## Economic Analysis for the Water Quality Standards Regulatory Revisions (Final Rule)

July 2015

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Water Office of Science and Technology 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W. Washington, DC 20460July 2015 i 

### Table of Contents Executive Summary.......................................................................................................................v
1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.1 Background ........................................................................................................................ 1-1
1.2 Scope of the Analysis......................................................................................................... 1-2
1.3 Organization of this Report ................................................................................................ 1-2
2. Baseline and Rule Requirements .................................................................................... 2-1
2.1 Administrator’s Determinations......................................................................................... 2-1 2.1.1 1983 Regulation........................................................................................................ 2-1 2.1.2 Revision .................................................................................................................... 2-1
2.2 Designated Uses ................................................................................................................. 2-1 2.2.1 1983 Regulation........................................................................................................ 2-1 2.2.2 Revision .................................................................................................................... 2-1
2.3 Triennial Reviews .............................................................................................................. 2-2 2.3.1 1983 Regulation........................................................................................................ 2-2 2.3.2 Revision .................................................................................................................... 2-2
2.4 Antidegradation.................................................................................................................. 2-2 2.4.1 1983 Regulation........................................................................................................ 2-2 2.4.2 Revision .................................................................................................................... 2-3
2.5 WQS Variances .................................................................................................................. 2-3 2.5.1 1983 Regulation........................................................................................................ 2-3 2.5.2 Revision .................................................................................................................... 2-3
2.6 Compliance Schedule Authorizing Provisions................................................................... 2-4 2.6.1 1983 Regulation........................................................................................................ 2-4 2.6.2 Revision .................................................................................................................... 2-4
2.7 Other Changes .................................................................................................................... 2-4
3. Potential Incremental Burden and Cost of the Revisions............................................. 3-1
3.1 Data and Methods............................................................................................................... 3-1
3.2 Estimated Burden and Cost to States and Authorized Tribes ............................................ 3-2 3.2.1 Rulemaking Activities .............................................................................................. 3-2 3.2.2 Administrator’s Determinations ............................................................................... 3-3 3.2.3 Designated Uses........................................................................................................ 3-3 3.2.4 Triennial Reviews..................................................................................................... 3-5 3.2.5 Antidegradation ........................................................................................................ 3-7 3.2.6 WQS Variances ...................................................................................................... 3-16July 2015 ii

3.2.7 Compliance Schedules Authorizing Provisions...................................................... 3-19 3.2.8 Summary of Estimated Burden and Cost to States and Authorized Tribes............ 3-19
3.3 Estimated Burden and Cost to the Agency....................................................................... 3-20
3.4 Summary of Potential Burden and Cost........................................................................... 3-22
3.5 Limitations and Uncertainties .......................................................................................... 3-22 3.5.1 Key Assumptions.................................................................................................... 3-23 3.5.2 QA/QC Activities ................................................................................................... 3-25
4. Small Entity Analysis....................................................................................................... 4-1
5. Potential Incremental Benefits of the Revisions............................................................ 5-1
5.1 Benefits by Program Area .................................................................................................. 5-1 5.1.1 Administrator’s Determinations ............................................................................... 5-1 5.1.2 Designated Uses........................................................................................................ 5-2 5.1.3 Triennial Reviews..................................................................................................... 5-2 5.1.4 Antidegradation ........................................................................................................ 5-3 5.1.5 WQS Variances ........................................................................................................ 5-4 5.1.6 Compliance Schedule Authorizing Provisions ......................................................... 5-5
5.2 Benefits of Improved Water Quality.................................................................................. 5-6 5.2.1 Market Benefits ........................................................................................................ 5-6 5.2.2 Nonmarket Benefits.................................................................................................. 5-8
6. References ......................................................................................................................... 6-1
7. Appendix: EPA’s CWA Section 304(a) Criteria Recommendations........................... 7-1July 2015 iii 

### List of Exhibits

Exhibit 3-1: Summary of State Government Average Hourly Wage Rates (2013 $).................. 3-2 Exhibit 3-2: Potential One-time Burden and Cost Associated with Rulemaking Activities ....... 3-3 Exhibit 3-3: Potential Annual Burden and Cost Associated with Revisions to Designated Use Provisions ............................................................................................................................. 3-5 Exhibit 3-4: Potential Annual Burden and Cost Associated with Documenting and Submitting Explanations for Not Adopting New or Revised Criteria for Parameters for Which EPA Has Published New or Updated CWA Section 304(a) Criteria Recommendations .................... 3-7
Exhibit 3-5: Potential Incremental Annual Burden and Cost Associated with Performing/Evaluating Additional Tier 2 Antidegradation Reviews................................. 3-10
Exhibit 3-6: Potential Annual Burden and Cost Associated With More Extensive Tier 2 Antidegradation Reviews ................................................................................................... 3-12
Exhibit 3-7: Potential Annual Burden and Cost Associated with Public Involvement When Deciding Which Waters Will Receive Tier 2 Antidegradation Protection ........................ 3-14
Exhibit 3-8: Potential Annual Burden and Cost Associated with Public Involvement for Developing or Revising Antidegradation Implementation Methods.................................. 3-16
Exhibit 3-9: Potential Annual Burden and Cost Associated with Additional Documentation Requirements for WQS Variance Submissions.................................................................. 3-17 Exhibit 3-10: Potential Annual Burden and Cost Associated with Reevaluating WQS Variances ............................................................................................................................................ 3-19 Exhibit 3-11: Summary of Potential Incremental Administrative Burden and Cost ................. 3-20 Exhibit 3-12: Summary of Potential Incremental Administrative Burden and Cost to the Agency ............................................................................................................................................ 3-21 Exhibit 3-13: Summary of Potential Incremental Administrative Burden and Cost to States, Authorized Tribes, and the Agency.................................................................................... 3-22 Exhibit 3-14: Uncertainties in the Analysis............................................................................... 3-23 Exhibit 7-1: Current and Prior CWA Section 304(a) Criteria Recommendation Publication Years .............................................................................................................................................. 7-1July 2015 iv 

### Acronyms and Abbreviations

ANPRM Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
BLS Bureau of Labor Statistics
CWA Clean Water Act EA Economic Analysis EPA Environmental Protection Agency FTE Full-Time Equivalent
GS General Schedule HAU Highest Attainable Use ICIS Integrated Compliance Information System IDNR Iowa Department of Natural Resources MDNR Missouri Department of Natural Resources NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ONRW Outstanding National Resources Water RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act SBREFA Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
States and authorized tribes The 50 States, the District of Columbia, Guam, the Commonwealth of

Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and Indian Tribes that EPA determines to be eligible for purposes of the water quality standards program.
TAS Treatment in Manner Similar to a State TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load UAA Use Attainability Analysis WQBEL Water Quality-Based Effluent Limit WQS Water Quality StandardsJuly 2015 v



### Executive Summary

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) updates six areas of the federal water quality standards (WQS) regulation at 40 CFR Part 131 that implements the Clean Water Act (CWA). This update provides a better-defined pathway for states and authorized tribes to address complex water quality challenges and protect high quality waters and it promotes more transparent and engaged public participation. This rule does not establish any requirements directly applicable to regulated entities. Thus, this report describes EPA’s analysis of the potential direct costs and benefits to all 50 states, the District of Columbia, five territories, the 40 authorized tribes with EPA-approved WQS, and to EPA that may be associated with these revisions to the federal regulation. EPA acknowledges that this rule may result in indirect costs to some regulated entities as a result of changes to WQS that states and authorized tribes adopt based on today’s final rule. This report does not describe the potential indirect cost and benefits that may be experienced by regulated entities. EPA estimates the total annual cost for the final rule to range from $ 6.51 million per year to $ 24.11 million per year. Although EPA could not quantitatively estimate monetary benefits, EPA identifies and qualitatively describes many of the expected benefits of the rule. EPA estimates the potential incremental burden and cost of today’s final rule by identifying elements of the rule that could potentially result in incremental administrative burden, estimating the incremental number of labor hours states and authorized tribes may need to allocate in order to comply with those elements of the rule, and estimating the cost associated of those additional labor hours.July 2015 1. Introduction 1

- 1



### 1. Introduction

EPA updates the federal water quality standards (WQS) regulation at 40 CFR Part 131 that implements the Clean Water Act (CWA). This update provides a better-defined pathway for states and authorized tribes to address complex water quality challenges and protect high quality waters. It also promotes more transparent and engaged public participation. The final rule revises six program areas: (1) Administrator’s determination that new or revised WQS are necessary, (2) designated uses, (3) triennial reviews, (4) antidegradation, (5) WQS variances, and (6) permit compliance schedule authorizing provisions. This report describes EPA’s analysis of the potential cost and benefits that may be associated with these revisions to the federal regulation.
1.1 Background The Federal Water Pollution Control Act (as amended through P.L. 107–303, November 27, 2002), also known as the Clean Water Act (CWA), sets the basic structure for regulating pollutant discharges into the waters of the United States. In the CWA, Congress established the national objective to “restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters,” and to achieve “wherever attainable, an interim goal of water quality which provides for the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and for recreation in and on the water” (CWA sections 101(a) and 101(a)(2)). CWA section 303 establishes the basis for the WQS regulation. WQS reflect the CWA national objectives for each water body. The main components of WQS are designated uses, water quality criteria, and antidegradation requirements. Designated uses establish the environmental objectives for a water body, and water quality criteria define the minimum conditions necessary to achieve those environmental objectives. Antidegradation requirements complement designated uses and criteria by providing a framework for maintaining and protecting water quality. After states, authorized tribes, territories, and the District of Columbia (hereafter, states and authorized tribes) establish designated uses of waters under their jurisdiction, they must establish water quality criteria that protect those uses. EPA’s regulation at § 131.11(a)(1) provides that water quality criteria “must be based on sound scientific rationale, and must contain sufficient parameters or constituents to protect the designated use.” States and authorized tribes must also adopt antidegradation policies to protect and maintain high quality waters, outstanding national resource waters, and existing uses of all waters, and identify specific methods to implement those policies (§ 131.12). The WQS regulation provides specific requirements to adopt, revise, and remove designated uses (§ 131.10). A state or authorized tribe may choose to adopt a WQS variance if the use cannot beattained immediately but the use may be attainable in the future. A WQS variance is a timelimited designated use and associated water quality criterion targeted to a specific pollutant(s), permittee(s), and water body or waterbody segment. A WQS variance is different from a change to the designated use and associated criterion in that it is intended as a mechanism to provide time for states, authorized tribes and stakeholders to implement adaptive management approaches that will improve water quality where the designated use and criterion currently in place are not being met, but still retain the designated use as a long-term goal.July 2015 1. Introduction 1

-2

The regulation requires states and authorized tribes to hold a public hearing to review applicable WQS and solicit input from the public at least once every three years (i.e., a “triennial review”). Such hearings on WQS provide an essential opportunity for stakeholders to become involved in setting WQS and to make concerns known to state and authorized tribal officials. In addition, the regulation requires states and authorized tribes to consider new available data and information and revise standards accordingly. The results of triennial reviews, regardless of whether the review results in revisions to state or authorized tribal regulation, along with any information supporting a WQS revision, must be submitted to EPA for review and approval. EPA established the core of the WQS regulation in a final rule issued in 1983. In 1998, EPA issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) to discuss and invite comment on over 130 aspects of the federal WQS regulation and program, with the goal of identifying specific changes that might strengthen water quality protection and restoration, facilitate watershed management initiatives, and incorporate evolving water quality criteria and assessment science into state and authorized tribal WQS programs. Although EPA chose not to move forward with a rulemaking after the ANRPM, as a result of the input received, EPA identified a number of high priority issue areas for which the Agency developed guidance, provided technical assistance, and continued further discussion and dialogue to assure more effective program implementation. While this rule is not a direct continuation of the 1998 ANPRM, it is a part of EPA’s ongoing effort to clarify and strengthen the WQS program.
1.2 Scope of the Analysis EPA estimated potential incremental administrative costs that may result from the regulatory revisions (i.e., costs that are beyond those associated with implementation of the 1983 WQS regulation). Because today’s rule does not establish any requirements directly applicable to regulated entities and because states and authorized tribes have the flexibility to develop and implement their own WQS to meet the federal regulations in different ways, EPA focuses on the potential impact to states and authorized tribes. In addition, EPA does not have data to estimate any potential costs and benefits of the final rule on regulated entities. EPA acknowledges that some of the provisions in today’s rule may lead to increased administrative costs to states and authorized tribes. EPA also believes that improved understanding of the WQS regulation and clarification of the requirements of certain provisions may offset some of those costs. Although this analysis does not estimate potential offsetting reductions in administrative costs, it does qualitatively describe some of the benefits of today’s rule.
1.3 Organization of this Report The remainder of this report contains the following:

 Section 2 summarizes the regulatory framework as adopted in 1983 and the regulatory revisions in today’s rule.

 Section 3 describes the data and methods EPA uses to estimate the cost of today’s rule, and the results of the analysis.

 Section 4 discusses potential impacts to small entities.

 Section 5 qualitatively describes the benefits that may be associated with today’s rule.

 Section 6 provides references.July 2015 1. Introduction 1

-3

 Section 7 provides a listing of EPA’s CWA section 304(a) criteria recommendations and publication years EPA uses to estimate the cost of today’s rule.July 2015 2. Baseline and Rule Requirements 2

- 1



### 2. Baseline and Rule Requirements

Today’s rule updates the 1983 WQS regulation in the following program areas: (1) Administrator’s determination that new or revised WQS are necessary, (2) designated uses, (3) triennial reviews, (4) antidegradation, (5) WQS variances, and (6) compliance schedule authorizing provisions. This section describes the regulatory framework prior to the effective date of today’s rule and summarizes the regulatory changes in today’s rule. For more details on the revisions and why EPA made them, please refer to the preamble of today’s rule.

2.1 Administrator’s Determinations
2.1.1 1983 Regulation Section 303(c)(4)(B) of the CWA provides the EPA Administrator with authority to determine that new or revised WQS are necessary to meet the CWA requirements, typically in those situations where a state or tribe fails or is unable to act in a manner consistent with the CWA. The Administrator has the discretion to make such a determination after evaluating all relevant factors. An Administrator’s determination triggers the requirement for the EPA to promptly prepare and publish proposed regulations setting forth new or revised WQS for the waters of the United States involved, and for the EPA to promulgate such WQS unless the state or authorized tribe adopts and the EPA approves such WQS before the EPA promulgation is finalized.

2.1.2 Revision Today’s rule clarifies that an Administrator’s determination must be signed by the Administrator or his or her duly authorized delegate and must include a statement that the document is a determination for purposes of section 303(c)(4)(B) of the CWA. EPA estimates the burden and cost of these revisions in Section 3.2.2.
2.2 Designated Uses
2.2.1 1983 Regulation Designated uses are defined at § 131.3(f) as the “uses specified in WQS for each water body or segment whether or not they are being attained.” A use is a particular function of, or activity in, a water body that requires a specific level of water quality. States and authorized tribes have the flexibility in managing their designated uses as long as they meet the requirements of the CWA and the WQS regulation. Specifically, the WQS regulation at §131.10(a) requires states and authorized tribes to take into consideration the use and value of water for public water supplies, protection and propagation of fish, shellfish and wildlife, recreation in and on the water, agricultural, industrial and other purposes including navigation when establishing designated uses. In addition, the regulation at § 131.10(j) requires states and authorized tribes to conduct a UAA when designating uses that do not include the uses specified in section 101(a)(2) of the CWA, when removing a designated use specified in section 101(a)(2) of the CWA, or when adopting sub-categories of such uses which require less stringent criteria.

2.2.2 Revision Today’s rule revises several regulatory provisions that pertain to when a UAA is or is not required. Today’s rule also clarifies that states and authorized tribes must adopt the highestJuly 2015 2. Baseline and Rule Requirements 2

-2

attainable use as newly defined at §131.10(m) when adopting or revising a designated use based on a required UAA. Finally, today’s rule clarifies in 131.10(k)(3) that when removing or revising a non-101(a)(2) use as newly defined at § 131.10(q), states and authorized tribes are not required to conduct a UAA but must submit documentation justifying how consideration of the use and value of water for those uses listed in § 131.10(a) appropriately supports the state or authorized tribal action. EPA estimates the burden and cost of these revisions in Section 3.2.3

2.3 Triennial Reviews
2.3.1 1983 Regulation CWA section 303(c)(1) and the regulation at § 131.20 requires states and authorized tribes to hold a public hearing to review applicable WQS at least once every three years (i.e., a “triennial review”) and, as appropriate, modify and adopt standards. States and authorized tribes must submit the results of each triennial review to EPA whether or not it resulted in a modification to WQS. One area that states and authorized tribes must review triennially is their applicable water quality criteria. States and authorized tribes must adopt criteria that are scientifically defensible and protective of the designated use. EPA has the role of publishing CWA section 304(a) national criteria recommendations to assist states and authorized tribes in establishing water quality criteria in their WQS to “protect the public health or welfare, enhance the quality of water and serve the purposes of” the Act (CWA section 303(c)(2)(A)).

2.3.2 Revision Today’s rule contains two revisions to the triennial review requirements at § 131.20(a). First, today’s rule requires that if states and authorized tribes choose not to adopt new or revised criteria for any parameters for which EPA has published new or updated CWA section 304(a) criteria recommendations, they must explain their decision when submitting the results of their triennial review to EPA per CWA section 303(c)(1) and § 131.20(c). Second, today’s rule clarifies what are the “applicable water quality standards” that states and authorized tribes must review triennially. EPA estimates the burden and cost of these revisions in Section 3.2.4.
2.4 Antidegradation
2.4.1 1983 Regulation Section 131.12 of the regulation requires states and authorized tribes to adopt antidegradation policies to protect water quality and identify methods for implementing such policies. Generally, states and authorized tribes establish three tiers of antidegradation protection:

 Tier 1 protects existing uses.

 Tier 2 protects water quality that is better than necessary to support CWA section 101(a)(2) goals. The regulation at § 131.12(a)(2) allows states and authorized tribes to lower water quality in Tier 2 waters only if the lowering is “necessary to accommodate important economic or social development in the area in which the waters are located.”

 Tier 3 protects water quality in Outstanding National Resources Waters (ONRWs), which states and authorized tribes establish. The regulation at § 131.12(a)(2) requires that water quality in ONRWs “shall be maintained and protected.”July 2015 2. Baseline and Rule Requirements 2

-3

States and authorized tribes adopt antidegradation policies into WQS and submit those policies to EPA for review and approval. States and authorized tribes must also identify the methods they will use to implement the antidegradation policy. States and authorized tribes can, but are not required to, adopt antidegradation implementation methods as a WQS. States and authorized tribes typically use either a parameter-by-parameter approach or a water body-by-water body approach to identify high quality waters for Tier 2 protection

2.4.2 Revision Today’s rule prohibits a state or authorized tribe from denying Tier 2 antidegradation protection to a water body solely because water quality does not exceed levels necessary to support all of the uses specified in CWA section 101(a)(2). Today’s rule also provides that before allowing alowering of high water quality, states and authorized tribes must evaluate a range of nondegrading and less degrading practicable alternatives and select one such alternative for implementation. Furthermore, today’s rule specifies that, where states and authorized tribes identify waters to receive Tier 2 protection on a water body-by-water body basis, states and authorized tribes must involve the public on any decisions pertaining to when they will provide Tier 2 protection, and the factors considered in such decisions. Finally, today’s rule requires states’ and authorized tribes’ antidegradation policies to be consistent with these requirements. States’ and authorized tribes’ antidegradation implementation methods must be consistent with the policy, the requirements above, and states and authorized tribes provide an opportunity for public involvement during the development and any subsequent revisions of antidegradation implementation methods.
EPA estimates the burden and cost of these revisions in Section 3.2.5.

2.5 WQS Variances
2.5.1 1983 Regulation The nationally applicable WQS regulation only briefly mentioned WQS variances at § 131.13. Section 131.13 indicates that states and authorized tribes may adopt general policies affecting the application and implementation of WQS, and may include WQS variances policies in their state or authorized tribal standards at their discretion. Although EPA has addressed WQS variances through guidance, memoranda, and approval actions for many years, EPA has not provided specific regulatory language pertaining to WQS variances prior to this rule.

2.5.2 Revision Today’s rule adds a new regulatory section at § 131.14 that explicitly authorizes the use of WQS variances when designated uses are not attainable in the near-term but may be attainable in the future. Today’s rule: (1) defines a WQS variance; (2) describes the circumstances under which a WQS variance is applicable; (3) describes the minimum information a state or authorized tribe must include in the WQS variance; (4) describes the documentation that a state or authorized tribe must provide to EPA to support a WQS variance when requesting EPA review and approval; (5) establishes the link between WQS variances and NPDES permits, (6) requires periodic reevaluation of a WQS variance longer than five years; (7) provides a mechanism to ensure that any reevaluation indicating a more stringent interim requirement is attainable will be reflected in the implementing NPDES permit, and (8) ensures an opportunity for public participation throughout the variance term.July 2015 2. Baseline and Rule Requirements 2

-4

EPA estimates the burden and cost of these revisions in Section 3.2.6.
2.6 Compliance Schedule Authorizing Provisions
2.6.1 1983 Regulation EPA’s 1983 WQS regulation (40 CFR Part 131) is silent regarding compliance schedule authorizing provisions.

2.6.2 Revision In 1990, the EPA Administrator concluded that before a permitting authority can include a compliance schedule in an NPDES permit, the state or authorized tribe must affirmatively authorize the use of compliance schedules in its WQS or implementing regulations. 1 Today’s rule requires a state or authorized tribe to adopt a permit compliance schedule authorizing provision and for EPA to approve it under CWA section 303(c) before authorizing the use of compliance schedules in NPDES permits. EPA estimates the burden and cost of these revisions in Section 3.2.7.
2.7 Other Changes Today’s rule also includes several non-substantive editorial changes that are not associated with incremental burden or cost and thus not discussed further.

1 In the Matter of Star-Kist Caribe, Inc. 3 EAD 172 (April 16, 1990).July 2015 3. Potential Incremental Costs and Burden 3

- 1



### 3. Potential Incremental Burden and Cost of the Revisions

Today’s rule does not establish new requirements directly applicable to regulated entities. Thus, this analysis focuses on the potential impact of today’s rule on the incremental administrative burden and cost to states and authorized tribes to implement their WQS program. This section presents the data and methods EPA uses to analyze the potential administrative burden and costs (Section 3.1), the analysis and results for states and authorized tribes (Section 3.2), the analysis and results for the Agency (Section 3.3), a summary of the total burden and costs (Section 3.4), and a discussion of uncertainties associated with the estimates (Section 3.5).

3.1 Data and Methods EPA assesses the potential incremental burden and cost associated with today’s rule by first estimating the incremental number of labor hours potentially required by each single state or authorized tribe to comply with each provision of the rule. EPA then calculates the total number of labor hours associated with each provision by multiplying the estimate of labor hours for each state or authorized tribe by the number of potentially affected states and authorized tribes. EPA then estimates the cost of each provision by multiplying the total number of labor hours associated with each provision of today’s rule by the average hourly wage rate of the employees performing the activity. Because activities related to antidegradation are associated with issuance or re-issuance of NPDES permits, EPA estimates the number of antidegradation activities associated with the antidegradation provisions of today’s rule using a percentage of the number of permitted dischargers in potentially affected states and authorized tribes. For these estimates, EPA uses its Integrated Compliance Information System for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (ICIS-NPDES) database to calculate the number of permitted dischargers. EPA estimated the incremental number of labor hours required to comply with the proposed rule published on September 4, 2013 1 using historical EPA information and data, the historical knowledge and best professional judgment of EPA’s personnel with experience administering the WQS program. EPA estimated the number of labor hours associated with the administrative activities required by the proposed rule by soliciting estimates from EPA’s personnel at EPA Headquarters and all 10 EPA Regional offices. EPA compiled and summarized the estimates of labor hours for each required activity and developed by consensus final estimate ranges for each activity. EPA developed the economic analysis of the rule proposed on the basis of these estimates and solicited public comments on the analysis. After reviewing the comments received, EPA revised the estimates of incremental labor hours and is using those updated estimates in this economic analysis of today’s final rule. EPA estimates the cost of labor for states and authorized tribes using data on state government hourly wage rates obtained from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). These data are not available for tribes. EPA chooses Environmental Scientist, Department Manager, Environmental Engineer, and Economist as the applicable labor categories. Exhibit 3-1 shows the 2013 labor rates for these categories and the calculation of benefits using the BLS Employer Cost for Employee Compensation for state and local professional government workers (33% of total compensation is attributable to benefits). EPA uses the average wage rate of these four labor categories because information on the allocation of labor hours by professional category states and authorized tribes use to administer their WQS programs are not available.July 2015 3. Potential Incremental Costs and Burden 3

-2

Exhibit 3-1: Summary of State Government Average Hourly Wage Rates (2013 $)

Category Hourly Labor Rate Hourly Benefits Hourly Wage Rate Environmental Scientist (19-2041) $29 $14 $43 Environmental Engineer (17-2081) $35 $17 $53 Economist (19-3011) $31 $15 $46 Manager (11-9121) $37 $18 $55 Average --

-- $49
Source: BLS (2013)

3.2 Estimated Burden and Cost to States and Authorized Tribes The sections below describes EPA’s incremental labor hour estimates associated with today’s rule and the resulting estimated cost. The estimates include those potential burdens and costs likely to occur only once (one-time burden and cost) and those likely to recur on a regular basis (annual burden and cost). 3.2.1 Rulemaking Activities Today’s rule could potentially require states and authorized tribes to perform a WQS rulemaking for the purpose of modifying antidegradation policy, revising policies related to the issuance of WQS variances (if the state or tribe has adopted such policies in state or tribal statute, rule, or is otherwise legally binding), or adopting provisions authorizing the use of permit compliance schedules. Thus, states and authorized tribes may need to initiate new rulemaking efforts or increase the scope of other planned regulatory changes to comply with the updated federal regulation. The incremental labor hours required for rulemaking efforts are likely specific to each state and authorized tribe and will depend on its existing WQS, the level of public interest, and administrative procedures. In the proposed rule, EPA estimated the incremental labor hours needed to perform a state or authorized tribal rulemaking to range from 100 hours for relatively small rule changes (or those that may be performed in conjunction with the triennial review process) to 500 hours for new or more complex rulemakings involving more than one provision. In response to stakeholder input, EPA revises those estimates to range from 500 hours for relatively small rule changes (or those that may be performed in conjunction with the triennial review process) to 1,000 hours for new or more complex rulemakings involving more than one provision.There are 50 states, 5 territories, the District of Columbia, and 40 authorized tribes with EPAapproved WQS. For the purpose of this analysis, EPA assumes that all 96 states and authorized tribes may need to take a single WQS rulemaking. Thus, EPA estimates a total of 96 (50 + 5 + 1 + 40) potentially affected states and authorized tribes. If all 96 states and authorized tribes undertake a rulemaking activity, the total one-time incremental labor hours required to comply with today’s rule range from 48,000 hours (500 hours per rulemaking per state or authorized tribe  96 states and authorized tribes) to 96,000 hours (1,000 hours per rulemaking per state orJuly 2015 3. Potential Incremental Costs and Burden 3

-3

authorized tribe  96 states and authorized tribes). Using the estimated average hourly wage rate shown in Exhibit 3-1 ($49), EPA estimates the cost associated with state or authorized tribal rulemaking activities to range from approximately $2,352,000 ($49 per hour  48,000 hours) to $4,704,000 ($49 per hour  96,000 hours). Note that EPA estimates that today’s rule will require states and authorized tribes to undertake a WQS rulemaking only once. Thus, the estimated burden and cost associated with these activities are one-time costs. Furthermore, these costs may be an overestimate because the WQS of some states and authorized tribes may already be in full compliance with today’s rule. Exhibit 3-2 summarizes the potential incremental one-time burden and cost associated with rulemaking activities. Exhibit 3-2: Potential One-time Burden and Cost Associated with Rulemaking Activities

Burden per Rulemaking (hours) 1 Cost per

Rulemaking2 Number of

Potentially Affected States and Authorized Tribes 3 Total Burden

(hours) 4 Total Cost

(2013$; one-time) 5 Annualized

Cost (2013$/year) 6

500 – 1,000 $24,500 -

$49,000 96 48,000 – 96,000 $2,352,000 -

$4,704,000 $158,100 -

$316,200 1. Reflects potential new or increased rulemaking activities to adopt provisions consistent with today’s rule into WQS. 2. Hours per state or authorized tribe multiplied by average hourly wage of $49.3. Includes 50 states, five territories, the District of Columbia, and 40 authorized tribes with EPAapproved WQS. 4. Burden per state or authorized tribe multiplied by total number of potentially affected states and authorized tribes. 5. Total burden for all potentially affected states and authorized tribes multiplied by average hourly wage of $49.6. Although EPA expects states and authorized tribes to incur rulemaking cost over an initial threeyear period, it annualized total one-time cost at a 3% discount rate over 20 years for comparative purposes.

3.2.2 Administrator’s Determinations Today’s rule clarifies the process EPA uses to make an Administrator’s determination. EPA estimates that such a clarification will result in no incremental burden or cost to states and authorized tribes and may even result in burden reduction and cost savings by clarifying what constitutes an Administrator’s determination and thus reducing litigation resulting from regulatory uncertainty. 3.2.3 Designated Uses Today’s rule makes clear that once a state or authorized tribe has rebutted the presumption of attainability by demonstrating through a required UAA that a use specified in section 101(a)(2)July 2015 3. Potential Incremental Costs and Burden 3

-4

of the Act is not attainable, it must adopt the highest attainable use (HAU). EPA estimates that removing a designated use requires approximately the same administrative effort as replacing an unattainable use with an attainable use. However, today’s rule may require some states and authorized tribes to conduct additional analysis to identify the HAU. For states and authorized tribes that do not already identify the HAU in their UAA process, the requirement to identify the HAU may require additional labor hours resulting in incremental cost. For the proposed rule, EPA estimated that a single UAA that does not identify the HAU requires approximately 100 to 500 labor hours to develop. After receiving stakeholder input, EPA revises this estimate to approximately 500 to 1,000 labor hours. EPA estimates that 30% additional effort is required to identify the HAU. Thus, EPA estimates that revising a designated use may require an additional 150 hours (500 hours  30%) to 300 hours (1,000 hours  30%) for each UAA if a state or authorized tribe does not already identify the HAU. In the economic analysis of the proposed rule, EPA identified 8 states that do not consistently identify the HAU when adopting a new or revised designated use based on a required UAA. However, this estimate did not account for the 40 authorized tribes, 5 territories, or the District of Columbia for which EPA has no information. In this analysis, EPA estimates an additional 7 governmental entities may not currently identify the HAU by calculating the percentage of states that do not identify the HAU (8 states  50 total states = 16%) and applying that percentage to the total number of authorized tribes, territories and District of Columbia (16% × (40 authorized tribes + 5 territories + 1 District of Columbia) = 7 additional governmental entities). Thus, EPA estimates 15 states and authorized tribes (8 states + 7 additional governmental entities) do not consistently identify the HAU when adopting new or revised WQS based on a required UAA. The EPA retains the estimate used for the proposed rule that states and authorized tribes conduct on average one designated use removal or revision each year. Thus, EPA estimates the total administrative burden associated with requiring states and authorized tribes to identify the HAU ranges from 2,250 hours (150 hours per UAA  1 UAA per year  15 states and authorized tribes) to 4,500 hours (300 hours per UAA  1 UAA per year  15 states and authorized tribes) per year. Using the hourly wage rate shown in Exhibit 3-1 ($49), EPA estimates the total incremental cost associated with identifying the HAU could range from $111,000 (2,250 hours
 $49 per hour) to $221,000 (4,500 hours  $49 per hour) per year. Exhibit 3-3 summarizes the potential incremental annual burden and cost of today’s rule associated with designated uses.July 2015 3. Potential Incremental Costs and Burden 3

-5

Exhibit 3-3: Potential Annual Burden and Cost Associated with Revisions to Designated Use Provisions
Burden per State or Authorized Tribe (hours/year) 1 Cost per State or

Authorized Tribe (2013 $/year) 2 Number of

Potentially Affected States and Authorized Tribes Annual

Burden (hours/year) 3 Annual Cost

(2013 $/year) 4

150 - 300 $7,400 - $14,700 15 2,250 – 4,500 $111,000 - $221,000 1. Reflects potential incremental effort to identify the HAU when revising or removing a designated use assuming one use removal or revision per year per state or authorized tribe. 2. Hours per state or authorized tribe multiplied by average hourly wage of $49. 3. Burden per state or authorized tribe multiplied by total number of potentially affected states and authorized tribes. 4. Total annual burden for all potentially affected states and authorized tribes multiplied by average hourly wage of $49.

3.2.4 Triennial Reviews Today’s rule includes a requirement that if states and authorized tribes choose not to adopt new or revised criteria for any parameters for which EPA has published new or updated CWA section 304(a) criteria recommendations, states and authorized tribes must explain their decision when reporting the results of their triennial review to EPA under CWA section 303(c)(1) and § 131.20(c). This requirement may result in incremental burden and cost. In the proposed rule, EPA included an explicit reference to CWA section 304(a) recommended criteria at § 131.20(a) to clarify that a state or authorized tribe shall re-examine its water quality criteria during a triennial review to determine if any criteria should be revised in light of any new or updated CWA section 304(a) criteria recommendations to assure that designated uses continue to be protected. Because the proposed revision clarified an existing requirement to review applicable standards, the EPA estimated that this revision was unlikely to result in incremental burden and costs to states and tribes. After receiving stakeholder input, EPA revised the triennial review requirement and estimates a range of 10 to 50 labor hours per pollutant or parameter to document why the state or authorized tribe chose not to adopt new or revised criteria for any parameters for which EPA has published new or updated CWA section 304(a) criteria recommendations. This effort includes writing and reviewing a memorandum of 1-2 pages for each pollutant or parameter, and adding the memorandum to the results of the triennial review the state or authorized tribe submits to EPA. Since states and authorized tribes are already required to review their applicable water quality standards, including water quality criteria, when conducting a triennial review, there were no new costs for EPA to consider associated with such review. EPA estimates the number of new or updated CWA section 304(a) criteria a state or authorized tribe may need to consider at each triennial review by assessing the number of CWA section 304(a) criteria recommendations that EPA has historically provided (see Appendix). EPA hasJuly 2015 3. Potential Incremental Costs and Burden 3

- 6

provided 371 new or updated CWA section 304(a) criteria recommendations since the enactment of the CWA in 1972. Over the 42-year period of the CWA (2014 – 1972 = 42), EPA has provided on average of approximately 9 new or updated recommendations per year, or 27 per 3- year triennial review period (371 CWA section 304(a) recommendations  42 years × 3 years per triennial review). EPA does not have sufficient information to predict the proportion of new or updated CWA section 304(a) criteria recommendations that will or will not lead states and authorized tribes to adopt new or revised criteria in a given triennial review. Some states and authorized tribes could potentially adopt new or revised criteria for all parameters for which EPA has published new or updated CWA section 304(a) criteria recommendations, whereas other states and authorized tribes could potentially adopt no criteria for any parameters for which EPA has published new or updated CWA section 304(a) criteria recommendations. For the purpose of this analysis, EPA assumes that states and authorized tribes will choose to not adopt new or revised criteria for 50% of the parameters for which EPA has published new or updated CWA section 304(a) criteria recommendations and would need to submit documentation to EPA. EPA estimates the labor hours required to submit documentation on why a state or authorized tribe chooses not to adopt new or revised criteria for any parameters for which EPA has published new or updated CWA section 304(a) criteria recommendations ranges from 45 hours (10 hours per CWA section 304(a) criterion recommendation × 9 recommendations per year × 50% no new or revised criteria adopted) to 225 hours (50 hours per one CWA section 304(a) criterion recommendation × 9 recommendations per year × 50% no new or revised criteria adopted) per year for each state and authorized tribe. Assuming all 96 states and authorized tribes do not adopt new or revised criteria for parameters for 50% of EPA’s newly published new or updated CWA section 304(a) criteria recommendations, EPA estimates the total annual labor hours ranges from 4,320 (45 hours per year per state or authorized tribe × 96 states and authorized tribes) to 21,600 (225 hours per year per state or authorized tribe × 96 states and authorized tribes) total hours per year. Using the average hourly wage rate of $49 (Exhibit 3-1), EPA estimates the total cost to range from approximately $211,000 ($49 per hour × 4,320 hours) to $1,056,000 ($49 per hour × 21,600 hours). Exhibit 3-4 summarizes the incremental burden and cost associated with the requirement to submit an explanation for why the state or authorized tribe is not adopting new or revised criteria for parameters for which EPA published new or updated CWA section 304(a) criteria recommendations.July 2015 3. Potential Incremental Costs and Burden 3

-7

Exhibit 3-4: Potential Annual Burden and Cost Associated with Documenting and Submitting Explanations for Not Adopting New or Revised Criteria for Parameters for Which EPA Has Published New or Updated CWA Section 304(a) Criteria Recommendations
Burden per State or Authorized Tribe (hours/year) 1 Cost per State or

Authorized Tribe (2013 $/year) 2 Number of

Potentially Affected States and Authorized Tribes Annual

Burden (hours/year) 3 Annual Cost

(2013 $/year) 4

45-225 $2,200 - $11,000 96 4,320 – 21,600 $211,000 – $1,056,000 1. Reflects potential incremental effort to document explanation for not adopting new or revised criteria for 50% of approximately 9 new or updated CWA section 304(a) criteria recommendations per year. 2. Hours per state or authorized tribe multiplied by average hourly wage of $49. 3. Burden per state or authorized tribe multiplied by total number of potentially affected states and authorized tribes. 4. Total annual burden for all potentially affected states and authorized tribes multiplied by average hourly wage of $49.

3.2.5 Antidegradation Today’s rule could potentially result in incremental administrative burden and cost associated with the following activities related to antidegradation:

 Performing/evaluating more Tier 2 antidegradation reviews because more water bodies may be receiving Tier 2 protection.

 Performing/evaluating more extensive Tier 2 antidegradation reviews because they now must evaluate a range of non-degrading and less degrading practicable alternatives and select one such alternative for implementation.

 Involving the public when a state or authorized tribe uses the water body-by-water body approach to identify waters receiving Tier 2 antidegradation protection.

 Involving the public when developing or revising antidegradation implementation methods. For the purposes of this analysis, EPA classified the potential incremental burden and cost associated with the antidegradation provisions of today’s rule into the following categories:

 Recurring burden and cost associated with an increase in the number of Tier 2antidegradation reviews because states and authorized tribes that use the water body-bywater body approach can no longer deny Tier 2 protection solely because water quality does not exceed levels necessary to support all of the uses specified in CWA section 101(a)(2).

 Recurring burden and cost associated with more extensive Tier 2 antidegradation reviews that now must evaluate a range of non-degrading and less degrading practicable alternatives.July 2015 3. Potential Incremental Costs and Burden 3

- 8

 One-time burden and cost associated with providing the opportunity for public involvement when deciding which waters will receive Tier 2 antidegradation protection when using a water body-by-water body approach.

 Recurring burden and cost associated with involving the public when developing or revising antidegradation implementation methods. 3.2.5.1 More Antidegradation Reviews Because More Waters are Receiving Tier 2 Protection EPA does not have data on the number of Tier 2 antidegradation reviews each state or authorized tribe performs or evaluates. For the purpose of this analysis, EPA estimates the number of antidegradation reviews for potentially affected states and authorized tribes by using the ratio of antidegradation reviews to total dischargers in two states for which EPA has information (Iowa and Missouri). For the proposal, EPA used data from 2008 suggesting that the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) receives approximately 68 antidegradation reviews each year (MDNR, 2008), and the Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) receives approximately 104 to 164 antidegradation reviews each year (IDNR, 2008). More recently, MDNR estimates it receives approximately 47 antidegradation reviews each year (MDNR, 2014), and IDNR estimates that it receives approximately 50 antidegradation reviews each year (IDNR, 2014). EPA’s ICIS-NPDES database indicates that there are 3,305 individual NPDES-permitted dischargers for which MDNR is responsible for conducting potential Tier 2 antidegradation reviews (i.e. excluding dischargers on tribal land). Thus, the number of antidegradation reviews performed/evaluated by the state of Missouri is approximately 1% of the total number of NPDES-permitted dischargers each year (47 antidegradation reviews each year  3,305 individual NPDES-permitted dischargers × 100). EPA’s ICIS-NPDES database indicates that there are 1,626 individual NPDES-permitted dischargers for which IDNR is responsible for conducting potential Tier 2 antidegradation reviews. Thus, the number of antidegradation reviews performed/evaluated by the state of Iowa is approximately 3% (50 antidegradation reviews each year  1,626 individual NPDES-permitted dischargers × 100) of the total number of NPDES-permitted dischargers. On the basis of the information available from these two states, EPA estimates the number of antidegradation reviews each state or authorized tribe performs/evaluates is 2% of the total NPDES permitted dischargers there. Of the 96 states and authorized tribes, EPA obtained sufficient information from 40 of them to identify whether or not they use a parameter-by-parameter approach or a water body-by-water body approach. Of those 40 states and authorized tribes, EPA identifies 18 of them as currently using a water body-by-water body approach that may exclude some waters from Tier 2 protection solely because water quality does not exceed levels necessary to support all of the uses specified in CWA section 101(a)(2). 2 To estimate the number of additional Tier 2 antidegradation reviews these 18 states and authorized may need to process, EPA obtained the number of NPDES permits issued in those states and authorized tribes. EPA’s ICIS-NPDES database indicates that there are a total of 38,232 individual NPDES-permitted dischargers in the

2 Additional states and authorized tribes exclude waters from Tier 2 protection based on the impairment of a group of parameters. Since EPA’s assumption applies only to states and authorized tribes that exclude waters based on a single parameter, this assumption may underestimate burden and cost.July 2015 3. Potential Incremental Costs and Burden 3

- 9

40 states and authorized tribes with sufficient information to identify whether or not the state or authorized tribe uses a parameter-by-parameter approach or a water body-by-water body approach, and 19,594 NPDES permits in the 18 states and authorized tribes that currently use a water body-by-water body approach that may exclude some waters from Tier 2 protection solely because water quality does not exceed levels necessary to support all of the uses specified in CWA section 101(a)(2). Of the 96 states and authorized tribes, EPA does not have sufficient information to identify whether or not the state or authorized tribe uses a parameter-by-parameter approach or a water body-by-water body approach for 56 of them (96 – 40). EPA estimates the number of additional Tier 2 antidegradation reviews for these 56 states and authorized tribes by applying the ratio of NPDES permits in states that EPA has sufficient information to make such a conclusion. For the 40 states and authorized tribes with sufficient information, EPA estimates that 19,594 out of 38,232 NPDES permits (or 51.3% of NPDES permits) are in states and authorized tribes that use a water body-by-water body approach and may exclude some waters from Tier 2 protection solely because water quality does not exceed levels necessary to support all of the uses specified in CWA section 101(a)(2). EPA’s ICIS-NPDES database indicates that there are 12,070 individual NPDES-permitted dischargers within the 56 states and authorized tribes without sufficient information. Assuming the same ratio of NPDES permits in these 56 states and authorized tribes, EPA estimates that 6,186 (12,070 × 51.3%) NPDES permits are located instates and authorized tribes without sufficient information that currently use a water body-bywater body approach and exclude some waters from Tier 2 protection. Thus, EPA estimates that there are a total of 25,780 individual NPDES-permitted dischargers (19,594 + 6,186) in states and authorized tribes that currently use a water body-by-water body approach and exclude some waters from Tier 2 protection solely because water quality does not exceed levels necessary to support all of the uses specified in CWA section 101(a)(2).

Some states and authorized tribes that currently use a water body-by-water body approach and exclude some waters from Tier 2 protection may begin processing additional Tier 2 antidegradation reviews. Other states and authorized tribes that use the water body-by-water body approach may choose to continue denying Tier 2 protection to waters that do not exceed water quality levels necessary to support all of the uses specified in CWA section 101(a)(2) by evaluating other factors and involving the public on such decisions. For the purposes of this analysis, EPA assumes that approximately 50% of the time, states and authorized tribes will continue excluding Tier 2 protection to certain waters after evaluating other factors and obtaining public input on such decisions.

As discussed above, EPA estimates the annual number of Tier 2 antidegradation reviews a state or authorized tribe typically processes to be 2% of all NPDES permits there. Furthermore, EPA estimates that there are a total of 25,780 individual NPDES-permitted dischargers in states and authorized tribes that currently use a water body-by-water body approach and deny Tier 2 antidegradation protection to a water body solely because water quality does not exceed levels necessary to support all of the uses specified in CWA section 101(a)(2). Finally, EPA assumes that approximately 50% of the time, states and authorized tribes will continue to deny Tier 2 protection to waters solely because water quality does not exceed levels necessary to support all of the uses specified in CWA section 101(a)(2) after evaluating other factors and obtaining public input on such decisions. Thus, EPA estimates that the potentially affected states andJuly 2015 3. Potential Incremental Costs and Burden 3

- 10

authorized tribes may need to process 258 (25,780 NPDES permits × 2% of NPDES permits × 50% requiring Tier 2 reviews) additional Tier 2 antidegradation reviews. For the proposed rule, EPA estimated that a single Tier 2 antidegradation review that does not perform/evaluate an alternatives analysis requires an average of approximately 100 to 150 labor hours. On the basis of stakeholder input, EPA revises its estimate of the labor hours needed to perform/evaluate a single Tier 2 antidegradation review that does not include an alternatives analysis to a range of 100 hours to 300 hours. For the purpose of this analysis, EPA continues to assume that a Tier 2 antidegradation review that includes analysis of pollution prevention alternatives requires approximately 30% more time than a Tier 2 review that does not include an analysis of pollution prevention alternatives. Thus, the incremental labor hours for each Tier 2 antidegradation review is approximately 30 hours (100 hours  30%) to 90 hours (300 hours  30%), resulting in the incremental labor hours to process each complete additional Tier 2 antidegradation review (including an alternatives analysis) range from approximately 130 hours (100 hours + 30 hours) to 390 hours (300 hours + 90 hours). Hence, EPA estimates that the total incremental labor hours for all affected states and authorized tribes could range from 33,540 hours (130 hours × 258 reviews) to 100,620 hours (390 hours × 258 reviews) per year. Assuming an estimated average hourly wage rate of $49, EPA estimates a per review cost of $6,400 ($49 per hour × 130 hours per review) to $19,100 ($49 per hour × 390 hours per review). Thus, total incremental cost could range from approximately $1,651,000 ($6,400 per review × 258 reviews) to $4,928,000 ($19,100 per review × 258 reviews). Exhibit 3-5 summarizes the potential incremental annual burden and cost associated with performing/evaluating additional Tier 2 antidegradation reviews.
Exhibit 3-5: Potential Incremental Annual Burden and Cost Associated with Performing/Evaluating Additional Tier 2 Antidegradation Reviews.

Number of Dischargers 1 Potential Number of Tier 2 Antidegradation Reviews 2 Annual Burden

(hours/year) 3 Annual Cost

(2013 $/year) 4

25,780 258 33,540 - 100,620 $1,651,000 - $4,928,000
1. Based on data from EPA’s ICIS-NPDES. 2. Represents 2% of total number of dischargers multiplied by 50%. 3. Number of Tier 2 antidegradation reviews in each affected state and authorized tribe multiplied by potential per review burden of 130 to 390 hours, and summing across all affected states and authorized tribes. 4. Total annual burden for all potentially affected states and authorized tribes multiplied by average hourly wage of $49.

3.2.5.2 More Extensive Tier 2 Antidegradation Reviews For the purpose of this analysis, EPA assumes that all states and authorized tribes already perform/evaluate Tier 2 antidegradation reviews in those waters the state or authorized tribe deems requiring Tier 2 protection. However, today’s rule may incrementally increase the level ofJuly 2015 3. Potential Incremental Costs and Burden 3

- 11

effort needed to process each Tier 2 antidegradation review because the Tier 2 antidegradation review must now evaluate a range of non-degrading and less degrading practicable alternatives. Estimating the total burden and cost associated with performing/evaluating more extensive Tier 2 antidegradation reviews requires an estimate of the total number of Tier 2 antidegradation reviews in potentially affected states and authorized tribes. EPA estimates the number of more extensive antidegradation reviews using the same method EPA uses to estimate the number of Tier 2 antidegradation reviews in Section 3.2.5.1. EPA obtained sufficient information toestimate whether or not 40 states and authorized tribes (with a total of 41,618 individual NPDESpermitted dischargers) do or do not evaluate a range of non-degrading and less degrading practicable alternatives. Of these 40 states and authorized tribes, EPA estimates that 19 of them do not evaluate a range of non-degrading and less degrading practicable alternatives. These 19 states and authorized tribes have 19,059 NPDES-permitted dischargers. Of the 96 states and authorized tribes, EPA does not have sufficient information to identify whether or not 56 of them (96 – 40) evaluate a range of non-degrading and less degrading practicable alternatives. EPA estimates the number of Tier 2 antidegradation reviews that will begin evaluating a range of non-degrading and less degrading practicable alternatives in these 56 states and authorized tribes by applying the ratio of NPDES permits in states that EPA has sufficient information to make such a conclusion. For the 40 states and authorized tribes with sufficient information, EPA estimates that 19,059 out of 41,618 NPDES permits (or 45.8% of NPDES permits) are in states and authorized tribes that do not evaluate a range of non-degrading and less degrading practicable alternatives. The 56 states and authorized tribes for which EPA does not have sufficient information to identify if they will need to begin evaluating a range ofnon-degrading and less degrading practicable alternatives have 8,684 individual NPDESpermitted dischargers. Thus, in states and authorized tribes for which EPA has insufficient information to identify if they will need to begin evaluating a range of non-degrading and less degrading practicable alternatives, EPA estimates there are 3,977 dischargers (45.8% × 8,684 NPDES permits). Thus, EPA estimates a total of 23,036 individual NPDES-permitted dischargers (19,059 + 3,977) in states and authorized tribes that will need to begin evaluating a range of non-degrading and less degrading practicable alternatives. EPA previously estimated the labor hours required to process a single Tier 2 antidegradation review that does not include an alternatives analysis to range from 100 hours to 300 hours, and that including an alternatives analysis could require approximately 30 to 90 additional labor hours. Using the same ratio of Tier 2 antidegradation reviews each year to total NPDES permitted dischargers that was used in Section 3.2.5.1 (2%), EPA estimates that states and authorized tribes will process 461 Tier 2 antidegradation reviews that will need to begin evaluating a range of non-degrading and less degrading practicable alternatives (23,036 NPDES permits in affected states and authorized tribes × 2% of NPDES permits). EPA estimates the total labor hours associated with this activity ranges from 13,830 hours (461 Tier 2 antidegradation reviews per year × 30 hours per review) to 41,490 hours (461 Tier 2 antidegradation reviews per year × 90 hours per review). Using the average hourly wage rate of $49 (Exhibit 3-1), EPA estimates the total incremental cost ranges from approximately $692,000 (13,830 hours × $49 per hour) to $2,028,000 (41,490 hours × $49 per hour). Exhibit 3-6 summarizes the potential incremental annual burden and cost associated with more extensive Tier 2 antidegradation reviews.July 2015 3. Potential Incremental Costs and Burden 3

- 12

Exhibit 3-6: Potential Annual Burden and Cost Associated With More Extensive Tier 2 Antidegradation Reviews
Total Number of Dischargers in All Affected States and Authorized Tribes 1 Potential Number of Tier 2 antidegradation Reviews 2 Annual Burden

(hours/year) 3 Annual Cost

(2013 $/year) 4

23,036 461 13,830 - 41,490 $692,000 - $2,028,000
1. Based on data from EPA’s ICIS-NPDES database. 2. Represents 2% of the total number of dischargers in each affected state or authorized tribe. 3. Number of Tier 2 antidegradation reviews in each affected state and tribe multiplied by potential per review burden of 30 to 90 hours and summing across all affected states and authorized tribes. 4. Total annual burden for all potentially affected states and authorized tribes multiplied by average hourly wage of $49.

3.2.5.3 Public Involvement – Deciding Which Waters Will Receive Tier 2 Antidegradation Protection When Using a Water Body-By-Water Body Approach Today’s rule specifies that where the state or authorized tribe identifies waters for antidegradation protection on a water body-by-water body basis, the state or authorized tribe shall provide an opportunity for public involvement on any decisions about whether Tier 2 antidegradation protections will be afforded to a water body and the factors considered when making those decisions. For the purpose of this analysis, EPA assumes that those states and authorized tribes that currently identify waters for Tier 2 protection on a parameter-by-parameter basis already fulfill the public participation requirement of today’s rule because any Tier 2 antidegradation review in those states and authorized tribes already includes a public process in association with NPDES permit issuance or reissuance. EPA also makes the conservative assumption (likely to overestimate costs) that states and authorized tribes that currently use a water body-by-water body approach do not currently involve the public when deciding whichwaters will receive Tier 2 antidegradation protection. EPA further assumes that such a decisionmaking process will occur as a single effort for all waters of the state or authorized tribe. Once a state or authorized tribe designates the waters to which Tier 2 protection applies, EPA assumes that the state or authorized tribe does not incur further incremental burden or cost associated with revising those designations because such revisions will likely occur in association with NPDES permit issuance or reissuance that already involves a public process. EPA estimates the effort needed to involve the public (i.e., solicit comments, document the comments, and review, deliberate, and respond to comments) when deciding which water bodies receive Tier 2 antidegradation protection is approximately 30% of the effort required for a WQS rulemaking as described in Section 3.2.1. Thus, EPA estimates the labor hours associated with each occurrence of providing an opportunity for public involvement on decisions about which water bodies receive Tier 2 antidegradation protections and the factors considered when making those decisions range from 150 hours (500 hours × 30%) to 300 hours (1,000 hours × 30%). After reviewing all available state and authorized tribal antidegradation policies and implementation methods, EPA concludes it has sufficient information to identify whether or notJuly 2015 3. Potential Incremental Costs and Burden 3

- 13

40 states and authorized tribes that use the water body-by-water body method provide an opportunity for public involvement on decisions about Tier 2 antidegradation protection in a manner that is consistent with today’s rule. Of those 40 states and authorized tribes, 18 of them may need to begin providing an opportunity for public involvement on decisions about Tier 2 antidegradation protection. EPA does not have sufficient information to identify whether or not 56 states and authorized tribes may need to begin providing an opportunity for public involvement (96 states and authorized tribes – 40 states and authorized tribes with sufficient information). Of the 56 states and authorized tribes without sufficient information, EPA estimates the number of them that may need to begin providing an opportunity for public involvement by applying the ratio of the number of states and authorized tribes with sufficient information to make such a conclusion. As described above for the 40 states and authorized tribes with sufficient information, EPA estimates 18 of them (45%) do not provide an opportunity for public involvement and may need to begin doing so. Applying this ratio to the 56 states and authorized tribes without sufficient information results in 25 additional states and authorized tribes that may not currently provide an opportunity for public involvement and may need to begin doing so. Thus EPA estimates a total of 43 (18 + 25) states and authorized tribes may need to begin providing an opportunity for public involvement. EPA estimates one-time incremental labor hours range from approximately 6,450 hours (150 hours per state or authorized tribe × 43 states and authorized tribes) to 12,900 hours (300 hours per state or authorized tribe × 43 states and authorized tribes). Using the estimated average hourly wage rate of $49 (Exhibit 3-1), EPA estimates the total one-time incremental cost associated with involving the public when deciding which waters will receive Tier 2 antidegradation protection could range from approximately $318,000 (6,450 hours × $49 per hour) to $632,000 (12,900 hours × $49 per hour). Exhibit 3-7 summarizes the incremental burden and cost associated with providing an opportunity for public involvement on decisions about whether Tier 2 antidegradation protections will be afforded and the factors considered when making those decisions.July 2015 3. Potential Incremental Costs and Burden 3

- 14

Exhibit 3-7: Potential Annual Burden and Cost Associated with Public Involvement When Deciding Which Waters Will Receive Tier 2 Antidegradation Protection

Burden per Effort (hours) 1 Cost per

Effort2 Number of

Potentially Affected States and Authorized Tribes 3 Total Burden

(hours) 4 Total Cost

(2013 $; onetime) 5 Annualized

Cost (2013 $/year) 6

150 - 300 $7,400 -

$14,700 43 6,450 – 12,900 $318,000 - $632,000 $21,400 -

$42,500 1. Reflects potential public involvement for determining the level of antidegradation protection afforded to all waters. 2. Hours per state or authorized tribe multiplied by average hourly wage of $49. 3. EPA estimates that 43 states and authorized tribes currently use the water body-by-water body approach. 4. Burden per state or authorized tribe multiplied by total number of potentially affected states and authorized tribes. 5. Total burden for all potentially affected states and authorized tribes multiplied by average hourly wage of $49.6. Although EPA expects states and authorized tribes to incur rulemaking cost over an initial threeyear period, it annualized total one-time cost at a 3% discount rate over 20 years for comparative purposes.

3.2.5.4 Public Involvement – Developing or Revising Implementation Methods Today’s rule could potentially lead to incremental burden and cost associated with requiring states’ and authorized tribes’ antidegradation implementation methods (whether or not those methods are adopted into state or tribal rule) to be consistent with their antidegradation policies and with § 131.12(a). Burden and costs could also be associated with the requirement for states and authorized tribes to provide an opportunity for public involvement during the development and any subsequent revisions of antidegradation implementation methods, and to make the methods available to the public. If a state or authorized tribe adopts antidegradation implementation methods as part of its WQS or other legally binding provisions, the state’s or authorized tribe’s own public participation requirements and 40 CFR Part 25 and § 131.20(b) of the federal regulation, will satisfy this requirement and there is no incremental burden or cost. For states and authorized tribes that do not adopt antidegradation implementation methods as part of their WQS or other legally binding provisions, there may be incremental burden and cost associated with providing an opportunity for public involvement. States and authorized tribes can use various mechanisms to provide such opportunities, including a public hearing, a public meeting, a public workshop, and different ways of engaging the public via the Internet, such as webinars and website postings.July 2015 3. Potential Incremental Costs and Burden 3

- 15

On the basis of stakeholder input, EPA estimates that involving the public when developing or revising antidegradation methods requires between 150 and 300 labor hours. EPA estimates that states and authorized tribes will develop and/or revise their antidegradation implementation methods no more often than once every ten years. Using the average hourly wage rate of $49 (Exhibit 3-1), EPA estimates the cost of involving the public for a single state or authorized tribe that does not already adopt their implementation methods as legally binding WQS could range from approximately $700 ($49 per hour × 150 hours per occurrence  10 years per occurrence) to $1,500 ($49 per hour × 300 hours per occurrence  10 years per occurrence) per year. Estimating the total incremental burden and cost for all affected states and authorized tribes requires knowledge of the number of states and authorized tribes that do not already conduct a public process in association with developing or revising their antidegradation implementation methods. For the purpose of this analysis, EPA assumes that those states and authorized tribes that do not already have antidegradation implementation methods in legally binding WQS do not provide the opportunity for public involvement when developing or revising their antidegradation methods. After reviewing available state and authorized tribal antidegradation policies and implementation methods, EPA obtained sufficient information to identify whether or not 27 states and authorized tribes may need to develop or revise antidegradation implementation methods that are not currently adopted as WQS. Of these 27 states and authorized tribes, EPA concludes that 12 of them will likely need to develop or revise their antidegradation methods. Of the 96 states and authorized tribes, EPA does not have sufficient information to conclude whether or not 69 of them (96 states and authorized tribes – 27 states and authorized tribes with sufficient information) may need to develop or revise antidegradation implementation methods that are not currently adopted as WQS. EPA estimates the number of these states and authorized tribes by applying the ratio of the number of states and authorized tribes with sufficient information to make such a conclusion. As described above, EPA estimates 12 out of 27 states and authorized tribes (44%) may need to develop or revise antidegradation implementation methods that are not currently adopted as WQS. Applying this ratio to the 69 states and authorized tribes without sufficient information results in 31 additional states and authorized tribes that may need to develop or revise antidegradation implementation methods that are not currently adopted as WQS. Thus EPA estimates a total of 43 (12 + 31) states and authorized tribes may need to develop or revise antidegradation implementation methods that are not currently adopted as WQS. EPA estimates the number of total labor hours required to involve the public in developing or revising antidegradation implementation methods range from 645 hours (150 hours × 43 states and authorized tribes  10 years per occurrence) to 1,290 hours (300 hours per occurrence × 43 states and authorized tribes  10 years per occurrence) per year. Using the average hourly wage rate of $49 (Exhibit 3-1), the total cost of involving the public in developing or revising antidegradation implementation methods could range from approximately $30,000 ($49 per hour × 645 hours) to $65,000 ($49 per hour × 1,290 hours) per year. This cost may be lower if a state or authorized tribe decides to formally adopt implementation methods into WQS or otherwise already complies with the public participation requirement of today’s rule. Exhibit 3-8 summarizes the incremental burden and cost associated with involving the public in developing or revising antidegradation implementation methods.July 2015 3. Potential Incremental Costs and Burden 3

- 16

Exhibit 3-8: Potential Annual Burden and Cost Associated with Public Involvement for

Developing or Revising Antidegradation Implementation Methods

Burden per Effort (hours) 1 Annual Cost

per State or Authorized Tribe 2 Number of Potentially

Affected States and Authorized Tribes 3 Total Annual

Burden (hours) 4 Total Annual

Cost (2013 $/year) 5

150-300 $700 - $1,500 43 645 – 1,290 $30,000 - $65,000 1. Reflects potential incremental effort for public involvement in developing or revising antidegradation implementation methods. 2. Hours per state or authorized tribe multiplied by average hourly wage of $49 and divided by 10 years. 3. EPA estimates that there are 43 states and authorized tribes that do not have antidegradation implementation methods adopted into WQS. 4. Burden per effort multiplied by total number of potentially affected states and authorized tribes and divided by 10 years. 5. Total annual burden for all potentially affected states and authorized tribes multiplied by average hourly wage of $49.

3.2.6 WQS Variances As discussed in 2.5.1, the previous regulation authorized states and authorized tribes to adopt WQS variances and there are no new costs for EPA to consider associated with the adoption of a WQS variance. However, EPA identifies two requirements in today’s rule that could potentially result in incremental burden and cost associated with WQS variances:

 Today’s rule specifies the documentation a state or authorized tribe must submit to EPA when requesting EPA review and approval of a WQS variance. Some states and authorized tribes may not currently provide such documentation and may incur incremental burden and cost associated with providing this documentation.

 Today’s rule requires a state or authorized tribe to reevaluate WQS variances with a term longer than 5 years no less frequently than every five years. Some states and authorized tribes may not be reevaluating WQS variances as required by today’s rule and may need to begin doing so. 3.2.6.1 Submission Requirements A state or authorized tribe may incur incremental burden and cost associated with developing the required documentation for a WQS variance if it does not already do so. For the proposed rule, EPA estimated that developing and documenting a single WQS variance previously required, on average, 125 to 150 labor hours, and that each state or authorized tribe will adopt approximately 3 WQS variances each year. After receiving stakeholder input, EPA revises its estimate to 125 to 300 labor hours to develop and document a single WQS variance and adoption of approximately 10 WQS variances per year.July 2015 3. Potential Incremental Costs and Burden 3

- 17

EPA further estimates that if a state or authorized tribes has not fulfilled the WQS variance documentation requirements specified in today’s rule, doing so could increase the labor hours approximately 25%. Thus, EPA estimates the potential incremental burden associated with fulfilling the WQS variance documentation requirements could range from approximately 31 hours (125 hours × 25%) to 75 hours (300 hours × 25%) for each WQS variance. A state or authorized tribe typically reviews a WQS variance request, adopts the WQS variance into their WQS, and then submits the WQS variance and supporting documentation to EPA for review and approval or disapproval. For the purpose of this analysis, EPA assumes that all 96 states and authorized tribes currently do not fulfill all of the submission requirements specified in today’s rule. Thus, EPA estimates the total incremental labor hours associated with the documentation requirements for WQS variances range from 29,760 hours per year (31 additional hours per WQS variance × 10 WQS variances per year × 96 states and authorized tribes) to 72,000 hours per year (75 additional hours per WQS variance × 10 WQS variances per year × 96 states and authorized tribes). Using EPA’s estimated average hourly wage rate of $49 (Exhibit 3-1), total incremental cost could range from $1,459,000 per year (29,760 additional hours per year  $49 per hour) to $3,533,000 (72,000 additional hours per year  $49 per hour). Exhibit 3-9 summarizes the potential incremental annual burden and cost associated with additional documentation requirements for WQS variance submissions.
Exhibit 3-9: Potential Annual Burden and Cost Associated with Additional Documentation Requirements for WQS Variance Submissions

Burden per State or Authorized Tribe (hours/year) 1 Cost per State or

Authorized Tribe (2013 $/year) 2 Number of

Potentially Affected States and Authorized Tribes Annual

Burden (hours/year) 3 Annual Cost

(2013 $/year) 4

31 - 75 $15,200 –

$36,800 96 29,760 – 72,000 $1,459,000 –

$3,533,000 1. Assuming states and authorized tribes adopt 10 WQS variances per year. 2. Hours per state or authorized tribe per year multiplied by average hourly wage of $49. 3. Burden per state or authorized tribe per year multiplied by total number of potentially affected states and authorized tribes. 4. Total annual burden for all potentially affected states and authorized tribes multiplied by average hourly wage of $49.

3.2.6.2 Reevaluations For the purpose of this analysis, EPA assumes that states and authorized tribes will reevaluate WQS variances either every 3 years during their triennial review or every 5 years during permit reissuance. Although EPA expects the term of WQS variances to vary widely from a few years to significantly more than 10 years, for the purpose of this analysis, EPA assumes an average WQS variance term of 10 years. An average WQS variance term of 10 years is a reasonable estimate because it is consistent with a log distribution of WQS variance terms reflecting the likely scenario that most WQS variances will have relatively short terms and fewer WQSJuly 2015 3. Potential Incremental Costs and Burden 3

- 18

variances will have long terms. EPA estimates the labor hours needed to reevaluate a WQS variance is approximately 15% of the labor hours needed to process a new WQS variance application that fulfills the initial submission requirements of today’s rule. Today’s rule provides for a state or authorized tribe to specify the schedule of reevaluations so long as they occur no less frequently than every 5 years. EPA expects some states and authorized tribes to synchronize reevaluations to permit-reissuance while other states and authorized tribes may synchronize reevaluations to the triennial review. EPA estimates one reevaluation per WQS variance per year if a state or authorized tribe chooses to synchronize reevaluations to permit reissuance, and 3 reevaluations per WQS variance per year if a state or authorized tribe chooses to synchronize reevaluations to the triennial review. Thus, the average number of reevaluations for each state or authorized tribe could range from 10 reevaluations per year (1 reevaluation per WQS variance per year × 10 WQS variances per year) to 30 reevaluations per year (3 reevaluations per WQS variance per year × 10 WQS variances per year). Using the previous estimates of labors hours required to process a WQS variance that does not include all submission requirements in Section 3.2.6.1 (125 to 300 hours) and the additional labor hours required to fulfill those submission requirements (31 to 75 hours), EPA estimates that the labor hours to submit a complete WQS variance to EPA for review and approval or disapproval could range from 156 hours (125 hours + 31 hours) to 375 hours (300 hours + 75 hours). EPA estimates that the labor hours needed to conduct a reevaluation of a WQS variance are approximately 15% of the labor hours needed to process a new WQS variance. Thus, EPA estimates that the incremental labor hours associated with revaluating each WQS variance could range from 23 hours (156 hours × 15%) to 56 hours (375 hours × 15%). For the purpose of this analysis, EPA makes the conservative assumption (likely to overestimate the cost) that all 96 states and authorized tribes will adopt and submit to EPA 10 WQS variances each year. EPA estimates the total incremental labor hours associated with reevaluating WQS variances ranges from approximately 22,080 hours per year (23 hours per WQS variance × 1 reevaluations per WQS variance per year × 10 WQS variances per state or authorized tribe per year × 96 states and authorized tribes) to 161,280 hours per year (56 hours per WQS variance × 3 reevaluations per WQS variance per year × 10 WQS variances per state or authorized tribe per year × 96 states and authorized tribes). Multiplying these estimated labor hours by EPA’s estimated average hourly wage rate of $49 (Exhibit 3-1) results in an estimated total incremental cost of approximately $1,085,000 to $7,901,000.
Exhibit 3-10 summarizes the potential incremental annual burden and cost associated with today’s rule requiring reevaluation of a WQS variance with a term longer than 5 years no less frequently than every 5 years.July 2015 3. Potential Incremental Costs and Burden 3

- 19

Exhibit 3-10: Potential Annual Burden and Cost Associated with Reevaluating WQS Variances

Burden per State or Authorized Tribe (hours/year) 1 Cost per State or

Authorized Tribe (2013 $/year) 2 Number of

Potentially Affected States and Authorized Tribes Annual Burden

(hours/year) 3 Annual Cost

(2013 $/year) 4

230 – 1,680 $11,300 –

$82,300 96 22,080 – 161,280 $1,085,000 – $7,901,000 1. Assuming states and authorized tribes adopt 10 WQS variances per year and that states and authorized tribes will reevaluate each WQS variance 1 to 3 times prior to expiration depending on the reevaluation cycle (e.g., permit cycle or triennial review). 2. Hours per state or authorized tribe per year multiplied by average hourly wage of $49. 3. Burden per state or authorized tribe per year multiplied by total number of potentially affected states and authorized tribes. 4. Total annual burden for all potentially affected states and authorized tribes multiplied by average hourly wage of $49.

3.2.7 Compliance Schedules Authorizing Provisions Today’s rule requires that if a state or authorized tribe intends to authorize the use of compliance schedules for WQBELs in NPDES permits, it must first adopt a permit compliance schedule authorizing provision. The authorizing provision must be consistent with the CWA and is subject to EPA review and approval as a WQS. Section 3.2.1 accounts for the incremental burden and cost associated with adoption of such a provision as a part of state or authorized tribal rulemaking burden and cost. 3.2.8 Summary of Estimated Burden and Cost to States and Authorized Tribes Exhibit 3-11 provides a summary of the estimated national cost to all states and authorized tribes. The cost associated with designated uses, triennial reviews, more and/or more extensive antidegradation reviews, involving the public when developing or revising antidegradation methods, and WQS variances are annual costs. Costs associated with WQS rulemaking activities and public involvement when deciding which water bodies will receive Tier 2 antidegradation protection occur once but are annualized for comparative purposes.July 2015 3. Potential Incremental Costs and Burden 3

-20

Exhibit 3-11: Summary of Potential Incremental Burden and Cost to States and Authorized Tribes

Provision One-time Activities Annual Activities

Burden (hours) Total Cost

(2013$ millions) Annualized

Cost (2013 $ million/year) 1 Burden

(hours/year) Annual Cost

(2013 $ million/year) Rulemaking Activities 48,000 -

96,000 $2.35 - $4.70 $0.16 - $0.32 -- --
Designated Uses -- -- -- 2,250 - 4,500 $0.11 - $0.22

Triennial Review

-- -- -- 4,320 – 21,600 $0.21 - $1.06

Antidegradation 6,450 -

12,900 $0.32 - $0.63 $0.02 - $0.04 48,015 - 143,400 $2.37 - $7.02

WQS Variances -- -- -- 51,840 - 233,280 $2.54 - $11.43

National Total 54,450 -

108,900 $2.67 - $5.34 $0.18 - $0.36 106,425 - 402,780 $5.24 - $19.73
‘--‘ = not applicable Note: Individual annual cost estimates do not add to total because of independent rounding.1. Although EPA expects the one-time rulemaking activity cost to be incurred over an initial threeyear period, it annualized the cost at a 3% discount rate over 20 years for comparative purposes.

3.3 Estimated Burden and Cost to the Agency In addition to the potential burden and cost to states and authorized tribes, the WQS regulation revisions may be potentially associated with incremental burden and cost to EPA. These incremental burden and cost to EPA are associated with the potential increase in workload to review the additional WQS program materials submitted by states and authorized tribes because of the WQS regulation revisions. Based on best professional judgment, EPA conservatively estimates (likely overestimating the cost) the incremental burden and cost to EPA assuming the cost is approximately 20% of the cost to states and authorized tribes. Thus, EPA estimates that the one-time incremental cost to the Agency ranges from $534,000 ($2,670,000× 20%) to $1,067,000 ($5,336,000× 20%), and estimated annual incremental cost to EPA ranges from $1,048,000 ($5,239,000× 20%) to $3,946,000 ($19,732,000 × 20%). EPA assumes that EPA staff reviewing WQS program materials are General Schedule (GS) 13, Step 5 federal employees (including EPA regional staff). In 2013, the average hourly wage rate for all federal employees at this grade and step was $47.13 per hour (U.S. Office of PersonnelJuly 2015 3. Potential Incremental Costs and Burden 3

-21

Management 2013). 3 Assuming that benefits and overhead are equal to 60% of the hourly wage, the average loaded hourly wage rate for federal employees is equal to $75.41 ($47.13 per hour + (60% × ($47.13 per hour)). Full-time equivalent (FTE) employees work 2,080 hours per year (40 hours per week × 52 weeks). Using the average loaded wage rate and the number of hours worked per FTE, EPA estimates the number of labor hours and EPA FTEs associated with the increased workload under the WQS regulation revisions. Estimated one-time incremental labor hours to EPA ranges from 7,080hours ($534,000÷ $75.41 per hour) to 14,150 hours ($1,067,000 ÷ $75.41 per hour). These onetime incremental labor hours estimates correspond to 3.4 FTEs (7,010 hours ÷ 2,080 hours worked per FTE per year) to 6.8 FTEs (14,150 hours ÷ 2,080 hours worked per FTE per year). Estimated annual incremental burden to EPA ranges from 13,900 hours per year ($1,048,000 ÷ $75.41 per hour) to 52,320 hours per year ($3,946,000÷ $75.41 per hour). These annual incremental burden estimates correspond to 6.7 FTEs per year (13,880 burden hours ÷ 2,080 hours worked per FTE per year) to 25.2 FTEs per year (52,310 burden hours ÷ 2,080 hours worked per FTE per year). Exhibit 3-12 summarizes the potential incremental annual burden and cost to the Agency associated with the WQS regulation revisions. Exhibit 3-12: Summary of Potential Incremental Burden and Cost to the Agency

One-time Recurring

Cost to the Agency (2013$ million) 1 Annualized

Cost to the Agency (2013$ million per year) 2 Burden Cost to the Agency (2013$ million per year) 1 Burden

Hours 3 FTEs 4 Hours per year3 FTEs per

year4

$0.53 - $1.07 $0.04 - $0.07 7,080 - 14,150 3.4 - 6.8 $1.05 - $3.95 13,900 - 52,320 6.7 - 25.2
1. Assuming that the incremental burden and cost to EPA are equal to 20% of the burden and cost to states and authorized tribes. 2. Although EPA expects this one-time cost to be incurred over an initial three-year period, the cost is annualized at 3% discount rate over 20 years for comparative purposes. 3. Total cost to the Agency divided by hourly wage rate ($75.41 per hour). 4. Burden hours to the Agency divided by hours worked by full-time equivalent (FTE) employees per year (2,080 hours per year).

3 The employees reviewing and approving WQS materials submitted by states and authorized tribes include EPA staff in the Washington, DC area and EPA regional staff. Hence, EPA calculates the average of all locality wage rates for federal employees at GS 13, Step 5 in 2013.July 2015 3. Potential Incremental Costs and Burden 3

-22

3.4 Summary of Potential Burden and Cost Exhibit 3-13 provides a summary of the estimated cost to all potentially affected states and authorized tribes, and to EPA The cost of today’s rule is the same in each year after the first year. Therefore, EPA chose a 20-year period because 20 years extends past the time when the cost has reached a steady state and for which it is reasonable to project into the future. Note that this period may result in an overestimation of the total cost because most of the one-time cost will probably have already occurred before 20 years. Using a 20-year period of analysis and a discount rate of 3%, the net present value of the cost associated with today’s rule ranges from $96.78 million to $358.70 million, while the total annualized cost ranges from $6.51 million to $24.11 million. Using a 20-year period of analysis and a discount rate of 7%, the net present value of the cost associated with today’s rule ranges from $69.84 million to $257.27 million, while the total annualized cost ranges from $6.59 million to $24.28 million. Exhibit 3-13: Summary of Potential Incremental Burden and Cost to States, Authorized Tribes, and the Agency

One-time Activities Annual Activities

Burden (hours) Cost (2013$

million) Annualized

Cost (2013$ million/year) 1 Burden

(hours/year) Annual Cost

(2013$ million/year)
States and Authorized Tribes 54,450 -

108,900 $2.67 - $5.34 $0.18 - $0.36 106,425 - 402,780 $5.24 - $19.73

Agency 7,080 -

14,150 $0.53 - $1.07 $0.04 - $0.07 13,900 - 52,320 $1.05 - $3.95

Total2,3 61,530 -

123,050 $3.20 - $6.40 $0.22 - $0.43 120,325 - 455,100 $6.29 - $23.68
Note: Individual annual cost estimates do not add to total because of independent rounding. 1. Although EPA expects states and authorized tribes to incur a rulemaking cost over an initial three-year period, it annualized the one-time cost at a 3% discount rate over 20 years for comparative purposes. 2. The net present value of the total cost over a 20-year period using a 3% discount rate ranges from $96.78 million to $358.70 million, while the total annualized cost ranges from $6.51 million to $24.11 million. 3. The net present value of the total cost over a 20-year period using a 7% discount rate ranges from $69.84 million to $257.27 million, while the total annualized cost ranges from $6.59 million to $24.28 million.

3.5 Limitations and Uncertainties There are limited data available to estimate the potential burden and cost associated with the regulatory revisions. This section discusses the quality of the data and information underlying the estimates, limitations on the data use, and quality assurance and quality control activities that EPA performed to support the economic analysis.July 2015 3. Potential Incremental Costs and Burden 3

-23

3.5.1 Key Assumptions EPA used best professional judgment to develop estimates of potential burden. As such, there is substantial uncertainty surrounding these estimates. EPA acknowledges this uncertainty, which could result in under or overestimates of incremental burden. For some estimates, EPA estimated burden based on the number of permitted dischargers reported in ICIS-NPDES. EPA designed this system for tracking permitted dischargers. As such, the estimates from this source are the best estimates available.
EPA used federal data sources to estimate the cost of the incremental burden. The federal agencies that develop these data do so specifically for tracking the cost of labor. As such, the estimates from these sources are the best estimates available. Uncertainties relate to the labor categories and mix of categories. Additionally, data are not available for tribes. EPA’s use of an average based on four different occupation categories may over- or underestimate the actual cost. Exhibit 3-14 documents additional assumptions that EPA made in developing the estimates, notes the likely direction of impact of the assumption on the estimates, and provides additional information for evaluating the strength of each assumption. Exhibit 3-14: Uncertainties in the Analysis

Key Assumption/Uncertainty Potential Impact on Estimated Burden and Cost Comment

Labor hours required to implement various provisions based on best professional judgment. ? Labor hours needed depend on a number of factors including state and authorized tribe sizes, level of economic activity involving dischargers to water, as well as existing regulatory framework and may be higher or lower than EPA’s estimates. The estimates do not account for potential reductions in burden resulting from the increased clarity provided by today’s rule.

Number of states and authorized tribes affected by each provision is uncertain. ? Actual number of states and authorized tribes that will incur costs could be higher or lower than EPA estimates.

Labor cost based on state government wage rates. ? The mix of labor categories (e.g., environmental scientist, engineer, etc.) may be different for individual states from the mix that EPA used to calculate a wage rate. Also, labor cost for authorized tribes and territories may differ from states.July 2015 3. Potential Incremental Costs and Burden 3

-24 Exhibit 3-14: Uncertainties in the Analysis

Key Assumption/Uncertainty Potential Impact on Estimated Burden and Cost Comment

EPA does not estimate a separate category of burden and cost for conducting a use and value demonstration when removing or revising a non 101(a)(2) use. EPA assumes the burden and cost associated with a use and value demonstration is unlikely to be greater than the burden and cost associated with a UAA. + The costs may be overestimated because states and authorized tribes could conduct a UAA to remove a non 101(a)(2) use. In such a case, the UAA is not “required” and thus our regulations would not require the state to identify a highest attainable use.

States and authorized tribes are not currently documenting their reasons for not adopting new or revised criteria during the triennial review process for parameters for which EPA published new or updated CWA section 304(a) criteria recommendations. + The cost may be overestimated because the WQS regulation already requires states and authorized tribes to submit the results of their triennial review to EPA. If this submission includes explanation as to why new or revised criteria are not adopted for parameters for which EPA published new or updated CWA section 304(a) criteria recommendations, the cost could be lower.
States and authorized tribes do not currently involve the public in antidegradation determinations or in the development of their implementation methods. + The cost may be overestimated for states and authorized tribes that already solicit public involvement in accordance with the WQS regulation revisions.

States or tribes do not reevaluate WQS variances at regular intervals. + The costs may be overestimated for states and authorized tribes that reevaluate WQS variance at least every 5 years in accordance with the WQS regulation revisions.

All states and authorized tribes undertake a rulemaking effort in response to today’s rule. + The cost may be overestimated because states and authorized tribes that already have policies and methods consistent with today’s rule do not incur an incremental cost.
The number of Tier 2 antidegradation reviews per year is based on information from two states (Iowa and Missouri). ? The actual number of Tier 2 antidegradation reviews per state or authorized tribe may be higher or lower than EPA’s estimates.July 2015 3. Potential Incremental Costs and Burden 3

-25 Exhibit 3-14: Uncertainties in the Analysis

Key Assumption/Uncertainty Potential Impact on Estimated Burden and Cost Comment

WQS variances last for 10 years. ? The number of reevaluations per WQS variance depends, in part, on the duration of the WQS variance. Shorter WQS variance periods result in fewer reevaluations and vice versa.
States and authorized tribes may be required to undertake activities related to today’s rule that EPA has not identified in this analysis. – The cost may be underestimated because EPA has not identified all the relevant activities states and authorized tribes may need to perform as a result of today’s rule.

Incremental cost to the Agency are equal to 20% of the cost to states and authorized tribes. + The cost may be overestimated because the estimated burden on the Agency to review and approve WQS materials submitted by states and authorized tribe may be too high. Key: “+” = Burden and cost potentially overestimated “-“ = Burden and cost potentially underestimated “?” = Impact on burden and cost uncertain

3.5.2 QA/QC Activities To ensure the quality of the estimates based on the data and assumptions described above, EPA performed a variety of checks on the spreadsheet calculations and the transfer of the results into the tables and text throughout this report. These include using best practices for developing spreadsheets to minimize errors; verifying data inputs and transfer from the source; checking formulas; and comparing results across formats.July 2015 4. Small Entity Analysis 4

- 1



### 4. Small Entity Analysis

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980, as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996, requires Federal agencies to consider the impact of their regulatory proposals on small entities, to analyze alternatives that minimize those impacts, 4 and to make their analyses available for public comments. The RFA addresses three types of small entities: small businesses, small nonprofits, and small government jurisdictions. These entities have the following definition under the RFA:

 Small business has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under Section 3 of the Small Business Act, which authorizes the Small Business Administration to define “small business” by regulations. These definitions generally categorize which businesses are small based on the number of employees or average annual receipts;

 Small organization means any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field; and

 Small governmental jurisdiction means governments of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand. Additionally, Federal agencies may establish, with opportunity for public comment and with publication of the alternate definition in the Federal Register that entities should qualify as small based on additional factors. The RFA describes the regulatory flexibility analyses and procedures that must be completed by federal agencies unless they certify that today’s rule, if promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This certification must be supported by a statement of factual basis, such as addressing the number of small entities affected by the proposed action, expected cost impacts on these entities, and evaluation of the economic impacts. As documented in Section 3 of this report, the revisions to the WQS regulation do not establish any new requirements directly applicable to regulated entities. Today’s rule impacts states and authorized tribes that implement WQS in the form of administrative burden and cost, and to EPA in the form of additional reviews of program materials submitted by states and authorized tribes. States and tribes are not small entities under the RFA. As such, today’s rule will not result in impacts to small entities.

4 Section 603(c) of the RFA provides examples of such alternatives as: (1) the establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements under today’s rule for such small entities; (3) the use of performance rather than design standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of today’s rule, or any part thereof, for such small entities.July 2015 5. Potential Incremental Benefits 5

- 1



### 5. Potential Incremental Benefits of the Revisions

States and authorized tribes will benefit from today’s rule by better utilization of available regulatory tools that allow them the flexibility to implement their WQS programs in an efficient manner. Stakeholders and the public will benefit from greater transparency and open public participation. Although EPA estimates the burden and cost directly associated with today’s rule, EPA does not estimate the potential burden and costs savings associated with reducing regulatory uncertainty and increasing overall program efficiency. Moreover, EPA does not estimate potential indirect burden and cost associated with today’s rule because EPA cannot reliably predict the control measures each individual state and authorized tribe is likely to implement. Because more efficient and effective implementation of state and authorized tribal WQS provides a variety of economic benefits associated with cleaner water, the sections below qualitatively describe some of the benefits of today’s rule. The first section describes some of the potential direct benefits of today’s rule. The second section describes some of the potential indirect benefits of improving and maintaining the nation’s waters.
5.1 Benefits by Program Area Today’s rule will increase clarity and specificity in the following key program areas: (1) Administrator’s determinations that new or revised WQS are necessary; (2) designated uses; (3) triennial reviews; (4) antidegradation; (5) WQS variances; and (6) compliance schedule authorizing provisions. States and authorized tribes, other stakeholders, and the public will benefit from clarification in these key areas by being able to better understand and make proper use of available CWA tools and flexibilities under the conditions of open and transparent public participation. Clear regulatory requirements and improved implementation will provide a more transparent and well-defined pathway for maintaining and restoring the biological, chemical, and physical integrity of the nation’s waters.

5.1.1 Administrator’s Determinations Section 303(c)(4)(B) of the CWA provides the EPA Administrator with authority to determine that new or revised WQS are necessary to meet the CWA requirements in those situations where a state fails or is unable to act in a manner consistent with CWA provisions. An Administrator’s determination triggers the requirement for EPA to promptly prepare and publish regulations setting forth a revised or new WQS for the waters of the United States that are involved. The public and stakeholders do not always clearly understand or interpret the process whereby the Administrator determines that new or revised standards are necessary. For EPA to ensure effective implementation of the national WQS program, provide direct, clear, and transparent feedback on state and tribal actions, it is essential that EPA maintain an open and constructive dialogue with states and authorized tribes and stakeholders on important water quality issues. The revision will establish a more transparent process for the Administrator to announce any determination made under section 303(c)(4)(B) of the CWA. This revision will allow states and authorized tribes to develop their WQS without fear of litigation triggering a mandatory duty on the part of EPA to develop WQS for a state or authorized tribe before it is appropriate or necessary and before the state or authorized tribe had an opportunity to act on EPA’s comments and guidance.July 2015 5. Potential Incremental Benefits 5

-2

5.1.2 Designated Uses Designated uses communicate a state’s or authorized tribe’s environmental management goals for its waters and drive on-the-ground water quality decision-making and improvements. To establish appropriate WQS, states and authorized tribes define the water quality goals of a water body first by designating the use(s) and second by setting criteria necessary to protect those uses. WQS are the foundation for other CWA requirements applicable to a water body, such as WQBELs for point source dischargers, as well as assessment of waters and establishment of TMDLs for waters not meeting applicable WQS. Because designated uses play such an important role in the effective implementation of the CWA, it is essential to provide clear and concise regulatory requirements to states and authorized tribes for designated uses. Today’s rule provides regulatory clarifications that will prevent conflicting interpretations which may lead to case-by-case analyses and direct resources away from water quality restoration and maintenance efforts. When stakeholders, states and authorized tribes collectively understand and determine the management goals for a particular water body or water bodies, stakeholders are more likely to become involved and work closely with the states and authorized tribes in the establishment and attainment of WQS, leading to improved stewardship and watershed protection efforts. The clearer, more accurate, and more refined the designated uses are in describing the state’s or tribe’s objective for a water body to support aquatic life, human health, recreation and other uses, the more effective those use designations can be in driving the management actions necessary to restore and protect water quality. Under today’s rule, if a state or authorized tribe demonstrates through a defensible UAA that the use specified in Section 101(a)(2) or a sub-category of such a use is not attainable and subsequently removes the use, then the state or authorized tribe shall adopt as replacement standards the highest degree of use that is attainable (i.e., the HAU). States and authorized tribes have flexibility to adjust current designated uses through a UAA process in accordance with the provisions of § 131.10(g). However, that flexibility is provided in the context of meeting the overall goals of the CWA. As part of the UAA process, a state or authorized tribe may be able to adequately demonstrate that, for example, historic mining activities in an area result in nonattainment of applicable water quality criteria and the aquatic life use. However, if some less sensitive aquatic organisms are able to survive at the site, the goals of the CWA are not achieved by simply removing the aquatic life use designation and applicable criteria without considering if existing water quality can be maintained or, where applicable, restored. Rather, the revised provision requires that states and authorized tribes determine through the UAA the level of aquatic life protection that is attainable, and then designate that use. This revision will ensure that WQS reflect the greatest water quality possible, thus protecting the economic, .

5.1.3 Triennial Reviews Today’s final rule contains two revisions to the triennial review requirements at 40 CFR 131.20(a). First, the rule requires that if states and authorized tribes choose not to adopt new or revised criteria for any parameters for which EPA has published new or updated CWA section 304(a) criteria recommendations, states and authorized tribes must explain their decision when reporting the results of their triennial review to EPA under CWA section 303(c)(1) and 40 CFR 131.20(c). Second, the rule clarifies what are the “applicable water quality standards” that states and authorized tribes must review triennially. These provisions ensure that states and authorized tribes appropriately consider any and all existing criteria established pursuant to 40 CFR 131.11July 2015 5. Potential Incremental Benefits 5

-3

during the triennial review, including EPA’s new or updated CWA section 304(a) recommendations. WQS optimally protect water quality when they are based on the latest science and information. The water quality requirements needed to support aquatic life, recreation, unique and significant ecologies, and species habitat can change as new scientific studies establish new knowledge about how aquatic systems operate. Achieving the water quality needed to protect designated uses are best achieved when states and authorized tribes established and update their WQS using the best available science and information. The triennial review provisions in today’s rule will ensure that states and authorized tribes use the latest scientific information to provide for the greatest water quality possible, leading to the economic, human health and ecological benefits that derive from clean water. 5.1.4 Antidegradation Section 101(a) of the CWA emphasizes the prevention of water pollution and expressly includes the objective of restoration and maintenance of the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the nation’s waters (33 U.S.C. 1251). The antidegradation requirements that EPA incorporated by regulation in 1983 into § 131.12 implement the maintenance aspect of CWA section 101(a) and are an essential component of the overall WQS program. Antidegradation policy plays a critical role in allowing states and authorized tribes to maintain and protect the valuable resource of high quality waters, and ensures that decisions to allow a lowering of water quality are made in a public and transparent manner that serves the public good. High quality waters support aquatic life, recreation, unique and significant ecologies, and species habitat. High quality waters can maintain a greater diversity of biological species and a more complex community structure than other waters. These attributes confer a special degree of resiliency and resistance to adverse effects, particularly as the Nation’s waters face an increasing degree of stress from anthropogenic influences. Protection of high quality waters is supports both economic and social development. High quality waters contribute to public health, aquatic ecosystems, drinking water supplies, and to the welfare of families and communities. The health and growth of tourism, recreation, fishing, and businesses and jobs they create rely on a high quality and sustainable source of water. Degradation of water quality poses a risk to public health, harms aquatic ecosystems, and can increase water treatment cost that must be borne by ratepayers and local governments. Maintaining high quality waters can save time and economic resources to a community in the long-term. If a high quality water becomes impaired, it can take significant amounts of time and financial resources to develop a TMDL and implement activities to restore the water body. Effectively using an antidegradation program to prevent water degradation in the first place is very often more cost-effective and efficient. In addition, maintaining a water body in its initial high quality state helps ensure the preservation of unique attributes that might be impossible to fully restore. Section 5.2 of this report contains a more detailed discussion on the benefits associated with high quality water. 5.1.4.1 Identifying High Quality WatersToday’s rule requires states and authorized tribes to identify high quality waters on a parameterby-parameter basis or on a water body-by-water body approach, unless the state or authorized tribe describes an alternate approach that considers the chemical, physical, and biologicalJuly 2015 5. Potential Incremental Benefits 5

-4

integrity of the water body. In the absence of data for such holistic evaluation, the state or authorized tribe shall apply high quality water protection per § 131.12(a)(2). EPA expects states and authorized tribes to consider a combination of chemical, biological, and physical characteristics, using all the relevant available data to conduct an overall holistic assessment of one or more of these characteristics in order to determine whether a water body receives Tier 2 protection. The approach should not simply limit the applicability of Tier 2 through a list of disqualifiers for Tier 2 protection (e.g., listing on the state’s CWA section 303(d) list) because such disqualifiers are potentially poor indicators of the overall quality of a surface water and the value of affording it Tier 2 protection under antidegradation policy. This revision will ensure protection of a larger number of high quality waters under antidegradation requirements. 5.1.4.2 Alternatives Analysis Under today’s rule, before allowing a lowering of high water quality, states and authorized tribes must find, after an analysis of alternatives, that such a lowering is necessary to accommodate important economic or social development in the area in which the waters are located. That analysis must evaluate a range of non-degrading and less degrading practicable alternatives. When an analysis identifies one or more such practicable alternatives, states and authorized tribes may only find that a lowering is necessary if one such alternative is selected for implementation. Today’s rule ensures that, where the alternatives analysis identifies one or more feasible alternatives to allowing the degradation, a project is modified to minimize degradation of water quality. This balanced analysis of water quality impacts along with other holistic considerations offers the most thorough and publicly transparent way to ensure that lower water quality is allowed only when necessary, consistent with EPA’s regulation.

5.1.5 WQS Variances The objective of the CWA is to “restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters.” However, as environmental challenges become more complex, states and authorized tribes may require more time to determine and implement the best strategies to improve water quality and attain applicable designated uses while striving to achieve the CWA goal. As an alternative to a permanent use downgrade, EPA has encouraged states and authorized tribes to utilize WQS variances as an important WQS tool to provide states and authorized tribes time to make progress towards attaining a designated use and criteria. EPA’s existing WQS regulation lacks explicit provisions on the issue of WQS variances. As a result, EPA has heard from states and authorized tribes, and stakeholders that there are confusion, inconsistency, and mixed interpretations about how, when, and where WQS variances may be used. Today’s rule provides greater regulatory specification for implementation of a WQS variance as a time-limited designated use and criterion. This revision will encourage proper use of WQS variances as a tool for achieving WQS and facilitating water quality improvements. WQS variances are different from changes to the permanent designated use and associated criteria in that they are intended as a mechanism to provide time for stakeholders to implement adaptive management approaches that will improve water quality where the designated use and criterion currently in place are not being met. EPA requires that interim limits and requirementsJuly 2015 5. Potential Incremental Benefits 5

-5

reflect the highest attainable condition during the term of the WQS variance. These requirements must protect the interim designated use and be based on sound scientific rationale. This provision is essential because it provides regulatory assurance that the WQS variance will result in more than just maintaining the current water quality. Further, stakeholders may be less likely to perceive WQS variances as a means of locking ambient conditions in place and delaying environmental improvements. WQS variances allow stakeholders to implement actions that will achieve interim uses and criteria that are attainable when there is uncertainty as to whether the designated use and criterion may be ultimately attainable. WQS variances are typically limited in their scope to one pollutant. WQS variances are an environmentally preferable tool to a permanent designated use change in that designated use protection is retained for all pollutants as they apply to all sources with the exception of those specified in the WQS variance. When properly applied, a WQS variance can lead to improved water quality over time, and in some cases, full attainment of designated uses due to advances in treatment technologies, control practices, or other changes in circumstances, thereby furthering the objectives of the CWA. The revisions will establish a standardized set of requirements to facilitate efforts to improve water quality by allowing stakeholders to address any challenges and uncertainties associated with attaining the designated use and the associated criterion. The revisions ensure that states and authorized tribes base their identification and water body assessments decisions (under CWA sections 303(d) and 305(b)), and development of WQBELS in permits for pollutants and dischargers not specified in the WQS variance, on the designated use and criterion, even under the waterbody WQS variance scenario. Through reevaluations, these revisions will also ensure that further feasible progress toward the designated use and criterion will be made during the WQS variance period and will help meet CWA goals. 5.1.6 Compliance Schedule Authorizing Provisions CWA section 502(17) defines “schedule of compliance” to mean “a schedule of remedial measures including an enforceable sequence of actions or operations leading to compliance with an effluent limitation, other limitation, prohibition, or standard.” EPA’s NPDES regulation at 40 CFR 122.2 defines a schedule of compliance as “a schedule of remedial measures included in a ‘permit,’ including an enforceable sequence of interim requirements...leading to compliance with the CWA and regulations.” Section 301(b)(1)(C) of the CWA specifies that there shall be achieved “...not later than July 1, 1977, any more stringent limitation, including those necessary to meet WQS, treatment standards, or schedules of compliance, established pursuant to any state or authorized tribal law or regulations (under authority preserved by section 1370 of this title) or any other federal law or regulation, or required to implement any applicable water quality standard established pursuant to this chapter.” EPA’s current WQS regulation is silent regarding compliance schedules and compliance schedule authorizing provisions. As a result, EPA is concerned that state and tribal permitting authorities may be including compliance schedules in permits, thus delaying compliance with a WQBEL, even though the state or authorized tribe may not have authorized the use of such compliance schedules in its WQS or implementing regulations. Today’s rule adds a new regulatory provision at § 131.15 to clarify that a state or authorized tribe may only issue compliance schedules for WQBELS in NPDES permits if the state or authorized tribe has authorized issuance of such compliance schedules pursuant to state or authorized tribe law in itsJuly 2015 5. Potential Incremental Benefits 5

- 6

WQS or implementing regulations. Any such compliance schedule authorizing provision is a WQS subject to EPA’s review and approval. The provision also clarifies that individual compliance schedules issued pursuant to such authorizing provisions are not WQS but must be consistent with CWA section 502(17), the state or authorized tribe’s EPA-approved compliance schedule authorizing provision, and the requirements of 40 CFR §§ 122.2 and 122.47. Compliance schedule authorizing provisions allow the state or authorized tribe to provide a permittee additional time to comply with a WQBEL that derives from and complies with the applicable WQS beyond the date of permit issuance, which is the date upon which a permittee is otherwise required to comply with its WQBEL. A compliance schedule authorizing provision allows the state or authorized tribe to delay when it will meet the applicable WQS. By requiring states and authorized tribes to authorize the use of compliance schedules in their WQS or implementing regulations, EPA ensures that WQBELs subject to appropriately issued compliance schedules are fully consistent with the requirements of WQS. Once approved pursuant to CWA section 303(c)(3), the compliance schedule authorizing provision itself becomes part of the applicable WQS. Therefore, any delay in compliance with a WQBEL pursuant to that permit compliance schedule is consistent with WQS. These revisions will ensure that permittees do not unnecessarily delay implementation of WQS that are protective of water quality.
5.2 Benefits of Improved Water Quality As stated above, today’s rule will improve the effectiveness of the WQS regulation in restoring and maintaining the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters. Improved water quality has many human health and ecological benefits, described below.

5.2.1 Market Benefits The market benefits of improved water quality are reflected in its value to water supply and use, commercial fishing, and public and private ownership. 5.2.1.1 Water Supply and Use

 Drinking Water Treatment and Household Water Use. Reducing contaminants, nutrients, and sediment in potable water supplies lowers the cost of treating these waters, reduces the health risk from potential exposure to contaminated drinking water, and avoids the need to develop alternative raw water sources. Discharged pollutants worsen water quality and require increased spending on treatment measures such as settlement ponds, filtration, and chemical treatment. Reducing nutrient loadings to surface waters reduces eutrophication, which is one of the main causes of taste and odor impairment in drinking water. Taste and odor in drinking water have a major negative impact on the public perception of drinking water safety and result in a significant increase in drinking water treatment cost to address foul taste and odor in the source waters. If adequate water treatment is not available, a temporary water source needs to be substituted (if available). If an alternative water supply is not at hand, urban areas might need to be supplied withbottled or tankered water, as has been the case in Ohio (Yeager-Kozacek, 2014). Longterm solutions might require the development of new raw water supplies, which would involve investments for acquisition of land (if available), regulatory review and permitting, development of infrastructure (dams, pumps, pipes), and watershed protection.July 2015 5. Potential Incremental Benefits 5

-7

 Agricultural Water Use. Irrigation water that contains pollutants can harm crops and reduce agricultural productivity (Clark et al. 1985). Although elevated nutrient concentrations in irrigation water would not adversely affect its usefulness for plants, concerns exist for potential residual effects due to contaminants entering the food chain. More importantly, eutrophication promotes cyanobacterial blooms that can kill livestock and wildlife that drink the contaminated surface water. The reduction in nutrients loading, for example due to adoption or improved implementation of WQS, can provide benefits in increased cattle production or avoided cost due to cattle sickness or death.

 Reservoir Dredging. Water storage facilities (e.g., reservoirs) serve many functions, including providing drinking water, flood control, hydropower supply, and recreational opportunities. Sediment, one of the pollutants likely to be reduced by improved implementation of WQS, can be carried from streams into reservoirs, where it can settle and build up layers of silt over time. This increase in sedimentation rates will reduce reservoir capacity. To replace this capacity, sediment must be dredged from reservoirs, or new reservoirs must be constructed (Clark et al. 1985). Water quality criteria reduce the amount of sediment entering reservoirs and, as a result, the need for sediment mitigation measures in these reservoirs and the cost of reservoir maintenance. Because sediment mitigation is often accomplished through dredging, which itself is environmentally destructive, an additional benefit to reduced reservoir sediment buildup is the reduced environmental impact of dredging sediment and disposing of it.

 Industrial Water Use. Sediment discharges may also have negative effects on industrial water users. Suspended sediment increases the rate at which hydraulic equipment, pumps, and other equipment wear out, causing accelerated depreciation of capital equipment. Sediment can also clog cooling water systems at power plants and other large industrial facilities (Clark et al. 1985). Improved water quality standard implementation will reduce sediment concentrations in source waters and thus lengthen the useful life of industrial equipment. 5.2.1.2 Commercial Fishing Pollutants regulated by WQS can greatly reduce fish populations and therefore the size of commercial harvest by inhibiting reproduction and survival of an aquatic species. These changes negatively affect subsistence anglers, commercial anglers and fish sellers, and consumers of fish and fish products. Improvement of water quality due to the more efficient implementation of WQS will enhance aquatic life habitat and thus contribute to reproduction and survival of commercially harvested species, which in turn will lead to an increase in producer and consumer surplus. 5.2.1.3 Public and Private Property Ownership Aesthetic degradation of land and water resources resulting from pollutant discharges (e.g., increased water turbidity) can reduce the market value of property and thus affect the financial status of property owners. For example, a hedonic price study by Bejranonda et al. (1999) found that “the rate of sediment inflow entering the lakes has a negative influence on lakeside property rent” (p. 216). Sediment discharges also have a significant impact on stream morphology. For example, higher coarse sediment load leads to an increase in width of the riverbed and, as a result, bank erosion (Wheeler et al. 2003). A 1993 study of Lake Erie’s housing market found that “erosion-prone lakeshore property will be discounted” (Kriesel et al. 1993).July 2015 5. Potential Incremental Benefits 5

- 8

Conversely, water quality improvement and protection can increase or maintain waterfront property values. Studies suggest that waterfront property is more desirable when located near unpolluted water, and therefore property values increase with improved water quality. Likewise, stabilization of stream banks leads to an increase in the value of surrounding property (Streiner and Loomis 1996).

5.2.2 Nonmarket Benefits The nonmarket benefits of improving or protecting water quality include those associated with human health, recreation, and nonmarket nonuse values.
5.2.2.1 Human Health Improvements Cleaner water may lead to a reduction in illness either through reduced consumption of contaminated seafood or through reduced exposure to infectious disease during recreation activities in contaminated waters. Some contaminants, such as mercury, PCBs, chlordane, dioxins, and DDT, may persist for long periods of time and bioaccumulate (e.g., they can be found in levels several time higher than ambient water in large fish such as bass that consume contaminated bottom dwelling animals). Eating fish contaminated with mercury or PCBs may lead to developmental and neurological problems and is especially hazardous for children and pregnant women. Consumption of shellfish may lead to exposure to bacteria and viruses that can accumulate in shellfish from ambient water. Swimmers, boaters, and other recreational water users may also suffer from gastrointestinal and other illnesses due to ingesting, immersing, or wading in water that contains enteric pathogens such as fecal bacteria and viruses. To the extent that today’s rule increases the nation’s water quality by reducing current exposures and illness and preventing future exposures and illness, society benefits. The benefits are reflected in the avoided cost of illness, including treatment cost and lost wages, as well as in the public’s willingness-to-pay, which also includes the value of avoided pain and suffering.

5.2.2.2 Recreational Benefits Benefits also include the value of improved environmental goods and services used and valued by people even if these services and goods are not traded in markets. Aesthetic degradation of water resources can reduce owner satisfaction with the property and the residential area in general. It can also adversely affect recreational opportunities. Improved water quality from reducing pollutant discharges or preventing degradation may translate into two components of recreational benefits: (1) an increase in the value of a recreational trip resulting from a more enjoyable experience, and (2) an increase in recreational participation. Recreational activities that may be adversely impacted by water pollution are summarized below.

 Outings. Activities that take place near water such as hiking, jogging, picnicking, and wildlife viewing may be adversely affected by pollutant discharges into the water. While these activities do not involve contact with the water, murky and visually unpleasant water and odors associated with some types of pollutants may greatly detract from the enjoyment of these activities. Decreases in fish populations may cause a reduction in wildlife near the resource, affecting wildlife viewing. Pollutants may negatively affect local flora and fauna, reducing the aesthetic appeal of the area near the resource and negatively impacting wildlife viewing.July 2015 5. Potential Incremental Benefits 5

- 9

 Recreational Fishing. Degraded water can reduce fish populations by inhibiting reproduction and survival of an aquatic species. This effect may lead to fewer and smaller fish and a reduction of the game fish population. In addition, pollutants may reduce the aesthetics of the water body, which may reduce anglers’ utility (enjoyment) of their fishing experience. Additionally, turbidity caused by pollutant discharges may affect recreational anglers by reducing the distance over which fish can see lures, resulting in lower catch rates (Clark et al. 1985).

 Boating. Polluted water greatly reduces the aesthetic appeal of recreational boating activities. Turbidity caused by sediment and other pollutant discharges may affect the safety of boating. Turbidity may obscure underwater obstacles, making collisions more likely. Increased sediment concentrations may also create sandbars, increasing the chances of running aground. Clark et al. (1985) estimated that turbidity (from all sources) may be responsible for as many as 200 boating fatalities and many more injuries each year. Using the value for a statistical life’s worth of risks ($7 million) and multiplying it by the number of boating fatalities yields the value of preventing these fatalities of $1.4 billion per year. Even if reducing discharges prevents only a small number of fatalities and injuries each year, the expected monetary value of preventing boating accidents can be significant.

 Swimming. Pollution of water by toxic chemicals or by fecal indicator bacteria may cause closure of water bodies for swimming. Eutrophication caused by nutrients and turbidity caused by sediment and other pollutants also may greatly reduce a swimmer’s aesthetic enjoyment of a water body. Additionally, turbidity may create safety hazards for the swimmer by reducing the ability to see underwater hazards or increasing diving accidents by impairing the ability to gauge water depth.

 Hunting. Similar to the effect on outings, discharged pollutants may greatly detract from the hunters’ aesthetic enjoyment of a water resource. Damage to flora and fauna may also affect the game population, reducing the number and quality of the game available.

5.2.2.3 Nonmarket Nonuse Benefits Even if no human activities or uses are affected by the potential positive environmental changes caused by today’s rule, such environmental changes may still affect social welfare. For a variety of reasons, including bequest, altruism, and existence motivations, individuals may value the knowledge that water quality is maintained, that ecosystems are protected, and that populations of individual species are healthy, completely independent of their use value. It is often difficult to quantify the relationship between changes in pollutant discharges and the improvements in societal well-being that are not associated with current use of the affected ecosystem or habitat. That these values exist, however, is indisputable, as evidenced, for example, by society’s willingness to contribute to organizations that purchase and preserve lands or habitats to avert development (although some portion of these donations may be motivated by use values). Notwithstanding challenges involved in estimation of nonuse values, there is a substantial literature devoted to such issues (Bateman et al. 2002). This literature supports the significance of nonmarket, nonuse values within various types of policy contexts and for various types of

resources.July 2015 6. References 6

- 1



### 6. References

Bateman, I. J., R. T. Carson, B. Day, M.; Hanemann, N. Hanley, T. Hett, M. Jones -Lee, G. Lo ome s , S

. M ourato , E

. Ö z demiro ḡlu , D

. W

. P e arc e , R

. S ugden , J

. S wans on

. 2 0 0 2

. Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques: a Manual. Edward Elgar Publishing. Bejranonda, S. F.J. Hitzhusen; and D. Hite. 1999. “Agricultural Sedimentation Impacts on Lakeside Property Values.” Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 28(2): 208-18. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). 2013. May 2013 National Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates, United States. Available at http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm

. Clark, E., J.A. Haverkamp, and W. Chapman. 1985. “Eroding Soils: The Off-Farm Impacts.” Washington, DC: The Conservation Foundation. Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IDNR). 2008. Fiscal Impact Statement Associated with the Notice of Intended Action: Antidegradation – Water Quality Standards (Chapter 61). Kriesel, W., A. Randall, and F. Lichtkoppler. 1993. “Estimating the Benefits of Shore Erosion Protection in Ohio’s Lake Erie Housing Market.” Water Resources Research. 29(4). 795-801. Missouri Department of Natural Resource (MDNR). 2008. Missouri Register: Proposed Amendment: 10 CSR 20-7.031 Water Quality Standards. January 16, 2008. Streiner, C.F. and Loomis, J.B. 1996. “Estimating the Benefits of Urban Stream Restoration Using the Hedonic Price Method.” Rivers. 5(4): 267-278. United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2014. National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. Available at http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/criteria/current/index.cfm

. United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2011b. Variance Compendium. Available at: http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/standards/docs/toxics/humanhealth/rulemaking/VarianceComp endium110124.pdf

. United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2009. National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. Available at http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/criteria/current/upload/nrwqc-2009.pdf

. United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2007. Water Quality Standards Handbook, Second Edition. Available at: http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/handbook/index.cfm/

. United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2003. Revised National Recommended Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Human Health. December. United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2002. National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. EPA-822-R-02-047. November. United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1999. National Recommended Water Quality Criteria–Correction. EPA 822-Z-99-001. April.July 2015 6. References 6

-2

United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1986. Quality Criteria for Water (Gold Book). EPA 440/5-86-001. May. United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1976. Quality Criteria for Water (Red Book). PB-263 943. June. United States Office of Personnel Management. 2014. Salary Table 2014-GS. Available at: http://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/salaries-wages/2014/general-schedule/

. Wheeler, A.P., A.E. Keiter Rosenberger and P.L. Angermeier. 2003. Potential Impacts of I-73 on Stream Habitat and Biota, with Emphasis on the Federally Endangered Roanoke Logperch. Department of Fisheries and Wildlife services, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. Yeager-Kozacek, C. 2014. Toledo Issues Emergency ‘Do Not Drink Water’ Warning to Residents. Available at http://www.circleofblue.org/waternews/2014/world/toledo-issuesemergency-warning-residents-drink-water/

.July 2015 7. Appendix 7

- 1



### 7. Appendix: EPA’s CWA Section 304(a) Criteria Recommendations

In this analysis, EPA estimates the number of new or updated CWA section 304(a) criteria a state or authorized tribe may need to consider at each triennial review (Section 3.2.4) by reviewing historical CWA section 304(a) criteria recommendations. Exhibit 7-1 shows all section 304(a) criteria recommendations published since enactment of the CWA in 1972. EPA counts 371 new or updated CWA section 304(a) criteria recommendations (U.S. EPA 1976; 1986; 1999; 2002; 2003; 2009; 2014). Over the 42-year period of the CWA (2014 – 1972 = 42), this represents approximately 9 new or updated CWA section 304(a) criteria recommendations per year, or 27 per 3-year triennial review period (371 CWA section 304(a) recommendations  42 years × 3 years per triennial review = 27 CWA section 304(a) criteria recommendations per triennial review). Exhibit 7-1: Current and Prior CWA Section 304(a) Criteria Recommendation Publication Years

Pollutant Criteria Publication Year (Prior Publication Years) 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 2002 (1999) 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 2002 (1999) 1,1-Dichloroethylene 2003 (1999) 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 2003 (1999) 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 2003 (1999) 1,2-Dichloroethane 2002 (1999, 1986) 1,2-Dichloropropane 2002 (1999, 1986) 1,2-Diphenylhydrazine 2002 (1999, 1986) 1,2-Trans-Dichloroethylene 2003 (1999) 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 2002 (1999, 1986) 1,3-Dichloropropene 2003 (1999, 1986) 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 2003 (1999) 2,3,7,8-TCDD (Dioxin) 2002 (1999) 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 2002 (1999, 1986) 2,4-Dichlorophenol 2002 (1999, 1986) 2,4-Dimethylphenol 2002 (1999) 2,4-Dinitrophenol 2002 (1999) 2,4-Dinitrotoluene 2002 (1999, 1986) 2-Chloronaphthalene 2002 (1999) 2-Chlorophenol 2002 (1999) 2-Methyl-4,6-Dinitrophenol 2002 (1999) 3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine 2002 (1999, 1986) 4,4'-DDD 2002 (1999)July 2015 7. Appendix 7

-2

Exhibit 7-1: Current and Prior CWA Section 304(a) Criteria Recommendation Publication Years

Pollutant Criteria Publication Year (Prior Publication Years) 4,4'-DDE 2002 (1999) 4,4'-DDT 1980 4,4'-DDT 2002 (1999, 1986) Acenaphthene 2002 (1999, 1986) Acrolein 2009 Acrolein 2009 (2002) Acrylonitrile 2002 (1999, 1986) Aesthetic Qualities 1986 Aldrin 1980 (1976) Aldrin 2002 (1999, 1986) Alkalinity 1986 alpha-BHC 2002 (1999, 1986) alpha-Endosulfan 1980 (1976) alpha-Endosulfan 2002 (1999, 1986) Aluminum pH 6.5 – 9.0 1988 Ammonia - freshwater 2013 Ammonia - saltwater 1989 Anthracene 2002 (1999) Antimony 2002 (1999, 1986) Arsenic 1992 (1986) Arsenic 1995 (1986, 1976) Asbestos 1991 (1986) Bacteria 1986 Barium 1986 Benzene 2002 (1999, 1986) Benzidine 2002 (1999) Benzo(a) Anthracene 2002 (1999) Benzo(a) Pyrene 2002 (1999) Benzo(b) Fluoranthene 2002 (1999, 1986) Benzo(k) Fluoranthene 2002 (1999, 1986) Beryllium 1976 beta-BHC 2002 (1999, 1986) beta-Endosulfan 1980 beta-Endosulfan 2002 (1999, 1986) Bis(2-Chloroethyl) Ether 2002 (1999, 1986)July 2015 7. Appendix 7

-3

Exhibit 7-1: Current and Prior CWA Section 304(a) Criteria Recommendation Publication Years

Pollutant Criteria Publication Year (Prior Publication Years) Bis(2-Chloroisopropyl) Ether 2002 (1999, 1986) Bis(2-Ethylhexyl) Phthalate 2002 (1999, 1986) Boron 1986 Bromoform 2002 (1999) Butylbenzyl Phthalate 2002 (1999) Cadmium 2001 (1986, 1976) Carbaryl 2012 Carbon Tetrachloride 2002 (1999) Chlordane 1980 (1976) Chlordane 2002 (1999, 1986) Chloride 1986 Chlorine 1986 (1976) Chlorobenzene 2003 (1999) Chlorodibromomethane 2002 (1999) Chloroform 2002 (1999, 1986) Chlorophenoxy Herbicide (2,4-D) 1986 Chloropyrifos 1986 Chromium (III) 1995 (1986, 1976) Chromium (VI) 1995 (1986) Chrysene 2002 (1999) Color 1986 Copper 1992 (1986, 1976) Copper 2007 (2002) Cyanide 1985 (1976) Cyanide 2003 (1999, 1986) Demeton 1985 Diazinon 2005 Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene 2002 (1999) Dichlorobromomethane 2002 (1999) Dieldrin 1995 (1986) Dieldrin 2002 (1999, 1986) Diethyl Phthalate 2002 (1999, 1986) Dimethyl Phthalate 2002 (1999) Di-n-Butyl Phthalate 2002 (1999) Dinitrophenols 2002 (1999)July 2015 7. Appendix 7

-4

Exhibit 7-1: Current and Prior CWA Section 304(a) Criteria Recommendation Publication Years

Pollutant Criteria Publication Year (Prior Publication Years) Endosulfan Sulfate 2002 (1999) Endrin 1995 (1986, 1976) Endrin 2003 (1999) Endrin Aldehyde 2002 (1999) Ether, Bis( Chloromethyl) 2002 (1999) Ethylbenzene 2003 (1999, 1986) Fluoranthene 2002 (1999, 1986) Fluorene 2002 (1999) gamma-BHC (Lindane) 1995 gamma-BHC (Lindane) 2003 (1999) Gases, Total Dissolved 1986 Guthion 1986 Hardness 1986 Heptachlor 1980 (1976) Heptachlor 2002 (1999, 1986) Heptachlor Epoxide 1981 Heptachlor Epoxide 2002 (1999) Hexachlorobenzene 2002 (1999, 1986) Hexachlorobutadiene 2002 (1999) Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 2003 (1999, 1986) Hexachloroethane 2002 (1999) Ideno(1,2,3-cd)Pyrene 2002 (1999) Iron 1986 Isophorone 2002 (1999, 1986) Lead 1980 Malathion 1986 Mercury/Methylmercury 1995 (1986, 1976) Methoxychlor 1986 Methoxychlor 1986 Methyl Bromide 2002 (1999) Methylene Chloride 2002 (1999) Methylmercury 2001 Mirex 1986 Nickel 1995 (1986, 1976) Nickel 1998 (1986)July 2015 7. Appendix 7

-5

Exhibit 7-1: Current and Prior CWA Section 304(a) Criteria Recommendation Publication Years

Pollutant Criteria Publication Year (Prior Publication Years)

Nitrates 1986 Nitrobenzene 2002 (1999, 1986) Nitrosamines 1980 Nitrosodibutylamine, N 2002 (1999) Nitrosodiethylamine, N 2002 (1999) Nitrosopyrrolidine, N 2002 (1999) N-Nitrosodimethylamine 2002 (1999, 1986) N-Nitrosodi-n-Propylamine 2002 (1999) N-Nitrosodiphenylamine 2002 (1999) Nonylphenol 2005 Oil and Grease 1986 Oxygen, Dissolved Freshwater/ Oxygen, Dissolved Saltwater 1986 Parathion 1995 (1976) Pathogen and Pathogen Indicators 2012 Pentachlorobenzene 2002 (1999, 1986) Pentachlorophenol 1995 (1986) Pentachlorophenol 2002 (1999, 1986) pH 1986 pH 1986 Phenol 2009 (2002) Phosphorus Elemental 1986 Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) 2002 (1999, 1986) Pyrene 2002 (1999) Selenium 1999 (1986) Selenium 2002 (1999, 1986) Silver 1980 Solids Dissolved and Salinity 1986 Solids Suspended and Turbidity 1986 Sulfide-Hydrogen Sulfide 1986 Tainting Substances 1986 Temperature 1986 Tetrachlorobenzene,1,2,4,5- 2002 (1999, 1986) Tetrachloroethylene 2002 (1999) Thallium 2003 (1999, 1986)July 2015 7. Appendix 7

- 6

Exhibit 7-1: Current and Prior CWA Section 304(a) Criteria Recommendation Publication Years

Pollutant Criteria Publication Year (Prior Publication Years) Toluene 2003 (1999, 1986) Toxaphene 1986 (1976) Toxaphene 2002 (1999, 1976) Tributyltin (TBT) 2004 (1999) Trichloroethylene 2002 (1999) Trichlorophenol,2,4,5- 2002 (1999, 1986) Vinyl Chloride 2003 (1999) Zinc 1995 (1986) Zinc 2002 (1999, 1986) Count of CWA section 304(a) Criteria, 1972 to 2014 171 (200) Source: U.S. EPA 1976; 1986; 1999; 2002; 2003; 2009; 2014