1. Erosion and Sediment Control General Permit – 2 Permit
      2. Comments Received during Public Comment Period
      3. January 21, 2012 – March 21, 2012
      4. Response: The Department disagrees, the 2 year/24 hour storm event is
      5. as established by Chapter 102 regulation. This requirement relates to in-stream
      6. water quality rather than flood control.
      7. Response: Dust control is not included in the definition of Road Maintenance
      8. consistent with existing requirements found in 25 Pa. Code § 105.1.
      9. consistent with existing requirements found in 25 Pa. Code § 105.1.
      10. Response: The Department disagrees. The 2 year/24 hour storm event is
      11. quality rather than flood control.
      12. Response: The Department disagrees. The definition of PPC Plan is appropriate
      13. and consistent with existing requirements found in 25 Pa. Code Chapters 91 and
      14. 102.
      15. Response: The Department disagrees. The definition of Riparian Buffer is
      16. and 102.14.
      17. Code § 102.1.
      18. Response: The Department disagrees. The definition of Stormwater is appropriate
      19. and consistent with existing requirements found in 25 Pa. Code § 102.1.
      20. Response: The Department has revised the definition to reference earth
      21. disturbance activity .
      22. Response: The Department disagrees. The definition of “Wetlands” is appropriate
      23. and consistent with existing requirements found in 25 Pa. Code § 105.1.
      24. Response: CPESC and CPSWQ certified professionals may prepare and submit
      25. ESCGP-2 NOIs. NOIs submitted under the expedited review option must be signed
      26. and sealed by a certified, licensed professional.
      27. Pa. Code § 102.1.
      28. Response: The Department disagrees. The definition is consistent with the
      29. be regulated in accordance with Pa. Code § 102.
      30. acres requires E&S permit coverage, which permit is administered by DEP and
      31. delegated conservation districts.
      32. Any person undertaking earth disturbance activities, including road maintenance
      33. activities that are below the permit threshold, must utilize BMPs and develop a
      34. written E&S plan if over 5,000 square feet or the earth disturbance activities,
      35. to discharge to a water classified as a High Quality or Exceptional Value water
      36. under Chapter 93.
      37. and permit application documents.
      38. Response: The Department disagrees. Pursuant to 25 Pa. Code § 102.6(c) and
      39. and requirements under the Clean Streams Law and 25 Pa. Code Chapter 102.
      40. definition is not appropriate because this is not an NPDES permit.
      41. not need to be defined.
      42. Response: The definition is in the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
      43. Protection Erosion and Sediment Pollution Control Program Manual, Technical
      44. Guidance Number 363-2134-008, dated March 2012, on page 526. It states:
      45. into the soil and increases runoff, such as asphalt, concrete, rooftops, etc.
      46. well or coal property. The activities covered under this permit are beyond well
      47. ownership, therefore the Oil and Gas Act of 2012 is not appropriate.
      48. Response: The definition is consistent with the Policy for Phased Projects
      49. (Document ID # 363-2134-013).
      50. Response: The Department disagrees. The term watershed when used in the permit
      51. is not always determined by references to HUC-8 codes.
      52. Response: The Department disagrees. The definition of “ABACT” is appropriate
      53. and consistent with existing requirements found in 25 Pa. Code § 102.1.
      54. Response: The Department disagrees. The definition of “Operator” is appropriate
      55. and consistent with existing requirements found in 25 Pa. Code § 102.1.
      56. Response: The Department disagrees. The term ‘Wild Trout Stream’ is not used in
      57. the permit, therefore no definition is needed.
      58. Response: Permittees are required to develop, implement and maintain a site
      59. restoration and/or post construction stormwater management plan pursuant to 25
      60. Pa. Code § 102.8. Accordingly, site restoration is a component of this permit.
      61. Response: The Department disagrees. This condition is consistent with other
      62. permits administered by the Department to ensure compliance with federal Clean
      63. Water Act requirements.
      64. Response: The Department disagrees. The condition is appropriate and consistent
      65. Code §102.5(m)(1)(v) and is consistent with standard language in other general
      66. permits administered by the Department. The permit requires use of BMPs so that
      67. stormwater runoff that occurs during and after stormwater events mimics
      68. in accordance with 25 Pa. Code Chapter 102 and the terms of this permit the
      69. 37. Comment:
      70. Response: The Department disagrees. Limitation of use of general permits in
      71. all waters including those designated HQ and EV. The expedited permit review is
      72. not available in HQ/EV watersheds. The applicant is responsible to meet all the
      73. requirements of the permit and regulations which require the demonstrations
      74. antidegradation requirements in 25 Pa. Code Chapter 93 and ensure that special
      75. protection waters of the Commonwealth will be protected and maintained.
      76. Response: Condition 4(a) is an obligation of the Department upon renewal,
      77. modification, termination, revocation or reissuance of the general permit. This
      78. condition is not applicable to Department authorization of coverage under the
      79. general permit.
      80. Response: All activities upon renewal, major modification, or submission of an
      81. Response: The Department acknowledges the comment.
      82. Response: The Department disagrees. Issuance of the general permit is not the
      83. authorize coverage under the general permit.
      84. Response: The Department acknowledges the comment.
      85. Response: This is not a Clean Water Act permit and there is no EPA oversight of
      86. this state Clean Streams Law permit.
      87. Response: Air pollution is beyond the scope of this permit.
      88. issues related to off-site monitoring are handled on a case-by-case basis.
      89. Response: The Department disagrees. Appropriate record keeping is addressed by
      90. Response: This is not a Clean Water Act permit and there is no EPA oversight of
      91. this state Clean Streams Law permit.
      92. Response: The Department acknowledges the comment.
      93. condition.
      94. Response: The Department disagrees. Pursuant to 25 Pa. Code § 102.6(c) an
      95. and requirements under the Clean Streams Law and 25 Pa. Code Chapter 102.
      96. Response: The Department disagrees. Pursuant to 25 Pa. Code § 102.6(c) an
      97. Response: The Department disagrees. The public participation process for ESCGP-
      98. Department.
      99. Response: The Department disagrees. The Department offers the expedited permit
      100. the applicant must meet certain requirements. One such requirement is that NOIs
      101. a licensed professional who has attended up-to-date training on erosion and
      102. sediment control and post construction stormwater management for oil and gas
      103. activities. Without qualifying criteria for expedited NOI submissions the
      104. Department would not be able to offer the expedited permit review process and
      105. Response: It is appropriate to define major and minor amendments involving
      106. determine the applicable administrative and/or technical process.
      107. the E&S Plan or PCSM Plan.
      108. Response: The Department acknowledges the comment.
      109. Response: The Department has provided guidance regarding major and minor
      110. the Department, the public and the regulated community.
      111. Response: The Department acknowledges the comment.
      112. Code §102.6(a)(2). If through the PNHP process, coordination must be undertaken
      113. agencies including those in the Department of Interior (DOI).
      114. Response: The Department disagrees. The condition is consistent with regulatory
      115. district determines, based upon PNHP data or other sources, that the proposed
      116. the protection of threatened or endangered flora and fauna and their habitat.
      117. Response: The Department acknowledges the comment.
      118. The wetland determination process should be in accordance with
      119. Chapter 105.451 and applicable Army Corps of Engineers Guidance.
      120. addition work conducted in and around wetlands must be conducted in accordance
      121. with 25 Pa. Code Chapter 105.
      122. The Department disagrees. The requirement is not new. The
      123. Response: The Department acknowledges the comment.
      124. Response: The Department agrees and has amended condition 6(l) to be consistent
      125. with 58 Pa.C.S. §§ 3201-3274.
      126. waiver requirement is separate and independent of the ESCGP-2.
      127. Response: Condition 6(l) addresses setback requirements in 58 Pa.C.S. §§ 3201-
      128. 102.14(d)(1)(vii) and 102.14(d)(1)(ix).
      129. Response: The Department acknowledges the comment.
      130. Response: The Department agrees. Clarifying language has been added.
      131. Department will be amending the NOI to ask applicants to indicate whether the
      132. will not contribute to a violation of a water quality standard.
      133. Response: The Department disagrees. ESCGP-2 is consistent in 25 Pa. Code §§
      134. 102.4(b)(6) and 102.8(h).
      135. discharge to waters with a designated use of high quality or exceptional value
      136. review.
      137. Response: The Department disagrees. Wetlands are waters of the commonwealth
      138. and are included in condition 6(n).
      139. expedited review is not available for sites where applicants, as a result of
      140. the Act 2 process.
      141. Response: Plans submitted through the expedited review may be prepared by
      142. permit will be revised to provide clarity.
      143. Response: The Department disagrees. The suggested language is not necessary.
      144. ESCGP-2 as drafted is consistent with and requires compliance with the
      145. antidegradation requirements in 25 Pa. Code Chapters 102 and 93.
      146. Response: All projects are required to comply with post construction stormwater
      147. management requirements in 25 Pa. Code § 102.8.
      148. trained and experienced in erosion and sedimentation control.
      149. Response: Condition 8(b) is a regulatory requirement under 25 Pa. § Code
      150. 102.8(f)(10).
      151. Response: Condition 8(c) is consistent with 25 Pa. Code § 102.8(k).
      152. Response: The Department Disagrees. Condition 8(c) provides a list of critical
      153. Code § 102.8(k).
      154. Response: The Department acknowledges the comment.
      155. Response: The Department disagrees. What constitutes an increased risk of water
      156. pollution is determined on a case-by-case basis.
      157. Response: The Department acknowledges the comment.
      158. Response: The Department acknowledges the comment.
      159. Response: The Department disagrees. “Monitoring” and “Inspection” are not
      160. synonymous. Inspection is a monitoring activity. The Department or Conservation
      161. District may require additional monitoring activities under Condition 8(d).
      162. Condition 9(b) regarding where reports and records identified in this condition
      163. Response: Record retention requirements are necessary for program
      164. implementation.
      165. Pa. Code § 102.4(b)(8).
      166. Response: The Department disagrees. This is a state Clean Stream Law permit and
      167. not a federal Clean Water Act permit. Accordingly, there is no EPA oversight of
      168. this permit.
      169. Right to Know Law
      170. Response: The language in condition 11(c) is appropriate to allow proper
      171. implementation of the permit.
      172. Response: The Department disagrees. This is a state Clean Stream Law permit and
      173. not a federal Clean Water Act permit. Accordingly, there is no EPA oversight of
      174. facilities and equipment.
      175. provide notice.
      176. in advance is adequate to allow the Department to implement the ESCGP-2
      177. program. A requirement for the permittee to make notice to the public, the
      178. unnecessary and overly burdensome. Additionally, ESCGP-2 does not authorize oil
      179. requirements in accordance with 58 Pa.C.S. § 3211.
      180. 105. Comment:
      181. Response: Condition 12 (a)(1)(c) describes who must sign an NOI, Transferee/Co-
      182. permittee form or NOT submitted to the Department by a public agency for
      183. consideration. Only the Department or delegated Conservation District may
      184. Response: The Department acknowledges the comment, and recognizes there may
      185. be circumstances where such confidentiality may be a reasonable request. Should
      186. such a situation arise, the Department would recommend that the permittee
      187. coordinate the provision of this information and treatment of the information
      188. accommodate this kind of an approach.
      189. Response: The language in condition 11(c) is appropriate to allow proper
      190. implementation of the permit.
      191. been compromised is required. Appropriate existing requirements are found in 25
      192. Pa. Code § 102.8(h).
      193. (Document ID # 363-0300-002) or otherwise demonstrate compliance with 25 Pa.
      194. Code § 102.11.
      195. Response: The Department disagrees. Standard and acceptable soil infiltration
      196. testing techniques are described in the Department’s Stormwater BMP Manual
      197. (Document ID # 363-0300-002).
      198. 102.22(a)
      199. Response: The Department acknowledges the comment.
      200. Response: The Department acknowledges the comment.
      201. Response: The condition has been revised to indicate acceptable forms of
      202. notification.
      203. Response: The Department agrees. The following definition has been included in
      204. Condition 16(c): Bulk earth disturbance activities are defined as any earth
      205. disturbance for construction purposes other than the minimum amount of
      206. disturbance required for installation of perimeter sediment control BMPs.
      207. Response: The Department agrees. Condition 16(c) been clarified and email has
      208. been provided as an option for notification.
      209. §§ 102.5(l) and 78.55.
      210. §§ 102.5(l) and 78.55.
      211. Response: The Department agrees. The NOI Checklist has been revised to be
      212. consistent with the Permit.
      213. §§ 102.5(l) and 78.55.
      214. Response: The Department agrees. The word ‘current’ will be added to condition
      215. 18(b).
      216. must comply with requirements in 25 Pa. Code §102.8.
      217. Response: The Department acknowledges this comment. No modification of the
      218. any current, DEP approved Act 167 plan.
      219. Response: The Department disagrees. The permittee is responsible for ensuring
      220. compliance with all conditions of the permit.
      221. 102.8(k), and §102.8(l).
      222. Response: Projects authorized by ESCGP-1 must comply with the terms and
      223. conditions of ESCGP-1.
      224. Response: The Department agrees. Permit Condition 19 has been revised to add
      225. email as a form of notification.
      226. 102.5(e).
      227. Response: The Department acknowledges the comment.
      228. Response: The Department agrees. Language has been added to Permit Condition
      229. 20 for clarification.
      230. Response: The Department agrees. Language has been added to Permit Condition
      231. 20 for clarification.
      232. Response: The Department disagrees. These requirements are consistent with
      233. regulations in 25 Pa. Code § 102.8.
      234. 102.8(m).
      235. Response: The Department acknowledges the comment.
      236. Response: Condition 20(a) is consistent with requirements at 25 Pa. Code §
      237. 102.8(m).
      238. Chapter 78 are exempted from riparian buffer requirements provided that any
      239. such as pipelines, are not exempted from riparian buffer requirements but
      240. applicants may request a waiver by demonstrating that there are reasonable
      241. alternatives for compliance with 25 Pa. Code § 102.14.
      242. Response: Condition 23(a) includes language to this effect.
      243. requirements of 25 Pa. Code § 102. BMPs are the standard regulatory mechanism
      244. for control of stormwater and are utilized in the NPDES program as well.
      245. Response: The Department disagrees. The condition is consistent with the
      246. regulatory requirements of 25 Pa. Code § 102. BMPs are
      247. to the following statement:
      248. Response: The Department disagrees. General Permits are authorized by the Clean
      249. Streams Law.
      250. supplies, the ESCGP-2 permit is consistent with other Department erosion and
      251. sediment control permits.
      252. the expedited review process in environmentally sensitive areas, including
      253. floodplains. Applicants have the ability to provide a demonstration that the
      254. proposed project is not within the floodplain.
      255. Response: Condition 6(c) establishes the Department’s review times for NOIs.
      256. Response: The Department acknowledges the comment.
      257. Response: The Department disagrees. The requirements in ESCGP-2 are consistent
      258. with Pennsylvania regulatory requirements.
      259. document/confirm the field changes.
      260. receipts should be submitted in accordance with the Department’s PNDI policy
      261. (Document ID # 400-0200-001). The permit has been updated to reference the PNDI
      262. Policy to ensure that the policies remain consistent.
      263. consistent with regulatory requirements found in 25 Pa. Code § 102.5(c).
      264. requirement found in 25 Pa. Code § 102.5(c).
      265. Response: The Department disagrees. 25 Pa. Code § 102.5(b) requires persons
      266. proposing timber harvesting or road maintenance activities involving 25 or more
      267. permits specifically for timber harvesting and road maintenance activities.
      268. Response: The Department acknowledges the comment.
      269. a phased permit approach regardless of the size or shape of the project.
      270. Response: The Department acknowledges the comment.
      271. or post plugging restoration has occurred whichever occurs first. A permit for
      272. construction of an impoundment location may be terminated prior to site
      273. restoration.
      274. Response: The Department disagrees. To ensure compliance it is important that
      275. permittees not have prior notice of when inspections will be conducted. The
      276. inspectors with appropriate protective equipment.
      277. Response: The Department disagrees. The condition is consistent with regulatory
      278. requirement at 25 Pa. Code § 102.8(f)(4). The Department has revised the permit
      279. required to be restored under 25 Pa. Code Chapter 78 which are restored to
      280. meadow in good condition or better to meet the requirements of 25 Pa. Code §
      281. 102.8(n).
      282. Response: Well pads, impoundments and pipelines may be permitted separately but
      283. project equal to or greater than 5 acres must be covered under a permit.
      284. 3274 requirements.
      285. Response: The Department disagrees, the condition is consistent with regulatory
      286. requirement at 25 Pa. Code § 102.8(k).
      287. present onsite and responsible for critical stages of implementation of the
      288. authorized PCSM plan.
      289. Department will be amending the NOI to ask applicants to indicate whether the
      290. will not contribute to a violation of a water quality standard.
      291. utilized by the Department and the regulated community to ensure that NOI
      292. submissions are complete and accurate.
      293. Response: The Department agrees. The condition is consistent with regulatory
      294. requirement at 25 Pa. Code § 102.4(d).
      295. comment is beyond the scope of this permit.
      296. with all the terms and conditions of this permit. Any permit noncompliance
      297. for denial of a permit or permit renewal.
      298. Response: The maintenance of the PCSMs is covered by regulatory requirement at
      299. 25 Pa. Code § 102.8(m)(1-5).
      300. Response: The Department disagrees, the allowance of disturbance of riparian
      301. protection. ESCGP-2 is consistent with these regulatory requirements.
      302. 93 and 102.
      303. Response: The Department acknowledges this comment. Antidegradation review is
      304. such as the monitoring described in the comment, in cases where there is an
      305. increased risk of water pollution or water pollution is suspected. Additional
      306. Response: A photographic log of site conditions after stormwater events is not
      307. required. It is appropriate to allow 24 hours for permittees to conduct site
      308. inspections after stormwater events.
      309. are reviewed by the Department during routine inspections.
      310. Response: The Department recognizes the need for training for Department and
      311. implements an annual training program to fill this need.
      312. Response: In accordance with condition 14(f) of ESCGP-2, discharges of material
      313. other than stormwater runoff must be in compliance with an NPDES permit issued
      314. for the discharge. Discharge of sewage or industrial waste (other than sediment
      315. under this permit) to an E&S BMP is not permitted. The permittee/co permittee
      316. be protected or human, animal, plant or aquatic life. In addition 58 Pa.C.S. §
      317. spills to the ground surface or spills off the well site.
      318. Response: This antidegradation analysis process required under PA law has been
      319. incorporated in the Chapter 102 Regulations. ESCGP-2 is consistent with the
      320. Chapter 102 regulations and incorporated in the antidegradation analysis.
      321. Response: The Department disagrees. The permit is consistent with the
      322. requirements 58 Pa. C.S. §§ 3201-3274 and in 25 Pa. Code Chapters 93 and 102.
      323. comments on issuance of coverage under a general permit.
      324. Response: Regulatory changes are beyond the scope of this permit.
      325. Response: The Department disagrees. Use of a general permit is adequate to
      326. implement the requirements in 25 Pa. Code Chapter 102.
      327. Response: Restriction of expedited reviews will be implemented on projects
      328. authorized under ESCGP-2. Projects authorized under ESCGP-1 will be allowed to
      329. continue to operate under ESCGP-1 and conditions from ESCGP-2 will not apply.
      330. Response: The Department acknowledges this comment. No modification of the
      331. with DEP approved county Act 167 Plans. Neither the regulations nor the permit
      332. mandate compliance with local ordinances.
      333. Response: Conditions 21 and 22 are consistent with regulation at 25 Pa. Code §
      334. this permit.
      335. reviews NOI submissions in accordance with 25 Pa. Code 102.6(c).
      336. and projects required to be restored under 25 Pa. Code Chapter 78 which are
      337. Code § 102.8(n).
      338. Response: Surface landowners and water purveyors whose water supplies are
      339. well, within 3,000 feet from the vertical well bore obtain notice of a permit
      340. commencing well site preparation, including access roads, water purveyors will

1
Erosion and Sediment Control General Permit
2 Permit
Comments Received during Public Comment Period
January 21, 2012
March 21, 2012
1.
Comment:
The definition of ABACT refers to the 2 year/24 hour storm event. Recent
rainstorm and flooding experience in the Susquehanna River Basin over the last ten years
(2002-2012) suggests that this 2-year/24-hour storm is far too low a figure. It should be
expanded to include the 500 year flood events. (5)
Response: The Department disagrees, the 2 year/24 hour storm event is
scientifically based to ensure that in-stream water quality is protected or maintained
as established by Chapter 102 regulation. This requirement relates to in-stream
water quality rather than flood control.
2.
Comment:
The term “Earth disturbance activity” includes road maintenance which was
specifically exempted at the beginning of this proposed regulation. The deposition of salt
brines anywhere within an HQ or EV watershed, including ‘dust control measures’
described as road maintenance, should be prohibited. (5)
Response: Dust control is not included in the definition of Road Maintenance
Activity and is not authorized by ESCGP-2
.
3.
Comment:
The definition of floodplain should be revised to include the 500-year
frequency flood. (5)
Response: The Department disagrees, the definition of floodplain is appropriate and
consistent with existing requirements found in 25 Pa. Code § 105.1.
4.
Comment:
The definition of floodway should be revised to state: “…
In an area where no
FEMA maps or studies have defined the boundary of the 100-year frequency floodway, it
is assumed, absent evidence to the contrary, that the floodway extends from the stream to
a
n increase of 20 feet in vertical elevations as per USGS data maps
. See 25 Pa. Code §
105.1…” (5)
Response: The Department disagrees, the definition of floodway is appropriate and
consistent with existing requirements found in 25 Pa. Code § 105.1.
5.
Comment:
The definition of Nondischarge Alternative should reference a 500 year storm
event instead of a 2 year/24 hour event. (5)
Response: The Department disagrees. The 2 year/24 hour storm event is
scientifically based to ensure that in stream water quality is protected or maintained

2
as established by 25 Pa. Code § 102.1. This requirement relates to in-stream water
quality rather than flood control.
6.
Comment:
The definition of Point Source should be changed to include well pad,
retention pond, water impoundment, produced water impoundment, mobile unit and
vehicle. (5)
Response: The Department disagrees. The definition of Point Source is appropriate
and consistent with existing requirements found in 25 Pa. Code Chapter 92.a.1
.
7.
Comment:
The definition of PPC Plan should be modified to state the following:
PPC Plan—A site-specific written plan that identifies an emergency response program,
cradle to grave material and waste inventories, material safety data sheets, origination and
disposal tracking sheets, spill and leak prevention mechanisms and procedures, spill and
leak notification and response procedures, inspection program, housekeeping program,
site security and external factors that are developed and implemented at the construction
site to identify and control potential discharges of pollutants other than sediment into
waters of this Commonwealth. (5)
Response: The Department disagrees. The definition of PPC Plan is appropriate
and consistent with existing requirements found in 25 Pa. Code Chapters 91 and
102.
8.
Comment:
The definition of Riparian Buffer should be modified to state the following:
Riparian buffer— A
distance of not less than 300 feet from the edge of bank
along
surface waters
of this Commonwealth
. (5)
Response: The Department disagrees. The definition of Riparian Buffer is
appropriate and consistent with existing requirements found in 25 Pa. Code § 102.1
and 102.14.
9.
Comment:
The definition of Riparian Forest Buffer should be modified to state the
following:
Riparian forest buffer—A type of riparian buffer that consists of permanent vegetation
that contains predominantly native trees, shrubs and grasses along surface waters that is
maintained in a natural state to protect and enhance water quality, stabilize stream
channels and banks, and separate land use activities from surface waters. (5)
Response: The Department disagrees. The definition of “Riparian Forest Buffer” is
appropriate and consistent with existing requirements found in 25 Pa. Code § 102.1.

3
10.
Comment:
The definition of Road Maintenance Activity should be modified to
specifically reference public roads when discussing the cross-section.(5)
Response: The Department disagrees. The definition of “Road Maintenance
Activity” is appropriate and consistent with existing requirements found in 25 Pa.
Code § 102.1.
11.
Comment:
The definition of Stormwater should be modified to state the following:
Stormwater -
Water
runoff from precipitation, snow melt, surface runoff and natural
drainage. (5)
Response: The Department disagrees. The definition of Stormwater is appropriate
and consistent with existing requirements found in 25 Pa. Code § 102.1.
12.
Comment:
The definition of Transferee should be modified to remove the phrase
“…during the construction activity.” (5)
Response: The Department has revised the definition to reference earth
disturbance activity
.
13.
Comment:
The definition of Wetlands should be revised to the following: Wetlands -
Areas that are continuously or intermittently inundated or saturated by surface water or
groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal
circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in
saturated soil conditions, including swamps, marshes, bogs and similar areas. (5)
Response: The Department disagrees. The definition of “Wetlands” is appropriate
and consistent with existing requirements found in 25 Pa. Code § 105.1.
14.
Comment:
The definition of Licensed Professional should include CPESC and CPSWQ
certified professionals. These certifications of recognized nationwide and includes
experts in the fields of design of E&S and Post Construction Stormwater. These
professionals should be allowed to sign off on ESCGP‐2 plans for submittal to the
PADEP and CCD’s. In addition, conditions 16(a) and 18(a) should be revised to
acknowledge a CPESC or CPSWQ certified professional as someone who can prepare
erosion and sediment control plans and post construction stormwater management. (7)
Response: CPESC and CPSWQ certified professionals may prepare and submit
ESCGP-2 NOIs. NOIs submitted under the expedited review option must be signed
and sealed by a certified, licensed professional.
The Department is following the definition of Licensed Professional as found in 25
Pa. Code § 102.1.

4
15.
Comment:
The term ‘discrete’ as used in the definition of Point Source should be
defined as it relates to activities which may be point sources. (7)
Response: The Department disagrees. The definition is consistent with the
definition found in 25 Pa. Code 92a and federal regulations found at 40 CFR 122.
16.
Comment:
Will the definition of ‘Road Maintenance Activity’ be mandated by PADEP
and the CCDs? The assumption is that road maintenance activities, procedures, plans, and
permits will be mandated and dictated by the DOT and local municipalities. Is that
correct? (7)
Response: It is not clear to the Department what the commentator means by
mandating a regulatory definition. The definition of “
Road Maintenance Activity”
is
consistent with regulation at 25 Pa. Code § 102.1. Road maintenance activities will
be regulated in accordance with Pa. Code § 102.
Road maintenance activity, as the term is defined in 25 Pa. Code § 102.1, over 25
acres requires E&S permit coverage, which permit is administered by DEP and
delegated conservation districts.
Any person undertaking earth disturbance activities, including road maintenance
activities that are below the permit threshold, must utilize BMPs and develop a
written E&S plan if over 5,000 square feet or the earth disturbance activities,
because of its proximity to existing drainage features or patterns, has the potential
to discharge to a water classified as a High Quality or Exceptional Value water
under Chapter 93.
17.
Comment:
A definition for the term “Site Restoration Plan” should be added under
Condition 2. The term “site restoration plan” is undefined and used throughout the
Policy and related documents.
The Department should define “site restoration plan”
consistent with 25 Pa. Code § 102.8. The Department should define “site restoration
plan” as follows: “For purposes of ESCGP-2 approval, a “site restoration plan” is a plan
submitted as part of ESCGP-2 authorization that identifies PCSM BMPs to manage
stormwater from oil and gas activities as provided in 25 Pa. Code § 102.8(n).” (16, 45)
Response: The Department disagrees. A definition for a “Site Restoration Plan” is
unnecessary as the requirements for a site restoration plan are outlined in the policy
and permit application documents.
18.
Comment:
The permit should be amended to include the following definition:
“Administratively complete and acceptable”
- The Department should define
“administratively complete and acceptable” as “an application package that includes the

5
completed checklist, NOI, and E&S Plans and PCSM/Site Restoration Plans prepared in
accordance with the Standard E&S Plan Technical Guide and Standard PCSM Plan
Technical Guide attached
to the NOI Instructions.” (24, 26, 27, 28)
Response: The Department disagrees. Pursuant to 25 Pa. Code § 102.6(c) and
application is complete when the applicant has satisfied all necessary information
and requirements under the Clean Streams Law and 25 Pa. Code Chapter 102.
19.
Comment:
The permit should be amended to include the following definition:
“Discharge” –
The Department should revise the Policy and draft documents to clarify
that “discharge” means “point source discharge” as defined in 25 Pa. Code
§ 92a.2. (24,
26, 27, 28)
Response: It is not necessary to define
“discharge”
in this permit. The proposed
definition is not appropriate because this is not an NPDES permit.
20.
Comment:
The permit should be amended to include the following definition:
“Gathering pipeline” – The Department should define “gathering pipeline” as follows:
“For purposes of ESCGP-2 approval only, “gathering” means a pipeline or pipeline
system and related, equipment, facilities or buildings used in the transportation of oil or
gas from a point of connection with a well pad to downstream connection points with
transmission facilities.” (24, 26, 27, 28)
Response: The Permit does not use the term “Gathering pipeline”, therefore it does
not need to be defined.
21.
Comment:
The permit should be amended to include the following definition:
“Impervious Surface” – There is considerable variation among the Department’s regional
offices as to the definition of “impervious.” That term is undefined in the draft documents
and does not appear
to be defined in the Department’s Stormwater BMP Manual, E&S
Manual, or Oil and Gas Manual. The Department should define the term “impervious”
and “impervious surface.” (24, 26, 27, 28)
Response: The definition is in the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Protection Erosion and Sediment Pollution Control Program Manual, Technical
Guidance Number 363-2134-008, dated March 2012, on page 526. It states:
Impervious Surface
Hard ground cover that prevents or retards the entry of water
into the soil and increases runoff, such as asphalt, concrete, rooftops, etc.
22.
Comment:
The permit should be amended to include the following definition:

6
“Owner” – The Department should define “owner” consistent with Act 13 of 2012, and
Chapter 78 of the Department’s regulations.
To conform that definition to ESCGP-2, an
“owner” be defined as follows: “An „owner‟
is a person who owns, manages, leases,
controls or possesses a well or gathering or transmission pipeline.” (24, 26, 27, 28)
Response: The Department disagrees, the definition in 58 Pa.C.S. § 3203 (known as
Oil and Gas Act of 2012) refers to owns, manages, leases, controls, or possesses a
well or coal property. The activities covered under this permit are beyond well
ownership, therefore the Oil and Gas Act of 2012 is not appropriate.
23.
Comment:
The permit should be amended to include the following definition:
“Phase”
- The Department should define these terms consistent with the definitions in the
Department’s Policy for phased projects at Doc. No. 363-2134-013.
(24, 26, 27, 28)
Response: The definition is consistent with the Policy for Phased Projects
(Document ID # 363-2134-013).
24.
Comment:
The permit should be amended to include the following definition:
“Transmission Facilities” –
The Department should define transmission facilities as
follows: “Transmission facilities” are defined by 49 C.F.R. Part 192.” (24, 26, 27, 28)
Response: The Department disagrees; the 49 C.F.R. Part 192 does not include the
definition of “transmission facilities”.
25.
Comment:
The permit should be amended to include the following definition:
“Watershed” –
The Department should clarify
that the term “watershed” when used in the
draft Policy or related draft documents is determined by reference to Hydrologic Unit
Code 8 (“HUC-8”). (24, 26, 27, 28)
Response: The Department disagrees. The term watershed when used in the permit
is not always determined by references to HUC-8 codes.
26.
Comment:
The definition of ABACT appears to be written solely focused on Post
Construction Stormwater Management. Additional emphasis should be placed on erosion
& sedimentation control BMPs. (45)
Response: The
Department disagrees. The definition of “ABACT” is appropriate
and consistent with existing requirements found in 25 Pa. Code § 102.1.
27.
Comment:
The definition of oil and gas activity should include gathering. (Transmission
is listed, but gathering is not) (45)

7
Response: The Department disagrees. The definition of “Oil and Gas Activities”
is
appropriate and consistent with existing requirements found in PA Code § 102.1
.
28.
Comment:
The definition of operator should include site restoration. (45)
Response:
The Department disagrees. The definition of “Operator” is appropriate
and consistent with existing requirements found in 25 Pa. Code § 102.1.
29.
Comment:
The following definition for “Wild Trout Stream” should be added to the
definition section:
A stream identified as supporting naturally reproducing trout populations by the Fish and
Boat Commission under 58 PA Code §57.11 (relating to listing of wild trout streams).
For a list of wild trout streams, contact the Fish and Boat Commission. (55)
Response:
The Department disagrees. The term ‘Wild Trout Stream’ is not used in
the permit, therefore no definition is needed.
30.
Comment:
The definition of “oil and gas activities” should be revised to specifically
include earth disturbance activities associated with pipeline construction as it is related to
transmission facilities. Pipelines and their infrastructure are logically related to
transmission themselves create potentially significant direct, indirect, and cumulative
impacts to water resources in terms sediment delineating the aforementioned definition
will enable more precise and efficient management of earth disturbance activities
anticipated as covered by the ESCGP-2. (35)
Response: The Department disagrees. The definition of “Oil and Gas Activities is
appropriate and consistent with existing requirements found in 25 Pa. Code § 102.1.
31.
Comment:
Condition 3(a) should be revised to include a reference to site restoration as
an allowed activity under the general permit. (45)
Response: Permittees are required to develop, implement and maintain a site
restoration and/or post construction stormwater management plan pursuant to 25
Pa. Code § 102.8. Accordingly, site restoration is a component of this permit.
32.
Comment:
The word “substantial” should be removed
from condition 3(b)(1). (5)
Response: The Department disagrees. This condition is consistent with other
permits administered by the Department to ensure compliance with federal Clean
Water Act requirements.

8
33.
Comment:
Condition 3(b)(3) should be revised
to clarify what is meant by “has shown a
lack of ability or intention” when describing an operator who has a compliance issue with
respect to ESCGP-2. (7)
Response: The Department disagrees that the phrase “has shown a lack of ability or
intention” needs
to be clarified in this permit. This phrase is consistent with
language in the Clean Streams law and the determination as to whether a party has
demonstrated a lack of ability of intention is determined on a case-by-case basis.
34.
Comment:
Condition 3(b)(5) should be eliminated or re-written as the federal and state
PNDI agencies will determine what activities are or are not allowed in a certain area of
the state with respect to the T&E species and habitats. (7)
Response: The Department disagrees. The condition is appropriate and consistent
with existing requirements found in 25 Pa. Code § 102.6(a)(2)
.
35.
Comment:
Condition 3(b)(6) indicates that the permit is does not apply to discharges
which individually or cumulatively have the potential to cause significant adverse
environmental impact. All the projects which are in the category individually and
cumulatively do indeed have potential to cause significant adverse environmental impact.
How will it be determined if the proposed activity will create individually or
cumulatively a significant adverse environmental impact? (5, 7, 37, 64)
Response: The condition is consistent with the regulatory requirements in 25 Pa.
Code §102.5(m)(1)(v) and is consistent with standard language in other general
permits administered by the Department. The permit requires use of BMPs so that
stormwater runoff that occurs during and after stormwater events mimics
preexisting stormwater runoff. Therefore, where the permittee conducts activities
in accordance with 25 Pa. Code Chapter 102 and the terms of this permit the
Department does not anticipate that such activities will result in significant adverse
individual or cumulative impacts
.
36.
Comment:
The Department should better define Section 3(b)(6) “permit shall not apply
, to … dis
charges which individually or cumulatively have the potential to cause
significant adverse environmental impacts.” In what manners does the Department
contemplate this section’s application? Likewise, what is the anticipated indicium of
proof showing a discharge will have such an impact? Would such a discharge then trigger
automatic remedial activities noted in the permit, or perhaps automatic sanctions?
Fleshing out this provision would better allow the public, Conservation Districts, and
inspectors to understand circumstances for which they should be alert and thus best
protect water resources of the Commonwealth. (35)

9
Response: The condition is consistent with the regulatory requirements in 25 Pa.
Code §102.5(m)(1)(v) and is consistent with standard language in other general
permits administered by the Department. The permit requires use of BMPs so that
stormwater runoff that occurs during and after stormwater events mimics
preexisting stormwater runoff. Therefore, where the permittee conducts activities
in accordance with 25 Pa. Code Chapter 102 and the terms of this permit the
Department does not anticipate that such activities will result in significant adverse
individual or cumulative impacts.
37.
Comment:
Comment: A condition 3(b)(7) should be added to read:
“Discharges within a watershed designated as exceptional value.” (5)
Response: The Department disagrees. Limitation of use of general permits in
special protection waters is exclusive to NPDES permits. This permit is applicable in
all waters including those designated HQ and EV. The expedited permit review is
not available in HQ/EV watersheds. The applicant is responsible to meet all the
requirements of the permit and regulations which require the demonstrations
outlined in 25 Pa. Code §§ 102.4(b)(6) and 102.8(h). These demonstrations fulfill the
antidegradation requirements in 25 Pa. Code Chapter 93 and ensure that special
protection waters of the Commonwealth will be protected and maintained.
38.
Comment:
Condition 4(a) should be modified to require the Department to publish
notice of any draft, renewed or reissued general permit or any amendments to the general
permit in a newspaper of local circulation within the county for which such permit is
requested. (5)
Response: Condition 4(a) is an obligation of the Department upon renewal,
modification, termination, revocation or reissuance of the general permit. This
condition is not applicable to Department authorization of coverage under the
general permit.
39.
Comment:
Condition 4(a) is unclear and potentially problematic for sites that were
permitted and constructed under the ESCGP-1. The condition should be revised to state
that existing earth-disturbance activities authorized under ESCGP-1 or authorizations
requested before the effective date of the ESCGP-2 are not subject to the requirements of
the ESCGP-2 unless the permittee requests a new approval for new activities subject to
the revised ESCGP-2 approval process after its effective date. (24, 26, 27, 28, 45, 48)
Response: All activities upon renewal, major modification, or submission of an
additional phase shall be compliant with the terms and conditions of the ESCGP-2.

10
40.
Comment:
It is excellent that the amendment will apply to all erosion and sedimentation
issues as described in condition 4(a). This provision is necessary and will help to address
many ongoing problems in the field at a crucial time of increased gathering line
construction. (14)
Response: The Department acknowledges the comment.
41.
Comment:
Condition 4(b) should be modified to include repeated violation of the rule,
regulations or orders promulgated by the Department as a cause for which the permit may
be modified, suspended, revoked, reissued or terminated. (5)
Response: The Department disagrees. Issuance of the general permit is not the
same as issuance of coverage under a general permit. Condition 4(b) applies to
DEP’s issuance of general permit and
is consistent with 25 Pa. Code §102.5(m)(6)
and relates to initial issuance of the general permit by the Department and not to
the issuance of coverage under the general permit. The Department reviews the
applicant’s compliance history in Section G of the NOI,
in evaluation whether to
authorize coverage under the general permit.
42.
Comment:
Condition 4(b) is excellent. The permittee is advised and regulators have
unquestionable authority to modify, suspend, revoke, reissue or terminate the permit. (14)
Response: The Department acknowledges the comment.
43.
Comment:
Condition 5(b) should be revised to include the US Environmental Protection
Agency as a party that has the right to enter the site to conduct inspections. (5)
Response: This is not a Clean Water Act permit and there is no EPA oversight of
this state Clean Streams Law permit.
44.
Comment:
Condition 5(b) should be revised to include air pollution. (5)
Response: Air pollution is beyond the scope of this permit.
45.
Comment:
Condition 5 (b) should be revised to ensure that the Department or
Conservation District cannot require permittees to conduct monitoring from a
construction activity that is considered trespass by private surface owners. (12)
Response: The Department disagrees that this condition should be modified. Access
issues related to off-site monitoring are handled on a case-by-case basis.
46.
Comment:
Condition 5(b) should be revised to require CCDs to provide the appropriate
DEP office with information regarding any samples and measurements taken as required

11
which are representative of the volume and nature of the monitored discharge. This
information must be part of the corresponding permit file. (14)
Response: The Department disagrees. Appropriate record keeping is addressed by
the delegation agreement between the Department and the Conservation Districts
.
47.
Comment:
Condition 5(c) should be revised to state the following:
Upon request by
the Department,
the United States Environmental Protection Agency
or
Conservation District
the permittee(s) shall without delay provide
copies of records
required to be kept by this permit. (5)
Response: This is not a Clean Water Act permit and there is no EPA oversight of
this state Clean Streams Law permit.
48.
Comment:
Condition 5(d) should be revised to include non-compliance with the
ESCGP-2 or any other permit issued by the Department as a cause for which coverage
under this permit may be modified, suspended, revoked or terminated. (5)
Response: The Department disagrees. Condition 5(d) is consistent with the
Department’s authority in administering this permit under the Clean Streams Law.
49.
Comment:
Inclusion of conditions 5(d) and 5(e) is excellent. It is appropriate to
designate the Department as having the ultimate authority in these matters. Our DEP staff
has the resources and knowledge to determine what is acceptable according to the
Commonwealth’s regulations and policies. (14)
Response: The Department acknowledges the comment.
50.
Comment:
Condition 5(e) should call out Conservation Districts as well as the
Department. (7)
Response: The Department concurs
,
and has added delegated CDs to the permit
condition.
51.
Comment:
Condition 5(e) should be revised to
define “administratively complete and
acceptable” as “an application package that includes the completed checklist, NOI, and
E&S Plans and PCSM/Site Restoration Plans prepared in accordance with the Standard
E&S Plan Technical Guide and Standard PCSM Plan Technical Guide attached to the
NOI Instructions.” (24, 26, 27, 28)
Response: The Department disagrees. Pursuant to 25 Pa. Code § 102.6(c) an
application is complete when the applicant has satisfied all necessary information
and requirements under the Clean Streams Law and 25 Pa. Code Chapter 102.

12
52.
Comment:
Condition 6(a), 6 (c) and 7(a) should be revised to clarify what is required to
make an NOI submission administratively complete and acceptable. (7)
Response:
The Department disagrees. Pursuant to 25 Pa. Code § 102.6(c) an
application is complete when the applicant has satisfied all necessary information
and requirements under the Clean Streams Law and 25 Pa. Code Chapter 102
.
53.
Comment:
Condition 6(c) should be modified to require a public comment period prior
to the Department initiating review of erosion and sediment control general permit
submissions. (5)
Response: The Department disagrees. The public participation process for ESCGP-
2 submissions is consistent with 25 Pa. Code § 102.5(m)(3) as well as the public
participation procedures associated with other general permits administered by the
Department.
54.
Comment:
As proposed on page 12 (Section 6-0), ESCGP-2 would require professionals
licensed by the Department of State to attend up-to-date training provided by the
Department’s Office of Oil and Gas Management on erosion and sediment control and
post construction stormwater managements for oil and gas activities in order to prepare
an application to be submitted through the expedited permit process. It is questionable
that the DEP has the authority require a licensed professional to attend specified training
prior to practicing its profession. If the Commonwealth, through the Department of State,
determines the person is qualified to practice, the DEP likely has no authority to say they
are not qualified to submit a NOI for expedited review or any other signed and sealed
document since the DEP has no professional licensing authority. See more on this in the
comments regarding the policy, below. (12)
Response: The Department disagrees. The Department offers the expedited permit
review process as a matter of policy. To utilize the expedited permit review process
the applicant must meet certain requirements. One such requirement is that NOIs
submitted through the expedited permit process be prepared, certified and sealed by
a licensed professional who has attended up-to-date training on erosion and
sediment control and post construction stormwater management for oil and gas
activities. Without qualifying criteria for expedited NOI submissions the
Department would not be able to offer the expedited permit review process and
provide applicants with acknowledgement of coverage in 14 days
.
55.
Comment:
Condition 6(e) should be modified to remove the word ‘minor’ when
referring to modifications. (5)

13
Response: It is appropriate to define major and minor amendments involving
erosion and sediment control authorizations. These distinctions are important and
determine the applicable administrative and/or technical process.
56.
Comment:
Condition 6(e) should be modified to remove ‘change of ownership’ from the
list of potential changes to the E&S Plan or PCSM Plan. (5)
Response: It is appropriate to include change of ownership as a potential change to
the E&S Plan or PCSM Plan.
57.
Comment:
Inclusion of condition 6(e) is good so everyone is aware of their
responsibilities. This condition will prevent further E&S problems at the corresponding
site. (14)
Response: The Department acknowledges the comment.
58.
Comment:
Condition 6(e)
should be revised to clearly define “major modifications” and
specify under what circumstances the Department will require a new NOI for major
modifications. (24, 26, 27, 28)
Response: The Department has provided guidance regarding major and minor
modifications and retains discretion to make a judgment on a case-by-case basis for
circumstances not addressed by the policy. Allowing this flexibility is important to
the Department, the public and the regulated community.
59.
Comment:
Inclusion of Condition 6(f) is very good. Requiring implementation of E&S
BMPs and PCSM BMPs to minimize accelerated erosion and sedimentation is a very
important reason that the permit exists (14)
Response: The Department acknowledges the comment.
60.
Comment:
Condition 6(h) should require consultation with the US Department of the
Interior as well as PNHP regarding the presence of State or Federal threatened or
endangered species on the project site. (5)
Response: The condition is consistent with regulatory requirements found at 25 Pa.
Code §102.6(a)(2). If through the PNHP process, coordination must be undertaken
regarding a federally listed species, this coordination will be done with federal
agencies including those in the Department of Interior (DOI).
61.
Comment:
Condition 6(h) requires applicants to resolve potential impacts to State or
Federal threatened or endangered specials with the appropriate agency prior to submitting
the NOI. The current implementation PNHP program does not appear to provide
adequate protection to threatened and endangered species. It has been my experience that

14
the process only serves to identify threatened and endangered species while still allowing
development activity to continue. The process or implementation should be revised to
actually protect the species that are identified. (14)
Response: The Department disagrees. The condition is consistent with regulatory
requirement found in 25 Pa. Code § 102.6(a)(2). If the Department or conservation
district determines, based upon PNHP data or other sources, that the proposed
earth disturbance activity may adversely impact the species or critical habitat, the
person proposing the earth disturbance activity shall consult with the Department
or conservation district to avoid or prevent the impact. If the impact cannot be
avoided or prevented, the person proposing the activity shall demonstrate how the
impacts will be minimized in accordance with State and Federal laws pertaining to
the protection of threatened or endangered flora and fauna and their habitat.
62.
Comment:
The language in condition 6(h) matches what DEP has been requiring in
practice. (45)
Response: The Department acknowledges the comment.
63.
Comment:
Condition 6(i) should be revised to clarify the wetland determination process
that the Department expects applicants to utilize. (12)
Response:
The wetland determination process should be in accordance with
Chapter 105.451 and applicable Army Corps of Engineers Guidance.
64.
Comment:
Condition 6(i) states that “special precautions must be taken to protect
wetlands
and other water resources”; however, there is no description of such
precautions, nor there is no reference to a specific guidance document or regulation
governing the “special precautions” that will be required to protect wetlands. We
recommend providing clear guidance on how applicants can fulfill their protection
requirements either through explanation of applicable steps such as avoidance measures
or BMPs; citation of State and Federal permitting requirements and procedures through
which adequate precautionary measures must be demonstrated or both. (33, 52)
Response: Condition 6(i) is consistent with requirements at 25 Pa. Code § 102.5(i).In
addition work conducted in and around wetlands must be conducted in accordance
with 25 Pa. Code Chapter 105.
65.
Comment:
Many operators have been providing the documentation required under
condition 6(i) as a standard practice or in response to DEP comments or requests. This
item will add additional complexity for professional services to prepare this document for
those operators who were not previously required to do so. (45)

15
Response:
The Department disagrees. The requirement is not new. The
documentation is necessary to comply with 25 Pa. Code §102.4(b)(5)
.
66.
Comment:
Inclusion of Condition 6(j) requiring compliance with the final renewed,
reissued or amended general permit is excellent. We do need to move forward with the
new permit and associated technical guidance document, and this requirement advises
and informs such that everyone is on the same page. (14, 39)
Response: The Department acknowledges the comment.
67.
Comment:
Condition 6(l) addresses waivers required under 601.206 of the Oil and Gas
Act. The Department should develop a standardized set of rules for obtaining waivers.
Additionally, the setback requirements in the permit condition should be revised to be
consistent with Act 13. (14, 24, 26, 27, 28, 48, 55, 57)
Response: The Department agrees and has amended condition 6(l) to be consistent
with 58 Pa.C.S. §§ 3201-3274.
68.
Comment:
Condition 6(l) should be revised to require setback from all water bodies and
wetlands not just water bodies identified on 7.5 minute topographic maps and wetlands
greater than 1 acre in size. (33, 52, 55)
Response: Condition 6(l) will be revised to be consistent with 58 Pa.C.S. §§ 3201-
3274
.
69.
Comment:
Condition 6(l) on page 11 establishes a 100-foot buffer zone around wetlands
greater than one acre in size. Then reference is made to the waiver provision of the Oil
and Gas Act, which allow activities with the buffer zone. It appears that ESCGP-2 would
not cover activities allowed under the waiver if one were obtained. It is recommended
that the waiver setback provisions and the coverage of ESCGP-2 with regards to the
buffer zone be coordinated. (12)
Response: Applicants proposing to construct a well site with a disturbed area within
100 feet or drill the vertical portion of an unconventional well within 300 feet of a
wetland greater than 1 acre in size must obtain a waiver from the Department. The
waiver requirement is separate and independent of the ESCGP-2.
70.
Comment:
Condition 6(l) is inconsistent with existing riparian buffer setback
requirements in Chapter 102. The permit should at a minimum require a baseline of 150’
rather than 100’ via the waiver exemption to demonstrate that such
activity would utilize
best available technology– not best practicable technology
to ensure that existing
buffers are undisturbed and remain effective in their ecological functionality. Allowing a
cost--‐benefit weighing puts discretionary permitting of activities economically

16
benefiting private entities ahead of the ecological well--‐being of a shared public resource
waterways --‐ a policy choice we do not support in principle or practice. (35)
Response: Condition 6(l) addresses setback requirements in 58 Pa.C.S. §§ 3201-
3274. Condition 6(l) will be revised to be consistent with 58 Pa.C.S. §§ 3201-3274.
ESCGP-2 is consistent with riparian buffer setback requirements in 25 Pa. Code §§
102.14(d)(1)(vii) and 102.14(d)(1)(ix).
71.
Comment:
Condition 6(m) provided that if there is any conflict between the permit and
the NOI, including any appendices, attachments, plans and other supporting
documentation, the more environmentally protective provision applies. This is the kind of
requirement that really provides environmental protection. (14)
Response: The Department acknowledges the comment.
72.
Comment:
Condition 6(n) should be modified to clarify that the expedited review
process is not available for projects where any part is located in or has the potential to
discharge to HQ or EV waters. (5)
Response: The Department agrees. Clarifying language has been added.
73.
Comment:
Condition 6(n) should be revised to add a provision making the expedited
review process unavailable for projects located in the drainage area of or with the
potential to discharge to siltation impaired waters. (49)
Response: The Department will be adding the following condition to the permit:
“ESCGP-2
does not apply to discharges to a surface water identified as impaired
waters where the proposed discharge will result in a net change (pre-condition to
post condition) in volume or rate or water quality of the stormwater or otherwise
contribute to a violation of a water quality standard.” Additionally, the
Department will be amending the NOI to ask applicants to indicate whether the
project is in or discharges to a siltation-impaired water and if so require that the
operator demonstrate that its project will not result in a net change (pre to post
condition) in volume, rate, or water quality or otherwise explain how the project
will not contribute to a violation of a water quality standard.
74.
Comment:
Condition 6(n) restricting availability of the expedited permit process in
environmentally sensitive areas is an excellent addition to the permit. It is necessary to
keep in place the fact that expedited permit review process for ESCGP-2
NOI’s are not
available for projects located in or with potential to discharge to waters that have a
designated or existing use of High Quality of Exceptional Value streams or projects
involving the construction of a well pad in or on a floodplain, as defined
25 Pa. Code §

17
105
.1. It is also vital to continue to make expedited permit reviews unavailable for
ESCGP-2 NOIs where earth disturbance activities are proposed on lands that are known
to be currently contaminated by the release of regulated substances, as defined in Section
103 of Act 2. This condition provides for adequate protection of public health and safety
and our environment. (14, 15, 35, 36, 55, 68)
Response: The Department acknowledges the commen
t.
75.
Comment:
ABACT requirements should be applied in all watersheds listed in Condition
6(n). (68)
Response: The Department disagrees. ESCGP-2 is consistent in 25 Pa. Code §§
102.4(b)(6) and 102.8(h).
76.
Comment:
Condition 6(n)(1) restricting availability of the expedited permit process in
HQ/EV watersheds should be deleted. The Department should authorize expedited
review for projects in HQ/EV watersheds. (22, 24, 26, 27, 28)
Response: The Department disagrees. Projects located in or with the potential to
discharge to waters with a designated use of high quality or exceptional value
require a more extensive review to ensure that all antidegradation requirements are
met
.
77.
Comment:
Condition 6(n) restricting the availability of the expedited permit process will
add time to the project schedule due to additional agency review time. It will be difficult
for the PADEP to perform technical reviews within the allotted timeframe considering
the increased volume of application in that category that will result from this requirement.
If there is an engineering certification for activities described in this section, is there an
alternative approval schedule that can be implemented? Would the Department consider a
30-day expedited review schedule for activities listed in this condition? Professional
certification should be considered in the review process for these activities as well. (34,
45)
Response: Projects located in or with the potential to discharge to waters with a
designated or existing use of high quality or exceptional value require a 60-day
review.
78.
Comment:
Condition 6(n) should be revised to exclude projects located in or with the
potential to discharge to wetlands that have a designated use of Exceptional Value from
the expedited review option. (55)
Response: The Department disagrees. Wetlands are waters of the commonwealth
and are included in condition 6(n).

18
79.
Comment:
Condition 6(n)(3) should be revised to clearly explain how applicants will
know or prove that the land does not have contaminated substances. (7)
Response: Condition 6(n) relates to the eligibility of the expedited review. The
expedited review is not available for sites where applicants, as a result of
environmental due diligence, have identified site contamination or sites that are in
the Act 2 process.
80.
Comment:
Condition 6(o) should be modified to require the licensed professional to not
only seal but also prepare all plans submitted with NOIs that are submitted through the
expedited review process. (5)
Response:
It is appropriate to allow designated individuals to prepare plans for the
expedited review under the responsible charge of the licensed professional who seals
and submits the plans
.
81.
Comment:
Condition 6(o) should be revised to clarify whether plans submitted through
the expedited review process must be prepared by the licensed professional or if they may
be prepared under the responsible charge of the licensed professional. (7)
Response: Plans submitted through the expedited review may be prepared by
designated individuals under the responsible charge of a licensed professional. The
permit will be revised to provide clarity.
82.
Comment:
Condition 6(p) should be revised to clarify whether permits submitted for a
standard review are required to be sealed by a licensed professional. (7)
Response: A licensed professional is not required to seal and certify an NOI if it is
not described by any of the conditions listed in 6(n)
.
83.
Comment:
Condition 7(a) should be modified to remove the phrase “to the maximum
extent practicable” and to add the following:
Permits may not be issued for discharges of stormwater runoff and associated pollutants
to "High Quality" or "Exceptional Value" waters unless a finding has been made by the
Department that the antidegradation requirements in Chapter 93 of the Department's
Rules and Regulations and the Water Quality Anti-Degradation Implementation
Guidance have been satisfied. Waters designated as "Exceptional Value" (EV) must be
maintained and protected at their existing quality. (5)
Response: The Department disagrees. The suggested language is not necessary.
ESCGP-2 as drafted is consistent with and requires compliance with the
antidegradation requirements in 25 Pa. Code Chapters 102 and 93.

19
84.
Comment:
Condition 7 should be expanded to address linear projects specifically for
PCSM Plans which control the volume and rate of stormwater. As linear projects may
clear a narrow width of woods and replace with meadow, we believe any increase in
runoff rate and volume would be negligible. (16)
Response: All projects are required to comply with post construction stormwater
management requirements in 25 Pa. Code § 102.8.
85.
Comment:
On page 13 (Condition 8(a)) inspections are to occur within 24 hours of a
measurable stormwater event. There is no indication of how this is to be determined.
Please include a definition that specifies how much is considered measurable. (12, 35)
Response: The Department will clarify the condition and remove the term
“measureable” to be consistent with 25 Pa. Code § 102.4(b)(5)(x) which states “after
each stormwater event”. The term stormwater is defined as “runoff from
precipitation, snowmelt, surface runoff and drainage”.
86.
Comment:
Condition 8(a) should be revised to adequately define the term “qualified
personnel”. (45)
Response: The term ‘qualified personnel’ is defined in the condition as personnel
trained and experienced in erosion and sedimentation control.
87.
Comment:
Condition 8(b) should be revised to clarify what is meant by ‘long term’. (7)
Response:
‘Long term’ is only part of the phrase used in Condition 8(b).
The entire
phrase is “
long term operation and maintenance
which is defined in 25 Pa. Code
§102.1 as
The routine inspection, maintenance, repair or replacement of a BMP to
ensure proper function for the duration of time that the BMP is needed
.”
88.
Comment:
Condition 8(b) requires development of a long-term operation and
maintenance schedule which provides for inspection of PCSM BMPs. The permit process
will become additionally complex for the owner/operator by requiring the preparation of
the long term operation and maintenance plan. (45)
Response: Condition 8(b) is a regulatory requirement under 25 Pa. § Code
102.8(f)(10).
89.
Comment:
Condition 8(c) should be modified to require a licensed professional to be
onsite and responsible for the inspection of critical stages and implementation of the
PCSM plan. (5)
Response: Condition 8(c) is consistent with 25 Pa. Code § 102.8(k).

20
90.
Comment:
Condition 8(c) should be revised to clearly define and limit the critical stages
requiring oversight to underground features and structurally engineered BMPs. (34)
Response: The Department Disagrees. Condition 8(c) provides a list of critical
stages requiring oversight and is consistent with regulatory requirement at 25 Pa.
Code § 102.8(k).
91.
Comment:
Condition 8(d) is a good requirement causing the permittee to be aware and
responsible when certain conditions exist. (14)
Response: The Department acknowledges the comment.
92.
Comment:
Condition 8(d) should be revised to
clarify what constitutes an “increased risk
of water pollution” and must timely respond to documented evidence of such an
occurrence. (35)
Response: The Department disagrees. What constitutes an increased risk of water
pollution is determined on a case-by-case basis.
93.
Comment:
Condition 8(e) should be revised to identify who is responsible for
monitoring, inspections and reporting of BMPs. (7)
Response: Conditions 8(a) through 8(e) specify that the permittee is responsible for
monitoring, inspections and reporting to the Department or Conservation District.
94.
Comment:
Condition 8(e) is a good requirement. It also provides adequate notice to
Department staff to verify how well E&S measures are working. (14)
Response: The Department acknowledges the comment.
95.
Comment:
Conditions 9, 10 and 11 are all very good requirements; should such
situations occur that the DEP or CCD need to make a review, this information is
available. (14)
Response: The Department acknowledges the comment.
96.
Comment:
Condition 9(a) should
be revised to clarify that “monitoring” and
“inspection” as used in this section are synonymous and that the “inspection reports”
referred to in this section are those conducted weekly and after runoff events. The
Department should also specify where the reports and records referred to in this section
should be maintained (e.g., at the well site). (24, 26, 27, 28, 34, 45)
Response: The Department disagrees. “Monitoring” and “Inspection” are not
synonymous. Inspection is a monitoring activity. The Department or Conservation

21
District may require additional monitoring activities under Condition 8(d).
Condition 9(b) regarding where reports and records identified in this condition
should be maintained will be revised to provide clarity and consistency with 25 Pa.
Code § 102.4(b)(8)
.
97.
Comment:
Condition 9(a) should be revised to remove the unwarranted, unnecessary and
burdensome record retention requirement. (34, 45)
Response: Record retention requirements are necessary for program
implementation.
98.
Comment:
Condition 9(b) should be revised to clarify that this condition of the permit
satisfied the requirement on Chapter 102.4(b)(8), to clarify the requirement and resolve
consistency at the regional level. (45)
Response: Condition 9(b) will be revised to provide clarity and consistency with 25
Pa. Code § 102.4(b)(8).
99.
Comment:
Condition 11 (a) should be modified to read as follows:
Upon demand, the permittee or co-permittee(s) shall provide and furnish to the
Department, the Conservation District and or the United States Environmental Protection
Agency all information that the Department or Conservation District may request to
determine whether cause exists for modifying, revoking, reissuing, or terminating this
permit or coverage authorized under this permit or to determine compliance with this
permit. (5)
Response: The Department disagrees. This is a state Clean Stream Law permit and
not a federal Clean Water Act permit. Accordingly, there is no EPA oversight of
this permit.
100.
Comment:
Condition 11(a) should include
provisions to protect the operator’s trade
secret or confidential information. (45)
Response: Confidential information will be protected to the extent allowed by the
Right to Know Law
101.
Comment:
Condition 11(c) should be modified to read as follows:
When the permittee or co-permittee becomes aware that they failed to submit any facts or
required information or that they have submitted incorrect information any report to the
Department or Conservation District, the permittee or co-permittee shall immediately

22
notify the department of such deficiency and within 24 hours provide to the Department
written corrections to such facts or information. (5)
Response:
The language in condition 11(c) is appropriate to allow proper
implementation of the permit.
102.
Comment:
The following condition should be added to the permit under condition 11:
The permittee or co-permittee(s) shall provide immediate, open, continuous and
unrestricted physical access to any and all sites, equipment, machines, vehicles materials,
chemicals, or stores located in or on permitted premises or that have been used in or on
properties authorized under this permit upon a demand by the Department, the
Conservation District or the United States Environmental Protection Agency, its agents or
assigns, to determine whether cause exists for modifying, revoking, reissuing, or
terminating this permit or coverage authorized under this permit or to determine
compliance with this permit. (5)
Response: The Department disagrees. This is a state Clean Stream Law permit and
not a federal Clean Water Act permit. Accordingly, there is no EPA oversight of
this permit. Condition 15(f) provides that, pursuant to the Clean Streams Law, the
permittee and co-permittee shall allow the Department access to enter and inspect
facilities and equipment.
103.
Comment:
Condition 11(d) should be revised to allow email as an acceptable means to
provide advanced notice of commencement of earth disturbance activities to the
Department. (16, 25, 26, 27, 28)
Response: The condition will be revised to allow email as an acceptable means to
provide notice.
104.
Comment:
Condition 11(d) should be revised to require notification to the Department or
Conservation District at least 30 days prior to commencement of earth disturbance
activities by certified mail only. A minimum of 30 days is needed to ensure that
inspectors are available at the site during critical start up times. The condition should also
require submission of the same records to the municipality where the project is to be
permitted. The permittee should also make public notice 30 days in advance of earth
disturbance activities. The public notice should be placed in local newspapers in a way
similar to the requirement made of municipalities when announcing public hearings. The
public needs this much time to make sure they have an opportunity to prepare for the
drilling activity. For example, water testing just prior to the start of a project is the
clearest way to document water quality. It often takes more than 7 days to arrange for
such testing. (57)

23
Response: The Department disagrees. Phone or email notice that is provided 7-days
in advance is adequate to allow the Department to implement the ESCGP-2
program. A requirement for the permittee to make notice to the public, the
Department and the municipality 30-days in advance of earth moving operations is
unnecessary and overly burdensome. Additionally, ESCGP-2 does not authorize oil
and gas well drilling. Oil and gas well drilling is authorized by well permits issued
under the authority 58 Pa.C.S. § 3211. Well permits include separate notification
requirements in accordance with 58 Pa.C.S. § 3211.
105.
Comment:
Condition 12(1)(c) allows for local municipalities to review and sign off on the NOI.
This is not, however, a sufficient level of protection for the public water suppliers in the
Commonwealth. There are numerous instances of separate water authorities and private
water companies do not actively communicate to their local municipalities. Our
experience has shown that more often than not, this is the case. Therefore, any earth
disturbance that takes place in a source water protection area has the potential to occur,
be reviewed, and approved without the knowledge of the water supplier. Please consider
adding public water suppliers to the list of agencies that need to sign off on these earth
disturbing activities. (67)
Response: Condition 12 (a)(1)(c) describes who must sign an NOI, Transferee/Co-
permittee form or NOT submitted to the Department by a public agency for
consideration. Only the Department or delegated Conservation District may
authorize coverage under ESCGP-2
.
106.
Comment:
Condition 13(a)(1), on page 15, requires a change of ownership or control
form to be submitted to DEP or the Conservation District 30 days in advance of the
change. Since ownership or control has not changed at that point in time, this
information may be considered to be confidential information. Provisions to protect that
confidentially should be provided. (12)
Response: The Department acknowledges the comment, and recognizes there may
be circumstances where such confidentiality may be a reasonable request. Should
such a situation arise, the Department would recommend that the permittee
coordinate the provision of this information and treatment of the information
during the pendency of the transaction with the appropriate regional office. The
Department does not believe that the permit language itself needs to be modified to
accommodate this kind of an approach.
107.
Comment:
Condition 13(a)(2) should be modified to read as follows:

24
The transfer application form shall be accompanied by a written agreement between the
existing permittee and the new owner or operator stating that the existing permittee shall
be jointly and individually liable for all past or present permit violations whether or not
such violations may have been as yet undiscovered or unreported, and for all violations
under the permit from that date on. (5)
Response: The language in condition 11(c) is appropriate to allow proper
implementation of the permit.
108.
Comment:
Page 11, Operating Conditions, states that “Where infiltration BMPs are
being utilized, the permittee and co-permittee must ensure that soil compaction is avoided
or minimized in those areas. If the areas planned for infiltration BMPs are compromised,
additional soil testing must be performed to verify that the BMP will perform as
planned.” While it is a responsible engineering practice, soil tests required demonstrating
infiltration conditions are present prior to permit submission? Can existing soil data be
substituted? (12)
Response: Areas that are to be restored can use existing soil data, but constructed
BMPs that require infiltration characteristic for design purposes need to have the
soil tested. If the soil was tested but then compromised, retesting of the soil that has
been compromised is required. Appropriate existing requirements are found in 25
Pa. Code § 102.8(h).
109.
Comment:
We recommend that the Department waive the DEP BMP Manual
requirement of pre-permit soil infiltration testing for infiltration BMPs due to the remote
and often forested nature of the Oil and Gas projects. The requirement of pre-permit
infiltration testing will discourage the use of the infiltration BMPs due to physical access
constraints. We suggest that, if in-situ infiltration testing is required by the Department
for all infiltration BMPs, the applicant is allowed to perform the testing during the
construction phase of the project. In this situation, the applicant could provide an
alternate design during the permitting, should the soil infiltration capacity be insufficient.
(16)
Response: The Department disagrees. Stormwater control BMPs should be
designed in accordance with the Department’s Stormwater BMP Manual
(Document ID # 363-0300-002) or otherwise demonstrate compliance with 25 Pa.
Code § 102.11.
110.
Comment:
The use of the term “additional” when referring to soil testing in condition
14(h) is too broad to provide sufficient, consistent regulation. The regulations should

25
enumerate the type, quality and quantity of soil testing required so there is no doubt of
what has to be done if infiltration BMPs are compromised. (57)
Response: The Department disagrees. Standard and acceptable soil infiltration
testing techniques are described in the Department’s
Stormwater BMP Manual
(Document ID # 363-0300-002).
111.
Comment:
Condition 14(i) should be revised to provide additional direction to the
operation and stabilization of transmission facilities as they may relate to pipelines and
the length of time the pipeline trench is open after the line is in place. To minimize the
impacts of sedimentation from pipeline transmission facilities, cover and stabilization
should occur as soon as reasonably possible. (55)
Response: Condition 14(i) is consistent with regulatory requirements at 25 Pa. Code
102.22(a)
112.
Comment:
Condition 14(i) requiring stabilization upon temporary cessation of an
activity is a very good rule. (39)
Response: The Department acknowledges the comment.
113.
Comment:
Condition 15 contains very good, reasonable requirements as part of the
permit, every party is aware. Especially good are requirements a, b and c. (14)
Response: The Department acknowledges the comment.
114.
68. Comment:
Condition 16(c) should be revised to indicate the preferred form of
notification. (7)
Response: The condition has been revised to indicate acceptable forms of
notification.
115.
Comment:
Condition 16(c) should be to define the term “bulk earth disturbance”. (45,
48)
Response: The Department agrees. The following definition has been included in
Condition 16(c): Bulk earth disturbance activities are defined as any earth
disturbance for construction purposes other than the minimum amount of
disturbance required for installation of perimeter sediment control BMPs.
116.
Comment:
Condition 16(c) should be eliminated because the purpose is redundant with
condition 11(d). If Condition 16(c) is retained, it should be revised to allow email as an
acceptable means to provide notice to the Department and to strike the three-day waiting
period. There appears to be no reason for the three-day waiting period. The regulations,

26
moreover, require temporary stabilization if work ceases for 4 or more days. If the
operator must cease earth-disturbance activities for three days after installing and
stabilizing perimeter BMPs, and on the fourth day cannot continue earth-disturbance
activities (due to weather or other cause), then temporary stabilization requirements must
be met. (16, 24, 26, 27, 28, 45, 48)
Response: The Department agrees. Condition 16(c) been clarified and email has
been provided as an option for notification.
117.
Comment:
Condition 17, regarding PPC Plans, should be revised to explicitly require the
operator of a well site to include an MSDS for all hydraulic fracturing fluids. It is
important to note that the need for identification of compounds in hydraulic fracturing
fluids is not mitigated by the temporary nature of the time period during which such
compounds may be located at a well site. Emergency Response personnel need to be able
to have access to such documentation to be properly prepared for an emergency during
the period when such compounds may be located on a well site, even if this duration is
only a few days. (20)
Response: Condition 17 is consistent with regulatory requirements at 25 Pa. Code
§§ 102.5(l) and 78.55.
118.
Comment:
Condition 17 should be revised to explicitly require produced water to be
specifically identified as a likely hazardous material and provisions must be included for
its documentation, storage, handling and disposal. Produced water is an exceptionally
complicated substance. Not only may it contain hydraulic fracturing fluids, it may contain
hazardous materials naturally occurring in a formation from which unconventional gas is
produced, and compounds formed from chemical reactions between hydraulic fracturing
fluids and naturally occurring compounds. The PPC Plan for an unconventional gas well
must require the operator of a well site to include an MSDS for Produced Water. Samples
of Produced Water must also be made available for testing. Where the permit under
ESCGP-2 is for an unconventional gas well in the same vicinity of another
unconventional gas well permitted by the same operator, an MSDS for Produced Water
must be based on actual testing from samples from the nearby well. Such test results must
be made part of the application under ESCGP-2, where they will be available to the
public under standard File Review and Right-to-Know procedures. (20, 21)
Response: Condition 17 is consistent with regulatory requirements at 25 Pa. Code
§§ 102.5(l) and 78.55.
119.
Comment:
Condition 17 should be revised to explicitly require drill cuttings, produced
water, and any other material from unconventional formation to be identified as likely

27
radioactive material, and provisions must be included for its documentation, storage,
handling and disposal. It is widely understood that the Marcellus Shale is significantly
radioactive. Radioactive residues may be brought to the surface as drill cuttings.
Moreover, laboratory studies have shown that hydraulic fracturing fluids are capable of
leaching radionuclides from the shale where they may be brought to the surface in
produced water. It is important to note that such radioactive substances brought to the
surface by unconventional gas production must not be considered under the designation
“NORM” — “Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials”. Such materials may be
“naturally occurring” as part of the shale formation where they are found, a mile
underground. They are not naturally occurring at the surface as brought there by an
industrial process. ESCGP-2 must explicitly require the PPC plan for an unconventional
gas well to detail how materials brought up from unconventional formation depth will be
tested for radioactivity, how such test results will be made available to Emergency
Management personnel, and how radioactive materials will be stored, handled and
disposed. (20, 21)
Response: Condition 17 is consistent with regulatory requirements at 25 Pa. Code
§§ 102.5(l) and 78.55
.
120.
Comment:
Condition 17 states that PPC plans shall be made available upon DEP or the
Conservation District’s Request. This statement is inconsistent with the NOI Checklist.
The checklist should be revised to be consistent with the permit. (45)
Response: The Department agrees. The NOI Checklist has been revised to be
consistent with the Permit.
121.
Comment:
The PPC plan required by condition 17 must be site specific. These plans
must be posted at the entrance to the site and a complete copy provided to the
municipality for distribution to emergency service organizations serving the municipality.
These plans should be made public and as explicit as possible. In case of an emergency
involving any oil/gas exploration or production activity, local emergency personnel must
be appraised immediately at the site(s). The only way to assure this information is
available is by posting it at the site entrance and providing it to the local municipality
officials and public before starting the project. This should include a full list of all
chemicals employed in all aspects of the project. The general public must have access to
these plans so that each individual can prepare for any such emergencies and develop
plans of their own if an emergency strikes. (57)
Response: Condition 17 is consistent with regulatory requirements at 25 Pa. Code
§§ 102.5(l) and 78.55.

28
122.
Comment:
Condition 18(b) should be revised to indicate the Plans be consistent with any
“current” Act 167 Plan or any Act 167 plan approved by the department on or after
January 2005. (16, 24, 26, 27, 28)
Response: The Department agrees. The word ‘current’ will be added to condition
18(b).
123.
Comment:
There are pending and outdated 167 plans awaiting review and approval;
these plans should be completed prior to operators being held accountable for their
contents. The DEP should acknowledge that when there is no approved Act 167 in place,
the PCSM requirements do not apply. In many townships, a municipal engineer is not
readily available. Without direction from the local municipality it is difficult to determine
when post-construction guidelines must be achieved. (45)
Response: When there is no current, approved Act 167 plan in place, the permittee
must comply with requirements in 25 Pa. Code §102.8.
124.
Comment:
Act 167 requires stormwater planning by watershed; but, has recently been
implemented on a county by county basis. The DEP should not interpret Act 167 across
county lines even if the watersheds cross those lines. (45)
Response: The Department acknowledges this comment. No modification of the
permit is required in response to this comment. Activities must be consistent with
any current, DEP approved Act 167 plan.
125.
Comment:
Condition 18(c) should be revised to clarify if the licensed professional onsite
and responsible for oversight of critical stages of the PCSM plan is under the
responsibility of the plan preparer, developer/owner or someone else. (7)
Response: The Department disagrees. The permittee is responsible for ensuring
compliance with all conditions of the permit.
126.
Comment:
Condition 18(c) requiring the licensed professional or designee on site during
construction to certify that PCSM BMPs were constructed properly will make project
management unnecessarily complex. (45)
Response: The condition is consistent with regulatory requirement at 25 Pa. Code §
102.8(k), and §102.8(l).
127.
Comment:
Condition 18(d) essentially requires that site restoration or reclamation plans
include a PCSM component that must comply with the bulk of the Chapter 102 PCSM
requirements, including a demonstration of compliance with rate, volume, and quality
controls for all projects. The Department should clarify that this section does not apply to

29
projects authorized under ESCGP-1 that are exempted from the provision of PCSM
calculations because they do not include the addition of impervious surfaces. (24, 26, 27,
28, 45)
Response: Projects authorized by ESCGP-1 must comply with the terms and
conditions of ESCGP-1.
128.
Comment:
Condition 19 should be revised to authorize email for the required invitations
from the operator and notifications from the Department. (24, 26, 27, 28)
Response: The Department agrees. Permit Condition 19 has been revised to add
email as a form of notification.
129.
Comment:
Condition 19 requires a pre-construction meeting which was required under
the previous permit; however, the new permit now requires that the licensed professional
or designee attend the meeting. Scheduling and project management will be additionally
complex for the owner/operator as a result of this requirement. At these meetings,
revisions to the approved E&S Plan and BMPs (designed by a licensed professional and
reviewed and approved by the DEP under the oversight of a licensed professional) should
not be requested by DEP staff that are not licensed or who are not supervised by a
licensed professional. (45)
Response: The condition is consistent with regulatory requirements at 25 Pa. Code
102.5(e).
130.
Comment:
Condition 20 contains good, reasonable requirements. (14)
Response: The Department acknowledges the comment.
131.
Comment:
Condition 20 should be clarified to acknowledge that, in some circumstances;
sites will be restored to original conditions and will not require PCSM BMPs at a site or
recording of a restrictive covenant that burdens the landowner’s property. (24, 26, 27, 28)
Response: The Department agrees. Language has been added to Permit Condition
20 for clarification.
132.
Comment:
Condition 20 should be revised to clarify if this is only for Post Construction
Stormwater Management (PCSM) BMPs or if this also includes Site Restoration (SR)
BMPs that may be utilized on linear projects. The long-term maintenance of SR BMPs on
linear projects may involve maintaining access to SR BMPs that are a mile or more from
any roadway and this access would be counter to the intent of the requirement. (16)
Response: The Department agrees. Language has been added to Permit Condition
20 for clarification.

30
133.
Comment:
Although condition 20(b) is already required by Chapter 102, DEP
enforcement and implementation by the oil and gas industry has been inconsistent.
Inclusion of this requirement in the ESCGP-2 permit documents will put increased focus
on its implementation. This will be difficult for oil and gas operators to implement given
the nature of the agreements that are held with the property owners. The operator already
has a legally binding lease with the land owner. Further encumbering a leased tract with a
perpetual easement will complicate the land acquisition efforts of all owners/operators; a
requirement for the recording of a deed seems like a redundant legal step. (34, 45)
Response: The Department disagrees. These requirements are consistent with
regulations in 25 Pa. Code § 102.8.
134.
Comment:
Condition 20 should be revised to reflect situations where a facility is
constructed on property that is leased, and not owned out right by the applicant. In the
case where a property is leased, the application cannot impose a restriction upon the deed.
Further guidance on the qualifications for recorded instruments that will run with the land
is required. (48)
Response: Condition 20 is consistent with regulatory requirements at 25 Pa. Code §
102.8(m).
135.
Comment:
Condition 20 requiring provisions for long term operation and maintenance
of PCSM BMPs is a good rule. (39)
Response: The Department acknowledges the comment.
136.
Comment:
Condition 20(a) requires long-term operation and maintenance of PCSM
BMPs. Long term maintenance responsibilities will be difficult for operators to track over
time. A check box should be provided that the operator has rights to maintain the BMPs.
(45)
Response: Condition 20(a) is consistent with requirements at 25 Pa. Code §
102.8(m).
137.
Comment:
Condition 22 should be revised to clarify that riparian buffers for oil and gas
earth disturbance activities subject to site restoration (i.e., temporary), such as well pads,
underground pipelines, compressor stations in some cases (e.g., ones that are closed and
reclaimed), or interconnect sites, do not trigger the buffer requirement or the need to
obtain waivers. (24, 26, 27, 28)
Response: Condition 22 is consistent with requirements at 25 Pa. Code § 102.14. Oil
and gas activities for which site restoration is part of the permit authorization in
Chapter 78 are exempted from riparian buffer requirements provided that any

31
existing riparian buffer is undisturbed to the extent practicable. Linear projects,
such as pipelines, are not exempted from riparian buffer requirements but
applicants may request a waiver by demonstrating that there are reasonable
alternatives for compliance with 25 Pa. Code § 102.14.
138.
Comment:
Condition 23 should be revised to provide that the operator will be released
from responsibility under the permit upon receipt of the Department’s or Conservation
District’s approval of the NOT. (24, 26, 27, 28)
Response: Condition 23(a) includes language to this effect.
139.
Comment:
Condition 23(b) requiring submission of record drawing and design
professional certification with the NOT will make projects additionally complex for the
owner/operator for the preparation of record drawings and design professional
certification. (45)
Response: Condition 23(b) is consistent with requirements at 25 Pa. Code § 102.8(l).
140.
Comment:
BMPs are not sufficient to meet the intent of preventing contamination of EV
watershed areas. To minimize is not to
prevent: “BMPs—Best
Management Practices-
Activities, facilities, measures, planning, or procedures used to minimize accelerated
erosion and sedimentation and manage storm water to protect, maintain, reclaim and
restore the quality of waters, and existing and designated uses of waters of this
Commonwealth before, during, and after earth disturbance activities. (5)
Response: The Department disagrees, the condition is consistent with the regulatory
requirements of 25 Pa. Code § 102. BMPs are the standard regulatory mechanism
for control of stormwater and are utilized in the NPDES program as well.
141.
Comment:
The definition of E & S Plan is not sufficient to meet the intent of preventing
any contamination of EV watershed areas. To minimize is not to prevent. (5)
Response: The Department disagrees. The condition is consistent with the
regulatory requirements of 25 Pa. Code § 102. BMPs are
142.
Comment:
A provision should be included that a personal on-scene visit and site
inspection by the licensed professional is required prior to issuance of the permit.
Liability should also be extended to the professional for errors and omission. Insurance
should be required and bonded by PA in an amount at least equal to $4M. (5)
Response: The permit through the application information does include a statement
that the plans represent actual site conditions. The certifying professional must sign
to the following statement:

32
“I
do hereby certify to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief, that the
Erosion and Sediment Control and PCSM/Site Restoration Plan are true and correct,
represent actual field conditions and are in accordance with the 25 Pa. Code Chapters
78 and 102 of the Department’s rules and regulations. I am aware that there are
significant penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of fine
and imprisonment. “
The Department does not regulate the licensed professional’s liability or insurance
coverage requirements.
143.
Comment:
A definition of Interim Project Stormwater should be added:
Interim project stormwater
- Stormwater associated with a project site between the
initial earth disturbance activity the project site becoming permanently stabilized. (5)
Response: The Department disagrees because the term “Interim project
stormwater” is
not used in the permit.
144.
Comment:
The Department should not offer any expedited review process for erosion
and sediment control general permits. (5, 41, 58, 67)
Response: The Department disagrees. General Permits are authorized by the Clean
Streams Law.
145.
Comment:
Expedited reviews should not be available for projects located in or with the
potential to discharge to water systems and source water protection zones. Fourteen days
is too short of a time period for a thorough review of potential impacts to and evaluation
of comments from a potentially affected public water supply system. (40, 41, 58)
Response: The Department disagrees. In regards to the protection of public water
supplies, the ESCGP-2 permit is consistent with other Department erosion and
sediment control permits.
146.
Comment:
We do not support the restriction of availability of the expedited review in
non-FEMA designated floodplains, specifically in the areas within 100 feet of perennial
streams and 50 feet of intermittent streams. Encroachments into these areas are already
protected under
25 Pa. Code § 105
Dam Safety and Waterway Management. Adding
another level of regulation would not increase the protection of these resources.
Expedited reviews should be continued in non-FEMA defined floodplains/floodways.
(22)
Response: The Department disagrees. It is appropriate to restrict the availability of
the expedited review process in environmentally sensitive areas, including

33
floodplains. Applicants have the ability to provide a demonstration that the
proposed project is not within the floodplain.
147.
Comment:
The permit should include a set time period for review of applications. (22)
Response: Condition 6(c) establishes the Department’s review times for NOIs.
148.
Comment:
Any responsible party who is inept as to continually fail to comply, lacks the
ability or even the intention to comply with regulations, permits, or compliance orders,
needs to understand that to operate within the Commonwealth it is a privilege, rather than
a right. Those whose operational patterns are such need not be eligible for an ESCGP-2
and it is very reasonable that this permit specifically outlines this policy. It is a matter of
public health and safety, and environmental protection that such parties are not permitted
to operate within our Commonwealth and that those who will adhere and comply to our
requirements are provided with that privilege. (14)
Response: The Department acknowledges the comment.
149.
Comment:
Rather than requiring duplicative requirements to federal requirements, DEP
may want to consider developing a MOU with EPA. The proposed permit looks very
much like a federal SWPP (Storm Water Pollution Plan). There is considerable overlap
in that is contained in the proposed permit and what is or can be required by the EPA, but
there is no provision for federal documents to satisfy the requirements of the permit. As
another example, an operator with a SPCC (Spill Prevention Control and
Countermeasures Plan) and OSRP (Oil Spill Response Plan) is still require to prepare
PPC and PCSM plans. DEP may want to consider developing an MOU with the U.S.
EPA for accepting documents required by the other agency. (12)
Response: The Department disagrees. The requirements in ESCGP-2 are consistent
with Pennsylvania regulatory requirements.
150.
Comment:
Page 7, Minor modifications, requires that “All minor modifications to the
E&S Plan and PCSM Plan should be noted on the plan that is available at the site and
initialed by the Department or conservation district staff.” Historically, operators noted
changes to a plan in the field by designer/professionals initials. The additional burden of
scheduling meetings with the site inspectors to document/confirm the field changes
creates an unnecessary burden that should be avoided if possible. This is especially
problematic since more often than not the site inspector is not a licensed professional.
We suggest removing the requirement, but if it is retained, please clarify what the site
inspector’s role would be regarding the determination of whether the
modifications are
appropriate or not. (12)

34
Response: There is no requirement to schedule a meeting with the site inspectors to
document/confirm the field changes.
151.
Comment:
Page 7, PNHP clearance states, “NOIs shall include proof of consultation
with the Pennsylvania Natural Heritage (PNHP) regarding the presence of a State or
Federal threatened or endangered species on the project site. If the Department or
conservation district determines, based on PNHP data or other sources, that the proposed
earth disturbance activity may adversely impact the species or critical habitat, it must be
resolved with the appropriate agency prior to submitting the NOI.” Historically, we’ve
been able to submit NOIs for projects while the PNHP resolution process was
concurrently occurring with the understanding that the DEP would not approve a permit
package until the PNHP process was adequately addressed (i.e., Cleared). Delaying
submission of the NOI to wait until the PNHP process has been completed will increase
the overall project review and approval timeline. We suggest maintaining the current
NOI submission requirements. (12, 53)
Response: In order to demonstrate compliance with 25 Pa. Code § 102.6(a)(2) PNDI
receipts should be submitted in accordance with the Department’s
PNDI policy
(Document ID # 400-0200-001). The permit has been updated to reference the PNDI
Policy to ensure that the policies remain consistent.
152.
Comment:
The Department should re-evaluate the 5-acre, earth disturbance threshold for
permitting requirements. The threshold should be reduced to 1 acre. (13, 14, 48, 64, 67)
Response: The Department disagrees. Reducing the threshold to 1 acre would not be
consistent with regulatory requirements found in 25 Pa. Code § 102.5(c).
153.
Comment:
The Department should re-evaluate the 5-acre, earth disturbance threshold for
permitting requirements. A permit should be required for all unconventional gas/oil
drilling well pads regardless if they are over 5 acres in size. (39, 41, 58)
Response: The Department disagrees, that would not be consistent with regulatory
requirement found in 25 Pa. Code § 102.5(c).
154.
Comment:
The permit should apply to timber harvesting activities and road maintenance
activities. (14)
Response: The Department disagrees. 25 Pa. Code § 102.5(b) requires persons
proposing timber harvesting or road maintenance activities involving 25 or more
acres of earth disturbance to obtain a permit. The Department has developed other
permits specifically for timber harvesting and road maintenance activities.

35
155.
Comment:
It is good and reasonable that the NOI is linked to the associated E&S and
PCSM plans. This requirement improves the overall earth disturbance issues, everyone
involved, permittee and regulator alike are all on the same page, understand the concerns
and associated requirements. (14)
Response: The Department acknowledges the comment.
156.
Comment:
The phased permit process should not be available for gathering line projects.
Gathering line projects submissions should be required to show the entire route,
beginning at the well pad and ending at the trunk line/transmission facility. (14)
Response: The Department disagrees. It is appropriate to allow permittees to utilize
a phased permit approach regardless of the size or shape of the project.
157.
Comment:
Watershed specific situations need to be part of ample consideration when
planning for BMPs identified in E&S Plans, PCSM Plans, and PPC Plans which are not
limited to the control of volume, rate and quality of stormwater runoff. Neither the well
operator nor their contracted P.E. may be familiar with the requirements in such a
watershed. The DEP staff needs to be able to review such permits with these factors in
mind, making evaluations and modifications where necessary concerning these BMP’s.
(14)
Response: E&S Plans and PCSM Plans must be prepared using site specific data
.
158.
Comment:
Preconstruction conferences are an excellent idea to improve
communications and have every questionable detail addressed. These conferences must
be scheduled as they can be an effective tool for all parties both industry and DEP alike.
(14)
Response: The Department acknowledges the comment.
159.
Comment:
Additional clarification regarding when pre-disturbance conditions
(stormwater rate and volume) can be achieved is needed: is it following construction of a
full-sized pad, after the site has been restored to the smaller operational pad, or when the
site is finally restored (well plugged and pad removed)? Similarly, how would this relate
to an impoundment location? (45)
Response: Interim PCSM plans should be based on the well site after post drilling
or post plugging restoration has occurred whichever occurs first. A permit for
construction of an impoundment location may be terminated prior to site
restoration.

36
160.
Comment:
For safety reasons the Department or Conservation District should notify the
operator before entering the project sites. The Department should require appropriate
safety clothing for inspectors entering active sites. Further, the inspectors should follow
the operators’ health
and safety plans, which may require training in advance of entering
the site and directions to prevent accidents. (24, 26, 27, 28, 45)
Response: The Department disagrees. To ensure compliance it is important that
permittees not have prior notice of when inspections will be conducted. The
Department routinely provides training to inspectors regarding safety and provides
inspectors with appropriate protective equipment.
161.
Comment:
Post construction stormwater management should not be required for pipeline
projects since refilling pipeline trenches with native soils/materials has no substantive
impact on stormwater. A definitive statement that PCSM plans are not needed for
pipelines should be incorporated into the Condition 6(b). (34, 45, 48)
Response: The Department disagrees. The condition is consistent with regulatory
requirement at 25 Pa. Code § 102.8(f)(4). The Department has revised the permit
documents to clarify that portions of pipelines or other linear projects and projects
required to be restored under 25 Pa. Code Chapter 78 which are restored to
meadow in good condition or better to meet the requirements of 25 Pa. Code §
102.8(n).
162.
Comment:
It appears there is a push to include all stages of a project into the permits
opposed to separate permits for separate activities, i.e. obtaining one permit to include a
gathering line, well pad, compressor, impoundment, etc. Instead of breaking these into
smaller separate permit submissions. Well pads, impoundments and pipelines should
continue to be permitted separately based on the interest of the responsible parties. Every
element of a project area is difficult to phase into a single ESCGP-2 permit. (34, 45)
Response: Well pads, impoundments and pipelines may be permitted separately but
are considered together in determining the total acreage. All portions of a total
project equal to or greater than 5 acres must be covered under a permit.
163.
Comment:
The Department should revise the ESCGP-2 permit, policy and supporting
documents to be consistent with the requirements of Act 13 of 2012. (34, 40, 45, 48)
Response: The documents will be revised to be consistent with 58 Pa.C.S. §§ 3201-
3274 requirements.
164.
Comment:
There needs to be better guidance on what stages of the PCSM features will
require oversight and certification, and these should be limited. PCSM features are

37
required to be installed per the approved plan that meets Ch. 102. Further, the features
must be monitored during construction and certified by a professional engineer.
Scheduling and project management will become unnecessarily complex by having the
licensed professional or designee on site during construction to certify that PCSM BMPs
were constructed properly. Special guidance or definition of stages of PCSM
implementation requiring oversight/certification is needed to avoid excessive project
complexity. (34, 35, 45)
Response: The Department disagrees, the condition is consistent with regulatory
requirement at 25 Pa. Code § 102.8(k).
165.
Comment:
Conditions requiring a licensed professional or designee to be present onsite
and responsible for critical stages of implementation of the authorized PCSM plan should
be removed from the permit. (48)
Response: 25 Pa. Code § 102.8 requires a licensed professional or designee to be
present onsite and responsible for critical stages of implementation of the
authorized PCSM plan.
166.
Comment:
Sediment impairment needs considered in this permit. All applicants
proposing activities in siltation impaired watersheds should be required to complete an
antidegradation analysis in order to ensure that there are no discharges of sediment to
siltation impaired waters, which would require an NPDES permit. Especially given that
considerable oil and gas activity is currently occurring in the Chesapeake watershed
which is undergoing sediment TMDL, this again seems like a logical minimal
requirement. (15, 35, 36, 68)
Response: The Department will be adding the following condition to the permit:
“ESCGP-2
does not apply to discharges to surface water identified as impaired
waters where the proposed discharge will result in a net change (pre-condition to
post condition) in volume or rate or water quality of the stormwater or otherwise
contribute to a violation of a water quality standard.” Additionally, the
Department will be amending the NOI to ask applicants to indicate whether the
project is in or discharges to a siltation-impaired water and if so require that the
operator demonstrate that its project will not result in a net change (pre to post
condition) in volume, rate, or water quality or otherwise explain how the project
will not contribute to a violation of a water quality standard.
167.
Comment:
The Department should utilize the expanded checklist provided in the NOI
instructions that provides direction for the permit reviewer. This will eliminate review
comments outside of the content of the application and requested items irrelevant to the
permit application. (45)

38
Response: The technical guides provided in the revised NOI instructions should be
utilized by the Department and the regulated community to ensure that NOI
submissions are complete and accurate.
168.
Comment:
An onsite evaluation of the presence or absence of wetlands should be
performed by a qualified environmental consultant, regardless of the existing soil
mapping for the project location. Soil mapping can be fairly generalized; therefore, small
hydric inclusions or non-typical wetlands may be present but undocumented (33, 52)
Response: The Department agrees. The condition is consistent with regulatory
requirement at 25 Pa. Code § 102.4(d).
169.
Comment:
The permit is not clear as to whether Transmission Facilities includes the use
of Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD) or bore crossing of surface waters. If so, we
recommend that 1)DEP develop a registration process and procedure to document all
constituents of drilling fluids; 2)Only bentonite be used; 3) drilling fluids with
constituents known to cause harm to aquatic resources by determination of data analysis
on an MSDS not be permitted for HDD, and 4) include a contingency plan within
condition 17
Preparedness, Prevention and Contingency Plans. (55)
Response: Construction of transmission facilities may include the use of horizontal
directional drilling. Regulation of horizontal directional drilling as described in the
comment is beyond the scope of this permit.
170.
Comment:
Contractors guilty of the same infraction(s) on more than two sites should not
be allowed to construct or operate gas/oil drilling projects in the Commonwealth after a
third similar infraction. (57)
Response: Condition 15a. provides that a permittee and co-permittees must comply
with all the terms and conditions of this permit. Any permit noncompliance
constitutes a violation of the Pennsylvania Clean Streams Law and is grounds for
enforcement action; permit termination, revocation, reissuance, or modification; or
for denial of a permit or permit renewal.
171.
Comment:
The post construction plan should be bonded to ensure adequate funding is
available for the post construction stormwater management plan/site restoration plans.
Therefore these plans should be specified and included with the permit application along
with the bond. (57)
Response: The maintenance of the PCSMs is covered by regulatory requirement at
25 Pa. Code § 102.8(m)(1-5).

39
172.
Comment:
No applicant should be allowed to disturb any riparian buffer. These vital
areas are often all that stands between a spill and a water body. There is not conceivable
justification for allowing disturbance to riparian buffers.
If disturbance to riparian buffers is allowed for oil/gas operations, the disturbed buffers
must be fully restored to pre-construction status, without exception. Additionally, the
DEP should require each permittee to justify disturbing a buffer on any stream whether it
is rated or not. (57)
Response: The Department disagrees, the allowance of disturbance of riparian
buffers is consistent with regulatory requirements at 25 Pa. Code § 102.14(d)(1)(vii).
173.
Comment:
Buffer protection and maintenance should be explicitly required in both post
construction and pre‐construction contexts. A plain reading of Ch. 102 provides the
Department appropriate discretion to require such controls and, in circumstances like the
instant proposed permit, the Department should exercise that authority to best protect
water resources from impairment or degradation. (35)
Response: 25 Pa. Code § 102.14 provides regulatory requirement for riparian buffer
protection. ESCGP-2 is consistent with these regulatory requirements.
174.
Comment:
The proposed permit should require that any existing riparian buffer or
wetland within 150’ of an exceptional value or high quality waterway or wetland not only
undergoes antidegradation review prior to any oil and gas related earth disturbance
activities and conforms to any relevant standards, but specifically mandate that a zero
discharge standard for sediment is tolerated for watersheds currently impaired for
sediment. Mandating a most stringent level of protection, minimum 150’ setbacks for
buffers and wetlands, and exceptionally rare circumstances in which earth disturbance
activities are allowed by waiver for special protection waters is a rational step that the
Department should take to ensure it effectively prevents new, or further, impairment or
degradation of water quality and designated uses pursuant to the intent of the Clean
Water Act. (35)
Response: The permit is consistent with the requirements in 25 Pa. Code Chapters
93 and 102.
175.
Comment:
The final permit should continue to require antidegradation analysis for any
proposed Permit that may entail discharges to special protection waters. While this
provision is referenced generally at Section 16, the Department could state this
requirement, and the rule that the appropriate time for such review is prior to any
potential activity, more clearly. (35)

40
Response: The Department acknowledges this comment. Antidegradation review is
always required, and is embedded in the Chapter 102 regulations as well as ESCGP-
2.
176.
Comment:
In addition to “visual site inspections” the owner or operator should be
required to sample and report stormwater discharges on a quarterly basis. The parameters
should have guidelines or thresholds, an exceedance of which would indicate that BMPs
are not properly functioning thereby triggering new improved BMPs designed to prevent
future exceedances.
Such sampling should occur during the first rain event of the quarter and within 4 hours
of the start of such rain event. Should the operator fail to sample during the first rain
event, the operator should be required to sample during the next rain event within 4 hours
of the start of said event.
Samples should be sent for third party laboratory analysis for the parameters of TSS,
turbidity, pH, Oil and Grease, and other constituents relevant to the permittee, determined
on a case---by--‐case basis by category (well pad vs pipeline vs wastewater storage
facility, etc). Reporting should be required within two months of the last day of the
quarter. (35)
Response: Condition 8(d) allows the Department to require additional monitoring,
such as the monitoring described in the comment, in cases where there is an
increased risk of water pollution or water pollution is suspected. Additional
monitoring in areas other than those described in condition 8(d) is unnecessary.
177.
Comment:
In addition to visual site inspections, a photographic log of site conditions
following a measurable stormwater event should accompany reports. These photos
should be taken and inspections conducted within 12 hours of a storm event to properly
document the adequacy of the BMP employed. Waiting longer than 12 hours risks
missing opportunity to improve the applied management technology. Capturing solids
and/or liquids before they enter a water body is the very reason on requires an E&S plan.
To allow migration for a 24 hour period
is like saying we’ll turn our backs on the event
till it has time to hide (57)
Response: A photographic log of site conditions after stormwater events is not
required. It is appropriate to allow 24 hours for permittees to conduct site
inspections after stormwater events.
178.
Comment:
Measurable stormwater events should be compared quarterly to USGS
precipitation counts by the Department to ensure compliance, similar to DMR inspection
of permitted point source dischargers. (35)

41
Response: Weekly inspection reports are required to be maintained at the site and
are reviewed by the Department during routine inspections.
179.
Comment:
To ensure successful implementation of the proposed changes, technical
training geared to both plan preparers and construction staff as well as DEP and
Conservation District Personnel must be modified or created and conducted more
frequently to incorporate these changes. Training programs should be implemented prior
to the date permittees are expected to begin using the ESCGP-2. (34, 45)
Response: The Department recognizes the need for training for Department and
Conservation District Personnel as well as the regulated community and currently
implements an annual training program to fill this need.
180.
Comment:
The proposed ESCGP-2 continues to treat the need to control erosion and
sediment resulting from storm water events as separate and distinct from the need to
control point source discharges within the watershed. However these two conditions
cannot be separated and are essentially the same in the context of natural gas
development. Storm waters become mixed with on-site chemicals and hydrocarbons
deposited on the well pad during “normal” drilling and fracturing operations. Thus, with
the issuance of an ESCGP, well pads and related facilities become point sources of
pollution discharge into the watershed. Currently there are no impoundment berms
required around drill pads to contain accidental spills and inadvertent returns or blowouts.
Further, sub-surface drainage pipes have been installed beneath many drill pads and
water impoundments which discharge contaminated flows directly to EV waters. (5)
Response: In accordance with condition 14(f) of ESCGP-2, discharges of material
other than stormwater runoff must be in compliance with an NPDES permit issued
for the discharge. Discharge of sewage or industrial waste (other than sediment
under this permit) to an E&S BMP is not permitted. The permittee/co permittee
may not discharge floating materials, oil grease, scum, foam, sheen, and substances
which: produce odor, taste, or turbidity or settle to form deposits in concentrations
or amounts sufficient to be, or create a danger of being, inimical to the water uses to
be protected or human, animal, plant or aquatic life. In addition 58 Pa.C.S. §
3218.2 requires unconventional well site to be designed and constructed to prevent
spills to the ground surface or spills off the well site.
181.
Comment:
Antidegradation regulations, pertaining to point source discharge proposals to
HQ waters are essentially a three step process:
1. Consider non-discharge alternatives

42
2. If a nondischarge alternative is not environmentally sound and cost-effective, a new,
additional or increased discharge shall use the best available combination of cost
effective treatment, land disposal, pollution prevention and wastewater reuse
technologies.
3. In addition to employing ABACT technologies the permittee must also demonstrate
that the level of protection of HQ waters must be reduced from maintenance of existing
quality, as necessary, to accommodate important economic or social development in the
area in which the waters are located. (5)
Response: This antidegradation analysis process required under PA law has been
incorporated in the Chapter 102 Regulations. ESCGP-2 is consistent with the
Chapter 102 regulations and incorporated in the antidegradation analysis.
182.
Comment:
Since the quality of a point source discharge to an EV stream must be equal
to or greater than the quality of the receiving stream, neither ESCP nor NPDES permits
for point source discharges for oil and gas activities should be granted within EV
watersheds as such discharges will degrade receiving streams.
Pollution of EV waters is not restricted to surface flows. There are multiple avenues of
pollution that have been demonstrated in Susquehanna County including inadvertent
returns, gas migration, impoundment leaks and absorption from rain during flaring
events. All of these contamination avenues lead to mixing within the hydrologic cycle.
Therefore, it is suggested here that no ESCP or NPDES permits be issued for oil and gas
development related activities within an EV watershed. Failing adoption of such a
restriction, it is suggested that no ESCP or NPDES permits be issued without the
permittee first demonstrating to the satisfaction of the Department that:
1. All drilling waste will be removed from the watershed
2. All produced water and returned fracking fluids will be contained and disposed of
outside the EV watershed.
3. Completion can be accomplished without open flaring
4. Natural gas activity is necessary, to accommodate important economic or social
development within the EV watershed. (5)
Response: The Department disagrees. The permit is consistent with the
requirements 58 Pa. C.S. §§ 3201-3274 and in 25 Pa. Code Chapters 93 and 102.

43
183.
Comment:
The proposed text of the ESCGP-2 should require that a generalized permit
review process similar to that required for proposed discharges to EV waters should
precede a sixty day period of public comment. (5)
Response: The regulations do not require and it is not Department policy to solicit
comments on issuance of coverage under a general permit.
184.
182. Comment:
The regulations should be changed to require Individual Permits, instead
of General Permits, for all land disturbances within both existing and future Community
Water System Source Water Protection Zones. This is important in order to allow
imposition of appropriate conditions to protect the drinking water supply in these areas.
(6, 40, 41, 58, 64)
Response: Regulatory changes are beyond the scope of this permit.
185.
Comment:
Based on Section 102.5(m) and because the permit threshold is 5 acres for oil
and gas activities, the activities proposed to be authorized under this general permit are
more appropriately regulated under an individual permit. (37)
Response: The Department disagrees. Use of a general permit is adequate to
implement the requirements in 25 Pa. Code Chapter 102.
186.
Comment:
The well drilling permits for well pads C.O.P. Tr 244 #1000H and C.O.P. Tr
244 #1001H and 1002H located in Rush Township, Centre County should be rescinded
based on the Department’s 1-20-2012 Press Release which states “DEP will no longer
offer expedited review of permit applications for projects that have the potential to
discharge sediment and runoff to exceptional-value or high quality water sheds, have well
pads that lie within floodplains or would take place on contaminated lands”. These pads
are located within the High Quality and Exceptional Value watersheds of Six Mile Run
and Black Bear Run respectively. In addition, these proposed sites a located above the 8-
mile wide Mississippian Aquifer that runs south through Pennsylvania and neighboring
states and is the water supply for thousands of communities. (8, 9, 10, 31)
Response: Restriction of expedited reviews will be implemented on projects
authorized under ESCGP-2. Projects authorized under ESCGP-1 will be allowed to
continue to operate under ESCGP-1 and conditions from ESCGP-2 will not apply.
187.
Comment:
The proposed provisions regarding compliance with Act 167 obligations
appear to conflict with expanded local ordinance requirements in Act 13. Specifically
new sections 3302 (oil and gas operations regulated pursuant to Chapter 32), 3303 (oil
and gas operations regulated by environmental acts), and 3304 (uniformity of local
ordinances) in Act 13 indicate that the obligation to comply with the requirements Act

44
167 local ordnance requirements is preempted. The Department should modify the final
permit documents to acknowledge the preemption by removing any compliance
obligations associated with Act 167 relative to stormwater permits and site restoration
plans. (12)
Response: The Department acknowledges this comment. No modification of the
permit is required in response to this comment. Chapter 102 requires consistency
with DEP approved county Act 167 Plans. Neither the regulations nor the permit
mandate compliance with local ordinances.
188.
Comment:
There is a new reference to voluntary riparian buffers (21), as well as
mandatory riparian buffers (22). The notion of trading and credit offsets is mentioned
without clear reference as to how operators would comply and utilize credits associated
with this portion of the program. These provisions should be clarified with instructions
on how operators can take advantage to the trading elements. (12)
Response: Conditions 21 and 22 are consistent with regulation at 25 Pa. Code §
102.14. Development of regulatory implementation guidance is beyond the scope of
this permit.
189.
Comment:
If DEP does not have adequate staff for the E&S workload, it should not
promise to return permit decisions in 14 or even 60 days. With inadequate staffing, a 14-
day deadline forces a rubber stamp on these permits. I am also concerned that DEP is not
adequately staffed to handle 60 day review deadlines for projects in exceptional-value
watersheds, high-quality watersheds, floodplains, and contaminated lands. With
inadequate staffing a 60-day deadline may force a rubber stamp on these complicated
permits. Does DEP ever deny one of these permits for non-administrative reasons? In
exceptional-value watersheds, high-quality watersheds, floodplains, and contaminated
lands it is not acceptable to "Say yes to save time." (13)
Response: Department staffing is beyond the scope of this permit. The Department
reviews NOI submissions in accordance with 25 Pa. Code 102.6(c).
190.
Comment:
Many proposed projects are “temporary” in nature and will be either fully or
partially restored and re-vegetated once operations are complete. In instances where a
forested area is disturbed and restored to a meadow condition, will the Department
consider an increase in runoff due to the cover change? If so, there will be a great impact
on linear projects that would need structural BMPs in very remote locations along a right-
of-way. Many of these locations would require extensive construction to provide access,
which would prove to be counter to the Department’s intent. Similarly, along access
roads, additional forested lands may need to be cut down in order to implement structural
BMPs. (16)

45
Response: The Department considers portions of pipelines or other linear projects
and projects required to be restored under 25 Pa. Code Chapter 78 which are
restored to meadow in good condition or better to meet the requirements of 25 Pa.
Code § 102.8(n).
191.
Comment:
There is no specific language in any of the documents that include the
protection of water system sources and source water protection zones. Applicants need to
be made aware that the protection of these sources is critical. Water systems need to be
part of the notification process. Even though the local county and municipalities are part
of the process, sometimes information doesn’t get communicated between the
municipality and the water system. DEP has been promoting the need for, and sometimes
provided funding for, water systems to develop source water protection plans, so system
vulnerability to contamination and potential sources of contamination can be determined.
Once these parameters are established steps can be taken to reduce, or at minimum,
prepare for the threat of contamination. The exclusion of water systems in the content of
this Permit and its related documents, does not allow for the systems to be proactive only
reactive, to any contamination events. (64)
Response: Surface landowners and water purveyors whose water supplies are
within 1,000 feet of a proposed well location or, in the case of an unconventional
well, within 3,000 feet from the vertical well bore obtain notice of a permit
application for an oil or gas well under Section 3211 of the 2012 Oil and Gas Act, 58
Pa.C.S. § 3211. Because the 2012 Oil and Gas Act requires a well permit prior to
commencing well site preparation, including access roads, water purveyors will
obtain notice of earth disturbances associated with well pads and access roads prior
to those activities, and no change to ESCGP-2 is required.

Back to top