SUPPORTI NG STATEMENT Stormwater Management Including Discharges from Developed Sites Questionnaires

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Water Office of Science and Technology

April 22, 2010i CONTENTS

Page

P ART A OF THE S UPPORTING S TATEMENT ........................................................................................ 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 S upported 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 R ecord 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 Operati ons 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 ............................................................................. 57Part A of the Supporting Statement

PART A OF THE SUP PORTING STATEMENT

1. Identification of the Information Collection

a. Title of the Information Collection

United States Environm ental 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 Protecti on Agency (EPA), through this Information Collection Request (ICR) package, requests that Office of Manageme nt 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 devel oped sites, such as subdivisions, roadways, and commercial buildings or shopping cent ers, can significantly alter the hyd rology of a site and can have a negative impact on receiving waterbodies. Generally, as sites are developed, ther e is an increase in impervious areas where water cannot infiltrate into the ground, leading to in creases 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 re gulates stormwater discharges from certain municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s), st ormwater 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 app licable, stormwater management plans including long term stormwat er discharge controls. Section 402(p) also authorizes EPA to designate additional stormwater discharges to be re gulated other than those already regulated and to establish a comprehensive program to regulat e them. See 402(p)(2)(E ) and (6).

In July 2006, EPA commissioned the National Re search 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 impair ment of waterbodies nationwide.” The NRC found that the current regulatory approach by EPA is not ad equately controlling a ll sources of stormwater discharge that are contributing to waterbody impairment. NRC reco mmended that EPA address stormwater discharges from impervious land cover and pr omote practices that harvest, in filtrate and evapotranspirate

2Part A of the Supporting Statement

storm water to prevent it from bei ng discharged, which is critical to reducing the volume and pollutant loading to our Nation’s waters.

Based on the results of the NRC report, EP A published a December 28, 2009 Federal Register Notice announcing a proposed rulemaking to strengt hen 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 cons ideration of covering more areas within existing MS4 ju risdiction as well as regulating ad ditional areas for regulation not currently subject to MS4 jurisdiction.

c. Revising existing MS4 regulation to establish a single rule for all re gulated 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 c onsists of six questionnaire instruments designed

to collect information from various entities: owne rs and developers of residential, commercial, industrial, and non-commercial sites; owners and ope rators of MS4s (includi ng one specific to state and county Departments of Tran sportation (DOTs)), and NPDES Permitting Authorities. The data collected through these questionnai res will provide EPA with information to characterize current building, transportation, and real es tate improvement projects (i.e., ne w 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 progr ams and requirements (including retrofit of existing development) and the areas cove red by these requirements; the current capacity and expenditures by NPDES Permitting Authorities and lo cal authorities to implement, enforce, and maintain long term stormwater programs and contro ls; and technical, financial, and environmental data needed to quantify the incremental pollutant remova ls, compliance costs, impacts, and benefits for various regulatory options that EPA might consider in this rulemaking.

EPA plans to distribute the Owner/Developer Questi onnaires and MS4 Questionn aires to a statistical sample of owners and developers and MS4s, respectively. EPA plans to distribute the NPDES Permitting Authority Questionnaire to a census of NP DES Permitting Authorities. See Part B of this supporting statement. Owners/Developers, MS4s, a nd 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 (includi ng labor and O&M costs). The questionnaires and collection design represent EPA’s effort to gath er sufficient data to perform the analysis to accurately assess its rulemaking consid eration yet at the same time admi nister an ICR that limits the burden placed on respondents.

3Part 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 st ormwater 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 info rmation from owners and developers of newly developed and redeveloped projects , owners and operators of MS4s including transportation agencies, and NPDES Permitting Authorities. Because EPA lack s 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 regulato ry action to re duce 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 build ing, transportation, and real esta te improvement projects (i.e., new and redevelopment); long term stor mwater controls and best mana gement practices (BMPs) being installed at newly developed and redeveloped projects; state and lo cal long term stormwater programs and requirements (including retrof it of existing development) and the areas covered by these requirements; the current capacity and expenditures by states and loca lities such as MS4s associated with implementing and enforcing existing stormwater programs and requirements and in maintaining long term stormwater controls; and technical, financial, and environm ental data needed to quantify the incremental pollutant removals, compliance costs, im pacts, 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 NP DES Permit Authorities wi ll be collected through a questionnaire distributed under th e 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 solic it 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 colle cted through this ICR to gain knowledge of new development and redevelopment projects, long term stormwater management practices and installations at newly and redevel oped sites; financial information fo r developers and owners of these projects; current local and stat e stormwater programs and requ irements; budgets and financial information for NPDES Permitting Authority and lo cal 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 colle cted will provide data that complement, and go beyond, data that are available from public sources.

4Part A of the Supporting Statement

5 The Owner/Developer Questionnaires request info r mation on the following primarily as they relate to long term stormwater management of discharges from newly a nd redeveloped building and real estate improvement projects 1 :

 General identification information;

 Type/location/size/identification of projects;

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

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

 Long term stormwater best management pr actices and controls (with a focus on LID practices), including design criteria, specifications, a nd 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 Questio nnaires requests information on:

 The type of MS4 (e.g., Phase I, traditional. State DOT); • Stormwater conveyance (inc luding 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 requir ements, including specific or numeric long term stormwater discharge standard s for new and redevelopment activities;

• Local ordinances that conflict with or encourage long term st ormwater retention practices; • Long term stormwater controls and practi ces installed, maintained and whether cost and/or performance data are available;

 Current capacity, budget, and funding sources for implementing, en forcing, maintaining and monitoring existing stormwater program; and

 Stormwater capital improvement plans a nd/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 pr ogram, including the type and number of stormwater permittees (e.g. traditional, non traditional, Phase I, Phase II);

 State stormwater municipal permit require ments including specific or numeric long term stormwater discharge standa rds for new and redevelopment;

 State industrial stormwater permits and requirements;

1 EPA is not collecting data on erosion control activities or st ormwater management activities during the active construction phase.Part A of the Supporting Statement

 State construction storm water 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 ava ilability of long te rm 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 characteris tics (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 increm ental 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, es tablishment, 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 stor mwater programs. In specific, EPA would use information collected to, among other things, estab lish a baseline of local long term stormwater regulatory requirements and jurisdic tion, operation and maintenance of long term stormwater practices and controls, and current local ov ersight, monitoring, and enforcement. EPA would also estimate the current capacity and budgets of localities for thei r existing programs, including retrofit programs as applicable. EPA would use this information to info rm 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 requi rements for transportation. EPA woul d also use this information to help inform its consideration of implementing nati onal standards for new and redevelopment projects (and the associated operation and maintenance) th rough the MS4 program. Ultimately, EPA would use

this information to evaluate the incremental cost s and impacts on MS4s and local jurisdictions that may result from this regulation. Finally, where available, EPA would al so incorporate reported information on frequency of specific long term stormw ater controls, their cost s and effectiveness with information reported in the owner/deve loper questionnaire.

The NPDES Permitting Authority Questionnaire w ould gather similar information as the MS4 questionnaire, but at the state leve l. In specific, EPA would use information collected to, among other things, characterize state stormwater programs, re quirements, coverage, oversight, enforcement, capacity, and budgets. This informa tion would serve a similar purpose as the data collected in the MS4 questionnaire, but would allow EPA to estimate the impact of regulat ory 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 s upport 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 inform ation to inform whether to expand its national stormwater program and how to best reduce l ong term stormwater discharges from new and redevelopment and the built environment.

6Part A of the Supporting Statement

EPA engineers, statisticians, economists, biolog ists, and contractors would perform detailed analyses of the data collected through the questio nnaires. The EPA team would also supplement the

collected information with additional data sour ces, such as National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) precipitation data. Specific an alyses using the techni cal data are described

below.

Consideration of National Sta ndards for Long Term Stor mwater Discharges from New and Redeveloped Sites

(a) Profile of Current Construction Project s and Creation of Impervious Surfaces

EPA would use the data collect ed through the questionnaires to develop a national profile of new building and real estate improvement projects. This profile would differ entiate the various types of residential and commercial construction, by, at mi nimum, size and geographic location. In addition, EPA would develop a national profil e of net increase in impervious surfaces resulting from these

activities.

(b) Profile of Long Term Stormw ater Management Practices

EPA would use the data collected through the questionnaires to develop a national profile of long term stormwater management and control technol ogies and practices curren tly being incorporated in new building and real estate improvement project s, 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 Requi rements for Long Term Stormwater Discharges

EPA would use the data collected through the questionnaires to devel op a national profile of existing local and state long term stormwat er requirements for new and rede velopment projects and the built

environment.

(d) Technical Feasibility and E ffectiveness 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 ef fectiveness of long term stormwat er controls and practices, where available, together with other read ily available data to asses the eff ectiveness of variou s control options at reducing overall stormwat er 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 re gulatory control options . EPA would use tech nical data collected from the questionnaires to supplement readily avai lable data on pollutant loadings from long term stormwater discharges. Together, wi th information on existing projec ts, rainfall, and long term control and practice effectiveness, EPA w ill estimate the incremental polluta nt reductions associated with various regulatory options. EPA will then use these in cremental reductions in its benefits analyses and also to compare the relation be tween costs and associated redu ctions of regulatory options.

7Part A of the Supporting Statement

(f

) Assessment of Technology Costs

EPA will estimate the costs of various stormw ater 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 que stionnaires, supplemented by cost information from other sources such as control system manufact urers, to estimate the dire ct costs of stormwater management, pollution prevention, and control options selected for any regulatory requirements. These

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

collection and treatment/cont rol 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 du ring new development and redevelopment projects and any associated costs for operating an d 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 st ormwater collection and control technology (e.g., by installing new units or entire systems) and whether those responsible for maintaining such technologies woul d need to modify their operati ng practices to comply with the discharge requirements for a particul ar regulatory option. EPA also pl ans to evaluate and, account for, where appropriate, cost savings associated with option compliant long term stormwater discharge controls and practices. Incremental compliance co sts would be used to determine the potential economic impacts of the options. In addition, thes e incremental compliance costs would be weighed against the incremental pollutant reductions and benefits resulting from each regulatory option.

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

EPA will also asses the incremental costs associ ated 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 requireme nts, 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 ope ration and maintenance of the controls within their jurisdiction, on both public and private propert y. This will provide an i ndication 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 assessm ent to characterize environmental impacts associated with long term stormwat er discharges and the environmen tal improvements associated with their reduction. Improvements can include both su rface water improvements as well as “ancillary

benefits” associated with the use of certain urban stormwater control technol ogies and practices (e.g., improved groundwater recharge from infiltration pr actices or additional riparian habitat from vegetative buffers). The assessment aims to provide both a qualitative and, when sufficient data is available, quantitative characterization.

8Part A of the Supporting Statement

EPA would use information collected through this ICR, supplemented by other data, to perform this analysis. Following an assessm ent 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 an alyses to help inform its cons ideration of and development of options for national requirements to reduce l ong term stormwater disc harges from new and redeveloped sites. For example, EPA would use th e information to assess whether it should develop different standards for development and rede velopment or based on geographic location (e.g., Chesapeake Bay). The above analyses in conjunc tion with the economic analyses described below would help EPA determine what st andards are appropriate to meet such a requirement and ultimately the decision criteria that may be us ed to make standard(s) selection.

Consideration of Changes to the Federal Stormwater Program

(a) Distribution and characte ristics of MS4 jurisdictions around the country

EPA would use collected data to develop a dist ribution 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 stor mwater 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 informa tion 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 informa tion can help determine the need for regulating these sites through a redefined MS4 ar ea 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 requi rements. In addition, EPA will evaluate the current prevalence of the Phase I requirement and the six Phase II minimum control

measures across all MS4s.

9Part A of the Supporting Statement

( d) Assessment of Retrofit Requirements for Existing Sites

Retrofitting is the installation or modificati on of stormwater control measures on sites with existing development (including existing storm se wers) to enhance the re duction of stormwater pollutants and discharge volume and flow rates. EPA will use data prim arily collected from questionnaire responses to develop a national profile of existing state a nd 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 discharg es 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 re quiring the same program elements for all MS4s. For example, if any Phase I MS4 program already in corporates 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 econom ists would use information collected in these questionnaires to estimate the potential economic impacts of the proposed rule on a ffected 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 requ ire input from and/or build on th e technical analyses described

above.

To analyze the costs and impact of the pr oposed rule, EPA would use the questionnaire information to (1) characterize quantitatively the fina ncial profile of the economic entities expected to be subject to the regulation, (2) characterize quan titatively the profile of new and redevelopment projects, (3) undertake analyses of the economic impacts due to in stallation and maintenance costs based on that information; (4) to characterize quan titatively 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 es tablishments and firms engaged in developing projects and projects owne rs that are expected to be dire ctly affected by this regulation. The development industry encompasses businesses operating in a range of construction industry segments. The questionnaires woul d determine those industry segmen ts that are likely to perform activities within the scope of the regulation and th at 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

10Part A of the Supporting Statement

estab lishment 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 w ith National Long Term Stormwater Discharge Standards for New and Redevelopment Projects

The four primary categories of aff ected entities are defined by their role in the life cycle of a development project, including the original land owner, the project developer/ow ner, 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 potentia lly affected entities in sectors impacted by the rule. A set of model firms that perform devel opment 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 so ld or leased in the real estate market, many of these costs will be passed through to other entities. Information on ownership and pr oject purpose gathered through the survey will facilitate the estim ation of the proportion of costs th at are passed through to different

business sectors and socio-economic communities.

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

The survey will collect information on project c onstruction cost and value for each phase of development. This will facilitate an assessment of project-le vel changes to profitabili ty and also help in estimating an incremental compliance cost multiplie r, 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 pe r-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 te rms not only of total cost to the industry, but also other key impact metrics, includi ng 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 or der to satisfy the Regulatory Flexib ility Act (RFA, 5 U.S.C. et seq., Public Law 96-354), amended by the 1996 Small Bu siness Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA).

(d) Analysis of Single-Family H ousing 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 te rms of the expected change in pr ice 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 estim ating the extent and di stribution of current development activity and for assessing the incremental costs from regulating this activity. The survey

11Part A of the Supporting Statement

also provides the inform ation needed for a baseline assessment of current stormwater management activities by NPDES Permitting Aut horities and municipalities and for estimating the incremental burden to these government entities from expansion of their respons ibilities 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 activ ity in the constr uction and real estate markets. The social cost analysis also takes into account the in creased governmental costs resulting from the rule. The incremen tal costs to government and the priv ate sector are also used for an additional analysis that estimates the economy- wide effects on output, em ployment and household

income.

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

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

the rule on small entities. Small entities are estim ated to comprise approximately 88 percent of the construction industry. It is antici pated 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 proj ects, and thus support a stronger understanding of potential rule impacts on small businesses. The surv ey will also provide important information on the operating budgets and current stormwater manage ment 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 speci fically 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 in formation that will be used to determine capacity of municipalities to administer the regulation. This will allo w OW to determine incremental burden. OW will incorporate several cost concepts such as: the deve lopment of systems and procedures for processing a new permit; project design and permit review an d approval at project commencement; and the potential cost of ongoing monitoring and inspecti on 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 a ny associated maintenance requirements can have a direct affect on property values. The survey collects information on pr oject 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 aesthe tic 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 expe rienced 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

12Part A of the Supporting Statement

Sewer System Maintenance, and Stream Restora tion. The municipal survey gathers information on current municipal efforts and expenditures for ca pacity expansion to re duce flooding, storm sewer maintenance, and either stream restoration or stre am bank stabilization. This information will help in the assessment of the potential cost savings that may result from re ducing 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 W ater made every reasonable atte mpt to ensure that this ICR does not request data and information currently available through less burdensome mechanisms. Specifically, OW explored Agency databases, director ies, contacts, and sources to locate data and information significant to this regulatory development process. OW also explored ot her ongoing or completed regulatory developments (e.g., Effluent Limitations, Guidelines , and Standards (ELGs) for the Construction and Development Industry) and/or information collect ion efforts. In addition, OW has conducted a thorough collection and review of other appli cable databases and s econdary sources.

For information on project type and project si ze, EPA has used CGP Notice of Intent (NOI) records in the past. However, while some informa tion for potential in-scope projects can be obtained from the NOI database, the dataset has certain lim itations including coverage, detail and currency. The

NOI database includes data on onl y 24 states and cannot provide the information needed to conduct a national assessment. In addition, the information include d in this source is not sufficiently detailed in terms of project technical character istics and contains little or no economic/financial information to meet the needs of the technical, economic, and envi ronmental impact analyses. Moreover, the dataset is not consistently current. EPA intends therefore to collect information on cu rrent projects and project size from the questionnaire respondents so that a mo re accurate national picture can be developed.

Previously used data sources for stormwater c ontrols include state construction general permits (CGPs), websites, summary referen ces, 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 th at are implemented by states, but do not summarize long term stormwater controls th at are implemented after completion of active new and redevelopment projects, which are the focus of this data collect ion 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 cha nge. This database provides a 30-meter resolution land cover data layer over the conterminous Unite d States (CONUS) from Landstat Tematic Mapper satellite imagery. NLCD data are publicly avai lable 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, agri culture, and wetlands Ice/Snow. EP A intends to collect pre- and post-development land cover data as part of this data co llection as a means to assess potential changes in stormwater flow following land development. Th ese data are not currently available from NLCD due to the level of detail requi red for post-development land cover categories (e.g., ro oftops, parking lots, street/road, lawn, farm , forest, other vegetation).

13Part A of the Supporting Statement

For inform ation on soil type, EPA has used th e State Soil Geographic Database (STATSGO) which provides a national map of soil types acro ss 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 deta iled 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 ava ilable data published by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). These data are available from nati onal weather stations throughout the U.S. and will provide sufficient estim ates 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 appli cable to the control of long term stormwater discharges from newly developed and redeveloped site s. To assess the performa nce of these practices, in part, EPA will use data from vendors and the Na tional Stormwater BMP Database, developed by the American Society of Civ il Engineers (ASCE).

The financial data requested in the owner/de veloper 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), th ese data are limited and do not provide sufficient understanding of the business opera tions of the industry to comp lete a comprehensive economic impact analysis. In addition, some of the financia l information requested ma y be claimed as CBI and therefore not available outside of a survey.

Although some municipalities and states may make informati on publicly available on their budgets, revenue sources, and stormwater management act ivities, 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 informa tion is not collected in a consistent way in order to support a national sampling. While re viewing 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-government al entities, such as Black and Veatch, have undertaken voluntary surveys to gather informati on 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 publis hed a notice in the Federal Register, announcing the Agency’s intent to subm it a request for a new ICR and to collect comment on three draft questionnaires associ ated with this stormwater management regulation. EPA informed trade associations, state and local contacts, and enviro nmental groups of the notice via phone and e-mail.

14Part A of the Supporting Statement

EPA plans to publish a second notice in the Fede ral Register announcing its intent to subm it a request for a new ICR and to co llect comments on the revised vers ions of the questionnaires for owners/developers, MS4s, and NPDES Permitting Aut horities that incorporate comments received during the first comment period. The notice will incl ude a description of the entities that would be affected by the proposed questionnaire s, a brief explanation of the need for the questionnaires, and an estimate of the burden to be incurred by questionnai re respondents. By means of the notice, the Agency will request any further comments and suggestions regarding th e questionnaires and a reduction in the associated burden, and ask the pub lic 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 informati on collection is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agen cy, 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 th at 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 Departme nts of Transportation, long term stormwater practice and control vendors, universities, and indi viduals. Appendix A contains a complete list of all commenters.

EPA is appreciative of the efforts made by st akeholders to support a nd improve the focus and content of the draft questionnaires. EPA has benefite d 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 No tice. An overview of the overarching comments applicable to all of the questionnaires and th e resultant changes is provided below. A more detailed summary of comments received on each of the questionnaires and EPA’s response and action are pr esented in Appendix B.

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

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

response:

15Part A of the Supporting Statement

EPA does have federal authority to reg ulate d ischarges “from” MS4s but not “into” them. [402(p)(2)(C) & (D)] The only federal authority over MS4 influent is the prohibition of non-stormwater di scharges into MS4s. [402(p)(3)];.

EPA agrees with commenter that CWA sec tions 402(p)(2)(C) and (D) give EPA the authority to regulate discharges from MS 4s; 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 prohibiti on 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 di scharged to an MS4 is inde pendently 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 wh ich enters and is subsequently discharges through a munici pal 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 sta ndard 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 th at 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 requir e 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 rule making 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 indus trial 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 define d as “industrial” or from a “municipal separate storm sewer syst em.” Specifically, EP A 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 re gulate stormwater discharges from developed sites. For example, in the Phase II stormwater re gulations under the aut hority of CWA section 402(p)(6) EPA designated and currently regulat es stormwater “discharges associated

with small construction activit y,” which are neither industria l discharges nor discharges from MS4s. 40 CFR 122.26(b)(15). In any ru lemaking process EPA will discuss further

16Part A of the Supporting Statement

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

lim itation.

Post-construction stormwater discharges should be considered nonpoint source discharges or diffuse stormwater discha rges that are not regulated under the

CWA.

EPA disagrees with commenter. “Point source” is defined as “any discernible, confined, and discrete conveyance, incl uding 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 s ites contain pipes, ditc hes, swales or other types of discrete conveyan ces; 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 sta ndard or other effluent limitation.

EPA can only regulate using standard indus trial 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 th e 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 sour ces addressed in the propos al) for regulation under the

CWA.

EPA has not clearly articulated its stat utory 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 orde r to protect water quality and develop a comprehensive program to regulate thos e designated stormwater discharges. Designation of stormwater discharges from developed site s is being considered as part of any rulemaking. Additionally, EPA has the authority under CWA section 402(p)(3)(B) to require discha rges 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 a ppropriate for the control of stormwater

17Part A of the Supporting Statement

discharges. The inform ation collected in th is Information Collection Request will be used to assist EPA in developing a regulat ion to address discharges from developed sites, including, but not limited to, performan ce or design standards for those designated discharges from developed sites as part of a comprehensive program under section 402(p)(6); benefits of any pe rformance 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 prom ulgates. 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 we ll 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 rese arching 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. Nothi ng in the preamble or section 122.37 requires EPA to refrain from an ICR process to co llect information about implementation or effectiveness of the stormwater program or from changing the regula tions prior to that time. Although in 1999 EPA expressed its in tention to wait until completion of two permit cycles except under certain circumstan ces, 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 reevalua te the program much sooner; some commenters supported waiting two permit cycl es, 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 Pre ss, October 2008), including the strong information indicating EPA should improve how it controls discharges of stormwater, EPA has obtained enough data to begin th e reevaluation proce ss at this time.

Many commenters provided alternat ive sources to obtain data and/ or explained that they did not have the information to respond to certain questi ons. 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.

18Part A of the Supporting Statement

Some suggested EPA’s possible un iverse of questionnaire recipients is flawed. In some cases, commenters provided information on additional categories of possibl e recipients (other possible sources of the requested informati on) while others explained why cert ain categories were inappropriate recipients (because they do not have the requeste d information). EPA reviewed and revised its universe of possible questi onnaire recipients and concludes that the entities included in the survey design will provide the best inform ation to aid EPA in this rulemaki ng effort. See Part B of this ICR for additional information on the proposed universe of questionnaire recipients.

Various commenters requested additional definiti ons or suggested revise d definitions. EPA agrees that additional and/or revised definitions would improve understanding of the terms used in specific questions and would likely improve the quali ty 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 gather ed 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 a nd 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 mo st burdensome questionnaire respondents. See

Section 7 for additional discussion on burden.

Various commenters provided s uggestions for revisions of sp ecific questions or additional questions or stormwater issues for which EPA s hould request data. Where appropriate, EPA revised the questions accordingly.

Many provided comments on the rulemaking itsel f. While EPA appreciates these comments, they are outside the scope of this ICR.

c. Consultations

The Agency will con tinue to solicit comments and consult with interested stakeholders following publication of this notice and throughout development of th is rule. Following the first Federal Register Notice, EPA hosted a number of te leconferences and meetings with representatives

from the National Association of Home Builder’s (NAHB), The Association of General Contractors (AGC), Association of State a nd Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators (ASWIPCA), National Association of Clean Water Agencies (NACWA), Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), and various states. In addition, be tween January and March, EPA conducted listening sessions in Chicago, San Francisc o, Denver, Dallas, DC, and Boston which enabled it to obtain feedback directly from a variety of interested st akeholders including large a nd small municipalities and developers. EPA also held a virt ual listening session with approxima tely 1,900 participants. The main purpose of the listening sessions was to obtain input on the rulemaking considerations described in Section 1a. However, these listen ing sessions were invaluable to th is 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 consideratio ns. EPA also received input on the questionnaires themselves as well as other data sources during these listening sessions. EPA plans

19Part A of the Supporting Statement

to conduct addition al teleconfer ences 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 questionna ires will not be available for EPA’s use in decision making about the need for and scope of pot ential regulation to prev ent or reduce long term stormwater discharge impacts from new and redeve lopment. Reliance on pub lic data alone would significantly impair EPA’s ability to establish a baseline of existing stat e and local stormwater programs and requirements, current new and rede velopment projects and associated long term stormwater controls; and incremental costs, polluta nt reductions, impacts, and benefits of potential rulemaking.

e. General Guidelines

EPA will conduct data collection in accordan ce w ith the Paperwork Reduction Act guidelines in 5 CRA 1320.6 and EPA’s Quality Assurance Guid ance. 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 Qualit y, Objectivity, Utility, and Integrity of the Information Disseminated by Federal Agencies.

f. Confidentiality

The owner/developer questionnai res inform respondents of thei r 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 entit ies, none meet the definition of a business as defined in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B, Section 2.201. The owner/deve loper 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 relate d 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 pot entially confidential business information is accompanied by a CBI chec kbox. 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 questionn aires 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 di ssemination of confidential st udy results or findings to aggregate statistics a nd coded listings.

20Part A of the Supporting Statement

Inf ormation 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 busin ess confidentiality claim may be disclosed to other employees, officers, or authorized representatives of the Un ited States concerned with implementing the Clean Water Act. Exemption 4 of the Freedom of Informa tion Act (FOIA) protects from disclosure "trade

secrets and commercial or financial informa tion 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 res ponsible for the proper handling of that data. Each contractor will safeguard informati on as described in Section 2.211(d) of Subpart B and is obligated to use or disclose information on ly as permitted by the contract under which the

information is furnished.

g. Sensitive Questions

No sensitiv e questions pertaining to private or personal informati on, 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/Devel oper Questionnaires is all developm ent
establishments in the United States. For the selec tion of establishments by construction type, EPA is focusing on the following eight North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes:

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

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

 236117: New Housing Operative Builders;

 236210: Industrial Building Construction;

 236220: Commercial and Institut ional 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 develope rs/owners of new and redevelopment.

The target population for the MS4 Questionnai res 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 currentl y 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 populati on 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.

21Part A of the Supporting Statement

22 b. Information Requested

i. Data Items, Including Record Keeping Requirements

EPA has developed six survey in strum ents for this data collec tion effort: a Long and Short Owner/Developer Questionnaire, two MS4 Questionnaires 2 , a Transportation MS4 Questionnaire, and a NPDES Permitting Authority Questionnaire. Th e Owner/Developer Questionnaire responses will primarily provide information to evaluate the standards for long term stormwater discharges from newly developed and redeveloped sites. MS4s (incl uding transportation agencies) would be asked to provide information that will be used to evalua te existing local stormwater programs, long term stormwater control requirements including retrofits , local ordinances, and annual costs incurred by MS4s for implementing, maintaining and enforcin g 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, charac terize 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/develo per questionnaires, the Federally Regulated and Non-Federally Regulated MS4 Questionnaires, an d the Transportation MS 4 Questionnaire to a statistical sample of the four population categories. EPA is planning to distribute the NPDES Permitting Authority questionnaire to a census of a ll U.S. NPDES Permitting Authorities. Part B of this document details EPA’s plans for se lecting questionnaire recipients.

EPA is evaluating various methods for distribu ting 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 questionn aires 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 inform ation 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. Howe ver, 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 que stions. In particular, questions in the short questionnaire are aimed at covering basic, key operatio nal 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 curren tly regulated by EPA’s municipal stormwater program.Part A of the Supporting Statement

LONG OWNER/DEVELO PER QUESTIONNAIRE

SECTION A: GENERAL INFORMATION

Questions 1-11 cover basic, key operational and fi nancial 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 ra ther 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 info rmation 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 establis hment 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 resu lted in 5,000 or more square feet of impervious surface; and, (4) the project was NOT a pi peline 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 respond ent indicate the state(s)/territori es in which the establishment operates. The state in which the establishment is a lega l entity may be different than the state or states that in which it operates. This information will be us ed to characterize the distribution of development activity and existing stormwater regulations geog raphically. 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 a nd operated, or owned by a parent firm. Although the quest ionnaire 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 indus try-level economic impact analysis and to understand the operating structure of owners a nd developers. If the respondent in dicates that they are owned by a parent firm, they are prompted to answer th ree follow-up questions about the parent firm:

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

the firm.

23Part 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 fi rm’s total revenue for each year from 2005 through 2009. The respondent may flag this info rmation as CBI. Revenue information will be

used to define the size of the firm in the econom ic/financial analysis, a nd 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 furt her characterize the baselin e financial performance

and structure of model firms and to estimate certain financial information require d in the analysis (for example, costs of capital).

Question 11 requests that the respondent indicate their type of bus iness 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 st ructure(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 re venue data along with financial statement data from RMA’s eStatement Studies to map survey res pondents to model firm financial statements. This question asks not only for total reve nue, but also for the subset of revenue associated with activities that meet the in-scope criteria set forth in Questio n 4. In so doing, this question also functions as a mechanism for narrowing the focus of the questionna ire in anticipation of subsequent, more detailed questions specifically targeted at in -scope activities. It is also impor tant to isolate the respondent’s inscope revenue to gauge the fraction of the resp ondent’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 proj ect roles: owner only, developer only, owner and developer. This inform ation will be used to support the development of model in-scope businesses and the assignment of model projects to model busine sses. The role of the business in the project is important because it influences th e potential cost pass-th rough possibilities and partly determines the proportion of project compliance cost s assigned to the model business.

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

catego ry of development activity: new development, redevelopment, or alteration/expansion. This will be used to characterize the proportion of model busine ss activity that occurs in these categories and, as in question 13, support the assignment of m odel projects to m odel businesses.

Question 15 asks the respondent to report th eir revenue (i.e., in-scope revenue from question 12 ) by type of developm ent (e.g., single-family, multi-family, commercial, industrial, and various mixed-use

24Part A of the Supporting Statement

25 options). Th is 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 re port the total number of projects that they completed participation in each year from 2005 – 2009, by project size an d across key development categories. This information will serve multiple purposes in the economic impact analysis. EPA will develop

distributions from this data to s upport the development of model in-scope projec ts (e.g., the size and frequency of projects in different categories), and it will be used sim ilarly to characterize the kinds of projects typically performed by different cate gories 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 su pporting the same analysis activities described in 17 , this question will also be used to support the analysis of affordab ility affects on single-fam ily housing units.

Question 19 asks the respondent to re port the total number of projects that they completed participation in each year from 2005 – 2009 that used LID practic es. This information will be used to support development of the baseline profile of new and rede velopment 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. R ecognizing 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 pa rtner with other entities), revenue alone (from Question 12) is not sufficient for characterizing the si ze of projects in which the responde nt might engage. For instance, due to the presence of phasing and partnership, EP A 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 projec ts performed by in-scope businesses.

The remaining questions request de tailed technical and financial info rmation about individual projects. The respondent is asked to complete one copy of th ese questions (Part 2) for each project that meets question 4 criteria, and that was on-going on a randomly selected date 3 in the 2005-2009 time period. Questions 21 through 47 request project specific technical information wh ile questions 48 through 50 request project specific financial information.

3 Each questionnaire recipient will be asked to respond for a di fferent randomly selected data. EPA will select the date for each recipient prior to questionnaire distribution.Part A of the Supporting Statement

Questions 2 1 – 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-reside ntial, who ownership was transferred to upon project completion. These ques tions 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 Questi on 31 requests information n the number of residential dwellings units, if applicab le. EPA will use this question to categorize each type of project reported.

Questions 32 and 33 ask for pre- and post-develo pment 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, th en Questions 37 and 38 request information on the soil type and distribution of hydrologic soil groups at the project site. This inform ation, along with precipitation data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admi nistration (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 di scharges 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 load s 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 stor mwater management requirements. Question 40 asks for information on the type of lo ng term stormwater performance standards that applied to the project (e.g., water qu ality, flood control) and design criter ia 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 sect ors of the industry (e.g., residential vs. commercial).

Questions 41 – 45 request information specific to re tention 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 alternativ e land use if stormwater controls had not been implemented at the project. Th e information in this set of questions will be used, along with the data collected in th e 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 a nd 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

26Part A of the Supporting Statement

retain runoff onsite (i.e. bioretenti on, rain gardens, etc) for this project, EP A may contact them to request the cost comparison.

Questions 46 and 47 request information on whethe r certain long term stormwater controls are included in the project’s stormwater control system and their associat ed costs, as applicable. This information will help assess the current usage of various long term stormwater controls, evaluate potential technology options, and pot ential 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 pha se(s) of the project that they actively participated. This information will be used to su pport development of the model in-scope firms in terms of identifying the typical role s performed by different types of es tablishments 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 re port the cost of services in th e different project phases (land acquisition, land development, and construction), fo r 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 fi nancing terms of each phase of the project in which the re spondent was an active participant. This information will be used to define key model project characteris tics such as typical interest ra te structures and information on equity financing, both of which will be factored in to EPA’s economic analysis of industry- and firmlevel impacts.

SHORT OWNER/DEVELOPER QUESTIONNAIRE

Questions 1-11 cover basic, key operational and fi nancial 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 ra ther 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 info rmation to specific calendar years of business activity.

27Part A of the Supporting Statement

Question 4 is the prim ary 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 establis hment 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 resu lted in 5,000 or more square feet of impervious surface; and, (4) the project was NOT a pi peline 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 respond ent indicate the state(s)/territori es in which the establishment operates. The state in which the establishment is a lega l entity may be different than the state or states that in which it operates. This information will be us ed to characterize the distribution of development activity and existing stormwater regulations geog raphically. 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 a nd operated, or owned by a parent firm. Although the quest ionnaire 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 indus try-level economic impact analysis and to understand the operating structure of owners a nd developers. If the respondent in dicates that they are owned by a parent firm, they are prompted to answer th ree follow-up questions about the parent firm:

If NO to Question 6 , then question 7 asks for contact inform ation 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 fi rm’s total revenue for each year from 2005 through 2009. The respondent may flag this info rmation as CBI. Revenue information will be

used to define the size of the firm in the econom ic/financial analysis, a nd 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 furt her characterize the baselin e financial performance

and structure of model firms and to estimate certain financial information require d in the analysis (for example, costs of capital).

Question 11 requests that the respondent indicate their type of bus iness 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 op erating structure(s) ch aracteristic of the industry.

28Part A of the Supporting Statement

Question 12 asks the respondent to re port the total num ber of projects that they completed participation in each year from 2005 – 2009, by project size an d across key development categories. This information will serve multiple purposes in the economic impact analysis. EPA will develop

distributions from this data to s upport the development of model in-scope projec ts (e.g., the size and frequency of projects in different categories), and it will be used sim ilarly to characterize the kinds of projects typically performed by different cate gories 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 suppor ting the same analysis activities described in Question 12 , this question will also be used to supp ort the analysis of affordability affects on single-family housing units.

Question 14 asks the respondent to re port the total number of projects that they completed participation in each year from 2005 – 2009 that used LID practic es. This information will be used to support development of the baseline profile of development activities and the ge neral 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. R ecognizing 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), reve nue alone is not sufficient for characterizing the size of projects in which the respondent might e ngage. For instance, due to the presence of phasing and partners hip, EPA cannot reasonably determ ine 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 ther efore be used to further characterize the size/type of projects performed by in-scope businesses.

Question 16 asks the respondent to complete a table su mmarizing 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 ch aracteristics including the NOI or NOC permit number, zip code, development category, new vs. redevelopment, percen t 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 th e cost and economic impact analysis.

FEDERALLY REGGULATED MS4 QUESTIONNAIRE

EPA developed the Federally Regulated MS4 Ques tionnaire to collect information from local and county governments that are currently subject to EPA’s Ph ase I or Phase II stormwater requirements for MS4s. The following provides a detaile d description of and just ification for each of the questions in the survey.

29Part A of the Supporting Statement

SECTION A: TECHNICAL INFORMATION

Question A-1 collects identification information incl uding the name, title, addr ess, 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 th e name of the MS4 owner or operator Department or Agency.

Question A-3 collects identification information on th e type of the regulated MS4. There different types of regulated MS4s including city, to wn, village, county sewer district. It is important that the type of

MS4 be identified to understand the in formation collected from the MS4.

Question A-4 collects identification information on th e type MS4 permit. There are two different types of NPDES permits: individual and ge neral permits. In addition, the re gulated MS4 may be a small or medium/large MS4. It is important th at the type of MS4 permit and cate gory 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 comple ted to determine the amount of experience the MS4 has under the stormwater permit program; this information will be used to

better understand the information coll ected from the MS4. In addition, th is information w ill be used to get a nationwide sampling of the st atus 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 stormw ater 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 regulat ed 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 deve loping 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 locate d 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 re defining MS4 coverage beyond the urbanized area to

better control stormwater disc harges from development occurring outside the urban center.

Questions A-7 – A-8 collect information about the ba sis 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 informati on could be used to inform opti ons for redefining MS4 coverage.

30Part A of the Supporting Statement

Question A-9 collects infor mation a bout the population, total area and estimated amount of impervious cover of the portion of the jurisdiction that is regulate d and that is unregulated. This data will be used

to establish a baseline of th e current scope of coverage.

Question A-10 collects information a bout what components of the stor mwater 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 stormw ater program are extende d to areas outside of federal required boundaries and to identify which co mponents 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 stormwat er program components.

Questions A-11 – A-12 collect information about discha rges 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 discha rge to the MS4, the populatio n that is not served by the MS4 and what type of land uses do not disc harge to the MS4. Information is collected about whether the MS4 regulates these di rect 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 regulat ed. This information could be used to inform regulatory consid erations about regulating these di rect 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 fo r 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 fo llow 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 imp acts and to inform decisions about expansion of the program to

additional areas.

Questions A-14 – A-15 collect information about whethe r the MS4 collaborates wi th other agencies to carry out parts of the stormwater program and whether or not they ha ve oversight of those activities. This information will help determine the how the wo rkload of implementing the stormwater program is distributed between different agencies in the munici pality. Different types of regulated MS4s (city, town, county, or sewer district) ma y operate differently. It is impor tant to understand who carries out

these activities in order to inform deci sions about redefining the MS4 program.

Questions A-16 – A-20 collect information about spec ific activities that the MS4 has implemented in order to meet the minimum measure requirement s of the stormwater program including public education, outreach, illicit disc harge detection, pollution preven tion, 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 suppl ement 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.

31Part A of the Supporting Statement

Although industrial inspections are no t required under the federal Phase II storm water 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 faci lities located within th e 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 ha ve 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 constructi on 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 regardi ng 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 in formation. This information would be used to inform options for implementation of a specific standard for discharges from newly

constructed sites. Estimates of how much cons truction 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 th e post construction components of the stormwater program carried out by MS4s. The data will be used to determine whic h type of activities are carried about by the MS4 regarding post construction practices and oversight. Information is specifically collected about the size of project fo r which site plan review for stor mwater controls is required. This information will be used to estimate how many proj ects are reviewed for stormwater measures. This information would be used to inform options fo r implementation of a sp ecific post construction standard for discharges from newly constructed sites and whether procedur es are in place to review site plans, in which the standard could be incorporated.

Questions A-27 – A-34 collect information about th e MS4’s level of oversi ght of post construction controls located on public vs. private property. Data will be collected about whether the MS4 tracks, inspects or maintains stormwater co ntrols on public vs. private proper ty 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 constr uction controls. Informati on will be collected if the MS4 currently has an ordinanc e or other legal mechanism of ope rating 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 MS 4 regarding oversight of post construction controls. This information can gi ve insight into who is currently maintaining and overseeing maintenance of post c onstruction controls on private pr operty, 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 thes e activities. This information will be used to inform options about determining standards for ne w development and redevelopment. This data will

32Part A of the Supporting Statement

provide a national sam pling of how MS4s define the two types of development and if MS4s have the same or different requirements for them. An estima te 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 w ill 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. Estim ates of how much has occurred within the MS4 boundary will inform options a bout implementing the sta ndard through the MS4 program and by other means for sites outside the MS4 boundary.

Questions A-38 – A-46 are designed to gather in formation on post construction control performance standards or design criteria currently implement ed in the MS4. These questions ask about post construction standards for new development and rede velopment in MS4s; specifically, what (if any) performance or design standards ar e required, for what types of deve lopment (commercial, industrial, residential, institutional), and whether they differ between new and redevelopment. Data is also gathered regarding how such standards are impl emented (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 cons truction standards, how they ar e 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 re garding the MS4’s post construction standard. Question 47 collects information about whether or not the post construc tion 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 in formation would be used to inform options for implementation of a specific post cons truction standard for discharges from newly constructed sites and whether procedures ar e in place to enforce such a standard.

Question A-49 requests information about whether th e MS4 has any alternativ e to compliance with their post construction standard, if applicable, such as stormwater mitigation programs or payment in lieu to identify which MS4s are currently implemen ting these practices. This information would be used to inform options for implementation of a speci fic post construction standard for discharges from newly constructed sites and how prevalent are m itigation 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 driver s and incentives of the program. Data will be used to determine how prevalent these programs ar e 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 in cluding both detention and retenti on practices. This information can be used to evaluate how prevalent these practices are, which are most commonly used and where, and

33Part A of the Supporting Statement

whether or not the MS4 m aintains these various type s 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 w ith 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 sta ndard to control long term stormw ater 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 compar isons are being conducted on a site-specific basis and the possible availability of thos e 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 driver s 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 w ith these MS4 to collect more information and lessons learned regarding the mo st effective way to promote stormwater retention practices.

Questions A-60 – A-61 ask whether there are any regul atory obstacles or contra indications for the use of retention practices or maintena nce concerns within a jurisdicti on, to establish what factors may prevent the implementation of retention practices a nd how prevalent these barri ers 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 groundw ater 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 di scharges from developed sites.

Question A-63 collects information about stormwater impacts to so urce 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 deve lop areas which may include options for MS4 to identify locations for retention pract ices. It is important to evaluate the understandi ng of source water protection areas, so that stormwater discha rges 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, redevelopm ent, and retrofitting. Th ese data will help in analyzing which (if any) incentives have been effec tive for encouraging stormw ater retention practices and provide baseline information about which incen tives are most common. This information will be used to evaluate options for implementing a post c onstruction 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.

34Part A of the Supporting Statement

Questions A -69 - A-72 request estimates about whet her 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 infrastructur e and other alternate stormflow ma nagement methods may help avert the need for upgrades to ‘typical’ stormwater cont rol measures, thus potentially saving costs and

resources in some areas.

Questions A-73 - A-79 refer to monitoring practices w ithin MS4s and the result s of that monitoring (if applicable). This data can be us ed to help verify cause-and-effect between certain stormwater practices and their effects on water quality. This data can also be used to distinguis h 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 info rmation 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 justificat ion for each of the questions in the survey.

SECTION B: FINANCI AL INFORMATION

Question B-1 requests information about the MS4’s total operating and stormw ater related budget for five fiscal years (2005-2009). This question will provide data on the co st 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 comb ination 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 a nd maintenance activities. This information will be used to help establish ba seline financial and operati ng 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 improve ment activities. This information will be used to help establish baseli ne financial and operating structure of MS4s, and characterize likely revenue sources for costs that may be incurred due to the regulation.

35Part A of the Supporting Statement

Question B-6 request inform ation on source of capita l 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 re gulatory requirements.

Question B-7 and B-8 request information about the average number of full and part time employees

devoted to stormwater related activit ies in the past five years. This data will inform estimates of the number of employees required to conduct the activitie s 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 associ ated 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 abili ty 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-t ime 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 reve nue to meet new regulatory requirements.

Questions B-11 through B-13 request informati on on the amount and basis for the onetime development fees imposed by the MS4 (e.g., based on pr oject value, impervious area, etc.). This will provide information on the potential for additio nal revenues available by raising fees and/or reformulating fee structures to more closely re flect the amount of stor mwater generated from properties and cost associated w ith its management, especially one-time capital costs for expanded system capacity to accommodate new development. Since this rate st ructure 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 in curred by the MS4 related to new development are actually covered by the one-time fees. This informa tion 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 additi on, if new regulations require on- site retention practices for new development, the burden on MS4 to provide additi onal capacity in their syst em may be reduced. The significance of this effect may be determined relative to the cu rrent 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 f ee is already being used as a sour ce of revenue or whether it is a potential source of revenue to m eet new regulatory requirements.

Questions B-16 through B-18 request informati on on the amount and basis for the recurring stormwater fees imposed by the MS4 (e.g., based on proj ect value, impervious area, etc.). This will provide information on the potential for additio nal revenues available by raising fees and/or reformulating fee structures to more closely re flect the amount of stor mwater generated from properties and cost associated w ith its management. Since this ra te structure may be significantly different for single-family,

36Part A of the Supporting Statement

multi-fam ily, and non-residential projects, it is importa nt 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 actua lly 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 redevelo pment, the quantity of flow that the MS4 must manage may not incr ease and/or be reduced. The signi ficance of this effect may be

determined relative to the current expense of such opera tions and maintenance expenditures.

Question B-20 and B-21 request information about the amount of money spent on system capacity expansion projects in the year s 2005 through 2009 and the amount of the system addressed by these activities. This data will provide information on th e cost of capacity expansion and inform potential avoided costs calculations for future system expansi on if on-site retention pr actices are required by the new regulation.

Question B-22 and B-23 request information about th e amount of money spent on stormwater retrofit projects in the years 2005 th rough 2009 and number of projects completed with these funds. Information from these questions will provide da ta on the cost of retrof it activities and provide evidence for the cost of mitigating stormwater disc harges 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 prac tices 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 year s 2005 through 2009, the number of mile s restored and purpose of these projects. Information from these questions will provide data on the cost of rest oration of urban streams

and the characteristics and/or functi ons of the stream that the activit ies 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) th at are likely not currentl y subject to EPA’s Phase I or Phase II stormwater management requirements. EPA needs to collect mi nimal 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 descri bed MS4 Questionnaire.

Question A-1 collects identification information incl uding the name, title, addr ess, phone number and email address of the primary contact that completed the questionnaire to verify or clarify the responses

as necessary.

37Part A of the Supporting Statement

Q uestion A-2 collects identification information of th e 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 a bout the population, total area and es timated amount of impervious cover of the jurisdiction. This info rmation will be used to inform op tions 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 c oupled with information about the MS4’s existing

stormwater program.

Question A-5 collects information on other ways stormw ater 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 regulat ed (combined system) and unregulated stormwater discharges (separate sewer and/or decentralized). This information will be used to ge t a baseline of how stormwater is managed in the unregulated MS4.

Question A-6 collects information ab out whether the MS4 has an ordina nce or regulatory mechanism to manage stormwater. This in formation 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 ha ve these authorities in place, the burden of implementing the stormwater program in these MS4s could be reduced.

Question A-7 collects information a bout whether or not the MS4 revi ews 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 re defining 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 ma nagement program. If th e respondent answers no, then they have completed the survey. Respondent s 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 us ed to establish a baseline of th e 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 us ed to establish a baseline of the expe rience level for implementing stormwater programs at unregulated MS4s. This information w ill be used to inform options for redefining MS4 regulatory coverage. If the unregulat ed MS4s currently have some level of experience implementing a

38Part A of the Supporting Statement

storm water programs, the burden of implementing th e stormwater program in these MS4s could be

reduced.

Questions A-10 – A-17 collect information about specif ic activities that current ly regulated MS4s must implement in order to meet certain of the minimu m measure requirements of the stormwater program including public education, outreach, illicit discharge detection, pollu tion prevention, and an active and post construction program for addressing stormwater discharges. This information will help determine

if the MS4 includes these activitie s as part of their existing st ormwater management program. Information about what activities are carried out by non- federally regulated MS4s will be used to supplement the baseline cost estimate for exte nding 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 im plementation of a specific standard for discharges from newly and redeveloped sites. Estimates of how much development is o ccurring within the MS4 boundary will inform options about implementing th e standard through the MS4 program and by other means for sites outside the MS4 boundary.

Question A-18 collects information about specific long te rm stormwater discharge controls and practices that exist in the MS4 in cluding both detention and retenti on 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 type s 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 w ith 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 sta ndard to control long term stormw ater discharges from developed

sites.

Question B-1 requests information about the MS4’s total operating and stormw ater related budget for five fiscal years (2005-2009). This question will provide data on the co st 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 comb ination 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 establis hing baseline costs and provide a basis from which to project potential additional costs for specific act ivities/portions of the stormwater budget due to possible requirements in the new regulations.

39Part A of the Supporting Statement

Question B-4 requests infor mation on the sources of funding for operations and maintenance activities. This information will be used to help establish ba seline financial and operati ng 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 improve ment activities. This information will be used to help establish baseli ne 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 capita l 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 re gulatory requirements.

TRANSPORTATION MS4 QUESTIONNAIRE

EPA developed the Transportation MS4 Questi onnaire for state and county DOTs that are currently subject to EPA’s Phase I or Phase II stor mwater requirements. In general, much of the information requested in the Transportation Questionna ire is the same as that requested in the MS4 Questionnaire for MS4s currently subject to EPA’s Phase I and Ph ase II stormwater requirements (Federally Regulated MS4 Questionnaire). Howeve r, EPA developed this se parate questionnaire for DOTs partly in response to public co mment and also to tailor the ques tions more appropriately to DOT related activities. The following section provides detailed information and justification for each question. Where a question and justification are th e 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 incl uding the name, title, addr ess, 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 info rmation of the name of the DOT.

Question A-3 collects identification information on th e type of the regulated DOT. There different types of regulated DOTs including state, county, or local DOT. It is im portant that the type of DOT be

identified to understand the inform ation collected from the DOT.

Question A-4 requests information on the DOT’s hier archy in regards to stormwater management. This question will provide information on how tran sportation entities are currently organized with respect to stormwater management. This informa tion will allow EPA to more appropriately tailor regulatory text to address differing situations, as a ppropriate, in order to en sure continuity in the application of the regulations. For example, if most of the respondent s delegate stormwater requirements down to the district level, then communication between the districts and the DOT headquarters is key to ensuring th at 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 educati on/outreach requirements to include a specific staff training component.

40Part A of the Supporting Statement

Q uestion A-5 collects information on the number of MS4 permit cycles comple ted to determine the amount of experience the DOT has under the stormwater permit progra m; this information will be used

to better understand the information co llected 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 stormw ater 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 regula ted and unregulated stormw ater 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 progr ams is appropriate.

Questions A-7 – A-9: See MS 4 Questionnaire ju stifications.

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 provide d 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 pot ential changes in regulatory coverage.

Questions A11-A12: See MS4 Questionnaire justifications.

Question A-13 asks if the respondent allows other ent ities to construct in its right of way (area under its control) to which it would apply the component s of the stormwater program? This question will help EPA determine how frequently this situation o ccurs and if the respondent applies the stormwater program to these areas. The current Phase I stormw ater regulations require an industrial component for medium/large MS4s. The responses received woul d help indicate if this industrial component is necessary (if they allow other enti ties to construct in their rights of way) or unnecessary for DOTs (if they do not allow other entities to co nstruct in the rights of way). Another option would be that if the industrial component is necessary, th en 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 govern ment 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 en tities. This is another area in the stormwater program where transportati on 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 a pplicable. EPA included this question to inform

41Part A of the Supporting Statement

whether or not specific requirem ents should be added to the regulations to ensu re 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 re gulations may be further refined for transportation entities so that they have separate requirements th at take into consideration these other mechanisms rather than continuing to categor ize the DOTs with municipalities.

Question A-25 asks “When planning, developing, a nd designing transportation projects, when is stormwater management first considered?” Unders tanding 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 road way projects that are either under construction or in the process of being funded which have the potential to open ru ral portions of their st ate to suburban or urban development over the next three decade s. For projects that meet these criteria, this question then asks for some project specific informa tion (i.e. project type, anticipate d 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 wher e future development will occur. The location of new residential developments is largely driven by eas e of access to regional j ob 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 po tential to open rural portions of the state to future urban/suburban growth.

Questions A-31: See MS4 Ques tionnaire justifications.

Question A-32 asks who reviews the DOT ’s site plans with respect to stormwater control structures. Traditional municipalities us ually have their site plan reviews co mpleted by the State and perform site plan reviews of construction activities within thei r jurisdiction. Transportati on entities, particularly roads controlled/owned by State departments of tr ansportation cross many boundaries and likely do not typically oversee other entities’ activities other th an their own. This question will allow provide EPA with a baseline for the current practice to determine who currently performs thes e activities and if DOT site plans are treated any differently than traditional MS4 reviews.

Questions A-33: See MS4 Ques tionnaire justifications.

Question A-34 asks the respondent if they have stormwater controls lo cated on privately-owned properties. The responses to this question will enable EPA to determ ine if transporta tion entities must own all the land on which they build or if they have easements or other agreements that enable them to

42Part A of the Supporting Statement

construct on privately owned property. EPA believes that state and county departm ents 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 incl uded in the manuals. This will help EPA figure out how stormwater controls, in cluding 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 transportatio n-related entities determine which stormwater controls are appropriate for the tr ansportation environment.

Questions A-55 – A-82: See MS4 Questionnaire justifications.

Questions B-1 – B-28: See MS4 Questionnaire justifications.

Question C-1: See MS4 Ques tionnaire 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 informa tion 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 provid e their expenditure on their stormwater program over the last five years and to estimat e their FY2010 stormwater budget. Th e state is requested to itemize how it divides the stormwater budget in both dollar s and full time equivalents (FTEs) between the major activities of its program (permitting, inspec tions, etc). EPA would use this information for economic/financial analysis to characterize the st ate’s baseline financial operations, including, in particular, how those funds are distribut ed to different st ormwater tasks.

Question A-7 requests the state to identify if it contribu tes to the stormwater budget of MS4s. EPA

would use this information for economic/finan cial analysis for both the State and MS4s.

43Part A of the Supporting Statement

Question A-8 gives the state the opp ortunity to provide any f urthe r information on its stormwater budget.

SECTION B: MUNICIPAL STORMW ATER PROGRAM INFORMATION

Questions B-1 to B-5 request information on the sc ope of the municipal stor mwater 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 th e 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 locate d 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 urbanize d area and if it has used this federal authority. Question B-11 will collect information about whethe r 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 au thority to regulate stormwat er discharges that are not currently subject to federal regulations. Ques tions 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 co llect information about the criter ia 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 Ph ase II regulations have been implemented for all MS4s. This data will inform considerations regard ing establishing a single se t of requirements for all

MS4s.

Questions B-19 – B-22 collects information about what the states require in a nnual reports and if those reports are collected electronically and if they anal yze the data in annual repor ts. This information will be used to evaluate the availability of the data in annual reports and determine th e capacity of the states for electronic reporting. EPA may follo w up with the states that have analyzed their a nnual reports to

collect additional data about th e effectiveness of the component s of the stormwater program.

Question B-23 collects information wh ether 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 th at could inhibit the use of stormwater retention

44Part A of the Supporting Statement

practices within a ju risdiction. This information w ill 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 da ta to show effectiveness of the components of the stormwater program. Currently there are no specific performance standards fo r 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 follo w 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 stormwat er impacts and inform decisions about expansion of the program

to additional areas.

Questions B26 – B27 ask about whether the state re quires stormwater retrof its in the MS4 program and, if so, requests that the state de scribe 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 activit ies that state may require of MS4 and if any monitoring results are available. Th is data can be used to help veri fy cause-and-effect between certain practices and their effects on water quality. This data can also be used to dis tinguish the type and scope of monitoring carried out by Phase I and II MS4s. EP A may follow up with the states to collect more data based on the answer of this question.

SECTION C: CONSTRUCTION STOR MWATER PROGRAM INFORMATION

Questions C-1 and C-2 request information on the si ze 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 constr uction is occurring in the state. This information will be used to inform options for creation of a st andard for stormwater discharges from development

that results from the constructi on 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 stormw ater practices. These questions will be used to provide EPA with an updated characterization of each stat e’s construction stormwater program.

Question C-6 gives the state the opp ortunity to provide any further information about its construction stormwater regulations and/or permits.

SECTION D: STANDARDS FOR STOR MWATER DISCHARGES FROM NEW

DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT & IMPLEMENTATION OF STORMWATER

RETENTION PRACTICES

Section D collects information about definitions of new and redeve lopment and use of stormwater retention practices to control discharges from development. Question D-1 asks how the state distinguishes between new development and rede velopment 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 standa rds were developed the c ontrol discharges from these developments. Question D-2 asks if the st ate has a planning process, program or other

45Part A of the Supporting Statement

m echanism that projects how much a nd 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 es timates of impervious cover. Rese arch has shown that direct links can be made between receiving waterbody impacts a nd discharges from impervious cover. If new regulation was based on impervious cover, data coul d be collected on whether or not the states have regional estimates of impervious cover.

Questions D-4 – D-11 are designed to gather inform ation on performance standa rds or design criteria for discharges from new or redevelopment curre ntly enacted by the state. These questions ask specifically, what (if any) performa nce or design standards are require d, for what types of development (commercial, industrial, residen tial, institutional), and whether th ey differ between new development and redevelopment. Data is also gathered rega rding if those standards are implemented through the MS4 permit, construction permit or a nother regulation or permit. This information could be used to determine how many states currently have post c onstruction standards and which approaches have been successful. This information can provide crucia l insight into the relative burden that might be placed upon states for implements such a standa rd. 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 a bout if the states have any role implementing or enforcing their post construction standard incl uding site inspection, site plan review or self-reporting.

Questions D-13 – D-15 request information about whethe r the state offers or pr ohibits any alternative to compliance with their post construction standard, if applicable, such as stormwater mitigation programs or payment in lieu to identify which stat es are currently implementing these practices.

Questions D-16 – D-17 request information about wh ether the state has a stormwater manual that addresses requirements for new and redevelopment a nd 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 re tention practices statewide.

Questions D-18- D-19 collects data about what are the drivers and incentives for the implementation of stormwater retention practices. This informati on will identify any programs in addition to the stormwater program have been successful in impl ementing these practices which have benefits to reducing stormwater impacts.

Question D-20 asks if there are any water rights regulations in the st ate than may prevent the use of retention practices within the state.

Questions D-21 – D-24 asks whether there are any re gulatory obstacles, maintena nce concerns or other concerns that could prevent the us e of retention practices within a jurisdiction. Information is also collected about whether the state requires stormwater controls on private prope rty. Information is also

collected about whether the state a llows third parties to be responsib le for maintenance of controls.

Information is collected about wh ether the state has excluded areas or categories from stormwater infiltration due to groundwater concerns. This info rmation will help to establish what factors may prevent the implementation of retention pract ices and the prevalence of these barriers.

46Part A of the Supporting Statement

47 SECTION E: INDUS TRIAL STORMW ATER PROGRAM INFORMATION

Questions E-1 and E-2 request information the nu mber of permittees in the state’s industrial stormwater program and how many of those faci lities are located with in 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 feasib ility of small MS4 inspect ing 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 a nd MS4 on industrial facilities.

Question E-5 gives the state the opp ortunity to provide any further information about its industrial stormwater regulations and/or permits.

ii. Respondent Activities

All question naire respondents must read the tr ansmittal letter with attachments citing authority

of section 308 or of the Clean Water Act 4 , 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 Certif ication Statement sections in the beginning of the questionnaire. The Introduction section provide s 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 Te rms provides respondents with all pertinent definitions and acronyms to understa nd and complete the que stionnaire sections.

Each respondent will need to read and understand the questionnaire, plan response activities, gather information, compile and review informa tion, and complete the questionnaire form. The respondent would also be required to maintain a copy and retain th e completed questionnaire form for up to one year, in the event that EPA has to contac t the respondent for clarif ication of any response.

(a) Owner/Developer Questionnaires

The first part of the questionnair es requires the respondent to dete rmine whether they are within the scope of the information collect ion. If yes, then the remainder of the questionnaire requires the respondent to report establishment and/or firm-level financial data, and proj ect-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 Ques tionnaire will be required to report on their stormwater program, stormwater related requirements , ordinances, and practices applicable to their jurisdiction and to provid e annual operating budget a nd permit fee information.

4 The Authority for the NPDES Authority Questionnaire is secti ons 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 activ ities, inspection and enforcement actions, and to provide annual operating budget information.

5. The Information Collected: Agency/Contrac to r Activities, Collect ion Methodology, and

Information

a. Agency/Contractor Activities

The Agency and/or its support contractors will conduct the f ollowing activities to administer the questionnaires:

 Development of the questionnaires;

 Development of the sample frames;

 Development of a sample designs;

 Development of Federal Re gister Notices (FRNs);

 Consultation with respondent trade associa tions, industry represen tatives, MS4s, states, environmental groups, and other stakeholders on the questionnaires;

 Review of questionnaire comments provi ded 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 ques tionnaire mail out/e-mail sending, receipt, and return activities;

 Questionnaire distribution;

 Development and maintenance of a web-si te and help line support option for respondents who require assistance in co mpleting 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 up loading for the questionnaire responses;

 Summarization and analysis of questionnaire responses for a pr ofile 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 (C WA) Section 402(p).

b. Collection Methodology and Management

Each selected questionn aire reci pient will receive a paper copy, an electronic PDF version, or a letter with a link to the questionnaire for comple tion 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

48Part A of the Supporting Statement

of contact receives and signs for it. E ach respondent will be allowed 60 calendar days from the time of receipt to return the completed questionnaire (or to complete thei r 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 wi ll be assigned a unique identif ication 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, fo llow-up correspondence and te lephone calls, and EPA’s receipt of the completed questionnaires. The identif ication number will also be used as a respondent code for file upload in th e questionnaire databases.

Upon receipt of completed questionnaires, EPA and its contract ors will review the questionnaire responses for complete ness and CBI claims. All questionnai res will also be reviewed for consistency and reasonableness and follow up calls will be conducted as needed to clarify inconsistencies found in the respon ses. Reviewed questionnaire f iles 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 pur pose of developing discharge standards.

c. Small Entity Flexibility

In acco rdance with requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (R FA), EPA must assess whether actions would have “a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities” (SISNOSE). Small entities include small businesse s, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. The target populati on for the Owner/Developer Ques tionnaires 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 Tr ansportation Questionnaire is all county and local MS4 communities and state, county, and local DOTs, respectively. EPA expect s a significant portion of these populations to be small entities.

EPA has designed the questionnaires to minimi ze respondent burden whil e obtaining sufficient and accurate information. The questionnaires employ the use of checkboxes where feasible, or provide a set of potential responses for re spondents 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 aff ect 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 questi onnaires to include bur den-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 duri ng the requested time period as compared to large entities and would therefore be required to prov ide much less detailed technical and financial information on a project level.

49Part A of the Supporting Statement

d. Collection Schedule

The specific dates for distribution, response rece ipt, and data collec tion activities for the questionn aires have not yet been establishe d 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 m inimi ze respondent burden whil e 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. Th e questions are phrased with commonly used terminology. Questions requesting similar types of information are arranged together to facilitate review of pertinen t records and completion of the ques tionnaire. 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 versi on of the Owner/Developer Questionnaire. The short version is the same as the long version, bu t requests less detailed pr oject level technical and

financial information as well as less detailed estab lishment level financial information. Recipients will be required to complete the short or the long ve rsion, but not both. EPA estim ates 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 Ques tionnaire recipient to complete and review its responses. This estimate assumes that all respondent s 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 Questionn aire, EPA estimates that it would take an average of 23 hours for in-scope recipients to co mplete and review the questionnaire. EPA estimates that 25 percent of the re cipients of the Non-Federally Regulat ed 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 a nd Transportation Questionnaires

50Part A of the Supporting Statement

51 For both the Federally Regulated MS4 and Tran sportation MS4 Questionnaires, EPA estimates that it would take approximately 55 hours for recipi ents to complete and re view 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 questi onnaires to 2,835 owners/develope rs 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 aut hority 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 estima tes that the total burden for the recipients of the Owner/Developer Questionnaires, MS4 Questio nnaires, and NPDES Permitting Authority Questionnaire would be 86,811 hours, 78,488 hour s, and 2,370 hours, respectively.

Table 2 presents the average hourly burden by la bor category associated with all respondent activities necessary to complete the questionnaires a nd the total burden by la bor category based on the categories of respondents. Table 3 presents the to tal respondent burden estimat ed for the questionnaire

effort.Part A of the Supporting Statemen t

52Table 2. Estimated Respondent Burden toComplete the Questionnaires (Hours)Hours by Job CategoryRespondent ActivityTechnical/EnvironmentalEngineerClericalSupportProjectManagerFinancialManagerLegalTotal Burden perActivity(Hours)Owner/Developer Long Questionnaire (per respondent)Read Instructions & Review Questionnaire001.751.751.755.25General Information Section A00.332.378.022.9213.64Detailed Establishment Financial InformationPart I00.080.753.421.05.25Detailed Technical Project Information Part 221.101.67.90030.6Detailed Establishment Project Information Part 200.082.59.336.6718.58Total for Owner/Developer Questionnaire21.102.115.2722.5212.3473.33Owner/Developer Short Questionnaire (per respondent)Read Instructions & Review Questionnaire001.751.751.755.25General Information Section A012.09.02.7514.75Total for Short Owner/DeveloperQuestionnaire013.7510.754.520Owner/Developer Questionnaires– Out of Scope (per respondent)Read Instructions & Review Questionnaire002002Total for Out of Scope Owner/DeveloperQuestionnaire002002NPDES Permit Authority Questionnaire (per respondent)Read Instructions & Review Questionnaire22220.758.75General Information Section A0.250.251.561.4203.48Municipal Stormwater Program Section B6.683.3810.560020.61Industrial Stormwater Program Section C0.920.750.83002.5Construction Stormwater Program Section D1.090.50.66002.25Complete questions and review1210.515.5Total for NPDES Permit AuthorityQuestionnaire11.948.8816.63.921.7543.09Part A of the Supporting Statemen t

53Table 2. Estimated Respondent Burden toComplete the Questionnaires (Hours)Hours by Job CategoryRespondent ActivityTechnical/EnvironmentalEngineerClericalSupportProjectManagerFinancialManagerLegalTotal Burden perActivity(Hours)Federally Regulated MS4/Transportation Questionnaires (per respondent)Read instructions & Review Questionnaire22220.758.75Technical Information Section A12.923.438.930025.28Financial Information Section B1.921.55.186.18014.78Contact Information Section C00.250000.25Complete questions and review121116.0Total for Federally RegulatedMS4/Transportation Questionnaires17.849.1817.119.181.7555.06Non-Federally Regulated MS4 Questionnaire (per respondent)Read instructions & Review Questionnaire22220.758.75Technical Information Section A2.750.52.18005.43Financial Information Section B0.50.250.751.0802.58Complete questions and review121116.0Total for Non-Federally Regulated MS4Questionnaire6.254.755.934.081.7522.76Non-Federally Regulated MS4 Questionnaire – Out of Scope (per respondent)Read Instructions & Review Questionnaire001001Total for Out of Scope MS4 Questionnaires001001Total Burden(WeightedAverage Hours)Weighted Average Owner/DeveloperRespondent5.631.096.4711.745.6930.62Weighted Average NPDES Permit AuthorityRespondent11.948.8816.63.921.7543.09Weighted Average MS4 Respondent9.075.438.835.101.4629.89Part 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 QU ESTIONNAIRES 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 com p lete the questionnaire equals the time required to read and understand the questionnaire, gath er the information, compile and review the information, and complete the questionnaire fo rm. EPA anticipates that the Owner/Developer respondents will submit their questionnaires by mail, therefore material costs for each Owner/Developer respondent would include photoc opying and postage. EPA anticipates that the NPDES Permitting Authority and MS4 respon dents will submit their questionnaires electronically and therefore materi al costs would not be required for those respondents. Labor costs would compose the majority of the fi nancial 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 (B LS) Occupational Employment Sta tistics (May 2008) to develop labor category rates in $/hour to use with th e 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 burde n by job category and the total labor cost burden per questionnaire for the Owner/Devel oper in-scope, Owner/Dev eloper out-of-scope, NPDES Permitting Authority, and MS4 respondents. Table 5 presents the total respondent labor cost burden estimated for the entire questionnaire effort.Part A of the Supporting Statemen t

56Table 4. Estimated Per Questionnaire Respondent Burden (Dollars)Costs by Job CategoryTechnical/EnvironmentalEngineerClericalSupportConstructionManagerFinancialManagerLegalTotal Burden(Dollars)Owner/Developer Long QuestionnaireRespondent$752.20$27.31$837.57$1,060.06$757.97$3,435.11Owner/Developer Short QuestionnaireRespondent$0.00$13.03$205.73$505.90$276.57$1,001.22Owner/Developer Questionnaire Out of ScopeRespondent$0.00$0.00$109.72$0.00$0.00$109.72NPDES Permit Authority QuestionnaireRespondent$372.77$122.72$799.29$148.22$69.49$1,512.49MS4/Transportation Questionnaire Respondent$556.96$126.87$823.85$347.10$69.49$1,924.27MS4 Federally Unregulated QuestionnaireRespondent$195.13$65.65$285.53$154.26$69.49$770.06MS4 Federally Unregulated Questionnaire Outof Scope Respondent$0.00$0.00$48.15$0.00$0.00$48.15Table 5. Total Respondent Burden in Labor CostsRespondent CategoryBurden per Respondent(Weighted Average $)Number ofRespondentsTotal Labor Burden ($)*Owner/Developer RespondentsAll Respondents$1,471.962,835$4,172,999.04NPDES Permit Authority RespondentAll Respondents$1,512.4955$83,186.95MS4 RespondentsAll Respondents$1,034.242,626$2,715,505.63TOTAL for ALL RESPONDENTS5,516$6,971,692* The burden per respondent in weighted average dollars is a rounded value and when multiplied by the number of respondents does notexactly 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 questi onnaire 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 admi nistration of this data collection request. Operation and maintenance costs for th e 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 questi onnaire 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 estim ate of the burden and labor costs EPA and its support

contractors would incur to administer th e questionnaires. The table identifies the

collection administration tasks to be performed by Agency employees and contractors, with the associated hours required for each gr ouping of related tasks. EPA determined contractor labor costs by multiplying contra ctor 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 cost s) are estimated at $1,581,520.

d. Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden Costs

EPA estim ates a total burden of 167,669 hour s 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

W ith 2,835 Owner/Developer Questionnair es, 55 NPDES Permitting Authority Questionnaires and 2,626 MS4 questionnaires and questionnaire follow-up information requests to clarify questionnair e 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.

57Part 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, to tal 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

58Part 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 responde nt, 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 Regul ated MS4 Questionnaire respondent to complete and review their responses to th e 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 revi ew their responses to the questionnaires. This estimate is based on U.S. Departme nt of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Occupational Labor data from May 2008 for th e 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 questi onnaires described above.

Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide informati on to or for a Federal agency.

This includes the time needed to review instru ctions; 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 a nd review the collection of information; and

transmit or otherwise disclose the informa tion. 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 OM B 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 sugge sted methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated coll ection techniques, EP A 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, Ro om Number 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC.. The EPA Docket Center Pub lic Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excludi ng 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 c ontact the Water Docket via e-mail at OWDocket@epa.gov . An electronic version of the p ublic docket is available through www.regulations.gov . Use regulations.gov to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the conten ts of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are avai lable electronically. Once in the system, select “search”

59Part A of the Supporting Statement

60 then key in the docket ID number identifie d 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 Do cket 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

61Part A of the Supporting Statement: Appendix A

List of Commenters with Submitta ls to Docket EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0817

First Federal Register Notice: ICR, Pr oposed Collection; Stormwater Management Including Discharges from Newly Deve loped and Redeveloped Sites, ICR #2366.01

EPA-HQ-OW2009-0817- Commenter

0009 Hal Sprague, Senior Policy Associat e, 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; Ther esa 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 Klie wer, 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 Coor dinator, 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 Attorn ey, Water Program, et al. Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)

0037 Brooks M. Smith, Hunton and Williams on behalf of Utility Water Act Group (UWAG)

62Part A of the Supporting Statement: Appendix A

63EPA-HQ-OW2009-0817- Commenter

0038 Margaret Doss, Water Quality Manager, Columbia County (Georgia) Water Utility

0039 Robert Swanson, Water Quality Speci alist, DuPage County Stormwater Management

0040 Christine Cahill-Reams, Project Manager, Charles C. Bell, Inc.

0041 Anonymous

0042 Monica Licher et al., Virginia Polyt echnic 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-S ecretary, 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 Enviro nmental Permitting Manager

0055 Beveridge & Diamond, Richard Davis

0056 Smart Growth America, Geo ff 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, Barbar a Lynch, Deputy Director of Public

Works

0067 University of Missouri, Environmenta l 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 LawPart A of the Supporting Statement: Appendix A

64EPA-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, Assi stant 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 DivisionPart A of the Supporting Statement: Appendix B

Appendix B: Summary of Public Comment s 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

65Part A of the Supporting Statement: Appendix B

66Table B-1:ICR Comment Summary and Response: General CommentsTopicCommentOwner/OperatorMS4NPDESPermittingAuthorityResponseRule LegalAuthorityEPA does have federal authority toregulate discharges “from” MS4s butnot “into” them. [402(p)(2)(C) & (D)]The only federal authority over MS4influent is the prohibition of nonstormwater discharges into MS4s.[402(p)(3)]Congress did not grant EPA authority todetermine how MS4 operators shouldcontrol indirect stormwater dischargesinto their systems as long as the MS4smeet their applicable permittingrequirements for their own discharges.EPA lacks the authority to regulatepost-construction sites unless theyindependently generate a regulatedstormwater discharge by meeting thedefinition of an industrial activity orMS4.Post-construction stormwater dischargesshould be considered nonpoint sourcedischarges or diffuse stormwaterdischarges that are not regulated underthe CWA.EPA can only regulate using standardindustrial classification codes whichdon’t exist for subdivisions, etc.EPA agrees with commenter that CWAsections 402(p)(2)(C) and (D) give EPA theauthority to regulate discharges from MS4s;indeed EPA was required to regulate mediumand large MS4s under section 402(p)(4). EPAdisagrees with commenterthat EPA does nothave the authority over stormwater dischargesinto MS4s or that the only authority overMS4 influent is the prohibition of nonstormwater discharges into MS4s. UnderCWA sections 402(p)(2)(B), 402(p)(2)(E),and 402(p)(6) EPA canand does regulatestormwater discharges into MS4s. Forexample, stormwater associated withindustrial activity that is discharged to anMS4 is independently regulated by EPA orthe States. 40 CFR 122.26(b)(14). As early asthe preamble to the Phase I stormwater ruleEPA stated “storm water from an industrialfacility which enters and is subsequentlydischarges through a municipal separatestorm sewer system is a ‘discharge associatedwith industrial activity’ which must becovered by an individual or general permitpursuant to [EPA regulations].” 55 Fed. Reg.47,990, 47996-97 (November 16, 1990).EPA has the authority to regulate stormwaterthat is discharged into MS4s. In anyrulemaking process EPA will discuss furtherthe scope of what point sources will besubject to any standard or other effluentlimitation.Part A of the Supporting Statement: Appendix B

67Table B-1:ICR Comment Summary and Response: General CommentsTopicCommentOwner/OperatorMS4NPDESResponsePermittingAuthorityEPA has not clearly articulated itsstatutory authority to developstormwater management regulations nordemonstrated thatan informationcollection effort and rulemaking arenecessary. EPA has not designatedpost-construction stormwater dischargesas requiring a permit.EPA has not provided a clear definitionof what the information will be used for.EPA’s intention to change the Phase Iand Phase II stormwater program basedon the ICR constitutes a breach of theprogram evaluation agreement reachedthrough the Stormwater Phase II FACAas well as the current NPDESregulations resulting from thatagreement. Until the provisions ofSection 122.32 are satisfied, changes toPhase I and II regulations may beprecluded or prohibited.EPA disagrees with commenter to the extentthat EPA is required to ensure that permits fordischarges from MS4s require controls toreduce the discharge of pollutants to themaximum extent practicable and require suchother provisions as the EPA Administrator orState determines appropriate for the controlof such pollutants. See CWA section402(p)(3)(B)(iii). Inany rulemaking processEPA will discuss further the scope of whatpoint sources will be subject to any standardor other effluent limitation.EPA disagrees with commenter. EPA has theauthority under CWA section 402(p) toregulate discharges of stormwater other thanthose that are defined as “industrial” or froma “municipal separate storm sewer system.”Specifically, EPA derives independent legalauthority from CWA sections 402(p)(2)(E)and 402(p)(6) and EPA regulations at 40 CFR122.26(a)(9)(i)(C)-(D) to regulate stormwaterdischarges from developed sites. Forexample, in the Phase II stormwaterregulations under the authority of CWAsection 402(p)(6) EPA designated andcurrently regulates stormwater “dischargesassociated with small construction activity,”which are neither industrial discharges nordischarges from MS4s. 40 CFR122.26(b)(15). In any rulemaking processEPA will discuss further the scope of whatpoint sources will be subject to any standardPart A of the Supporting Statement: Appendix B

68Table B-1:ICR Comment Summary and Response: General CommentsTopicCommentOwner/OperatorMS4NPDESResponsePermittingAuthorityor other effluent limitation.EPA disagrees with commenter. “Pointsource” is defined as “any discernible,confined, and discreteconveyance, includingbut not limited to any pipe, ditch, channel,tunnel, conduit, well, discrete fissure,container, rolling stock, concentrated animalfeeding operation, or vessel or other floatingcraft, from which pollutants are or may bedischarges.” CWA section 502(14). EPA hasthe discretion to further define what is a pointsource.National Wildlife Federation v.Gorsuch, 693 F.2d 156, 175 (D.C. Cir. 1982).The vast majority of developed sites containpipes, ditches, swales or other types ofdiscrete conveyances; through whichpollutants are or may be discharged. UnderCWA section 308 EPA has the authority tocollect information from point sources. In anyrulemaking process EPA will discuss furtherthe scope of what point sources will besubject to any standard or other effluentlimitation.EPA disagrees with commenter. There isnothing in the CWA that requires EPA toregulate stormwater discharges based on thestandard industrial classification (SIC) codes.In the Phase I stormwater rule EPA used SICcodes to categorize discharges associatedwith industrial activity; however the Agencywas not required to do so then and is notPart A of the Supporting Statement: Appendix B

69Table B-1:ICR Comment Summary and Response: General CommentsTopicCommentOwner/OperatorMS4NPDESResponsePermittingAuthorityrequired to do so in any future rulemaking.Any stormwater rulemaking will discussfurther how EPA intends to classifydischarges from developed sites (or any otherstormwater point sources addressed in theproposal) for regulation under the CWA.EPA disagrees with commenter. EPA hasauthority under CWA section 402(p)(6) todesignate stormwater discharges in order toprotect water quality and develop acomprehensive program to regulate thosedesignated stormwater discharges.Designation of stormwater discharges fromdeveloped sites is being considered as part ofany rulemaking. Additionally, EPA has theauthority under CWA section 402(p)(3)(B) torequire discharges from MS4s to requirecontrols to reduce the discharge of pollutantsto the maximum extent practicable, includingmanagement practices, control techniques andsystem design and engineering methods, andsuch other provisions as EPA determines areappropriate for the control of stormwaterdischarges. The information collected in thisInformation Collection Request will be usedto assist EPA in developing a regulation toaddress discharges from developed sites,including, but not limited to, performance ordesign standards for those designateddischarges from developed sites as part of acomprehensive program under section402(p)(6); benefits of any performance orPart A of the Supporting Statement: Appendix B

70Table B-1:ICR Comment Summary and Response: General CommentsTopicCommentOwner/OperatorMS4NPDESResponsePermittingAuthoritydesign standard; costs of any performance ordesign standard; the prevalence, utilizationand effectiveness of stormwater controls thatretain, detain or infiltrate stormwater (i.e.,low impact development or greeninfrastructure); and characterize the currentscope, components, and implementation ofexisting state or regional NPDES stormwaterprograms. EPA would like a sound recordbasis for any regulation it proposes andpromulgates. This information request isreasonably related to helping create a recordfor that decision-making.EPA disagrees with this comment. As statedin the Preamble to the Phase II Rule, EPAwas asked by the Phase II FACA todemonstrate its commitment to revisit thesmall MS4 requirements in the Phase II Ruleand to make changes where necessary afterevaluating the stormwater program andresearching the effectiveness of municipalBMPs. 64 Fed. Reg. 68722, 68771 (Dec. 8,1999). EPA did so by committing to revisitthe rule after completion of the first twopermit terms,i.e., after December 10, 2012.See 40 CFR 122.37. This was an affirmativecommitment to revisit the Phase II MS4program after evaluating its effectiveness, asof a date certain, not a promise not to makechanges before a certain date. Nothing in thepreamble or section 122.37 requires EPA torefrain from an ICR process to collectPart A of the Supporting Statement: Appendix B

71Table B-1:ICR Comment Summary and Response: General CommentsTopicCommentOwner/OperatorMS4NPDESResponsePermittingAuthorityinformation about implementation oreffectiveness of the stormwater program orfrom changing the regulations prior to thattime. Although in 1999 EPA expressed itsintention to wait until completion of twopermit cycles except under certaincircumstances, this was only a statedintention, an expectation, and not acommitment. As EPA explained in the PhaseII preamble, some commenters requested thatEPA reevaluate the program much sooner;some commenters supported waiting twopermit cycles, but EPAanticipated that twofull permit cycles would be necessary toobtain enough data to significantly evaluatethe rule. However, in the ten years since therule was promulgated and in light of thesignificant information provided inUrbanStormwater Management in the United States(National Academy of Sciences Press,October 2008), including the stronginformation indicating EPA should improvehow it controls discharges of stormwater,EPA has obtained enough data to begin thereevaluation process at this time.Unfunded MandateEPA is imposing an unfunded mandatewith little measurable benefit which isparticularly difficult during these timesof reduced state budgets. Municipalitieswill not be able to hire additionalpersonnel to prepare this information, soexisting staff will have to work on theproject in addition to their regularEPA disagrees with commenter. ThisInformation Collection Request is not afederal intergovernmental mandate under theUnfunded Mandates Reform Act. However,EPA appreciates that municipalities may havedifficulties given a lack of resources inanswering all of the questions and obtainingall of the requested information. EPA wouldPart A of the Supporting Statement: Appendix B

72Table B-1:ICR Comment Summary and Response: General CommentsTopicCommentOwner/OperatorMS4NPDESResponsePermittingAuthorityduties.like municipalities to contact EPA andwelcomes the opportunity to work withmunicipalities if they need assistance inanswering all of the questions in theQuestionnaire.308 AuthorityCWA Section 308 does not provideEPA with the authority to collectinformation from state permittingauthorities.EPA has the authority under CWA sections304(i) and 402(c) obtain information fromState NPDES permitting authorities.Specifically, 40 CFR 123.41(a) states that“[a]ny information obtained or used in theadministration of a State program shall beavailable to EPA upon request withoutrestriction.”CBIAll financial information should besubmitted separately and automaticallybe given confidential protection and notbe subject to the confidentialityclassification changing or having toprove confidentiality if requested by athird party.All responses and information providedto EPA should be made confidential andunavailable to third parties for potentiallitigation.Big Box stores are different from otherconstruction entities. Seeminglyinnocuous data from Big Box stores caninadvertently be used to suggest thedirection or planned growth of thestores which can be damaging on aEPA recognizes that some of the datarequested in these questionnaires isconfidential business information and shouldbe treated as such because, if released, couldbe detrimental to some business operations.At the same time, EPA wants to ensuretransparent decision making and publicaccess to data informing EPA’s rulemakingdecisions. As a result, EPA developed itsCBI procedures to protect pertinentinformation while ensuring public access tothe extent possible.EPA understands the importance of financialinformation. However, E PA does not agreethat all financial information is CBI,Therefore, EPA is not considering allfinancial information to be confidential, but isproviding CBI check boxes so that aPart A of the Supporting Statement: Appendix B

73Table B-1:ICR Comment Summary and Response: General CommentsTopicCommentOwner/OperatorMS4NPDESResponsePermittingAuthoritybroad scale.There is concern about the inadvertentdisclosure of CBI data by the Agencybased on past incidents where federalagencies inadvertently releasedconfidential information (e.g., TSA).respondent can claim financial responses tobe CBI. In an effort to reduce burden, EPA isnot requiring respondents to providejustification for the CBI claim at this time.Should EPA receive a request for informationclaimed CBI, the respondent will need tojustify the CBI claimin accordance withprocedures outlined in 40 CFR Part 2.Response DeadlineThe design and cost detail requested asto project specific stormwater controlstructures most likely cannot beassembled within the time required.Because some of the data may have tobe obtained by the developerrespondents from third parties andstormwater management entities, theeffort of developers to gather thisinformation could negatively impact theability of MS4 respondents to meet theirresponse deadlines.Unless the construction company is theowner/builder they may need to obtaindata from the designer or engineer tocomplete Part C which will affect thetimeline.Sixty days is inadequate for MS4s toreview the materials and provide aresponse.Many small MS4s in TX have not fullyEPA has revised the questions in each of thequestionnaires, where possible, to reducerequests for information that will likelyrequire lengthy time periods to assemble. Forexample, EPA is no longer requestingdetailed cost and design information for eachstormwater system component in theowner/developer survey.EPA is not requesting information fromMS4s that will require them to collectinformation from third parties.EPA is not requesting companies thatperform construction to provide technical orfinancial responses to any of thequestionnaires.EPA is not asking respondents to collect newinfo or to provide information for questionsfor which data is not available.EPA does not require or anticipate thatCounty Councils will need to approve theresponses.Part A of the Supporting Statement: Appendix B

74Table B-1:ICR Comment Summary and Response: General CommentsTopicCommentOwner/OperatorMS4NPDESResponsePermittingAuthorityimplemented their initial Storm WaterManagement Programs and may nothave complete information for therequested timeframe.120 days is more appropriateMore time is necessary if the responseshave to be approved by County Council.EPA concludes that 60 days allows adequateresponse time. Burden estimates for eachquestionnaire respondent ranges from 10hours to approximately 70 hours. Sixty daysto respond allows ample time even for themost burdensome questionnaire.MandatoryResponseQuestionnaires should be voluntaryrather than mandatoryBased on previous experience, the responserate to mandatory questionnaires far surpassesthat of voluntary surveys. In addition,mandatory response eliminates the bias ofresponses that may result with voluntaryresponse.CertificationStatementEPA should add a disclaimer that theinformation collected will not be used inan enforcement action.It will be difficult for someone to signthe certification statement when theyare unsure of the data they areproviding, even though it is the onlydata they have.The certification statement does notidentify the level of the certifyingindividual. Is it the same person whomust sign the annual reports?This certification statement is not unique tothis ICR. Because EPA needs to obtainaccurate information upon which to base anyrulemaking, EPA routinely includes thecertification in Office of Water ICRs.However, EPA does not expect nor does thecertification statement require, that facilitiesrespond to each question with certainty. Infact, the directions state that respondentsshould provide estimates if actual values arenot available. EPA is only asking respondentsto provide the best information based on theirknowledge or belief.Identifying non-compliance of existingregulation is not the purpose of this datacollection. However, this does not precludePart A of the Supporting Statement: Appendix B

75Table B-1:ICR Comment Summary and Response: General CommentsTopicCommentOwner/OperatorMS4NPDESResponsePermittingAuthoritythe enforcement office from requestinginformation collected through this ICR.The certifying official must be a dulyauthorized representative. This may be thesame person that signs the annual reports, butdoes not have to be.RulemakingapproachNeither the notice nor the supportingstatement describes the scope of theproposed regulations.EPA should explore strategic educationoutreach programs, evaluate the currentsuccesses of the NPDES stormwaterprogram and provide the necessaryresources for MS4s to effectivelyevaluate and implement programsbefore mandating new regulations.The idea of developing national designor performance standards to controlstormwater volume and flow (one sizefits all approach) is contrary to the NRCrecommendation of watershed basedstormwater planning andimplementation.EPA is focusing too much on costs.EPA needs to include analyses on theecosystem and community benefits ofreduced stormwater-caused degradation,as well as the economic benefits todevelopers who adopt LID strategies inEPA published a Federal Register Notice onDecember 28, 2009 (FR 74 FR 68617-68622)that describes the scope of the proposedregulation.Many of these comments are outside thescope of this information collection request.These comments are in blue.EPA has revised and/or included questions toaddress some of these comments. Forexample, the developer/owner surveyrequests info comparison of LID andtraditional techniques. As another example,EPA has added questions to the MS4 surveyto gather information on existing authority toaccess private property for LID inspectionand/or maintenance. EPA has also addedquestions pertaining to watershed permittingand ordinances, laws, or the possibility ofgroundwater or drinking water contaminationthat may inhibit retention practices. Inaddition, this ICR is not EPA’s only source ofinformation. EPA also has case studies fordevelopers than have employed nontraditional techniques.Part A of the Supporting Statement: Appendix B

76Table B-1:ICR Comment Summary and Response: General CommentsTopicCommentOwner/OperatorMS4NPDESResponsePermittingAuthoritylieu of traditional hard infrastructureconveyances.The current economic struggles formost of the industry over the last coupleof years will not adequately express theability of the industry to adhere to orcomply with regulatory standards.The right to access private property forLID inspections may be problematicand require a warrant.EPA has set an arbitrary deadline ofNovember 2012, which will not allowthe public ample time to become fullyengaged in the process. The Agency hasnot provided rationale for this deadline.EPA should abandon the survey effortand instead use its resources on MS4permit renewals throughout the U.S.EPA does not have the experience,technical knowledge, nor expertise tolead this effort. As was recognized byEPA’s original NPDES stormwaterpermitting staff, such expertise restswith the 10 to 12 states that haveestablished comprehensive stormwatertreatment regulations and by localgovernments which have done likewise.Watershed permitting has the potentialEPA recognizes that the past couple of yearsmay not adequately express the ability of theindustry to comply with regulations. As aresult, EPA is collecting information over thepast 5 years.EPA is aware of other sources of informationsuch as actual MS4 permits. However, MS4permits are not readily available to EPA.EPA disagrees with the comment. TheNovember 2012 date will be sufficient timefor the public to participate in the rulemakingprocess. In a November 17, 2009 letter fromPeter S. Silva, Assistant Administrator for theOffice of Water, to the Natural ResourcesDefense Council and Waterkeeper Alliance,EPA committed to propose and finalize a rulethat includes requirements for stormwaterdischarges from developed sites no later thanNovember 2012. EPA has ample time to fullyengage the public and State and localgovernments and collect sufficientinformation to support any rulemaking. TheInformation Collection Request is part of thatprocess, and EPA notes that since theNovember 2009 letter was sent, EPA has held7 listening sessions in 6 different locationsaround the country, including a webcast,where 1900 people attended. The attendeesmade both oral presentation and submittedover 200 written comments regarding anyPart A of the Supporting Statement: Appendix B

77Table B-1:ICR Comment Summary and Response: General CommentsTopicCommentOwner/OperatorMS4NPDESResponsePermittingAuthorityto be the most efficient and effectiveapproach to achieving water qualitystandards, however, watersheds crossjurisdictional lines including state lines.Empowering the MS4s as the first tierwould require some states to modifypowers granted those MS4s. The modelwith the least hurdles would bepermitting at the Federal level withpermit fees paid into a central system toadminister the program.EPA has not explained how it willconsider the costs associated with therecently finalized ELG in the overallcosts associated with a postconstruction stormwater rulemaking.It appears this ICR is gatheringinformation to allow EPA to promulgaterules that potentially eliminate acommunity’s ability to assess its ownenvironment; evaluate the impacts thatdevelopment has on the quality of itssurface waters; and the opportunity todevelop meaningful and effectivemitigation strategies that meet acommunity’s unique needs.Areas of high density will not haveplaces to retain water and the programmay not be practical.EPA revisions to the stormwater regulatoryprogram. EPA will continue to meetregularly, and solicit the opinions of,industry, environmental organizations, State,Tribal and local governments and the publicin general.Part A of the Supporting Statement: Appendix B

78Table B-1:ICR Comment Summary and Response: General CommentsTopicCommentOwner/OperatorMS4NPDESResponsePermittingAuthorityThere will be problems associated withenforcing private residents/citizens tomaintain installed LIDtechnologies/practices.EPA should not be directly involved indeveloping engineering requirements,test methods, codes, etc. This shouldremain the providence of localmunicipalities and industry standardsetting organizations. Distributedmeasures, in aggregate, can modifyurban hydrology.At present most providers of LIDsystems, including green roofs, areinsulated from the consequences of poorperformance or degradation ofperformance over time. By placing anemphasis on quantifying performanceand on system longevity, the federalgovernment would promote competitionto provide higher quality and reliability.When using site-specific calculations todetermine predevelopment hydrology,and/or use of regional standards toreflect local circumstances, thephosphorus export loads from variouswatershed land-uses should be as sitespecific as possible.Part A of the Supporting Statement: Appendix B

79Table B-1:ICR Comment Summary and Response: General CommentsTopicCommentOwner/OperatorMS4NPDESResponsePermittingAuthorityEPA should not reduce or preventstormwater from being discharged whenthe development is located in, orupstream to, a basin dependent upon therunoff for the yield for a drinking watersource.EPA should only (1) set a nationalstandard to reduce runoff fromimpermeable areas to the 90thpercentile,which will vary by region; (2) requirethe first priority be rainwater harvestingfor non-potable use; (3) include LID orequivalentterminology/practices/strategies in thedesign of all projects; (4) require duringthe selling of property, a retrofit uponsale strategy, that minimal runoffmitigation measures be added, such asinfiltration pits to collect a standard ofrunoff, like the 80th percentile; (5)require no runoff from any irrigationpractice.To be effective, EPA must identify andaccount for all sources that contribute to“urban runoff” and their relativepercentages, and then devise a programthat addresses the largest and mostproblematic sources first.Can EPA develop a “tool-box”approach such as want was used withPart A of the Supporting Statement: Appendix B

80Table B-1:ICR Comment Summary and Response: General CommentsTopicCommentOwner/OperatorMS4NPDESResponsePermittingAuthoritysome of the Minimum ControlMeasures in the Phase II program toallow local governments to choose froma set of options to implement bothexisting and new regulations?The adoption of a strict numericstandard that is easily achievable on agreenfield site might be cost-prohibitiveor simply impossible to attain for a siteconstrained redevelopment projects. Afinal rule that disadvantagesredevelopment could result in a netnegative impact on water quality byshifting growth to greenfields thatwould otherwise have occurred throughredevelopment or infill.Requiring additional retrofit work withno income stream to provide thefunding for it will cripple cities, some ofwhich have already declaredbankruptcy.There is the potential or infrastructurecosts to exceed expected revenues fromthe population that will be supportingthe infrastructure forever. Long termmaintenance costs continually rise andcould easily eclipse the cost of theinitial facilities.There would be a significant inspectionPart A of the Supporting Statement: Appendix B

81Table B-1:ICR Comment Summary and Response: General CommentsTopicCommentOwner/OperatorMS4NPDESResponsePermittingAuthorityand maintenance burden onmunicipalities associated with on-siteLID implementation.Other municipal costs not directlyrelated to stormwater capital andoperations cost could increase as aresult of EPA mandated land usestandards associated with Smart Growthand LID including transportationinfrastructure, public transportation, andutility costs.The costs associated with placing,operating, maintaining, eventuallytotally replacing, keeping track of, andthe inspecting of possibly millions ofindividual parcel-based retentionpractices is substantially different thanthe construction, operation,maintenance, eventually totallyreplacing, keeping track of, andinspecting of more consolidatedcommunity-wide facilities.Experience shows that the order ofmagnitude is greatly increased whenyou consider requiring smaller, parcelbased, private/public facilities versuslarger community-wide based facilities.The costs associated with timelyPart A of the Supporting Statement: Appendix B

82Table B-1:ICR Comment Summary and Response: General CommentsTopicCommentOwner/OperatorMS4NPDESResponsePermittingAuthoritymaintenance are much lower than thoseassociated with the current erraticapproach to maintenance. A payoff fornurturing a service industry for LIDmaintenance will be a quickly enlargingpool of expertise. This will spur moreefficient and reliable design and willdrive down the costs of construction aswell as maintenance.Land UseThe separation of federal regulationsfrom state/local community control ofland use decisions may be lost if thisrulemaking goes forward.EPA disagrees with the comment. EPA in noway intends for any rulemaking onstormwater discharges to interfere with stateand local control overland use decisions.EPA welcomes further comment during anyrulemaking process.BurdenThe ICR is toocostly and burdensometo the industry. The data can not becomplied within EPA’s burdenestimate.EPA should seek industry input beforesubmitting the questionnaire to OMB.The O&M costs and municipal costs arenot even known to the respondents.The financial data is especially difficultto collect from small builders and maycost them $1500 to pay for the servicesneeded to fill out the financial portionof the survey.During consultations with developers/owners,MS4s, and states, EPA gathered valuableinsight on the overall questionnaire burdenand the burden of specific questions. EPAhas revised the questionnaires with an eye onburden reduction. For example, EPA hasreduced the amount of questions in theowner/developer survey considerably. Inaddition, EPA developed a transportationrelated questionnaire that it tailored to suchactivities in an effort to make it easier forDOTs to provide responses.However, based on feedback received frompossible respondents, even with theserevisions, EPA has increased the burdenestimate per questionnaire.Part A of the Supporting Statement: Appendix B

83Table B-1:ICR Comment Summary and Response: General CommentsTopicCommentOwner/OperatorMS4NPDESResponsePermittingAuthorityThe ICR process, as proposed, isinadequate to evaluate the economicimpact on states, local governments,and businesses.Big Box retailers often have far lessinformation about costs and practicesthan do their general contractors,making it unusually difficult and costlyfor a Big Box respondent to addressquestions on those subjects. They wouldhave to hire consultants that chargearound $100/hour which is twice thehourly rate assumed by EPA.The burden must be reduced forhomebuilders since 95% are smallbusinesses. Very few homebuilderstypically have accounting orengineering staff on the payroll and theyusually do not retain technical data onpast projects. Some companies may failif they are required to spend a weekcompleting the questionnaire.It would be extremely burdensome totransit agencies to complete thequestionnaire.EPA’s burden estimate does not accountfor the time required to read,comprehend, and compile theinformation.EPA expects the burden to small businessdevelopers/owners of residential propertieswill be less than others. EPA hasincorporated a sizecut-off that shouldeliminate developers/owners of singleproperties from the requirement to providefinancial and technical information.EPA’s burden estimateincludes all aspects ofresponding including the time required toread, comprehend, and compile theinformation.EPA is no longer requiring generalcontractors to provide financial or technicalinformation requested in the developer/ownerquestionnaire.EPA anticipates it will use other readilyavailable sources of information in additionto this questionnaire in evaluating thisproposed rulemaking.EPA has revised its budget related questionsto make it easier and less burdensome torespond.Part A of the Supporting Statement: Appendix B

84Table B-1:ICR Comment Summary and Response: General CommentsTopicCommentOwner/OperatorMS4NPDESResponsePermittingAuthorityIt may take general contractors 3 weeksto just complete Section C (for all 10projects) because theywould have to goback to each project’s civil engineeringfirm/design engineer to get nearly all ofthe technical information.Providing budget related informationwill be one of the most difficult tasks incompleting the surveys. Municipalitieshave many departments involved inprograms to ensure compliance with ourstormwater permits – it would be anarduous task to try to separate out andassess a dollar amount associated withsuch wide ranging activities such asstreet sweeping, park maintenanceactivities, etc.Survey RecipientsEPA must expand the scope of itsgathering to derive critical informationfrom stormwater researchers,consultants, and technology providersand federal, state, and regional agencieson the forefront of the next generationof stormwater control.The responsibilities for the O&M ofpost-construction stormwater controls,maybe the responsibility of the Big Boxretailers, a separate developer, or someaggregation of the entities in theshopping center. In many cases the BigBox firms function as both the “owner”Based on the detailed comments and onadditional consultations with contractor andconstruction organizations, EPA agrees thatentities performing only as contractors orconstructors should not be targeted to respondto the owner/developer survey. EPA hasrevised the questionnaire and its surveydesign so that it only pertains to owners ordevelopers.This ICR is not the only means by whichEPA will collect information to support thisrulemaking. EPA agrees that other sources ofinformation are invaluable and has or willreach out to them. However, EPA hasPart A of the Supporting Statement: Appendix B

85Table B-1:ICR Comment Summary and Response: General CommentsTopicCommentOwner/OperatorMS4NPDESResponsePermittingAuthorityand the “developer” of its projects. BigBox retailers do not have access to thesite-specific technical data required inSection C.Transit agencies should not be includedin this data collection effort even thoughthey have an ongoing need forconstruction and/or rehabilitation ofpublic transit passenger, maintenanceand storage facilities.Contact national societies of theProfessional Engineers, Land Surveys,and Landscape Architects to get lists offirms that actually implement thepractices and can answer a detailedquestionnaire more easily. Also theInternational Erosion ControlAssociation, Center for WatershedProtection, American Society of CivilEngineers.Unless the construction company is theowner/builder, it is not likely they willknow the design basis of the stormwatercontrol features on projects they haveconstructed.EPA should redesign the survey to alignto the different types of builders anddevelopers which could include aquestion asking what categories apply –builds on single lots developed byconcluded these other sources are notappropriate questionnairerecipients becausethe vast majority of the requested info is notapplicable to them.Based on comments and other outreach, EPAhas revised the questions to collectinformation it believes is available to the vastmajority of respondents. If the information isnot available, respondents have the option ofresponding that the information is notavailable.EPA disagrees that transit agencies shouldnot be included in this data collection effort.EPA anticipates that transit agencies will besubject to this rulemaking and needs tocollect information to analyze the feasibilityand impacts of the rulemaking to transitagencies. EPA has developed a separatequestionnaire for transportation agencies inan effort to tailor its information collection totheir activities.See Part B of this ICR supporting statementfor EPA’s survey design and strategy forselecting questionnaire recipients.Part A of the Supporting Statement: Appendix B

86Table B-1:ICR Comment Summary and Response: General CommentsTopicCommentOwner/OperatorMS4NPDESResponsePermittingAuthorityanother company; builds on owner’sland’ builds multifamily homes; landdevelopment only; develop and build ina project the company develops;develop and sell lots to othercompanies. The EPA can tailor thequestions to the different type ofbuilders/developers.EPA should develop separate questionsfor owner/developers and general/leadcontractors.Financial information from a generalcontractor serves no purpose becausethey will never be paying for thepermanent BMPs. EPA shouldeliminate Section B for generalcontractors.Random sampling of developers ormunicipalities will not result in a fairrepresentation of municipalities andindustry.Industry surveys should be solicitedfrom knowledgeable developers withexperience in incorporating postconstruction stormwater controls.Different size developers will havedifferent unit costs and varying degreesof understanding LID issues.Part A of the Supporting Statement: Appendix B

87Table B-1:ICR Comment Summary and Response: General CommentsTopicCommentOwner/OperatorMS4NPDESResponsePermittingAuthorityExpand list to include others that havecontrol over infrastructure thatsignificantly impacts stormwater suchas federal facilities, railroads, airports,and owner and operators of commercialor industrial sites of a specified size.Require that primary contractors obtain,where appropriate, answers to questionsfrom their stormwater contractors.The strategy for selecting questionnairerecipients should be grounded instatistics and should include astatistically broad and representativecross section of the nation with regardto climatologic, topographic, geologic,economic, legal, social, political, andenvironmental factors. The samplingstrategy should be clearly documentedand made availablefor public commentbefore the questionnaires aredistributed.Many support EPA’s decision toexclude the electric utility industry fromthe stormwater ICR.SurveyApproach/FormatThe questionnaire wasunclear or vague,and questions had multiple meaningsand multiple potential responses. Themultiple choice format is not conduciveto clear and meaningful responses.In response to these comments, EPA hasrevised its definitions and instructions, whereappropriate.EPA has designed its questionnaires to reducePart A of the Supporting Statement: Appendix B

88Table B-1:ICR Comment Summary and Response: General CommentsTopicCommentOwner/OperatorMS4NPDESResponsePermittingAuthorityEPA should provide clear guidance asto what should be included in the costs,otherwise data will be highly variable.Why is the period of interest limited to5 years? A false assessment ofcost/benefit may result if the database isskewed toward recently installedprojects.The Agency should focus on the moreproblematic impacts stemming frompreexisting development versus newlyconstructed sites that are using somestormwater control measures.EPA should remove the firm levelfinancial information from the survey asEPA has not justified the need for thisinformation.EPA should eliminate the requirementto develop engineering and financialestimates for all recipients of theindustry questionnaire.EPA should provide a phone number forto clarify questions in addition to theemail address which will result in losttime.The BMP worksheetsshould addressthe fact that multiple BMPs may beburden to recipients and to EPA in processingresponses. Multiple choice format addressesboth of these concerns.EPA typically struggles with reducing burdenand collecting enough data to inform itsregulations. In this case, EPA chose tocollect 5 years of data in this ICR because itconcludes data from the past 5 years will besufficient to allow full consideration of thisrulemaking.EPA is also considering retrofit of existingdevelopment as part of this rulemaking andhas included questionsto gather informationon the extent and type of retrofit currentlybeing incorporated.EPA needs firm level information to assessthe possible economic impact of thisrulemaking to firms.EPA is not requiring owner/developersurveys to develop engineering or financialinformation that does not exist.Whether EPA provides and e-mail address ora telephone number for a questionnaire helpline, it does not typically have someone torespond immediately 24 hours per day. Emailing the question gives EPA the chance toresearch its response, if necessary, andreduces “telephone tag” – both of whichPart A of the Supporting Statement: Appendix B

89Table B-1:ICR Comment Summary and Response: General CommentsTopicCommentOwner/OperatorMS4NPDESResponsePermittingAuthorityused to satisfy one design objective andone BMP may be used to satisfymultiple design requirements.EPA should emphasize complete lifecycle costs of all stormwater BMPs.It is not clear how the financial data thatEPA collects will account for the manybuilders who have gone out of businessduring the period of time that the surveycovers.The proposed surveys do not addressthe stormwater impacts fromtransportation projects in general, orhighways in particular. These impactsshould be the focus of a separatequestionnaire.A separate questionnaire should bedeveloped for manufacturers/vendors ofBMP systems.Questionnaires requesting this type ofinformation should not be mailed outduring the summer months asmonitoring, permitting, and otherregulatory staff members are busiestduring these months when constructionand related activities are at their peak.ultimately reduce he delay in gettingclarification.EPA is no longer including the BMPworksheets in any of the questionnaires.Because developers that are out of businesswould not be subject to this proposedregulation, it does not need to collectinformation from them.EPA has developed a separate questionnairefor transportation projects.EPA has not developed a separatequestionnaire from BMPmanufacturers/vendors, but is reaching out tothem for cost and performance data forcontrols/systems for which it lacksinformation.EPA appreciates the concern about thesummer months and has minimized burden asmuch as possible.EPA is considering the comment to conductwebinars with two weeks of questionnairedistribution in order to facilitate response andclarify questions early in the process. EPAwill provide its analysis of the collected datain the public recordassociated with thisproposed rulemaking.Part A of the Supporting Statement: Appendix B

90Table B-1:ICR Comment Summary and Response: General CommentsTopicCommentOwner/OperatorMS4NPDESResponsePermittingAuthorityEPA should conduct webinars on thequestionnaires within 7 to 14 days ofdistribution and conduct stakeholdermeetings after questionnaires aresubmitted and initial analyses areconducted.Move the definitions to the back of eachsurvey or into a separate document toun-encumber the survey.EPA should develop a more detailed,precise survey of aselected group ofmunicipalities to obtain more usefulinformation.EPA should develop a shortquestionnaire that goes to a largersample of respondents and a detailedquestionnaire to a much smaller subset.Specifically, the detailed should go todesign firms who actually dodevelopment work.Shorter surveys should be available forcompletion online.Retention is only one availableapproach; EPA should modify thesurvey to provide a full assessment ofapproaches.EPA has not moved the definitions to theback of the questionnaires as suggestedbecause EPA wants respondents to read thedefinitions before they read the questions.EPA has developed a survey design for all thequestionnaires. This includes a long andshort version of the owner/operator survey.See Appendix A.EPA is evaluating the use of on-line surveysfor this data collection effort.EPA has revised specific questions in all ofthe questionnaires to address comments. Forexample, EPA is requesting information onall types of long term stormwater dischargecontrols and is not limiting its collection toretention practices only.EPA disagrees that asking how much amunicipality spends as a percent of totalbudget provides little useful information. Asexplained in a previous section, EPA will beable to compare theestimated incrementalcosts of any rulemaking considerations in aneffort to gauge increased financial burden andpossible impact.Part A of the Supporting Statement: Appendix B

91Table B-1:ICR Comment Summary and Response: General CommentsTopicCommentOwner/OperatorMS4NPDESResponsePermittingAuthorityAsking how much a municipalityspends as a percent of total budgetprovides little useful information.SurveyAlternativesEPA staff or a contractor should extractthe requested information from therespondents through a series ofresearch, interviews, and follow upquestions. Using 1 entity to collect dataimproves the quality and usefulness ofthe data.Instead of conducting a survey EPAshould be conductinga research effortand comprehensive evaluation of thenew development and redevelopmentprograms that have been established.EPA should consider a separate effort toassess the effectiveness of sourcecontrols and which constituents wouldbenefit the most from source controlprograms and/or new research.EPA should convene a nationalstormwater summit or strategicinitiative involving scientists, engineers,regulators, MS4 permittees, andstormwater practitioners to evaluate thestatus of the stormwater sciences andformulate an achievable strategy for thefuture.This ICR is one source of data for thisrulemaking. For the requested information,EPA concludes these alternative sourceswould not provide a national baseline to useas a basis of comparison for regulatoryoptions. However, EPA is collectinginformation from multiple sources includingmost of those provided in comment. Forinformation not collected through this ICR,EPA is conducting research supplementedwith interviews, meetings, site visits andother outreach activities.The MS4 and State questionnaires aredesigned to provide a national perspective onexisting new and redevelopmentrequirements.Part A of the Supporting Statement: Appendix B

92Table B-1:ICR Comment Summary and Response: General CommentsTopicCommentOwner/OperatorMS4NPDESResponsePermittingAuthorityEPA should prepare designs and costestimates for various scenarios fordifferent design criteria, contributingland uses and project sizes in variousclimatic and physiographic regions ofthe country. Use MEANS catalog orother industry-standard cost-estimatingtools.Utilize case studies of several pioneercities from each region.After EPA articulates the goals of theregulation, identifies the target entitiesfor information collection, EPA shouldsit down with those entities to discusshow best to obtain the necessaryinformation prior to asking OMB forICR approval.EPA should work with the State andregional stormwater agencies to gatherthe data, the cost of the data collectioncould be spread across membermunicipalities or funded by EPA.Definitions -GeneralThe definitions are not detailed enoughto ensure nationwide understanding andapplicability.To generalize cost information it will benecessary to standardize the datadefinitions, activities, and metrics, andprovide some central reportingEPA has revised its definitions to incorporatethese comments.EPA has reviewed the definitions in the 4questionnaires for consistency, asappropriate.EPA disagrees that its definitions need to bePart A of the Supporting Statement: Appendix B

93Table B-1:ICR Comment Summary and Response: General CommentsTopicCommentOwner/OperatorMS4NPDESPermittingAuthorityResponsemechanism. The definitions should beconsistent for the 3 questionnaires.The ICR definitions should beconsistent with the NRC definitions.consistent with NRC. EPA’s definitionsenable it to collect information in a mannerwhich conforms to its analyses.Part A of the Supporting Statement: Appendix B

94 Table B-2: State 5 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 mechanis m, 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: State 5 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 revisedPart A of the Supporting Statement: Appendix B

96 Table B-2: State 5 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 conflic t between the question

and the table. The nu mber of inspections

can be different from the number of MS4’s inspected.

B-13 The question sp eaks 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 stormwat er 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 ICRPart A of the Supporting Statement: Appendix B

97 Table B-2: State 5 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 benchmarksPart A of the Supporting Statement: Appendix B

98 Table B-3: MS4 6 Questionnaire 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 commentsPart A of the Supporting Statement: Appendix B

99 Table B-3: MS4 6 Questionnaire 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: MS4 6 Questionnaire 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 pointsPart A of the Supporting Statement: Appendix B

101 Table B-3: MS4 6 Questionnaire 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: MS4 6 Questionnaire 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: MS4 6 Questionnaire 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: MS4 6 Questionnaire 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 approvedPart A of the Supporting Statement: Appendix B

105 Table B-3: MS4 6 Questionnaire 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 sayingthat 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 pointsPart A of the Supporting Statement: Appendix B

106 Table B-3: MS4 6 Questionnaire 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 9 th 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 toconstruction 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 pointsPart A of the Supporting Statement: Appendix B

107 Table B-3: MS4 6 Questionnaire 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 pointsPart A of the Supporting Statement: Appendix B

108 Table B-3: MS4 6 Questionnaire 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 optionrestructure 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 pointsPart A of the Supporting Statement: Appendix B

109 Table B-3: MS4 6 Questionnaire 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 pointsPart A of the Supporting Statement: Appendix B

110 Table B-3: MS4 6 Questionnaire 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 revisedPart A of the Supporting Statement: Appendix B

111 Table B-3: MS4 6 Questionnaire 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 pointsPart A of the Supporting Statement: Appendix B

112 Table B-3: MS4 6 Questionnaire 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: MS4 6 Questionnaire 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: MS4 6 Questionnaire 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

informationPart A of the Supporting Statement: Appendix B

115 Table B-4: Industry Questionnaire 7 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 QuestionnairePart A of the Supporting Statement: Appendix B

116 Table B-4: Industry Questionnaire 7 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 willPart A of the Supporting Statement: Appendix B

117 Table B-4: Industry Questionnaire 7 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 Questionnaire 7 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 pr actice. 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 Questionnaire 7 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.