MEMORANDUM

TO: Public Record for the NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule

EPA Docket Number EPA-HQ-OECA-2009-0274 (www.regulations.gov)

FROM: Carey A. Johnston, P.E.

USEPA/OECA/OC

ph: (202) 566 1014

johnston.carey@epa.gov

DATE: 28 May 2014

SUBJECT: Notes from State Technical Workgroup Meeting (22 May 2014) [DCN 0137]

Overview 

This was the tenth meeting for the EPA-state technical workgroup, which is discussing

key issues related to the proposed NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule (eRule). These discussions 

are informing the forthcoming supplemental Federal Register notice and they will continue 

beyond the publication of the supplemental notice to help EPA address state comments. EPA 

participants will include the OECA eRule Team as well as representatives from EPA’s Office of 

Water and Office of Environmental Information. Technical workgroup members are listed 

below in Tables 1 and 2. The agenda for this meeting is also provided below. EPA is 

summarizing the notes from these discussions for the docket in order to provide transparency 

on EPA’s outreach during the rulemaking process. The OECA eRule team will also be available 

for any other stakeholder group that would like to discuss the eRule.

Meeting Notes

EPA (Mr. Carey Johnston) started the meeting by reminding state participants that in 

addition to raising questions during the technical workgroup meetings, states can email their 

questions on the proposed rule (including the data elements) to EPA. Questions on all aspects 

of the proposed rule can be sent to Mr. Johnston. Mr. Johnston then asked teleconference 

participants to focus on the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) data elements in 

Appendix A. The source of these MS4-specific data elements includes NPDES permit 

applications and Notices of Intent (NOI) (see 30 July 2013; 78 FR 46093) and the MS4 Program

Report (Page 46107). Mr. Johnston started the technical discussion by reading the name of 

each data element along with the corresponding data description and regulatory or policy 

citation. After reading about five to ten elements at a time, Mr. Johnston asked for input from 

the technical workgroup. Below are some questions and comments from the technical 

workgroup.
 Missouri commend that the options under the MS4 System Map data element should 

recognize that some MS4 system maps are partially complete. Mr. Johnston noted that the 

list of options will allow for some of these differences across MS4s.

 Missouri and Texas noted that some MS4s set-up agreements with other municipal entities 

for enforcement purposes. For example, ‘non-traditional’ MS4s like university campuses or 

irrigation districts may rely on a nearby local government to enforce the conditions of their 

MS4 NPDES permit. 

 Washington state did not think that the MS4 Public Education Program data element is 

important and questions whether they should be included in Appendix A. 

 New Jersey stated that it would be helpful to see some example options under the data 

elements related to the MS4 six minimum control measures.1

 Texas noted that MS4s are unique and that there are difference in how they comply with 

their NPDES permit. They suggested that the options for the MS4 six minimum control 

measures need to account for these differences. In particular, Missouri noted that there are 

many differences in how MS4s might complete the MS4 Maintenance of BMPs data 

element.

 Texas noted that some actions are on-going, which means that there is no completion date. 

Texas suggested the removal of “including, as appropriate, the months and years” in the 

MS4 Measureable Goals for Additional Measures data element.

 Indiana (Mr. Tom Easterly) asked whether states would be required to summarize 

information from individual NPDES permit applications for these MS4 data elements. Mr. 

Johnston noted that EPA is focused on creating structured data elements in Appendix A (not 

open text fields) as structured data elements (e.g., codes, yes/no flags) are easier to analyze 

than open text fields. However, Mr. Johnston noted that states can require individual 

NPDES permit applicants to type these MS4 data elements (and other Appendix A data 

elements) and electronically submit these data to the state (e.g., e-mail, on-line). These 

electronic data submissions would not need to be CROMERR compliant as the copy of 

record for the individual NPDES permit application is the paper form. This option would 

provide individual NPDES permit applicants with better control of the generation of these 

electronic data and reduce the state processing of these data (i.e., state staff would not 

need to key in these data).

Mr. Johnston then asked teleconference participants to focus on the MS4 Program 

Report data elements (see 30 July 2013; 78 FR 46107). Mr. Johnston started the technical 

 

1

The MS4 stormwater management program must include the following six minimum control measures: public 

education and outreach; public participation/involvement; illicit discharge detection and elimination; construction 

site runoff control; post-construction runoff control; and pollution prevention/good housekeeping.
discussion by reading the name of each data element along with the corresponding data 

description and regulatory or policy citation. After reading about five to ten elements at a time, 

Mr. Johnston asked for input from the technical workgroup. Below are some questions and 

comments from the technical workgroup.

 Several states noted that electronic reporting of MS4 Program Report data will require 

flexibility. In particular, state meeting participants noted that local governments often 

partner to share responsibilities to control urban stormwater. For example, under a single 

NPDES permit one local government entity may be responsible for public education and 

outreach while another local government entity is responsible for illicit discharge detection 

and elimination. Mr. Johnston noted that EPA intends to use the Unique Number for Each 

Municipality Covered Under MS4 Permit data element for these types of intergovernmental sharing of MS4 activities. Mr. Johnston noted that this data element could be 

system generated if that makes electronic reporting easier.

 States also noted that EPA will need to account for the fact that some states require one 

program report for multiple local governments that are covered one MS4 NPDES permit 

while other states require separate program reports, one for each local government

covered a MS4 NPDES permit.

 Missouri suggested that EPA use the annual report to show a summary of enforcement 

actions taken. Other states noted that EPA will need to clarify how local governments that 

are sharing MS4 responsibilities will complete the enforcement action data elements. 

 Texas noted that some actions are on-going, which means that there is no completion date. 

Texas suggested the removal of “including, as appropriate, the months and years” in the 

MS4 Measureable Goals for Additional Measures data element.

 ACWA (Mr. Sean Rolland) noted that there are a lot of differences in the MS4 universe. He 

suggested that EPA’s electronic reporting requirements will need to mirror what the states 

are doing. 

After the meeting, Missouri DNR and New Jersey submitted questions on electronic 

reporting for the MS4 sector (see Attachments 1 and 2, respectively).

Next Steps

The next technical workgroup meeting is May 29th. 
State Technical Workgroup Meeting – NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule

22 May 2014

1pm Introduction/Roll Call 

1:10 Discussion of MS4 Data

2:30 End of Call

Quick Reminder

 The technical workgroup is not a formal decision-making body. The workgroup is expected 

to develop, research, and evaluate options for consideration by EPA and state senior 

management.

 There are no formal quorum rules for the workgroup. Scheduled teleconferences will 

proceed with whichever workgroup members call in to participate.

 There will be no formal voting or consensus of the workgroup. Instead, the workgroup is

expected to try to develop recommendations reflecting their various perspectives, not 

achieve consensus.

 Summaries of the workgroup’s discussions will be prepared for and reviewed by the 

workgroup, for presentation to EPA senior management and other states and the 

rulemaking record. The discussions summaries will outline the major elements of the 

discussions, areas of agreement and any dissenting views.
Table 1: State Technical Workgroup Members

Main Contact State or 

Organization Main Contact Email

State/Org. 

Present? 

(Yes/No)

Sean Rolland ACWA srolland@acwa-us.org Yes

Karen Lechner AK karen.lechner@alaska.gov Yes

Christy Monk

AL

cvm@adem.state.al.us

Eric Cleckler ecleckler@adem.state.al.us No

Glenda Dean gld@adem.state.al.us

Teresa Marks

AR

marks@adeq.state.ar.us

Yes

Pat Goff goff@adeq.state.ar.us

Mo Shafii shafii@adeq.state.ar.us

Karen Bassett bassett@adeq.state.ar.us

David Ramsey ramsey@adeq.state.ar.us

Ellen Carpenter carpenter@adeq.state.ar.us

Wendy LeStarge

AZ

lestarge.wendy@azdeq.gov

Robin Belley belley.robin@azdeq.gov Yes

David Lelsz lelsz.david@azdeq.gov;

Andy Putnam

CO

andrew.putnam@state.co.us

goff@adeq.state.ar.us Yes

Elisa Willard elisa.willard@state.co.us

Bob Zimmerman DE robert.zimmerman@state.de.us

stephanie.bower@state.de.us Yes

Beth Graves ECOS bgraves@ecos.org No

Chris Klena

FL

chris.m.klena@dep.state.fl.us

Yes

Jessica Kleinfelter jessica.kleinfelter@dep.state.fl.us

Edward Smith edward.c.smith@dep.state.fl.us

Frances Carpenter frances.carpenter@dnr.state.ga.us

Tom Easterly

IN

teasterl@idem.in.gov

ckoontz@idem.in.gov Yes

Jeremy Chenevert jcheneve@idem.in.gov

Ed Dillingham

KS

edillingham@kdheks.gov

No Shelly Shores-Miller sshoresm@kdheks.gov

Shawn Hokanson KY shawn.hokanson@ky.gov No

Ruth Wallace

MO

ruth.wallace@dnr.mo.gov

Yes Christopher Miller epermitting@dnr.mo.gov

Tamara Dahl MN tamara.dahl@state.mn.us Yes

Greg Jackson MS greg_jackson@deq.state.ms.us No

John Murphy NEIWPCC jmurphy@neiwpcc.org No

Jason Lonardo

NJ

jason.lonardo@dep.state.nj.us

Yes Julio Collazo julio.collazo@dep.state.nj.us
Main Contact State or 

Organization Main Contact Email

State/Org. 

Present? 

(Yes/No)

Robert Wither

NY

rewither@gw.dec.state.ny.us

Yes Joseph DiMura jxdimura@gw.dec.state.ny.us

Shellie Chard-McClary

OK

shellie.chard-mcclary@deq.ok.gov

Roy Walker roy.walker@deq.ok.gov Yes

David Pruitt david.pruitt@deq.ok.gov

Jim Billings OR billings.jim@deq.state.or.us Yes

Sean Furjanic PA sefurjanic@pa.gov No

Kent Woodmansey

SD

kent.woodmansey@state.sd.us

Tim Flor tim.flor@state.sd.us No

Albert Spangler albert.spangler@state.sd.us

Lawrence Bunting TN lawrence.bunting@TN.gov Yes

Kim Wilson

TX

kim.wilson@tceq.texas.gov

Lynley Doyen lynley.doyen@tceq.texas.gov Yes

Kimberly Shepard kimberly.shepard@tceq.texas.gov

Jeff Studenka UT jstudenka@utah.gov No

Jerome Brooks

VA

jerome.brooks@deq.virginia.gov

Yes

Phani Eturu phani.eturu@deq.virginia.gov

Stephen Bernath

WA

sber461@ecy.wa.gov

Yes Nancy Kmet nkme461@ecy.wa.gov

Table 2: EPA Technical Workgroup Members

Name EPA Office Email Present? 

(Yes/No)

Lisa Lund OECA/OC/IO lund.lisa@epa.gov No

John Dombrowski OECA/OC/ETDD dombrowski.john@epa.gov Yes

Andy Hudock OECA/OC/ETDD hudock.andrew@epa.gov Yes

Rochele Kadish OECA/OC/ETDD kadish.rochele@epa.gov Yes

Carey Johnston OECA/OC/ETDD johnston.carey@epa.gov Yes

Jackie Clark OW/OWM/WPD clark.jackie@epa.gov Yes

Roy Chaudet OEI/OIC/IESD chaudet.roy@epa.gov No

Chuck Freeman OEI/OIC/IESD freeman.charles@epa.gov No

Aditi Prabhu OGC/WLO prabhu.aditi@epa.gov Yes

David Apanian Region 4 apanian.david@epa.gov Yes

Holly Galavotti OW/OWM/WPD galavotti.holly@epa.gov Yes

Glynis Hill OP/ORPM/PRAD hill.glynis@epa.gov Yes
Attachment 1 – Questions from Missouri DNR

Carey,

Thank you for the information on today’s call. I am coming into the conversation late, so some of my 

questions may reflect that. I am in the process of looking at the rule more closely, though. There were 

three of us from Missouri on the call today: Joshua Ernst, Christopher Miller and me.

Some things that came to mind after the call:

 Would it be possible to qualify the co-permittee question up front rather than later in the form?

EPA Answer: Yes. EPA will need to configure the MS4 Program Report electronic reporting form to 

account for the fact that a single MS4 NPDES permit may cover multiple local governments or entities 

(e.g., university, water district). These regulated entities may be co-permittees or there may be one 

permittee that performs MS4 activities for one or more other local governments. Additionally, some 

states require one program report for when multiple local governments are covered one MS4 NPDES 

permit while other states require separate program reports, one for each local government covered a 

MS4 NPDES permit. EPA will need to account for all of these options in its electronic reporting form.

 Would it be possible then to correlate permit #s and unique ID #s to primary permit #s at that 

time? As an example, Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District (MSD) is the continuing authority for 

themselves as primary permittee, but they are also the coordinating authority for 60 copermittees having their own continuing authority each. MSD and co-permittees share authority 

on some permit items such as illicit discharge mapping, inspection and enforcement. (MSD owns 

the county-wide system, but many discharge points are on co-permittee properties so they all 

need to have prohibition, inspection and enforcement authority.)

EPA Answer: Yes. As previously stated, EPA will need to configure the MS4 Program Report electronic 

reporting form to account for the fact that a single MS4 NPDES permit may cover multiple local 

governments or entities. Using your example, MSD will record on their MS4 Program report the lead for 

each MS4 minimum control measure. 

 County information is helpful on all forms as we store efiles by region then county.

EPA Answer: Please let us know if this is a new data element that you would like tracked in the MS4 

Program Report. 

Here are links to our annual report form and addendum. The addendum calls out some potentially 

common items as modified from EPA’s great annual report form draft. (We built in water quality 

qualifiers in post-construction questions, because this is an area of great confusion and change for 

MS4s.)

You might find the addendum helpful in that they can elicit a yes or no answer in several areas.

 Stormwater Annual Report - Small MS4 Permits

 Stormwater Annual Report - Small MS4 Permits Addendum - Water Quality Program Assessment
EPA Answer: Thank you for your suggestion. We will look at these example forms to help further refine 

the MS4 data elements.

Also, all individual permit applicants (or site-specific as we say in Missouri) submit hard-copy

applications on our FORM A. Does that have any relevance to this discussion? 

EPA Answer: The proposed NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule does not require electronic reporting of 

individual NPDES permit applications. However, the proposed rule does require electronic reporting of 

Notices of Intent (NOI), which will include many Phase II (small) MS4s.

Finally, I am curious to know if this is for all MS4s, or just general permittees.

EPA Answer: The proposed NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule required electronic reporting of all MS4 

Program Reports (Phase I and Phase II MS4s).

Will this include TMDL info and related monitoring as called for in some Small MS4 SWMPs?

EPA Answer: The data elements for the MS4 Program Reports are listed on page 46107 and 46108 of 

the proposed rule. The NPDES permitting authority may require the MS4 to include information related 

to a TMDL as part of these data elements. Additionally, the NPDES permitting authority may require 

monitoring, which can be reported on a Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR). EPA’s proposed rule also 

requires electronic reporting of DMRs. Additionally, EPA’s electronic reporting systems, NPDES 

Electronic Reporting Tool (NeT) and NetDMR, also allow for PDF attachments to be submitted alongside 

other data. 

Either way, it appears to me that Missouri will need to:

1. Significantly modify the MS4 application form for inclusion of specific permit and SWMP 

questions;

2. Significantly modify MoCWIS to accommodate online appliction info;

3. Significantly modify MoCWIS to accommodate online annual report info; and

4. Majorly modify MoCWIS to correlate unique ID#s (co-permit billing #s) to other permit #s or to 

Other non-permit #s.

We look forward to the draft on-line documents.

Thanks again for your time and effort on this and for accommodating my late-to-the-scene

questions/comments.

Best regards,

Ruth A. Wallace, CMS4S

Municipal Stormwater Program Coordinator

PO Box 176

Jefferson City, MO 65102-0176

573 522 1131

Stormwater Information Clearinghouse

http://dnr.mo.gov/env/wpp/stormwater/index.html
Attachment 1 – Questions from New Jersey DEP

New Jersey’s Follow-up Comments on MS4 E-Reporting Data Elements

Not all states implement their programs consistently. States have relied on EPA guidance and flexibility 

(http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/measurablegoals.pdf) that have encouraged development of 

stormwater management programs and measurable goals that meet their individual needs. Requiring 

standardized reporting elements that coincide directly with the regulations will be difficult. Having the 

code element details is necessary to determine if the information that will be requested is available, 

necessary, or even relevant for tracking. It would be useful to better understand the purpose for the 

information and its intended use that would allow consideration of possible other reporting methods 

that could achieve the same purpose and intent.

EPA Answer: EPA will need to configure the MS4 Program Report electronic reporting form to account

for the differences in how MS4 report their activities and measurable goals for each of the six minimum 

control measures. For example, for the first minimum control measure, “Public Education and Outreach 

on Storm Water Impacts,” an MS4 may elect to initiate or continue a stormwater education program for 

school children with a measurable goal of educating 50 percent of all school children (K-12) every two 

years on the effects or stormwater pollution and activities they can do to prevent this pollution. EPA will 

work with states to develop useful data for states, EPA, and the public along with the flexibility that 

MS4s need to report these data. 

It may be desirable to have discrete reporting categories that differentiate between Phase I, Phase II, 

general permits and individual permits. NJ has no Phase I municipalities, no individual permits,no copermittees sharing responsibilities and each municipality is permitted separately. EPA should be able to 

populate the database with this information so that the reports for each municipality are autopopulated so that only the applicable catetory(s) [sic] with the associated reporting elements appear.

EPA Answer: EPA agrees with New Jersey that Appendix A should be able to distinguish between Phase 

I, Phase II, general permits and individual permits. We are also planning on pre-populating data in its 

electronic reporting forms to facilitate and expedite electronic reporting. 

Construction Site Runoff Control reporting requirements should be part of the Construction and 

Industrial Activities e-report. Although related to the MS4 permits through the Phase II regulation, 

construction activities are regulated through separate required permits and not the MS4 permit. 

EPA Answer: The construction and industrial stormwater data on individual construction sites will come 

from the individual construction sites’ NPDES permit applications and NOIs not the MS4. 

NJ utilizes its own Statewide soil erosion and sediment control regulations and 15 Soil Conservation 

Districts to control construction site runoff for projects that disturb 5,000 sq. ft. or more of land. 

Through a Statewide Construction General Permit and in coordination with the SCDs all construction site 

runoff is regulated for projects that disturb 1 or more acres.

EPA Answer: EPA thanks New Jersey for this information.