INTERIM POLICY FOR NPDES PERMITS FOR STORMWATER by hhr21145

VIEWS: 29 PAGES: 14

									     INTERIM POLICY FOR NPDES PERMITS FOR STORMWATER DISCHARGES
     ASSOCIATED WITH CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES AT OIL AND GAS WELLS


                                        BACKGROUND

 This interim guidance provides instruction for determining when an NPDES permit is needed
 for a stormwater discharge associated with construction activities at an oil and gas well. The
 original guidance was effective March 17, 2001. On December 20, 2002, the Environmental
 Protection Agency issued new guidance on common plan of development and final
 stabilization. In turn, this interim guidance was prepared, revising the original document to be
 consistent with these new guidelines, and to recognize the difference between oil and gas
 producing states and the size of typical drilling units in this Commonwealth. The Interim
 Policy was published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin on April 12, 2003, and the comment period
 ended on May 16, 2003.


                                     COMMENTATOR LIST


Comments on this Interim Policy were received from the following:


1.    Senator Mary Jo White, Chairman
      Senate Environmental Resources and Energy Committee
      Senate Box 203021
      Harrisburg, PA 17120-3021

2.    Greg Bell

3.    Philip Ondrusek
      East Resources, Inc.

4.    Stephen Rhoads
      PA Oil & Gas Association
      P.O. Box 349
      Bainbridge, PA 17502

5.    Robert Wendelgass
      Clean Water Action
      1201 Chestnut Street #602
      Philadelphia, PA 10107

6.    William J. Gerlach
      Chesapeake Bay Foundation
      614 N. Front Street, Suite G



                             Final/550-2100-008/July 19, 2003/Page 1
     Harrisburg, PA 17101

7.   James Kleissler *
     Allegheny Defense Project
     P.O. Box 245
     Clarion, PA 16214

     *Note - The end of the comment period was May 12, 2003. A commentator sent an email
     on May 12 at 5:20 p.m. with no comments attached. A copy of the comments was received
     by regular mail on May 16, 2003.


                                COMMENT AND RESPONSE
General Comments

1. Comment

I am writing to share my strong support for Interim Policy for NPDES Permits for
Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction Activities at Oil & Gas Wells
published in the April 12, 2003, issue of The Pennsylvania Bulletin.

As you know, the interim policy reflects changes made by the federal Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) to its construction activities guidance document. Specifically, the
interim policy incorporates the EPA guidelines for common plans of development and final
stabilization. The guidance preserves existing environmental safeguards, while providing
oil and gas well applicants an opportunity to better understand their environmental
responsibilities.

I respectfully request that my support and comments be incorporated into the Department of
Environmental Protection’s (DEP) record of public comments on this important interim
policy. I look forward to DEP’s continuing efforts to address legitimate issues raised
regarding the permitting process of Pennsylvania’s oil and gas producers. (1)

Response

The Department acknowledges the support for the Policy.

2. Comment

I would like to voice my support for the Interim Policy for NPDES Permits (doc #550-2100-
008). The new criteria and interpretations of “common plan of development”, “phased
development” and “site stabilization” seem much more reasonable and practical than what
were presented in prior DEP workshops. (2)

Response




                            Final/550-2100-008/July 19, 2003/Page 2
The Department acknowledges the support for the Policy.

3. Comment

I am writing to express East Resources Inc.’s support for the Interim Policy for NPDES
Permits (doc #550-2100-008) developed by the Department. It is our hope that the
guidelines contained in this policy will streamline oil and development and continue to
protect and preserve the environment. (3)

Response

The Department acknowledges the support for the Policy.

4. Comment

Commentator expressed strong support for the revisions that have been adopted in the
interim policy to explain key elements of the permit requirements for stormwater discharges
associated with construction activities at oil and gas well sites.

We are especially pleased that the interim policy reflects important issues clarified by the
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in its recently proposed construction activities
guidance document (EPA Docket No. OW-2002-0055). Of specific importance is the
interim policy’s reflection of EPA’s guidance addressing the “common plan of development
or sale” and “final stabilization” for oil and gas well site development work and the
provisions relating to 900-foot well spacing. We also fully endorse other changes included
in the guidance to streamline the permitting process, e.g., the provision stipulating that the
Department will generally accept a permit application without further detailed technical
review when it includes plans approved by a Conservation District or certified by a
professional engineer.

We believe that the interim policy contain much-needed improvements over the earlier
version, and we wholeheartedly support the Department’s efforts to rationalize the program
while ensuring that existing environmental safeguards built into the permit program are
preserved. (4)

Response

The Department acknowledges the support for the Policy.




5. Comment




                          Final/550-2100-008/July 19, 2003/Page 3
Commentators expressed concern that the policy was developed with complete exclusion of
the environmental community, and recommends that the Policy be withdrawn and to offer
the change as a formal regulatory change through the formal regulatory process. (5, 6)

Response

The initial draft guidance “NPDES Permits for Stormwater Discharges Associated with
Construction Activities at Oil and Gas Wells” (550-2100-008) was previously published for
public comment on July 28, 2000, and became effective after a 30-day comment period on
March 17, 2001. This “Interim Policy for NPDES Permits for Stormwater Discharges
Associated with Construction Activities at Oil and Gas Wells” (550-2100-008) also has a
30-day public comment period that ended on April 12, 2003. Before publishing the “Interim
Policy”, it was presented to the Oil and Gas Technical Advisory Board on April 8, 2003.
Presentations were also made to the Citizens Advisory Counsel on April 15, 2003 and the
Water Resources Advisory Committee on May 14, 2003.

Since the policies and procedures outlined in this guidance document supplement existing
requirements and do not affect regulatory requirements, formal rulemaking is not required.

Common Plan of Development

6. Comment

The proposed policy contradicts EPA’s regulations for common plan of development and
undermines the regulatory interpretations made in Kleissler v. Commonwealth of Pa. (7)

Response

This original guidance became effective on March 17, 2001. This interim guidance, which
revises the original guidance, was issued on April 12, 2003, and it incorporates new EPA
guidance on common plan of development that was announced in the Federal Register on
December 20, 2002 (FR Vol. 67, No. 245 78116-78120). The Department has decided to
follow EPA’s lead in defining “common plan of development.” There is nothing in the
EHB’s Kleissler decision that precludes such a Department position.

7. Comment

Commentator explains that Examples 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 demonstrate common plan of
developments that exceed five acres and all would require NPDES permits. Commentator
proposes that example 4 is unclear if the NPDES permits is needed because the scale of the
drawing that other well sites are being developed within the same common plan of
development but are outside the well-specific drawing. (7)

Response




                         Final/550-2100-008/July 19, 2003/Page 4
Only Examples 2, 5 and 6 exceed five acres and would require a NPDES permit for
stormwater discharges associated with construction activities. The other examples are less
than five acres. Example 4 shows an example of the construction activities for a situation
where only one well is being drilled.

Individual and General Permits

8. Comment

Commentator believes Section 6 blurs the distinction between obtaining a general NPDES
permit and an individual permit and is inconsistent with state and federal rules. (7)

Response

The operator must apply for an individual NPDES Permit for Discharges of Stormwater
Associated with Construction Activities, when the earth disturbance activity is located in a
High Quality or Exceptional Value watershed. For other watersheds, the operator may apply
for the General NPDES Permit for Discharges of Stormwater Associated with Construction
Activities (PAG-2), if otherwise eligible. This is consistent with 25 Pa. Code Chapters 92
and 102.

9. Comment

Commentator explains that there is nothing in the proposed policy to correct ongoing
problems with public involvement on lands of common ownership such as national forest,
state forests and state parks. (7)

Response

Notices of NPDES permits are published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin, and the applicant
sends notice to the municipality and county. For well permits, notice is sent by certified
mail to the surface landowner, all surface land owners or water purveyors whose water
supplies are within 1000 feet of the proposed well location, and the owner and lessee of the
coal seams.

eNOTICE is recommended for anyone that wants to be notified of permit applications being
submitted to the Department. eNOTICE is DEP’s Electronic Notification System that
sends the subscriber an e-mail notifying them of applications submitted and status. The
notice can be based on county or municipality for an application type. Information on a
permit application is processed daily.




10. Comment




                         Final/550-2100-008/July 19, 2003/Page 5
Commentator explains that there is nothing in the proposed policy to improve
documentation of NPDES permitting decision. Whether these are decisions to issue or deny
a permit or to circumvent the five-acre requirement the Department continues to accurately
record its rationale for these decisions. In this manner, Department decisions on the
permitting of oil and gas sites under the NPDES program continue to lack transparency and
consistency. (7)

Response

Each application for a NPDES stormwater permit is accompanied by the application
checklist that is used to record the Department’s review of the application. These files are
open to the public.

In addition, any person can sign up for the Department’s eNOTICE service. Through
eNOTICE, one can receive an email listing applications received and permit issued for a
selected county or municipality by application type. By using the eMAP function, the
location can be found.

Plans Certified by a Professional Engineer

11. Comment

Concerning the provision for allowing nearly automatic approval of E&S plans prepared by
professional engineers (PE), I think some thought should be given to including professional
land surveyors (PLS) to the group of “approved” plan preparers. As part of the licensing
procedures and testing in Pennsylvania, professional land surveyors also must show
knowledge and proficiency in stormwater runoff calculations and watershed characteristics.
On any specific OGM project, it is likely that the surveyor is more familiar with the terrain
and field conditions than anyone else and is in the best position to prepare a proper E&S
plan. (2)

Response

This guidance does not prohibit others who are trained and experienced in erosion and
sediment control methods and techniques from preparing the Erosion and Sediment Control
Plan. Also, see response to Comment 12.

12. Comment

Commentator is opposed to the change in the Interim Policy in which DEP abdicates its
responsibility to conduct a detailed technical review of an applicant’s erosion and sediment
control plan if the plan has been submitted by a certified Professional Engineer (PE) or
approved by a conservation district.

It is contrary to the Commonwealth Court’s ruling in Eagle Environmental vs. DEP in which
the court ruled that DEP could not “blindly defer” to the determination of another state



                          Final/550-2100-008/July 19, 2003/Page 6
agency. If this is true for another state agency, it is certainly true for the determination of a
private contractor hired by a project applicant.

It is poor policy and a dangerous precedent for other state permitting programs.

We also believe that relinquishing its authority to conduct technical reviews of erosion and
sediment control plans is poor policy and a dangerous precedent.

The assumption underlying the change is that if an erosion and sediment control plan is
certified by a PE, it will be environmentally protective and generally satisfy DEP’s
regulations and statutes. We do not believe that this assumption is a valid one. PE’s are
hired by the project applicant and are generally instructed to develop the least expensive
method of complying with state and federal regulations. Assuming that this will always
result in an acceptable plan that meets state regulations is unwarranted and unsupportable.

The average Professional Engineer does not have the specialized knowledge of state erosion
and sediment regulations that DEP’s professional staff has acquired over time. The current
system allows DEP staff to share its expertise with the applicant’s PE, suggesting changes in
an erosion and sediment control plan that will better control runoff and protect the
Commonwealth’s water resources. Eliminating this review and iterative process will result
in weaker plans that will, in turn, result in the degradation of the state’s water resources.

DEP’s abdication of its responsibility to conduct a technical review of an erosion and
sediment control plan sets a dangerous precedent for other permitting programs. Why stop
with just erosion and sediment control plans for oil and gas projects? Why not eliminate
detailed technical review of other plans submitted by Professional Engineers? The danger
that this abdication could spread to other permitting programs is a serious one and one that
could significantly endanger protection of our state’s rivers, lakes and streams. (5)

Because of Eagle Environmental vs. DEP, DEP cannot blindly defer to a determination by a
private P.E. that an erosion and sediment control plan is in compliance with all applicable
laws, regulations, and policies. DEP must assure itself of the fact of whether the permit
application assures that the P.E. certified E&S plan meets the requirements of the Clean
Streams Law, DEP regulations, and Department policy and guidance.

It is poor public policy for DEP to defer entirely to private engineer certification without
substantive DEP review. Department review results in better permits in a back and forth
dialogue over a permit application. Under the Code of Ethics for Engineers, National
Society of Professional Engineers (January 2003), the word ”environment,” or any similar
derivative words, are not mentioned. Private sector P.E’s do not receive training from DEP
on how to evaluate erosion and sediment control plans. (6)

Several commentators assert that the portion of the Policy regarding professional engineers
violates constitutional, statutory and regulatory requirements imposed on the Department to
conduct reviews of permit applications. (5) (6)




                           Final/550-2100-008/July 19, 2003/Page 7
Response

These comments are based upon a misunderstanding of what the Department's Interim and
Proposed Guidance provides under the following language:

       "When the permit application includes plans certified by a professional engineer, the
       Department will generally accept the plans without further detailed technical
       review."
       (Emphasis added).

This language does not provide that the Department will not conduct any review of any
application prepared by a professional engineer. Under this language the Department will
still review all applications and all portions of all applications, but the Department will
generally accept the plans prepared by a professional engineer without "further detailed
technical review." The commentators failed to notice the two express limitations on this
statement: will generally accept plans prepared by professional engineers without further
detailed technical review. The level of review of a particular plan prepared by a
professional engineer is dependent upon various considerations; the Department will
generally accept the plans prepared by professional engineers without further detailed
technical review. The Department, however, retains the authority to conduct a detailed
technical review of the plans submitted by a professional engineer in appropriate situations.
The level of review will vary depending upon circumstance, but it will be sufficient to meet
all applicable requirements.

The Department disagrees that the statement that "the Department will generally accept the
plans without further detailed technical review," violates numerous legal requirements. The
Department will still conduct the appropriate level of review of all plans, while limiting
further detailed review of plans certified by professional engineers as a general rule.

On January 22, 1996, DEP adopted the “Policy for Conducting Technical Reviews of Water
Quality Management (Part II Permit Applications to Construct and Operate Sewerage
Works, and Industrial Wastewater Treatment Facilities” (362-2000-007). That policy
explains the Department’s approach for reviewing applications to construct and operate
sewerage works, and industrial wastewater treatment facilities. Under that policy, the
Department conducts an adequate, but limited, technical review of Water Quality
Management Part II permit applications and relies heavily on the professional competency
of design engineers.

The Department is applying the same principles of that program to the review of NPDES
permits for the discharge of stormwater associated with construction activities at oil and gas
wells, when the plans and application are certified by a professional engineer. DEP will
review the application and plans to ensure general consistency with sound erosion and
sediment control practices, stormwater management, and the guidelines in the Department’s
Erosion and Sediment Pollution Control Program Manual and Oil and Gas Operators
Manual. The professional engineer and operator are fully responsible for the adequacy of
all aspects of the plans and that the plans are representative of actual field conditions.



                          Final/550-2100-008/July 19, 2003/Page 8
It is not uncommon for an agency to utilize the expertise of professional engineers to ensure
that plans and facilities are designed and constructed to ensure protection of public health,
safety and the environment. Another example is EPA’s Spill Prevention, Control and
Countermeasure (SPCC) requirements at 40 CFR 112. In that program a professional
engineer must certified that he is familiar with the facility, the SPCC requirements, and that
the SPCC Plan has been prepared with good engineering practices. SPCC Plans are
prepared to prevent the spill of oil to waters of the United States and adjoining shorelines.

13. Comment

Commentator strongly oppose the portion of the Policy that would allow for blanket DEP
approval of erosion and sediment control plans certified by a private Professional Engineer
(P.E.), acting on behalf of a project proponent, without any DEP review.

The Policy is contrary to Section 5(b)(5) of the Clean Streams Law that provides that the
Department in issuing permits shall review and take appropriate action on all permit
applications submitted pursuant to the provisions of this act.

The policy is contrary to 25 Pa. Code Sections 92.59, 92.83(a)(1), (b)(1), (b)(2), and (b)(6).

The Policy is contrary to Section 92.59 that requires the Department to prepare
documentation demonstrating that the permit will not violate water quality standards. DEP
must review the submittal and then document that the submittal satisfies DEP regulations in
order to satisfy this legal requirement.

Section 92.83(a)(1) specifies that an applicant must demonstrate that the discharge from the
point sources, individually or cumulatively, will not result in a violation of an applicable
water quality standard…”

Section (b)(1) provides that DEP “will deny” NPDES coverage if “the discharge,
individually or in combination with other similar discharges, is or has the potential to be a
contributor of pollutants…”

Section (b)(2) provides that DEP must deny coverage if “the discharger is not, or will not be,
in compliance with any of the conditions of the general permit”.

Section (b)(6) provides that DEP must deny coverage if “the discharge is not, or will not,
result in compliance with applicable effluent limitation or water quality standard.”



25 Pa. Code § 92.81(a)(7) provides that DEP can approve coverage under a NPDES general
permit only where the applicant has demonstrated, inter alia, that the discharge it proposes
“individually and cumulatively do not have the potential to cause significant adverse
environmental impact.”



                          Final/550-2100-008/July 19, 2003/Page 9
The Policy is contrary to Article I, Section 27 of the Pennsylvania Constitution because DEP
has a duty to evaluate compliance with the Article in making permit decisions. (6)

Response

In regard to Section 92.59, the Department agrees that documentation must be prepared so
that the permit will not violate applicable water quality standards. The permit application
checklist and site plan is used to document the proper use of BMPs to minimize the potential
for accelerated erosion and sedimentation.

In regard to Section 92.83(a)(1), the Departments agrees that the applicant must demonstrate
in the NOI for coverage under the General Permit for Discharges of Stormwater Associated
With Construction Activities that the discharges from the point sources, individually or
cumulatively, will not result in a violation of applicable water quality standards established
under Chapter 93. The use, operation and maintenance of BMP’s as required by Chapter
102 and provided in the Department’s Erosion and Sediment Pollution Control Program
Manual and Oil and Gas Operators Manual meet the requirements of Chapter 93 water
quality standards.

Section 92.83 (b)(1) reads that the discharge be a contributor to pollution, not a contributor
of pollutants. The Department agrees that it must deny coverage under the General Permit
for Discharges of Stormwater Associated with Construction Activities when the discharge,
individually or in combination with other similar discharges, is or has the potential to be a
contributor of pollution, as defined in the State Act, which is more appropriately controlled
under an individual permit. The location of projects is a requirement of the permit
application. Where multiple projects under various permits occur in a given watershed, DEP
retains the ability to conduct a more thorough review of the activities if needed.

In regard to Section92.83 (b)(2), the Department agrees that it must deny coverage under the
General Permit for Discharges of Stormwater Associated with Construction Activities if the
discharger is not, or will not be, in compliance with any of the conditions of the general
permit. Also, see response to comment 16.

In regard to Section 92.83(b)(6), the Department agrees that it must deny coverage under the
General Permit for Discharges of Stormwater Associated with Construction Activities if the
discharge is not, or will not, result in compliance with applicable effluent limitation or water
quality standard. Erosion and Sediment Control is a BMP based program rather than a
numeric discharge effluent limitation program. Compliance with water quality standards is
achieved as long as the BMPs are installed, operated, and maintained to minimize
accelerated erosion and sedimentation.

These duties are not being delegated to professional engineers.




                         Final/550-2100-008/July 19, 2003/Page 10
Section 92.81(a)(7) is a requirement that the Department must take into consideration when
designating a category of discharges to be covered under a specific general permit. The
requirements for approving coverage under the general permit is contained in Section 92.83.

The Department disagrees that the Policy violates the Clean Streams Law or Article I,
Section 27 of the Pennsylvania Constitution.

14. Comment

There is no “evaluation” of information regarding the existing use of a waterway if a P.E.
certifies that his E&S plans will meet water quality standards and otherwise satisfy DEP
regulations and policies. This is contrary to DEP’s antidegradation regulations; Section
93.4c(a)(1)(i) provides that “existing use protection shall be provided when the
Department’s evaluation of information indicates that a surface water attains or has attained
an existing use.” In addition, the regulation at § 93.4c(a)(1)(iv) provides that DEP will
make a final determination of existing use protection “as part of the final permit or approval
action”. (6)

Response

As part of the permit application, the applicant must identify the existing use of the stream.
Erosion and Sediment Control is a BMP based program rather than a numeric discharge
effluent limitation program. Compliance with water quality standards is achieved as long as
the BMPs, including the BMPs for High Quality and Exceptional Value Streams, as required
by Chapter 102, are installed, operated and maintained to minimize accelerated erosion and
sedimentation.

15. Comment

In regard to Special Protection waters, the oil and gas industry have estimated that one-third
of all oil and gas permits in the Northwest Region and 15% of oil and gas permits in the
Southwest Region are in Special Protection Waters. Under the Special Protection waters
program, DEP must ensure that existing uses are protected and that non-discharge
alternatives are considered and evaluated. If non-discharge alternatives are not
environmentally sound and cost effective, the Department must ensure that the proposed
discharge utilizes the best available combination of cost-effective treatment, land disposal,
pollution prevention, and wastewater reuse technologies. This determination cannot be
made without a detailed technical review of the erosion and sediment control plan. (5)

There is no requirement that an applicant for a NPDES permit satisfy the requirement in §
93.4c(b)(1)(i)(A) that persons proposing new, additional, or increased discharges to HQ or
EV waters “must evaluate nondischarge alternatives to the proposed discharge,” and use an
alternative that is environmentally sound and cost-effective. If a nondischarge alternative is
not environmentally sound and cost-effective, a new, additional, or increased discharger
must use the best available combination of cost-effective treatment, land disposal, pollution
prevention, and wastewater reuse technologies.



                         Final/550-2100-008/July 19, 2003/Page 11
If DEP does not review the submitted E&S plan certified by a P.E. for a project proponent, it
cannot assure itself that the antidegradation regulations at § 93.4c(b)(1)(i) have been
satisfied. (6)

Response

Antidegradation requirements apply when the Department is making a permit decision
regarding the potential impacts of a project and its associated discharges to a receiving
stream. 25 Pa. Code Section 102.4 (b)(6) contains the antidegradation implementation
requirements for discharges during construction, and specifically lists Special Protection
BMPs to be used in EV and HQ waters.

Compliance History

16. Comment

It is unclear whether the Department intends to review an applicant’s compliance history
prior to approval of the application; DEP’s evaluation of an applicant’s compliance history,
and satisfaction that an applicant is in compliance, are required before an application or NOI
can be approved.

Section 92.83(b)(3) states that DEP must deny coverage if “the applicant has failed…to
comply with a regulation, permit, schedule of compliance or order issued by the
Department” (6)

Response

A compliance evaluation is conducted as part of the review of each permit application or
NOI and the results documented in the file.

In regard to Section 92.83(b)(3), the Department agrees that the NOI for the General
NPDES Permit for Discharge of Stormwater Associated with Construction Activities must
be denied if the applicant has failed and continues to fail to comply or has shown a lack of
ability to comply with a regulation, permit, schedule of compliance or order issued by the
Department.

Permanent Stabilization

17. Comment

The phrase “with a density capable of resisting accelerated erosion and sedimentation”
needs to be added to Paragraph 4 to be consistent with Section 102.22(c)(1). (6)

Response.




                         Final/550-2100-008/July 19, 2003/Page 12
The phrase has been added.

Future Activities

18. Comment

The terms ”long-range,” ”conceptual,” “extended time period,” and “over time” are vague
and ambiguous. Are we talking a 1 year timeframe? A 5 year period? A 20 year period? A
50 year period? These terms need to be clarified with more precision to be interpreted
consistently. (6)

Response

The development of a mineral estate can be as simple as drilling one well to a complex
situation where multiple formations are developed over many years. Parts of the estate may
be developed while others may not be. It is impractical to establish time frames that would
be practical. These terms are consistent with the EPA’s new guidance on common plan of
development.

Road Maintenance and Timber Harvesting

19. Comment

Commentator proposed that road maintenance when conducted isolated from a common
plan of development requires an Erosions and Sediment Control Permit. And, if the road
maintenance is conducted as part of a larger common plan of development, then it must be
covered by a NPDES permit. This comment also applies to timber cutting. (7)

Response

This proposal is contrary to 25 Pa. Code Section 102.5(a) and (b). Section 102.5(a) excludes
agricultural plowing or tilling, timber harvesting activities or road maintenance activities
from the obligation to obtain a NPDES Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with
Construction Activities. Section 102.5(b) requires an Erosion and Sediment Control Permit
when timber harvesting or road maintenance activity involves 25 acres (10 hectares) or more
of earth disturbance. Road maintenance and timber harvesting is not a regulated activity
under the NPDES program.

Frequently, old roads or pathways are used to access well sites. Sometimes, maintenance is
all that is necessary to prepare these roads for use. Examples of road maintenance include
grading, adding a layer of crushed rock to the road surface, and clearing existing ditches and
culverts. However, existing roads are sometimes inadequate or have deteriorated to a point
that they cannot meet the needs of the oil and gas project. When the cross section of an
existing road is too small for the passage of equipment and must be widened, or the road
cannot structurally support the equipment necessary for drilling or operating the well, road
reconstruction may be necessary. Examples of road reconstruction may include the



                         Final/550-2100-008/July 19, 2003/Page 13
reactivating of an old logging road that has been retired for years, or preparing a private road
used for farming that was never constructed to meet the needs of the proposed oil and gas
operation, if it involves clearing and grubbing trees, widening or substantially raising the
road cross-section by adding large amounts of crushed rock, and constructing ditches and
culverts.

Phased Projects

20. Comment

The commentator resubmitted the Chesapeake Bay Foundation’s comments to the Technical
Guidance “Permit Guidelines For Phased NPDES Stormwater Discharges Associated with
Construction Activity Permits, Chapter 102 Erosion and Sediment Control Permits, and
Chapter 105 Waterway Restoration Project Permits” (63-2134-013) that was effective
March 29, 2003. (6)

Response.

These comments were previously addressed in the Comment and Response Document,
March 14, 2003, Document ID # 63-2134-013 when the Technical Guidance was finalized




                         Final/550-2100-008/July 19, 2003/Page 14

								
To top