Document ID: EPA-HQ-OW-2003-0026-0007
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2007-08-14T04:00Z

NOTE:  This document is presented for informational purposes only.  It
was prepared in 2003 for the currently-approved Information Collection
Request.  EPA will be revising these burden estimates before submitting
the 2007 ICR to OMB based on developments in the program over the last
three years and comments received from the public.  We expect that the
currently-approved burden may be affected by increased reliance on
electronic reporting (including submittal, review and approval of
electronic water quality information by EPA and the states) and
increased Tribal water quality reporting.

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 ICR SUPPORTING STATEMENT

1.	IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION

	1(a)	TITLE AND NUMBER OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION

National Water Quality Inventory Reports (Clean Water Act Sections
305(b), 303(d), 314(a), and 106(e)).

EPA ICR Number 1560.07

	1(b)	SHORT CHARACTERIZATION

Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act requires States to identify and
rank waters which cannot meet water quality standards (WQS) following
the implementation of technology-based controls.  Under Section 303(d),
States are also required to establish total maximum daily loads (TMDLs)
for listed waters not meeting standards as a result of pollutant
discharges.  In developing the Section 303(d) lists, States are required
to consider various sources of water-quality related data and
information, including the Section 305(b) State water quality reports. 
The Section 305(b) reports contain information on the extent of water
quality degradation, the pollutants and sources affecting water quality,
and State progress in controlling water pollution. 

EPA’s Assessment and Watershed Protection Division (AWPD) works with
its Regional counterparts to review and approve or disapprove State
Section 303(d) lists and TMDLs from 56 respondents (the 50 States, the
District of Columbia, and the five Territories).  Section 303(d)
specifically requires States to develop lists and TMDLs “from time to
time” and EPA to review and approve or disapprove the lists and the
TMDLs.  EPA also collects State 305(b) reports from 59 respondents (the
50 States, the District of Columbia, five Territories, and 3 River Basin
commissions).

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) previously approved
information collection authority for the submission of State 305(b)
reports under 40 CFR 130.10(a) of the EPA Water Quality Management
Standards under OMB Number 2040-0071 (ICR Number 1560.1).  In 1992, OMB
approved an addendum to ICR 1560.1 clarifying the burden associated with
preparing State 303(d) lists of waters for inclusion in the 305(b)
reports.  OMB reapproved the ICR for the period 1993 -1995, 1996 - 1998,
and then again from March 1999 - April 2003 (ICR Number 1560.05,
approved April 5, 2000).

Subsequent to ICR 1560.05, EPA prepared a Supplemental ICR 1560.06 which
revised ICR 1560.05 to provided additional estimates for some aspects of
the existing program, including the burden associated with developing
TMDLs, and the burden associated with providing information on the costs
and benefits of attaining water quality standards.   In addition, that
Supplemental ICR provided the change in burden resulting from the
revisions EPA made to the TMDL regulations in a rule EPA issued on July,
16, 2000 (the “July 2000 rule”).  ICR 1560.06 was approved for the
period July 2000 - July 2003.

The July 2000 rule was controversial from the outset.  The August 1999
proposal attracted approximately 34,000 comments, a significant number
of which criticized various aspects of the proposed rule.  Before and
after promulgation, the rule generated considerable controversy, as
expressed in Congressional action, letters, testimony, public meetings,
and litigation.  Even before it was published in the Federal Register,
Congress prohibited EPA from implementing the final rule through a
spending prohibition included in the Military Construction
Appropriations Act: FY 2000 Supplemental Appropriations (PL 106-426). 

States, business and industry groups, agriculture and forestry
organizations, and local governments questioned the scope, complexity,
and cost of, and the legal authority for, many of  the new provisions of
the rule.  Environmental groups expressed concern that the rule did not
do enough to address water quality impairments from nonpoint sources,
and argued that the new schedules in the rule unlawfully extend CWA
deadlines.  Stakeholder concerns were reflected in legal challenges to
the July 2000 rule by a broad  array of litigants. 

Because of these significant concerns, EPA, on August 9, 2001 proposed
to delay the effective date of the July 2000 rule by 18 months (66 FR
41817) until April 30, 2003, to allow time for reconsideration of
specific aspects of the rule.  EPA stated that it intended to use the
time to analyze the findings and recommendations of the NRC report; to
discuss ideas for improving the TMDL Program with a broad array of
interested parties; and, if deemed appropriate, to revise the
regulations through a notice and comment process. 

Despite the efforts described above, the Agency determined that it would
take additional time beyond April 30, 2003 to complete the process to
propose, solicit comment, and finalize any such revisions. Consequently,
EPA published a final rule on March 19, 20031 to withdraw the July 2000
TMDL rule so that the Agency can proceed in an orderly process to
develop revisions to the TMDL rules. Accordingly, OMB approved an
emergency extension of 1560.06 through October 2003 to accommodate
completion of the withdrawal of the July 2000 Rule.

The agency now encourages integration of the reporting for 305(b) and
303(d) into one integrated report.  In guidance originally published in
2001 for the 2002 reports and revised in 2003 for the 2004 reports
(“Guidance for 2004 Assessment, Listing and Reporting Requirements
Pursuant to Sections 303(d) and 305(b) of the Clean Water Act,” July
21, 2003) the Agency encourages the use of five specific categories that
include the requirements of both previous reports into an “Integrated
Report” due in April, 2004.  Although the Agency recommends
integration, throughout the bulk of this supporting statement, the
305(b) and 303(d) reports are discussed separately to provide
consistency with earlier information requests

This Supporting Statement requests reapproval of current, ongoing
activities related to 305(b) and 303(d) reporting and TMDL development
for the period of October 1, 2003 through October 31, 2006. 

During the period covered by this ICR renewal, ongoing current
activities include:

respondents will complete their 2004 305(b) reports and 2004 303(d)
lists; 

respondents will complete their 2006 305(b) reports and 2006 303(d)
lists;

respondents will transmit annual electronic updates of their 305(b)
databases in 2003 through 2006; and 

respondents will continue to develop TMDLs according to their
established schedules.  

EPA will prepare two biennial Reports to Congress and transmit it in
2003 and 2005.

EPA will review TMDL submissions from respondents.

2.	NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION

2(a)	NEED/AUTHORITY FOR THE COLLECTION

Section 303(d) of the CWA establishes the total maximum daily load
(TMDL) process to provide for more stringent water-quality based
controls when required controls are inadequate to achieve State water
quality standards. States must identify waters that do not or are not
expected to meet applicable water quality standards solely through the
implementation of technology based controls. These waters are referred
to as water-quality limited waters. 

“(d)(1)(A)	Each State shall identify those waters within its
boundaries for which the effluent limitations required by section
301(b)(1)(A) and section 301(b)(1)(B) are not stringent enough to
implement any water quality standard applicable to such waters.  The
State shall establish a priority ranking for such waters, taking into
account the severity of the pollution and the uses to be made of such
waters.

           (B)	Each State shall identify those waters or parts thereof
within its boundaries for which controls on thermal discharges under
section 301 are not stringent enough to assure protection and
propagation of a balanced indigenous population of shellfish, fish, and
wildlife.

           (C)	Each State shall establish for the waters identified in
paragraph (1)(A) of this subsection, and in accordance with the priority
ranking, the total maximum daily load, for those pollutants which the
Administrator identifies under section 304(a)(2) as suitable for
calculation.  Such load shall be established at a level necessary to
implement the applicable water quality standards with seasonal
variations and a margin of safety which takes into account any lack of
knowledge concerning the relationship between effluent limitations and
water quality.

           (D)	Each State shall estimate for the waters identified in
paragraph (1)(B) of this subsection the total maximum daily thermal load
required to assure protection and propagation of a balanced, indigenous
population of shellfish, fish, and wildlife...”

Section 303(d)(2) requires States to submit the lists of water-quality
limited waters and associated TMDLs to the EPA “from time to time.” 

“(2)	Each State shall submit to the Administrator, from time to time,
with the first submission not later than one hundred and eighty days
after the date of publication of the first identification of pollutants
under section 304(a)(2)(D), for his approval the waters identified and
the loads established under paragraphs (1)(A), (1)(B), (1)(C), and
(1)(D) of this subsection...”

 EPA’s Water Quality Planning and Management regulation (40 CFR 130)
defines “from time to time” as a biennial reporting requirement for
submitting prioritized lists of water-quality limited waters still
requiring TMDLs.  (Note that the regulatory revisions pertain
exclusively to 303(d) lists of waters requiring TMDLs and do not require
biennial submittals of TMDLs.) The regulations also specify that the
State submittals under Section 303(d) coincide with State submittals
under Section 305(b).

TMDLs are required for 303(d)-listed waters when other Federal, State
and local controls will not lead to the achievement of water quality
standards. TMDLs provide a rational method for weighing competing water
quality concerns and developing an integrated strategy for point and
nonpoint sources. TMDLs encourage a holistic view of water quality
problems considering all contributions to stream water quality and
provides a method to allocate those contributions so that water quality
standards will be met.

Section 305(b)(1) requires States to prepare and submit a biennial water
quality assessment report:

“(1)	Each State shall prepare and submit to the Administrator by April
1, 1975, and shall bring up to date by April 1, 1976, and biennially
thereafter, a report which shall include -

(A)	a description of the water quality of all navigable waters in such
State during the preceding year, with appropriate supplemental
descriptions as shall be required to take into account seasonal, tidal,
and other variations, correlated with the quality of water required by
the objective of this Act (as identified by the Administrator pursuant
to criteria published under section 304(a) of this Act) and the water
quality described in subparagraph (B) of this paragraph;

(B)	an analysis of the extent to which all navigable waters of such
State provide for the protection and propagation of a balanced
population of shellfish, fish, and wildlife, and allow recreational
activities in and on the water;

(C)	an analysis of the extent to which the elimination of the discharge
of pollutants and a level of water quality which provides for the
protection and propagation of a balanced population of shellfish, fish,
and wildlife and allows recreational activities in and on the water,
have been or will be achieved by the requirements of this Act, together
with recommendations as to additional action necessary to achieve such
objectives and for what waters such additional action is necessary;

(D)	an estimate of (i) the environmental impact, (ii) the economic and
social costs necessary to achieve the objective of this Act in such
State, (iii) the economic and social benefits of such achievement, and
(iv) an estimate of the date of such achievement; and

(E)	a description of the nature and extent of nonpoint sources of
pollutants and recommendations as to the programs which must be
undertaken to control each category of such sources, including an
estimate of the costs of implementing such programs.”

Under Section 314(a)(2), States must incorporate their Clean Lakes
Report into the 305(b) reports.  Section 314(a)(1) specifies the
contents of the Clean Lakes Reports:

“(1)	State program requirements.  – Each State on a biennial basis
shall prepare and submit to the Administrator for his approval  – 

(A)	an identification and classification according to eutrophic
condition of all publicly owned lakes in such State;

(B)	a description of the procedures, processes, and methods (including
land use requirements) to control sources of pollution of such lakes;

(C)	a description of the methods and procedures, in conjunction with
appropriate Federal agencies, to restore the quality of such lakes;

(D)	methods and procedures to mitigate the harmful effects of high
acidity, including innovative methods of neutralizing and restoring
buffering capacity of lakes and methods of removing from lakes toxic
metals and other toxic substances mobilized by acidity;

(E)	a list and description of those publicly owned lakes in such State
for which uses are known to be impaired, including those lakes which are
known not to meet applicable water quality standards or which require
implementation of control programs to maintain compliance with
applicable standards and those lakes in which water quality has
deteriorated as a result of high acidity that may reasonably be due to
acid deposition; and

(F)	an assessment of the status and trends of water quality in lakes in
such State, including but not limited to, the nature and extent of
pollution loading from point and nonpoint sources and the extent to
which the use of lakes is impaired as a result of such pollution,
particularly with respect to toxic pollution.

(2)	Submission as Part 305(b)(1) Report. –  The information required
under paragraph (1) shall be included in the report required under
section 305(b)(1) of this Act, beginning with the report required under
such section by April 1, 1988.”

Section 106(e) requires States to include information on monitoring
activities implemented to evaluate the quality of surface waters and
ground water in the 305(b) reports:

“(e)	Beginning in fiscal year 1974 the Administrator shall not make
any grant under this section to any State which has not provided or is
not carrying out as a part of its program – 

(1)  the establishment and operation of the appropriate devices,
methods, systems, and procedures necessary to monitor, and to compile
and analyze data on (including classification according to eutrophic
condition), the quality of navigable waters and to the extent
practicable, ground waters including biological monitoring; and
provision for annually updating such data and including it in the report
required under section 305 of this Act;”

	2(b) USE / USERS OF THE DATA

The 305(b) reporting process is an essential component of the EPA water
pollution control program.  EPA’s Monitoring Branch of the Assessment
and Watershed Protection Division (AWPD) uses the State reports as the
principal information source for assessing nationwide water quality, the
progress made in maintaining and restoring water quality, and the extent
of remaining water pollution problems.  AWPD prepares the National Water
Quality Inventory Report to Congress and evaluates impacts of EPA’s
water pollution control programs with the information and data supplied
in the State 305(b) reports and the Assessment Database (ADB).  The
Office of Water uses the Report to Congress to target persistent and
emerging water quality problems with new initiatives and to improve or
eliminate ineffective programs.

The Watershed Branch of AWPD uses the information submitted under
Section 314 to evaluate and to report on trends in the status of lake
water quality in reports issued by the Section 314 Clean Lakes Program. 
AWPD also used the information for a variety of other purposes including
to assist in the management of lake projects funded under both Section
314 and 319 of the Clean Water Act.

 

In addition to AWPD, several branches within EPA utilize the ADB
database.  EPA Regional permit enforcement branches have used the ADB to
verify that State NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System) permits address causes and sources of pollution in degraded
waters.  Others, such as the Great Lakes Task Force, can use the ADB
database to summarize water pollution information by interstate and
interregional hydrological units.  Other agencies, including the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the U.S.
Department of Agriculture, have  used ADB data to summarize the extent
of water quality problems in coastal waters and the national extent of
watersheds impaired by agricultural nonpoint sources.  Also, the
respondents use the ADB and other assessment databases in their water
quality management programs to identify problem areas, track progress in
pollution control, and to set priorities.

The Watershed Branch of AWPD uses the information submitted under
Section 303(d) to track State progress in preparing TMDLs for
water-quality limited waters still requiring TMDLs. Consistent with the
requirements of Section 303(d), the Watershed Branch of AWPD and its
Regional counterparts review the Section 303(d) lists submitted by the
States to review whether they comply with the requirements of the
statute and EPA’s regulations and reflect an accurate State-by-State
accounting of waters not meeting water quality standards (WQS) after the
application of technology-based controls. Also as required by Section
303(d), EPA reviews TMDLs developed and submitted by the States to
determine their technical sufficiency and whether they otherwise comply
with the requirements of Section 303(d) and the EPA regulations. 

3.	THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED

3(a)	RESPONDENTS / SIC CODES

The respondent community for 305(b) reporting consists of 50 States, the
District of Columbia, 5 Territories (Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands,
Guam, American Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands), and 3 River
Basin Commissions.  The Ohio River Valley Sanitation Commission, the
Delaware River Basin Commission, and the Interstate Sanitation
Commission have jurisdiction over basins that lie in multiple States for
the purposes of 305(b) reporting only.  Indian Tribes are exempt from
the 305(b) reporting requirement, but some Tribes choose to participate
as a way of presenting assessments and water quality issues to the
public and Congress.  One Tribe or Tribal Group prepared 305(b) reports
in 1996 -97.  However, since Tribal 305(b) reporting is a voluntary
effort, it is not included in the burden estimates for this ICR.  The
SIC code for respondents is 9511 (Administration of Environmental
Quality Programs: Air and Water Resources and Solid Waste Management).  

The respondent community for 303(d) activities consists of 50 States,
the District of Columbia, and 5 Territories (Puerto Rico, the Virgin
Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands).2  The
SIC code for respondents is 9511 (Administration of Environmental
Quality Programs: Air and Water Resources and Solid Waste Management).
Although Indian Tribes can be authorized to meet 303(d) requirements,
none are currently authorized nor have applied for authorization.
Further, very few Tribes have established water quality standards, and
EPA is currently in the process of preparing standards where they are
needed. Therefore, we assume that there would no burden to Indian Tribes
over the period covered by this ICR for 303(d) activities.

In summary, there are 56 respondents for 303(d) activities (including
TMDL development activities) and 59 respondents for 303(b) reporting (56
respondents, plus 3 River Basins with only 305(b) reporting
requirements).

3(b)	INFORMATION REQUESTED

	(i)	Data Items

The 305(b) report can serve as an “umbrella” to encompass a broad
range of information and data on water quality required by the CWA.  The
respondents will report on the following items in their 305(b) reports
(the CWA section requiring each item is highlighted in brackets):

1.	A description of the State’s water quality [Section 305(b)(1)(A)]. 
Respondents will include both narrative descriptions and numerical
summary tables for this item, as specified in EPA’s Guidance for 2004
Assessment, Listing and Reporting Requirements Pursuant to Sections
303(d) and 305(b) of the Clean Water Act” July 21, 2003  EPA requests
that the States describe water quality in terms of the degree of support
of beneficial uses (e.g., aquatic life use, swimming use, drinking water
supply use).  CWA Section 303(c)  requires States to designate standards
(comprised of beneficial uses paired with criteria for attaining each
use) to all navigable waters of the State.  Each beneficial use has its
own criteria for defining the degree of support (i.e., whether the water
is fully supporting  a beneficial use or impaired for that use).  For
example, a State aquatic life criterion for selenium might be “no
greater than a concentration of 20 micrograms per liter" while the
drinking water criterion for selenium might be "no greater than 50
micrograms per liter.”  In this State, a water with consistent
selenium concentrations of  40 micrograms per liter could fully support
the drinking water use but not the aquatic life use.  

  

		2.	An analysis of attainment of the CWA fishable and swimmable goals
[Section 305(b)(1)(B)].  The fishable goal strives for the protection
and propagation of a balanced population of shellfish, fish and wildlife
in the nation’s navigable waters.  The swimmable goal seeks water
quality that can support safe recreational use in and on the nation’s
waters.  To minimize duplication of effort, EPA requests that States
define attainment of the CWA fishable and swimmable goals in terms of
support of beneficial uses.  As a result, States can satisfy CWA goal
reporting requirements while describing beneficial use support.

		3.	Recommendations of additional actions needed to achieve the
fishable and swimmable goals of the CWA, and a list of the waters where
additional actions are needed [Section 305(b)(1)(C)].  EPA requests that
States define waters needing additional action as those waters partially
supporting, not supporting, or unable to attain their beneficial uses. 
To identify additional actions needed to meet the goals of the CWA, EPA
requests that the States identify and list the pollutants causing less
than full support of beneficial uses (e.g., dissolved oxygen, pH,
temperature, toxic contaminants), and the sources of pollutants causing
less than full support (e.g., municipal point sources, combined sewer
overflows, agricultural runoff, urban runoff).

		4.	An estimate of the environmental impact, the benefits and economic
and social costs of achieving the CWA goals in the State, and an
estimate of the date when the State will achieve the goals [Section
305(b)(1)(D)].  The EPA recognizes that this information may not be
readily available due to the complexities of the analyses involved. 
Therefore, respondents provide information (to the extent possible) on
the costs of pollution control activities, capital investment in
municipal and industrial facilities (including the costs of operating
these facilities), and the costs of administering State and local water
pollution control activities.  Respondents also provide, if possible,
information on the beneficial actions taken to maintain or improve water
quality conditions.

		5.	A description of nonpoint sources of pollutants degrading water
quality and recommendations for controlling each nonpoint source
category [Section 305(b)(1)(E)].  To minimize burden, EPA suggests that
States address this requirement by updating the nonpoint source
assessment reports required under Section 319 of the CWA.

		6.	A list of water-quality limited waters needing TMDLs [Section
303(d)(1)].  States are required to establish a priority ranking for
these waters taking into account the severity of the pollution problems
and the designated uses of each water.  In conformance with the CWA,
States apply individual approaches to assign priority to the order in
which TMDLs will be established for each identified water and targeted
for development during a specific period of time.

		7.	A list of publicly-owned lakes ranked by trophic status and a list
of significant publicly-owned lakes with impaired water quality,
including lakes affected by high acidity [Sections 314(a)(1)(A) and
314(a)(1)(E)].  Summary statistics on impaired and threatened lakes can
be reported separately or in conjunction with information on beneficial
use support for navigable waters described under item 1 above.

		8.	A description of methods implemented to control sources of
pollution and restore water quality in publicly-owned lakes [Sections
314(a)(1)(B) and 314(a)(1)(C)].

		9.	A description of methods to mitigate high acidity in lakes [Section
314(a)(1)(D)].

		10.	An assessment of the status and trends of lake water quality
[Section 314(a)(1)(F)].

		11.	A description of groundwater quality (in narrative and
quantitative form) [Section 106(e)].  EPA requests that States report on
trends in ground water indicators, developed by EPA with assistance from
the States.  EPA also requests that States submit a list of the major
sources of contamination and the substances causing groundwater
contamination.

		12.	A description of State monitoring programs designed to evaluate
surface water quality and groundwater quality [Section 106(e)].

					13.	Annual electronic datasets containing information for each
assessed water used to prepare the summary information in the items 1,
2, 3, 5, and 7 above.  These can be ADB datasets or datasets in a format
that EPA can convert electronically to ADB.  

Consistent with Section 303(d)(1), States submit to EPA for review and
approval/disapproval action a list of waters not attaining standards
after the application of technology-based controls. The statute requires
States to establish a priority ranking for these waters taking into
account the severity of the pollution problems and the designated uses
of each water. In conformance with the CWA, States apply individual
approaches to assign priority to the order in which TMDLs will be
established for each identified water.

Consistent with Section 303(d)(2), States establish TMDLs for waters not
meeting water quality standards as a result of pollutant discharges. A
TMDL is a written, quantitative assessment of water quality problems and
contributing pollutant sources. It specifies the amount that pollutant
loadings need to be reduced for the water to attain water quality
standards and allocates pollutant load reductions among sources in a
watershed. Section 303(d) requires States to submit TMDLs to EPA for
review and approval/disapproval action.	

	(ii)	Respondent Activities

During the period covered by this ICR renewal, the three respondents
with only 305(b) reporting requirements will complete their 2004 305(b)
reports and their 2006 305(b) reports.  The remaining 56 respondents
will complete their 2004 305(b) reports; their 2004 303(d) lists; their
2006 305(b) reports; and their 2006 303(d) lists, preferably in an
integrated report.  During this period, all 59 respondents will also
transmit annual electronic updates of their 305(b) databases in 2003
through 2006.  The 56 respondents with 303(d) responsibility will
continue to develop TMDLs according to their established schedules.  The
specific activities that respondents undertake as part of their 305(b)
and 303(d) programs are derived from an ongoing project among EPA,
States and other interested stakeholders to develop a tool for
estimating the States’ resource needs for State water quality
management programs.  This project has developed the State Water Quality
Management Workload Model (SWQMWM), which estimates and sums the
workload involved in more than one hundred activities or tasks
comprising a State water quality management program. For the purposes of
305(b) and 303(d) activities, EPA assumes that all respondents
(including territories and river basins) are adequately represented by
the level of needs reported by States in the SWQMWM.  According to the
SWQMWM, the States will carry out the following activities or tasks to
meet the 305(b) and 303(d) reporting requirements.  In general,
respondents have conducted each of these reporting and record keeping
activities for past 305(b) and 303(d) reporting cycles and thus have
staff and procedures in place to continue their 305(b) and 303(d)
reporting  programs.  

Activities for 56 Respondents with Both 305(b) and 303(d)
Responsibility:

		1. 	Review Regulations and Guidance for CWA 305(b) and CWA 303(d).

2. 	Plan and Coordinate Data Acquisition and Compile and Screen Data for
Assessments.  Specific activities include: planning data acquisition
strategy; issuing solicitation for data from other agencies,
universities, the public, etc.; developing data screening programs;
gathering and compiling appropriate data; and determining the
availability of sufficient data.			

3. 	Develop and Submit Complete 305(b) Report and Respond to EPA
Comments. Specific activities include:  internal circulation, review,
and revision of all aspects of the report prior to submission to EPA and
 information regarding the ability of each individual water (including
rivers and streams, lakes, estuaries, wetlands, and coastal and marine
waters) to meet its designated use.	

4.  	Develop, Review, and Update 303(d) Listing and De-Listing
Methodology. 

5.  	Prepare 303(d) List.  Specific activities include:  identifying
waters (including wetlands and coastal and marine waters), establishing
priorities, and determining schedules and targets.					

6.  	Conduct Public Participation Required for the 303(d) list. 
Specific activities include:  issuing public notice(s) and developing
responses to public comments on the list, priorities, and schedules.				

7.  	Submit 303(d) List to EPA and Respond to EPA Comments.

8.  	Prepare Annual Electronic Updates.  This activity includes
inputting geo-referenced assessment findings into the Assessment
Database (or a compatible format) and submitting that database to EPA on
an annual basis.

Activities for 3 Respondents with 305(b) Responsibility Only:

1. 	Review Regulations and Guidance for CWA 305(b) and CWA 303(d).

2. 	Plan and Coordinate Data Acquisition and Compile and Screen Data for
Assessments.  Specific activities include: planning data acquisition
strategy; issuing solicitation for data from other agencies,
universities, the public, etc.; developing data screening programs;
gathering and compiling appropriate data; and determining the
availability of sufficient data.			

3. 	Develop and Submit Complete 305(b) Report and Respond to EPA
Comments. Specific activities include:  internal circulation, review,
and revision of all aspects of the report prior to submission to EPA and
 information regarding the ability of each individual water (including
rivers and streams, lakes, estuaries, wetlands, and coastal and marine
waters) to meet its designated use.	

8.  	Prepare Annual Electronic Updates.  This activity includes
inputting geo-referenced assessment findings into the Assessment
Database (or a compatible format) and submitting that database to EPA on
an annual basis.

An additional activity not included in the SWQMWM involves an enhanced
assessment of the benefits and costs of achieving water quality goals. 
The program requires that the 305(b) biennial water quality reports
include an estimate of the environmental impact, the benefits and
economic and social costs of achieving the CWA goals in the State, and
an estimate of the date when the State will achieve the goals. In
previous ICRs, EPA has recognized that this information may not be
readily available due to the complexities of the analysis involved.
Therefore, respondents provide information (to the extent possible) on
the costs of pollution control activities, capital investment in
municipal and industrial facilities (including the cost of operating
these facilities), and the costs of administering State and local water
pollution control activities. Respondents also provide, if possible,
information on the beneficial actions taken to maintain or improve water
quality conditions. As a Term of Clearance for a previous ICR (1560.05),
OMB has required that an estimate be made of the burden that would be
associated with all States estimating costs and benefits for achieving
WQS.  These activities, which had been planned to take place in the
period of 1999 - 2002, have not yet been implemented pending revisions
to the program.  These activities are expected to resume within the next
few years and are included in this ICR.  Thus, this ICR estimates the
burden to the Agency of providing respondents with data, methods,
templates and workshops for use in estimating costs and benefits
(consistent with Section 305(b)(1)(D)), and the burden to all 59
respondents of applying this guidance to improve their estimates.

In addition, 56 respondents with 303(d) responsibilities will conduct
activities associated with TMDL development.  The activities associated
with TMDL development have been analyzed in detail as part of the EPA
draft report, The National Costs to Develop TMDLs (Draft Report):
Support Document #1 (July 31, 2001).  These activities have been adapted
for the current ICR as detailed in Appendix C.  As described in Appendix
C, respondents will engage in the following activities to develop a TMDL
under the current 303(d) program.

1. 	Watershed characterization.  Compile available information, create
database or electronic files, review available information, and select
the technical approach.

2. 	Modeling and analysis.  Select final model, model setup and
calibration.  Evaluate existing conditions.

3. 	Allocation analysis.  Evaluate allocation scenarios and select final
allocation.

4. 	Development of TMDL document for public review.  Prepare technical
report documenting analysis and assumptions.  Document the TMDL (i.e.,
Waste Load Allocation (WLA), Load Allocation (LA), loading capacity,
margin of safety, seasonality).  Prepare administrative record.

5. 	Public outreach.  Public meetings and dissemination of information
prior to TMDL submittal.

6. 	Formal public participation.  Announcement of TMDL and formal public
meeting.

7. 	Tracking, planning, legal support, etc.  Miscellaneous tasks needed
to support TMDL development.

The burden associated with these tasks under the program is estimated in
this ICR for the total number of TMDLs that may be submitted during the
period covered by this ICR.

4.	THE INFORMATION COLLECTED -- AGENCY ACTIVITIES COLLECTION
METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT

	4(a)	AGENCY ACTIVITIES

		1.	Revise the 305(b) guidance document for distribution to the
respondents. The guidance document provides essential instructions to
the respondents on the organization, format, and content of the 305(b)
reports. The guidance encourages the States to submit information in a
consistent format which enables EPA to extract and summarize State
information for the Report to Congress.  EPA’s most recent guidance
document covers State 305(b) reports due in 2002.

		2.	Prepare the National Water Quality Inventory Report to Congress.
AWPD will biennially consolidate the water quality assessment
information contained in the State 305(b) reports and electronic updates
into the Report to Congress.  AWPD references additional sources which
are readily accessible such as the EPA National Listing of Fish
Consumption Advisories.  The next 2 Reports to Congress covered by this
ICR will be submitted in 2003 and 2005. 

		3.	Review the draft 305(b) reports.   EPA Headquarters staff and
Regional 305(b) Coordinators will review the draft submittals
biennially. The 303(d) lists of waters needing TMDLs will be forwarded
to the Regional 303(d) Coordinators for review.

4.	Review the final 305(b) reports.   Headquarters and Regional
personnel review the final 305(b) reports and electronic updates
biennially.

		5.	Review the annual electronic updates.   Headquarters and Regional
personnel review the  electronic updates of State databases for data
quality and completeness and provide feedback to the States, and
incorporate these data into the national ADB files.  The national ADB
files will be used in preparation of the Reports to Congress.

		6.	Provide assistance to the States in implementing the ADB indexing. 
EPA has provided technical support to States and other respondents for
implementing 305(b) assessment databases for over 10 years.  Initially,
the States needed extensive assistance to utilize the ADB database. In
1998, EPA upgraded the ADB to a user-friendly format and developed
on-screen tutorials, thereby reducing the need for direct user-support.
EPA is dedicated to simplifying and restricting further changes to the
ADB to only those improvements which will address needs specified by ADB
users and the 305(b) guidance document.  Since 1994, EPA also has
provided technical support to States for linking their 305(b) databases
to the EPA Reach File.  This support enables States to generate maps and
do other spacial analyses (e.g., summarize data at the watershed and
reach level).  EPA will continue this support, although at a reduced
level as many States have fully linked their 305(b) databases to the EPA
Reach File.

		7.	Maintain the ADB database.  Maintenance activities include
preparation of user manuals; running quality control checks on
respondent datasets, and programming improvements to the ADB.  Other
activities include transferring electronic updates of State databases
into the national ADB files.  These national ADB files will be used in
preparation of the Reports to Congress to document types and locations
of water quality impairment and will be available to the public via the
web.

8.	Prepare 303(d) guidance. 

9.	Provide technical assistance to States for 303(d) listing.

10.	Review draft 303(d) lists.

11.	Review final 303(d) lists and resolve disapprovals.

In conformance with OMB’s Terms of Clearance for the current approved
ICR, this ICR includes the additional burden to the Agency associated
with developing guidance for States to use in estimating for their
305(b) biennial water quality reports, the benefits and economic and
social costs of achieving the CWA goals in the State.

With regard to TMDL submitted to EPA for approval: EPA must review and
act on the TMDL submissions within 30 days of the State submission and,
if it disapproves a State TMDL, EPA must issue a TMDL for the State
within 30 days of its disapproval.

	4(b)	COLLECTION METHODOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT

The respondents will submit their 305(b) and 303(d) reports in either
hard copy or electronic formats. The respondents will also submit their
use support information and 303(d) lists in a ADB-compatible format. EPA
developed the ADB to reduce the respondent burden associated with
summarizing use support information. The ADB also automates national
summaries needed to prepare the Report to Congress. The respondents may
submit their water-specific information by computerized data transfer or
by submitting their data on diskette to the Regional ADB Coordinator.

The States submit the Section 303(d) lists and priority rankings to the
EPA Regions. The Regions review the State submissions and then issue a
decision document approving or disapproving the State list. If EPA
disapproves a State list, it must issue a public notice identifying the
waters it is proposing to add to the State list.  In addition, States
must submit each completed TMDL to the EPA Regions for review and
action. If EPA disapproves the State submission, it must establish the
TMDL for the State.

The public can obtain a copy of the Report to Congress from the AWPD in
the EPA Office of Water. The public can obtain a copy of the 305(b)
reports from the State contacts or from the EPA Regional 305(b)
Coordinators, all of which will be listed in the Report to Congress. 

	4(c)	SMALL ENTITY FLEXIBILITY

This section is not applicable because the respondents are States and
Territories which are not small businesses or organizations as defined
by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. Sections 601 (3) and (4).

	4(d)	COLLECTION SCHEDULE

	July 2003		AWPD revises Integrated Reporting Guidance for preparation
of the State 305(b) and 303(d) reports.

	December 2003 	AWPD publishes the 2002 Water Quality Inventory Report
to Congress.

	April 2004		States, Territories, and Commissions submit final 2004
Integrated 305(b) and 303(d) reports to EPA and transmit annual
electronic updates.

			April 2005	Respondents transmit interim annual electronic updates. 

	December 2005	AWPD publishes the 2004 Water Quality Inventory Report to
Congress.

April 2006	States, Territories, and Commissions submit final 2006
Integrated 305(b) and 303(d) reports to EPA and transmit annual
electronic updates.

Ongoing	TMDL development and review

States are required to develop TMDLs consistent with the State schedule
and submit the TMDLs to EPA for review and approval/disapproval action.

5.	NONDUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS. AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA

	5(a)	NONDUPLICATION

The State 305(b) reports are the only direct vehicle for transmitting
water quality information between the States and EPA.  Although other
programs generate raw water quality data, the 305(b) reports are the
only information collection mechanism for obtaining beneficial use
support assessments.  Without the State 305(b) reports, EPA could not
report to Congress on national attainment of beneficial uses, as
required in the CWA.

The Section 303(d) lists are the only State-by-State public accounting
and ranking of waters not meeting water quality standards after the
application of technology-based controls. Under Section 303(d), States
must submit the Section 303(d) lists to EPA for review and
approval/disapproval action. TMDLs are a unique and valuable tool that
quantifies the maximum amount of a pollutant that a water can absorb and
still meet water quality standards. They specify the amount that
pollutant loadings need to be reduced for the water to attain water
quality standards and allocate pollutant load reductions among sources
in a watershed. Section 303(d) also requires EPA to review and approve
or disapprove State-submitted TMDLs.

5(b)	PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED PRIOR TO ICR SUBMISSION TO OMB

On May 21, 2003, a Federal Register notice (65 FR 27793), required under
5 CFR 1320.8(d), solicited comments on this collection of information. 
No comments were received.

	5(c)	CONSULTATIONS

The EPA convened a 305(b) Workgroup to review and revise the EPA
guidance for preparation of the State 305(b) reports.  The Workgroup
consists of representatives from 25 States, one Territory, three Indian
Tribes or Tribal Groups, one Interstate River Basin Commission, 10 EPA
Regions, EPA Headquarters program offices, and 5 other federal agencies
(see Attachment 2 for a complete list of the Workgroup members). EPA
consults with the Workgroup about the 305(b) report contents at least
once each year.  During 1997 and 1998, EPA met with the Workgroup and
provided training on the guidelines in nine EPA regions.

EPA also distributes the draft 305(b) guidance to all respondents for
comment before issuing the final guidance. EPA solicits comments on the
draft guidance from other Federal agencies, both within and beyond EPA.

	5(d)	EFFECTS OF LESS FREQUENT COLLECTION

The biennial frequency of the collection is mandated by Section
305(b)(1) of the CWA. Section 305(b) originally required respondents to
submit water quality reports on an annual basis. In 1977, the annual
requirement was amended to a biennial requirement in the CWA.  EPA has
determined that abbreviated reporting for hard-copy 305(b) reports,
combined with annual electronic reporting using respondent databases,
will meet the CWA reporting requirements while reducing burden to
respondents.  This change has the support of the 305(b) Consistency
Workgroup. The biennial period with annual electronic reporting ensures
that information needed for analysis and water program decisions is
reasonably current, yet abbreviated reporting requirements provides
respondents with sufficient time to prepare the reports.  Less frequent
collection would result in a declining level of State and EPA water
quality analyses because they would be based on outdated information.

	5(e)	GENERAL GUIDELINES

The proposed activities (i.e., collection of the State 305(b) reports
and 303(d) lists, preparation of the summary Report to Congress,
development and review of TMDLs, and preparation of the 305(b) guidance
document) do not include any information collection activities that
exceed Paperwork Reduction Act-imposed guidelines.

Information is not collected more often than quarterly.

Responses are not required in less than 30 days.

Respondents are not required to submit more than one original and two
copies of any document.

The collection does not provide for renumeration of respondents.

The collection does not require records to be kept for more than three
years.

The collection is not in conjunction with a statistical survey.

Provisions for small businesses and other small entities are
appropriate.

Confidentiality is protected.

The collection does not require submission of information in a format
other than that in which it is customarily maintained.

Regarding recordkeeping, EPA considers it appropriate that respondents
keep copies of their 305(b) reports and annual electronic updates for a
period of 3 years from the date they are transmitted to EPA.

	

5(f)	CONFIDENTIALITY AND SENSITIVE QUESTIONS

	(i)	Confidentiality

Information collected through the proposed activities is not
confidential because all respondents are State agencies, Territorial
agencies, Tribes, and public commissions working entirely in a public
forum.

		(ii)	Sensitive Questions

The proposed information collection activities do not request
information of a sensitive nature from the State respondents.

6.	ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION

6(a)	ESTIMATING RESPONDENT BURDEN

For current 305(b) and 303(d) reporting activities, the primary source
we use in estimating burden is the State Water Quality Management
Workload Model (SWQMWM), which estimates and sums the workload involved
in more than one hundred activities or tasks comprising a State water
quality management program.

The SWQMWM is designed to allow a State to enter its own values for
workload to be accomplished, FTE hours required to perform tasks, and
the average State salary per FTE hour.  Roughly half of the States thus
far have entered their own data and used the model to develop their own
estimate of their program “needs”.  As of April, 2002, 20 States had
used the model comprehensively, estimating their task-by-task needs for
performing all activities.  According to the report on the model,
“Though only one-third of States have submitted data, these States
provide a representative cross-section of State water quality programs. 
Participating States include large, medium, and small States; have a
great deal of geographic diversity; and face a wide spectrum of water
quality issues.”3  For this analysis, we use the average “need”
for a given task, estimated across these 20 States, as our estimate for
the burden required for a typical respondent to perform this task.

Based on estimates derived from SWQMWM inputs, the average annual burden
per respondent for the 3 respondents that only have 305(b)
responsibility only is 2,969 hours.  The current burden for the 56
respondents with both 305(b) and 303(d) responsibilities is 6,491 hours
for both 305(b) and 303(d) reporting activities.  Worksheet 1 displays a
summary of the burden estimates and Appendix B provides details of the
calculations.

The SWQMWM does not include need estimates for one activity, an enhanced
assessment of the benefits and costs of achieving water quality goals. 
The additional burden for respondents to assess the costs and benefits
of achieving water quality standards depends on the level of detail and
sophistication that the respondents choose to provide as well as factors
such as the number of impaired waters, the diversity of water resources,
and the intensity of use of those resources. Appendix B details the
estimate of the burden associated with the enhanced benefit cost
analysis, resulting in an average increase in respondent burden of 690
hours annually.

Thus, the total annual reporting burden for the 3 respondents with
305(b) responsibilities only is estimated at 3,659 hours (2,969 + 690). 
The total annual reporting burden for the 56 respondents with both
305(b) and 303(d) responsibilities is 7,181 hours (6,491 + 690).  The
total annual burden for 305(b) and 303(d) reporting activities for all
respondents is 413,113 hours (3 @ 3,659 hours + 56 @ 7,181  hours).

We use a separate analysis to estimate the burden associated with
current TMDL development because the number and pace of TMDL development
varies greatly from State to State so that average responses in the
SWQMWM were thought to be inappropriate.  Instead, information from The
National Costs to Develop TMDLs (Draft Report): Support Document #1 is
updated to reflect current TMDL schedules.  Based on estimates of the
number of TMDLs per year (4,000), the total average current burden
associated with developing TMDLs under the current 303(d) program is
estimated to be 59,409 hours per respondent for the 56 respondents with
303(d) responsibility, and the total annual burden for all 56
respondents is estimated to be 3,326,904 hours.  The derivation of these
values is detailed in Appendix C.

Therefore, the total annual reporting burden for the 3 respondents with
305(b) responsibilities only is estimated at 10,977 hours (3@3659).  The
total annual reporting burden for the other 56 respondents with both
305(b) and 303(d) including TMDL development responsibilities is
3,729,040 (56@7181 + 56@59,409).  Finally, the total annual burden for
305(b) and 303(d) reporting activities for all respondents is 3,740,017
(10,977 + 3,729,040).

	6(b) ESTIMATING RESPONDENT COSTS

To estimate respondent costs, we applied an average fully loaded cost
per hour to the burden estimates in Worksheet 1.  As part of the SWQMWM
development, States indicated the default value for a fully loaded labor
rate for a “typical” or “average” State.  This fully loaded
hourly labor rate represents the total cost for obtaining an hour’s
worth of work, and includes: direct salary paid, paid or accrued
vacation, paid or accrued sick leave, cost of other fringe benefits
(e.g., health, pension, etc.), general training, indirect expenses such
as professional support (e.g., clerical, accounting, supervisory, etc.),
office space, utilities, telephone service, equipment (e.g., fax
machines, basic computing needs such as hardware and software, etc.),
etc.. This rate does not include the costs associated with computer
maintenance, support or periodic upgrades of hardware or software.  The
“typical” loaded labor rate identified in the SWQMWM is $38.89 per
hour ($70,000/1,800 hours).  The model default values were finalized at
a meeting in February 2000 and are assumed to represent that time
period.  We update the default labor rate to reflect the current time
period by a factor of 1.068 4 to derive a typical fully loaded labor
rate of $41.53 per hour.  This value is used to estimate respondent
costs in Worksheet 2. 

The average annual cost to each respondent for current 305(b) and 303(d)
reporting (including the enhanced benefit cost activities) is estimated
to be $298,227 for the 56 respondents with 305(b) and 303(d)
responsibilities.  The average annual cost to the 3 respondents with
305(b) responsibility is $151,959.  The total annual costs imposed on
all 59 respondents is estimated to be $17,156,583.  

Average annual respondent costs for current TMDL development is
estimated at $2,467,256 per respondent for the 56 respondents with
303(d) responsibilities, and $138,166,323 for all 56 respondents
(Worksheet 2). 

Therefore the total annual cost for all respondents is $155,322,906.

	6(c) ESTIMATING AGENCY BURDEN AND COST

Agency burden estimates are presented in Worksheet 3 and Agency cost
estimates are presented in Worksheet 4. The derivation of these
estimates is explained in detail in Appendix B.  The burden estimates
are based on AWPD’s prior experience in developing 305(b) and 303(d)
guidance, preparing the Report to Congress, providing technical support
to respondents, maintaining the ADB, and reviewing and
approving/disapproving 303(d) lists and TMDL submissions. The hourly
cost estimates were calculated for a technical federal position, Grade
10 Step 7 effective as of January 2003 ($22.49 per hour). The total
costs are based upon an overhead rate of 110 percent.  The average
annual Agency burden for 305(b) and 303(d) reporting activities is
estimated at 9,089 hours at a cost of $456,774.  

The cost of the Agency’s additional burden to develop new guidance
required by States to improve their estimates of the benefits and costs
of achieving WQS is estimated at approximately $300,000 which would be
incurred during 2004 and 2005. Over the 3-year period of this ICR, the
annual cost would be $100,000 which translates into a burden of 2,117
hours annually. 

The annual average Agency burden and costs for TMDL review is 11,200
hours and $528,976.

	6(d) BOTTOM LINE BURDEN HOURS AND COSTS / MASTER TABLE

	(i) Respondent Tally

		Annual Burden	3,740,017 hours per year

		Annual Costs 	$155,322,906 per year

	(ii) Agency Tally

		Annual Burden	22,406 hours per year

		Annual Costs 	$1,085,750 per year

	6(e) REASONS FOR CHANGE IN BURDEN

Changes in Burden for 305(b) and 303(d) reporting: The total annual
respondent burden for 305(b) and 303(d) reporting has increased from ICR
1560.05 and 1560.06 due to improved estimates of respondent activity. 
The increase in respondent burden is due to using the SWQMWM responses
as an estimate of burden rather than previously derived estimates.  In
general, using the SWQMWM responses may result in an overestimate of
respondent burden because the responses represent estimates of State
need to fulfill program activities, rather than actual spending.  

Changes in Burden for TMDL development: The respondent burden associated
with TMDL development was originally reported in ICR 1560.06.  The
respondent burden has decreased compared to ICR 1560.6 from 68,577 hours
per year to 59,409 hours per year due to an updated assessment of TMDL
pace and scheduling.

Changes in Burden for due to July 2000 Rule: ICR 1560.06 included an
estimate of the incremental burden associated with the revised 303(d)
rule requirements under the TMDL Rule of July 2000.  The burden of 6,497
per respondent is not included in this ICR due to EPA’s withdrawal of
the proposed rule on March 19, 2003.

The net result of these changes is a reduction in the respondent burden
of 749,130 hours per year.  The estimate of agency burden increased
slightly by 4,562 hours per year due to increased estimate of TMDL
review activity.

	6(f) BURDEN STATEMENT

Respondent reporting burden for this collection of information is
estimated to average 66,590 hours per year per respondent for the 56
respondents with both 305(b) and 303(d) responsibilities for existing
305(b) and 303(d) reporting activities and TMDL development activities. 
The average burden for the 3 respondents with 305(b) responsibilities
only is estimated at 3,659 hours per year for 305(b) reporting
activities.  Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency.  This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply
with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train
personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search
data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and
transmit or otherwise disclose the information.  An agency may not
conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a
collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number.  The OMB control numbers for EPA’s regulations are
listed in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15.  

To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of
the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing
respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques,
EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No.
Ow-2003-0026, which is available for public viewing at the Water Docket
in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301
Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public
Reading Room  is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays.  The telephone number for the Reading
Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Water Docket is
(202) 566-2426).  An electronic version of the public docket is
available through EPA Dockets (EDOCKET) at http://www.epa.gov/edocket. 
Use EDOCKET to submit or view public comments, access the index listing
of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in
the public docket that are available electronically.  Once in the
system, select “search,” then key in the docket ID number identified
above.  Also, you can send comments to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street,
NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA.  Please
include the EPA Docket ID No.  (OW-2003-0026) and OMB Control Number
(2040-0071) in any correspondence. 

PART B:   COLLECTIONS OF INFORMATION EMPLOYING STATISTICAL METHODS

	This section is not applicable because no statistical procedures are
employed for the information collection.

Worksheet 1:  Burden Estimates for Individual Respondents (See
Appendix B & C for Derivation)

	Burden by Year (Hours)	3-Year	Annual Average

Respondent Activities	Year 1 

(8/03 - 7/04)	Year 2 

(8/04 - 7/05)	Year 3 

(8/05 - 7/06)	Total

 (8/03 - 7/06)	Total	Per Respondent

305(b) and 303(d) Reporting Activities

	Existing Program Activities

1.    Review regs and guidance	7,434 	7,434	7,434	22,302	7,434	126

2.    Plan and coordinate data acquisition	65,490 	65,490	65,490	196,470
65,490	1,110

3.    Develop/submit 305(b) report and respond to comments	83,013 
83,013	83,013	249,039	83,013	1,407

4.    Develop, review and update 303(d) listing methodology	46,536 
46,536	46,536	139,608	46,536	831

5.    Prepare 303(d) list 	123,648 	123,648	123,648	370,944	123,648
2,208

6.    Required public outreach for 303(d) list	14,840 	14,840	14,840
44,520	14,840	265

7.    Submission of 303(d) list and response to EPA comments	12,208 
12,208	12,208	36,624	12,208	218

8.    Prepare annual electronic updates	19,234 	19,234	19,234	57,702
19,234	326

9.    Implement enhanced benefit cost of WQS	40,710	40,710	40,710
122,130	40,710	690

Total for 305(b) and 303(d) Reporting Activities		413,113	413,113
413,113	1,239,339	413,113	7,181

TMDL Activities

	Existing Program Activities

TMDL Development Activities	3,326,904	3,326,904	3,326,904	9,980,712
3,326,904	59,409

Total for TMDL Activities	

		3,326,904	3,326,904	3,326,904	9,980,712	3,326,904	59,409

Total Burden for Existing Program Activities	3,740,017	3,740,017
3,740,017	11,220,051	3,740,017	66,590

	Note: The 3 respondents with 305(b) responsibilities only engage is
reporting activities numbered 1, 2, 3, 8, and 9.

Worksheet 2: Cost Estimates for Individual Respondents (Based on a
loaded hourly rate of $41.53 per hour) 

	Burden by Year (Hours)	3-Year	Annual Average

Respondent Activities	Year 1 

(8/03 - 7/04)	Year 2 

(8/04 - 7/05)	Year 3 

(8/05 - 7/06)	Total

 (8/03 - 7/06	Total	Per Respondent

305(b) and 303(d) Reporting Activities

1.    Review regs and guidance	$308,734	$308,734	$308,734	$926,202
$308,734	$5,233

2.    Plan and coordinate data acquisition	$2,719,800	$2,719,800
$2,719,800	$8,159,399	$2,719,800	$46,098

3.    Develop/submit 305(b) report and respond to comments	$3,447,530
$3,447,530	$3,447,530	$10,342,590	$3,447,530	$58,433

4.    Develop, review and update 303(d) listing methodology	$1,932,640
$1,932,640	$1,932,640	$5,797,920	$1,932,640	$34,511

5.    Prepare 303(d) list 	$5,135,101	$5,135,101	$5,135,101	$15,405,304
$5,135,101	$91,698

6.    Required public outreach for 303(d) list	$616,305	$616,305
$616,305	$1,848,916	$616,305	$11,005

7.    Submission of 303(d) list and response to EPA comments	$506,998
$506,998	$506,998	$1,520,995	$506,998	$9,054

8.    Prepare annual electronic updates	$798,788	$798,788	$798,788
$2,396,364	$798,788	$13,539

9.    Implement enhanced benefit cost of WQS	$1,690,686	$1,690,686
$1,690,686	$5,072,059	$1,690,686	$28,656

Total for 305(b) and 303(d) Reporting Activities	$17,156,583	$17,156,583
$17,156,583	$51,469,749	$17,156,583	$298,227

TMDL Activities

TMDL Development Activities	$138,166,323	$138,166,323	$138,166,323
$414,498,969	$138,166,323	$2,467,256

Total for TMDL Activities			$138,166,323	$138,166,323	$138,166,323
$414,498,969	$138,166,323	$2,467,256

Total Burden for Existing Program Activities	$155,322,906	$155,322,906
$155,322,906	$465,968,718	$155,322,906	$2,765,483

Note: The 3 respondents with 305(b) responsibilities only engage is
reporting activities numbered 1, 2, 3, 8, and 9.

Worksheet 3: Estimates of Agency Burden (See Appendix B for Derivation)

	Burden by Year (Hours)	3-Year	Annual Average

Respondent Activities	Year 1

(8/03 - 7/04)	Year 2

(8/04 - 7/05)	Year 3

(8/05 - 7/06)	Total

 (8/03 - 7/06	Total	Per Respondent

305(b) and 303(d) Reporting Activities

1.   Write 305(b) guidance	40	40	40	120	40	N/A

2.   Prepare Report to Congress	2,080 	2,080	2,080	6,240	2,080	N/A

3.   Review draft 305(b) reports	590 	590	590	1,770	590	N/A

4.   Review final 305(b) reports	177	177	177	531	177	N/A

5.   Review annual electronic updates of State databases	800 	800	800
2,400	800	N/A

6.   Assist States with ADB indexing	3,328 	3,328	3,328	9,984	3,328	N/A

7.   Maintain national ADB database	1,040 	1,040	1,040	3,120	1,040	N/A

8.   Prepare 303(d) guidance	62 	62	62	186	62	N/A

9.  Provide technical assistance to States for 303(d)	236 	236	236	708
236	N/A

10.  Review draft 303(d) lists	236 	236	236	708	236	N/A

11.  Review final 303(d) lists and resolve disapprovals	500 	500	500
1,500	500	N/A

12.  Guidance on enhanced benefit cost analysis	2,117	2,117	2,117	6,352
2,117	N/A

Total for 305(b) and 303(d) Reporting Activities			11,206	11,206	11,206
33,619	11,206	N/A

TMDL Activities

Review TMDLs and send notices to States	11,200	11,200	11,200	33,600
11,200	N/A

Total for TMDL Activities	11,200	11,200	11,200	33,600	11,200	N/A

Total Burden for Existing Program Activities		22,406	22,406	22,406
67,219	22,406	N/A

Worksheet 4: Estimates of Agency Cost (Based on an Average Loaded
Hourly Rate of $47.23) 

	Burden Per Year (Hours)	3-Year	Annual Average

Respondent Activities	Year 1

(8/03 - 7/04)	Year 2

(8/04 - 7/05)	Year 3

(8/05 - 7/06)	Total

 (8/03 - 7/06	Total	Per Respondent

305(b) and 303(d) Reporting Activities

1.   Write 305(b) guidance	$1,889	$1,889	$1,889	$5,667	$1,889	N/A

2.   Prepare Report to Congress	$125,736	$125,736	$125,736	$377,209
$125,736	N/A

3.   Review draft 305(b) reports	$27,865	$27,865	$27,865	$83,595	$27,865
N/A

4.   Review final 305(b) reports	$8,360	$8,360	$8,360	$25,079	$8,360	N/A

5.   Review annual electronic updates of State databases	$37,783	$37,783
$37,783	$113,350	$37,783	N/A

6.   Assist States with ADB indexing	$157,178	$157,178	$157,178	$471,534
$157,178	N/A

7.   Maintain national ADB database	$49,118	$49,118	$49,118	$147,354
$49,118	N/A

8.   Prepare 303(d) guidance	$2,928	$2,928	$2,928	$8,785	$2,928	N/A

9.  Provide technical assistance to States for 303(d)	$11,146	$11,146
$11,146	$33,438	$11,146	N/A

10.  Review draft 303(d) lists	$11,146	$11,146	$11,146	$33,438	$11,146
N/A

11.  Review final 303(d) lists and resolve disapprovals	$23,615	$23,615
$23,615	$70,844	$23,615	N/A

12.  Guidance on enhanced benefit cost analysis	$100,000	$100,000
$100,000	$300,000	$100,000	N/A

Total for 305(b) and 303(d) Reporting Activities	$556,774	$556,774
$556,774	$1,670,321	$556,774	N/A

TMDL Activities

Review TMDLs and send notices to States	$528,976	$528,976	$528,976
$1,586,928	$528,976	N/A

Total for TMDL Activities	$528,976	$528,976	$528,976	$1,586,928	$528,976
N/A

Total Burden for Existing Program Activities	17,818	$1,085,750
$1,085,750	$1,085,750	$3,257,249	$1,085,750	N/A



APPENDIX A: LANGUAGE OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT

Section 303(d)

(1)(A)	Each State shall identify those waters within its boundaries for
which the effluent limitations required by section 301(b)(1)(A) and
section 301(b)(1)(B) are not stringent enough to implement any water
quality standard applicable to such waters.  The State shall establish a
priority ranking for such waters, taking into account the severity of
the pollution and the uses to be made of such waters.

(B)	Each State shall identify those waters or parts thereof within its
boundaries for which controls on thermal discharges under section 301
are not stringent enough to assure protection and propagation of a
balanced indigenous population of shellfish, fish, and wildlife.

C)	Each State shall establish for the waters identified in paragraph
(1)(A) of this subsection, and in accordance with the priority ranking,
the total maximum daily load, for those pollutants which the
Administrator identifies under section 304(a)(2) as suitable for
calculation.  Such load shall be established at a level necessary to
implement the applicable water quality standards with seasonal
variations and a margin of safety which takes into account any lack of
knowledge concerning the relationship between effluent limitations and
water quality.

(D)	Each State shall estimate for the waters identified in paragraph
(1)(B) of this subsection the total maximum daily thermal load required
to assure protection and propagation of a balanced, indigenous
population of shellfish, fish, and wildlife...

(2)	Each State shall submit to the Administrator, from time to time,
with the first submission not later than one hundred and eighty days
after the date of publication of the first identification of pollutants
under section 304(a)(2)(D), for his approval the waters identified and
the loads established under paragraphs (1)(A), (1)(B), (1)(C), and
(1)(D) of this subsection..

Section 305(b):

(1)	Each State shall prepare and submit to the Administrator by April 1,
1975, and shall bring up to date by April 1, 1976, and biennially
thereafter, a report which shall include -

(A)	a description of the water quality of all navigable waters in such
State during the preceding year, with appropriate supplemental
descriptions as shall be required to take into account seasonal, tidal,
and other variations, correlated with the quality of water required by
the objective of this Act (as identified by the Administrator pursuant
to criteria published under section 304(a) of this Act) and the water
quality described in subparagraph (B) of this paragraph;

(B)	an analysis of the extent to which all navigable waters of such
State provide for the protection and propagation of a balanced
population of shellfish, fish, and wildlife, and allow recreational
activities in and on the water;

(C)	an analysis of the extent to which the elimination of the discharge
of pollutants and a level of water quality which provides for the
protection and propagation of a balanced population of shellfish, fish,
and wildlife and allows recreational activities in and on the water,
have been or will be achieved by the requirements of this Act, together
with recommendations as to additional action necessary to achieve such
objectives and for what waters such additional action is necessary;

(D)	an estimate of (i) the environmental impact, (ii) the economic and
social costs necessary to achieve the objective of this Act in such
State, (iii) the economic and social benefits of such achievement, and
(iv) an estimate of the date of such achievement; and

(E)	a description of the nature and extent of nonpoint sources of
pollutants and recommendations as to the programs which must be
undertaken to control each category of such sources, including an
estimate of the costs of implementing such programs.”

Section 314(a):

(1)	State program requirements.  – Each State on a biennial basis
shall prepare and submit to the Administrator for his approval  – 

(A)	an identification and classification according to eutrophic
condition of all publicly owned lakes in such State;

(B)	a description of the procedures, processes, and methods (including
land use requirements) to control sources of pollution of such lakes;

(C)	a description of the methods and procedures, in conjunction with
appropriate Federal agencies, to restore the quality of such lakes;

(D)	methods and procedures to mitigate the harmful effects of high
acidity, including innovative methods of neutralizing and restoring
buffering capacity of lakes and methods of removing from lakes toxic
metals and other toxic substances mobilized by acidity;

(E)	a list and description of those publicly owned lakes in such State
for which uses are known to be impaired, including those lakes which are
known not to meet applicable water quality standards or which require
implementation of control programs to maintain compliance with
applicable standards and those lakes in which water quality has
deteriorated as a result of high acidity that may reasonably be due to
acid deposition; and

(F)	an assessment of the status and trends of water quality in lakes in
such State, including but not limited to, the nature and extent of
pollution loading from point and nonpoint sources and the extent to
which the use of lakes is impaired as a result of such pollution,
particularly with respect to toxic pollution.

(2)	Submission as Part 305(b)(1) Report. –  The information required
under paragraph (1) shall be included in the report required under
section 305(b)(1) of this Act, beginning with the report required under
such section by April 1, 1988.

Section 106:

(e)	Beginning in fiscal year 1974 the Administrator shall not make any
grant under this section to any State which has not provided or is not
carrying out as a part of its program – 

(1)  the establishment and operation of the appropriate devices,
methods, systems, and procedures necessary to monitor, and to compile
and analyze data on (including classification according to eutrophic
condition), the quality of navigable waters and to the extent
practicable, ground waters including biological monitoring; and
provision for annually updating such data and including it in the report
required under section 305 of this Act;”



APPENDIX B: DERIVATION OF REPORTING BURDEN ESTIMATES

B.1 Respondent Burden Estimates for 305(b) and 303(d) Reporting
Activities

	For current 305(b) and 303(d) reporting activities, the primary source
we use in estimating burden for tasks to be performed by States is the
State Water Quality Management Workload Model (SWQMWM), which estimates
and sums the workload involved in more than one hundred activities or
tasks comprising a State water quality management program.

	The SWQMWM is designed to allow a State to enter its own values for
workload to be accomplished, FTE hours required to perform tasks, and
the average State salary per FTE hour.  Roughly half of the States thus
far have entered their own data and used the model to develop their own
estimate of their program “needs”.  As of April, 2002, 20 States had
used the model comprehensively, estimating their task-by-task needs for
performing all activities.  These 20 States appear to comprise a
representative cross-section of all States in terms of geography and
size of their water programs.  For this analysis, we use the average
“need” for a given task, estimated across these 20 States, as our
estimate for the burden required for a typical State to perform this
task

	The following table summarizes the average of the annual need reported
by the 20 States in the SWQMWM.

Exhibit B-1 Average of Annual Need from SWQMWM for 305(b) and 303(d)
Reporting Activities

Activity	FTE-hrs/

Year/respondent	# of Respondents	Total Annual Burden

1.    Review regs and guidance for 305(b) & 303(d)	126	59	7,434

2.    Plan and coordinate data acquisition and compile and screen data
for assessments	1,110	59	65,490

3.    Development and submission of complete 305(b) report and response
to EPA comments	1,407	59	83,013

4.    Develop, review and update 303(d) listing and de-listing
methodology	831	56	46,536

5.    Prepare 303(d) list (includes identifying waters, setting
priorities, and schedules)	2,208	56	123,648

6.    Required public outreach for 303(d) list	265	56	14,840

7.    Submission of 303(d) list to EPA and response to EPA comments	218
56	12,208

8.    Prepare annual electronic updates	326	59	19,234

	Note: The 3 respondents with 305(b) reporting responsibilities only
engage in activities numbered 1, 2, 3, and 8.

 B.2 Respondent Burden Estimates for Implementing Enhanced Benefit Cost
Analysis of Meeting Water Quality Standards

	Section 305(b)(1)(D) of the CWA requires States in their biennial water
quality assessment to estimate the benefits and costs of achieving water
quality standards by estimating:

“i. the environmental impact,

ii. the economic and social costs necessary to achieve the objective of
this Act in such State,

iii. the economic and social benefits of such achievement and

iv. an estimate of the date of such achievement.”

	In previous ICRs, EPA recognized that this information may not be
readily available due to the complexities of the analyses involved.
Therefore, respondents provide information (to the extent possible) on
the costs of pollution control activities, capital investment in
municipal and industrial facilities (including the cost of operating
these facilities), and the costs of administering State and local water
pollution control activities. Respondents also provide, if possible,
information on the beneficial actions taken to maintain or improve water
quality conditions. States have provided varying degrees of information
in their biennial reports regarding the costs and benefits of achieving
WQS.

	As a Term of Clearance for the ICR for the current 305(b) and 303(d)
programs covering the period March, 1999 through April 2003 (ICR Number
1560.05), OMB has required that an estimate be made of the burden
associated with estimating benefits and costs assuming that the Agency
would provide additional guidance to States to assist them in preparing
the analyses. ICR Number 1560.06 included the burden associated with the
enhanced benefit cost analysis.  This burden was planned to be incurred
in the 2000 to 2003 time period.  Uncertainties surrounding the 305(b)
and 303(d) programs, including future rulemakings, made it impractical
to implement the enhanced benefit cost analysis for the 2002 reports. 
EPA anticipates that these activities will take place within the next
reporting cycle as program uncertainties are resolved.

	The effort for benefits analysis for specific States depends on several
factors, including the number of impaired waters, differences in the
physical characteristics of these waters, differences in aquatic habitat
types, designated uses, and recreational importance as well the quality
of existing information about these waters. For a small state with a
small number of the 303(d) listed waters, low intensity of water-based
recreation, and nonexistent or negligible commercial fishing/shell
fishing, the cost of benefits assessment at the state and watershed
levels may not be very different. States with diverse water resources
and intensive uses of these resources (i.e., intensive water-based
recreation) such as coastal states are likely to incur larger costs due
to complexity of the benefits analysis. The level of effort associated
with developing estimates at the State level of the benefits of
attaining WQS are detailed in Exhibit B-1. As shown in the exhibit, the
Agency estimates that the range the burden associated with estimating
benefits at the State level ranges from 432 to 1,224 hours. Whether
States undertake Level 1, 2 or 3 analyses depends on the State policy
and on the complexity of the State’s watershed situations. Most
coastal watersheds and those Great Lakes watersheds would be more likely
to involve Level 3 analyses, while inland watersheds would be more
likely to be adequately addressed by Level 1 and 2 analyses.

Exhibit B-2  Hours of Effort to Estimate at the State Level the Benefits
of Attaining WQS 

at 3 Levels of Difficulty 

Task	Level 1	Level 2	Level 3

	Low	High	Low	High	Low	High

1. Characterize affected watersheds	96	120	128	144	160	192

2. Water quality modeling and analysis	64	80	96	112	128	144

3. Assess ecological improvements	32	48	56	64	64	72

Assess recreational improvements	32	40	56	64	72	88

Assess changes in nearby property values	16	24	32	40	48	56

Assess avoided cost of water treatment	24	32	48	64	64	80

Assess other economic productivity benefits	24	32	40	48	40	48

Assess human health benefits	16	24	32	40	40	48

4. Calibrate to local conditions*	---	---	---	---	160	192

5. Report writing	72	80	88	96	120	144

6. Contingency @ 15% **	56	72	88	104	136	160

Subtotal for Range	432	552	664	776	1,032	1,224

*interviews or pilot studies **Provision for additional data collection,
analysis, review, etc.

	

	We assume for this ICR that States will undertake efforts to estimate
costs that are similar to the efforts that they apply to estimate
benefits, amounting to an additional 432 to 1,224 hours.

	Therefore, the total burden per State associated is estimated to range
from 864 to 2448 hours for the first report that will contain the
enhanced benefit cost analysis (for the purposes of this ICR, the 2004
biennial report). The effort associated with the enhanced benefit cost
analysis will be considerably less for subsequent reports, estimated to
be only 25% of the effort associated with the initial analysis.  Thus,
for the 2006 biennial report, the effort is estimated to range from 216
to 612 hours.

	For the period of this ICR, we assume that the full effort associated
with the 2004 and 2006 reports are incurred.  Therefore, the total
effort over the period of this ICR ranges from 1080 to 3060 hours per
respondent. Annualizing over the three years results in 360 to 1020
hours annually per respondent. To estimate the national cost, we assume
that the average for the range represents the typical level of analysis
across all the 59 respondents for the purpose of estimating a national
burden, resulting in an average annual burden of 690 hours.

	

 B.3 Agency Burden Estimates for 305(b) and 303(d) Reporting Activities

	 The Agency burden estimates associated with 303(d) and 305(b)
reporting activities are based on AWPD’s prior experience in
developing 305(b) and 303(d) guidance, preparing the Report to Congress,
providing technical support to respondents, maintaining the ADB, and
reviewing and approving/disapproving 303(d) lists and TMDL submissions. 
Exhibit B-4 provides the basis for the estimates of Agency burden by
subtask.

Exhibit B-4. Agency Burden for 305(b) and 303(d) Reporting Activities

Activity	Total Annual Burden	Derivation

1.   Write 305(b) guidance	40	Reduction in hours because guidance is
complete and only minor revisions are anticipated

2.   Prepare Report to Congress	2,080	Plus $27,500 for printing &
mailing Report to Congress

3.   Review draft 305(b) reports	590	10 hours per submittal for 59
submittals

4.   Review final 305(b) reports	177	3 hours per submittal for 59
submittals

5.   Review annual electronic updates of State databases	800	Based on
recent experience

6.   Assist States with ADB indexing	3,328	4160 hours reduced by 20% to
take into account decreasing workload as more States complete indexing

7.   Maintain national ADB database	1,040	Based on recent experience

8.   Prepare 303(d) guidance	62	Based on recent experience

9.  Provide technical assistance to States for 303(d)	236	4 hours per
respondent per year for 59 respondents

10.  Review draft 303(d) lists	236	8 hours per respondent every 2 years
for 59 respondents

11.  Review final 303(d) lists and resolve disapprovals	500	Based on
recent experience

 B.4 Agency Burden Estimates for Enhanced Benefit Cost Analysis of Water
Quality Standards

	The Agency will develop guidance for the States that will assist them
in improving their benefit cost analyses, while minimizing the
additional burden of doing so. The Agency plans to target the guidance
so that can be applied by a mid-level analyst.

	

The guidance for performing benefits analysis will likely:

include a list of data elements required to conduct a benefits analysis,
and include suggested sources and techniques for each, 

present the results of a meta-analysis of existing valuation studies,
with recommended values for different water body types, expected changes
in water quality, and categories of benefits, 

discuss how and when to apply different values, will provide default
values where there is no basis or need to tailor the estimates to
location-specific characteristics, and will describe circumstances in
which it is important to develop location-specific estimates, and 

include a user-friendly spreadsheet model that implements the proffered
analysis, and makes it easy to substitute use-selected values to tailor
the model to specific States and to conduct sensitivity analyses to
address key uncertainties. 

	The guidance for preparing cost analysis will provide information
regarding cost, including data sources, default values and worksheets. 

	The Agency anticipates that States will have the opportunity to
participate in the review of draft guidance materials to help ensure
that the guidance and the tools it provides are useful and practical
from the States’ perspective. If appropriate, the Agency may provide
additional training materials and/or workshops to further assist States
in using the guidance.

	The Agency estimates that the cost of providing this additional
guidance would be $300,000. Over the three year period of the ICR, the
annual cost would be $100,000 which translates into a burden of 2,117
hours annually (at the fully loaded hourly rate of $47.23 as discussed
in 6(c)). 

B.5 Agency Burden Estimates for Reviewing TMDLs

	To estimate the Agency burden associated with reviewing TMDLs, we
assume that on average about 4,000 TMDLs per year will be submitted to
EPA over the three-year period of the ICR as a result of consent decrees
and state submitted schedules (further described in Appendix C).  We
also assume that about half of these TMDLs (2000) will be submitted in
packages of about 10 or more substantially similar TMDLs. Clusters of
similar TMDLs can be reviewed in an average of 1 hour, amounting to a
total of 2,000 hours annually. For non-clustered TMDLs, it is
anticipated that a disapproval (perhaps occurring 15% of the time for
the remaining 2,000 TMDLs – i.e., 300 TMDLs) will require about 1 day
(8 hours) of effort amounting to 2400 hours annually; and an approval
(perhaps occurring 85% of the time for the remaining 2000 TMDLs –
i.e., 1,700 TMDLs) will require about ½ day (4 hours) of effort
amounting to 6,800 hours annually.  Altogether, the annual burden is
estimated to be 11,200 hours.



APPENDIX C: DERIVATION OF TMDL BURDEN ESTIMATES

	This Appendix is organized as follows:	

A.	Unit Costs for the Program describes the approach used to estimate
the unit costs associated with the program;	

B.	Overview of the TMDL Workload describes the number and type of TMDLs
that will be developed and the pace of developing them; and, 	

C.	National Costs combines the unit costs (from A) with the TMDL
workload (from B.) to estimate the national cost of the program.	

The basic methodology applied in this ICR to estimate the costs of
developing TMDLs under the program was described at length in two
previous analyses:	Environomics and Tetra Tech, Inc., The National
Costs To Develop TMDLs (Draft Report, prepared for the USEPA, Office of
Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds. August, 2001.  ( “2001 Report”)
www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/draftdocs.html	Environomics and Tetra Tech, Inc.,
Analysis of the Incremental Cost of Final Revisions to the Water Quality
Planning and Management Regulation and the National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System Program, prepared for the USEPA, Office of Wetland,
Oceans and Watersheds. July 7, 2000. (referred to as the “2000
Report” in this chapter)These two analyses provide extensive
discussion and support which is not repeated here. EPA received public
comment on the 2001 Report, and is in the process of evaluating and
responding to these comments.   

	This Appendix is organized as follows:

	A.	Unit Costs for the Program describes the approach used to estimate
the unit costs associated with the program;

	B.	Overview of the TMDL Workload describes the number and type of TMDLs
that will be developed and the pace of developing them; and, 

	C.	National Costs combines the unit costs (from A) with the TMDL
workload (from B.) to estimate the national cost of the program.

	The basic methodology applied in this ICR to estimate the costs of
developing TMDLs under the program was described at length in two
previous analyses:



	Environomics and Tetra Tech, Inc., The National Costs To Develop TMDLs
(Draft Report, prepared for the USEPA, Office of Wetlands, Oceans and
Watersheds. August, 2001.  ( 2001Report)
www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/draftdocs.html



	Environomics and Tetra Tech, Inc., Analysis of the Incremental Cost of
Final Revisions to the Water Quality Planning and Management Regulation
and the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Program,
prepared for the USEPA, Office of Wetland, Oceans and Watersheds. July
7, 2000. (referred to as the 2000Report in this chapter)

These two analyses provide extensive discussion and support which is not
repeated here. EPA received public comment on the 2001 Report, and is in
the process of evaluating and responding to these comments.  

 

 tc "

	This Appendix is organized as follows\:

	A.	Unit Costs for the Program describes the approach used to estimate
the unit costs associated with the program;

	B.	Overview of the TMDL Workload describes the number and type of TMDLs
that will be developed and the pace of developing them; and, 

	C.	National Costs combines the unit costs (from A) with the TMDL
workload (from B.) to estimate the national cost of the program.

	The basic methodology applied in this ICR to estimate the costs of
developing TMDLs under the program was described at length in two
previous analyses\:



	Environomics and Tetra Tech, Inc., The National Costs To Develop TMDLs
(Draft Report, prepared for the USEPA, Office of Wetlands, Oceans and
Watersheds. August, 2001.  ( 2001Report)
www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/draftdocs.html



	Environomics and Tetra Tech, Inc., Analysis of the Incremental Cost of
Final Revisions to the Water Quality Planning and Management Regulation
and the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Program,
prepared for the USEPA, Office of Wetland, Oceans and Watersheds. July
7, 2000. (referred to as the 2000Report in this chapter)

These two analyses provide extensive discussion and support which is not
repeated here. EPA received public comment on the 2001 Report, and is in
the process of evaluating and responding to these comments.  

 

"  " \l 3A. Unit Costs  tc "A. Unit Costs " \l 2 

	There are two key considerations for accurately estimating the unit
burden and unit costs for any task associated with developing TMDLs:



		unit burden and costs can vary widely across TMDLs; and,

		there are efficiencies associated with developing multiple TMDLs at
once.

These key considerations were used to develop unit burden estimates as
described in detail in the 2001 Report and the 2000 Report.  This
section summarizes the methodology that was used to estimate the costs
for the program.  The following methodology discussion focuses on the
costs for TMDL development-related tasks under the program as follows:

	1.	Tasks under the program and levels of difficulty for preparing TMDLs

	2. 	The unit burden for tasks under the program when there are no
efficiencies

	3. 	The unit burden for tasks under the program when there are
efficiencies

	4.	Resulting typical unit burden for tasks required by the program

	5.	Accounting for “outliers”

Additional detail and support regarding methodology is provided in the
2001 Report. 

1. Tasks under the program and levels of difficulty for developing TMDLs

	To facilitate estimating the burden associated with developing TMDLs
under the program, the overall effort is broken down into seven tasks
for three levels of difficulty. 

	

	a. Three levels of difficulty

	For this analysis, estimates of the unit burden and costs for
developing TMDLs are based upon the judgment of EPA, State and
contractor personnel familiar with the tasks involved.  It can be
difficult to estimate an average burden for any given TMDL development
task, because the effort associated with developing a TMDL spans a large
range for a number of reasons, including: the size of the geographic
area and type of water, the number and type of sources, the types of
pollutants, the sophistication of the modeling and analysis tools used,
the level of public interest, etc.  Therefore, rather than attempt to
estimate a single appropriate average that takes all of this into
account, it was easier and more accurate to develop estimates of typical
unit burdens for three categories of TMDLs representing three different
levels of difficulty:

Level 1	represents relatively simple TMDLs with limited public interest,

Level 2	represents mid-range TMDLs, and

Level 3	represents TMDLs requiring detailed and sophisticated analysis
as well as being the subject of greater public interest.

This approach facilitates developing more accurate estimates,
communicating them, and validating them.  The approach of categorizing
TMDLs by three levels of difficulty was also adopted in the State Water
Quality Management Resource Needs Model.

	As evident in Exhibit C-1, we made the simplifying assumption that
TMDLs which require more complex modeling would typically also require
correspondingly higher levels of effort for the other tasks (i.e.,
watershed characterization, preparing the TMDL document, public
outreach, etc.).  Admittedly, tasks could conceivably be undertaken at
different levels: a particular TMDL that uses a Level 1 modeling and
allocation analysis may have a very high level of public interest; a
TMDL that uses a Level 3 modeling and analysis may have only limited
public interest. However, this simplifying assumption is believed to be
a reasonable generality for the purpose of estimating national costs
using the methodology applied in this report – from the standpoint of
developing national costs, it is only necessary to estimate the total
number of Levels 1, 2, and 3 tasks and not how they actually combine for
specific TMDLs. 

	When estimating ranges for the seven tasks for each level of
difficulty, we established ground rules designed to facilitate the
development of a realistic national estimate.  As such, the ground rules
emphasized the development of estimates representative of the national
average costs for the current TMDL workload.  As a general matter, this
meant limiting consideration of unusual circumstances that might bias
the national estimate:

Ranges should generally represent the 25th to 75th percentiles, with the
midpoint of the range representative of the average or typical cost. 
Accordingly, ranges should not include costs that are at the very low or
the very high extremes.

Ranges should neither consider the initial learning curve cost of
“coming up to speed” for the first TMDLs done by a State, nor the
eventual learning curve efficiencies that result as staff become more
experienced and methods improve.

Ranges should represent typical costs over the period of analysis,
which at the time the estimates were made was 2000 to 2013.  While some
initial TMDLs would include a significant level of effort for training,
software development, and alternative methods, they should not be used
to derive representative cost estimates.  Similarly, the ranges should
not include the cost of developing or testing new methodologies.  

Finally, the ground rules for estimating ranges include the requirement
that where the TMDL development is associated with a large watershed
planning and restoration effort (e.g., the National Estuary Program,
including Long Island Sound, etc.), the TMDL costs should be limited to
the incremental effort to develop the TMDL.  It was not deemed
appropriate to attribute the entire cost of such watershed planning and
restoration efforts as resulting solely from TMDL development.

Exhibit C-1

Levels of Difficulty

Level	Analysis	Other Tasks

1	Simplified TMDL analysis using “spreadsheet” calculations	limited

	Models and analysis tools used are empirical.*  No formal calibration
is performed although the predictions are compared to best available
data.  The watershed is typically analyzed as a single unit.  Load
allocations are typically expressed as a single value (i.e., gross
allotments).  The receiving water is analyzed as a single unit or
several larger segments.  Time variability is limited.  Analysis
includes average annual value or selected design flow conditions

	2	Mid-Range Analysis	mid-range

	Models and analysis include some process-based analysis.  Some
calibration and testing is performed.  Watersheds may be segmented into
subwatersheds.  Load allocations may include several categories,
including background conditions.  The receiving water may be segmented. 
Some time variability is considered.  Time scale may be daily or
monthly.  Typical models include: QUAL2E, GWLF, BATHTUB and more
simplified applications of SWMM and WASP5.*  Some mid-range TMDLs use a
combination of mass-balance analyses and statistics to estimate
allocations.

	3	Detailed Analysis	high

	Models and analysis are more detailed and include a more explicit
description of the physical, chemical, and biological processes.   Due
to the more complex nature of the analysis, more data processing and
data preparation is required.  A higher level of calibration is
expected.  Watershed and receiving water are segmented into smaller
analysis units.  Time steps are hourly or smaller.  Some of the more
detailed models typically used in TMDL development include: HSPF, SWMM,
WASP5, and CE-QUAL-W2.*

	* For additional discussion of model types and general levels of
complexity, see the EPA Model Compendium (U.S. EPA, 1997, Compendium of
Models for TMDL Development and Watershed Assessment.  EPA841-B-97-007)



	b. Seven tasks for developing TMDLs under the program

	The tasks associated with developing TMDLs can be broken down in many
ways.  For this analysis, our primary considerations were: 1) to
facilitate making judgments regarding the burden associated with the
tasks and 2) to facilitate comparison of our estimates with available
actual costs for these tasks for selected TMDLs.  The seven tasks
described in Exhibit C-2 represent all of the effort associated with
developing TMDLs under the program.5

Exhibit C-2

Tasks for Developing TMDLs

Task	Title	Description

1	Watershed

Characterization	Compile available information, create database or
electronic files, review the available information, select the technical
approach.

2	Modeling and Analysis	Select final model, model setup and calibration.
 Evaluate existing conditions.

3	Allocation Analysis	Evaluate allocation scenarios and select final
allocation.

4	Develop TMDL document

for public review	Prepare technical report documenting analysis &
assumptions. Document the TMDL (i.e. WLA, LA, loading capacity, margin
of safety, seasonality). Prepare administrative record.

5	Public Outreach	Public meetings and dissemination of information prior
to TMDL submittal

6	Formal public participation	Announcement of the TMDL and formal public
meeting

7	Tracking, planning, legal support, etc.	Miscellaneous tasks needed to
support TMDL development

2. The unit burden for tasks under the program when there are no
efficiencies

	The resulting estimates for the burden to accomplish each of the 7
tasks at the 3 levels of difficulty are shown in Exhibit C-3. These
estimates assume no efficiencies whatsoever, and apply to the first TMDL
for a submission (i.e., the TMDL for the first cause of impairment),
whether for a water or for a cluster of interconnected waters.  The 2001
Report showed that these estimates of unit costs are reasonably close to
the actual costs for a significant sample of TMDLs.

	To estimate the national burden for the program, we used the average
burden associated with each of the 3 levels of difficulty: 838 hours for
Level 1; 1,598 hours for Level 2; and 2,835 hours for Level 3 TMDLs.

	

Exhibit C-3

Hours of Effort to Develop a TMDL under the Program* at 3 Levels of
Difficulty

No Efficiencies: i.e. the first TMDL for a water or a cluster of waters

Task	Level 1	Level 2	Level 3

	Low	High	Low	High	Low	High

1. Watershed Characterization	160	200	200	240	240	320

2. Modeling and Analysis	24	80	80	480	480	960

3. Allocation Analysis 	8	40	40	80	80	120

4. Develop TMDL Doc for Public Review	160	240	240	480	480	640

5. Public Outreach	160	240	240	320	320	480

6. Formal public participation/response	35	85	85	235	235	485

7. Tracking, planning, legal support, etc.	84	160	160	316	316	514

Total for Range	631	1,045	1,045	2,151	2,151	3,519

Total for Average	838 hrs	1,598 hrs	2,835 hrs

*Exhibit I-3 in the 2001 report was modified to remove the effort for
the additional TMDL development requirements in the withdrawn July 2000
rule (i.e.,  implementation plans & added public comment response). 

3. The unit burden for tasks under the program when there are
efficiencies

	States can reduce the cost of developing TMDLs by logically grouping
causes, whether for the causes in a single water or for all the causes
in a cluster of waters.  In this report, “clustered” waters always
refers to a grouping of waters that are interconnected within a
watershed.  In some cases, savings result because a task can be
performed at the same time for all of the causes or waters, while in
other cases savings result because the work performed for the first
cause or water can be applied to subsequent causes or waters.  We refer
to the cost savings that can be realized when TMDLs are grouped as
“standard efficiencies” and the additional cost savings that can be
realized when the pollutant causes are also similar as
“modeling-related efficiencies.” The circumstances that lead to
reductions in the burden and cost of developing TMDLs through standard
efficiencies and modeling-related efficiencies are discussed below,
along with the estimated efficiencies for each of the seven TMDL
development tasks in the program.

a. Standard efficiencies

	Standard efficiencies from clustering can be obtained in two cases:

Submissions for a single water involving multiple TMDLs.  Increasingly,
States are coordinating or developing together all of the TMDLs for a
water that requires more than one TMDL – as shown in the 2001 Report,
nearly half of the impaired waters have multiple causes.  These may be
clustered together into a single submission, although this is not
necessary to realize efficiencies.  To estimate this efficiency, we
assumed that there are no efficiencies for the first TMDL for the water,
but that there are efficiencies for the remaining TMDLs for the water.

	 			

Submissions with multiple TMDLs involving more than one water: 
Increasingly, States use a watershed approach to developing TMDLs, in
which the development of TMDLs is coordinated for logical groupings of
waters.  These may be clustered together into a single submission,
although this is not necessary to realize efficiencies.  To estimate
this efficiency, we assumed that there are no efficiencies for the first
TMDL in a cluster, but that there are for the remaining TMDLs. 

Examples of tasks that will experience efficiencies from clustering
include characterizing the watershed, holding a joint public hearing,
and reusing parts of the TMDL document (or providing a single submission
for all of the waters).  It should be noted that efficiencies for some
tasks can be realized even if the TMDLs are not prepared in the same
time frames – for example, significant portions of the watershed
characterization and the TMDL documents from previously developed TMDLs
can typically be applied.  Further, the efficiencies can be realized
even if the TMDLs are submitted separately, rather than in a single
submission.

	In summary,

We have assumed that the first TMDL for a water or for a cluster of
waters does not benefit whatsoever from any efficiencies and is
developed at full cost.  In this report, we have termed these full-cost
TMDLs as “Type A” TMDLs.

The remaining TMDLs in a cluster can be developed at reduced cost
because of the standard clustering efficiencies described above.  We
have termed TMDLs that benefit from standard efficiencies as “Type
B” TMDLs.

However, some of the Type B TMDLs can realize yet additional
efficiencies beyond the standard efficiencies associated with clustering
because some or all of the pollutant causes are similar, allowing
further efficiencies for modeling related tasks.  TMDLs that benefit
from both standard efficiencies and modeling-related efficiencies are
termed “Type C” TMDLs, as discussed next.

	b. Additional modeling-related efficiencies

	In addition to the standard efficiencies that can be realized for
clustered TMDLs, those TMDLs that also have related pollutant causes can
further benefit from modeling-related efficiencies:

Multiple TMDLs for a water involving related pollutants. For multiple
TMDLs for a water, further efficiencies can be realized when modeling
related pollutants such as metals (e.g., lead, nickel, and cadmium) and
nutrient-related pollutants (e.g,, nutrients, dissolved oxygen, organic
enrichment, algae and ammonia) since similar models, analytical
techniques, and chemical and biological processes are considered.  Once
the analysis has been performed for a pollutant type, the additional
effort to perform the analysis for additional pollutants of that type is
a fraction of the initial effort.  Similarly, additional efficiencies
can be realized for allocating load reductions and for developing
watershed plans.

Multiple TMDLs for a cluster of interconnected waters involving related
or the same pollutants.  As above, for multiple TMDLs for a cluster of
interconnected waters, further efficiencies can be realized when
modeling related pollutants such as metals and nutrient-related
pollutants since similar models, analytical techniques, and chemical and
biological processes are considered.  However, for a cluster of waters,
efficiencies can also be realized for the same pollutant (e.g, fecal
coliforms) present in more than one of the waters in the cluster. Once
the analysis has been performed for a pollutant or pollutant type in a
cluster, the additional effort to perform the analysis for additional
pollutants of that type is a fraction of the initial effort.  Similarly,
additional efficiencies can be realized for allocating load reductions
and other tasks.

	c. Resulting incremental effort where there are efficiencies

	Exhibit C-4 summarizes the standard efficiencies and the
modeling-related efficiencies that we estimated for each of the 7 tasks.
 The exhibit is based on the convention that the first TMDL for a
submission (i.e., a Type A TMDL) bears the full burden (i.e., 100%) for
all of the tasks associated with developing that TMDL, as shown in
Exhibit C-3.  Tasks for any successive TMDLs (e.g., a TMDL for a second
cause of impairment for a water or for a cluster of interconnected
waters) can be achieved with less effort.  As shown in the second
column, Type B TMDLs receive standard efficiencies only for Tasks 1, 4,
5, 6, and 7.  As shown in the third column, Type C TMDLs not only
receive the standard efficiencies, they also receive the additional
modeling-related efficiencies for Tasks 2, and 3.  The 2001 Report
showed that these estimates are reasonably close to the actual costs for
a significant sample of TMDLs – 131 TMDLs for a variety of pollutants
for 119 waters in 8 States across 5 EPA regions including all 3 levels
of difficulty.

Exhibit C-4

Incremental Unit Effort of Successive TMDLs Where Efficiencies Exist

Tasks	% of Unit Effort of Initial Full-Cost TMDL

	Type B

Standard Efficiencies

Grouping

Multiple TMDLs for a Water 

or Cluster of Waters	Type C

Model-Related Efficiencies

plus Similar Pollutants

 Within a Water

 or Cluster of Waters

1. Watershed Characterization	25%	25%

2. Modeling  and Analysis	100%	25%

3. Allocation Analysis	100%	25%

4. Develop TMDL Doc for Public Review	25%	25%

5. Public Outreach	25%	25%

6. Formal public participation/response	25%	25%

7. Tracking, planning, legal support,  etc	25%	25%

Specific examples follow:

For three TMDLs for unrelated pollutants for a single water or for a
TMDL that is developed for each of three waters clustered together:
Focusing only on the modeling and analysis task, the first TMDL bears
the full burden (i.e. 100%) for modeling and analysis, as do the
remaining two TMDLs.  In the case of this particular task, there are no
efficiencies associated with clustering waters or for clustering TMDLs
for unrelated pollutants for a water and, therefore, no savings.

For three TMDLs (1 nutrient and 2 metals) that are developed for a
single water or for a cluster of two waters: Focusing only on the
modeling and analysis task, the nutrient TMDL bears the full burden
(i.e. 100%) as does the first metal.  However, the burden for the second
metal is 25% of the full burden.  The resulting total burden is
equivalent to 2.25 modeling efforts (100% + 100% + 25%), with a
resulting overall savings of 25%.

	Exhibits C-5 and C-6 combine the efficiencies shown in Exhibit C-4 with
the full unit burden shown in Exhibit C-3 to yield the resulting burden
for successive TMDLs developed for a group of causes and/or waters. 

Exhibit C-5

Program* Percent of Full Effort (Hrs) Needed to Develop a Type B TMDL at
3 Levels of Difficulty

When There Are Standard Efficiencies for Multiple  TMDLs for a Water or
a Cluster of Water

Task	% of Full

Cost	Level 1	Level 2	Level 3

Low	High	Low	High	Low	High

1. Watershed Characterization	25%	40	50	50	60	60	80

2. Modeling and Analysis	100%	24	80	80	480	480	960

3. Allocation Analysis 	100%	8	40	40	80	80	120

4. Develop TMDL Doc for Public Review	25%	40	60	60	120	120	160

5. Public Outreach	25%	40	60	60	80	80	120

6. Formal public participation/response	25%	9	21	21	59	59	121

7. Tracking, planning, legal support, etc.	25%	21	40	40	79	79	129

Total for Range	182	351	351	958	958	1,690

Total for Average	267 hrs	655 hrs	1,324 hrs

*Exhibit I-5 in the 2001 report was modified to remove effort for
implementation plans & public comment response.

Exhibit C-6

Program* Percent of Full Effort (Hrs) Needed to Develop a Type C TMDL at
3 Levels of Difficulty

When There Are Also Efficiencies for Similar Pollutants within a Water
or Across Clustered Waters

Task	% of Full

Cost	Level 1	Level 2	Level 3

Low	High	Low	High	Low	High

1. Watershed Characterization	25%	40	50	50	60	60	80

2. Modeling and Analysis	25%	6	20	20	120	120	240

3. Allocation Analysis 	25%	2	10	10	20	20	30

4. Develop TMDL Doc for Public Review	25%	40	60	60	120	120	160

5. Public Outreach	25%	40	60	60	80	80	120

6. Formal public participation/response	25%	9	21	21	59	59	121

7. Tracking, planning, legal support, etc.	25%	21	40	40	79	79	129

Total for Range	158	261	261	538	538	880

Total for Average	209 hrs	400 hrs	709 hrs

*Exhibit I-6 in the 2001 report was modified to remove effort for
implementation plans & public comment response.

6. Resulting typical unit burden for tasks required by the program

	The average burden for each level of difficulty and the extent to which
efficiencies are realized from Exhibits C-3, C-5 and C-6 are summarized
below in Exhibit C-7.

	

Exhibit C-7

Summary of the Program* Total Average Unit Burden to Develop a TMDL

Taking Efficiencies Into Account

Extent to Which Efficiencies Are Realized	Level 1

(hrs)	Level 2

(hrs)	Level 3

(hrs)

A. TMDLs requiring full cost: the only or first cause for a water or
clustered waters	838	1,598	2,835

B. TMDLs with standard efficiencies: subsequent causes for a water or
clustered waters	267	655	1,324

C. TMDLs with additional modeling-related efficiencies: subsequent
related causes	209	400	709

*Exhibit I-7 in the 2001 report was modified to remove the effort for
the July 2000 rule (implementation plans & the added public comment
response).

	It is important to note that the typical TMDL development costs for
individual States may be substantially higher or lower than the national
average as summarized in Exhibit C-7.  States that wish to apply the
national average estimates and methodology to estimate the cost of
developing TMDLs for their State, should make the appropriate
State-specific adjustments as detailed in the 2001 Report.  In
particular, the distribution for the level of difficulty may be very
different across States, and it may be especially important for some
States to include explicit consideration of  “outliers”.  In
addition, States that broadly define a single impaired water to include
all of the interconnected impaired segments in a watershed (or otherwise
identified large-scale waters) should consider whether it is appropriate
to apply the unit TMDL development costs to the segments composing the
impaired water.  Finally, the State’s ability to achieve efficiencies
in developing TMDLs can importantly affect cost, and there are a number
of factors to consider when evaluating the potential to achieve such
efficiencies, especially in the near term, as discussed in the 2001
Report.

	Following are several additional examples of how the average burdens
summarized in Exhibit C-7 apply to different situations.  To simplify
comparison among the examples, all pertain to groups of Level 2 TMDLs
that are developed for a single submission.  

Single Level 2 TMDL:  The total effort is 1,598 hours.

5 TMDLs for a cluster of 5 waters, each with a single Level 2 TMDL, all
unrelated pollutants:  The combined effort is 4,218 hours (1,598 + 4
x655).

5 TMDLs for a cluster of 2 water, one water with 3 Level 2 TMDLs and one
water with 2 Level 2 TMDLs, all unrelated pollutants:  The combined
effort is 4,218 hours (1,598 + 4 x 655).

	

5 TMDLs for a water with 5 Level 2 TMDLs, no related pollutants:  The
combined effort is 4,218 hours (1,598 + 4 x 655).

5 TMDLs for a water with 5 Level 2 TMDLs, all for metals (or all for
nutrients or nutrient-related pollutants):  The combined effort is 3,198
hours  (1,598 + 4 x400).

5 TMDLs for a cluster of 5 waters, each with 1 Level 2 TMDL, all for
metals (or all for nutrients/nutrient-related pollutants, or the same
pollutant):The combined effort is 3,198 hours  (1,598 + 4 x400).

5 TMDLs for a water with 5 Level 2 TMDLs, composed of 1 pollutant with
no efficiencies, 2 metals-related pollutants, and 2 nutrient-related
pollutants:  The combined effort is 3,708 hours (1,598 + 655 + 400 + 655
+ 400).

5 TMDLs for a cluster for 5 waters, each with 1 Level 2 TMDL, composed
of 1 pollutant with no efficiencies, 2 metals-related pollutants, and 2
nutrient-related pollutants:  The combined effort is 3,708 hours (1,598
+ 655 + 400 + 655 + 400).

7. Accounting for “outliers”

	In this analysis, we focused on the ranges of cost for “typical”
TMDLs in order to develop an estimate of the total national cost.  We
did not include consideration of the most inexpensive TMDLs or the most
expensive TMDLs because these “outliers” are not representative of
the bulk of the national TMDL development workload.  We believe that the
range of costs used in this report are appropriate for developing an
estimate for total national cost.  However, to the extent that there are
a significant number of outliers with sufficiently higher costs, the
national total cost estimate in this report may under-estimate total
cost.  There are two primary reasons why some TMDLs may be outliers:

They may be more resource intensive because they are more difficult
technically, they require greater public participation and outreach, or
both; and/or

Their spatial scale may be significantly larger.  We have not attempted
in this report to reflect or make adjustments for large-scale waters. 
In this regard, some States may have broadly defined some impaired
waters to include all of the interconnected impaired segments in a
watershed.  In effect, an impaired water defined in this way is actually
a “cluster” or a “submission” in this report, and the
appropriate unit TMDL development costs should be applied to each of the
segments composing the water.  For this report, however, we have not
attempted to directly reflect or adjust for such differences in the way
that States may have defined impaired waters.

The 2001 Report included an analysis of the potential increase in
national costs that might result from outliers.  As estimated in the
2001 report, perhaps 2-5% of the TMDLs might be outliers, and the
potential outliers might exceed the maximum effort of $137,000 hours per
TMDL (from Exhibit C-3, 3,519 hours at an average fully loaded rate of
$38.89/hour) by an average of $100,000 per outlier TMDL.  Note that the
average additional cost of $100,000 per outlier represents a range for
the additional cost that includes up to $1,000,000 per outlier TMDL over
and above $137,000, as detailed in the 2001 Report.  The resulting
magnitude of the increased cost for the outliers represents about 10-20%
of the estimated overall cost for all TMDLs.

	Accordingly, to reflect the additional effort for outliers for the
program associated with potential outliers as was done in the 2001
Report, we will increase the estimates made in this Appendix of the
national costs 15%.  

B. TMDL Workload  tc "

B. TMDL Workload " \l 2 

	This section describes the TMDL development workload in terms of:

	1.	the current total number of TMDLs remaining for listed causes as of
January, 2002; 

	2.	the national pace of developing TMDLs for currently listed causes;

	3.	the number of TMDLs affected by the proposed rule by level of
difficulty and degree to which efficiencies are expected to be realized;
and,

	4.	perspective on potential increases in the TMDL workload 

1.  The total number of TMDLs remaining for listed causes as of January,
2002

	The number of TMDLs is one of the most important estimates affecting
the expected cost of the proposed rule.  The current 303(d) lists6
identify 21,852 waters that are not attaining water quality standards as
a result of 42,366 causes of impairment of various types as described in
Appendix C.  However, it is important to remember that these causes
include both “non-pollutant” and “pollutant ” causes, and that
only pollutant causes are required to have TMDLs developed for them. 
There were 5,747 non-pollutant causes and 36,619 pollutant causes
identified in the 303(d) lists.  For this analysis, as discussed more
fully in the 2001 Report, we conservatively assumed that perhaps 1,000
of these 5,747 non-pollutant causes would eventually be found to be due
to pollutant causes, requiring an additional 1,000 TMDLs.  Consequently,
the 42,366 causes of impairment include 37,619 pollutant causes
requiring TMDLs for 19,581 waters that are impaired by at least one
pollutant cause (an average of nearly 2 TMDLs per water).

	Accordingly, Exhibit C-11 shows the estimated total number of pollutant
causes from the 1998 303(d) lists as updated by the 2000 303(d) lists to
be 37,619 causes for 19,581 waters.  Based on EPA’s 303(d) TMDL
Tracking System Database, at least 3,512 TMDLs have been approved for
these causes as of the end of 2001.  Consequently, the total number of
pollutant causes remaining as of 2002 is 34,107 as summarized in Exhibit
C-11. 

Exhibit C-11

Remaining TMDL Workload under the Program as of January 2002

Total causes of impairment identified in the 1998 & 2000 303(d) lists
42,366

     Less non-pollutant causes (reflects 1,000 causes assumed to
eventually be reclassified as pollutants)	(4,747)

Total Pollutant causes requiring TMDLs	37,619

     Less TMDLs for these causes developed prior to 2002	(3,512)

     Less pollutant causes that are eventually found not to require
TMDLs	not estimated

Total Number of TMDLs to be developed as of 2002	34,107

2.  The national pace of developing TMDLs

	When jurisdictions submitted their 1998 303(d) lists, they committed to
overall schedules for completing the TMDLs that would be needed to
achieve water quality standards for these impaired waters.  Based on
their commitments, virtually all of the TMDLs would be developed by
2015: 50 of the 56 jurisdictions committed to completing their TMDLs by
2012 and only one jurisdiction had a schedule extending past 2015 for
some of its TMDLs.  In this ICR we have adopted the overall schedule
commitments of the jurisdictions when they submitted their 1998 303(d)
lists.

	However, the actual pace at which jurisdictions will develop TMDLs over
this period is unclear. Available data indicate that over 1,300 TMDLs
were approved in 2001 and several thousand were approved in 2002.  Many
jurisdictions are in the process of building their capacity to develop
TMDLs, and will increase their rate of TMDL development.  Nineteen
states have Consent Decrees in which they are required to develop their
TMDLs on specified schedules that will result in increased TMDL
development over the next few years.  To illustrate the pace of TMDL
development, we prepared two estimates based on the following two
scenarios:

Scheduled Pace assumes that the Consent Decree states will meet their
requirements, while the remaining states will develop their TMDLs
uniformly over the course of the schedules they committed to when
submitting their 1998 303(d) lists; and

Uniform Pace assumes that the Consent Decree states will meet their
requirements, while the remaining states will develop their TMDLs
uniformly through 2015.

	

These two scenarios are shown in Exhibit C-12.  Consequently, the total
number of TMDLs that will be affected by the proposed rule (i.e., as of
2004 for currently listed causes) is estimated to be range from 26,797
to 28,897 TMDLs, depending on the number of TMDLs developed by 2004.



Exhibit C-12

Example Alternative National Paces

for Developing the Remaining TMDLs for the Currently Listed 303(d)
Causes

Year of Completion	Scheduled Pace	Uniform Pace

2002	3,430	2,340

2003	3,880	2,870

2004	4,430	3,260

2005	3,430	2,650

2006	4,230	3,520

2007	3,270	2,740

2008	3,830	3,720

2009	1,880	1,830

2010	1,790	1,920

2011	1,420	2,000

2012	800	1,500

2013	1,000	2,150

2014	340	1,800

2015	377	1,807

Total as of 2002	34,107	34,107

	Exhibits C-13A and C-13B show the composition of each of the scenarios
in terms of the TMDLs that are developed pursuant to Consent Decrees and
those that are developed in accordance with the schedules that the
jurisdictions committed to in the 1998 303(d) lists for the scheduled
pace and for the uniform pace scenarios.  Note that the pace for the
jurisdictions  with Consent Decrees is the same for the two scenarios
– only the pace for the remaining jurisdictions differs, with the end
date changing from the completion years the States committed to in their
1998 303(d) lists (“scheduled” pace) to using the additional time
through 2015 (“uniform” pace).  

	In this ICR, we conservatively analyze the burden for the program
assuming the scheduled pace, since this results in the highest burden
over the period covered by the ICR (July 2003 through June, 2006), as
shown in Exhibit C-14a.

Exhibit C-13A

Projected Schedule for Completing TMDLs Assuming the Scheduled Pace

Exhibit C-13B

Projected Schedule for Completing TMDLs Assuming the Uniform Pace

Exhibit C-14a

TMDLs Projected to be Completed Under the Program for the ICR Period

ICR Period	TMDLs*

July 2003 - June 2004	4,155

July 2004 - June 2005	3,930

July 2005 - June 2006	3,830

Total Over the Full ICR Period	11,915

*Based on Exhibit C-9a, scheduled pace, with each ICR period estimated
as half of one year and half of the next. 

Given the uncertainty in forecasting the number of TMDLs that will be
prepared under the program during July 2003 through June 2006, we round
the estimates in Exhibit C-14a to total 12,000 TMDLs at an even pace of
4,000 TMDLs per ICR period, shown in Exhibit C-14b.  At the national
average of 1.9 TMDLs per water, this workload would include roughly
6,000 waters.

Exhibit C-14b

TMDLs Projected to be Completed (rounded) Under the Program for the ICR
Period

ICR Period	TMDLs*

July 2003 - June 2004	4,000

July 2004 - June 2005	4,000

July 2005 - June 2006	4,000

Total Over the Full ICR Period	12,000

*Based on rounding Exhibit C-14a.

3.  Affected TMDLs by  Level of Difficulty and Extent That Efficiencies
Can Be Realized

	a. Level of Difficulty

	As discussed in the 2001 Report, we anticipate that there will be more
TMDLs nationally at Level 1 difficulty than Level 2 difficulty, and more
TMDLs at Level 2 difficulty than Level 3 difficulty.  This analysis
adopts the same assumptions as the 2001 Report regarding the national
distribution for the level of difficulty of TMDLS, as follows: Level 1 =
45%, Level 2 = 30% and Level 3 = 25%. 

	b. Distribution of TMDLs by Extent that Efficiencies Can Be Realized

	The 2001 Report contains an extensive analysis of the potential for
TMDLs to be clustered into submissions on a watershed basis and the
extent to which the States have already been clustering their TMDLs in
this way.

	States are already beginning to manage their TMDL workloads to garner
the cost savings that result when coordinating the development of
multiple TMDLs.  To assess this, in the 2000 Report we evaluated 496
submissions submitted to EPA through September 2000.  These 496
submissions included 1,096 TMDLs, for which 26% of the waters benefitted
from clustering efficiencies, and 55% of the TMDLs realized some sort of
efficiency.

	In the 2001 Report, we also analyzed an extensive sample of impaired
waters  representing 77% of all impaired waters and 70% of all pollutant
causes, to determine the extent that they could be clustered together to
achieve efficiencies.  The 2001 Report grouped the listed waters that
were located in the same watershed as defined by the 8-digit hydrologic
unit code (HUC), and then identified those waters that were
interconnected (i.e., waters that flowed into one another).  Each set of
waters that were interconnected within watersheds was considered to be
associated in a potential “cluster” for which standard (Type B)
efficiencies could be realized; in addition the analysis determined the
extent to which modeling-related (Type C) efficiencies could also be
realized because the waters shared similar pollutant causes.  That
analysis concluded that up to 80% of the waters could realize
efficiencies from clustering, with the first TMDL for each of these
waters having no efficiencies (Type A), representing about 12% of the
TMDLs.  Of the remaining TMDLs, 16% would benefit from standard
efficiencies (Type B) and 72% would benefit from maximum efficiencies
(Type C) (a roughly a 20/80 split between Type B and Type C efficiencies
for these TMDLs).  However, the 2001 Report lists a number of factors
that could potentially reduce clustering in practice, especially in the
near term.

	 Based on this analysis, EPA assumed that States would gradually
increase clustering from current levels (i.e., starting in 2000) over a
5 to 10 year period to eventually achieve the maximum 80% clustering for
currently listed causes.  These assumptions result in an overall average
through 2015 of 60% to 70% clustering.  The results of this analysis
from the 2001 Report are shown in Exhibit C-16.

Exhibit C-16

% Distribution of the Current National TMDL Workload

Descriptions of the Submissions	Percent of TMDLs

	By Type of Efficiency for

	60% Clustering	70% Clustering

A. TMDLs requiring full cost: the only or first cause for a water or
cluster of waters	22%	16%

B. TMDLs with standard efficiencies: subsequent causes for a water or
cluster of waters	14%	15%

C. TMDLs with additional modeling-related efficiencies: subsequent
related causes	64%	69%

Total	100%	100%

However, this ICR covers primarily the initial ramp-up period and it
would not be appropriate to apply the long-run clustering efficiency. 
Therefore, we assume in this ICR that states will realize only 50%
clustering efficiencies for waters during the period of the ICR, with
the same 20/80 split for the remaining TMDLs: this results in a
25%/15%/60% Type A/B/C distribution (as shown in Exhibit C-17a and
discussed further below).

	For the program, we project that 12,000 TMDLs will be developed for
6,000 waters over the period covered by this ICR.  Thus, if half of the
waters (i.e., 3,000 waters) receive efficiencies, then this means that
half do not receive efficiencies; therefore, there are 3,000 clusters
representing 3,000 TMDLs requiring full cost (i.e., Type A).  The
remaining 9,000 TMDLs, based on a 20/80 split, represent 1,800 TMDLs
with Type B efficiencies and 7,200 TMDLs with Type C efficiencies.  All
of the TMDLs Types (Type A, B and C) are assumed to have the 45%/30%/25%
split for level of difficulty, as shown in Exhibit C-17.  This allows us
to then apply the unit costs for the program, which are also specified
by Type and by Level.

Exhibit C-17a

National TMDL Workload for the Program over the ICR Period 

Description of the Submission	Total	Level 1	Level 2	Level 3

	100%	45%	30%	25%

A. TMDLs requiring full cost: the only or first cause for a water or
cluster	3,000	1,350	900	750

B. TMDLs with standard efficiencies: subsequent causes for a water or
cluster	1,800	810	540	450

C. TMDLs with additional modeling-related  efficiencies: subsequent
related causes	7,200	3,240	2,160	1,800

Total Number	12,000	5,400	3,600	3,000

C. National Burden and Costs  tc "

C. National Burden and Costs " \l 2 

1. National burden

	Multiplying the unit burden for the program (Exhibit C-7) by the total
TMDL workload (Exhibit 17a) provides the national burden as shown in
Exhibit C-18a – this results in a total burden of 8,687,880 hours at
an average of 723 hours per TMDL.  Increasing these amounts by 15% to
reflect the potential for outliers, results in a total of 9,980,712
hours at an average of 831.7 hours per TMDL. 

	

Exhibit C-18a

National TMDL Workload for the Program over the ICR Period for 12,000
TMDLs

Prior to Consideration of Outliers  

(000's hrs)

Description of the Submission	Total	Level 1	Level 2	Level 3

	100%	45%	30%	25%

A. TMDLs requiring full cost: the only or first cause for a water or
cluster	4,696	1,131	1,438	2,126

B. TMDLs with standard efficiencies: subsequent causes for a water or
cluster	1,166	216	354	596

C. TMDLs with additional modeling-related  efficiencies: subsequent
related causes	2,817	677	864	1,276

Total Hours*	8,679	2,025	2,646	3,998

*Increasing by 15% to reflect outliers brings the total hours to
9,980,712 hours.

2. National Cost

	As described earlier in this Appendix, the 2000 Report and 2001 reports
uses the average hourly rate of $38.89 per hour (2000 dollars).  As
described in this ICR, this hourly rate is escalated to $41.53 per hour
(2003 dollars).   At an average hourly rate of $41.53 per hour, the
total cost associated with program for developing TMDLs during the
period covered by this ICR is $414.5.  The associated national average
cost per TMDL for the program is $34,542.

Exhibit C-19

Total National TMDL Development Cost over the ICR Period

Including Consideration of Outliers

Activity	Burden by Year	3-yr Total

	Year 1	Year 2	Year 3

	Total	$138,166,323	$138,166,323	$138,166,323	$414,498,969

	

     1 FR Vol; 68, No. 53, March 19, 2003, pages 13607-13614.

     2 The combination of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and 5
Territories (Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and
the Northern Mariana Islands) are collectively referred to as “the
States” in this document.

     3 The Cadmus Group, Inc., State Water Quality Management Resource
Analysis: Interim Report on Results, prepared for the State Water
Quality Management Resource Analysis Task Force, December 2001.

     4 Consumer Price Index, Feb 2000: 170.0; Consumer Price Index, Nov
2002: 181.5.  (181.5/170.0 = 1.068).

     5  Note that the 2001 Report included two tasks (summarizing public
comments included as part of Task 6 and implementation planning shown as
Task 8) that were included in the July 2000 rule and analyzed in the
2000 Report.  In this ICR, effort for summarizing public comments and
for implementation planning is not included as part of the program.

     6 For this ICR, the current 303(d) lists are the ones submitted for
the 2000 listing cycle for GA, MI, MT, NC, NM, RI, SC, UT, VT, and WY. 
For the remaining 46 states and territories the current lists are the
ones submitted for the 1998 listing cycle.  Note that this analysis does
not include any of the statewide fish consumption advisories that some
states have referenced in their lists.  

July 29, 2003

July 29, 2003

  PAGE     PAGE   3 

July 29, 2003

  PAGE     PAGE   11 

July 29, 2003

  PAGE   23 

July 29, 2003

  PAGE   24 

July 29, 2003

  PAGE   26 

  PAGE   30 

Draft  DATE \@ "MMMM d, yyyy" August 9, 2007 

  PAGE   31 

Draft  DATE \@ "MMMM d, yyyy" August 9, 2007 

A-  PAGE   3 

Draft  DATE \@ "MMMM d, yyyy" August 9, 2007 

B-  PAGE   5 

Draft  DATE \@ "MMMM d, yyyy" August 9, 2007 

C-  PAGE   5 

Draft  DATE \@ "MMMM d, yyyy" August 9, 2007 

C-  PAGE   

Draft  DATE \@ "MMMM d, yyyy" August 9, 2007 

C-  PAGE   

Draft  DATE \@ "MMMM d, yyyy" August 9, 2007 

C-  PAGE   6 

Draft  DATE \@ "MMMM d, yyyy" August 9, 2007 

C-  PAGE   8 

Draft  DATE \@ "MMMM d, yyyy" August 9, 2007 

C-  PAGE   9 

Draft  DATE \@ "MMMM d, yyyy" August 9, 2007 

C-  PAGE   10 

Draft  DATE \@ "MMMM d, yyyy" August 9, 2007 

C-  PAGE   19 

Draft  DATE \@ "MMMM d, yyyy" August 9, 2007 

C-  PAGE   20 

Draft  DATE \@ "MMMM d, yyyy" August 9, 2007 

C-  PAGE   22 

Draft  DATE \@ "MMMM d, yyyy" August 9, 2007 

C-  PAGE   23 

Draft  DATE \@ "MMMM d, yyyy" August 9, 2007 

C-  PAGE   27