Document ID: EPA-HQ-OW-2002-0055-0128
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2003-06-27T04:00Z

Site
Stabilization
and
Revegetation
Comment
Response
New
Topic
Summ.
ID
Summary
Response
Document
ID
9a
284
Only
contiguous,
actively
disturbed
areas,
which
have
not
been
temporarily
stabilized
in
a
manner
appropriate
for
the
soil
type,
should
be
counted
against
an
acreage
threshold.
We
believe
that
this
may
be
EPA's
intent
in
defining
"
Options
for
Meeting
the
`
Final
Stabilization'

Criteria"
at
page
44
of
the
proposed
Fact
Sheet,
which
appears
to
envision
that
some
areas
(
e.
g.,
roads
and
equipment
pads)
will
not
be
paved
or
finally
stabilized.

But
the
Fact
Sheet
information
has
not
been
reflected
in
sections
5.1(
A)
or
10
of
the
proposed
CGP
itself.

EPA
should
confirm
that
oil
and
gas
activities
are
not
considered
"
disturbed"
or
"
under
construction"
once
accepted,
prudent
temporary
stabilization
measures
consistent
with
the
operator's
use
of
the
road,
pit,
pad,

or
pipeline
have
been
implemented.
EPA
agrees
with
the
commenter's
assertion
that
certain
structures
will
consist
of
disturbed
earth
(
e.
g.,
dirt
roads,
pits,
and
pads)
and
that
once
temporary
stabilization
measures
are
implemented,
permit
coverage
is
no
longer
necessary.
EPA
disagrees
with
the
commenter's
interpretation
that
only
contiguous,
actively
disturbed
areas
should
be
counted
against
an
acreage
threshold.
In
fact,
the
entire
area
that
is
disturbed
(
cleared,
graded,
or
excavated)
is
to
be
counted
against
the
acreage
threshold.
See,
also,
response
to
comment
304.
1061
9a
333
The
EPA
should
specifically
authorize
termination
of
oil
and
gas
activity
general
permit
coverage
based
on
generally
acceptable
industry
practices
for
temporary
soil
and
site
stabilization.
See
response
to
comment
343
1004
9a
343
At
page
44
of
the
proposed
Fact
Sheet,
EPA
attempts
to
define
when
"
final
stabilization"
occurs,
which
seems
to
envision
measures
short
of
"
final
stabilization."
For
oil
and
gas
activities,
land
disturbance"
or
"
under
construction"
should
be
considered
to
end
when
the
operator
completes
accepted,
prudent
temporary
stabilization
measures
consistent
with
industry
practice
and
appropriate
to
the
location
and
oil
and
gas
activity
being
conducted
(
which
may
mean
no
active
stabilization
measures
for
some
oil
and
gas
activities
in
inherently
stable
soil
types
in
some
parts
of
the
country).
EPA
does
not
consider
oil
and
gas
activities
to
require
special
considerations
for
final
stabilization.
EPA
has
modified
the
definition
of
final
stabilization
to
include
provisions
that
apply
to
all
types
of
construction
activities
in
arid
and
semi
arid
areas
whereby
temporary
stabilization
measures
may
suffice
as
final
stabilization.
For
the
purpose
of
these
discussions,
"
structure"
is
used
not
only
in
the
more
traditional
sense
of
"
buildings,"
but
to
refer
also
to
other
things
built
on
the
ground
whose
intended
purpose
would
require
it
to
remain
in
a
nonvegetated
condition
after
construction
has
ended.
1061
1
Site
Stabilization
and
Revegetation
Comment
Response
New
Topic
Summ.
ID
Summary
Response
Document
ID
9b
326
Re­
vegetation
in
arid
and
semi­
arid
locations
to
70%
of
background
vegetation
can
be
very
difficult
with
limited
water
quality
benefit.
The
ground
in
these
areas
is
typically
flat
and
is
mainly
sand
or
gravel
(
i.
e.
low
sediment
content).
API
proposes
EPA
add
an
alternative
"
final
stabilization"
criterion
for
arid/

semiarid
locations
that
final
stabilization
is
reached
after
the
area
is
leveled.
Slopped
areas
would
continue
to
meet
other
final
stabilization
criteria
(
i.
e.
gravel,
riprap,

revegetation
etc.).
EPA
acknowledges
the
commenter's
concerns
and
has
modified
the
definition
of
final
stabilization
to
address
these
situations.
Specifically,
the
definition
of
final
stabilization
now
includes
an
option
for
use
of
temporary
rolled
erosion
control
products
and
seed
cover
that
provides
three
years
coverage
to
be
adequate
for
final
stabilization.
1002
9b
327
AGA
recommends
that
EPA
consider
modifying
Section
5.1
to
include
provision
to
allow
arid
region
linear
utility
projects
to
be
terminated
at
the
time
of
seeding.
...
AGA
recommends
the
following
provision
is
added
as
subsection
"
L."
"
Seeding
of
permanent
vegetation
species
has
been
completed
on
linear
utility
projects
in
arid
regions
with
average
annual
precipitation
of
less
than
10
inches.
See
response
to
comment
326.
1045
9b
329
To
the
extent
that
re­
vegetation
is
applicable,
the
EPA
should
provide
an
appropriate
standard
for
closure
in
arid
or
semi­
arid
environments.
The
practicality
of
maintaining
compliance
in
semi­
arid
and
arid
environments
until
70%
re­
vegetation
(
for
complete
stabilization)
is
an
impractical
standard
and
a
serious
issue.
In
these
regions,
re­
vegetation
cannot
occur
without
either
natural
precipitation
or
supplemental
watering.
It
frequently
is
not
practical
to
water
even
small
disturbances
because
of
their
remote
locations
or
water
supply
limitations.
With
limited
rainfall,
the
reestablishment
of
vegetation
is
difficult
to
achieve
and
should
not
be
required
in
areas
where
it
is
not
necessary
for
soil
stabilization.
See
response
to
comment
326.
1004
9b
330
Kinder
Morgan
requests
clarification
regarding
whether
or
not
EPA
considered
a
different
standard
for
revegetation
or
for
closure
in
arid
or
semi­
arid
environments.
See
response
to
comment
326.
1003
2
Site
Stabilization
and
Revegetation
Comment
Response
New
Topic
Summ.
ID
Summary
Response
Document
ID
9b
331
The
average
annual
precipitation
in
many
major
metropolitan
areas
of
Arizona,
interior
Southern
California,
Nevada
and
New
Mexico
is
less
than
5.0
inches.
Most
of
this
precipitation
occurs
within
a
3­

month
rainy
season.
The
average
monthly
precipitation
during
the
other
9
months
of
the
year
typically
is
less
than
0.5
inches.
This
precipitation
pattern 
does
not
support
successful
permanent
re­
vegetation
within
12
months
after
seeding.
EPA
acknowledges
the
commenter's
concerns
and
has
modified
the
definition
of
final
stabilization
to
address
these
situations.
See
Appendix
A
of
the
CGP.
1045
9c
172.1
For
the
reasons
stated
in
our
Dec.
23,
2002
comments
(
Appendix
A,
page
6),
AGA
asks
EPA
to
amend
the
definition
of
Final
Stabilization
in
Part
10
on
page
38
the
proposed
General
Permit
so
that
implementation
of
an
approved
soil
management
plan
will
also
qualify
as
"`
Final
Stabilization."
EPA
disagrees
with
the
commenter's
assertion
that
approved
soil
management
plans
should
qualify
as
a
final
stabilization
option.
While
soil
management
plans
do
focus
on
many
of
the
similar
types
of
activities
as
expected
for
final
stabilization,
EPA
does
not
believe
that
all
soil
management
plans
approved
by
all
the
different
Federal,
state,
and
local
governments
will
consistently
meet
EPA's
stabilization
expectations.
1045
9c
172.2
The
definition
would
then
state
in
relevant
part
as
follows:
`"
Final
Stabilization'
means
that:
1.
All
soil
disturbing
activities
at
the
site
have
been
completed
and
either
of
the
two
following
criteria
are
met:
a.
a
uniform
(
e.
g.,
evenly
distributed,
without
large
bare
areas)
perennial
vegetative
cover
with
a
density
of
70
percent
of
the
native
background
vegetative
cover
for
the
area
has
been
established
on
all
unpaved
areas
and
areas
not
covered
by
permanent
structures,
or
b.

equivalent
permanent
stabilization
measures
(
such
as
the
use
of
riprap,
gabions,
or
geotextiles)
have
been
employed,
or
c.
a
soil
resources
management
plan
or
other
erosion
control
or
re­
vegetation
plan,
approved
by
a
federal,
state,
tribal
or
local
management
agency
authority
to
approve
such
a
plan,
has
been
implemented."
1045
9c
178
The
definition
of
"
Final
Stabilization"
should
be
modified
so
that
it
is
not
so
restrictive,
as
follows:
"
a.
a
uniform
(
e.
g.,
evenly
distributed,
without
large
bare
areas)
perennial
vegetative
cover
with
a
density
of
70
percent
vegetative
cover
for
the
area
.
.
."
(
p.
35,
Draft
Permit)
EPA
disagrees
with
the
commenter's
request
to
extend
the
definition
to
include
non­
native
background
vegetation.
EPA
believes
that
the
use
of
native
vegetation
is
critical
in
minimizing
the
impact
of
construction
activities
because
non­
native
vegetation
is
harder
to
maintain.
1057
3
Site
Stabilization
and
Revegetation
Comment
Response
New
Topic
Summ.
ID
Summary
Response
Document
ID
9c
181
...(
5)
Define
"
land
disturbed"
or
"
area
under
construction"
to
end
when
the
structure
(
road,
pad,

pipeline)
is
in
a
condition
consistent
with
the
operator's
use
and
accepted,
prudent
temporary
stabilization
measures
have
been
implemented.
EPA
disagrees
with
the
commenter's
suggestion
on
defining
when
permit
coverage
can
end.
EPA
provides
a
detailed
description
in
the
fact
sheet
of
options
for
meeting
the
final
stabilization
criteria.
In
certain
instances,
such
as
when
the
intended
purpose
would
require
it
to
remain
in
a
non­
vegetative
state
(
e.
g.,
a
road,
or
parking
lot),
the
construction
of
that
structure
(
i.
e.,
the
road
or
parking
lot)
generally
suffices
as
meeting
final
stabilization.
1004
9c
328
Fact
sheet­
Section
VII,
Low
Rainfall
Erosivity
Waiver:

It
appears
that
EPA
is
allowing
some
interim
non­

vegetative
stabilization
for
final
stabilization.
It
would
be
very
helpful
if
EPA
could
define
interim
non­
vegetative
stabilization
and
provides
some
examples.
EPA
defines
final
stabilization
in
Appendix
A
of
the
permit,
including
identification
of
certain
acceptable
non­
vegetative
stabilization
measures.
1024
and
1028
9c
335
Section
3.14.
E.
The
requirement
to
initiate
stabilization
within
14
days
after
construction
activities
have
temporarily
or
permanently
ceased
is
unreasonable.

This
does
not
allow
time
for
equipment
delays,

subcontractor
availability
or
other
similar
issues.
EPA
disagrees
with
the
commenter
that
14
days
to
initiate
stabilization
is
unreasonable
because
of
equipment
delays,
subcontractor
availability,
etc.
EPA
expects
that
construction
site
operators
include
contingency
plans
in
its
site
planning
to
ensure
that
delays
do
not
prevent
the
operator
from
complying
with
the
terms
of
the
permit.
1028
and
1024
9c
336
Part
10,
Definitions:
Final
Stabilization:
EPA
defines
equivalent
permanent
stabilization
measures
to
be
such
items
as
riprap,
gabions,
or
geotextiles.
Many
of
the
locations
in
Oklahoma
use
local
available
hardpan
or
caliche
material.
These
local
materials
are
compacted
on
the
road
and
pads
in
order
to
bring
50
to
100
ton
drilling
equipment
on
location.
We
request
that
these
types
of
material
be
considered
a
form
of
"
equivalent
stabilization".
EPA
acknowledges
the
commenter's
concerns
and
believes
that
the
situation
described
in
the
comment
would
generally
be
considered
a
form
of
equivalent
stabilization.
The
fact
sheet
includes
a
question
and
answer
related
to
final
stabilization
that
indicates
that
final
stabilization
is
required
for
all
areas
that
do
not
include
those
areas
covered
by
some
structure,
be
it
a
building
or
some
other
end­
use
item
(
such
as
a
parking
lot
or
road).
As
such,
the
use
of
hardpan
or
caliche
material
as
a
road
surface
would
constitute
a
structure
for
which
no
additional
stabilization
measures
would
be
needed.

1024
and
1028
9c
338
'
Active
disturbance'
should
be
considered
to
end
when
the
land
area
disturbed
has
been
stabilized
sufficiently
to
accommodate
the
purpose
for
which
the
site
was
made;
for
example,
equipment
traffic,
drilling
and
completion
operations,
pipeline,
storage
facilities,
or
other
purposes
for
which
the
site
was
made.
EPA
agrees
with
the
commenter
and
has
clarified
such
in
the
discussion
of
final
stabilization.
1060
4
Site
Stabilization
and
Revegetation
Comment
Response
New
Topic
Summ.
ID
Summary
Response
Document
ID
9c
341
When
temporarily
ceasing
construction
activity,
the
Permit
requires
that
stabilization
controls
be
implemented
within
fourteen
days
(
Permit
Sec.

3.14(
E)).
The
Permit
should
be
revised
to
indicate
a
more
flexible
stabilization
period,
which
recognizes
the
variability
of
site
conditions
and
allows
site
operators
to
implement
BMPs
as
the
dictates
of
the
site
require.
EPA
disagrees
with
the
commenter
that
14
days
to
initiate
stabilization
is
unreasonable
because
of
equipment
delays,
subcontractor
availability,
etc.
EPA
expects
that
construction
site
operators
include
contingency
plans
in
its
site
planning
to
ensure
that
delays
do
not
prevent
the
operator
from
complying
with
the
terms
of
the
permit.
1055
9c
342
Regarding
'
Final
Stabilization':
In
your
document
'
Fact
Sheet
for
the
Issuance
of
a
Permit',
under
the
heading
'
WHAT
ARE
MY
OPTIONS
FOR
MEETING
THE
FINAL
STABILIZATION
CRITERIA?',
there
is
a
sentence
stating
that
semi­
permanent
low
or
no
maintenance
erosion
control
practices
combined
with
seeds
that
would
take
hold
the
next
growing
season
(
i.
e.,
properly
secured
seed
erosion
control
mats,
etc.)

could
also
be
used
as
final
stabilization.
ADOT
seeds
all
construction
sites,
applies
mulch
for
erosion
control
until
seeded
plants
have
become
established.
Does
that
mean
that
ADOT
does
not
have
to
wait
until
the
seeds
have
germinated
before
submitting
the
NOT?

Our
concern
is
that
the
contractor
and
resident
engineer
could
have
gone
to
other
projects
and
will
not
be
in
the
area
when
it
is
time
to
submit
the
NOT
if
they
have
to
wait
until
growth
has
taken
place.
EPA
acknowledges
that
final
stabilization
can
occur
upon
completion
of
seeding
and
mulching
in
some
cases
and
does
not
have
to
wait
until
growth
has
taken
place.
EPA
has
clarified
the
details
of
final
stabilization
in
the
permit
(
see
Appendix
A)
and
fact
sheet.
1073
5
Site
Stabilization
and
Revegetation
Comment
Response
New
Topic
Summ.
ID
Summary
Response
Document
ID
9c
383.1
EPA
describes
a
situation
whereby
a
SWPPP
can
be
modified
as
portions
of
the
site
are
stabilized
and
"
the
requirements
and
burdens
associated
with
maintaining
permit
compliance
can
be
commensurately
reduced."

(
p.
7
of
Fact
Sheet)
While
this
sounds
like
a
reasonable
approach,
more
detail
must
be
provided
by
EPA
in
order
for
our
members
to
understand
how
this
would
be
implemented
to
assure
that
the
requirements
of
the
permit
are
not
violated.
NAHB
suggests
that
it
would
be
particularly
helpful
if
EPA
included
a
few
scenarios
that
were
based
upon
a
couple
of
model
developments.
EPA
emphasizes
that
phased
development,
and
stabilization
as
soon
as
possible
are
critical
to
minimizing
discharges
from
construction
activities.
For
that
reason
EPA
is
very
interested
in
providing
incentive,
via
reduction
in
permit
burdens,
for
operators
who
maintain
as
little
bare
soil
as
possible
for
the
duration
of
the
construction
project.

NAHB
requests
a
more
detailed
example
of
how
permit
requirement
burden
can
be
reduced
as
portions
of
a
site
are
stabilized.
This
reference
is
made
specifically
to
common
plan
of
development
situations,
although
the
concept
can
be
applied
to
any
construction
site.

A
construction
site
operator
may
develop
1
SWPPP
and
submit
1
NOI
for
construction
activities
associated
with
construction
of
a
residential
subdivision.

During
original
clearing,
grading,
road
and
utility
installation
the
entire
site
is
generally
bare,
and
must
have
appropriate
controls
implemented.
This
means
regular
inspections
and
BMP
maintenance
on
the
entire
site.
Frequently
individual
lots
are
developed
at
different
times.
1057
9c
383.2
The
construction
operator
should
temporarily
stabilize
the
lots
that
will
not
be
built
on
right
away.
As
soon
as
the
stabilization
measures
are
established
(
i.
e.

the
risk
of
erosion
has
been
abated),
the
operator
may
suspend
or
greatly
reduce
inspection
and
maintenance
activities
on
those
lots
(
or
larger
portions
of
the
site
if
it
has
not
yet
been
subdivided).
Similarly,
after
a
house
has
been
built,

and
its
lot
final
stabilized
the
operator
no
longer
has
to
maintain
BMPs
or
conduct
inspections
on
that
lot.
Residential
subdivision
construction
sites
often
have
multiple
operators.
As
long
as
construction
activities
have
continuous
coverage,
and
appropriate
controls,
from
start
to
finish,
EPA
is
providing
those
operators
the
flexibility
to
decide
amongst
themselves
whether
to
operate
under
a
single
NOI
and
SWPPP,
or
multiple
NOIs
and
SWPPPs.
Because
multiple
lots
often
share
a
single
storm
drain
system,
EPA
encourages
cooperation
amongst
multiple
operators
1057
9c
383.3
This
same
concept
can
apply
to
other
common
plans
of
development
such
as
oil
fields
and
industrial
parks.
The
concept
can
also
apply
to
a
single
large
development
where
some
portions
of
the
site
are
completed
and
stabilized
earlier
than
others.
1057
6