional
regulations
that
in
my
opinion
would
be
a
burden
to
the
industry
with
very
little
or
no
real
impact
on
the
environments
in
question.
The
reason
that
I
can
say
this
is
if
you
look
at
the
number
of
wells
drilled
in
the
last
few
years
in
Pennsylvania
and
the
total
number
of
Erosion
and
Sediment
violations
for
all
those
wells
they
might
only
number
a
couple
of
hundred
violations
total
for
the
industry.
Of
all
of
these
I
would
bet
only
about
forty
would
be
considered
truly
harmful
to
the
environment.
I
would
say
that
if
these
are
true
and
I
do
believe
these
type
of
numbers
to
be
accurate
estimates
from
what
have
been
told
by
PA
DEP
and
others
then
that
the
change
would
virtually
have
no
real
impact
on
the
environments
that
we
drill
in.
EPA
has
already
announced
the
intention
to
take
an
additional
two
years
to
decide
specifically
what,
if
any,
regulatory
controls
are
necessary
for
small
(
less
than
5
acres)
oil
and
gas
construction
sites.
Please
note
that
this
does
not
apply
in
the
State
of
Pennsylvania
because
the
State
issues
it's
own
NPDES
permits.
1021
3
Environmental
Impacts
Comment
Response
New
Topic
Summ.
ID
Summary
Response
DocumentID
10
261
Besides,
we
[
Oil
and
Gas
Industry]
already
prepare
and
implement
Erosion
and
Sedimentation
Plans
for
the
drilling
of
our
wells.
We
adhere
by
our
plans
because
it
is
in
our
best
interest
to
keep
our
rig
road
and
well
locations
as
dry
as
possible
during
wet
weather
to
minimize
costs
associated
with
operating
heavy
equipment
in
muddy
conditions.
It
only
takes
three
or
four
days
to
drill
a
well
and,
weather
permitting,
our
roads
and
locations
are
recontoured
close
to
the
original
topography,
then
re­
seeded,
within
several
months,
or
as
soon
as
the
appropriate
equipment
can
be
scheduled
to
do
so.
For
all
these
reasons,
I
can't
imagine
that
an
additional
permitting
burden
will
provide
any
incremental
environmental
benefit.
See
response
to
comment
304
1013
10
262
It
is
not
necessary
or
scientifically
justified
for
EPA
to
impose
controls
by
regulation
because
appropriate
controls
are
already
at
use
in
the
industry
[
O&
G]
as
a
matter
of
necessity
and
prudent
practice.
See
response
to
comment
304
1061
10
263
Oil
and
gas
grading,
clearing,
and
excavating
activities
are
scientifically
different
from
conventional
construction
activities,
in
that
the
scope
and
extent
of
oil
and
gas
activities
are
noncontiguous,
contingent
on
geological
and
market
factors,
often
located
in
remote
places,
and
characterized
as
a
matter
of
technical
necessity
and
industry
practice
by
temporary,

permeable,
low­
impact
development
(
LID)
practices.

LID
practices
are
widely
used
in
oil
and
gas
development.
For
example,
porous
pavement
(
e.
g.,

gravel)
is
used
widely
in
oil
and
gas
site
development
where
erosion
control
is
required
on
the
surface.
EPA
applauds
the
use
of
Low
Impact
Development
practices
by
the
oil
and
gas
industry.
EPA
agrees
that
practices
promoting
the
infiltration
of
uncontaminated
storm
water
are
definitely
preferable
to
those
that
promote
collection
and
discharge
of
storm
water.
However,
EPA
notes
that
these
are
post­
construction
storm
water
management
practices,
not
construction
storm
water
management
practices.

EPA
believes
that
any
type
of
construction
that
includes
bare
soil,
even
for
just
a
few
weeks,
is
not
intrinsically
different
from
any
other
type
of
construction
activity
with
respect
to
the
potential
for
water
quality
impacts.
Scientifcally
speaking,
bare
soil
and
rain
are
the
only
parameters
necessary
for
erosion
to
occur;
market
factors,
location,
and
contiguousness
do
not
alter
this
conclusion.

EPA
has
already
announced
it's
intention
to
take
an
additional
two
years
to
decide
specifically
what,
if
any,
regulatory
controls
are
necessary
for
small
(
less
than
5
acres)
oil
and
gas
construction
sites.
See
also,
response
to
comment
304.
1061
4