SUPPORTING STATEMENT 

Stormwater Management Including Discharges from Developed Sites Questionnaires 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Office of Water 

Office of Science and Technology 

 April 22, 2010 
i

CONTENTS 

Page 

PART A OF THE SUPPORTING STATEMENT........................................................................................ 2 

1. Identification of the Information Collection....................................................................... 2 

a. Title of the Information Collection......................................................................... 2 

b. Short Characterization/Abstract.............................................................................. 2 

2. Need for and Use of the Collection..................................................................................... 4 

a. Need/Authority for the Collection .......................................................................... 4 

b. Practical Utility/Users of the Data .......................................................................... 4 

i. General Use of the Data...............................................................................4 

ii. Detailed Technical Analyses Supported by the Data from the 

Questionnaires..............................................................................................6 

iii. Detailed Economic Analyses Supported by the Questionnaire Data.........10 

3. Non-Duplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria....................................... 13 

a. Non-Duplication ................................................................................................... 13 

b. Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB .................................. 14 

c. Consultations......................................................................................................... 19 

d. Effect of Less Frequent Data Collection............................................................... 20 

e. General Guidelines................................................................................................ 20 

f. Confidentiality ...................................................................................................... 20 

g. Sensitive Questions............................................................................................... 21 

4. The Respondents and the Information Requested ............................................................ 21 

a. Respondent NAICS Codes.................................................................................... 21 

b. Information Requested.......................................................................................... 22 

i. Data Items, Including Record Keeping Requirements ..............................22 

ii. Respondent Activities ................................................................................47 

5. The Information Collected: Agency/Contractor Activities, Collection 

Methodology, and Information ......................................................................................... 48 

a. Agency/Contractor Activities ............................................................................... 48 

b. Collection Methodology and Management........................................................... 48 

c. Small Entity Flexibility......................................................................................... 49 

d. Collection Schedule .............................................................................................. 50 

6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection............................................................ 50 

a. Estimating Respondent Costs ............................................................................... 50 

b. Estimating Respondent Costs ............................................................................... 55 

i. Estimating Labor Costs..............................................................................55 

ii. Estimating Capital and Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Costs.........57 

c. Estimating Agency and Contractor Burden and Costs ......................................... 57 

d. Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden Costs ............................. 57 

e. Bottom-Line Burden Hours and Cost Tables........................................................ 57 

f. Reasons for Change in Burden ............................................................................. 57 
Part A of the Supporting Statement

PART A OF THE SUPPORTING STATEMENT 

1. Identification of the Information Collection

a. Title of the Information Collection

United States Environmental Protection Agency 

Information Collection Request for Stormwater Management Including Discharges from Developed 

Sites (New) 

EPA ICR No. 2366.01 

OMB Control No. 2040-NEW 

b. Short Characterization/Abstract 

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), through this Information 

Collection Request (ICR) package, requests that Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review and 

approve this ICR in support of EPA’s Stormwater Management rulemaking. Through this collection, 

EPA will obtain data essential to inform EPA’s stormwater management rulemaking under Clean 

Water Act (CWA) Section 402(p). 

 Long term stormwater discharges from developed sites, such as subdivisions, roadways, and 

commercial buildings or shopping centers, can significantly alter the hydrology of a site and can have a 

negative impact on receiving waterbodies. Generally, as sites are developed, there is an increase in 

impervious areas where water cannot infiltrate into the ground, leading to increases in stormwater 

runoff volume. This additional stormwater volume, as well as the introduction of pollutants such as 

fertilizers, sediments and deposition of vehicle emissions contributes to increased stormwater impacts. 

 EPA’s current national stormwater program regulates stormwater discharges from certain 

municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s), stormwater discharges associated with industrial 

activity, and stormwater discharges during active construction at sites of one acre or larger as required 

by section 402(p) of the CWA. See 40 CFR 122.26(a). Under EPA’s regulations, these stormwater 

discharges are required to be covered by National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 

permits that must include certain requirements including, where applicable, stormwater management 

plans including long term stormwater discharge controls. Section 402(p) also authorizes EPA to 

designate additional stormwater discharges to be regulated other than those already regulated and to 

establish a comprehensive program to regulate them. See 402(p)(2)(E) and (6). 

 

 In July 2006, EPA commissioned the National Research Council (NRC) to review its program 

for controlling stormwater discharges under the CWA. The NRC released its report, entitled Urban 

Stormwater Management in the United States, National Academy of Sciences Press, in October 2008. 

The NRC report states that stormwater discharges from the built environment remains one of the 

greatest challenges of modern water pollution controls, “as this source of contamination is a principal 

contributor to water quality impairment of waterbodies nationwide.” The NRC found that the current 

regulatory approach by EPA is not adequately controlling all sources of stormwater discharge that are 

contributing to waterbody impairment. NRC recommended that EPA address stormwater discharges 

from impervious land cover and promote practices that harvest, infiltrate and evapotranspirate 

2
Part A of the Supporting Statement

stormwater to prevent it from being discharged, which is critical to reducing the volume and pollutant 

loading to our Nation’s waters. 

 Based on the results of the NRC report, EPA published a December 28, 2009 Federal Register 

Notice announcing a proposed rulemaking to strengthen its stormwater program under the Clean Water 

Act (CWA) and to further reduce the impact of long term stormwater discharges from developed sites 

to our Nation’s waters (See FR 74 FR 68617-68622). As described in that notice, EPA is considering 

the following as part of its rulemaking: 

a. Establishing national standards for stormwater discharges from new and redeveloped sites. 

b. Expanding the scope of the existing MS4 regulations. This includes a consideration of covering 

more areas within existing MS4 jurisdiction as well as regulating additional areas for regulation not 

currently subject to MS4 jurisdiction. 

c. Revising existing MS4 regulation to establish a single rule for all regulated MS4s and to strengthen 

existing requirements.. 

d. Revising existing MS4 requirements to include retrofit requirements for existing development 

within an MS4, and 

e. Including specific provisions for the Chesapeake Bay watershed. 

 In order to inform this rulemaking, this ICR consists of six questionnaire instruments designed 

to collect information from various entities: owners and developers of residential, commercial, 

industrial, and non-commercial sites; owners and operators of MS4s (including one specific to state 

and county Departments of Transportation (DOTs)), and NPDES Permitting Authorities. The data 

collected through these questionnaires will provide EPA with information to characterize current 

building, transportation, and real estate improvement projects (i.e., new and redevelopment); long term 

stormwater controls and best management practices (BMPs) being installed at newly developed and 

redeveloped projects; state and local long term stormwater programs and requirements (including 

retrofit of existing development) and the areas covered by these requirements; the current capacity and 

expenditures by NPDES Permitting Authorities and local authorities to implement, enforce, and 

maintain long term stormwater programs and controls; and technical, financial, and environmental data 

needed to quantify the incremental pollutant removals, compliance costs, impacts, and benefits for 

various regulatory options that EPA might consider in this rulemaking. 

EPA plans to distribute the Owner/Developer Questionnaires and MS4 Questionnaires to a statistical 

sample of owners and developers and MS4s, respectively. EPA plans to distribute the NPDES 

Permitting Authority Questionnaire to a census of NPDES Permitting Authorities. See Part B of this 

supporting statement. Owners/Developers, MS4s, and NPDES Permitting Authorities will devote time 

and resources to respond to this ICR. EPA estimates that the total respondent burden associated with 

this ICR will be 167,669 hours and $6,972,000 (including labor and O&M costs). The questionnaires 

and collection design represent EPA’s effort to gather sufficient data to perform the analysis to 

accurately assess its rulemaking consideration yet at the same time administer an ICR that limits the 

burden placed on respondents. 

3
Part A of the Supporting Statement

2. Need for and Use of the Collection

a. Need/Authority for the Collection 

As explained in 74 FR 68617-68622, under Authority of Section 402(p) of the CWA, EPA’s 

Office of Water has begun an effort to strengthen and expand its stormwater program with a focus on 

reducing water quality impacts from long term stormwater discharges from developed sites. EPA 

plans to use these questionnaires to solicit information from owners and developers of newly 

developed and redeveloped projects, owners and operators of MS4s including transportation agencies, 

and NPDES Permitting Authorities. Because EPA lacks readily available information to inform this 

proposed rulemaking, this ICR is necessary to fulfill requirements established by the CWA to inform 

Agency decision making about the appropriate course of regulatory action to reduce water quality 

impacts from long term stormwater discharges. 

 EPA will use the questionnaire data (along with information obtained from other sources) to 

develop a profile of current building, transportation, and real estate improvement projects (i.e., new 

and redevelopment); long term stormwater controls and best management practices (BMPs) being 

installed at newly developed and redeveloped projects; state and local long term stormwater programs 

and requirements (including retrofit of existing development) and the areas covered by these 

requirements; the current capacity and expenditures by states and localities such as MS4s associated 

with implementing and enforcing existing stormwater programs and requirements and in maintaining 

long term stormwater controls; and technical, financial, and environmental data needed to quantify the 

incremental pollutant removals, compliance costs, impacts, and benefits for various regulatory options 

that EPA might consider in this rulemaking. 

 With the exception of the information requested from the NPDES permit authorities, the 

information will be collected through questionnaires, distributed under the authority of section 308 of 

the Clean Water Act. Information from the NPDES Permit Authorities will be collected through a 

questionnaire distributed under the authority of sections 304(i) and 402(c) of the CWA. 

b. Practical Utility/Users of the Data 

i. General Use of the Data 

EPA plans to use this ICR to solicit information from the various entities that may be affected 

by this rulemaking including owners and developers of sites, MS4s, DOTs, and NPDES Permitting 

Authorities. EPA will use the information collected through this ICR to gain knowledge of new 

development and redevelopment projects, long term stormwater management practices and 

installations at newly and redeveloped sites; financial information for developers and owners of these 

projects; current local and state stormwater programs and requirements; budgets and financial 

information for NPDES Permitting Authority and local governments responsible for implementing, 

maintaining, and enforcing long term stormwater discharges and associated best management 

practices; and baseline information on the current level of implementation of state permit programs, 

including industrial permits. The information collected will provide data that complement, and go 

beyond, data that are available from public sources. 

4
Part A of the Supporting Statement

5

The Owner/Developer Questionnaires request information on the following primarily as they 

relate to long term stormwater management of discharges from newly and redeveloped building and 

real estate improvement projects1: 

 General identification information; 

 Type/location/size/identification of projects; 

 Soil type, stormwater conveyance, and discharge location for the project; 

 Land cover areas both pre- and post-development including percent imperviousness; 

 Long term stormwater best management practices and controls (with a focus on LID 

practices), including design criteria, specifications, and cost information; 

 • Stormwater permit and management requirements; 

 Information on design credits or incentives (or impediments) associated with 

implementing retention practices; 

 Firm level financial information; 

 Establishment level financial information; and 

 Project level financial information. 

The MS4 and Transportation Questionnaires requests information on: 

 The type of MS4 (e.g., Phase I, traditional. State DOT); 

 • Stormwater conveyance (including direct discharge) within the MS4 jurisdiction; 

 • Specific stormwater program components (e.g., outreach, recordkeeping, training) 

 and extent of coverage; 

 • Extent of new and redevelopment projects and MS4 oversight (e.g. site plan review); 

 • Current MS4 stormwater management requirements, including specific or numeric long 

 term stormwater discharge standards for new and redevelopment activities; 

 • Local ordinances that conflict with or encourage long term stormwater retention 

 practices; 

 • Long term stormwater controls and practices installed, maintained and whether cost 

 and/or performance data are available; 

 Current capacity, budget, and funding sources for implementing, enforcing, maintaining 

and monitoring existing stormwater program; and 

 Stormwater capital improvement plans and/or requirements (including retrofit of 

existing property). 

 

The NPDES Permitting Authority Questionnaire requests information on: 

 Current state stormwater program components 

 Scope and extent of municipal stormwater program, including the type and number of 

stormwater permittees (e.g. traditional, non traditional, Phase I, Phase II); 

 State stormwater municipal permit requirements including specific or numeric long 

term stormwater discharge standards for new and redevelopment; 

 State industrial stormwater permits and requirements; 

 

1

 EPA is not collecting data on erosion control activities or stormwater management activities during the active construction 

phase. 
Part A of the Supporting Statement

 State construction stormwater permits and requirements; 

 State retrofit plans or requirements; 

 Stormwater inspection and enforcement activities; and 

 Current capacity and budget associated with the state’s stormwater program; 

EPA would use the technical data collected in the Owner/Developer Questionnaires to establish 

a baseline of current usage and availability of long term stormwater discharge practices and controls at 

new and redevelopment projects. In addition, EPA would use the project level data to develop a 

national distribution of projects based on critical characteristics (e.g. size, value, percent 

imperviousness, previous land use). Together, this information supplemented with other data (e.g. 

capital cost), will be used to assess the incremental costs and benefits associated with various 

regulatory options for reducing long term stormwater discharges. Finally, EPA would use the financial 

information collected on the firm, establishment, and project level to characterize the economic status of 

owners and developers that could be subject to new stormwater management requirements and 

estimate the impact of compliance costs on the property developers and owners. 

EPA would use the technical information collected in the MS4 and Transportation 

questionnaires to first assess existing local stormwater programs. In specific, EPA would use 

information collected to, among other things, establish a baseline of local long term stormwater 

regulatory requirements and jurisdiction, operation and maintenance of long term stormwater practices 

and controls, and current local oversight, monitoring, and enforcement. EPA would also estimate the 

current capacity and budgets of localities for their existing programs, including retrofit programs as 

applicable. EPA would use this information to inform its consideration of expanding the scope of the 

existing MS4 regulations, whether to establish a single set of requirements for all MS4s, and/or 

whether to establish different requirements for transportation. EPA would also use this information to 

help inform its consideration of implementing national standards for new and redevelopment projects 

(and the associated operation and maintenance) through the MS4 program. Ultimately, EPA would use 

this information to evaluate the incremental costs and impacts on MS4s and local jurisdictions that 

may result from this regulation. Finally, where available, EPA would also incorporate reported 

information on frequency of specific long term stormwater controls, their costs and effectiveness with 

information reported in the owner/developer questionnaire. 

The NPDES Permitting Authority Questionnaire would gather similar information as the MS4 

questionnaire, but at the state level. In specific, EPA would use information collected to, among other 

things, characterize state stormwater programs, requirements, coverage, oversight, enforcement, 

capacity, and budgets. This information would serve a similar purpose as the data collected in the 

MS4 questionnaire, but would allow EPA to estimate the impact of regulatory options at the state level. 

It would also enable EPA to ensure that its regulatory options are not in conflict with state laws. 

ii. Detailed Technical Analyses Supported by the Data from the Questionnaires 

To support potential changes to the stormwater regulations, EPA would collect technical, 

programmatic, and financial information pertaining to current stormwater regulation and conveyance 

and treatment practices from owners and developers of property, MS4s, and NPDES Permitting 

Authorities. Ultimately, EPA would use the information to inform whether to expand its national 

stormwater program and how to best reduce long term stormwater discharges from new and 

redevelopment and the built environment. 

6
Part A of the Supporting Statement

EPA engineers, statisticians, economists, biologists, and contractors would perform detailed 

analyses of the data collected through the questionnaires. The EPA team would also supplement the 

collected information with additional data sources, such as National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA) precipitation data. Specific analyses using the technical data are described 

below. 

Consideration of National Standards for Long Term Stormwater Discharges from New and 

Redeveloped Sites

(a) Profile of Current Construction Projects and Creation of Impervious Surfaces 

 EPA would use the data collected through the questionnaires to develop a national profile of 

new building and real estate improvement projects. This profile would differentiate the various types 

of residential and commercial construction, by, at minimum, size and geographic location. In addition, 

EPA would develop a national profile of net increase in impervious surfaces resulting from these 

activities. 

(b) Profile of Long Term Stormwater Management Practices 

EPA would use the data collected through the questionnaires to develop a national profile of 

long term stormwater management and control technologies and practices currently being incorporated 

in new building and real estate improvement projects, incentives and barriers to incorporating such 

practices, as well as a profile of the conveyance of stormwater discharges from these sites. 

(c) Profile of Current Stormwater Program Requirements for Long Term Stormwater Discharges 

EPA would use the data collected through the questionnaires to develop a national profile of existing 

local and state long term stormwater requirements for new and redevelopment projects and the built 

environment. 

(d) Technical Feasibility and Effectiveness Analysis of Post Construction Stormwater Control 

 Feasibility and effectiveness of various long term stormwater controls and practices will likely 

vary depending, at minimum, on geography and weather patterns. EPA would use data collected 

through this ICR on feasibility and effectiveness of long term stormwater controls and practices, where 

available, together with other readily available data to asses the effectiveness of various control options 

at reducing overall stormwater volumes, stormwater velocities, and specific pollutants in the effluent 

and to identify any feasibility limitations of such technologies and/or practices. 

 

(e) Pollutant Loadings and Removals 

 EPA will estimate current pollutant loadings from long term stormwater discharges and any 

reductions after incorporation of regulatory control options. EPA would use technical data collected 

from the questionnaires to supplement readily available data on pollutant loadings from long term 

stormwater discharges. Together, with information on existing projects, rainfall, and long term control 

and practice effectiveness, EPA will estimate the incremental pollutant reductions associated with 

various regulatory options. EPA will then use these incremental reductions in its benefits analyses and 

also to compare the relation between costs and associated reductions of regulatory options. 

7
Part A of the Supporting Statement

(f) Assessment of Technology Costs 

 EPA will estimate the costs of various stormwater management approaches, including pollution 

prevention and controls, associated with regulatory options. The costs of the control options or 

practices would include the following items: capital costs for engineering design (including overhead), 

equipment and installation, and annual operating and maintenance (O&M) costs for the option. 

 EPA would use data collected through the questionnaires, supplemented by cost information 

from other sources such as control system manufacturers, to estimate the direct costs of stormwater 

management, pollution prevention, and control options selected for any regulatory requirements. These 

data include information to allow for estimation of stormwater flow rates, data related to stormwater 

collection and treatment/control technologies, retention practices, and pollution 

prevention/management practices. 

 EPA would estimate the difference in incremental costs for incorporating option compliant long 

term stormwater discharge controls or practices during new development and redevelopment projects and 

any associated costs for operating and maintaining such controls and practices over current expenditures. 

EPA would use the information on current projects and long term stormwater pollutant estimates to 

determine whether new and redevelopment projects need to improve their stormwater collection and 

control technology (e.g., by installing new units or entire systems) and whether those responsible for 

maintaining such technologies would need to modify their operating practices to comply with the 

discharge requirements for a particular regulatory option. EPA also plans to evaluate and, account for, 

where appropriate, cost savings associated with option compliant long term stormwater discharge 

controls and practices. Incremental compliance costs would be used to determine the potential 

economic impacts of the options. In addition, these incremental compliance costs would be weighed 

against the incremental pollutant reductions and benefits resulting from each regulatory option. 

(g) Assessment of Costs to MS4s, localities and NPDES Permitting Authorities 

 EPA will also asses the incremental costs associated with new requirements to reduce long term 

stormwater discharges from new and redevelopment projects. This includes, but is not limited to, 

incremental costs of implementing EPA’s requirements, oversight, enforcement, and/or possible 

retrofit or maintenance requirements. The survey will provide information on how MS4s and NPDES 

permitting authorities are currently overseeing the operation and maintenance of the controls within 

their jurisdiction, on both public and private property. This will provide an indication of how the O&M 

for new controls resulting from the rule may be handled by MS4s and/or NPDES permitting 

authorities. 

(h) Environmental Assessment and Economic Benefits Analysis 

 EPA will perform an environmental assessment to characterize environmental impacts 

associated with long term stormwater discharges and the environmental improvements associated with 

their reduction. Improvements can include both surface water improvements as well as “ancillary 

benefits” associated with the use of certain urban stormwater control technologies and practices (e.g., 

improved groundwater recharge from infiltration practices or additional riparian habitat from 

vegetative buffers). The assessment aims to provide both a qualitative and, when sufficient data is 

available, quantitative characterization. 

8
Part A of the Supporting Statement

EPA would use information collected through this ICR, supplemented by other data, to perform 

this analysis. Following an assessment of the current environmental impacts, EPA would estimate the 

potential change in environmental impact associated with different control options for discharges from 

newly developed and redeveloped sites. 

(i) Standards Consideration 

 EPA would use all of the above analyses to help inform its consideration of and development of 

options for national requirements to reduce long term stormwater discharges from new and 

redeveloped sites. For example, EPA would use the information to assess whether it should develop 

different standards for development and redevelopment or based on geographic location (e.g., 

Chesapeake Bay). The above analyses in conjunction with the economic analyses described below 

would help EPA determine what standards are appropriate to meet such a requirement and ultimately 

the decision criteria that may be used to make standard(s) selection. 

Consideration of Changes to the Federal Stormwater Program 

(a) Distribution and characteristics of MS4 jurisdictions around the country 

 EPA would use collected data to develop a distribution of federally regulated and non-regulated 

MS4s around the country including their relative sizes, proximity to rapidly developing areas, and 

whether or not the MS4 regulates long term stormwater discharges beyond the urbanized area (e.g. 

entire jurisdiction). 

(b) Extensiveness of unregulated discharges 

 EPA will determine how much and where new and redevelopment is occurring using land 

cover data and other spatial analysis. This information will be compared to existing Phase I and Phase 

II MS4 boundaries (urbanized area) to determine how much development is occurring outside the 

current federal regulatory framework. This information can help determine the need for regulating 

these sites through a redefined MS4 area and/or through direct regulation. 

 EPA will determine the prevalence of federally unregulated stormwater discharges that are 

located within MS4s, but discharge directly to a waterbody or to a private system as well as their 

impact. This information can help determine the need for regulating these sites under federal 

regulation. 

(c) Existing Stormwater Program Requirements 

 EPA will use data primarily collected from questionnaire responses to develop a national 

profile of existing state and local stormwater programs and requirements. In addition, EPA will 

evaluate the current prevalence of the Phase I requirement and the six Phase II minimum control 

measures across all MS4s. 

9
Part A of the Supporting Statement

(d) Assessment of Retrofit Requirements for Existing Sites 

 Retrofitting is the installation or modification of stormwater control measures on sites with 

existing development (including existing storm sewers) to enhance the reduction of stormwater 

pollutants and discharge volume and flow rates. EPA will use data primarily collected from 

questionnaire responses to develop a national profile of existing state and local retrofit programs, plans, 

and requirements. 

(e) Assessment of Incremental Compliance Costs 

 EPA will estimate the incremental costs of potential mechanisms for expanding the scope of the 

federal stormwater program and requirements based upon the results of data collection. For example, 

if any Phase II MS4s currently regulate discharges beyond the urbanized boundary (as required by the 

existing federal program), there would be less additional cost involved in expanding this requirement. 

EPA will also estimate the incremental costs of requiring the same program elements for all MS4s. 

For example, if any Phase I MS4 program already incorporates the six minimum measures required for 

Phase II MS4 programs, then less additional cost would be incurred in extending the six minimum 

measures to all MS4s. Similarly, EPA will estimate the incremental costs of requiring retrofit or 

retrofit plans. 

iii. Detailed Economic Analyses Supported by the Questionnaire Data 

EPA economists would use information collected in these questionnaires to estimate the 

potential economic impacts of the proposed rule on affected entities. In each of these analyses, the 

questionnaire data may be used as the primary input (e.g., project level financial information is used 

directly in an impact model), or may be used in conjunction with other readily available information. 

Many of the economic analyses require input from and/or build on the technical analyses described 

above. 

To analyze the costs and impact of the proposed rule, EPA would use the questionnaire 

information to (1) characterize quantitatively the financial profile of the economic entities expected to 

be subject to the regulation, (2) characterize quantitatively the profile of new and redevelopment 

projects, (3) undertake analyses of the economic impacts due to installation and maintenance costs 

based on that information; (4) to characterize quantitatively the additional costs and/or burden to 

NPDES Permitting Authorities and MS4s in maintaining and enforcing stormwater controls, BMPs, 

and retention practices. 

(a) Developing the Analysis Baseline 

EPA would develop the industry baseline for the establishments and firms engaged in 

developing projects and projects owners that are expected to be directly affected by this regulation. 

The development industry encompasses businesses operating in a range of construction industry 

segments. The questionnaires would determine those industry segments that are likely to perform 

activities within the scope of the regulation and that are the focus of this regulatory analysis. EPA 

would also determine the quantity and character of acreage and project development associated with 

those businesses and/or owners. The development of an industry baseline, with respect to both 

10
Part A of the Supporting Statement

establishment financial condition and the profile of projects performed, will support the analysis of the 

costs and impact of the proposed rule. 

(b) Analysis of Impacted Entities associated with National Long Term Stormwater Discharge 

Standards for New and Redevelopment Projects 

The four primary categories of affected entities are defined by their role in the life cycle of a 

development project, including the original land owner, the project developer/owner, the project’s end 

user, and the government entity (in most cases an MS4) that has jurisdiction over the project’s 

stormwater. OW will use survey results, supplemented with other data sources to establish the baseline 

number and an economic/financial profile of potentially affected entities in sectors impacted by the 

rule. A set of model firms that perform development projects will be based on the profile of 

developers/owners. All model project costs will initially be assigned to model firms. As most of these 

projects will be developed to be sold or leased in the real estate market, many of these costs will be 

passed through to other entities. Information on ownership and project purpose gathered through the 

survey will facilitate the estimation of the proportion of costs that are passed through to different 

business sectors and socio-economic communities. 

(c) Analysis of Project-Level Costs and Industry Economic Impacts 

The survey will collect information on project construction cost and value for each phase of 

development. This will facilitate an assessment of project-level changes to profitability and also help in 

estimating an incremental compliance cost multiplier, which would be used to account for overhead, 

debt, and equity cost considerations that affect per-acre compliance cost, but that are not expected to be 

accounted for in the engineering-level estimate of per-acre cost. The project level analyses will support 

assessment of the cost and economic impact of proposed regulatory requirements on development 

industry. Industry-level effects will be assessed in terms not only of total cost to the industry, but also 

other key impact metrics, including cost-to-revenue ratios, potential instances of financial stress, and 

potential closures. This analysis would be performed for the entire set of in-scope entities, and 

separately for small entities in order to satisfy the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA, 5 U.S.C. et seq., 

Public Law 96-354), amended by the 1996 Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 

(SBREFA). 

(d) Analysis of Single-Family Housing Affordability Impacts 

 The survey will collect information on value and number of dwelling units for residential 

projects. This information will be used to help assess potential effects on housing affordability. This 

analysis would be performed at a regional level (potentially states or metropolitan statistical areas), 

with economic effects assessed in terms of the expected change in price for various priced new singlefamily homes and cost for potential operation and maintenance requirements for permanent stormwater 

control structures. An assessment of the affect of these costs on the purchasing decision of prospective 

home buyers would also be performed. 

(e) Analysis of Social Cost and Economy-wide Effects 

 The survey results provide the basis for estimating the extent and distribution of current 

development activity and for assessing the incremental costs from regulating this activity. The survey 

11
Part A of the Supporting Statement

also provides the information needed for a baseline assessment of current stormwater management 

activities by NPDES Permitting Authorities and municipalities and for estimating the incremental 

burden to these government entities from expansion of their responsibilities under the new rule. These 

analyses in turn are used to estimate the social cost of the rule. The social costs analysis examines the 

affects of increased construction and O&M costs on the level of activity in the construction and real 

estate markets. The social cost analysis also takes into account the increased governmental costs 

resulting from the rule. The incremental costs to government and the private sector are also used for an 

additional analysis that estimates the economy-wide effects on output, employment and household 

income. 

(f) Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) Analyses 

 As part of the statutory requirements under the RFA, EPA will assess the potential impacts of 

the rule on small entities. Small entities are estimated to comprise approximately 88 percent of the 

construction industry. It is anticipated that many MS4 municipalities are small entities as well. The 

survey will provide insight on the operating models of small entities, their baseline economic/financial 

condition, and their participation on in-scope projects, and thus support a stronger understanding of 

potential rule impacts on small businesses. The survey will also provide important information on the 

operating budgets and current stormwater management practices of small municipalities. 

 In accordance with requirements of the UMRA, EPA will estimate the potential effects of 

proposed regulations on Federal, State and Local government entities and specifically small businesses 

and small governments. The municipal and NPDES Permitting Authority surveys are essential for 

developing the profiles of affected government entities since no database exists on operators of MS4s 

and their technical and financial capacities, or on their existing regulations. The municipal survey is 

collecting budgetary and financial information that will be used to determine capacity of municipalities 

to administer the regulation. This will allow OW to determine incremental burden. OW will 

incorporate several cost concepts such as: the development of systems and procedures for processing a 

new permit; project design and permit review and approval at project commencement; and the 

potential cost of ongoing monitoring and inspection for compliance practices that require ongoing 

O&M. Governments will also face rule requirements as they develop in-scope projects. 

(g) Market Values Analysis 

The use of various stormwater controls and any associated maintenance requirements can have 

a direct affect on property values. The survey collects information on project value, controls used, and 

MS4 O&M requirements for property owners which will all help inform an analysis of how property 

values may change. Because some controls can improve or diminish the aesthetic quality of a property 

they can have an indirect affect on the property value of surrounding properties. Survey information 

will help identify neighborhoods that may have experienced property value changes due to the use of 

certain stormwater control practices within them. 

(h) Avoided Cost Analysis 

The national standards for new and redevelopment will lead to greater use of infiltration and 

retention practices, which can lead reductions in costs associated with numerous commercial activities 

and public works that are impacted by changes in urban hydrology, such as: Flood Damages, Storm 

12
Part A of the Supporting Statement

Sewer System Maintenance, and Stream Restoration. The municipal survey gathers information on 

current municipal efforts and expenditures for capacity expansion to reduce flooding, storm sewer 

maintenance, and either stream restoration or stream bank stabilization. This information will help in 

the assessment of the potential cost savings that may result from reducing the volume and velocity of 

stormwater entering storm sewers and adjacent waterways. 

3. Non-Duplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria

a. Non-Duplication 

EPA’s Office of Water made every reasonable attempt to ensure that this ICR does not request 

data and information currently available through less burdensome mechanisms. Specifically, OW 

explored Agency databases, directories, contacts, and sources to locate data and information significant 

to this regulatory development process. OW also explored other ongoing or completed regulatory 

developments (e.g., Effluent Limitations, Guidelines, and Standards (ELGs) for the Construction and 

Development Industry) and/or information collection efforts. In addition, OW has conducted a 

thorough collection and review of other applicable databases and secondary sources. 

For information on project type and project size, EPA has used CGP Notice of Intent (NOI) 

records in the past. However, while some information for potential in-scope projects can be obtained 

from the NOI database, the dataset has certain limitations including coverage, detail and currency. The 

NOI database includes data on only 24 states and cannot provide the information needed to conduct a 

national assessment. In addition, the information included in this source is not sufficiently detailed in 

terms of project technical characteristics and contains little or no economic/financial information to 

meet the needs of the technical, economic, and environmental impact analyses. Moreover, the dataset 

is not consistently current. EPA intends therefore to collect information on current projects and project 

size from the questionnaire respondents so that a more accurate national picture can be developed. 

Previously used data sources for stormwater controls include state construction general permits 

(CGPs), websites, summary references, state regulations, and erosion and sediment control design and 

guidance manuals. These sources provide a summary of criteria and standards for active construction 

site stormwater erosion and sediment control that are implemented by states, but do not summarize 

long term stormwater controls that are implemented after completion of active new and redevelopment 

projects, which are the focus of this data collection activity. EPA intends to collect information on 

stormwater controls and to assess practices currently used for long term stormwater discharge control. 

For information on land use, EPA has used the National Land Cover Database (NLCD), which 

provides a national source of data on land cover change. This database provides a 30-meter resolution 

land cover data layer over the conterminous United States (CONUS) from Landstat Tematic Mapper 

satellite imagery. NLCD data are publicly available for the years 1992 and 2001 and the land cover 

change map and all documentation pertaining to it are considered provisional until a formal accuracy 

assessment can be conducted. Classifications from the NLCD dataset include: open water, urban, 

barren, forest, grassland/shrub, agriculture, and wetlands Ice/Snow. EPA intends to collect pre- and 

post-development land cover data as part of this data collection as a means to assess potential changes 

in stormwater flow following land development. These data are not currently available from NLCD 

due to the level of detail required for post-development land cover categories (e.g., rooftops, parking 

lots, street/road, lawn, farm, forest, other vegetation). 

13
Part A of the Supporting Statement

For information on soil type, EPA has used the State Soil Geographic Database (STATSGO) 

which provides a national map of soil types across the U.S. STATSGO was designed primarily for 

regional, multi-county, river basin, State, and multi-state resource planning, management and 

monitoring and the data are not detailed enough to make interpretations at a county level. As part of 

the questionnaire, EPA will request information on the predominant soil type for each project 

identified and reported. EPA needs to collect this information at the project level since STATSGO will 

not provide location specific soil conditions to allow for the most accurate analysis. 

For precipitation data, EPA will use publicly available data published by the National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). These data are available from national weather stations 

throughout the U.S. and will provide sufficient estimates of annual rainfall by location (city, county, 

state). 

For purposes of the current stormwater data collection and analysis, EPA will also require 

information on BMPs and retention practices applicable to the control of long term stormwater 

discharges from newly developed and redeveloped sites. To assess the performance of these practices, 

in part, EPA will use data from vendors and the National Stormwater BMP Database, developed by the 

American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). 

The financial data requested in the owner/developer Questionnaire is not expected to be 

available through other sources. While some general business information is available from business 

registries such as Dunn & Bradstreet (D&B), these data are limited and do not provide sufficient 

understanding of the business operations of the industry to complete a comprehensive economic 

impact analysis. In addition, some of the financial information requested may be claimed as CBI and 

therefore not available outside of a survey. 

Although some municipalities and states may make information publicly available on their 

budgets, revenue sources, and stormwater management activities, this information is not systematically 

or consistently reported in such a way to make it usable for a comprehensive assessment of current 

stormwater regulatory activity at the municipal level. Particularly, states, which are permitting 

authorities, collect annual reports from MS4s, however; this information is not collected in a consistent 

way in order to support a national sampling. While reviewing Phase I and II permits may provide some 

information about specific permit requirements, the permits do not include the comprehensive scope of 

information that is needed. Some non-governmental entities, such as Black and Veatch, have 

undertaken voluntary surveys to gather information on municipal stormwater management activities. 

However, these efforts are very limited in terms of the questions asked and the number of municipal 

respondents. Therefore, these information sources can supplement the OW efforts, but by themselves 

are inadequate to form the basis of an analysis of the effects of expanding the MS4 program. 

b. Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB 

(i) Publication of the Federal Register Notice 

On October 30, 2009 (74 FR 56191-56193), EPA published a notice in the Federal Register, 

announcing the Agency’s intent to submit a request for a new ICR and to collect comment on three 

draft questionnaires associated with this stormwater management regulation. EPA informed trade 

associations, state and local contacts, and environmental groups of the notice via phone and e-mail. 

14
Part A of the Supporting Statement

EPA plans to publish a second notice in the Federal Register announcing its intent to submit a 

request for a new ICR and to collect comments on the revised versions of the questionnaires for 

owners/developers, MS4s, and NPDES Permitting Authorities that incorporate comments received 

during the first comment period. The notice will include a description of the entities that would be 

affected by the proposed questionnaires, a brief explanation of the need for the questionnaires, and an 

estimate of the burden to be incurred by questionnaire respondents. By means of the notice, the 

Agency will request any further comments and suggestions regarding the questionnaires and a 

reduction in the associated burden, and ask the public to submit all final comments and suggestions 

within 30 days of Federal Notice publication. EPA will again notify key trade associations, state and 

local contacts, and environmental groups of this notice via phone and e-mail. 

 Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(a) of the Paperwork Reduction Act, EPA will specifically solicit 

comments and information to enable it to: 

1. Evaluate whether this proposed information collection is necessary for the proper 

performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will 

have practical utility. 

2. Evaluate the accuracy of the Agency’s estimate of burden of the proposed collection of 

information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used. 

3. Enhance the quality, clarity, and unity of the information to be collected. 

4. Evaluate the questionnaires that will be implemented for this information collection 

request. 

5. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those that respond. 

(ii) Public Response to the Federal Register Notice 

 EPA received public comments from a variety of interested parties following publication of the 

first Federal Register Notice (October, 2009). EPA received a total of 84 comments from 

environmental groups, associations, MS4s including State Departments of Transportation, long term 

stormwater practice and control vendors, universities, and individuals. Appendix A contains a 

complete list of all commenters. 

 EPA is appreciative of the efforts made by stakeholders to support and improve the focus and 

content of the draft questionnaires. EPA has benefited from this input and used the information gained 

to improve this ICR and overall approach to this stormwater management rulemaking. In each case, 

EPA carefully reviewed each of the questionnaires, as appropriate, and revised them accordingly. The 

biggest change EPA made since its first notice is that this proposed ICR now consists of six survey 

instruments rather than three as proposed in the first Federal Register Notice. An overview of the 

overarching comments applicable to all of the questionnaires and the resultant changes is provided 

below. A more detailed summary of comments received on each of the questionnaires and EPA’s 

response and action are presented in Appendix B. 

 Several commenters questioned EPA’s authority to promulgate a regulation thereby negating 

the need for this information collection. The following discusses each of the comments and EPA’s 

response: 

15
Part A of the Supporting Statement

EPA does have federal authority to regulate discharges “from” MS4s but not 

“into” them. [402(p)(2)(C) & (D)] The only federal authority over MS4 influent is 

the prohibition of non-stormwater discharges into MS4s. [402(p)(3)];. 

EPA agrees with commenter that CWA sections 402(p)(2)(C) and (D) give EPA the 

authority to regulate discharges from MS4s; indeed EPA was required to regulate 

medium and large MS4s under section 402(p)(4). EPA disagrees with commenter that 

EPA does not have the authority over stormwater discharges into MS4s or that the only 

authority over MS4 influent is the prohibition of non-stormwater discharges into MS4s. 

Under CWA sections 402(p)(2)(B), 402(p)(2)(E), and 402(p)(6) EPA can and does 

regulate stormwater discharges into MS4s. For example, stormwater associated with 

industrial activity that is discharged to an MS4 is independently regulated by EPA or 

the States. 40 CFR 122.26(b)(14). As early as the preamble to the Phase I stormwater 

rule EPA stated “storm water from an industrial facility which enters and is 

subsequently discharges through a municipal separate storm sewer system is a 

‘discharge associated with industrial activity’ which must be covered by an individual 

or general permit pursuant to [EPA regulations].” 55 Fed. Reg. 47,990, 47996-97 

(November 16, 1990). EPA has the authority to regulate stormwater that is discharged 

into MS4s. In any rulemaking process EPA will discuss further the scope of what point 

sources will be subject to any standard or other effluent limitation. 

Congress did not grant EPA authority to determine how MS4 operators should 

control indirect stormwater discharges into their systems as long as the MS4s meet 

their applicable permitting requirements for their own discharges. 

EPA disagrees with commenter to the extent that EPA is required to ensure that permits 

for discharges from MS4s require controls to reduce the discharge of pollutants to the 

maximum extent practicable and require such other provisions as the EPA 

Administrator or State determines appropriate for the control of such pollutants. See 

CWA section 402(p)(3)(B)(iii). In any rulemaking process EPA will discuss further the 

scope of what point sources will be subject to any standard or other effluent limitation. 

EPA lacks the authority to regulate post-construction sites unless they 

independently generate a regulated stormwater discharge by meeting the 

definition of an industrial activity or MS4. 

EPA disagrees with commenter. EPA has the authority under CWA section 402(p) to 

regulate discharges of stormwater other than those that are defined as “industrial” or 

from a “municipal separate storm sewer system.” Specifically, EPA derives independent 

legal authority from CWA sections 402(p)(2)(E) and 402(p)(6) and EPA regulations at 

40 CFR 122.26(a)(9)(i)(C)-(D) to regulate stormwater discharges from developed sites. 

For example, in the Phase II stormwater regulations under the authority of CWA section 

402(p)(6) EPA designated and currently regulates stormwater “discharges associated 

with small construction activity,” which are neither industrial discharges nor discharges 

from MS4s. 40 CFR 122.26(b)(15). In any rulemaking process EPA will discuss further 

16
Part A of the Supporting Statement

the scope of what point sources will be subject to any standard or other effluent 

limitation. 

Post-construction stormwater discharges should be considered nonpoint source 

discharges or diffuse stormwater discharges that are not regulated under the 

CWA. 

EPA disagrees with commenter. “Point source” is defined as “any discernible, confined, 

and discrete conveyance, including but not limited to any pipe, ditch, channel, tunnel, 

conduit, well, discrete fissure, container, rolling stock, concentrated animal feeding 

operation, or vessel or other floating craft, from which pollutants are or may be 

discharges.” See CWA section 502(14). EPA has the discretion to further define what is 

a point source. See National Wildlife Federation v. Gorsuch, 693 F.2d 156, 175 (D.C. 

Cir. 1982). The vast majority of developed sites contain pipes, ditches, swales or other 

types of discrete conveyances; through which pollutants are or may be discharged. 

Under CWA section 308 EPA has the authority to collect information from point 

sources. In any rulemaking process EPA will discuss further the scope of what point 

sources will be subject to any standard or other effluent limitation. 

EPA can only regulate using standard industrial classification codes which don’t 

exist for subdivisions, etc. 

EPA disagrees with commenter. There is nothing in the CWA that requires EPA to 

regulate stormwater discharges based on the standard industrial classification (SIC) 

codes. In the Phase I stormwater rule EPA used SIC codes to categorize discharges 

associated with industrial activity; however the Agency was not required to do so then 

and is not required to do so in any future rulemaking. Any stormwater rulemaking will 

discuss further how EPA intends to classify discharges from developed sites (or any 

other stormwater point sources addressed in the proposal) for regulation under the 

CWA. 

EPA has not clearly articulated its statutory authority to develop stormwater 

management regulations nor demonstrated that an information collection effort 

and rulemaking are necessary. EPA has not designated post-construction 

stormwater discharges as requiring a permit. EPA has not provided a clear 

definition of what the information will be used for. 

EPA disagrees with commenter. EPA has authority under CWA section 402(p)(6) to 

designate stormwater discharges in order to protect water quality and develop a 

comprehensive program to regulate those designated stormwater discharges. 

Designation of stormwater discharges from developed sites is being considered as part 

of any rulemaking. Additionally, EPA has the authority under CWA section 

402(p)(3)(B) to require discharges from MS4s to require controls to reduce the 

discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent practicable, including management 

practices, control techniques and system design and engineering methods, and such 

other provisions as EPA determines are appropriate for the control of stormwater 

17
Part A of the Supporting Statement

discharges. The information collected in this Information Collection Request will be 

used to assist EPA in developing a regulation to address discharges from developed 

sites, including, but not limited to, performance or design standards for those designated 

discharges from developed sites as part of a comprehensive program under section 

402(p)(6); benefits of any performance or design standard; costs of any performance or 

design standard; the prevalence, utilization and effectiveness of stormwater controls that 

retain, detain or infiltrate stormwater (i.e., low impact development or green 

infrastructure); and characterize the current scope, components, and implementation of 

existing state or regional NPDES stormwater programs. EPA would like a sound record 

basis for any regulation it proposes and promulgates. This information request is 

reasonably related to helping create a record for that decision-making. 

EPA’s intention to change the Phase I and Phase II stormwater program based on 

the ICR constitutes a breach of the program evaluation agreement reached 

through the Stormwater Phase II FACA as well as the current NPDES regulations 

resulting from that agreement. Until the provisions of Section 122.37are satisfied, 

changes to Phase I and II regulations may be precluded or prohibited. 

EPA disagrees with this comment. As stated in the Preamble to the Phase II Rule, EPA 

was asked by the Phase II FACA to demonstrate its commitment to revisit the small 

MS4 requirements in the Phase II Rule and to make changes where necessary after 

evaluating the stormwater program and researching the effectiveness of municipal 

BMPs. 64 Fed. Reg. 68722, 68771 (Dec. 8, 1999). EPA did so by committing to revisit 

the rule after completion of the first two permit terms, i.e., after December 10, 2012. 

See 40 CFR 122.37. This was an affirmative commitment to revisit the Phase II MS4 

program after evaluating its effectiveness, as of a date certain, not a promise not to 

make changes before a certain date. Nothing in the preamble or section 122.37 requires 

EPA to refrain from an ICR process to collect information about implementation or 

effectiveness of the stormwater program or from changing the regulations prior to that 

time. Although in 1999 EPA expressed its intention to wait until completion of two 

permit cycles except under certain circumstances, this was only a stated intention, an 

expectation, and not a commitment. As EPA explained in the Phase II preamble, some 

commenters requested that EPA reevaluate the program much sooner; some 

commenters supported waiting two permit cycles, but EPA anticipated that two full 

permit cycles would be necessary to obtain enough data to significantly evaluate the 

rule. However, in the ten years since the rule was promulgated and in light of the 

significant information provided by Urban Stormwater Management in the United 

States (National Academy of Sciences Press, October 2008), including the strong 

information indicating EPA should improve how it controls discharges of stormwater, 

EPA has obtained enough data to begin the reevaluation process at this time. 

 Many commenters provided alternative sources to obtain data and/or explained that they did 

not have the information to respond to certain questions. Others commented that the format in which 

EPA requested the information is extremely burdensome because they do not track information in that 

way. EPA carefully reviewed each of the questions in each of the survey instruments to remove or 

revise its questions, where appropriate, accordingly. 

18
Part A of the Supporting Statement

Some suggested EPA’s possible universe of questionnaire recipients is flawed. In some cases, 

commenters provided information on additional categories of possible recipients (other possible 

sources of the requested information) while others explained why certain categories were inappropriate 

recipients (because they do not have the requested information). EPA reviewed and revised its 

universe of possible questionnaire recipients and concludes that the entities included in the survey 

design will provide the best information to aid EPA in this rulemaking effort. See Part B of this ICR 

for additional information on the proposed universe of questionnaire recipients. 

 

 Various commenters requested additional definitions or suggested revised definitions. EPA 

agrees that additional and/or revised definitions would improve understanding of the terms used in 

specific questions and would likely improve the quality of the data obtained. EPA has revised the 

questionnaire definitions accordingly. 

 Several commented on the burden and the 60 day response deadline. During consultations with 

developers/owners, MS4s, and states, EPA gathered valuable insight on the overall questionnaire 

burden and the burden of specific questions. EPA has revised the questionnaires with an eye on 

burden reduction. For example, EPA has reduced the amount of questions in the owner/developer 

survey considerably and developed both a long and short version. EPA estimates that the average 

burden per questionnaire ranges from 10 hours to 74 hours with an average of 30 hours. A 60 day 

response period allows ample time for even the most burdensome questionnaire respondents. See 

Section 7 for additional discussion on burden. 

 

 Various commenters provided suggestions for revisions of specific questions or additional 

questions or stormwater issues for which EPA should request data. Where appropriate, EPA revised 

the questions accordingly. 

 Many provided comments on the rulemaking itself. While EPA appreciates these comments, 

they are outside the scope of this ICR. 

 

c. Consultations 

The Agency will continue to solicit comments and consult with interested stakeholders 

following publication of this notice and throughout development of this rule. Following the first 

Federal Register Notice, EPA hosted a number of teleconferences and meetings with representatives 

from the National Association of Home Builder’s (NAHB), The Association of General Contractors 

(AGC), Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators (ASWIPCA), 

National Association of Clean Water Agencies (NACWA), Natural Resources Defense Council 

(NRDC), and various states. In addition, between January and March, EPA conducted listening 

sessions in Chicago, San Francisco, Denver, Dallas, DC, and Boston which enabled it to obtain 

feedback directly from a variety of interested stakeholders including large and small municipalities and 

developers. EPA also held a virtual listening session with approximately 1,900 participants. The main 

purpose of the listening sessions was to obtain input on the rulemaking considerations described in 

Section 1a. However, these listening sessions were invaluable to this effort as well because they 

provided EPA with a more complete picture of existing stormwater management and permitting 

throughout the U.S., including local geographic and legal considerations. EPA also received input on 

the questionnaires themselves as well as other data sources during these listening sessions. EPA plans 

19
Part A of the Supporting Statement

to conduct additional teleconferences and meetings to solicit any further comments on the 

questionnaires. 

d. Effect of Less Frequent Data Collection 

These questionnaires are to be administered one time only. If this information collection is not 

conducted, the specific data sought in these questionnaires will not be available for EPA’s use in 

decision making about the need for and scope of potential regulation to prevent or reduce long term 

stormwater discharge impacts from new and redevelopment. Reliance on public data alone would 

significantly impair EPA’s ability to establish a baseline of existing state and local stormwater 

programs and requirements, current new and redevelopment projects and associated long term 

stormwater controls; and incremental costs, pollutant reductions, impacts, and benefits of potential 

rulemaking. 

e. General Guidelines 

EPA will conduct data collection in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act guidelines 

in 5 CRA 1320.6 and EPA’s Quality Assurance Guidance. Information to be disseminated would 

comply with EPA’s Information Quality Guidelines which were developed for implementing OMB’s 

Guidelines for Ensuring and Maximizing the Quality, Objectivity, Utility, and Integrity of the 

Information Disseminated by Federal Agencies. 

f. Confidentiality 

The owner/developer questionnaires inform respondents of their right to claim information 

confidential in accordance with 40 CFR part 2, subpart B, Section 2.203. Because MS4s and NPDES 

Permitting Authorities are public entities, none meet the definition of a business as defined in 40 CFR 

part 2, subpart B, Section 2.201. The owner/developer questionnaires provides instructions for 

claiming confidentiality and informs respondents of the terms and rules governing Confidential 

Business Information (CBI) under the Clean Water Act and 40 CFR 2.203(B). EPA does not expect 

stormwater management practices or project related conditions (such as project size, predominant soil 

type and land cover use) to be claimed as CBI. However, financial data requested through the 

questionnaire may be subject to a CBI claim. Each question which requests potentially confidential 

business information is accompanied by a CBI checkbox. Questionnaire respondents are directed to 

check the CBI checkboxes which accompany the responses they claim as confidential. 

EPA and its contractors will follow existing procedures to protect data labeled as CBI. These 

procedures include the following: 

 Ensure secure handling of completed questionnaires to preclude access by unauthorized 

personnel. 

 Store completed questionnaires and databases in secured areas of offices, and restrict 

access to authorized EPA and contractor personnel only. 

 Restrict any publication or dissemination of confidential study results or findings to 

aggregate statistics and coded listings. 

20
Part A of the Supporting Statement

Information covered by a claim of confidentiality will be disclosed by EPA only to the extent 

of, and by means of, the procedures set forth in 40 CFR Part 2, Subpart B. In general, submitted 

information protected by a business confidentiality claim may be disclosed to other employees, 

officers, or authorized representatives of the United States concerned with implementing the Clean 

Water Act. Exemption 4 of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) protects from disclosure "trade 

secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or 

confidential." See 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4). 

Information covered by a claim of confidentiality will be made available to EPA contractors 

supporting this rulemaking to enable them to perform the work required by their contracts with EPA. 

Each EPA contractor that collects, possesses, or stores CBI is responsible for the proper handling of 

that data. Each contractor will safeguard information as described in Section 2.211(d) of Subpart B and 

is obligated to use or disclose information only as permitted by the contract under which the 

information is furnished. 

g. Sensitive Questions 

No sensitive questions pertaining to private or personal information, such as sexual behavior or 

religious beliefs, would be asked in the questionnaire. 

4. The Respondents and the Information Requested

a. Respondent NAICS Codes 

The target population for the Owner/Developer Questionnaires is all development 

establishments in the United States. For the selection of establishments by construction type, EPA is 

focusing on the following eight North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes: 

 236115: New Single-Family Housing Construction (except operative builders); 

 236116: New Multifamily Housing Construction (except operative builders); 

 236117: New Housing Operative Builders; 

 236210: Industrial Building Construction; 

 236220: Commercial and Institutional Building Construction; 

 237210: Land Subdivision; 

 237310: Highway, Street and Bridge Construction; and 

 237990: Other Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction. 

EPA has identified over 738,000 possible developers/owners of new and redevelopment. 

The target population for the MS4 Questionnaires is owners and operators of Municipal 

Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4), including both those regulated under EPA's NPDES Phase I 

and Phase II regulations and those not currently regulated. EPA has identified 6,645 federally 

regulated MS4s (including state and county DOTs) and approximately 29,400 non-federally regulated 

MS4s. Finally, the target population for the NPDES Permitting Authority Questionnaire is all 55 states 

and EPA regions that serve as NPDES Permitting Authorities. 

Also see Part B of this support statement. 

21
Part A of the Supporting Statement

22

b. Information Requested 

i. Data Items, Including Record Keeping Requirements 

EPA has developed six survey instruments for this data collection effort: a Long and Short 

Owner/Developer Questionnaire, two MS4 Questionnaires2

, a Transportation MS4 Questionnaire, and 

a NPDES Permitting Authority Questionnaire. The Owner/Developer Questionnaire responses will 

primarily provide information to evaluate the standards for long term stormwater discharges from 

newly developed and redeveloped sites. MS4s (including transportation agencies) would be asked to 

provide information that will be used to evaluate existing local stormwater programs, long term 

stormwater control requirements including retrofits, local ordinances, and annual costs incurred by 

MS4s for implementing, maintaining and enforcing stormwater programs. The MS4 questionnaires 

will also help assess the capacity of MS4s to implement any additional proposed regulatory measures 

or expansion of current coverage. The NPDES Permitting Authority questionnaire would request 

similar information to, among other things, characterize state stormwater programs, requirements, 

coverage, oversight, enforcement, capacity, and budgets. Collectively, EPA would use the MS4 and 

NPDES Authority questionnaires to estimate the impact of regulatory options at the local, county, and 

state level. 

 EPA is planning to distribute the owner/developer questionnaires, the Federally Regulated and 

Non-Federally Regulated MS4 Questionnaires, and the Transportation MS4 Questionnaire to a 

statistical sample of the four population categories. EPA is planning to distribute the NPDES 

Permitting Authority questionnaire to a census of all U.S. NPDES Permitting Authorities. Part B of 

this document details EPA’s plans for selecting questionnaire recipients. 

EPA is evaluating various methods for distributing the questionnaires. EPA may distribute the 

questionnaires through the mail or may request response through a secure web site. In the event that 

EPA elects to distribute the questionnaires via the mail, questionnaires may be provided in a paper or a 

PDF fillable format (such as a CD or flash drive). 

Descriptions of the data requested in each of these questionnaires are provided below: 

OWNER/DEVELOPER QUESTIONNAIRES

 The following section provides detailed information on and justification for each of the 

questions in the Owner/Developer Questionnaires. The potential population of questionnaire recipients 

is the same for both the long and short version. However, selected recipients will be requested to 

respond to the long or short version, but not both. The short version of the questionnaire is the same as 

the long version, but includes fewer questions. In particular, questions in the short questionnaire are 

aimed at covering basic, key operational and financial characteristics of potentially in-scope business 

and the projects they perform. 

 

2

 The universe of respondents for the two MS4 questionnaires is different. The target population for the Federally 

Regulated MS4 Questionnaire is all county and local government MS4s that are currently regulated by EPA’s municipal 

stormwater program (Phase 1 or Phase II MS4). The target population for the Non-Federally Regulated MS4 Questionnaire 

is county and local government MS4s that are not currently regulated by EPA’s municipal stormwater program. 
Part A of the Supporting Statement

LONG OWNER/DEVELOPER QUESTIONNAIRE

SECTION A: GENERAL INFORMATION 

Questions 1-11 cover basic, key operational and financial characteristics of potentially in-scope 

business and the projects they perform. 

Questions 1 and 2 request contact information for the establishment to identify the responding 

establishment and enable follow-up on erroneous/incomplete answers. 

Several questions in the questionnaire will ask the respondent to report financial information for each 

year in which the respondent was in business from 2005 – 2009. Recognizing that some respondents 

may find it less burdensome to report financial information on a fiscal year basis rather than on a 

calendar basis (i.e., if their fiscal year doesn’t begin in January), Question 3 simply asks the respondent 

to indicate their choice for reporting this information. If the respondent selects the fiscal year option, 

then they must check a box to indicate which month begins their fiscal year. EPA will then use this 

information to assign establishment financial information to specific calendar years of business 

activity. 

Question 4 is the primary screener question in the survey instrument. This question will be used to 

determine whether the respondent is required to complete the rest of the questionnaire. The respondent 

will continue with the questionnaire if they have completed one or more phases of at least one project 

during the period 2005 – 2009. In addition, these project(s) must meets four criteria: (1) the project 

was a new or redevelopment project; (2) the establishment was the owner or developer for one or more 

project phases (either as the sole responsible party or as participant in a joint venture or other multiple 

party structure); (3) the project is disturbs one or more acres or resulted in 5,000 or more square feet of 

impervious surface; and, (4) the project was NOT a pipeline or other utility related activity where the 

original land cover was replaced at the end of the project. If the respondent answers No to this 

question, they are finished with the questionnaire. 

Question 5 requests that the respondent indicate the state(s)/territories in which the establishment 

operates. The state in which the establishment is a legal entity may be different than the state or states 

that in which it operates. This information will be used to characterize the distribution of development 

activity and existing stormwater regulations geographically. This information will also support the 

development of model projects and model firms, which will be differentiated by Census region. 

Question 6 asks about whether the establishment is independently owned and operated, or owned by a 

parent firm. Although the questionnaire is targeted to the establishment level, if the establishment is 

owned by a parent firm, it is also important to collect basic revenue information about the parent firm 

in order link establishments to firms in the industry-level economic impact analysis and to understand 

the operating structure of owners and developers. If the respondent indicates that they are owned by a 

parent firm, they are prompted to answer three follow-up questions about the parent firm: 

 If NO to Question 6, then question 7 asks for contact information for the parent firm to identify 

the firm. 

 

23
Part A of the Supporting Statement

If NO to Question 6, then question 8 asks for the state in which the firm is organized as a legal 

entity. EPA will use this information to establish which state commerce regulations apply to the firm 

for use in the economic/financial analysis. 

 If NO to Question 6, the question 9 asks for the parent firm’s total revenue for each year from 

2005 through 2009. The respondent may flag this information as CBI. Revenue information will be 

used to define the size of the firm in the economic/financial analysis, and determine if the firm 

qualifies as a small business. 

Question 10 asks if the respondent is a publically traded company. EPA will use this information in the 

industry-level economic/financial analysis to further characterize the baseline financial performance 

and structure of model firms and to estimate certain financial information required in the analysis (for 

example, costs of capital). 

Question 11 requests that the respondent indicate their type of business organization from a menu of 

choices. EPA will use this information to identify the tax status of the business for use in the 

economic/financial analysis and to understand the business operating structure(s) characteristic of the 

industry. 

Questions 12 through 15 focus on establishment level financial information. 

Question 12 asks for the respondent’s total revenue. The respondent may flag this information as CBI. 

Revenue information will be used to define the size of the responding business in the 

economic/financial analysis and characterize model firms’ operating economic structures and baseline 

financial performance and conditions. EPA will use revenue data along with financial statement data 

from RMA’s eStatement Studies to map survey respondents to model firm financial statements. This 

question asks not only for total revenue, but also for the subset of revenue associated with activities 

that meet the in-scope criteria set forth in Question 4. In so doing, this question also functions as a 

mechanism for narrowing the focus of the questionnaire in anticipation of subsequent, more detailed 

questions specifically targeted at in-scope activities. It is also important to isolate the respondent’s inscope revenue to gauge the fraction of the respondent’s business that may be affected by the 

regulation. 

Question 13 asks the respondent to report how much of their revenue (i.e., in-scope revenue from 

question 12) is generated from performing different project roles: owner only, developer only, owner 

and developer. This information will be used to support the development of model in-scope businesses 

and the assignment of model projects to model businesses. The role of the business in the project is 

important because it influences the potential cost pass-through possibilities and partly determines the 

proportion of project compliance costs assigned to the model business. 

Question 14 asks the respondent to report their revenue (i.e., in-scope revenue from question 12) by the 

category of development activity: new development, redevelopment, or alteration/expansion. This will 

be used to characterize the proportion of model business activity that occurs in these categories and, as 

in question 13, support the assignment of model projects to model businesses. 

Question 15 asks the respondent to report their revenue (i.e., in-scope revenue from question 12) by 

type of development (e.g., single-family, multi-family, commercial, industrial, and various mixed-use 

24
Part A of the Supporting Statement

25

options). This question will be used in developing the industry profile and also in further identifying 

the respondent’s business activities that could be affected by a long term stormwater discharge 

regulation and the extent of potential effect given their participation in these activities. 

Questions 16 through 20 request summary project level technical and financial information: 

Question 16 asks the respondent to report the number of in-scope projects they were actively 

participating in on the last day of calendar year 2009. EPA will use this information to support the 

development of the baseline snapshot of in-scope development activities presently underway. The 

respondent may flag this as CBI. 

Question 17 asks the respondent to report the total number of projects that they completed participation 

in each year from 2005 – 2009, by project size and across key development categories. This 

information will serve multiple purposes in the economic impact analysis. EPA will develop 

distributions from this data to support the development of model in-scope projects (e.g., the size and 

frequency of projects in different categories), and it will be used similarly to characterize the kinds of 

projects typically performed by different categories and sizes of in-scope businesses. 

Question 18 is a follow-up question to 17 that focuses specifically on the respondent’s residential 

projects, and instead asks them to report the number of projects in which they completed participation 

by categories describing the number of housing units in the project (as opposed to the project size in 

acres). In addition to supporting the same analysis activities described in 17, this question will also be 

used to support the analysis of affordability affects on single-family housing units. 

Question 19 asks the respondent to report the total number of projects that they completed participation 

in each year from 2005 – 2009 that used LID practices. This information will be used to support 

development of the baseline profile of new and redevelopment activities and the general trend in the 

frequency of LID implementation. 

Question 20 asks for the total value of projects that the respondent participated in (1) where their 

participation ended in each year indicated, and (2) that satisfy the criteria set out in Question 4. The 

respondent may flag this information as CBI. Recognizing that there are many variations in the 

configuration of business entities involved in a given project (e.g., establishment’s may only 

participate in one phase and/or partner with other entities), revenue alone (from Question 12) is not 

sufficient for characterizing the size of projects in which the respondent might engage. For instance, 

due to the presence of phasing and partnership, EPA cannot reasonably determine whether a $1 million 

dollar firm is able to or likely to participate in a $25 million dollar project – unless this is explicitly 

asked about in the questionnaire. This information will therefore be used to further characterize the 

size/type of projects performed by in-scope businesses. 

The remaining questions request detailed technical and financial information about individual projects. 

The respondent is asked to complete one copy of these questions (Part 2) for each project that meets 

question 4 criteria, and that was on-going on a randomly selected date3

 in the 2005-2009 time period. 

Questions 21 through 47 request project specific technical information while questions 48 through 50 

request project specific financial information. 

 

3

 Each questionnaire recipient will be asked to respond for a different randomly selected data. EPA will select the date for 

each recipient prior to questionnaire distribution. 
Part A of the Supporting Statement

Questions 21 – 27 identify the project for which information will be provided including the project 

name and location, NPDES NOI/NOC permit information specific to the project, the respondent’s role 

(e.g., owner for the entire project or just certain phases), and, if non-residential, who ownership was 

transferred to upon project completion. These questions will help EPA identify instances in which 

information may be received for the same project from multiple sources as well as appropriately 

identify the project and match it to the permit. 

Questions 28 and 29 ask for the timing of the project. This information will be used in the economic 

impact analysis to assess the length of time that costs will be incurred. 

Question 30 requests project type and approximate size while Question 31 requests information n the 

number of residential dwellings units, if applicable. EPA will use this question to categorize each type 

of project reported. 

Questions 32 and 33 ask for pre- and post-development land cover areas (for both impervious and 

pervious site components). Questions 34 and 35 ask whether the project site has direct access to a 

water body or a vegetative buffer zone. Question 36 asks whether a soil survey had been conducted at 

the project site and, if yes, then Questions 37 and 38 request information on the soil type and 

distribution of hydrologic soil groups at the project site. This information, along with precipitation data 

from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), will allow EPA to estimate the 

volume of long term stormwater discharges generated as a result of new and redevelopment projects in 

comparison to the volume of long term stormwater discharges that was generated prior to the new or 

redevelopment project. Information on the proximity to water bodies and presence of vegetative buffer 

zones will allow EPA to estimate the pollutant loads discharged to surface waters and the potential 

impacts of the long term stormwater discharges. 

Question 39 asks where the project discharges its stormwater. These questions will help determine 

whether the project site would be subject to a MS4’s stormwater management requirements. 

Question 40 asks for information on the type of long term stormwater performance standards that 

applied to the project (e.g., water quality, flood control) and design criteria for the system of long term 

stormwater controls implemented for the project (e.g., 1-year, 2-year, 5–year or 10–year storm event, 

number of inches of rainfall). This information will be used to identify trends in long term stormwater 

management requirements and practices among sectors of the industry (e.g., residential vs. 

commercial). 

Questions 41 – 45 request information specific to retention practices considered and/or implemented 

for long term stormwater discharge control. They request information on the challenges and policies 

that impacted their use for the project as well as information on alternative land use if stormwater 

controls had not been implemented at the project. The information in this set of questions will be used, 

along with the data collected in the MS4 questionnaire, to evaluate long term stormwater controls by 

characterizing the state of current regulations for development and redevelopment projects, the use of 

retention practices in the industry nationally, and the driving forces and impediments to the use of such 

practices. EPA anticipates it may contact certain respondents for additional follow-up for some of 

these questions. For example, where a respondent responds that they performed a cost comparison 

between traditional stormwater post construction controls (i.e. basins) and stormwater practices that 

26
Part A of the Supporting Statement

retain runoff onsite (i.e. bioretention, rain gardens, etc) for this project, EPA may contact them to 

request the cost comparison. 

Questions 46 and 47 request information on whether certain long term stormwater controls are 

included in the project’s stormwater control system and their associated costs, as applicable. This 

information will help assess the current usage of various long term stormwater controls, evaluate 

potential technology options, and potential costs. EPA anticipates it may contact certain respondents 

to both of these 11 questions for additional information. 

Questions 48 through 50 request project-specific financial information. 

Question 48 asks the respondent to indicate in which phase(s) of the project that they actively 

participated. This information will be used to support development of the model in-scope firms in 

terms of identifying the typical roles performed by different types of establishments in different types 

of projects. Information on percent ownership in the project will be used to further define the typical 

roles of model establishment in projects. 

Question 49 asks the respondent to report the cost of services in the different project phases (land 

acquisition, land development, and construction), for each phase in which they performed activity. 

This information will be used in the economic impact analysis to develop the model projects and 

specifically determine the sequence of costs incurred during the projects. 

Question 50 asks for information to characterize the financial structure and financing terms of each 

phase of the project in which the respondent was an active participant. This information will be used to 

define key model project characteristics such as typical interest rate structures and information on 

equity financing, both of which will be factored into EPA’s economic analysis of industry- and firmlevel impacts. 

SHORT OWNER/DEVELOPER QUESTIONNAIRE

Questions 1-11 cover basic, key operational and financial characteristics of potentially in-scope 

business and the projects they perform. 

Questions 1 and 2 request contact information for the establishment to identify the responding 

establishment and enable follow-up on erroneous/incomplete answers. 

Several questions in the questionnaire will ask the respondent to report financial information for each 

year in which the respondent was in business from 2005 – 2009. Recognizing that some respondents 

may find it less burdensome to report financial information on a fiscal year basis rather than on a 

calendar basis (i.e., if their fiscal year doesn’t begin in January), Question 3 simply asks the respondent 

to indicate their choice for reporting this information. If the respondent selects the fiscal year option, 

then they must check a box to indicate which month begins their fiscal year. EPA will then use this 

information to assign establishment financial information to specific calendar years of business 

activity. 

27
Part A of the Supporting Statement

Question 4 is the primary screener question in the survey instrument. This question will be used to 

determine whether the respondent is required to complete the rest of the questionnaire. The respondent 

will continue with the questionnaire if they have completed one or more phases of at least one project 

during the period 2005 – 2009. In addition, these project(s) must meets four criteria: (1) the project 

was a new or redevelopment project; (2) the establishment was the owner or developer for one or more 

project phases (either as the sole responsible party or as participant in a joint venture or other multiple 

party structure); (3) the project is disturbs one or more acres or resulted in 5,000 or more square feet of 

impervious surface; and, (4) the project was NOT a pipeline or other utility related activity where the 

original land cover was replaced at the end of the project. If the respondent answers No to this 

question, they are finished with the questionnaire. 

Question 5 requests that the respondent indicate the state(s)/territories in which the establishment 

operates. The state in which the establishment is a legal entity may be different than the state or states 

that in which it operates. This information will be used to characterize the distribution of development 

activity and existing stormwater regulations geographically. This information will also support the 

development of model projects and model firms, which will be differentiated by Census region. 

Question 6 asks about whether the establishment is independently owned and operated, or owned by a 

parent firm. Although the questionnaire is targeted to the establishment level, if the establishment is 

owned by a parent firm, it is also important to collect basic revenue information about the parent firm 

in order link establishments to firms in the industry-level economic impact analysis and to understand 

the operating structure of owners and developers. If the respondent indicates that they are owned by a 

parent firm, they are prompted to answer three follow-up questions about the parent firm: 

 If NO to Question 6, then question 7 asks for contact information for the parent firm to identify 

the firm. 

 If NO to Question 6, then question 8 asks for the state in which the firm is organized as a legal 

entity. EPA will use this information to establish which state commerce regulations apply to the firm 

for use in the economic/financial analysis. 

 If NO to Question 6, the question 9 asks for the parent firm’s total revenue for each year from 

2005 through 2009. The respondent may flag this information as CBI. Revenue information will be 

used to define the size of the firm in the economic/financial analysis, and determine if the firm 

qualifies as a small business. 

Question 10 asks if the respondent is a publically traded company. EPA will use this information in the 

industry-level economic/financial analysis to further characterize the baseline financial performance 

and structure of model firms and to estimate certain financial information required in the analysis (for 

example, costs of capital). 

Question 11 requests that the respondent indicate their type of business organization from a menu of 

choices. EPA will use this information to identify the tax status of the business for use in the 

economic/financial analysis and to understand the business operating structure(s) characteristic of the 

industry. 

28
Part A of the Supporting Statement

Question 12 asks the respondent to report the total number of projects that they completed participation 

in each year from 2005 – 2009, by project size and across key development categories. This 

information will serve multiple purposes in the economic impact analysis. EPA will develop 

distributions from this data to support the development of model in-scope projects (e.g., the size and 

frequency of projects in different categories), and it will be used similarly to characterize the kinds of 

projects typically performed by different categories and sizes of in-scope businesses. 

Question 13 is a follow-up question to 12 that focuses specifically on the respondent’s residential 

projects, and instead asks them to report the number of projects in which they completed participation 

by categories describing the number of housing units in the project (as opposed to the project size in 

acres). In addition to supporting the same analysis activities described in Question 12, this question 

will also be used to support the analysis of affordability affects on single-family housing units. 

Question 14 asks the respondent to report the total number of projects that they completed participation 

in each year from 2005 – 2009 that used LID practices. This information will be used to support 

development of the baseline profile of development activities and the general trend in the frequency of 

LID implementation. 

Question 15 asks for the total value of projects that the respondent participated in (1) where their 

participation ended in each year indicated, and (2) that satisfy the criteria set out in Question 4. The 

respondent may flag this information as CBI. Recognizing that there are many variations in the 

configuration of business entities involved in a given project (e.g., establishment’s may only 

participate in one phase and/or partner with other entities), revenue alone is not sufficient for 

characterizing the size of projects in which the respondent might engage. For instance, due to the 

presence of phasing and partnership, EPA cannot reasonably determine whether a $1 million dollar 

firm is able to or likely to participate in a $25 million dollar project – unless this is explicitly asked 

about in the questionnaire. This information will therefore be used to further characterize the size/type 

of projects performed by in-scope businesses. 

Question 16 asks the respondent to complete a table summarizing the projects that they participated for 

a randomly assigned date, during the period 2005 – 2009, and that meet the Question 4 Criteria. The 

table includes key project characteristics including the NOI or NOC permit number, zip code, 

development category, new vs. redevelopment, percent impervious surface area at the site, number of 

buildings, final project value, and an LID indicator. These project characteristics represent the key 

differentiating concepts for model in-scope projects. This information will therefore be integral for 

developing model projects to support the cost and economic impact analysis. 

FEDERALLY REGGULATED MS4 QUESTIONNAIRE

 EPA developed the Federally Regulated MS4 Questionnaire to collect information from local 

and county governments that are currently subject to EPA’s Phase I or Phase II stormwater 

requirements for MS4s. The following provides a detailed description of and justification for each of 

the questions in the survey. 

29
Part A of the Supporting Statement

SECTION A: TECHNICAL INFORMATION 

Question A-1 collects identification information including the name, title, address, phone number and 

email address of the primary contact that completed the questionnaire to verify or clarify the responses 

as necessary. 

Question A-2 collects identification information of the name of the MS4 owner or operator Department 

or Agency. 

Question A-3 collects identification information on the type of the regulated MS4. There different types 

of regulated MS4s including city, town, village, county sewer district. It is important that the type of 

MS4 be identified to understand the information collected from the MS4. 

Question A-4 collects identification information on the type MS4 permit. There are two different types 

of NPDES permits: individual and general permits. In addition, the regulated MS4 may be a small or 

medium/large MS4. It is important that the type of MS4 permit and category of the MS4 be identified to 

understand the information collected from the MS4 in the ICR. 

Question A-5 collects information on the number of MS4 permit cycles completed to determine the 

amount of experience the MS4 has under the stormwater permit program; this information will be used to 

better understand the information collected from the MS4. In addition, this information will be used to 

get a nationwide sampling of the status of MS4 permit renewals (should occur every 5 years). It is 

important to understand the status of permit renewals to know how quickly any new permit requirements 

could be incorporated into the MS4 program. 

Question A-6 collects information on other ways stormwater is conveyed in the jurisdiction, in addition 

to the separate stormwater system (combined sewer or decentralized system). This information will help 

us understand whether the MS4 contains both regulated and unregulated stormwater discharges. This 

information will be used to get a national sampling of how many MS4s manage multiple types of 

stormwater conveyance in order to determine if developing a program that is consistent for multiple 

stormwater programs is appropriate. 

Questions A-7 through A-10 collect information about the extent of MS4 coverage. Under the Phase II 

stormwater regulations, small MS4s located within a Census-defined urbanized area are required to be 

regulated. Some permitting authorities, however, have extended permit coverage beyond the urbanized 

area to cover the entire jurisdiction if only part of an MS4 was located within an urbanized area. Some 

permitting authorities have also permitted based on sewer district or watershed boundaries. This 

information will be used to inform options for redefining MS4 coverage beyond the urbanized area to 

better control stormwater discharges from development occurring outside the urban center. 

Questions A-7 – A-8 collect information about the basis for the MS4 boundary. This data will be used 

to establish a national baseline of the number of MS4 permits that extend beyond the urbanized area. 

This information will also be used to evaluate which MS4 boundaries states have found appropriate 

beyond urbanized area. This information could be used to inform options for redefining MS4 coverage. 

30
Part A of the Supporting Statement

Question A-9 collects information about the population, total area and estimated amount of impervious 

cover of the portion of the jurisdiction that is regulated and that is unregulated. This data will be used 

to establish a baseline of the current scope of coverage. 

Question A-10 collects information about what components of the stormwater program that MS4s may 

be extending to their whole jurisdiction beyond the permitted portion. This information will be used to 

determine which components of the federal stormwater program are extended to areas outside of 

federal required boundaries and to identify which components of the federal stormwater program are 

viewed as most critical to MS4s. This information could be used to inform options for redefining MS4 

coverage and/or stormwater program components. 

Questions A-11 – A-12 collect information about discharges in the MS4 service area which flow to a 

private system or directly to surface waters rather than to the MS4. The data collected includes an 

estimate of how much area of the MS4 does not discharge to the MS4, the population that is not served 

by the MS4 and what type of land uses do not discharge to the MS4. Information is collected about 

whether the MS4 regulates these direct discharges, although they are outside of the current scope of 

federal regulations. This information will be used to establish an estimate of how prevalent these 

discharges are within MS4 physical boundaries and if they are regulated. This information could be 

used to inform regulatory considerations about regulating these direct discharges under the NPDES 

stormwater program in order to reduce their impacts to receiving waterbodies. 

Question A-13 will determine if the MS4 has data to show effectiveness of the components of the 

stormwater program. Currently there are no specific performance standards for the components of the 

stormwater program and there is much discretion left to the permitting authority. Some permits may 

require a measure of effectiveness. This information will be used to determine for which components 

effectiveness data has been collected. EPA may follow up with the MS4 to collect the effectiveness 

data, as applicable, to aid in its evaluation of program component effectiveness in protecting 

waterbodies from stormwater impacts and to inform decisions about expansion of the program to 

additional areas. 

Questions A-14 – A-15 collect information about whether the MS4 collaborates with other agencies to 

carry out parts of the stormwater program and whether or not they have oversight of those activities. 

This information will help determine the how the workload of implementing the stormwater program is 

distributed between different agencies in the municipality. Different types of regulated MS4s (city, 

town, county, or sewer district) may operate differently. It is important to understand who carries out 

these activities in order to inform decisions about redefining the MS4 program. 

Questions A-16 – A-20 collect information about specific activities that the MS4 has implemented in 

order to meet the minimum measure requirements of the stormwater program including public 

education, outreach, illicit discharge detection, pollution prevention, and record keeping. This 

information will help determine how the stormwater program is implemented by the MS4. Information 

about what activities are carried out by the MS4 will be used to supplement the baseline cost estimate 

for each component of the stormwater program. 

Questions A-21- A-22 collect information about the industrial components of the stormwater program. 

This information is important to distinguish the various activities between Phase I and Phase II MS4s. 

31
Part A of the Supporting Statement

Although industrial inspections are not required under the federal Phase II stormwater programs, the 

data will be used to estimate the number of MS4s carrying out these activities. Information is also 

collected to determine the number of industrial facilities located within the MS4 and how many have 

been inspected. This information would be used to determine the current level of oversight of MS4s on 

industrial facilities to have a better understanding of the capacity of small MS4s to carry out this 

component of the stormwater program. 

Questions A-23 – A-24 collect information about the active construction components of the 

stormwater program carried out by MS4s. The data will be used to determine which type of activities 

are carried about by the MS4 regarding construction site oversight. Data will be collected regarding the 

size of the construction site that must be covered by a stormwater permit and how many construction 

sites have occurred in the last five years. This data will be used to estimate the amount of new 

construction occurring within the MS4 and if the MS4 tracks that information. This information would 

be used to inform options for implementation of a specific standard for discharges from newly 

constructed sites. Estimates of how much construction is occurring within the MS4 boundary will 

inform options about implementing the standard through the MS4 program and by other means for 

sites outside the MS4 boundary. 

Questions A-25- A-26 collect information about the post construction components of the stormwater 

program carried out by MS4s. The data will be used to determine which type of activities are carried 

about by the MS4 regarding post construction practices and oversight. Information is specifically 

collected about the size of project for which site plan review for stormwater controls is required. This 

information will be used to estimate how many projects are reviewed for stormwater measures. This 

information would be used to inform options for implementation of a specific post construction 

standard for discharges from newly constructed sites and whether procedures are in place to review site 

plans, in which the standard could be incorporated. 

Questions A-27 – A-34 collect information about the MS4’s level of oversight of post construction 

controls located on public vs. private property. Data will be collected about whether the MS4 tracks, 

inspects or maintains stormwater controls on public vs. private property and the criteria for selecting 

which controls are operated and maintained. EPA will use this information to estimate the extent of 

maintenance of controls located on private property. In addition, data will be collected on which type 

of property owners (private homeowners, homeowner associations, homebuilders, commercial entities, 

private institutions) must maintain its own post construction controls. Information will be collected if 

the MS4 currently has an ordinance or other legal mechanism of operating and maintaining controls on 

private property and if they have the authority to require maintenance in legal ownership documents. 

This information will be used to determine what is the current practice of MS4 regarding oversight of 

post construction controls. This information can give insight into who is currently maintaining and 

overseeing maintenance of post construction controls on private property, and the extent to which 

MS4s currently have mechanisms to perform such activities. Ultimately, this will help inform 

regulatory options for maintenance and operation of post construction stormwater controls on private 

property. 

Questions A35 – A-37 collect information about how the MS4 distinguishes new development and 

redevelopment projects and how the MS4 defines these activities. This information will be used to 

inform options about determining standards for new development and redevelopment. This data will 

32
Part A of the Supporting Statement

provide a national sampling of how MS4s define the two types of development and if MS4s have the 

same or different requirements for them. An estimate of the amount (in acreage) of new development 

and redevelopment that has occurred over the last five years in the MS4 will be gathered. This 

information will be used to determine the potential for increased stormwater impacts due to 

development in the MS4. Particularly, this data will be used to estimate the amount of development 

occurring within the MS4. This information would be used to inform options for implementation of a 

specific standard for discharges from newly constructed sites. Estimates of how much has occurred 

within the MS4 boundary will inform options about implementing the standard through the MS4 

program and by other means for sites outside the MS4 boundary. 

Questions A-38 – A-46 are designed to gather information on post construction control performance 

standards or design criteria currently implemented in the MS4. These questions ask about post 

construction standards for new development and redevelopment in MS4s; specifically, what (if any) 

performance or design standards are required, for what types of development (commercial, industrial, 

residential, institutional), and whether they differ between new and redevelopment. Data is also 

gathered regarding how such standards are implemented (e.g., through the MS4 permit, construction 

permit or another regulation or permit). This information could be used to determine the extent to 

which MS4 currently have post construction standards, how they are currently implemented, and the 

types of standards in place. This information can provide crucial insight into existing requirements and 

will inform regulatory options for standards for long term discharges from new and redevelopment. 

Questions A-47 – A-49 are follow-up questions regarding the MS4’s post construction standard. 

Question 47 collects information about whether or not the post construction standard requires specific 

stormwater controls or practices or requires choosing from a menu of stormwater controls. This 

information will provide more detailed information on the prevalence of specific control requirements, 

if at all, and the types of requirements. 

Question A-48 collects information about how the MS4 enforces their post construction program 

including site inspection, site plan review or self- reporting. This information would be used to inform 

options for implementation of a specific post construction standard for discharges from newly 

constructed sites and whether procedures are in place to enforce such a standard. 

Question A-49 requests information about whether the MS4 has any alternative to compliance with 

their post construction standard, if applicable, such as stormwater mitigation programs or payment in 

lieu to identify which MS4s are currently implementing these practices. This information would be 

used to inform options for implementation of a specific post construction standard for discharges from 

newly constructed sites and how prevalent are mitigation programs for stormwater discharges. 

Questions A-50 – A-56 ask about whether the MS4 has a retrofit program, the components of the 

program, implementation on private property and drivers and incentives of the program. Data will be 

used to determine how prevalent these programs are to establish baseline information and possible 

regulatory options. 

Question A-57 collects information about specific long term stormwater discharge controls and 

practices that exist in the MS4 including both detention and retention practices. This information can 

be used to evaluate how prevalent these practices are, which are most commonly used and where, and 

33
Part A of the Supporting Statement

whether or not the MS4 maintains these various types of controls or practices. EPA is also asking 

whether or not the MS4 has cost or performance data for these controls or practices. In the event that 

the MS4 does have such data, EPA may follow up with the MS4 to collect it. In general, the 

information collected in Question A57 will indicate how prevalent these practices are in various 

geographic areas and tto assess how readily MS4s may be able to implement and maintain such 

practices to comply with any standard to control long term stormwater discharges from developed 

sites. 

Question A-58 asks whether the MS4 has compared the costs of traditional stormwater practices 

against the costs of alternative stormwater practices for any municipal projects. The data will help in 

determining the extent to which such cost comparisons are being conducted on a site-specific basis and 

the possible availability of those comparisons. EPA may follow up with the MS4 to collect more data 

based on the answer of this question. Such data would help inform EPA’s cost estimates. 

Question A-59 collects data about what are the drivers for the implementation of stormwater retention 

practices. This information will identify any programs in addition to stormwater have been successful 

in implementing these practices. EPA will follow up with these MS4 to collect more information and 

lessons learned regarding the most effective way to promote stormwater retention practices. 

Questions A-60 – A-61 ask whether there are any regulatory obstacles or contraindications for the use 

of retention practices or maintenance concerns within a jurisdiction, to establish what factors may 

prevent the implementation of retention practices and how prevalent these barriers are. EPA would use 

this information in its evaluation of controls and practices upon which it may (or may not) base 

standards for long term stormwater discharges from developed sites. 

Question A-62 collects information about groundwater impacts from stormwater discharge, 

specifically if MS4 has excluded area or categories of areas from infiltrating stormwater. The 

information will help determine the prevalence of stormwater infiltration concerns. EPA would use 

this information in its evaluation of controls and practices upon which it may (or may not) base 

standards for long term stormwater discharges from developed sites. 

Question A-63 collects information about stormwater impacts to source water protection areas. The 

information will determine the prevalence of discharges to these areas and if owners or operators of 

MS4s that discharge stormwater to these areas recognize the location of these drinking water 

protection areas. This information will be used to evaluate options for implementing a post 

construction standard for discharges from develop areas which may include options for MS4 to 

identify locations for retention practices. It is important to evaluate the understanding of source water 

protection areas, so that stormwater discharges to these areas can be minimized. 

Questions A-64 - A-68 identify any incentives that may be implemented in the MS4 to encourage 

retention practices for new development, redevelopment, and retrofitting. These data will help in 

analyzing which (if any) incentives have been effective for encouraging stormwater retention practices 

and provide baseline information about which incentives are most common. This information will be 

used to evaluate options for implementing a post construction standard for discharges from developed 

areas which could be met by the use of stormwater retention practices. It is important to evaluate in 

what circumstances, use these practices has been successful. 

34
Part A of the Supporting Statement

Questions A-69 - A-72 request estimates about whether a MS4’s capacity may be exceeded during the 

year and cause problematic flooding and how often it typically occurs. These data will help determine 

whether use of green infrastructure and other alternate stormflow management methods may help avert 

the need for upgrades to ‘typical’ stormwater control measures, thus potentially saving costs and 

resources in some areas. 

Questions A-73 - A-79 refer to monitoring practices within MS4s and the results of that monitoring (if 

applicable). This data can be used to help verify cause-and-effect between certain stormwater practices 

and their effects on water quality. This data can also be used to distinguish the type and scope of 

monitoring carried out by Phase I and II MS4s. Although, there are more federal monitoring 

requirements for Phase I MS4s, many Phase II are doing monitoring. This information will be used to 

evaluate options for implementing a single set of requirements for both Phase I and II MS4s. 

EPA developed the MS4 Questionnaire to collect information from local and county governments that 

are currently subject to EPA’s Phase I or Phase II stormwater requirements for MS4s. The following 

provides a detailed description of and justification for each of the questions in the survey. 

SECTION B: FINANCIAL INFORMATION 

Question B-1 requests information about the MS4’s total operating and stormwater related budget for 

five fiscal years (2005-2009). This question will provide data on the cost of undertaking activities that 

were specified by the MS4 in Section A (e.g., permitting, inspecting, operations & management, etc.). 

Requesting both total operating budget and stormwater related budget will help in assessing the burden 

of stormwater management relative to other costs. These values will provide the baseline costs for the 

MS4. 

Question B-2 requests the starting month of the fiscal year. This allows for a comparison of budgets 

across MS4s. 

Question B-3 asks the MS4 to provide the percent of the stormwater related budget that was spent on 

specific activities. Using this information in combination with Question B-1 and questions in Section 

A will provide a range of the costs for specific activities conducted by MS4s. This information can be 

used in establishing baseline costs and provide a basis from which to project potential additional costs 

for specific activities/portions of the stormwater budget due to requirements in the possible new 

regulations. 

Question B-4 requests information on the sources of funding for operations and maintenance activities. 

This information will be used to help establish baseline financial and operating structure of MS4s, and 

characterize likely revenue sources for costs that may be incurred due to the regulation. 

Question B-5 requests information on the sources of funding for capital improvement activities. This 

information will be used to help establish baseline financial and operating structure of MS4s, and 

characterize likely revenue sources for costs that may be incurred due to the regulation. 

35
Part A of the Supporting Statement

Question B-6 request information on source of capital debt financing. This data will inform the 

baseline costs associated with outstanding debt and the cost of additional finances which may be 

needed to meet new regulatory requirements. 

Question B-7 and B-8 request information about the average number of full and part time employees 

devoted to stormwater related activities in the past five years. This data will inform estimates of the 

number of employees required to conduct the activities specified in previous questions. Any additional 

activities that may be required as a result of the new regulation, the number of employees necessary to 

perform those activities and the associated costs can then be estimated. 

Question B-9 asks whether the MS4 has the authority to charge and/or increase stormwater fees. This 

question will provide information on the MS4’s ability to raise revenues for supporting new activities 

that may be required to comply with new regulations. 

Question B-10 asks whether the MS4 charges a one-time development fee for new stormwater permit 

applications. This will determine whether this type of fee is already being used as a source of revenue 

or whether it is a potential source of revenue to meet new regulatory requirements. 

Questions B-11 through B-13 request information on the amount and basis for the onetime 

development fees imposed by the MS4 (e.g., based on project value, impervious area, etc.). This will 

provide information on the potential for additional revenues available by raising fees and/or 

reformulating fee structures to more closely reflect the amount of stormwater generated from 

properties and cost associated with its management, especially one-time capital costs for expanded 

system capacity to 

accommodate new development. Since this rate structure may be significantly different for singlefamily, multi-family, and non-residential projects, it is important to request this information for each 

type of development. 

Question B-14 asks what percent of the costs incurred by the MS4 related to new development are 

actually covered by the one-time fees. This information will be relevant to determine the financial 

solvency of current activities and in determining the ability of the MS4 to be able to manage additional 

regulatory requirements. In addition, if new regulations require on-site retention practices for new 

development, the burden on MS4 to provide additional capacity in their system may be reduced. The 

significance of this effect may be determined relative to the current expense of such capital 

expenditures. 

Question B-15 asks whether the MS4 charges recurring stormwater fees to property owners. This will 

determine whether this type of fee is already being used as a source of revenue or whether it is a 

potential source of revenue to meet new regulatory requirements. 

Questions B-16 through B-18 request information on the amount and basis for the recurring 

stormwater fees imposed by the MS4 (e.g., based on project value, impervious area, etc.). This will 

provide information on the potential for additional revenues available by raising fees and/or 

reformulating fee structures to more closely reflect the amount of stormwater generated from 

properties and cost associated with its management. Since this rate structure may be significantly 

different for single-family, 

36
Part A of the Supporting Statement

multi-family, and non-residential projects, it is important to request this information for each type of 

development. 

 

Question B-19 asks what percent of the costs incurred by the MS4 related to operations and 

maintenance of stormwater infrastructure are actually covered by the recurring fees. This information 

will be relevant to determine the financial solvency of current activities and in determining the ability 

of the MS4 to be able to manage additional regulatory requirements. In addition, if new regulations 

require on-site retention practices for new development and/or redevelopment, the quantity of flow that 

the MS4 must manage may not increase and/or be reduced. The significance of this effect may be 

determined relative 

to the current expense of such operations and maintenance expenditures. 

Question B-20 and B-21 request information about the amount of money spent on system capacity 

expansion projects in the years 2005 through 2009 and the amount of the system addressed by these 

activities. This data will provide information on the cost of capacity expansion and inform potential 

avoided costs calculations for future system expansion if on-site retention practices are required by the 

new regulation. 

Question B-22 and B-23 request information about the amount of money spent on stormwater retrofit 

projects in the years 2005 through 2009 and number of projects completed with these funds. 

Information from these questions will provide data on the cost of retrofit activities and provide 

evidence for the cost of mitigating stormwater discharges from the existing built environment from the 

aggregate effects of unregulated and/or under-regulated development. This data may also inform 

avoided cost calculations for MS4s if retrofit practices are required by the new regulation and MS4s do 

not have implement and fund such projects. 

Questions B-25 through B-27 request information about the amount of money spent on stream 

restoration projects in the years 2005 through 2009, the number of miles restored and purpose of these 

projects. Information from these questions will provide data on the cost of restoration of urban streams 

and the characteristics and/or functions of the stream that the activities targeted restoring. These data 

will demonstrate the value of urban streams and their associated services and functions. 

Question B-28 provides space for additional comments to be provided by the MS4. 

NON-FEDERALLY REGULATED MS4 QUESTIONNAIRE 

 EPA developed a shorter version of the MS4 Questionnaire to obtain data from MS4s (e.g., 

counties and localities) that are likely not currently subject to EPA’s Phase I or Phase II stormwater 

management requirements. EPA needs to collect minimal information to estimate the impact of any 

options that may expand the MS4 program requirements to additional MS4s. With few exceptions, the 

questions posed are a subset of those posed in the previously described MS4 Questionnaire. 

Question A-1 collects identification information including the name, title, address, phone number and 

email address of the primary contact that completed the questionnaire to verify or clarify the responses 

as necessary. 

37
Part A of the Supporting Statement

Question A-2 collects identification information of the name of the MS4 owner or operator Department 

or Agency. 

Question A-3 collects identification information on the type of the MS4. There different types of MS4s 

including city, town, village, county sewer district. It is important that the type of MS4 be identified to 

understand the information collected from the MS4. 

Question A-4 collects information about the population, total area and estimated amount of impervious 

cover of the jurisdiction. This information will be used to inform options for redefining regulated MS4 

coverage. Currently regulated MS4 coverage is based on population density criteria, however, a new 

criterion based on a lower population density threshold or impervious could be developed. The survey 

will provide an estimate of these parameters coupled with information about the MS4’s existing 

stormwater program. 

Question A-5 collects information on other ways stormwater is conveyed in the jurisdiction, in addition 

to the separate stormwater system (combined sewer or decentralized system). This information will help 

us understand whether the MS4 contains both regulated (combined system) and unregulated stormwater 

discharges (separate sewer and/or decentralized). This information will be used to get a baseline of how 

stormwater is managed in the unregulated MS4. 

Question A-6 collects information about whether the MS4 has an ordinance or regulatory mechanism to 

manage stormwater. This information will be used to establish a baseline of the existing authority of 

unregulated MS4s. This information will be used to inform options for redefining MS4 regulatory 

coverage. If the unregulated MS4s currently have these authorities in place, the burden of 

implementing the stormwater program in these MS4s could be reduced. 

Question A-7 collects information about whether or not the MS4 reviews site plans for construction 

projects for stormwater controls. This information will be used to establish a baseline of the existing 

oversight practices of unregulated MS4s to review development plans for stormwater controls. This 

information will be used to inform options for redefining MS4 regulatory coverage. If the unregulated 

MS4s currently have these review practices in place, the burden of implementing the stormwater 

program in these MS4s could be reduced. 

Question A-8 asks if the MS4 has a stormwater management program. If the respondent answers no, 

then they have completed the survey. Respondents that answer yes are required to answer the 

remaining questions which provide EPA with some detail on the components of the MS4’s stormwater 

program. This information will be used to establish a baseline of the existing stormwater programs of 

unregulated MS4s. This information will be used to inform options for redefining MS4 regulatory 

coverage. If the unregulated MS4s currently have stormwater programs in place, the burden of 

implementing the stormwater program in these MS4s could be reduced. 

Question A-9 asks how many years the MS4 has had a stormwater management program in place. 

This information will be used to establish a baseline of the experience level for implementing stormwater 

programs at unregulated MS4s. This information will be used to inform options for redefining MS4 

regulatory coverage. If the unregulated MS4s currently have some level of experience implementing a 

38
Part A of the Supporting Statement

stormwater programs, the burden of implementing the stormwater program in these MS4s could be 

reduced. 

Questions A-10 – A-17 collect information about specific activities that currently regulated MS4s must 

implement in order to meet certain of the minimum measure requirements of the stormwater program 

including public education, outreach, illicit discharge detection, pollution prevention, and an active and 

post construction program for addressing stormwater discharges. This information will help determine 

if the MS4 includes these activities as part of their existing stormwater management program. 

Information about what activities are carried out by non- federally regulated MS4s will be used to 

supplement the baseline cost estimate for extending existing requirements to additional MS4s. 

Specifically, question A-14 collects data regarding the number of the active construction site starts that 

has occurred in the last five years. This data will be used to estimate the amount of new and 

redevelopment projects occurring within the MS4 and if the MS4 tracks that information. This 

information would be used to inform options for implementation of a specific standard for discharges 

from newly and redeveloped sites. Estimates of how much development is occurring within the MS4 

boundary will inform options about implementing the standard through the MS4 program and by other 

means for sites outside the MS4 boundary. 

Question A-18 collects information about specific long term stormwater discharge controls and 

practices that exist in the MS4 including both detention and retention practices. This information can 

be used to evaluate how prevalent these practices are, which are most commonly used and where, and 

whether or not the MS4 maintains these various types of controls or practices. EPA is also asking 

whether or not the MS4 has cost or performance data for these controls or practices. In the event that 

the MS4 does have such data, EPA may follow up with the MS4 to collect it. In general, the 

information collected in Question A-18 will indicate how prevalent these practices are in various 

geographic areas and to assess how readily MS4s may be able to implement and maintain such 

practices to comply with any standard to control long term stormwater discharges from developed 

sites. 

Question B-1 requests information about the MS4’s total operating and stormwater related budget for 

five fiscal years (2005-2009). This question will provide data on the cost of undertaking activities that 

were specified by the MS4 in Section A (e.g., permitting, inspecting, operations & management, etc.). 

Requesting both total operating budget and stormwater related budget will help in assessing the burden 

of stormwater management relative to other costs. These values will provide the baseline costs for the 

MS4. 

Question B-2 requests the starting month of the fiscal year. This allows for a comparison of budgets 

across MS4s. 

Question B-3 asks the MS4 to provide the percent of the stormwater related budget that was spent on 

specific activities. Using this information in combination with Question B-1 and questions in Section 

A will provide a range of the costs for specific stormwater management program activities conducted 

by MS4s. This information can be used in establishing baseline costs and provide a basis from which 

to project potential additional costs for specific activities/portions of the stormwater budget due to 

possible requirements in the new regulations. 

39
Part A of the Supporting Statement

Question B-4 requests information on the sources of funding for operations and maintenance activities. 

This information will be used to help establish baseline financial and operating structure of MS4s, and 

characterize likely revenue sources for costs that may be incurred due to the regulation. 

Question B-5 requests information on the sources of funding for capital improvement activities. This 

information will be used to help establish baseline financial and operating structure of MS4s, and 

characterize likely revenue sources for costs that may be incurred due to the regulation. 

Question B-6 request information on source of capital debt financing. This data will inform the 

baseline costs associated with outstanding debt and the cost of additional finances which may be 

needed to meet new regulatory requirements. 

TRANSPORTATION MS4 QUESTIONNAIRE

 EPA developed the Transportation MS4 Questionnaire for state and county DOTs that are 

currently subject to EPA’s Phase I or Phase II stormwater requirements. In general, much of the 

information requested in the Transportation Questionnaire is the same as that requested in the MS4 

Questionnaire for MS4s currently subject to EPA’s Phase I and Phase II stormwater requirements 

(Federally Regulated MS4 Questionnaire). However, EPA developed this separate questionnaire for 

DOTs partly in response to public comment and also to tailor the questions more appropriately to DOT 

related activities. The following section provides detailed information and justification for each 

question. Where a question and justification are the same as one in the MS4 Questionnaire detailed 

above, EPA has not repeated that justification, but refers to the previous discussion. 

Question A-1 collects identification information including the name, title, address, phone number and 

email address of the primary contact that completed the questionnaire to verify or clarify the responses 

as necessary. 

Question A-2 collects identification information of the name of the DOT. 

Question A-3 collects identification information on the type of the regulated DOT. There different types 

of regulated DOTs including state, county, or local DOT. It is important that the type of DOT be 

identified to understand the information collected from the DOT. 

Question A-4 requests information on the DOT’s hierarchy in regards to stormwater management. 

This question will provide information on how transportation entities are currently organized with 

respect to stormwater management. This information will allow EPA to more appropriately tailor 

regulatory text to address differing situations, as appropriate, in order to ensure continuity in the 

application of the regulations. For example, if most of the respondents delegate stormwater 

requirements down to the district level, then communication between the districts and the DOT 

headquarters is key to ensuring that the stormwater requirements are met. The current stormwater 

regulations do not specifically take this into consideration. In this case, EPA may want to consider 

tailoring any DOT education/outreach requirements to include a specific staff training component. 

40
Part A of the Supporting Statement

Question A-5 collects information on the number of MS4 permit cycles completed to determine the 

amount of experience the DOT has under the stormwater permit program; this information will be used 

to better understand the information collected from the DOT. In addition, this information will be used to 

get a nationwide status of MS4 DOT permit renewals (should occur every 5 years). It is important to 

understand the status of permit renewals to know how quickly any new permit requirements could be 

incorporated into the MS4 program. 

Question A-6 collects information on other ways stormwater is conveyed in the jurisdiction, in addition 

to the separate stormwater system (combined sewer or decentralized system). This information will help 

us understand whether the DOT receives both regulated and unregulated stormwater discharges. This 

information will be used to characterize stormwater conveyance in the DOTs in order to determine if 

developing a program that is consistent for multiple stormwater programs is appropriate. 

Questions A-7 – A-9: See MS4 Questionnaire justifications. 

Question A-10 asks if they have a GIS map showing the area covered by their permit. EPA will use 

this data along with data provided in the Long MS4 Questionnaire to estimate the total area that is 

currently subject to Phase I or Phase II municipal stormwater regulations. By doing so, EPA will have 

a baseline with which to compare any potential changes in regulatory coverage. 

Questions A11-A12: See MS4 Questionnaire justifications. 

Question A-13 asks if the respondent allows other entities to construct in its right of way (area under 

its control) to which it would apply the components of the stormwater program? This question will 

help EPA determine how frequently this situation occurs and if the respondent applies the stormwater 

program to these areas. The current Phase I stormwater regulations require an industrial component 

for medium/large MS4s. The responses received would help indicate if this industrial component is 

necessary (if they allow other entities to construct in their rights of way) or unnecessary for DOTs (if 

they do not allow other entities to construct in the rights of way). Another option would be that if the 

industrial component is necessary, then perhaps the requirements should be better tailored to account 

for DOT activities. 

Questions A14-A21: See MS4 Questionnaire justifications. 

Question A-22 asks if the respondent uses contractors or another government entity to complete parts 

of its stormwater program. This question will provide a baseline to indicate who is actually performing 

the activities specified and is a lead in to Question A-23. EPA believes that almost all respondents will 

use contractors for some aspect of their program, but would like to assess to extent to which this 

happens. If contractors or others are responsible for the actions specified relating to stormwater 

controls then the stormwater requirements would need to be related to those entities. This is another 

area in the stormwater program where transportation departments may be different from traditional 

municipalities. 

Question A-23 requests information on whether or not the respondent includes stormwater 

requirements in its contractual agreements, as applicable. EPA included this question to inform 

41
Part A of the Supporting Statement

whether or not specific requirements should be added to the regulations to ensure that contractors are 

aware of and meet the DOT’s stormwater requirements. 

Question A-24 asks the respondent to indicate what other mechanisms (as opposed to ordinances) it 

uses use to implement its stormwater program (such as internal policies and cooperative agreements. 

The results of this question will provide information on how transportation entities have ensured their 

programs are implemented and enforced since DOTs do not have the authority to create, implement, 

and enforce ordinances like traditional MS4s. The regulations may be further refined for transportation 

entities so that they have separate requirements that take into consideration these other mechanisms 

rather than continuing to categorize the DOTs with municipalities.

Question A-25 asks “When planning, developing, and designing transportation projects, when is 

stormwater management first considered?” Understanding when stormwater is first considered in 

transportation planning is pivotal since it will give EPA a baseline for current actions. Depending on 

the responses, the stormwater regulations may need to be revised to ensure that stormwater is 

considered in the early planning phases to meet water quality objectives. 

Questions A-26 - A-29: See MS4 Questionnaire justifications. 

Question A-30 asks about major roadway projects that are either under construction or in the process 

of being funded which have the potential to open rural portions of their state to suburban or urban 

development over the next three decades. For projects that meet these criteria, this question then asks 

for some project specific information (i.e. project type, anticipated completion date and web address 

for additional information, if applicable). This information, in addition to information requested in the 

other questionnaires, will enable EPA to predict where future development will occur. The location of 

new residential developments is largely driven by ease of access to regional job centers. New roadways 

and expansions of existing roadways often result in greater access to job centers from rural areas, 

thereby making these areas more attractive for future development. State departments of transportation 

are in a unique position to provide information on roadway projects that have the potential to open 

rural portions of the state to future urban/suburban growth. 

Questions A-31: See MS4 Questionnaire justifications. 

Question A-32 asks who reviews the DOT’s site plans with respect to stormwater control structures. 

Traditional municipalities usually have their site plan reviews completed by the State and perform site 

plan reviews of construction activities within their jurisdiction. Transportation entities, particularly 

roads controlled/owned by State departments of transportation cross many boundaries and likely do not 

typically oversee other entities’ activities other than their own. This question will allow provide EPA 

with a baseline for the current practice to determine who currently performs these activities and if DOT 

site plans are treated any differently than traditional MS4 reviews. 

Questions A-33: See MS4 Questionnaire justifications. 

Question A-34 asks the respondent if they have stormwater controls located on privately-owned 

properties. The responses to this question will enable EPA to determine if transportation entities must 

own all the land on which they build or if they have easements or other agreements that enable them to 

42
Part A of the Supporting Statement

construct on privately owned property. EPA believes that state and county departments of 

transportation need to acquire the land prior to construction, but is not sure about some of the other 

respondents. How will we use this information? 

Questions A-35 – A-53: See MS4 Questionnaire justifications. 

Question A-54 requests information on how stormwater controls are approved for use on their projects. 

The answers will tell EPA if respondents have a formal process for approving stormwater controls for 

use on their project sites and if they are then included in the manuals. This will help EPA figure out 

how stormwater controls, including green infrastructure practices, may be incorporated into existing 

programs. Sometimes States have design manuals, but they are not specific for transportation sites. 

EPA is interested in finding out how transportation-related entities determine which stormwater 

controls are appropriate for the transportation environment. 

Questions A-55 – A-82: See MS4 Questionnaire justifications. 

Questions B-1 – B-28: See MS4 Questionnaire justifications. 

Question C-1: See MS4 Questionnaire justifications. 

NPDES PERMITTING AUTHORITY QUESTIONNAIRE

 EPA developed the NPDES Permitting Authority Questionnaire for NPDES permitting 

authorities. Currently, all states with the exception of Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Mexico, 

Idaho and the District of Columbia are NPDES permitting authorities. In these states and some U.S 

territories, EPA is the permitting authority. The following section provides detailed information and 

justification for each question. 

SECTION A: GENERAL INFORMATION 

Questions A-1 – A-2 collects identification information including the name, title, address, and phone 

number of the primary contact at the state to verify or clarify the responses as necessary and to identify 

the state stormwater program department or agency. 

Questions A-3 to A-6 request that the state provide their expenditure on their stormwater program over 

the last five years and to estimate their FY2010 stormwater budget. The state is requested to itemize 

how it divides the stormwater budget in both dollars and full time equivalents (FTEs) between the 

major activities of its program (permitting, inspections, etc). EPA would use this information for 

economic/financial analysis to characterize the state’s baseline financial operations, including, in 

particular, how those funds are distributed to different stormwater tasks. 

Question A-7 requests the state to identify if it contributes to the stormwater budget of MS4s. EPA 

would use this information for economic/financial analysis for both the State and MS4s. 

43
Part A of the Supporting Statement

Question A-8 gives the state the opportunity to provide any further information on its stormwater 

budget. 

SECTION B: MUNICIPAL STORMWATER PROGRAM INFORMATION 

Questions B-1 to B-5 request information on the scope of the municipal stormwater program, including 

the number of Phase I and Phase II MS4s permits and permittees and the type of permittees (cities, 

counties, DOTs, etc). These questions will be used to provide EPA with an updated characterization of 

each state’s municipal stormwater program. 

Questions B-6 – B-15 collects information about the extent of MS4 coverage. Under the Phase II 

stormwater regulations, small MS4s located within a Census-defined urbanized area are required to be 

regulated. Some permitting authorities, however, have extended permit coverage beyond the urbanized 

area to cover the entire jurisdiction if only part of an MS4 was located within an urbanized area. Some 

permitting authorities have also permitted based on sewer district or watershed boundaries. Questions 

B-6 – B-7 collect information about whether the state’s Phase II permit coverage is based the 

urbanized area or another boundary. Question B-8 asks whether the state has mapped its MS4 

coverage. Questions B-9 – B-10 will collect information about what designation criteria the state uses 

for regulating small MS4s outside of the urbanized area and if it has used this federal authority. 

Question B-11 will collect information about whether the state has used its residual designation 

authority to federally regulate discharges based on water quality impacts. Question B-12 will collect 

information about whether the state has used state authority to regulate stormwater discharges that are 

not currently subject to federal regulations. Questions B-13 – B-15 collects information about what 

states has issued permits based on watershed boundaries. This information will determine the current 

scope of MS4 coverage and will collect information about the criteria and unique permitting schemes 

used by the states for regulating stormwater impacts. This information will be used to inform options 

for redefining the MS4 program. 

Question B-16 requests information about whether or not the state requires the Phase I MS4 to 

implement the six minimum measures as described in the Phase II regulations. Questions B-17 – B18 

requests information about whether or not the state requires Phase II MS4s to implement an industrial 

program and monitoring program similar to that required for Phase I MS4s. EPA will use this 

information to determine how widely Phase I and Phase II regulations have been implemented for all 

MS4s. This data will inform considerations regarding establishing a single set of requirements for all 

MS4s. 

Questions B-19 – B-22 collects information about what the states require in annual reports and if those 

reports are collected electronically and if they analyze the data in annual reports. This information will 

be used to evaluate the availability of the data in annual reports and determine the capacity of the states 

for electronic reporting. EPA may follow up with the states that have analyzed their annual reports to 

collect additional data about the effectiveness of the components of the stormwater program. 

Question B-23 collects information whether the state requires MS4s to review their ordinances. This 

information will be used to identify whether the procedure exists in permits for MS4 to review 

ordinances where regulatory obstacles may exist that could inhibit the use of stormwater retention 

44
Part A of the Supporting Statement

practices within a jurisdiction. This information will be used to inform options for creation of a 

standard for discharges for development. 

Questions B-24 – B-25 asks the states if they have data to show effectiveness of the components of the 

stormwater program. Currently there are no specific performance standards for the components of the 

stormwater program and there is much discretion left to the permitting authority. Some permits may 

require a measure of effectiveness. This data will be used to determine for which parts of the program 

effectiveness data base been collected. EPA may follow up with the states to collect more data based 

on the answer of this question to determine which parts of the program has been most effective in 

protecting waterbodies from stormwater impacts and inform decisions about expansion of the program 

to additional areas. 

Questions B26 – B27 ask about whether the state requires stormwater retrofits in the MS4 program 

and, if so, requests that the state describe their program. Data will be used to determine the prevalence 

of these programs to establish baseline information. EPA may follow up with the states to collect more 

data based on the answer of this question. 

Questions B-28 – B-32 refer to any monitoring activities that state may require of MS4 and if any 

monitoring results are available. This data can be used to help verify cause-and-effect between certain 

practices and their effects on water quality. This data can also be used to distinguish the type and scope 

of monitoring carried out by Phase I and II MS4s. EPA may follow up with the states to collect more 

data based on the answer of this question. 

SECTION C: CONSTRUCTION STORMWATER PROGRAM INFORMATION 

Questions C-1 and C-2 request information on the size criteria for obtaining a state construction permit 

for stormwater and the number of permittees in the state’s program for the last five years. This 

information will be used to estimate how much construction is occurring in the state. This information 

will be used to inform options for creation of a standard for stormwater discharges from development 

that results from the construction activity. Questions C-3 to C-5 request information about how many 

states have set numeric limits or benchmarks in their construction general stormwater permit and if 

their permits require specific stormwater practices. These questions will be used to provide EPA with 

an updated characterization of each state’s construction stormwater program. 

Question C-6 gives the state the opportunity to provide any further information about its construction 

stormwater regulations and/or permits. 

SECTION D: STANDARDS FOR STORMWATER DISCHARGES FROM NEW 

DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT & IMPLEMENTATION OF STORMWATER 

RETENTION PRACTICES 

Section D collects information about definitions of new and redevelopment and use of stormwater 

retention practices to control discharges from development. Question D-1 asks how the state 

distinguishes between new development and redevelopment and which activities fall into each 

category. This information will be used to determine the similarities and differences in how states 

distinguish between new and redevelopment if standards were developed the control discharges from 

these developments. Question D-2 asks if the state has a planning process, program or other 

45
Part A of the Supporting Statement

mechanism that projects how much and where new development will occur. This information will help 

determine the scope of discharges from development that could be included in the new regulation. 

Question D-3 asks if the state has estimates of impervious cover. Research has shown that direct links 

can be made between receiving waterbody impacts and discharges from impervious cover. If new 

regulation was based on impervious cover, data could be collected on whether or not the states have 

regional estimates of impervious cover. 

Questions D-4 – D-11 are designed to gather information on performance standards or design criteria 

for discharges from new or redevelopment currently enacted by the state. These questions ask 

specifically, what (if any) performance or design standards are required, for what types of development 

(commercial, industrial, residential, institutional), and whether they differ between new development 

and redevelopment. Data is also gathered regarding if those standards are implemented through the 

MS4 permit, construction permit or another regulation or permit. This information could be used to 

determine how many states currently have post construction standards and which approaches have 

been successful. This information can provide crucial insight into the relative burden that might be 

placed upon states for implements such a standard. The burden of setting a new post construction 

standard could be less for states which have experience with such standards. 

Question D-12 collects information about if the states have any role implementing or enforcing their 

post construction standard including site inspection, site plan review or self-reporting. 

Questions D-13 – D-15 request information about whether the state offers or prohibits any alternative 

to compliance with their post construction standard, if applicable, such as stormwater mitigation 

programs or payment in lieu to identify which states are currently implementing these practices. 

Questions D-16 – D-17 request information about whether the state has a stormwater manual that 

addresses requirements for new and redevelopment and whether that manual includes specifications for 

retention practices. This information will be used to determine how many states have set consistent 

standards and specifications for retention practices statewide. 

Questions D-18- D-19 collects data about what are the drivers and incentives for the implementation of 

stormwater retention practices. This information will identify any programs in addition to the 

stormwater program have been successful in implementing these practices which have benefits to 

reducing stormwater impacts. 

Question D-20 asks if there are any water rights regulations in the state than may prevent the use of 

retention practices within the state. 

Questions D-21 – D-24 asks whether there are any regulatory obstacles, maintenance concerns or other 

concerns that could prevent the use of retention practices within a jurisdiction. Information is also 

collected about whether the state requires stormwater controls on private property. Information is also 

collected about whether the state allows third parties to be responsible for maintenance of controls. 

Information is collected about whether the state has excluded areas or categories from stormwater 

infiltration due to groundwater concerns. This information will help to establish what factors may 

prevent the implementation of retention practices and the prevalence of these barriers. 

46
Part A of the Supporting Statement

47

SECTION E: INDUSTRIAL STORMWATER PROGRAM INFORMATION 

Questions E-1 and E-2 request information the number of permittees in the state’s industrial 

stormwater program and how many of those facilities are located within MS4 boundaries. These 

questions will be used to provide EPA with an updated characterization of each state’s industrial 

stormwater program and provide data about the feasibility of small MS4 inspecting industrial facilities. 

Questions E-3 and E-4 request information about how many states have set numeric limits or 

benchmarks for industrial facilities. This data will provide baseline information regarding the level of 

oversight required by states and MS4 on industrial facilities. 

Question E-5 gives the state the opportunity to provide any further information about its industrial 

stormwater regulations and/or permits. 

ii. Respondent Activities 

All questionnaire respondents must read the transmittal letter with attachments citing authority 

of section 308 or of the Clean Water Act4

, and confidentiality and handling instructions of any 

responses asserting a CBI claim, as applicable. Respondents will also need to read the Introduction, 

General Instructions, Glossary of Terms, and Certification Statement sections in the beginning of the 

questionnaire. The Introduction section provides the purpose and use of the questionnaire, 

questionnaire outline, e-mail/help line information, and information on how to return the completed 

questionnaire. The General Instructions section will give the respondent guidance on completing the 

responses and including attachments, if needed. The Glossary of Terms provides respondents with all 

pertinent definitions and acronyms to understand and complete the questionnaire sections. 

Each respondent will need to read and understand the questionnaire, plan response activities, 

gather information, compile and review information, and complete the questionnaire form. The 

respondent would also be required to maintain a copy and retain the completed questionnaire form for 

up to one year, in the event that EPA has to contact the respondent for clarification of any response. 

(a) Owner/Developer Questionnaires 

The first part of the questionnaires requires the respondent to determine whether they are within 

the scope of the information collection. If yes, then the remainder of the questionnaire requires the 

respondent to report establishment and/or firm-level financial data, and project-level technical and 

financial data, as appropriate. Establishment-level financial data should be available from the 

Establishment’s balance sheet, income statement, and cash flow statement and for respondents with 

Firm-level ownership, from the Firm’s balance sheet, income statement, and cash flow statement. 

(b) MS4 and Transportation Questionnaire 

Respondents to the MS4 or Transportation Questionnaire will be required to report on their 

stormwater program, stormwater related requirements, ordinances, and practices applicable to their 

jurisdiction and to provide annual operating budget and permit fee information. 

 

4

 The Authority for the NPDES Authority Questionnaire is sections 304(i) and 402(c) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. Sections 

1314(i) and 1342(c). 
Part A of the Supporting Statement

(c) NPDES Permitting Authority Questionnaire 

Respondents to the NPDES Permitting Authority Questionnaire will be required to report on 

state stormwater related requirements, permitting activities, inspection and enforcement actions, and to 

provide annual operating budget information. 

5. The Information Collected: Agency/Contractor Activities, Collection Methodology, and 

Information

a. Agency/Contractor Activities 

The Agency and/or its support contractors will conduct the following activities to administer 

the questionnaires: 

 Development of the questionnaires; 

 Development of the sample frames; 

 Development of a sample designs; 

 Development of Federal Register Notices (FRNs); 

 Consultation with respondent trade associations, industry representatives, MS4s, states, 

environmental groups, and other stakeholders on the questionnaires; 

 Review of questionnaire comments provided by the public commenters, EPA work 

group, and OMB; 

 Development of the ICR; 

 Performing the sample draws; 

 Development of a mailing list database and mailing labels; 

 Development of a tracking system for questionnaire mail out/e-mail sending, receipt, 

and return activities; 

 Questionnaire distribution; 

 Development and maintenance of a web-site and help line support option for 

respondents who require assistance in completing their questionnaire, which may 

include responding to questions via e-mail or call backs and documentation of the 

contacts; 

 Development of the databases for questionnaire responses; 

 Receipt and review of questionnaire responses; 

 Data entry and verification or file uploading for the questionnaire responses; 

 Summarization and analysis of questionnaire responses for a profile of affected entities; 

and 

 Performance of statistical summaries and technical and economic analyses. 

EPA will ultimately use the questionnaire results to inform EPA’s stormwater management rulemaking 

under Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 402(p). 

b. Collection Methodology and Management 

Each selected questionnaire recipient will receive a paper copy, an electronic PDF version, or a 

letter with a link to the questionnaire for completion on line. EPA will deliver questionnaires or web 

link information via Federal Express or similar delivery service to each recipient to ensure that a point 

48
Part A of the Supporting Statement

of contact receives and signs for it. Each respondent will be allowed 60 calendar days from the time of 

receipt to return the completed questionnaire (or to complete their response via the web) for all 

portions of the questionnaires. 

EPA will provide an e-mail address to so that respondents can request assistance in completing 

the questionnaires. Responses to questions will be documented and, as requested by a respondent, EPA 

or its representatives will provide assistance by phone. 

Each questionnaire respondent will be assigned a unique identification number for ease of 

tracking. The identification number will be used to track the mailing date of the questionnaire or, 

questionnaire receipt date by the respondent, follow-up correspondence and telephone calls, and EPA’s 

receipt of the completed questionnaires. The identification number will also be used as a respondent 

code for file upload in the questionnaire databases. 

Upon receipt of completed questionnaires, EPA and its contractors will review the 

questionnaire responses for completeness and CBI claims. All questionnaires will also be reviewed for 

consistency and reasonableness and follow up calls will be conducted as needed to clarify 

inconsistencies found in the responses. Reviewed questionnaire files will then be uploaded into 

questionnaire databases. The databases developed using the questionnaire responses will be used by 

EPA to perform data analysis for the purpose of developing discharge standards. 

c. Small Entity Flexibility 

In accordance with requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), EPA must assess 

whether actions would have “a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities” 

(SISNOSE). Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental 

jurisdictions. The target population for the Owner/Developer Questionnaires is all owners or 

developers that completed one or more phases of certain projects during Fiscal Year 2005- 2009. The 

target population for the MS4 Questionnaires and Transportation Questionnaire is all county and local 

MS4 communities and state, county, and local DOTs, respectively. EPA expects a significant portion 

of these populations to be small entities. 

EPA has designed the questionnaires to minimize respondent burden while obtaining sufficient 

and accurate information. The questionnaires employ the use of checkboxes where feasible, or provide 

a set of potential responses for respondents to choose from. The questions are phrased with commonly 

used terminology. Questions requesting similar types of information are arranged together to facilitate 

review of pertinent records and completion of the questionnaire. 

 Because this regulation could potentially affect these small entities, EPA needs to collect 

information to adequately assess any impacts to them. As explained in more detail is Section 6a below, 

EPA has designed all of the questionnaires to include burden-reducing features. In addition, for the 

long Owner/Developer Questionnaire, EPA projects the burden will be less for small entities because 

they will likely have completed fewer projects during the requested time period as compared to large 

entities and would therefore be required to provide much less detailed technical and financial 

information on a project level. 

49
Part A of the Supporting Statement

d. Collection Schedule 

The specific dates for distribution, response receipt, and data collection activities for the 

questionnaires have not yet been established but will include the following activities: 

Activity Estimate of Schedule 

Questionnaire Distribution July 2010 

Receipt of questionnaire responses 60 days following receipt 

Complete questionnaire follow-up Three months after receipt 

6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

a. Estimating Respondent Costs 

EPA has designed the questionnaires to minimize respondent burden while obtaining sufficient 

and accurate information. The questionnaires employ the use of checkboxes where feasible, or provide 

a set of potential responses from which respondents may choose. The questions are phrased with 

commonly used terminology. Questions requesting similar types of information are arranged together 

to facilitate review of pertinent records and completion of the questionnaire. EPA also incorporated 

skip patterns where possible so that respondents are directed to skip over questions for information that 

does not apply to their situation. Finally, for the owner/develop questionnaire, EPA designed financial 

questions to solicit information in the format that would be available on an establishment’s and firm’s 

balance sheet, income statement, and cash flow statements. 

(a) Owner/Developer Questionnaires 

 EPA developed both a short and long version of the Owner/Developer Questionnaire. The 

short version is the same as the long version, but requests less detailed project level technical and 

financial information as well as less detailed establishment level financial information. Recipients will 

be required to complete the short or the long version, but not both. EPA estimates it would take an 

average of 20 hours and 73 hours respectively for each in-scope Owner/Developer Short Questionnaire 

recipient and each in-scope Owner/Developer Long Questionnaire recipient to complete and review its 

responses. This estimate assumes that all respondents of the long questionnaire will report data for ten 

projects. For purposes of this burden estimate, EPA assumes that 30 percent and 15 percent of the short 

and long questionnaire recipients, respectively, would be out-of-scope and not need to complete the 

entire questionnaire. The total weighted average hour for each owner/developer respondent is 31 hours. 

 (b) Non-Federally Regulated MS4 Questionnaire 

For the Non-Federally Regulated MS4 Questionnaire, EPA estimates that it would take an 

average of 23 hours for in-scope recipients to complete and review the questionnaire. EPA estimates 

that 25 percent of the recipients of the Non-Federally Regulated MS4 Questionnaire would be out-ofscope and that it would take an average of one hour for these recipients to complete and review the 

questionnaire. 

(c) Federally Regulated MS4 and Transportation Questionnaires 

50
Part A of the Supporting Statement

51

For both the Federally Regulated MS4 and Transportation MS4 Questionnaires, EPA estimates 

that it would take approximately 55 hours for recipients to complete and review the questionnaire. 

Furthermore, EPA estimates that 100 percent of the recipients will be in-scope and complete the entire 

questionnaire. 

 (d) NPDES Permitting Authority Questionnaire 

 For the NPDES Permit Authority Questionnaire, EPA estimates that 100 percent of the 

recipients would be in-scope and that it would take an average of 43 hours to complete and review the 

questionnaire. 

EPA would distribute the questionnaires to 2,835 owners/developers of new and redevelopment 

projects, 2,626 MS4s, and 55 NPDES Permitting Authorities. Because the recipients are legally 

obligated to complete the questionnaire under the authority of Clean Water Act, EPA expects at least 

an 80 percent response rate. For purposes of the burden estimate, EPA has assumed 100% response 

rate to develop a conservative estimate. EPA estimates that the total burden for the recipients of the 

Owner/Developer Questionnaires, MS4 Questionnaires, and NPDES Permitting Authority 

Questionnaire would be 86,811 hours, 78,488 hours, and 2,370 hours, respectively. 

Table 2 presents the average hourly burden by labor category associated with all respondent 

activities necessary to complete the questionnaires and the total burden by labor category based on the 

categories of respondents. Table 3 presents the total respondent burden estimated for the questionnaire 

effort. 
52 

Table 2. Estimated Respondent Burden to Complete the Questionnaires (Hours) 

Hours by Job Category 

Respondent Activity

Technical/ 

Environmental 

Engineer 

Clerical 

Support 

Project 

Manager 

Financial 

Manager Leg

Owner/Developer Long Questionnaire (per respondent)Read Instructions & Review Questionnaire 0 0 1.75 1.75 1.75 General Information Section A 0 0.33 2.37 8.02 2.92 Detailed Establishment Financial Information Part I 

0 0.08 0.75 3.42 1.0 

Detailed Technical Project Information Part 2 21.10 1.6 7.9 0 0 Detailed Establishment Project Information Part 2 0 0.08 2.5 9.33 6.67 Total for Owner/Developer Questionnaire 21.10 2.1 15.27 22.52 12.3Owner/Developer Short Questionnaire (per respondent) Read Instructions & Review Questionnaire 0 0 1.75 1.75 1.75 General Information Section A 0 1 2.0 9.0 2.75 Total for Short Owner/Developer Questionnaire 

0 1 3.75 10.75 4.5 

Owner/Developer Questionnaires – Out of Scope (per respondent) Read Instructions & Review Questionnaire 0 0 2 0 0 Total for Out of Scope Owner/Developer Questionnaire 

0 0 2 0 0 

NPDES Permit Authority Questionnaire (per respondent)Read Instructions & Review Questionnaire 2 2 2 2 0.75 General Information Section A 0.25 0.25 1.56 1.42 0 Municipal Stormwater Program Section B 6.68 3.38 10.56 0 0 Industrial Stormwater Program Section C 0.92 0.75 0.83 0 0 Construction Stormwater Program Section D 1.09 0.5 0.66 0 0 Complete questions and review 1 2 1 0.5 1 Total for NPDES Permit Authority Questionnaire 

11.94 8.88 16.6 3.92 1.75 
53 

Table 2. Estimated Respondent Burden to Complete the Questionnaires (Hours) 

Hours by Job Category 

Respondent Activity

Technical/ 

Environmental 

Engineer 

Clerical 

Support 

Project 

Manager 

Financial 

Manager Leg

Federally Regulated MS4/Transportation Questionnaires (per respondent)Read instructions & Review Questionnaire 2 2 2 2 0.75 Technical Information Section A 12.92 3.43 8.93 0 0 Financial Information Section B 1.92 1.5 5.18 6.18 0 Contact Information Section C 0 0.25 0 0 0 Complete questions and review 1 2 1 1 1 Total for Federally Regulated MS4/Transportation Questionnaires 

17.84 9.18 17.11 9.18 1.75 

Non-Federally Regulated MS4 Questionnaire (per respondent)Read instructions & Review Questionnaire 2 2 2 2 0.75 Technical Information Section A 2.75 0.5 2.18 0 0 Financial Information Section B 0.5 0.25 0.75 1.08 0 Complete questions and review 1 2 1 1 1 Total for Non-Federally Regulated MS4 Questionnaire 

6.25 4.75 5.93 4.08 1.75 

Non-Federally Regulated MS4 Questionnaire – Out of Scope (per respondent) Read Instructions & Review Questionnaire 0 0 1 0 0 Total for Out of Scope MS4 Questionnaires 0 0 1 0 0 Weighted Average Owner/Developer Respondent 

5.63 1.09 6.47 11.74 5.69 

Weighted Average NPDES Permit Authority Respondent 

11.94 8.88 16.6 3.92 1.75 

Weighted Average MS4 Respondent 9.07 5.43 8.83 5.10 1.46 
Part A of the Supporting Statement 

54 

Table 3. Total Respondent Burden in Hours 

Respondent Category 

Burden per Respondent 

(Weighted Average 

Hours) 

Number of 

Respondents 

Total Burden 

(Hours)* 

Owner/Developer Respondents

All Respondents (Total) 30.62 2,835 86,811.48 

NPDES Permit Authority Respondents 

All Respondents (Total) 43.09 55 2,369.95 

MS4 Respondents

All Respondents (Total) 29.89 2,626 78,488.00 

TOTAL for ALL QUESTIONNAIRES 5,516 167,669 

* The burden per respondent in weighted average hours shown on this table is a rounded value and when multiplied 

by the number of respondents does not exactly equal the total burden hours.
Part A of the Supporting Statement 

55 

b. Estimating Respondent Costs 

i. Estimating Labor Costs 

The direct cost to each respondent to complete the questionnaire equals the time required 

to read and understand the questionnaire, gather the information, compile and review the 

information, and complete the questionnaire form. EPA anticipates that the Owner/Developer 

respondents will submit their questionnaires by mail, therefore material costs for each 

Owner/Developer respondent would include photocopying and postage. EPA anticipates that the 

NPDES Permitting Authority and MS4 respondents will submit their questionnaires 

electronically and therefore material costs would not be required for those respondents. Labor 

costs would compose the majority of the financial burden imposed on the Owner/Developer, 

MS4s, and NPDES Permitting Authorities. 

The Agency estimated respondent labor costs using average hourly wages derived from 

Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Occupational Employment Statistics (May 2008) to develop 

labor category rates in $/hour to use with the hour burden estimates. For Owner/Developer labor 

rates, EPA used median hourly earnings representative of Engineering Services. For the MS4 

and NPDES Permitting Authority labor rates, EPA used median hourly earnings representative 

of local government. 

Table 4 presents the average labor cost burden by job category and the total labor cost 

burden per questionnaire for the Owner/Developer in-scope, Owner/Developer out-of-scope, 

NPDES Permitting Authority, and MS4 respondents. Table 5 presents the total respondent labor 

cost burden estimated for the entire questionnaire effort. 
56 

Table 4. Estimated Per Questionnaire Respondent Burden (Dollars) 

Costs by Job Category 

Technical/ 

Environmental 

Engineer 

Clerical 

Support 

Construction 

Manager 

Financial 

Manager Le

Owner/Developer Long Questionnaire Respondent 

$752.20 $27.31 $837.57 $1,060.06 $75

Owner/Developer Short Questionnaire Respondent 

$0.00 $13.03 $205.73 $505.90 $27

Owner/Developer Questionnaire Out of Scope Respondent 

$0.00 $0.00 $109.72 $0.00 $0

NPDES Permit Authority Questionnaire Respondent 

$372.77 $122.72 $799.29 $148.22 $6

MS4/Transportation Questionnaire Respondent $556.96 $126.87 $823.85 $347.10 $6MS4 Federally Unregulated Questionnaire Respondent 

$195.13 $65.65 $285.53 $154.26 $6

MS4 Federally Unregulated Questionnaire Out of Scope Respondent 

$0.00 $0.00 $48.15 $0.00 $0

Table 5. Total Respondent Burden in Labor Costs 

Respondent Category 

Burden per Respondent 

(Weighted Average $) 

Number of 

Respondents Total Labor Burd

Owner/Developer RespondentsAll Respondents $1,471.96 2,835 $4,172,999.0NPDES Permit Authority Respondent All Respondents $1,512.49 55 $83,186.95 MS4 Respondents All Respondents $1,034.24 2,626 $2,715,505.6TOTAL for ALL RESPONDENTS 5,516 $6,971,692 

* The burden per respondent in weighted average dollars is a rounded value and when multiplied by the number of reexactly equal the total labor burden. 
 Part A of the Supporting Statement 

ii. Estimating Capital and Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Costs 

Because EPA would not require questionnaire respondents to purchase any goods, 

including equipment or machinery, to respond to the questionnaire, the Agency does not 

expect capital costs to result from the administration of this data collection request. 

Operation and maintenance costs for the Owner/Developer Questionnaire would only 

include photocopying and postage. EPA assumed a photocopying rate of $0.10 per page 

for an estimated 60 pages for the long questionnaire and 25 pages for the short 

questionnaire for a total photocopy cost of $10,129. EPA is also assuming that the 

respondents will return the completed questionnaire file via Federal Express or a 

comparable delivery carrier that requires a signature to acknowledge receipt. EPA 

estimates the Federal Express Saver rate at $9.65 for a 1-lb package per respondent for a 

total mailing cost of $27,358. 

Since the MS4 and NPDES Permitting Authority Questionnaires will be 

submitted electronically there would be no O&M costs associated with those 

questionnaires. 

c. Estimating Agency and Contractor Burden and Costs 

Table 6 presents an estimate of the burden and labor costs EPA and its support 

contractors would incur to administer the questionnaires. The table identifies the 

collection administration tasks to be performed by Agency employees and contractors, 

with the associated hours required for each grouping of related tasks. EPA determined 

contractor labor costs by multiplying contractor burden figures by an average hourly 

labor rate of $80/hour. EPA determined Agency labor costs by multiplying Agency 

burden figures by an average hourly labor rate of $40.44/hour. Table 7 presents the 

estimated Agency total costs including labor and O&M. Total Agency costs (including 

contractor and O&M costs) are estimated at $1,581,520. 

d. Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden Costs 

EPA estimates a total burden of 167,669 hours and a total labor and O&M cost of 

$7,009,179 for all respondents. See Tables 3 and 5. 

e. Bottom-Line Burden Hours and Cost Tables 

With 2,835 Owner/Developer Questionnaires, 55 NPDES Permitting Authority 

Questionnaires and 2,626 MS4 questionnaires and questionnaire follow-up information 

requests to clarify questionnaire responses, EPA estimates that the total burden is 167,669 

hours and $7,009,179 for the respondent community and 20,527 hours and $1,581,520 

for the Agency. See Tables 3, 5, 6, and 7. 

f. Reasons for Change in Burden 

Not applicable. This is a new collection. 

57 
 Part A of the Supporting Statement 

Table 6. Estimated Agency and Contractor Burden and Labor Costs 

Burden (Hours) Labor Cost ($) 

Activity Agency Contractor

Total 

Hours 

Agency 

($40.44/hr)

Contractor 

($80/hr) Total Cost

 Develop the questionnaire 

instruments; Provide the draft 

questionnaire instruments to 

Owner/Developer for review; 

 Meet with trade association 

representatives; 

 Publish notice of anticipated ICR in 

Federal Register; 

 Respond to all comments received; 

 Revise Questionnaire instruments 

based on reviewer’s comments. 

460 2,755 3,215 $18,602 $220,376 $238,978 

 Design sampling approach; 

 Develop a mailing list database; 

 Develop a system to track 

mailing/e-mailing and receipt 

activities; 

 Mail questionnaire files. 

360 2,538 2,898 $14,558 $203,012 $217,570 

 Develop and maintain e-mail 

helpline 

290 768 1,058 $11,727 $61,413 $73,141 

 Maintain response tracking system; 

 Implement appropriate procedures 

for handling CBI responses; 

 Review responses and collect 

missing data; 

 Engineering and economic followup 

to clarify responses to 

questionnaires. 

1,500 10,074 11,574 $60,660 $805,944 $866,604 

 Develop questionnaire database 

 Upload and verify data 

100 1,683 1,783 $4,044 $134,638 $138,682 

Total* 2,710 17,817 20,527 $109,592 $1,425,383 $1,534,976

* Activity amounts are estimates using rounded values, total amounts were calculated using un-rounded values. 

Table 7. Estimated Agency Total Cost (Labor and O&M) 

Agency Contractor 

Total Agency and 

Contractor Cost 

Labor Costs $109,592 $1,425,383 $1,534,976 

O&M Costs $0.00 $46,545 $46,545 

Total Labor and O&M Costs $109,592 $1,471,929 $1,581,520 

58 
 Part A of the Supporting Statement 

(a) Burden Statement 

EPA estimates it would take 73 hours and $3,435 for each in-scope Long 

Owner/Developer Questionnaire respondent, 20 hours and $1,001 for each in-scope Short 

Owner/Developer Questionnaire respondent, 43 hours and $1,512 for each NPDES 

Permitting Authority Questionnaire respondent, 55 hours and $1,924 for each Federally 

Regulated MS4 and Transportation MS4 Questionnaire respondent, and 23 hours and 

$770 for each in-scope Non-Federally Regulated MS4 Questionnaire respondent to 

complete and review their responses to the questionnaires. EPA also estimates that it 

would take 2 hours and $110 for each out of scope Owner/Developer Questionnaire 

respondent and 1 hour and $48 for each out of scope Non-Federally Regulated MS4 

Questionnaire respondent to complete and review their responses to the questionnaires. 

This estimate is based on U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics’ 

Occupational Labor data from May 2008 for the likely range of personnel involved in 

responding. 

EPA estimates that the total respondent burden for the six questionnaires would 

be approximately 167,669 hours, or $7 million dollars. EPA estimates that there would be 

no start up or capital cost associated with the questionnaires described above. 

Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to 

generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. 

This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize 

technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying 

information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing 

information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable 

instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of 

information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and 

transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, 

and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a 

currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA’s regulations 

are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15. 

To comment on the Agency’s need for this information, the accuracy of the 

provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent 

burden, including the use of automated collection techniques, EPA has established a 

public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0817, which is 

available for public viewing at the EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room in the EPA 

Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room Number 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, 

Washington, DC.. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. 

to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number 

for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Water 

Docket is (202) 566-2426. You can also contact the Water Docket via e-mail at OWDocket@epa.gov. An electronic version of the public docket is available through 

www.regulations.gov. Use regulations.gov to submit or view public comments, access 

the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in 

the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select “search” 

59 
 Part A of the Supporting Statement 

60 

then key in the docket ID number identified above. Also, you can send comments by mail 

to Water Docket, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Mail code: 28221T, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460 or hand delivery to Water Docket, EPA 

Docket Center, EPA West Building Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, 

Washington, DC. Please include the EPA Docket ID No. in any correspondence. 
 Part A of the Supporting Statement: Appendix A 

Appendix A: List of Public Commenters to First Federal Register Notice of 

 Proposed ICR 

61 
 Part A of the Supporting Statement: Appendix A 

List of Commenters with Submittals to Docket EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0817 

First Federal Register Notice: ICR, Proposed Collection; Stormwater Management 

Including Discharges from Newly Developed and Redeveloped Sites, ICR #2366.01 

EPA-HQ-OW2009-0817- Commenter 

0009 Hal Sprague, Senior Policy Associate, Center for Neighborhood Technology 

0010 Association of State Flood Plain Managers (ASFPM) 

0011 Tom Ballestero, University of New Hampshire Stormwater Center 

0012 Lee Epstein, Director, Lands Program, Chesapeake Bay Foundation 

0013 C. M. Lake 

0014 Dr. Edo McGowan, Medical Geo-hydrology 

0015 Smart Growth Advocates; Paul Crabtree, PE, Crabtree Group, Inc. 

0016 John Jacob, Texas Sea Grant, Texas A&M 

0017 Miami Conservancy Agency; Theresa McGeady, Program Coordinator 

0018 

Craig DiGiammarino, Operations Environmental Coordinator, Stormwater 

Compliance Management Program, Technical Services, Operations Division, 

Vermont Agency of Transportation 

0019 J. Heimburger, PE, CHMM 

0020 Minnesota Cities Stormwater Coalition, Randy Neprash, PE 

0021 Brent Bruggeman, Stormwater Technician, City of Sidney, Ohio 

0022 

Water Environment Federation (WEF), Tim Williams, Managing Director, 

WEF Government Affairs 

0023 

City of Fresno, Scott W. Krauter, PE, Assistant Public Works Director, Street 

Maintenance Division 

0024 City of Portland, OR, David Kliewer, Bureau of Environmental Services 

0025 

City of Austin, Watershed Protection Department, Partricia Foran, Field 

Operations Division 

0026 Michael Keenum, City of Lubbock 

0027 

Dominic J. Hanket, Assistant Director for Regulatory Compliance, Department 

of Public Utilities, City of Columbus, OH 

0028 City of Clovis Public Utilities, Lisa Koehn, Assistant Public Utilities Director 

0030 Anonymous public comment 

0031 

Synithia R. Williams, Environmental Coordinator, County of Lexington Public 

Works Stormwater Division 

0032 

National Association of Flood and Stormwater Management Agencies 

(NAFSMA), Gale William Fraser, II, PE, President 

0033 

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, Barbara L. Sahl, Storm 

Water Program Coordinator, Water Quality Division 

0034 

Neal Shapiro, Watershed Management Program's Coordinator, Watershed 

Management Section, Office of Sustainability & the Environment, City of 

Santa Monica, California 

0035 Charlie Miller, P.E., Principal, Roofscapes Inc. 

0036 

Jessica Wall, Water Program Assistant, Natural Resources Defense Council 

(NRDC) for Jon Devine, Senior Attorney, Water Program, et al. Natural 

Resources Defense Council (NRDC) 

0037 

Brooks M. Smith, Hunton and Williams on behalf of Utility Water Act Group 

(UWAG) 

62 
 Part A of the Supporting Statement: Appendix A 

63 

EPA-HQ-OW2009-0817- Commenter 

0038 

Margaret Doss, Water Quality Manager, Columbia County (Georgia) Water 

Utility 

0039 

Robert Swanson, Water Quality Specialist, DuPage County Stormwater 

Management 

0040 Christine Cahill-Reams, Project Manager, Charles C. Bell, Inc. 

0041 Anonymous 

0042 

Monica Licher et al., Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University 

(Virginia Tech) 

0043 

Paul A. Hindman, P.E., Executive Director and Ken Mackenzie, P.E., 

Manager, Master Planning Program, Urban Drainage and Flood Control 

District (UDFCD) 

0044 

Ray Vaughan, Stormwater Manager, South Carolina Department of 

Transportation (SCDOT) 

0045 Chris Crompton, Chair, California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA) 

0046 

Susan Asmus, Senior Vice President, Environment and Labor, Safety & Health 

Policy, National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) 

0047 

Bob Van Wyk, General Manager-Secretary, Fresno Metropolitan Flood 

Control District 

0048 

Leah F. Pilconis, Senior Environmental Advisor to The Associated General 

Contractors of America (AGC of America) 

0049 Gayle Killam, River Network, et al. 

0050 Peter King, Executive Director, American Public Works Association (APWA) 

0051 City of Myrtle Beach, South Carolina (SC), Janet Wood 

0053 

Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT), Kevin Walsh, 

Director Environmental Services 

0054 

City of Charlotte (NC), Storm Water Services Division, Daryl Hammock, 

Water Quality and Environmental Permitting Manager 

0055 Beveridge & Diamond, Richard Davis 

0056 Smart Growth America, Geoff Anderson, President and CEO 

0059 

Town of Framingham, MA Department of Public Works, Katherine R. Weeks, 

Senior Stormwater and Environmental Engineer 

0060 City of Bellevue, WA, Denny Vidmar, Bellevue Utilities Director 

0061 

Tallahassee, Florida NPDES Stormwater Section, Eric H. Livingston, Program 

Administrator 

0062 

Construction Industry Coalition on Water Quality, Mark Grey, Technical 

Director 

0063 Colorado Stormwater Council (CSC), Jill E. Piatt Kemper, Chair CSC 

0064 

City of Downey, CA, Gerald E. Greene, Principal Civil Engineer/Water 

Resources Control Specialist 

0065 

Federal StormWater Association (FSWA), Jeffrey S. Longsworth, FSWA 

Coordinator 

0066 

City of San Luis Obispo, CA, Barbara Lynch, Deputy Director of Public 

Works 

0067 

University of Missouri, Environmental Health and Safety, Bill Florea, on 

behalf of Boone county MS4, Steve Hunt, on behalf of City of Columbia MS4, 

Todd Houts, on behalf of University of Missouri MS4 

0069 

Croton (NY) Watershed Clean Water Coalition (CWCWC), James Bryan 

Bacon, Attorney and Counselor at Law 
 Part A of the Supporting Statement: Appendix A 

64 

EPA-HQ-OW2009-0817- Commenter 

0070 

Harris County Flood Control District, Snehal R. Patel, Chief Environmental 

and Regulatory Affairs Section, Harris County Attorney’s Office 

0071 

Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, Sarah Kline, Director Office 

of Policy and Government Relations 

0072 

Kentucky Stormwater Association, Randy Stambough, Kentucky Stormwater 

Association President 

0073 

Las Vegas Valley Stormwater Quality Management Committee (SQMC), 

Kevin Eubanks, Chairman SQMC, Assistant General Manager, Clark County 

Regional Flood Control District 

0074 

StormWater Association of Maryland, Wet Weather Partnership, Paul 

Calamita, General Counsel 

0084 Greenville County Land Development Division 
Part A of the Supporting Statement: Appendix B 

Appendix B: Summary of Public Comments and EPA Response to First Federal 

 Register Notice of Proposed ICR 

General: Table B-1 

State Questionnaire: Table B-2 

MS4 Questionnaire: Table B-3 

Industry Questionnaire: Table B-4 

65 
66 

Table B-1: ICR Comment Summary and Response: General Comments

Topic Comment Owner/ 

Operator 

MS4 NPDES 

Permitting Authority 

Response 

Rule Legal Authority 

EPA does have federal authority to regulate discharges “from” MS4s but not “into” them. [402(p)(2)(C) & (D)] The only federal authority over MS4 influent is the prohibition of nonstormwater discharges into MS4s. [402(p)(3)] Congress did not grant EPA authority to determine how MS4 operators should control indirect stormwater discharges into their systems as long as the MS4s meet their applicable permitting requirements for their own discharges. EPA lacks the authority to regulate post-construction sites unless they independently generate a regulated stormwater discharge by meeting the definition of an industrial activity or MS4. Post-construction stormwater discharges should be considered nonpoint source discharges or diffuse stormwater discharges that are not regulated under the CWA. EPA can only regulate using standard industrial classification codes which don’t exist for subdivisions, etc. 

   EPA agrees with co

sections 402(p)(2)(authority to regulatindeed EPA was reand large MS4s unddisagrees with comhave the authority ointo MS4s or that thMS4 influent is the stormwater dischargCWA sections 402(and 402(p)(6) EPA stormwater dischargexample, stormwateindustrial activity thMS4 is independenthe States. 40 CFR the preamble to the EPA stated “storm facility which enterdischarges through storm sewer system with industrial activcovered by an indivpursuant to [EPA re47,990, 47996-97 (NEPA has the authorthat is discharged inrulemaking process the scope of what psubject to any standlimitation. 
67 

Table B-1: ICR Comment Summary and Response: General Comments

Topic Comment Owner/ 

Operator 

MS4 NPDES Response 

Permitting Authority 

EPA has not clearly articulated its statutory authority to develop stormwater management regulations nor demonstrated that an information collection effort and rulemaking are necessary. EPA has not designated post-construction stormwater discharges as requiring a permit. EPA has not provided a clear definition of what the information will be used for. EPA’s intention to change the Phase I and Phase II stormwater program based on the ICR constitutes a breach of the program evaluation agreement reached through the Stormwater Phase II FACA as well as the current NPDES regulations resulting from that agreement. Until the provisions of Section 122.32 are satisfied, changes to Phase I and II regulations may be precluded or prohibited. 

EPA disagrees with that EPA is requiredischarges from MSreduce the dischargmaximum extent prother provisions as State determines apof such pollutants. 402(p)(3)(B)(iii). In EPA will discuss fupoint sources will bor other effluent limEPA disagrees with authority under CWregulate discharges those that are defina “municipal separaSpecifically, EPA dauthority from CWand 402(p)(6) and E122.26(a)(9)(i)(C)-discharges from devexample, in the Pharegulations under thsection 402(p)(6) Ecurrently regulates associated with smawhich are neither indischarges from MS122.26(b)(15). In aEPA will discuss fupoint sources will b
68 

Table B-1: ICR Comment Summary and Response: General Comments

Topic Comment Owner/ 

Operator 

MS4 NPDES Response 

Permitting Authority 

or other effluent limEPA disagrees with source” is defined aconfined, and discrbut not limited to antunnel, conduit, wecontainer, rolling stfeeding operation, ocraft, from which pdischarges.” CWA the discretion to fursource. National WGorsuch, 693 F.2d 

The vast majority opipes, ditches, swaldiscrete conveyancpollutants are or maCWA section 308 Ecollect information rulemaking process the scope of what psubject to any standlimitation. EPA disagrees with nothing in the CWA regulate stormwater standard industrial In the Phase I stormcodes to categorize with industrial activwas not required to 
69 

Table B-1: ICR Comment Summary and Response: General Comments

Topic Comment Owner/ 

Operator 

MS4 NPDES Response 

Permitting Authority 

required to do so in Any stormwater rulfurther how EPA indischarges from devstormwater point soproposal) for regulaEPA disagrees with authority under CWdesignate stormwatprotect water qualitcomprehensive prodesignated stormwaDesignation of stordeveloped sites is bany rulemaking. Adauthority under CWrequire discharges fcontrols to reduce tto the maximum exmanagement practicsystem design and esuch other provisionappropriate for the discharges. The infInformation Collectto assist EPA in devaddress discharges including, but not lidesign standards fodischarges from devcomprehensive pro402(p)(6); benefits 
70 

Table B-1: ICR Comment Summary and Response: General Comments

Topic Comment Owner/ 

Operator 

MS4 NPDES Response 

Permitting Authority 

design standard; codesign standard; the and effectiveness oretain, detain or inflow impact developinfrastructure); and scope, componentsexisting state or regprograms. EPA wobasis for any regulapromulgates. This reasonably related tfor that decision-maEPA disagrees with in the Preamble to twas asked by the Phdemonstrate its comsmall MS4 requiremand to make changeevaluating the stormresearching the effeBMPs. 64 Fed. Reg1999). EPA did so the rule after complpermit terms, i.e., a

See 40 CFR 122.37commitment to reviprogram after evaluof a date certain, nochanges before a cepreamble or section refrain from an ICR 
71 

Table B-1: ICR Comment Summary and Response: General Comments

Topic Comment Owner/ 

Operator 

MS4 NPDES Response 

Permitting Authority 

information about ieffectiveness of the from changing the rtime. Although in intention to wait unpermit cycles excepcircumstances, this intention, an expectcommitment. As EII preamble, some cEPA reevaluate the some commenters spermit cycles, but Efull permit cycles wobtain enough data the rule. However, rule was promulgatsignificant informatStormwater Manag(National Academy October 2008), incinformation indicathow it controls discEPA has obtained ereevaluation proces

Unfunded Mandate EPA is imposing an unfunded mandate 

with little measurable benefit which is particularly difficult during these times of reduced state budgets. Municipalities will not be able to hire additional personnel to prepare this information, so existing staff will have to work on the project in addition to their regular 



 EPA disagrees with 

Information Collectfederal intergovernmUnfunded MandateEPA appreciates thdifficulties given a answering all of the all of the requested 
72 

Table B-1: ICR Comment Summary and Response: General Comments

Topic Comment Owner/ 

Operator 

MS4 NPDES Response 

Permitting Authority 

duties. like municipalities 

welcomes the oppomunicipalities if theanswering all of the Questionnaire. 

308 Authority CWA Section 308 does not provide 

EPA with the authority to collect information from state permitting authorities. 

 EPA has the author

304(i) and 402(c) oState NPDES permSpecifically, 40 CF“[a]ny information administration of a available to EPA uprestriction.” 

CBI All financial information should be 

submitted separately and automatically be given confidential protection and not be subject to the confidentiality classification changing or having to prove confidentiality if requested by a third party. All responses and information provided to EPA should be made confidential and unavailable to third parties for potential litigation. Big Box stores are different from other construction entities. Seemingly innocuous data from Big Box stores can inadvertently be used to suggest the direction or planned growth of the stores which can be damaging on a 

 EPA recognizes tha

requested in these qconfidential businebe treated as such bbe detrimental to soAt the same time, Etransparent decision access to data infordecisions. As a resCBI procedures to pinformation while ethe extent possible. EPA understands thinformation. Howevthat all financial infTherefore, EPA is nfinancial informatioproviding CBI chec
73 

Table B-1: ICR Comment Summary and Response: General Comments

Topic Comment Owner/ 

Operator 

MS4 NPDES Response 

Permitting Authority 

broad scale. There is concern about the inadvertent disclosure of CBI data by the Agency based on past incidents where federal agencies inadvertently released confidential information (e.g., TSA). 

respondent can claibe CBI. In an effornot requiring responjustification for the Should EPA receivclaimed CBI, the rejustify the CBI claim procedures outlined 

Response Deadline The design and cost detail requested as 

to project specific stormwater control structures most likely cannot be assembled within the time required. Because some of the data may have to be obtained by the developer respondents from third parties and stormwater management entities, the effort of developers to gather this information could negatively impact the ability of MS4 respondents to meet their response deadlines. Unless the construction company is the owner/builder they may need to obtain data from the designer or engineer to complete Part C which will affect the timeline. Sixty days is inadequate for MS4s to review the materials and provide a response. Many small MS4s in TX have not fully 





 EPA has revised th

questionnaires, wherequests for informrequire lengthy timexample, EPA is no detailed cost and destormwater system owner/developer suEPA is not requestiMS4s that will requinformation from thEPA is not requestiperform constructiofinancial responses questionnaires. EPA is not asking rinfo or to provide infor which data is noEPA does not requiCounty Councils wresponses. 
74 

Table B-1: ICR Comment Summary and Response: General Comments

Topic Comment Owner/ 

Operator 

MS4 NPDES Response 

Permitting Authority 

implemented their initial Storm Water Management Programs and may not have complete information for the requested timeframe. 120 days is more appropriate More time is necessary if the responses have to be approved by County Council. 

EPA concludes that response time. Burquestionnaire respohours to approximato respond allows amost burdensome q

Mandatory Response 

Questionnaires should be voluntary rather than mandatory 

   Based on previous 

rate to mandatory qthat of voluntary sumandatory response responses that may response. 

Certification Statement 

EPA should add a disclaimer that the information collected will not be used in an enforcement action. It will be difficult for someone to sign the certification statement when they are unsure of the data they are providing, even though it is the only data they have. The certification statement does not identify the level of the certifying individual. Is it the same person who must sign the annual reports? 

   This certification st

this ICR. Because accurate informatiorulemaking, EPA rocertification in OffiHowever, EPA doecertification statemrespond to each quefact, the directions should provide estimnot available. EPA to provide the best knowledge or belieIdentifying non-comregulation is not the collection. Howeve
75 

Table B-1: ICR Comment Summary and Response: General Comments

Topic Comment Owner/ 

Operator 

MS4 NPDES Response 

Permitting Authority 

the enforcement offinformation collectThe certifying officauthorized represensame person that sidoes not have to be

Rulemaking approach 

Neither the notice nor the supporting statement describes the scope of the proposed regulations. EPA should explore strategic education outreach programs, evaluate the current successes of the NPDES stormwater program and provide the necessary resources for MS4s to effectively evaluate and implement programs before mandating new regulations. The idea of developing national design or performance standards to control stormwater volume and flow (one size fits all approach) is contrary to the NRC recommendation of watershed based stormwater planning and implementation. EPA is focusing too much on costs. EPA needs to include analyses on the ecosystem and community benefits of reduced stormwater-caused degradation, as well as the economic benefits to developers who adopt LID strategies in 

   EPA published a Fe

December 28, 2009 that describes the scregulation. Many of these comscope of this informThese comments arEPA has revised anaddress some of theexample, the develorequests info compatraditional techniquEPA has added queto gather informatioaccess private propand/or maintenancequestions pertaining and ordinances, lawgroundwater or drinthat may inhibit retaddition, this ICR iinformation. EPA adevelopers than havtraditional techniqu
76 

Table B-1: ICR Comment Summary and Response: General Comments

Topic Comment Owner/ 

Operator 

MS4 NPDES Response 

Permitting Authority 

lieu of traditional hard infrastructure conveyances. The current economic struggles for most of the industry over the last couple of years will not adequately express the ability of the industry to adhere to or comply with regulatory standards. The right to access private property for LID inspections may be problematic and require a warrant. EPA has set an arbitrary deadline of November 2012, which will not allow the public ample time to become fully engaged in the process. The Agency has not provided rationale for this deadline. EPA should abandon the survey effort and instead use its resources on MS4 permit renewals throughout the U.S. EPA does not have the experience, technical knowledge, nor expertise to lead this effort. As was recognized by EPA’s original NPDES stormwater permitting staff, such expertise rests with the 10 to 12 states that have established comprehensive stormwater treatment regulations and by local governments which have done likewise. Watershed permitting has the potential 

EPA recognizes thamay not adequately industry to comply result, EPA is collepast 5 years. EPA is aware of othsuch as actual MS4 permits are not readEPA disagrees with November 2012 dafor the public to parprocess. In a NovePeter S. Silva, AssiOffice of Water, to Defense Council anEPA committed to that includes requirdischarges from devNovember 2012. EPengage the public agovernments and coinformation to suppInformation Collectprocess, and EPA nNovember 2009 let7 listening sessions around the country, where 1900 people made both oral presover 200 written co
77 

Table B-1: ICR Comment Summary and Response: General Comments

Topic Comment Owner/ 

Operator 

MS4 NPDES Response 

Permitting Authority 

to be the most efficient and effective approach to achieving water quality standards, however, watersheds cross jurisdictional lines including state lines. Empowering the MS4s as the first tier would require some states to modify powers granted those MS4s. The model with the least hurdles would be permitting at the Federal level with permit fees paid into a central system to administer the program. EPA has not explained how it will consider the costs associated with the recently finalized ELG in the overall costs associated with a postconstruction stormwater rulemaking. It appears this ICR is gathering information to allow EPA to promulgate rules that potentially eliminate a community’s ability to assess its own environment; evaluate the impacts that development has on the quality of its surface waters; and the opportunity to develop meaningful and effective mitigation strategies that meet a community’s unique needs. Areas of high density will not have places to retain water and the program may not be practical. 

EPA revisions to thprogram. EPA will regularly, and solicindustry, environmeTribal and local govin general. 
78 

Table B-1: ICR Comment Summary and Response: General Comments

Topic Comment Owner/ 

Operator 

MS4 NPDES Response 

Permitting Authority 

There will be problems associated with enforcing private residents/citizens to maintain installed LID technologies/practices. EPA should not be directly involved in developing engineering requirements, test methods, codes, etc. This should remain the providence of local municipalities and industry standard setting organizations. Distributed measures, in aggregate, can modify urban hydrology. At present most providers of LID systems, including green roofs, are insulated from the consequences of poor performance or degradation of performance over time. By placing an emphasis on quantifying performance and on system longevity, the federal government would promote competition to provide higher quality and reliability. When using site-specific calculations to determine predevelopment hydrology, and/or use of regional standards to reflect local circumstances, the phosphorus export loads from various watershed land-uses should be as sitespecific as possible. 
79 

Table B-1: ICR Comment Summary and Response: General Comments

Topic Comment Owner/ 

Operator 

MS4 NPDES Response 

Permitting Authority 

EPA should not reduce or prevent stormwater from being discharged when the development is located in, or upstream to, a basin dependent upon the runoff for the yield for a drinking water source. EPA should only (1) set a national standard to reduce runoff from impermeable areas to the 90th percentile, 

which will vary by region; (2) require the first priority be rainwater harvesting for non-potable use; (3) include LID or equivalent terminology/practices/strategies in the design of all projects; (4) require during the selling of property, a retrofit upon sale strategy, that minimal runoff mitigation measures be added, such as infiltration pits to collect a standard of runoff, like the 80th percentile; (5) require no runoff from any irrigation practice. To be effective, EPA must identify and account for all sources that contribute to “urban runoff” and their relative percentages, and then devise a program that addresses the largest and most problematic sources first. Can EPA develop a “tool-box” approach such as want was used with 
80 

Table B-1: ICR Comment Summary and Response: General Comments

Topic Comment Owner/ 

Operator 

MS4 NPDES Response 

Permitting Authority 

some of the Minimum Control Measures in the Phase II program to allow local governments to choose from a set of options to implement both existing and new regulations? The adoption of a strict numeric standard that is easily achievable on a greenfield site might be cost-prohibitive or simply impossible to attain for a siteconstrained redevelopment projects. A final rule that disadvantages redevelopment could result in a netnegative impact on water quality by shifting growth to greenfields that would otherwise have occurred through redevelopment or infill. Requiring additional retrofit work with no income stream to provide the funding for it will cripple cities, some of which have already declared bankruptcy. There is the potential or infrastructure costs to exceed expected revenues from the population that will be supporting the infrastructure forever. Long term maintenance costs continually rise and could easily eclipse the cost of the initial facilities. There would be a significant inspection 
81 

Table B-1: ICR Comment Summary and Response: General Comments

Topic Comment Owner/ 

Operator 

MS4 NPDES Response 

Permitting Authority 

and maintenance burden on municipalities associated with on-site LID implementation. Other municipal costs not directly related to stormwater capital and operations cost could increase as a result of EPA mandated land use standards associated with Smart Growth and LID including transportation infrastructure, public transportation, and utility costs. The costs associated with placing, operating, maintaining, eventually totally replacing, keeping track of, and the inspecting of possibly millions of individual parcel-based retention practices is substantially different than the construction, operation, maintenance, eventually totally replacing, keeping track of, and inspecting of more consolidated community-wide facilities. Experience shows that the order of magnitude is greatly increased when you consider requiring smaller, parcelbased, private/public facilities versus larger community-wide based facilities. The costs associated with timely 
82 

Table B-1: ICR Comment Summary and Response: General Comments

Topic Comment Owner/ 

Operator 

MS4 NPDES Response 

Permitting Authority 

maintenance are much lower than those associated with the current erratic approach to maintenance. A payoff for nurturing a service industry for LID maintenance will be a quickly enlarging pool of expertise. This will spur more efficient and reliable design and will drive down the costs of construction as well as maintenance. 

Land Use The separation of federal regulations 

from state/local community control of land use decisions may be lost if this rulemaking goes forward. 

   EPA disagrees with 

way intends for any stormwater dischargand local control ovEPA welcomes furtrulemaking process

Burden The ICR is too costly and burdensome 

to the industry. The data can not be complied within EPA’s burden estimate. EPA should seek industry input before submitting the questionnaire to OMB. The O&M costs and municipal costs are not even known to the respondents. The financial data is especially difficult to collect from small builders and may cost them $1500 to pay for the services needed to fill out the financial portion of the survey. 

   During consultation

MS4s, and states, Einsight on the overaand the burden of sphas revised the queburden reduction. Freduced the amount owner/developer suaddition, EPA deverelated questionnairactivities in an effoDOTs to provide reHowever, based on possible respondentrevisions, EPA has estimate per questio
83 

Table B-1: ICR Comment Summary and Response: General Comments

Topic Comment Owner/ 

Operator 

MS4 NPDES Response 

Permitting Authority 

The ICR process, as proposed, is inadequate to evaluate the economic impact on states, local governments, and businesses. Big Box retailers often have far less information about costs and practices than do their general contractors, making it unusually difficult and costly for a Big Box respondent to address questions on those subjects. They would have to hire consultants that charge around $100/hour which is twice the hourly rate assumed by EPA. The burden must be reduced for homebuilders since 95% are small businesses. Very few homebuilders typically have accounting or engineering staff on the payroll and they usually do not retain technical data on past projects. Some companies may fail if they are required to spend a week completing the questionnaire. It would be extremely burdensome to transit agencies to complete the questionnaire. EPA’s burden estimate does not account for the time required to read, comprehend, and compile the information. 

EPA expects the budevelopers/owners will be less than othincorporated a size eliminate developerproperties from the financial and techniEPA’s burden estimresponding includinread, comprehend, information. EPA is no longer recontractors to proviinformation requestquestionnaire. EPA anticipates it wavailable sources of to this questionnairproposed rulemakinEPA has revised its to make it easier anrespond. 
84 

Table B-1: ICR Comment Summary and Response: General Comments

Topic Comment Owner/ 

Operator 

MS4 NPDES Response 

Permitting Authority 

It may take general contractors 3 weeks to just complete Section C (for all 10 projects) because they would have to go back to each project’s civil engineering firm/design engineer to get nearly all of the technical information. Providing budget related information will be one of the most difficult tasks in completing the surveys. Municipalities have many departments involved in programs to ensure compliance with our stormwater permits – it would be an arduous task to try to separate out and assess a dollar amount associated with such wide ranging activities such as street sweeping, park maintenance activities, etc. 

Survey Recipients EPA must expand the scope of its 

gathering to derive critical information from stormwater researchers, consultants, and technology providers and federal, state, and regional agencies on the forefront of the next generation of stormwater control. The responsibilities for the O&M of post-construction stormwater controls, maybe the responsibility of the Big Box retailers, a separate developer, or some aggregation of the entities in the shopping center. In many cases the Big Box firms function as both the “owner” 

   Based on the detaile

additional consultatconstruction organientities performing constructors should to the owner/develorevised the questiondesign so that it onldevelopers. This ICR is not the EPA will collect inrulemaking. EPA ainformation are invreach out to them. 
85 

Table B-1: ICR Comment Summary and Response: General Comments

Topic Comment Owner/ 

Operator 

MS4 NPDES Response 

Permitting Authority 

and the “developer” of its projects. Big Box retailers do not have access to the site-specific technical data required in Section C. Transit agencies should not be included in this data collection effort even though they have an ongoing need for construction and/or rehabilitation of public transit passenger, maintenance and storage facilities. Contact national societies of the Professional Engineers, Land Surveys, and Landscape Architects to get lists of firms that actually implement the practices and can answer a detailed questionnaire more easily. Also the International Erosion Control Association, Center for Watershed Protection, American Society of Civil Engineers. Unless the construction company is the owner/builder, it is not likely they will know the design basis of the stormwater control features on projects they have constructed. EPA should redesign the survey to align to the different types of builders and developers which could include a question asking what categories apply – builds on single lots developed by 

concluded these othappropriate questiothe vast majority of applicable to them. Based on commenthas revised the queinformation it beliemajority of respondnot available, resporesponding that the available. EPA disagrees that not be included in tEPA anticipates thasubject to this rulemcollect information and impacts of the ragencies. EPA has questionnaire for tran effort to tailor its their activities. See Part B of this ICfor EPA’s survey dselecting questionn
86 

Table B-1: ICR Comment Summary and Response: General Comments

Topic Comment Owner/ 

Operator 

MS4 NPDES Response 

Permitting Authority 

another company; builds on owner’s land’ builds multifamily homes; land development only; develop and build in a project the company develops; develop and sell lots to other companies. The EPA can tailor the questions to the different type of builders/developers. EPA should develop separate questions for owner/developers and general/lead contractors. Financial information from a general contractor serves no purpose because they will never be paying for the permanent BMPs. EPA should eliminate Section B for general contractors. Random sampling of developers or municipalities will not result in a fair representation of municipalities and industry. Industry surveys should be solicited from knowledgeable developers with experience in incorporating postconstruction stormwater controls. Different size developers will have different unit costs and varying degrees of understanding LID issues. 
87 

Table B-1: ICR Comment Summary and Response: General Comments

Topic Comment Owner/ 

Operator 

MS4 NPDES Response 

Permitting Authority 

Expand list to include others that have control over infrastructure that significantly impacts stormwater such as federal facilities, railroads, airports, and owner and operators of commercial or industrial sites of a specified size. Require that primary contractors obtain, where appropriate, answers to questions from their stormwater contractors. The strategy for selecting questionnaire recipients should be grounded in statistics and should include a statistically broad and representative cross section of the nation with regard to climatologic, topographic, geologic, economic, legal, social, political, and environmental factors. The sampling strategy should be clearly documented and made available for public comment before the questionnaires are distributed. Many support EPA’s decision to exclude the electric utility industry from the stormwater ICR. 

Survey Approach/Format 

The questionnaire was unclear or vague, and questions had multiple meanings and multiple potential responses. The multiple choice format is not conducive to clear and meaningful responses. 

   In response to these 

revised its definitioappropriate. EPA has designed i
88 

Table B-1: ICR Comment Summary and Response: General Comments

Topic Comment Owner/ 

Operator 

MS4 NPDES Response 

Permitting Authority 

EPA should provide clear guidance as to what should be included in the costs, otherwise data will be highly variable. Why is the period of interest limited to 5 years? A false assessment of cost/benefit may result if the database is skewed toward recently installed projects. The Agency should focus on the more problematic impacts stemming from preexisting development versus newly constructed sites that are using some stormwater control measures. EPA should remove the firm level financial information from the survey as EPA has not justified the need for this information. EPA should eliminate the requirement to develop engineering and financial estimates for all recipients of the industry questionnaire. EPA should provide a phone number for to clarify questions in addition to the email address which will result in lost time. The BMP worksheets should address the fact that multiple BMPs may be 

burden to recipients 

responses. Multiplboth of these conceEPA typically strugand collecting enouregulations. In this collect 5 years of daconcludes data from sufficient to allow frulemaking. EPA is also considedevelopment as parhas included question the extent and tybeing incorporated. EPA needs firm levthe possible economrulemaking to firmsEPA is not requirinsurveys to develop information that doWhether EPA prova telephone number line, it does not typrespond immediatemailing the questioresearch its responsreduces “telephone 
89 

Table B-1: ICR Comment Summary and Response: General Comments

Topic Comment Owner/ 

Operator 

MS4 NPDES Response 

Permitting Authority 

used to satisfy one design objective and one BMP may be used to satisfy multiple design requirements. EPA should emphasize complete life cycle costs of all stormwater BMPs. It is not clear how the financial data that EPA collects will account for the many builders who have gone out of business during the period of time that the survey covers. The proposed surveys do not address the stormwater impacts from transportation projects in general, or highways in particular. These impacts should be the focus of a separate questionnaire. A separate questionnaire should be developed for manufacturers/vendors of BMP systems. Questionnaires requesting this type of information should not be mailed out during the summer months as monitoring, permitting, and other regulatory staff members are busiest during these months when construction and related activities are at their peak. 

ultimately reduce hclarification. EPA is no longer inworksheets in any oBecause developers would not be subjecregulation, it does ninformation from thEPA has developed for transportation pEPA has not develoquestionnaire from manufacturers/vendthem for cost and pcontrols/systems foinformation. EPA appreciates thsummer months and much as possible. EPA is considering webinars with two wdistribution in ordeclarify questions eawill provide its anain the public record proposed rulemakin
90 

Table B-1: ICR Comment Summary and Response: General Comments

Topic Comment Owner/ 

Operator 

MS4 NPDES Response 

Permitting Authority 

EPA should conduct webinars on the questionnaires within 7 to 14 days of distribution and conduct stakeholder meetings after questionnaires are submitted and initial analyses are conducted. Move the definitions to the back of each survey or into a separate document to un-encumber the survey. EPA should develop a more detailed, precise survey of a selected group of municipalities to obtain more useful information. EPA should develop a short questionnaire that goes to a larger sample of respondents and a detailed questionnaire to a much smaller subset. Specifically, the detailed should go to design firms who actually do development work. Shorter surveys should be available for completion online. Retention is only one available approach; EPA should modify the survey to provide a full assessment of approaches. 

EPA has not moved back of the questionbecause EPA wants definitions before thEPA has developed questionnaires. Thshort version of the See Appendix A. EPA is evaluating tfor this data collectEPA has revised spthe questionnaires texample, EPA is reall types of long tercontrols and is not lretention practices oEPA disagrees that municipality spendbudget provides littexplained in a prevable to compare the costs of any rulemaeffort to gauge incrpossible impact. 
91 

Table B-1: ICR Comment Summary and Response: General Comments

Topic Comment Owner/ 

Operator 

MS4 NPDES Response 

Permitting Authority 

Asking how much a municipality spends as a percent of total budget provides little useful information. 

Survey Alternatives 

EPA staff or a contractor should extract the requested information from the respondents through a series of research, interviews, and follow up questions. Using 1 entity to collect data improves the quality and usefulness of the data. Instead of conducting a survey EPA should be conducting a research effort 

and comprehensive evaluation of the new development and redevelopment programs that have been established. EPA should consider a separate effort to assess the effectiveness of source controls and which constituents would benefit the most from source control programs and/or new research. EPA should convene a national stormwater summit or strategic initiative involving scientists, engineers, regulators, MS4 permittees, and stormwater practitioners to evaluate the status of the stormwater sciences and formulate an achievable strategy for the future. 

   This ICR is one sou

rulemaking. For thEPA concludes theswould not provide a as a basis of compaoptions. However, information from mmost of those proviinformation not colEPA is conducting with interviews, meother outreach activThe MS4 and State designed to provide existing new and rerequirements. 
92 

Table B-1: ICR Comment Summary and Response: General Comments

Topic Comment Owner/ 

Operator 

MS4 NPDES Response 

Permitting Authority 

EPA should prepare designs and cost estimates for various scenarios for different design criteria, contributing land uses and project sizes in various climatic and physiographic regions of the country. Use MEANS catalog or other industry-standard cost-estimating tools. Utilize case studies of several pioneer cities from each region. After EPA articulates the goals of the regulation, identifies the target entities for information collection, EPA should sit down with those entities to discuss how best to obtain the necessary information prior to asking OMB for ICR approval. EPA should work with the State and regional stormwater agencies to gather the data, the cost of the data collection could be spread across member municipalities or funded by EPA. 

Definitions - General 

The definitions are not detailed enough to ensure nationwide understanding and applicability. To generalize cost information it will be necessary to standardize the data definitions, activities, and metrics, and provide some central reporting 

   EPA has revised its 

these comments. EPA has reviewed tquestionnaires for cappropriate. EPA disagrees that 
93 

Table B-1: ICR Comment Summary and Response: General Comments

Topic Comment Owner/ 

Operator 

MS4 NPDES 

Permitting Authority 

Response 

mechanism. The definitions should be consistent for the 3 questionnaires. The ICR definitions should be consistent with the NRC definitions. 

consistent with NRenable it to collect iwhich conforms to 
Part A of the Supporting Statement: Appendix B 

94 

Table B-2: State5 Questionnaire Summary and Response

Topic/ 

Question 

Number 

Comment Deleted/ 

Added 

Question 

Response 

General Questions do not meet the stated 

objective; objective is overstated and 

more research is needed beyond the 

survey 

N/A Objectives revised to be more 

specific 

General Consistency in definitions among the 

three surveys 

N/A The definitions were made 

consistent among the surveys 

General It would be useful to have some 

indication of the extent to which the 

responses are based on actual 

data/numbers versus estimates [or even 

guesses]. EPA should encourage 

respondents to indicate which responses 

are “estimated”. 

N/A Where appropriate, the survey 

indicates that the state should 

provide its best estimate. 

General Include questions on “what works” and 

“what doesn’t work” and allow for 

description of alternative management 

approaches 

Added 

B-21 and 

B-22 

Added questions about program 

effectives 

General Survey should ask how states review 

effectiveness of their program and how 

they review annual reports 

Added B-20, 

B-21, 

B-22 

Added questions about program 

effectiveness and annual report 

review 

General Survey focused solely on on-site 

retention practices but does not include 

questions on regional approaches and 

other water quality and quantity 

practices. Survey should allow 

comparisons of different approaches. 

N/A State survey does not include 

questions about specific 

stormwater practices, this data 

is collected through the MS4 

survey. 

General Survey should include questions on the 

high cost of municipal 

oversite/enforcement or 

policing/maintenance. Questions could 

ask about requirements of MS4 permit – 

do you require review ordinances, what is 

enforcement mechanism, do you allow 

third parties to be responsible for 

maintenance. 

Added 

Question 

B-34, B-43, 

B-45 

The MS4 survey is more 

appropriate for cost to MS4s, 

the MS4 survey does include 

questions about the distribution 

of cost for enforcement and 

operation and maintenance. 

General Survey should include questions on status 

of quality assurance of the industry 

practices 

N/A This data will not be collected 

in the ICR 

General Should be consistency between the MS4 

and the state questionnaire regarding 

different standards for new and 

redevelopment 

N/A Those questions were made 

consistent between the two 

surveys 

General Should be consistency between the MS4 

and the state questionnaire regarding 

budget period 

N/A Those questions were made 

consistent between the two 

surveys 

General Data should be normalized by regional, 

climatic and local conditions 

N/A The data will be reviewed based 

on the regional location of the 

state 

General EPA should gather data from state and N/A EPA is collecting data from 

 

5

 This Questionnaire is now titled “NPDES Permitting Authority Questionnaire” 
Part A of the Supporting Statement: Appendix B 

95 

Table B-2: State5 Questionnaire Summary and Response

Topic/ 

Question 

Number 

Comment Deleted/ 

Added 

Question 

Response 

regional stormwater agencies such as 

CASQA 

many sources 

General Survey should targeted the 10-12 states 

with comprehensive statewide 

stormwater regulatory programs 

N/A The surveys will be sent to all 

states to ensure national 

coverage 

General Survey should collect more data about 

benefits both ecosystem, community and 

economic benefits 

Added B-21 

and B-22 

Added questions to allow States 

to describe program 

effectiveness 

General Survey should collect more data about 

water quality impacts caused by 

stormwater discharges – 303d list, 

TMDLs: ID impairments, required BMPs 

and effectiveness of the BMPs 

Added B49-53 The 303d list and TMDL 

information is already available 

to EPA. Added questions to 

collect monitoring data on WQ 

impacts. 

General Survey should collect data on pollutant 

concentrations and if the state has 

benchmarks. 

Added 

B-49-53, 

C-3 and D-3 

Added questions to collect 

monitoring data on WQ impacts 

and benchmark data. 

B-1 and B-5 Because of regional co-permitting, there 

may be many more permittees than 

permits. 

N/A Question revised 

B-2 - B-4 Many permitted MS4 entities are special 

purpose stormwater management entities. 

N/A Question revised 

B-7 List appears incomplete. There are many 

types of local government bodies that 

may be responsible for implementing 

MS4 programs including cities, towns 

and nontraditional entities (such as state 

DOTs, military bases and colleges). 

B-7 For consistency, suggest matching this 

list to that included in B-4. 

B-7 This question is unclear. Is it asking 

which entities implement the stormwater 

NPDES permit program, or which 

entities are empowered to manage 

stormwater? The options should include 

cities and special stormwater 

management districts 

B-7 There appears to be a presumption that 

“implementation” of the MS4 Program 

consists of component activities (e.g. 

permitting, inspection, etc). Is this 

question intended to capture listed 

jurisdictions that are responsible for any 

program component, or all components? 

Question 

deleted 

This data will be collected in 

Questions B-3 and B-5, also 

added Questions A-14 and A-15 

to the MS4 survey. 

B-10 If a state requires any of the six minimum 

control measures, does that mean the 

“yes” box is to be checked, or must it be 

all six? Should we break this out into 6 

questions to see how many large/medium 

do each component? 

B-10 Include a "not applicable" selection on 

this item. Not all states have phase 1 

N/A Question revised
Part A of the Supporting Statement: Appendix B 

96 

Table B-2: State5 Questionnaire Summary and Response

Topic/ 

Question 

Number 

Comment Deleted/ 

Added 

Question 

Response 

MS4s. If answered "no," it would appear 

that a state has chosen not to require the 

six minimum control measures in phase 1 

MS4s, rather than having no phase 1 s in 

which to implement the program. 

B-10 This is a federal requirement, so why is 

this question needed? 

B-12 How many MS4 permittees has your state 

audited and/or inspected in the last five 

years 

B-12 There is conflict between the question 

and the table. The number of inspections 

can be different from the number of 

MS4’s inspected. 

B-13 The question speaks to enforcement 

action “other than verbal warnings.” Is a 

warning letter categorized as an 

enforcement action? 

Question 

deleted 

This data will not be collected 

in the ICR 

B-14 Response may be more informative if 

answer is split into two choices, so 

responder can check either “numeric” or 

“specific.” 

N/A This question is meant to be 

inclusive of both numeric or 

specific standards. 

B-14 STATEWIDE? IN SOME STATES 

LIKE CA SOME COUNTY 

STANDARDS BUT NOT STATEWIDE 

B-14 Stormwater performance standards and/or 

design criteria for what - new 

development and redevelopment? 

B-14 Unclear what this is asking – is this 

trying to capture if MS4 permittees have 

stormwater performance standards and/or 

design criteria, or if there are state 

designated performance standards and 

criteria? 

N/A Question revised

B-17 Reword to: Have you developed a statewide stormwater manual that addresses 

stormwater management requirements for 

new development and redevelopment? 

N/A Question revised 

B-18 Drivers of stormwater retention practices 

can include local watershed 

considerations involving storm drainage 

issues and NPDES driven water quality 

protection objectives. 

N/A Question revised

B-19 Local jurisdiction incentives N/A Question revised

B-21 Include a "not applicable" selection here. 

Wyoming does not have a policy on 

offsite mitigation, whether to prohibit or 

to allow. 

B-21 Yes, at local level 

B-21 For the majority of parcels, the natural 

drainage pattern is off-site and is 

Question 

deleted 

Question deleted, data collected 

through the MS4 ICR 
Part A of the Supporting Statement: Appendix B 

97 

Table B-2: State5 Questionnaire Summary and Response

Topic/ 

Question 

Number 

Comment Deleted/ 

Added 

Question 

Response 

protected by extensive case law. A more 

appropriate question might be “Is off-site 

stormwater mitigation prohibited. . .?” 

B-21- 22 Most routinely, these issues fall within 

the preview of local government. 

B-23 There is some question as to the accuracy 

of the premise of this question given 

the reach of Section 402p and the existing 

Phase I and Phase II regulatory authority. 

Question 

deleted 

Question deleted 

B-23 It would be valuable to determine how 

many states have in place an active 

stormwater science program which 

evaluates stormwater control structure 

effectiveness and sustainability, and uses 

this data in developing stormwater 

program performance standards. 

Added 

B-21 and 

B-22 

Added questions about program 

effectiveness 

C-1 Consider also asking for the number or 

facilities with “no exposure” 

certifications. 

N/A No change, this data will not be 

collected in the ICR 

C-2 Reword to: How many industrial 

permittees subject to the Industrial 

Stormwater General permit are within 

regulated Phase I or Phase II MS4 permit 

boundaries? 

N/A Question revised

C-3 Reword: How many industrial facilities 

subject to Industrial Stormwater permits 

has your state inspected from FY2005 – 

FY2009? 

Question 

deleted 

This data will not be collected 

in the ICR 

C-4 How many enforcement actions (other 

than verbal warnings) has your state or 

delegated agent(s) issued from FY2005 – 

FY2009 to industrial operators regarding 

stormwater permits? 

Question 

deleted 

This data will not be collected 

in the ICR 

Consider adding a question on whether 

the state industrial stormwater permits 

have numeric limits or benchmarks. 

Added C-3 Added question about industrial 

numeric limits or benchmarks 
Part A of the Supporting Statement: Appendix B 

98 

 

Table B-3: MS46Questionnaire Comment Summary and Response

Topic/ Question 

Number 

Comment Deleted/ Added 

Question 

Response 

Definitions of key 

terms 

Add, delete, or improve the 

clarity of the definition for 

several specific key terms. 

N/A EPA reviewed and 

adjusted the key terms 

and definitions as 

specified by the 

commenter. 

Identification 

information 

A-1 

Include basic information 

about each MS4’s location 

including annual rainfall 

amount, climate zone, 

topography, and impaired 

receiving waters and other 

receiving waters. 

Add email field 

Clarify what EPA’s 

expectation was for filling out 

the form if several agencies 

and departments are 

responsible for administering 

elements of the stormwater 

program 

N/A Question was revised: 

Email address field was 

added. 

The data will be reviewed 

based on the regional 

location of the MS4 to 

account for climatic 

conditions. 

EPA expects that the 

survey recipient will 

coordinate with the 

various departments 

involved in the 

stormwater program to 

obtain complete and 

accurate information. 

Other stormwater 

conveyances 

A-2 

Clarify “Road-Related MS4” 

Suggest change wording from 

“conveyed to “managed” 

Clarify “jurisdiction” 

N/A Question was revised to 

clarify these points 

Extent of coverage 

A-4 

Rephrase the question to ask 

“What percentage of your 

jurisdiction’s area drains to an 

MS4?” 

Clarify what is meant by 

“percentage of your 

jurisdiction” and that we ask 

respondents about the 

percentage based on both 

population and land area 

Clarify whether they should 

include cities/towns located 

within their County that are 

also considered MS4s or only 

the percentages from the 

unincorporated MS4 area 

Question will be difficult to 

answer for some counties with 

Phase I permits since within 

their county are Phase II 

communities with separate, 

distinct permits 

Provide ranges for answering 

N/A Question was revised to 

clarify these points and 

questions were added to 

provide further 

clarification. 

EPA will not be collecting 

information about the 

number of building 

permits in the ICR. 

Question will only collect 

information about the 

MS4 area for which they 

are the owner and 

operator. 

 

6

 Includes Transportation-related comments 
Part A of the Supporting Statement: Appendix B 

99 

Table B-3: MS46Questionnaire Comment Summary and Response

Topic/ Question 

Number 

Comment Deleted/ Added 

Question 

Response 

questions rather than asking 

for a specific number 

Remove the option of 

“unknown” since MS4s should 

know the area that is served by 

their system 

Ask follow-up questions: 

“If you are a political entity 

(county, city or similar 

jurisdiction) with building 

permit issuing authority, how 

many building permits were 

issued in the past 5 years for 

projects within the MS4? If 

your jurisdictional boundary 

exceeds the MS4 boundary, 

how many building permits 

did you issue for projects 

outside the MS4? How many 

building permits were issued 

for redevelopment within your 

entire jurisdictional 

boundary?” 

Number of outfalls 

A-6 

Change the outfall size 

mentioned in the question 

Ask only about the number of 

major outfalls as defined in the 

regulations at 40 CFR 

122.26(b)(5): Major Outfall 

means a municipal separate 

storm sewer outfall that 

discharges from a single pipe 

with an inside diameter 36 

inches or more or its 

equivalent (discharge from a 

single conveyance other than 

circular pipe which is 

associated with a drainage area 

of more than 50 acres); or for 

municipal separate storm 

sewers that receive storm 

water from lands zoned for 

industrial activities (based on 

comprehensive zoning plans or 

the equivalent), an outfall that 

discharges from a single pipe 

with an inside diameter of 12 

inches or more or from its 

equivalent (discharge from 

other than a circular pipe 

associated with a drainage area 

of 2 acres or more). 

N/A Question was revised to 

clarify some of these 

points. 
Part A of the Supporting Statement: Appendix B 

100 

Table B-3: MS46Questionnaire Comment Summary and Response

Topic/ Question 

Number 

Comment Deleted/ Added 

Question 

Response 

Suggest entirely deleting the 

question 

Ask the minimum size of 

outfall tracked by the 

jurisdiction and the number of 

tracked outfalls. 

Clarify whether outlets from 

natural and constructed 

wetlands, ponds, and lakes 

should be included in the 

requested estimate 

Provide ranges rather than 

requesting a single number in 

order to obtain more useful 

information 

MS4 capacity 

A-7/ A-9 

Many commenters suggested 

entirely deleting the question 

for various reasons. Many 

commenters pointed out that 

there will almost always be a 

portion of the system that is at 

or near its maximum capacity. 

Clarify “stormwater 

conveyance system” since 

answers would be varied 

depending on whether canals 

and other channels were 

included 

Clarify “at or near maximum 

capacity” 

Responses will be highly 

variable and therefore 

uninformative 

Several commenters suggested 

that a timeframe/duration be 

added 

Ask about rainfall intensity 

Answer would depend on the 

system’s capacity 

N/A Question was revised to 

clarify these points and 

additional questions 

added to provide 

clarification. 

Direct discharges 

A-10/A-11 

Define “waterbody” or change 

to “water of the U.S. or water 

of the State” 

Clarify “within the boundary 

of the MS4” and “jurisdiction” 

Clarify “entity,” including 

whether it pertains to both 

private and public entities 

The definition of “parcels” 

varies greatly so the answer for 

this question has to take that 

into account (i.e. either have 

the respondent define “parcel” 

N/A Questions were revised to 

clarify these points 
Part A of the Supporting Statement: Appendix B 

101 

Table B-3: MS46Questionnaire Comment Summary and Response

Topic/ Question 

Number 

Comment Deleted/ Added 

Question 

Response 

or only keep the answer as a 

spatial unit of measurement) 

Clarify whether “discharging 

stormwater” meant via a 

conveyance/piping system or 

not 

Delete Question 

Why ask for this information 

since these entities are not 

included in the MS4 

Clarify whether EPA intended 

to collect information only on 

overland flow 

Change the answer to be a 

percentage rather than a total 

surface area 

Activities required 

by ordinance 

A-14 

Add an option of “other” 

Specify what sort of projects 

had their site plans reviewed, 

including construction, new 

development and 

redevelopment 

Clarify “water control” 

The question assumes that if 

no ordinance or other 

regulatory mechanism is in 

place, then the activities are 

not being done 

N/A Question revised to ask 

about whether an 

ordinance or other 

regulatory mechanism 

exists for inspection and 

maintenance on private 

property. 

Specific stormwater 

structural controls 

A-15 

Add retention basin (wet 

pond), underground retention 

chambers, infiltration basins 

and trenches, and drywells as 

options 

question A-45 is redundant 

with question A-15 and should 

be combined or A-45 should 

be deleted 

providing this list would be a 

considerable effort if not 

already inventoried 

N/A Question was revised to 

clarify these points 

Number of 

inspections of post 

construction controls 

A-16 

Many commenters said there 

was much variability in the 

type and frequency of controls 

inspections that can be dictated 

by local conditions. There is 

great variability in now MS4s 

track these controls and their 

inspection. 

Add the following question: 

“Are inspections of new 

development and significant 

redevelopment post 

Question deleted The number of 

inspections of post 

construction controls will 

not be collected in the 

ICR. Questions were 

added to determine if site 

inspection and tracking 

was part of the post 

construction program of 

the MS4. 
Part A of the Supporting Statement: Appendix B 

102 

Table B-3: MS46Questionnaire Comment Summary and Response

Topic/ Question 

Number 

Comment Deleted/ Added 

Question 

Response 

construction controls required 

pursuant to your permit or 

stormwater management 

plan?” 

Suggest to ask if policies and 

procedures are in place for 

inspections, which may be 

carried out but are not yet 

tracked and documented 

Ask for an option that the 

inspections are “covered by 

another MS4 co-permittee.” 

MS4 training 

A-17 

Many commmenters asked for 

clarification on types of 

training activities said there 

was much variability in the 

frequency of training. 

Question deleted This information will not 

be collected in the ICR. 

Frequency of 

monitoring 

A-22 

This sort of monitoring was 

not cost effective and would 

yield meaningless data because 

of the great variability in 

stormwater quality and 

quantity 

Clarify whether this question 

was asking about water quality 

of the stream or of the 

stormwater control structures 

Many communities perform 

monitoring in conjunction with 

other community organizations 

and similar entities and this 

would not be captured in this 

question 

Recommend that EPA collect 

information on watershed 

monitoring 

Divide the question into two 

parts depending on whether 

the monitoring was done for 

water quality or water quantity 

Question is biased towards the 

East coast rainfall regimes 

where monitoring will be more 

stable throughout the year 

Obtaining information no 

frequency would be 

meaningless and suggested 

that EPA rephrase the question 

to ask if the respondent has a 

monitoring plan in place 

EPA made no distinction 

between the various sorts of 

Question deleted The frequency of 

monitoring will not be 

collected in the ICR. 
Part A of the Supporting Statement: Appendix B 

103 

Table B-3: MS46Questionnaire Comment Summary and Response

Topic/ Question 

Number 

Comment Deleted/ Added 

Question 

Response 

stormwater control structures, 

including those that are 

required under the MS4 

stormwater regulation, those 

required under the construction 

stormwater regulations, those 

required under the industrial 

stormwater regulation, those 

that are owned and operated by 

the MS4 and those that are 

experimental, or ‘pilot’ 

structural control structures 

Results of 

monitoring 

A-23/A-24 

Provide explanation of 

chemical, biological and 

physical improvements. 

Many communities perform 

monitoring in conjunction with 

other community organizations 

and similar entities and this 

would not be captured in this 

question 

Clarify whether this question 

was asking about water quality 

of the stream or of the 

stormwater control structures 

This sort of monitoring was 

not cost effective and would 

yield meaningless data because 

of the great variability in 

stormwater quality and 

quantity 

Clarify what was meant by 

“type(s) of water quality 

improvement” and whether it 

meant specific analytes 

N/A Question was revised to 

clarify these points 

Site plan review 

A-27/ 

A-28/A-29/A-30 

Many commenters asked for 

clarification and said there was 

much variability in site plan 

review and some MS4 do not 

record information to this level 

of detail and other commented 

that the burden to answer this 

question would be larger than 

the time and cost burden 

estimated in the ICR 

Add the question: “How many 

redevelopment projects were 

constructed during the past 

five years?”, and add a 

corresponding entry to the 

associated table 

the estimates of plan review 

Question revised The ICR will collect 

information about 

whether or not the MS4 

does site plan review and 

the site size threshold for 

review. The number of 

site plan reviews 

completed will not be 

collected in the ICR. 
Part A of the Supporting Statement: Appendix B 

104 

Table B-3: MS46Questionnaire Comment Summary and Response

Topic/ Question 

Number 

Comment Deleted/ Added 

Question 

Response 

and approval will likely be 

higher than the actual 

completed redevelopment 

projects 

a single project could involve 

more than one facility, more 

than one development permit, 

and/or more than one review 

(i.e., in this table, such a 

project could be counted 

multiple times) and this would 

be hard to capture in the table 

there are a number of reasons 

why a project may not be 

approved and that a project 

may be reviewed one year, but 

approved the following year. 

why are five years of data 

required for this question and 

suggested that EPA change the 

question to only ask for the 

last three years of data 

data respondents currently will 

not be identical to that being 

requested so it will likely take 

respondents a long time to 

complete 

some jurisdictions have the 

same criteria for new 

development and 

redevelopment projects and, as 

a result, may not be able to 

track and report them 

separately the data would 

likely be skewed because of 

the recent economic issues 

ask for the source of the data 

provided 

Add an option to indicate that 

project plans are being 

reviewed with an estimate of 

the actual numbers, as well as 

an option to state that the 

inspections are “Covered by 

another MS4 co-permittee” 

rather than having respondents 

simply select “Unknown”. 

ask how many times 

respondents have had to 

review a project before it met 

all regulations and was 

approved 
Part A of the Supporting Statement: Appendix B 

105 

Table B-3: MS46Questionnaire Comment Summary and Response

Topic/ Question 

Number 

Comment Deleted/ Added 

Question 

Response 

Post Construction 

Standards 

A-31 

Add mixed use to the 

examples and define 

allow respondents to answer 

the questions simply by saying 

that they follow the statedeveloped standards 

Add “runoff rate” and 

“discharge rate” to the 

question 

Clarify terms: “performance 

standard”, “specific” and 

“numeric” 

clarify whether the question 

was asking if the stormwater 

performance and/or design 

standards are specific or 

numeric or if the jurisdiction 

simply has standards 

break the question up into 

separate questions since some 

may have standards that are 

separate for redevelopment 

and new development 

Add an option that regulations 

were developed to prevent 

flooding 

add a question related to 

performance-based BMP 

selection related to whether a 

set of BMPs is required, or if 

developers are allowed to 

choose from the menu of 

BMPs to meet a specific 

performance objective 

N/A Question was revised to 

clarify these points 

Post Construction 

Standards 

A-31/A-36/A-37/A40 

Clarify the difference between 

questions A-29 and A-37 

change the word “parcel” to 

“disturbed area” or “land 

surface disturbance” 

respondents should explain 

how they define 

redevelopment 

Put a “check all that apply” 

option since there may be both 

state and local requirements 

respondents should not skip to 

A-37 if the answer was “no” 

since they should still answer 

questions A-33-A36, but that 

their answers would be for a 

single set of standards 

combine questions A-36 and 

N/A Questions were revised to 

clarify these points 
Part A of the Supporting Statement: Appendix B 

106 

Table B-3: MS46Questionnaire Comment Summary and Response

Topic/ Question 

Number 

Comment Deleted/ Added 

Question 

Response 

A-40 

change “governmental entity” 

to “jurisdictional entity” 

Identification of post 

construction standard 

A-34/A-38/A-35/A39 

respondents should attach 

ordinances rather than 

selecting boxes 

Some MS4 permits do not 

have these requirements 

MS4s would need to consult 

an engineer to answer the 

question 

change the answers into a table 

format 

change the 9th bullet be 

changed to ““Maintain 

predeveloped peak runoff for a 

specific storm event” 

Clarify terms “maximum total 

volume of runoff,” “maximum 

size for retention structures,” 

“impervious surface” (versus 

effective impervious surface), 

“groundwater preservation,” 

and “quality improvement.” 

Recommend changing 

“infiltration/groundwater 

preservation requirement” to 

“groundwater recharge 

requirement” 

“land grading requirements or 

other erosion prevention 

specifications” applied more to 

construction rather than postconstruction activities 

recommend grouping similar 

types of criteria/standards into 

categories to help respondents 

separate single family and 

multi-family residential 

N/A Question was revised to 

clarify these points 

Retrofit program 

A-42 

Clarify “retrofitting 

stormwater controls” 

definition of “stormwater 

controls” will not capture 

effective off-site controls, but 

rather only on-site controls 

some MS4s consider changing 

their municipal separate storm 

system to eliminate illicit 

discharges a retrofitting project 

public and private ownership 

issues needed to be considered 

when requiring retrofits 

N/A Question was revised to 

clarify these points 
Part A of the Supporting Statement: Appendix B 

107 

Table B-3: MS46Questionnaire Comment Summary and Response

Topic/ Question 

Number 

Comment Deleted/ Added 

Question 

Response 

State transportation agencies 

will rarely have funding 

available through state 

agencies to perform stand 

alone retrofit projects 

Purpose of Retrofit 

program 

A-43 

Add separate questions on 

ordinances or regulatory 

mechanisms for adding new 

connections to the MS4 from 

existing parcels (e.g., changing 

from a UIC or combined sewer 

system) and incentive 

programs for retrofits 

Add “TMDLs” as an response 

option 

Clarify whether EPA wanted 

data on the structural 

stormwater controls in the 

jurisdiction or broader 

estimate of the number of each 

practice 

Add the following options: 

tree canopy and floodplain and 

wetlands mitigation 

add a question related to 

performance-based BMP 

selection related to whether a 

set of BMPs is required, or if 

developers are allowed to 

choose from the menu of 

BMPs to meet a specific 

performance objective 

N/A Question was revised to 

clarify these points 

Regulations that are 

barriers to 

implementation of 

retention practices 

A-48 

Add the following options: 

setbacks /frontages, minimum 

/ maximum cul-de-sac radius, 

right of way width, rooftop 

runoff requirements, 

restrictions on tree/wetland 

protection requirements, 

plumbing codes, 

private/municipal ownership 

conflicts, (including conflicts 

over public rights of way), 

water rights issues, state law, 

court decisions, deed 

restrictions, and other legal 

mandates, such as potential for 

runoff to contaminate 

groundwater, sole source 

aquifer limitations, hazardous 

site clean-up orders 

allow respondents to justify 

N/A Question was revised to 

clarify these points 
Part A of the Supporting Statement: Appendix B 

108 

Table B-3: MS46Questionnaire Comment Summary and Response

Topic/ Question 

Number 

Comment Deleted/ Added 

Question 

Response 

why these barriers exist 

Controls 

implemented in the 

jurisdiction 

A-50 

Add the following options: 

mixed use, enterprise zones, 

buffer/riparian corridor, and 

incentives for low impact 

development practices 

add “in a watershed context” 

to the end of “restrictions on 

imperviousness” 

change the word “controls” to 

“non-structural controls” 

rephrase the question to 

“What, if any, incentives are 

provided for developers to use 

stormwater retention practices 

in new development projects 

(Commercial, Residential, 

Industrial, and/or Institutional) 

in your jurisdiction?” 

N/A Question was revised to 

clarify these points 

Incentives for 

retention practices 

A-51/ A-52/ A-53 

add “entrepreneurial or 

redevelopment zones” as an 

option 

restructure Questions A-51, A52, A-53, and A-54 into 

categories looking at 

incentives that target 

homeowners and incentives 

that target developers rather 

than using the categories 

redevelopment, development, 

and retrofit 

combining Questions A-51 and 

A-53 and replacing “retention 

practice” with “management 

practices” 

ask which incentives actually 

work at the local level and 

provided specific examples, 

including 1) if an MS4 has 

reduced storm water utility 

fees for installing management 

practices on a redevelopment 

site, how many developers 

have asked for the fee 

reduction over the last year, 2) 

What has been the locality's 

experience administratively in 

implementing such a program 

and in terms of verification of 

maintenance of the practices 

over time 

ask “What, if any, incentives 

N/A Question was revised to 

clarify these points 
Part A of the Supporting Statement: Appendix B 

109 

Table B-3: MS46Questionnaire Comment Summary and Response

Topic/ Question 

Number 

Comment Deleted/ Added 

Question 

Response 

are provided for developers to 

use stormwater retention 

practices on redevelopment 

projects?” 

clarify “volume reductions for 

required stormwater 

management” 

add options, including “land 

use and economic 

development policies” 

question A52 is redundant 

with Questions A-51 and A-53 

and suggested rephrasing the 

question to ask “What 

incentives, if any, are provided 

for use of the following smart 

growth development 

techniques: (i) high density or 

compact development, (ii) 

brownfields development, (iii) 

proximity to mass-transit or 

(iv) infill(use the space 

provided to specify the nature 

of the incentive and the 

trigger)” 

Maintenance of 

controls on private 

property 

A-55 

Clarify the basis for this 

determination. 

Add a follow-up question 

asking for the basis of the 

determination 

Clarity on the unit of 

measurement and suggested 

EPA ask the question based on 

the area managed not the 

number of controls. 

Change the term “stormwater 

control practices” 

Clarify whether this referred to 

facilities that only drain to the 

MS4 or all facilities (direct 

discharge, drainage to a 

stormwater sump or combined 

system) and whether it 

included conveyance facilities 

Clarify whether this included 

roadside ditches and stated this 

would be difficult to answer 

Question is too broad and 

would be extremely difficult to 

answer, especially if the 

respondent did not already 

have an inventory of practices 

N/A Question was revised to 

clarify these points 
Part A of the Supporting Statement: Appendix B 

110 

Table B-3: MS46Questionnaire Comment Summary and Response

Topic/ Question 

Number 

Comment Deleted/ Added 

Question 

Response 

Add an “unknown” option 

Clarify that private entities 

included homeowners 

associations and property 

owners associations 

Move this question to the 

beginning of the survey since 

it relates to the MS4 system 

Inspect and maintain 

controls on private 

property 

A-56 

Move this question to the 

beginning of the survey since 

it relates to the MS4 system 

An option of not applicable 

should be added 

Suggest the question be 

rephrased into three separate 

questions, including 1) Do you 

have an ordinance or some 

other authority to inspect 

stormwater control practices 

on privately owned 

properties?, 2) Do you have an 

ordinance or some other 

authority to maintain 

stormwater control practices 

on privately owned properties? 

3) Do you have the authority 

to inspect or maintain 

stormwater control practices 

located on privately owned 

properties that were installed 

prior to the above noted 

ordinance/authority? If not, 

how are these actions 

addressed? 

Add a follow-up question “In 

the event that you do not have 

an ordinance or other authority 

to inspect/maintain stormwater 

control practices on privately 

owned properties, what 

specific barriers or local issues 

prevent you from having such 

authority?” 

Santa Monica’s ordinance does 

in fact extend to privately 

owned entities 

N/A Question revised 

Easements/deeds on 

private property 

A-57 

Move this question to the 

beginning of the survey since 

it relates to the MS4 system 

An option of not applicable 

should be added 

Question be rephrased as “Do 

N/A Question revised 
Part A of the Supporting Statement: Appendix B 

111 

Table B-3: MS46Questionnaire Comment Summary and Response

Topic/ Question 

Number 

Comment Deleted/ Added 

Question 

Response 

you have the authority to place 

easements or deed restrictions 

that require homeowner 

associations to 

inspect/maintain stormwater 

control practices on privately 

owned properties?” 

Suggested “Do you have the 

authority to require that HOAs 

include stormwater 

maintenance obligations and 

rights of inspection in a 

recorded CC&R (or equivalent 

recorded document) that is 

binding on privately owned 

properties?” 

Clarify why homeowner 

associations were the only 

entities referred to 

Ask about the resource and 

technical ability of homeowner 

associations to inspect and 

maintain structural stormwater 

controls. 

Cost comparison 

A-58 

add a follow-up question 

asking if data on the municipal 

project cost comparisons 

between traditional stormwater 

practices and alternative 

retention/pervious stormwater 

practices is available 

look at the International 

Stormwater Database to obtain 

this information 

rephrase the question: “Where 

you have done a cost 

comparison between 

traditional stormwater 

practices and alternative 

retention or pervious 

stormwater practices (i.e. 

green infrastructure practices) 

on a project scale or a sitespecific (such as a parking lot) 

scale for a municipal project, 

have alternative retention or 

pervious stormwater practices 

generally been cost 

competitive with the 

traditional practices? 

Define “alternative retention or 

pervious stormwater practices” 

N/A Question was revised to 

clarify these points 
Part A of the Supporting Statement: Appendix B 

112 

Table B-3: MS46Questionnaire Comment Summary and Response

Topic/ Question 

Number 

Comment Deleted/ Added 

Question 

Response 

clarify “traditional stormwater 

practices” 

rephrase “municipal project” 

since it excludes entities that 

are not municipalities 

General Comments 

on Section Look at Black and Veatch 

Survey 

Please add a question seeking 

information on infrastructure 

commitments from consent 

decrees and communities’ 

financial positions. 

Section B goes well beyond 

EPA’s stated intent for the 

rule.

Include a question identifying 

if a jurisdiction has the ability 

to implement or raise a 

stormwater fee.

Add a question regarding use 

of off-site mitigation and 

payment in lieu.

Add more questions on LID 

maintenance, management, 

and performance.

EPA needs to ask what 

investments and incentives 

work at the local level.

Added: B-4, B-5, 

B-6, B-10, B-11, B12, B-13, B-16, B17, B-18, B-9 

EPA reviewed the survey 

and revised and added 

several questions based 

on this review. 

EPA included a question 

about infrastructure 

commitments. However, 

EPA is not requesting 

information on why a 

MS4 has made such a 

commitment because it is 

not relevant to the 

analysis. 

EPA is requesting this 

information to assess the 

financial impact of the 

rule requirements on 

municipalities, thus EPA 

needs information beyond 

that required to simply 

develop standards. 

EPA has added a question 

requesting if a jurisdiction 

is able to implement or 

raise a stormwater fee. 

Questions on off-site 

mitigation and payment in 

lieu have been added to 

Section A of the MS4 

questionnaire. 

EPA will conduct a 

separate analysis on LID 

maintenance, 

management, and 

performance to avoid 

placing this burden on 

MS4s and to obtain 

consistent results. 

EPA plans to learn about 

what incentives and 

investments work through 

a literature review and 

data gathering outside the 

ICR. 
Part A of the Supporting Statement: Appendix B 

113 

Table B-3: MS46Questionnaire Comment Summary and Response

Topic/ Question 

Number 

Comment Deleted/ Added 

Question 

Response 

B-1 Reponses will vary widely due 

to no “baseline” definition 

This question should reflect 

capital costs 

Need to ask whether 

respondent is multi-service 

agency or stormwater utility. 

EPA revised B-3 to 

provide greater 

clarification of activities 

included in stormwater 

budget including capital 

costs. 

EPA requests information 

on the MS4 

owner/operator such as 

whether or not it is a 

municipal utility district, 

etc. 

B-2 The list of items in this 

question is confusing. 

Deleted B-2 B-3 was revised to clarify 

the information requested. 

B-3 This list should capture 

standard stormwater activities. 

Road salting is not a 

stormwater control activity. 

Mosquito control should be 

added as a possible option. 

EPA has revised this 

question in response these 

comments 

EPA has removed road 

salting from the 

questionnaire. 

EPA has revised this 

question to better fit the 

how MS4s budget. 

Mosquito control should 

fit under the revised 

categories if it is related to 

stormwater controls. 

B-4 This question should be based 

on classifications of 

stormwater activities. 

This question should reflect 

equivalent full time 

employees. 

Deleted B-4, added 

B-9 and B-10 

Based on the Black and 

Veatch survey EPA 

believes that MS4s can 

answer the question in 

this format. 

EPA has revised to 

question to reflect that full 

time and part time 

employees may be used. 

B-5 Clarify this is for operations to 

remain consistent with 

previous questions. 

Deleted B-5 EPA deleted this question. 

B-6 Distinguish between sources of 

funding for operating and 

capital expenses 

Questions were revised to 

clarify these points 

B-7 What does the term “general 

review plan mean” 

Deleted B-7 EPA substantially 

modified the questions 

regarding stormwater fees 

based on this comment 

and information from the 

Black and Veatch survey. 
Part A of the Supporting Statement: Appendix B 

114 

Table B-3: MS46Questionnaire Comment Summary and Response

Topic/ Question 

Number 

Comment Deleted/ Added 

Question 

Response 

B-8 What does this question apply 

to? 

Fees vary depending on 

project type, size, and 

requirements. 

Deleted B-8 EPA substantially 

modified the questions 

regarding stormwater fees 

based on these comments 

and information from the 

Black and Veatch survey 

and believes the questions 

will now better capture 

available information. 

B-9 Unclear what this question 

applies to. 

Deleted B-9 EPA substantially 

modified the questions 

regarding stormwater fees 

based on this comment 

and information from the 

Black and Veatch survey. 

B-11 It is very difficult to determine 

if the impacts of streams are 

due to urban runoff or due to 

naturally occurring events. 

EPA revised this question 

to reflect this comment. 

B-12 It might be more informative 

to ask for a general budget for 

stream restoration work. 

Should only request most 

recent data available. 

Added B-26,and B27 EPA has revised this 

question, now B-25, and 

added two questions to 

reflect this comment. 

Collecting data for a 

longer period of time will 

allow EPA to better 

impact the affects of this 

rule on jurisdictions. 

B-13 None of questions in section B 

addresses costs of constructing 

operating, or maintaining 

specific stormwater controls. 

EPA will conduct a 

separate analysis in order 

to derive consistent 

estimates for this 

information 
Part A of the Supporting Statement: Appendix B 

115 

 

Table B-4: Industry Questionnaire7 Comment Summary and Response

Topic/ 

Question 

Number 

Comment Deleted/ 

Added 

Question 

Response 

States w/ 

projects & 

completed 

project criteria 

A-3 & A-4 

Questions should include start/stop 

dates and clarify whether the dates 

[FY 2005 through FY 2009] are 

federal or state fiscal years. 

EPA has clarified that it is 

asking for information for 

calendar years 2005 – 2009. 

However, for the financial 

questions only, EPA is 

allowing the respondent to 

provide information for either 

calendar or fiscal years and to 

indicate the first month of the 

fiscal year, if being used. 

Completed 

project criteria 

A-4 

Question should better define “not a 

pipeline or other utility related 

activity where the original land 

cover was replaced at the end of the 

project.” All underground and 

above ground pipelines would 

eventually have the land cover 

restored. 

Question was revised to clarify 

this point. 

Firm financial 

B5 – B-14 

These questions represent an 

unnecessary intrusion into the 

private business records of the 

targeted respondents. 

EPA revised the questions to 

limit the financial data being 

collected. Financial data are 

required for EPA to 

appropriately assess the 

economic impacts of any 

proposed rulemakings on the 

affected industries. 

Firm balance 

sheet 

B-7 & B-9 

The focus should be on the total 

value of the relevant work 

completed. 

Questions were revised to only 

collect data on total revenues 

generated. 

FTEs 

B-13 

The number of FTEs is not relevant 

for Big Box retailers. A better 

question would be “how many 

development or construction 

contract managers are employed by 

the firm and what general functions 

these personnel perform.” 

Deleted 

question 

EPA has deleted the question 

asking for the number of FTEs. 

Owner/general 

contractor for 

projects 

C-3 

Does EPA mean the owner and 

general contractor or the owner or 

general contractor? 

The survey was revised to 

clarify that EPA is only 

seeking information from 

projects where the respondents 

were either the owner or 

developer of all or a portion of 

the project. General contractors 

may be asked by the 

owner/developer to provide 

information when available, 

 

7

 Now called Owner/Developer Questionnaire 
Part A of the Supporting Statement: Appendix B 

116 

Table B-4: Industry Questionnaire7 Comment Summary and Response

Topic/ 

Question 

Number 

Comment Deleted/ 

Added 

Question 

Response 

however, they are not expected 

to have and provide all of the 

information for a given project. 

NPDES NOI 

permit holder 

C-5 

The NOI is not a permit. EPA 

should include or preclude NOCs. 

What is the relevance of the 

question “were they NOI holders?” 

Question was revised to clarify 

these points and to include 

NOCs. 

NOI permit no. 

C-6 

EPA can get this information from 

the states. 

EPA believes the most efficient 

way to collect the NOI permit 

numbers is from the permittees 

themselves. 

Project 

duration 

C-8 

Phase duration – general contractors 

are not usually privy to land 

acquisition, land [site] development 

and design phasing information. 

Deleted 

question 

EPA has deleted the question 

asking for the duration of each 

phase of the project. 

Project type, 

size, land 

cover, & 

impervious/ 

pervious 

components 

C-9 – C-11 

Most of this information is more 

readily accessible to the design 

engineer for a project and not 

always placed on the construction 

plans, which are the only 

documents available to the general 

contractor. 

C-9 & C-11 results might be easier 

to assess and tabulate if (a) and (b) 

are combined into one table. 

Questions should focus on both the 

number of homes and number of 

lots constructed as well as the 

number of acres so that equal 

comparisons can be made. 

EPA has clarified that only 

owners and/or developers of 

projects are expected to 

complete the surveys. 

These questions were revised 

to include the number of 

dwellings constructed. 

Percolation rate 

C-13 

EPA should consider asking for the 

average [percolation] rate of the 

most common pervious areas at the 

site. 

Project-specific data is usually not 

available on soil type or percolation 

rate. 

Deleted 

question 

EPA has deleted the question 

asking for the percolation rate 

at the project site. 

The question about projectspecific soil types was clarified 

to allow respondents to skip 

the question if soil information 

is not known. 

Performance 

standards/ 

design criteria 

C-16 

Clarify what is being requested. 

Infiltration rates should be 

distinguished as either measured 

(under technical specifications) or 

used for design (design basis). 

Question was revised to clarify 

these points. 

Cost 

comparison 

C-17 

EPA should allow for respondents 

to include actual dollar amounts; 

clarification should be made on 

meaning of retention practices. 

Question was revised to clarify 

the meaning of retention 

practices. 

EPA does not believe that the 

actual dollar amounts of the 

cost comparisons will 
Part A of the Supporting Statement: Appendix B 

117 

Table B-4: Industry Questionnaire7 Comment Summary and Response

Topic/ 

Question 

Number 

Comment Deleted/ 

Added 

Question 

Response 

significantly improve its 

analyses. Respondents, 

however, are allowed to 

provide supplemental 

information if they choose to 

do so. 

Implementation 

of retention 

practices 

C-19 

Simplify the question by asking for 

the city or county where the site 

was located and whether it was 

designed above minimum standards 

and if so, how. 

Project-specific location 

information is collected in a 

previous question in the 

survey. 

EPA does not believe that 

information on whether 

implemented practices were 

designed above minimum 

standards is necessary for its 

analyses. 

Retention 

practices 

implementation 

challenges 

C-20 

Allow respondents to provide 

additional information on the nature 

of the barrier encountered. 

Clarify whether financing 

requirements refers to conditions 

imposed by lenders or cost 

considerations. 

Respondents are allowed to 

provide additional information 

that they believe is helpful. 

EPA did not clarify whether 

“financial requirements” were 

specific to conditions imposed 

by lenders or cost 

considerations as that 

distinction is not necessary for 

EPA’s analyses. 

Alternative 

land use 

C-21 

General contractors do not have this 

information. 

EPA has clarified that only 

owners and/or developers of 

projects are expected to 

complete the surveys. 

Respondents can select 

“unknown” if they do not 

know how the land would have 

been used if on-site stormwater 

controls were not implemented. 

Design criteria 

C-22 

General contractors do not have this 

information. 

EPA should aggregate information 

from the entire site or project. 

“Containment” and what is meant 

by the system design capacity 

should be clarified. 

Project-specific data is usually not 

available the watershed area. 

Question was revised and nonwatershed specific information 

was merged with the question 

asking for project-specific or 

numeric stormwater 

performance standards and/or 

design criteria requirements. 

Watershed specific information 

was deleted. 
Part A of the Supporting Statement: Appendix B 

118 

Table B-4: Industry Questionnaire7 Comment Summary and Response

Topic/ 

Question 

Number 

Comment Deleted/ 

Added 

Question 

Response 

Stormwater 

control 

components 

installed 

C-23 

The percent of the site area 

managed should be specified for 

each control. 

EPA does not believe that 

information on the percent of 

the site area affected by the 

post construction stormwater 

controls is necessary for its 

analyses. 

Stormwater 

system 

component 

worksheets 

C-25 

The question is difficult to answer 

because developments have a bid 

price that will not be broken down 

the way EPA asked the question. 

Maintenance costs are also not 

broken down by BMP. 

Some cost elements are for the 

overall site development versus 

facility-specific costs. 

Maintenance costs should be 

estimated on some time interval – 

annual, monthly & on level of 

maintenance – routine, periodic, 

rehabilitative, replacement. 

It is unlikely that costs will be 

known for each separate element of 

an individual practice. Planned 

developments and site plans are bid 

out to engineers and contractors and 

these individual costs would not be 

quantified. 

Flow rate capacity is generally 

expressed in cubic feet per second, 

not gallons. 

Design basins are not applicable to 

curbs and gutters 

Clarification should be made as to 

whether the catch basin worksheet 

applies to one catch basin or all 

catch basins in a project 

Unclear on the permeable paver 

worksheet what design basin refers 

to – retention/detention? 

Green Roof BMP worksheet – the 

same level of engineering/design 

detail should apply for bioretention 

systems and green roofs. The 

physical characteristics of 

engineered soil, under drains and 

drainage layers greatly affect 

performance. Depth of media and 

depth of soil are redundant terms. 

Media is the accepted term in the 

industry. 

Deleted 

question 

EPA has deleted the question 

and information contained in 

the stormwater system 

component worksheets. 
Part A of the Supporting Statement: Appendix B 

119 

Table B-4: Industry Questionnaire7 Comment Summary and Response

Topic/ 

Question 

Number 

Comment Deleted/ 

Added 

Question 

Response 

It is also worth noting that costs for 

installation of stormwater controls 

may be difficult to separate from 

total project costs, because separate 

accounts are not usually established 

for stormwater controls. 

Provide concrete description of data 

desired – on Curb and Gutter 

worksheet, what elements are to be 

included in “storm sewer cost”? 

What elements in “materials” cost? 

What length is requested here – 

length of pipe installed, length of 

curb and gutter installed? 

Where BMPs are installed for water 

quality reasons only, the BMP 

worksheets should ask was the 

contribution to controlling runoff 

volume or runoff volumetric 

discharge rate evaluated. 

Questions on the warranty period 

and inspection cost should be 

included on all BMP worksheets. 

Project 

financial 

information 

C-30 & C-31 

General contractors do not generally 

have this information. 

EPA has clarified that only 

owners and/or developers of 

projects are expected to 

complete the surveys.