-------
7.0 Comparison of Benefits and Costs
Exhibit 7-1. Comparison of Annual Benefits to Costs for tbe Phase II Storm Water Rule
National Water Quality Model
Total Annual Benefits
$1,628.5
National Water Quality Assessment
Municipal Minimum Measures
Controls for Construction Sites0
Total Annual Benefits
$131.0-$410.2
$540.5-$686.0
$671.5-$1,096.2
Municipal Minimum Measures
Controls for Construction Sites3
Federal/State Administrative Costs
Total Annual Costs
$297.3
$545.0-$678.7
$5.3
$847.6 -$981.3
'National level benefits are not inclusive of all categories of benefits that can be expected to result from the
regulation.
2Detail may not add to total due to independent rounding.
3 Controls evaluated include both erosion and sediment and post-construction controls.
October 1999
Final Report
7-3
-------
Ill II
ilfcl, ! I',,,!:,
inn!.. , ', I1, , ':
IIP! r MI, .. :mny-\ • BUI 'in .?,!•. /i >" ..'.i i1' ~ • • ••» ,;
I ;. ,,'!*,L,Vfti'" -if I ,,',',1,111 A ;!;,,,;!' , 'il'< ' , ,„
,,,/T'L"!!!!'I „ 'M,;!,' / " Miimiiiiiiliiii! , III" ."-i"'"'!'''
' ,, ,' , II 'lillllllll.'...;.!!' T !.:',!,l, illllillllll': If :
' 'I1;,!,1!;, "Hull I'lllll, " Ili'l Ulill'".''!!:'.!!:
iiniiiv "in,i.' nil ; i,/
Illllli: l",,:,iifl •,<•.'[ sr
UI,; ' n "'sir],' hiuiiut1 ;i Uiiiini
ii in. jii" '.iiii,'• ami ':iiiii
iiiiiL
i ' : s :"• «' 'if < » t '"i • • • * , ' '
'• " , lO.'lillllllil,!!! i''l|iii,r, < '!„' i,i||piili'«F!|!i ill1;', illl'PI :ii
I'.j.rWFU. „„„'', .^SHUt'.*"'.;* '/ '::ii
^^MJ?-il f-'"-'*^^-1:...1!11'*'':'(
1 ..... 1, ••lli ......... ...... L'MI "I1 ..... ':.; ..... '] ..... i .'Jill1!! 'illy1,'!''1' ...... •*••'! T't , >."<*,•• . *
:> in: „, ; • ai'i , , ,i ..... ii'i i.sil ....... iiifiii «i: i; Ji ...... ; ...... >''« ..... "''i- ''I. : i •
i , #|l»!. • "! li| | ! '< . "i '" : •;:""" :„ If : ' ' i! Jlii " ' < ' '• ....... ' „* .' i' " if 'Si ..... ":" • i J ••..'
n '. , ! " IE' ; ..... :v' . it i • ! ii:' ' :, . '!! ' " ": : : ; ,,;„ , , *:: . 'I ....... . ^ • ; '" •• ' ; ;
i; ..... W'i'V1'
i •,..', "I- i '.JI
•• ' ' •'.,<: f, "'" ;':
III!1'LI"'...' li,i|l" ', ', !,„ 'I!,]
li'ii :!;„;;, 'j,,, , "'i'l, "j ;i'!i;j", "f'!.,,,!, "i 'piiiffii 11' N"II IP a' : i'lij:, li,,;,:,1;1! ",-, i .• ' ?r,\ ,!!i"j;
': ' ':: " :: "l::";::",,': ':;:: - i :"v' "•' " - ;""
,„,' j.:ir, '(1 s,1!1-' ;''...'I,'1: ( '•! "i'1, "rail "ii;,,:1"',.;'; ilia 1
li.:!!1!!!!:"1:1,""1" ."i'l,, :,. 's i' ,fi '!• '•, • Pi:1"11!J • ,,;i:; l|;;l'1^l^TM1,;li|!li!lltl;'l
!|,',',
p/'1^'^1.'jfaik'v'' •',. .•'^i'vviiti.iiw "iiiifii1,,:!!,!''• ffli I
pilPiin ,„, l|:!l!ll!,i|!1 „,! ,illi»iii!i,ii 'i , ' 'I? ip|"','"i,i,li,,'
-f-ii'1''*'-'',: "Mil :,: i; i '"'•• i'.;;.I
i:iin 'in... .rii... ; "||1 '""lulu ..... K1' tiiii . T .i viriii1.1 ,'..' i, .in1 ..' igyi iiiyi. iiii. "IF" i.. i" ii; ..... ;;.nii"i
r'Siiilil" s: «: .:.liiii!i;::;ii,,'i; :- iX1.,1* ' '.•>, •its ...... i
ii; .......... .r
'j'!,,,;1,!"1'1 iii.ii' ;;i'"i,ri i:n i 'nmAi "i"!!,, Mi , , ,„',•', "i 'J'fllilK '
,,' 'in1 ||p|' ;, ;; ;;ii;| 1,1 „„ p<,»||, , • :,i ;, ,|||I,;M r ,,"'f, jnlt *n, i¥ hli, ';i| " , •;
L fi nil ",i i|ii "' •
"r IIPW1' 'n; ilinl | , '"fllll, ''IIIIIIIHlJ'llli
'i Ill,, '„!, V'1 '" ,""h ,i,
; 'H1;, niiinii "" : : ,i, •"' • tv \"i 1,1,, i1 ' i ,,,iiiiirin , '"'''Wlllu! < , i „,
flip',] ' Fli S.iif.'.ff'vltli. "I"-'; :S"'. '!,,! .iOfiil*,! •»!! ''I":
11:!','»jii i'j:1 , r1 iJjjJ!,, iiii • .ijiiifi'1! link"!, • • ''iiihi"" , Jiiiiiiii ji
i,1 ; ,,s", '"'if >t-\\m',1 ; • --^•j] i"; a. „: j».
„ - ' i ii" V" i, »",! ,iii!ll»ii,i|," •,', ,,| ' n ' :!i|P'i! ",i, .i!!!!!1',!li' ' .T1!!' I!,!,,'! 'PI
M "!,'! 'i i , '', Ji1 ' "I' .''liiillUP", ,'i!,il • ,' iittJIIIPLP'Ki,,!!;, iii'/illii11 '
'''' \ .'"'i,,'1'; "f, i , '!, 1'"ij'i • L , I"';,'ft1 •«!a';;*«!' ,:'i ;fi"'"" 'iiiliH'ii1:1''"'!!"! .v • ;i
,' '"ii,; \:s! 'i'1';:;;4, •£•'&>., ,,"' n M !: 'S^' 'ifflPkiL ..!)*. •!£"*
i'ilW! i^vi,,'! !!!!, i'
f • liPPfn ;,|iii':f J I;1;, J|!!|'! |,,,j|,:' .^ Ni . f • iirj ,|. Iljllj '" 'ir ,j: ' .iii;!!,'!"; ^,, i ,;;„;> ., •« , • iij,, ;,!,,,, ,.- ^ %fi ,,||' „ • ",|, ;. , :i ;;,,, !!,jr, ..'"^^t w
iti!,'1"1'.'-t '-r! 1;-"mi, J:v*iiii-'j ' ,'wr '*& '*l& '^liiisi,1 r.^*'•; i : ii" i:"'::'^vi; i^! \:'W.« ''uiiw^'.iiifiV;
v;'; -I!!1 11 .': Hi* •'•l,*1,1 rJI ti I. H I, ii; ' • iii „ V'f. ,(•,: •""•' •!' i1 "1 ,i li,.' ' , """',, •'•• .$•*> •': /"'i'! '* ' •!• <£W :" .-.M "i I!'! ', "", "ti, nJ.^r'.'.rM
„;, i! , ""''i ; iii;,i,ii"!" ;,!i,,,,'i "i. ••'linn'"' '• *!li'iiii - "„:m,,,i• r^.': • /,• !i;^* !• i-i,^> ,.*'*"..' • • \ •:.s;,:J":' •.:* ^ .-f"*• lit•» .•'" *:i'si
1
Iiii! Hi,' i,,iiiln, ,,|!|" ' *< il<
-------
8.0 REVISED SMALL ENTITY ASSESSMENT
This chapter updates EPA's analysis and statements with respect to three federal directives:
Executive Order 12886 (Regulatory Planning and Review), including the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (RFA) of 1980, as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA) of 1996; Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice
in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations; and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA) of 1995. In particular, because the cost hi Chapter 4 has been revised, EPA revised the
analysis presented hi the initial SBREFA screening analysis, which was included hi the EA for
the proposed rule. Section 8.1 presents the results of the revised screening analysis. EPA will
certify the final Phase II Storm Water Rule. A justification for certifying the rule is provided in
the Preamble. Environmental justice issues are addressed in Section 8.2, and UMRA issues are
addressed in Section 8.3.
8.1 Revised SBREFA Analysis of Impacts on Small Entities
In accordance with §402(p) of the Clean Water Act (CWA), the US Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is finalizing a Phase II Storm Water rule. This rule is subject to the requirements
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 as amended by the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. The analysis of the potential cost implications for small
entities presented hi the EA for the proposed rule supported the determination that the rule was
not expected to have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. In response
to comments, EPA revised its cost analysis for the soil erosion control provision of the rule.
EPA also revised the per household cost estimate for the municipal minimum measures
provision. EPA subsequently revised its original SBREFA screening analyses to determine the
effect of the cost changes.
The RFA was enacted to increase agency awareness of the impacts of regulations (and their
alternatives) on small entities, to allow for public comments on regulations that affect small
entities, and to encourage agency use of flexibility in regulating small entities (US EPA, 1992).
SBREFA amended the RFA to strengthen its analytical and procedural requirements. Under the
RFA as amended, agencies are required to prepare a final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA)
unless the agency certifies that the final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. EPA is including the following revisions to the original
economic impact analysis for small entities hi this EA, as further support for the decision to
certify the final rule.
The original economic analysis of potential impacts on small entities was prepared following
EPA's Interim Guidance for Implementing the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness
Act and Related Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (US EPA, 1997a) and, where
appropriate, EPA Guidelines for Implementing the Regulatory Flexibility Act (US EPA, 1992).
This section presents mainly those portions of the analysis that have been updated.
October 1999
Final Report
8-1
-------
•Ill
8.0 Revised SBREFA Analysis
8.1.1 Background
1 mi i 1 n 11 ii nil inn n
Storm water runoff from lands modified by human activities can harm surface water resources in
two ways: (1) By changing natural hydrblogic patterns (e.g., increasing peak flow levels), and
(2) by elevating pollution concentrations and loadings. The National 1996 §305(b) Report found
ftat pollution fern nonpomt sources such as runoff from agHciiltoal ani urban sources,
corisffuction sites, land disposal oTwaste,"and resource 'extraidion' wasthe leading cause of
unpaired waters (see also the Preamble to the rule). In addition, the Nationwide Urban Runoff
Program found that the concentration of total suspended solids in runoff from residential and
commercial "sites' was239"mg/L ascompared to 20 nig/L in effluent from treatment plants
providing secondary freatment (see Preamble). Evidence also suggests that illicit discharges and
intensive construction activities can create severe water quality problems. As described more
completely in the Preamble to the proposed rule, storm water runoff continues to harm the
nation's waters. The purpose of the proposed regulation is to identify storm watef sources that
need to t>«egula;te3 to "protect" water~quis3iity and to regulate these sources through a
comprehensive program.
nun iiiii in ill i in i linn n n in i in in i n n in mi n nn i i i i inn i l| 11 ni|iin n i i In n i
Some nonpoint sources of pollution are exempt from the National Pollutant Discharge
• I IIIII I III III IlllililliliS , • . IM.™.!.,, J-ij.-.. i, • - ii •*.,.. ..,
Elimination System (NPDES) program; however, urban storm water runoff is generally
llil ' • • I IllilllhiIIIII llnilllllllillllC''^'''''!..!!!!!^!!!!'!,,!!' ,jii • «iiij|] i'i- • " ii , i g •; B ; •' ' • • • 1i". «
discharged through discrete conveyances such as municipal separate storm sewer systems, which
are subject to the NPDES program. Under §402(p) of the CWA, EPA is required to implement a
comprehensive approach for addressing storm water discharges. In the statute, Congress
specified that this program should be developed and implemented in two phases. The first phase
addresses storm water discharges that:
i
• were subject to a NPDES permit before February 4,1987
• are associated with industrial activity
• are from a municipal separate storm sewer system serving a population of 250,000 or
more ' . " "'
• are from a municipal separate storm sewer system serving a population of 100,000 or
more but fewer than 250,000
• are determined to be contributing to a violation of a water quality standard or to be a
significant contributor of pollutants.
i inn in i nn IN i n n n n i i n i n| n i i i i n i
The rule implements Phase II by instituting regulations for other storm water discharges. In
accordance with §402(p)(6), this rule establishes a comprehensive program to regulate
designated sources, and specifies that this program will be implemented as part of the NPDES
permitting program. At a minimum, this program is required to establish priorities, requirements
for state storm water management programs, and expeditious deadlines.
8-2
Final Report
October 1999
-------
8.0 Revised SBREFA Analysis
The Phase II rule will regulate:
• all construction sites disturbing between one and five acres of land
• urbanized places and counties not included hi Phase I (see the Preamble for
additional details on the rule requirements).
8.1.2 Small Entities Affected by Rule
EPA used the definitions of small businesses, municipalities, and not-for-profit organizations
established by the Small Business Administration (SBA) and the RFA. The SBA defines small
businesses based on Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) and size standards expressed either
in number of employees or annual receipts in millions of dollars (13 CFR §121.20). To evaluate
the economic impact on small entities involved hi the construction activity affected by the rule,
EPA'looked at the number of building contractors considered to be small businesses. For this
SIC (SIC 15), the size standard is up to $17.0 million hi annual revenues. In the EA for the
proposed rule, EPA reported results from a database of businesses (Dun and Bradstreet, 1997)
that was used to identify small building contractors. This estimate is believed to still be a
reasonably accurate estimate of the number of construction businesses that may be affected by
either the soil erosion provision or the post-construction control provision of the final rule.
The RFA defines small governmental jurisdictions and organizations (US EPA, 1992). A small
government is the government of a city, county, town, school district, or special district with a
population of fewer than 50,000. A small organization is any not-for-profit enterprise that is
independently owned and operated, and is not dominant in its field. To evaluate the potential
economic impact on small municipalities, EPA looked at the unufbanized places, urbanized
places, and urbanized counties with populations of fewer than 50,000 based on the 1990 Census.
EPA did not identify any not for profit organizations that would be affected by the rule. The
original SBREF A estimate of small municipalities included incorporated places located outside
of an urbanized area, and incorporated places and counties located either fully or partially within
an urbanized area. EPA has since revised this estimate to include the minor civil divisions (i.e.,
unincorporated towns and townships), and municipios located fully or partially within an
urbanized area, and to exclude the incorporated places located outside of an urbanized area since
they are not automatically covered by the rule. The number of small businesses and the revised
number of municipalities affected by the rule is shown in Exhibit 8-1.
October 1999
Final Report
8-3
-------
'';! IE' i'i'1;; jllllll ..... iift
'
ii I1,!1' ...... n ...... if "'Hi ..... in ........ M
LllijIllulilT II
iS ,,Mffl "", ...... ! •. i'^X" • ::„!.: ......... <» ..... ',JT'..,, : -I! • • I! ..... P >•; 'rV^i-vi ..... ;;
3!!;:! ........ tt «il' ....... JPIIIII! ' T •( " .• i! ..... , •« ii (' ....... V Vi . I '!' ' " , : < . , .' i J , ' i 4 "
......... " " " ' • " '' " 11 '" '"
1 1 ' I -1
prini ......... ri ...... i
ISfJuirTSII •(' I,1!", 'ITfOWi1 . •WflULHUH.'i.'i '< ,i
::,f' iwif"> " TiiiiiM^ . '!!l' Ii*; i J 'i: 'i"11'1:,1',.
,,":„'!" •-' is:!*;,!!" ':.'V: ih I"1!1 Ilk .|1lh!«i'-,flF' I ' >, h ''I"
M M li
'>ui is,"1;, 'in,,, ;I,LI> < ,."„• mi11viiaiii' ;i!iii' I'si"
"•.ii'i/1,;,,:*.";!!-1!! M. i ,i&ak; iiii'iB ;.••;»
,
''is '!>;., ' HI, ' TJiin"1" ,;Mr
• ;:,"I;:JLI:!
'ivvi'Mililiii ..... i , WiE,
8.0: Revised SBREFA Analysis
I1*
8.13 Compliance Requirements
1111 Mill III H('if''i ''• •'•'.'*£•>"':• •',•« tirf";,'!' '=ii"ii:'i».;iill!ii,:v, !,"'i'l!, M'.'FIII11,>!;•: J!,':1" • ' i i. ,:.. • '. Hr. ll'iiiMl,1!,!!!!!!!1. 'till1'
This section describes the projected reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements
(and compliance costs) of the proposed rule, including the estimated classes of small entities
subject to the requirements and the type of skills necessary for the preparation of reports or
reco!ds: Tllissection dso Provides initial screening analysis of the potential impact of these
requirements, and analysis of environmental justice issues. The reporting, recordkeeping, and
other (i°FP!Jan^S£S$*SP£^ *£ described in Section,8? 1,1, Section 8.1.5 presents the'
screening analysis of the potential economic impacts on the regulated small entities. Section
8.1.6 contains further financial analysis on home buyers who might be impacted.
'' ' " ' "'"!, ; ; \ | f ' , I i"° " !' •
Exhibit 8-1. Businesses and Municipalities Potentially Affected by the Phase H Storm Water Regulations
HIMH I'iftIO!1'ni 'l!ll|; IE ''
• Iffi;!:11:1,1!;
U'lll'lj! , IS'hl
nail;; :
llribWIBj'!''.!
II IR
''L'Siil ,
'.vntw e
ill,
j.i^f | . M,^. v ,(A '-» ,«(( ^ . T",«
, f K ' i * ii •> ; (* " ' "• ; '* l * * " " *• -
' Business or Municipality
Construction
Incorporated Places, Counties, and MCDs
Municipios (Puerto Rico)
Total Municipalities
Total Number
of Firms
189,4532
5,040
39
5,079
Number of
Small Entities1
187,6103
4,425
30
4,455
I™311 munisipalities defined as municipalities with populations of fewer than 50,000; small businesses in SIC 15
jjjj^^denned as bjginess.s.wjjh annual,, revenues of $17 million or Jess.
»;-5^umbe^ o£fi8psft]KjfiflR firms in SIC 15 with sales > $0 identified in Dun & Bradstreet's FACTS database Firms in
s'-!:'..*^*8 mQi equivalent soil erosion control programs (CT, DC, DE, MD, MI, NC, NJ, PA, PR, and SC) were removed
=:,Ju,S««n the original estimate. Because additional states with equivalent programs were subsequently identified (FL GA
NH> y>WV' ?°d W1)' t11'5 estimate potentially overstates the number of construction firms affected by that provision
^Slwto?™liteini^^^MSP^^BlSS.(MJ?E, FL, MD, PA, RI, and SC) have equivalent programs for the
P^00"^™^011 nuioff control provision. Consequently, this estimate includes some businesses that will not be
wscted by that provision and excludes some businesses that will be affected.
. 1 construction firms in SIC 15 identified in Dun and Bradstreet (1997). Note that there is no way to
™;' 'ijjs^nguish which firms are involved in remodeling only.
Scarce: US EPA, 1997.
'ii iiii.fi1--
other compliance requirements of the proposed rule are
,!? Exnilt §^?a^ichalso presents EPA's estimates of the cost of compliance for
SSKWP^iti63 and[construction contractors. EPA's analysis of costs did not
£22?iderthe costs for small municipalities and construction sites; however, EPA
fj «£™~ =£ S2M9.SSS SJit!6? tob e less tjiaftfor, all,e,ntitiess Therefore, Exhibit 8-2 reports
the avejage cost for construction sites and municipalities. These estimates serve as an upper
!i n130^! °8 KSJ?! small,enti|iess The bulk of the costs for municipalities are reported
on a per capita basis, with additional fixed administrative costs reported on a per entity basis.
Building contractor cost estimates are reported on a per site basis.
Final Report
October 1999
-------
8.0 Revised SBREFA Analysis
Reporting Requirements
Regulated municipalities will be required to submit annual reports to the NPDES permitting
authority for their first permit term (a permit term is five years). For subsequent permit terms,
regulated entities must submit reports in the second and fourth years unless the permitting
authority requires more frequent reports. The report must include the following elements:
The status of compliance with permit conditions, including the status of identified
Best Management Practices (BMPs) and measurable goals for each of the
minimum control measures
Results of information collected and analyzed, including monitoring data, if any,
during the reporting period
• A summary of the storm water activities the regulated entity plans to undertake in
the next reporting cycle
A change in any identified measurable goals that apply to the program elements.
EPA estimates that the skill level needed for reporting is a high school education or related work
experience. However, in accordance with §122.22(a)(3), reports must be signed by either a
principal executive officer or ranking elected official (US EPA, 1997b).
Building contractors will be required to submit a notice of intent (NOI) to the NPDES permitting
authority, and to notify the municipality of planned construction activities. EPA estimates that
the skill level needed for this task is a high school education or related work experience
(US EPA, 1997b).
October 1999
Final Report
8-5
-------
8.0 Revised SBREFA Analysis
iii in
i in
ii in
Exhibit 8-2. Summary of Compliance Requirements and Estimated Costs of the Phase II Storm Water
l i Rule for Small Municipalities and Building Con tractors (1998 dollars)
iiiM
'; ..... !"
IJiniLJii, EfiilBil i:
in /lii
in1 it1 ij i <: inn
i in
I
in i iliili
i in ill
in ill I
111 I I In I Hill
lilt' ...... ill
. ,
Small Municipalities
Per household costs (mean)1 $8.93
The per household costs include the cost for: public
education and outreach, public involvement, illicit
connection and discharge detection and elimination,
construction site sediment and erosion control
program, post-construction storm water management
in new development and redevelopment, pollution
prevention/good housekeeping of municipal
operations
Fixed Municipal Administrative costs2
Submittal of application $161
Record keeping $75
Reporting $1,289
Total fixed costs $1,525
Building Contractors"
Administrative costs per site
Submittal of NOI $126.50
Notification of municipalities $ 17.10
Average SWPPP3 $772.25
Retention of records $4.51
Notice of termination (NOT) $17.10
Total administrative costs $937.46
Soil erosion control costs per site4
Size Category
1 acre site $1,206
3 acres site $4,598
5 acres site $8,709
'The per household costs do not include municipal administrative costs, which are factored on a per
: glnjgjjgaliry basis here. So hpusehoM costs are $0.23 less than as reported in Chapter 4.
Mnnual costs per municipality based on estimated costs over a live year period. For reporting, costs are
j!j:;j)as,gg! SaJhenumber of reports over 30 years (an average of three reports in each permit term).
3Stprm water pollution prevention plan.
Per acre costs are average costs from model simulations across three slope assumptions (3%, 7%, and 12%)
and three soil credibility assumptions (low, medium, and high).
Recordkeeping Requirements
lit1'1
viliilllMH" ,]'•
,,"!!ll "ilt'i-i''•
lllllllll
I!1 sii'ii •, i iJ?
ssed rul<
I.HBI :'
IIICK
- i."i, i "MI i,!;1"
,:,"' "it" J'jil "
Lillill/ Ill'llilli1' I
III
111
III
line proposed rule requires regulated entities to keep" records required by the NPDES permit for
• "i'liil, fjjj '»i unit •"'',, will .i1. ii" • I'L i« ""i. " m ""i'lL. • '»," ''hiiir- nil ' „ , ,„" ',i 'ii. ' ^,'^iffl ,,i!iii,i, i i , iiii|i|iiiii:',i i .'I'm1 „„ • i» i nr.m,,, - „ ,,,,• • • riir.niin •",' »•.•,• niu, >, n.'ii 'niii ,i,,
• iat least three ^ears after me permit term. The entities are required to submit their records to the
NPEXJES permitting authority only when specifically asked to do so. The records, including the
storm water management program, must be made available to the public at reasonable times
during regular business hours. EPA estimates iihat the skill level needed lor recordkeeping is a
high school education or related work experience (US EPA, 1997b). Building contractors will be
required to retain records of their NOIs, their storm water pollution prevention plans, and then-
notices of termination.
Other Requirements
The costs shown in Exhibit 8-2 not associated with reporting and recordkeeping requirements
reflect the othercompliance requirements of the proposed rule. Under the proposal, NPDES
permit holders must develop, implement, and enforce a storm water management program
designed to reduce pollutants to the maximum extent practicable (MEP) and protect water
8-6
Final Report
October 1999
-------
8.0 Revised SBREFA Analysis
quality. As part of this program, permit holders are required to identify and submit to their
NPDES permitting authority (in either the NOI or the permit application) the best management
practices (BMPs) to be implemented and the measurable goals for each storm water minimum
control measure. Permit holders must also identify the person or persons responsible for
implementing or coordinating the storm water program, and identify the years in which they plan
to start and complete the following measures (Draft Proposed Rule, February 13,1997):
• Public education and outreach. Permit holders must implement a public
education program to distribute educational materials to the community or
conduct equivalent outreach activities about the impacts of storm water discharges
on water bodies, and the steps to reduce storm water pollution.
• Public involvement and participation. Permit holders must comply with state
and local public notice requirements.
• Illicit discharge and elimination. Permit holders must:
— Demonstrate awareness of their system, using maps or other existing documents,
develop a storm sewer system map (or equivalent) showing the location of major
pipes, outfalls, and topography. If data already exist, show areas of concentrated
activities likely to be sources of storm water pollution.
— Effectively prohibit (to the extent allowable under state law through ordinance,
order, or similar means) illicit discharges into then- storm sewer systems, and
implement appropriate enforcement procedures and actions.
— Implement a plan to detect and address illicit discharges to their systems.
— Take actions designed to inform public employees, businesses, and the general
public of hazards associated with illegal discharges and improper disposal of-
waste.
Construction site storm water discharge control. Permit holders must develop,
implement, and enforce a program for construction sites that discharge into their
separate storm sewer system. They must use an ordinance or other regulatory
mechanism that controls erosion and sediment to the greatest extent practicable
and allowable under state law. The program must control other waste at
construction sites, such as discarded building materials, concrete truck washout,
and sanitary waste. The program must include, at a minimum, requirements for
construction site owners or operators to implement appropriate BMPs, provisions
for ^reconstruction review and approval of site management plans, procedures for
receiving and ensuring proper consideration of information submitted by the
public, regular inspections during construction, and penalties to ensure
compliance.
October 1999
Final Report
8-7
-------
>*'"»•» !JT'
•,4:;";J.W
•' iW !.,/ \t •] ....... ., ...... : ...... I" "X ......... 1 3 I ..... IB! ..... Ill '. Ill ...... :>"' ..... I'; ..... "' ...... rt WT "I"1'
'
, ,
P ...... !' ' &W ..... ifc "ii: "'1
• ........ ?•: V •¥ •
.......
3 ...... »..:n ..... 3 .....
l{i»: ilill'M
in, ,IF! Tin"", i'iiiiiiiriniuib
Fill!.; i iiiiiiiin.; i 'iti, iaii>
• ii i I; diii1:
lllllLI !P::i,:
1,1:1"! Hi, "I Illlli!'!
';i,i;'!tii :i!i, Illii!,"" ill Jil Di, JXiJi"
III
Post-cpnstruction storm water management in new development and
^.J^^r^jjpiwewZ'Permit holders must develop and implement programs to control
storm water discharges into their separate storm sewer system from development
— aBd redevelopment projects using site-appropriate and cost-effective structural
alp 'mmsrmciural BMPs. The programs must ensure that permit holders minimize
water quality impacts.
I
Pollution prevention and good housekeeping. Permit holders must develop and
< „,!«,< , -"'ill! "'I'M1 !ii'\Hii!iiiii||iiiiiiiiiiiiii!''i!iiiii\iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii»iiiii!iiiiiiiii!!!,,i S;, ^ _
IB-implement a cost-effective operation and maintenance program with the goal of
l;:" ""^l^^'^ii'SKmg ^d'reducmgjollutant runoff from municipal operations. If training
!^'^^|Q^^»^^^^. Jipigajffie^R&ES' ^ftraffie^or "ftan other bf|aiuzations
j^hosejmateriais are approved by the local government, the programs must include
local government employee training to prevent and reduce storm water pollution
fJQpa government operations.
• Permit holders must comply with other applicable NPDES permit requirements
and standard conditions established in the individual or general permit.
• "Evaluation and assessment. Permit holders must evaluate program compliance
arid effectiveness of identified BMPs and measurable goals.
8.1.4 Revised Analysis of Potential Economic Impact
111 ill in in nun nil i iiiin||iiiiniii niiiiiin i n i in nil inn
The initial SBKEFA screening analysis concluded that the rule would not have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small entities. Since then, the economic analysis for the rule
has revised the municipal and buildlBg construction costs. To determine whether the revised cost
analysis for the final rule alters this finding, EPA revised the initial screening analysis to
incorporate updated costs to municipalities and building contractors.
Municipalities
EPA guidelines recommend a "revenue test" to evaluate the potential severity of economic
impact on small municipalities. This test calculates total compliance cost as a percentage of total
revenues, EPA used the same method to approximate municipality revenues in the revised
analysis that was reported in the EA for the proposed rule. EPA approximated municipality
revenues using population estimates and per capita revenue estimates from the 1992 Census of
Governments. No attempt was made to escalate revenue to 19WdoUars',"so"revenues are most
likely underestimated. For each small municipality, EPA estimated total costs by first
multiplying the number of households in the municipality with the per household costs shown hi
Exhibit, 8i-2," and then'aHdlng' the $1,525 fixed administrative cost. Total costs were then divided
by municipal revenue to estimate the number of municipalities that had percentages greater than
1% and greater than 3%. EPA conducted mis test for several per-household municipality costs in
Exhibit 4-3 of Chapter 4.
•i
8-8
Final Report
October 1999
-------
8.0 Revised SBREFA Analysis
The results of the revenue test and sensitivity analysis are reported in Exhibit 8-3. The results
demonstrate that even if the assumption were made that per household costs for Phase II
communities were equal to the 75th percentile of household costs in the Phase I sample, less than
20% of small governments affected by the rule will incur costs greater than 1%. Therefore, with
respect to the mean per capita costs incurred by small municipalities, the rule can be considered
not to have a significant impact on a substantial number of small municipalities.
Exhibit 8-3. Revenue Test for Small Municipalities
* ff. *&f*f *• f «•>«
^ii'Xv * ^
Per Household Cost1
Median: $3.96
Mean: $8.93
75th percentile: $10.17
Per Municipality
Administrative
Costs
$1525
$1525
$1525
Small jMunicipalities
with Costs Greater than
1% of Revenue (%)~ <<•„
118(2.65%)
481 (10.80%)
628 (14.10%)
Small Municipalities with
'Coste Greater than 3%,of }
„ ^Revenue (%)
25 (0.56%)
31 (0.70%)
32 (0.72%)
'The per household costs have been adjusted from those reporte'd in Chapter 4 to remove the $0.23 per household
in administrative costs because those costs are assumed to be the same for each municipality. The administrative
costs, which were used to generate the $0.23 per household cost, were included in the revenue test as lump sum
costs for each municipality.
Small Building Contractors
US EPA (1997) guidelines recommend a "sales test" to evaluate the potential severity of
economic impact of compliance costs on small businesses. This test calculates annualized
compliance cost as a percentage of total sales. Because such a test was not feasible, the initial
SBREFA screening analysis approximated the sales test by estimating compliance costs for three
sizes of construction sites and then comparing those costs with a representative sale price for
three building categories. The site size categories are one, three, and five acres and they
represent the amount of disturbed land on the development site. The three building categories
are: single-family homes, multi-family residences, commercial. Industrial building sites were
not considered because they fall into the multi-sector general permit category. Institutional
buildings were also not considered, as they are not typically built to be sold in the real estate
market. These sales tests assume that all the compliance costs are incurred by the building
contractor. However, as explained below, it is unlikely that the compliance costs — even if they
exceeded 1% or 3% of sales for many construction businesses — would have a significant effect
on these businesses because costs will be passed on to the eventual purchaser of the property.
Compliance costs were assessed on a construction development or start basis, and a construction
start could include one or several buildings (particularly for single-family homes). So to
compare the compliance costs with sales costs, an estimate of buildings per site size had to be
made. EPA developed these estimates based upon construction data collected from 14 local
jurisdictions from around the country. A detailed description of how these estimates were
derived can be found in Appendix B-2. Ratios of buildings to construction starts are not based
on a random national sample, so the mean number of buildings per construction start for the
states affected by Phase II may vary from these ratios.
October 1999
Final Report
8-9
-------
I
IIP111
lilllll
IJijir'ij «,;!,,„ Hi
Illlli;1! |i| | |ip i, '
i Hilll'ili! I1?'!?: I : i
IB : :i<-1
8.0 Revised SBREFA Analysis
in Hi i liliili ill
*!1* IE- , ;ii"«
,H!l|i|i|,|,"';i;,,," |! i-lyl'r,, ; ,,! '•|,,||!l M.i,iWi-4!OKr-lV\
For single-family homes EPA divided the revised compliance costs per construction start by the
appropriate ^0]£eiS_^o_s£te ratj0 for eacj1 of ^ three sjzes of construction sites. Exhibit 8-4
reports the median compliance costs per construction start (see Exhibit 8-2), and the estimated
per home costsj based on the estimated number of homes per start. The average compliance cost
per home ranges from approximately $460 to $650.
Iii .iliitiiir
ill in,
" til
•'*•"
"I1''ii'iir1:!!!!"!1"!
: Jin 'if» "i
; 'I'm-:,!
I H,,'';1 »
:'A:11
111 Illl „ r III, Mil!,1,''1,'!"
,•'•.,!• !Bft W ?•
, ILrmil H Illl III1 Filiilll fiilrll'l II, I, I,,, Hill,,,,,,i .VMil I I'll;',1 lull':"! I, 'l",rii hll'TJi:, « ' '' * '"', , Ml*" ''I"! III,,,! ', ,1' I.J'll'I'illi ,"'i,, 'Yi.l Illll, Will 'II ,1* III I>v ' , 'IVM .w^lrf ? i,l,i," , «,,; ':, ,', rll ',£' ,,!,,,"
As a proxy for the sales test, EPA divided the revised per home costs by the 1998 median and
mean home sales prices, which are $151,000 and $181,300, respectively (US Bureau of the
Census, 1999). Exhibit 8-5 reports the revised per home costs as a percent of median and mean
home prices! These per(;eil|^ges ^gg g.om 0.22% to 0.43% and they are lower than values
reported in tie initial SSHSFA screening analysis, whlc£ ranged from 0.29% to 0.87%. These
results suggest that under these assumptions, the compliance costs will not exceed 1% of sales
for a construction business that builds and sells typical single-family homes.
Ill 111 111 in I i ill 111 , Iiflillll .iJHtf'*; 'JiSiSi, 'liiflf't 'if1,1: Jiii,:"'!"!!!''!!';,,:,1"1!1"""1,, sIKJty.lilf''."*''.1 " '<•'• ' ]"Sfl-}',,:Yi'fSH UflQIHPv "IT,,,/, "' '"'W'l ' 'l"'""!'"' ','f ", " Siif j"!, f ' ^'llillii Ji/ifi1!,1 "I;1
" i" " i '' ""'" "" ,i'"i i, I,'M, ^ i i |, i ,'
Implicit in this sales test is the assumption that the party that receives the revenue from selling
the newly built homes for the construction start, is also the party who incurs the cost for
compHancewim Phase fi; all parties subcontracted to perform work on building the houses do
not incur compliance cost and payment for their work is considered part: of the developer's
building costs. This is in keeping with the definition for "value of construction work done" in
the 1992 United States Census of Construction Industries (US Bureau of the Census, 1996).
Exhibit 8-4. Construction Start and Per-Home Compliance Costs toy Site Size
i Jdiill!!/',! '!, I
1
1 Site Size ,
(disturbed area)
1 Acre
3 Acres
5 Acres
Average Compliance
Costs per Construction
Sfart
$2,143
$5,535
$9,646
Number of
Homes per '
Site *.
5.3
8.5
20.1
Compliance
Costs per
^Home
$404
$651
$480
4 liili,'
::,k
Exhibit 8-5. Per-Home Compliance Costs as a Percent of Median and Mean Home Sale Price
it,1!,,f >:.iiiiiiir,'ammmMiii:: :• a'tfiiBfiit'.,!i;ii!iLii-,:; .iiiiL.!,''!:1 ,f-,,„ i:,"ir':1!-!',,:!. .iiiiii! •
1 Acre
3 Acres
5 Acres
Percent of Median
'. Home-Sale'Price>:"
- • "-($151,000) ••;7;
0.27%
0.43%
0.32%
•'Percent-b'f/Mean;
0.22%
0.36%
0.26%
The jjjjgai ggj^jgp^ screeimig analysis noted that the cost to sales ratio was expected to be
higher for single family housing than for the multi-family residential or commercial
P^>|'^eyi^[o^ients- Therefore, if was not considered necessary to also conduct screening analyses for
those types of developments.
tliJ!
in;1:!"'Vl ! ',!„'' 'ililiUlh,
i:;,iii"',i':,im,'' ,,iiii:; i''«,;:m
Final Report
iiiitf "i;:
nil . \.&b w • ' \ ..... -* • - ..^.i ..... f*
iiij1
October 1999
ii iiiii i iwr ~
-------
8.0 Revised SBREFA Analysis
In response to comments that the post-construction runoff control measure may have a
significant economic impact on builders, EPA has considered the possible associated costs for
multi-family residential or commercial developments. The post-construction runoff control
measure does not directly apply to construction operations, however municipalities may choose
to regulate construction developers in response to this requirement. In order to inform the public
EPA conducted similar analysis to determine the potential economic impact of the combined
incremental soil and erosion and post-construction runoff control costs on these developments.
There is some uncertainty surrounding the eventual impact of the post-construction runoff
control costs. To begin, EPA is not directly requiring small entities to adopt specific control
measures, instead EPA is requiring MS4s to develop storm water management programs that
address post-construction runoff controls for new developments. This approach allows for much
more flexibility in how localities and developers can address post construction runoff. Secondly,
the post construction runoff control costs shown in Exhibit 8-6 are high end estimates. Many
post-construction runoff controls can be incorporated directly into the site design for a new
development, which often results in much lower control costs. In fact there is evidence that
property values can actually be enhanced when controls are designed to increase the aesthetic
value of the sites landscaping (Schueler, 1997).
Exhibit 8-6. Best Management Practice Costs per Construction Site
, y
Structural BMP construction costs per site
^ V 4 4 «- <^ff^- «, *^ &.
« -
'
Impervious Surface Area2
Site Size
35%
85%
1 acre
3 acres
5 acres
$1,206
$4,598
$8,709
1 acre
3 acres
5 acres
7 acres
$1,716
$3,788
$6,636
$10,479
$3,157
$7,625
$9,319
$18,020
$5,938
$10,037
$11,626
$40,919
1 Post construction runoff control costs are the total control costs detailed in Appendix B-4, minus the capitalized
operation and maintenance costs. Only the construction costs of the post construction controls were relevant to
this analysis because the operation and maintenance costs will most likely not be borne by construction
companies. Appendix B-4 provides a complete discussion of the post construction runoff control cost analysis.
2 It is assumed mat 35% imperviousness is associated with mulit-family residential, and 85% with commercial.
The 65% imperviousness is representative of multi-family with high imperviousness, commercial with low
imperviousness, and sites with a combination of the two building types. These impervious levels are based on a
review of local government reports on average imperviousness by land-use (See Appendix B-4).
To conduct an analysis for multi-family residential developments, EPA performed a sales test,
similar to the one for single-family homes, for condominiums and apartments. The first step was
to determine the average number of multi-family units per start, for each site size category using
the construction start data collected from the fourteen jurisdictions mentioned previously.
Unfortunately, some of the data for multi-family developments did not report the number of units
to be built on the site. However, because these were multi-family developments it could be
assumed that at least two units were built on each site. So, when the number of units was not
October 1999
Final Report
8-11
-------
8.0 Revised SBREFA Analysis
included in the data, EPA assumed there would be two units built on the site. From this data
EPA was able to determine an estimate of the number of units per acre for each site size
category. This estimate is should be considered a lower bound estimate, since it is very likely
that the starts that did nqt report the number of units were building more than just two. The
estimated units per acre were then multiplied by_ the: acres for each site size to get the estimated
number of units per start, gj^jj^ g_y' snows me estimated number of units per acre and per start.
Exhibit 8-7. Estimated Number of Multi-Family Residencies per Start by Site Size
i
UV ¥ I ISliJI
U mi "i IS Iffiir IK'
Site Size" (disturbed area) ,
1 Acre
3 Acres
5 Acres
7 Acres
Estimated Number of Units / Acre
9.7
18.0
6.6
7.2
Estimated Number of Units /Start
10
54
33
50
S:Tie lare value for the number of MFR unite for toe three-acre site size is the result of two outliers in toe
ESi!1!11';
illlij iV l!,,1!! HI ill
El! iisl
For the second step, EPA used sale prices for both a condominium and a rental apartment to
III! r|e|)reseH"^e grice of a muM-femiry residential unit. The initial sale price for an apartment,
t ::.:.547}Q()(), was the estimated mean price of an apartment unit based upon the 1993 Property
" ^* Owners, S ||ana|ers Survey gJS Bureau of Census,' 199 J). The sale price used for a"
;;;'::, ;::;:: ,;;;;;;;:;; „ fionloinifflum, f 1 19^700, is the median sale price for a condominium reported hi the 1997 Survey
of Market Absorption (US Bureau of Census, 1998). Both sale prices were adjusted to 1998
'""Collars using a 4.6% annual inflation rate based on the average sale price of a single-family home
.|,™-^ j^,-- ^^,j ™^ ~g g^g^ of Census, 1999). These sale prices were multiplied by the
"'" • " '•: "" """" "'estiinatejl number of units per start to determine the ^estimated sales per site size for both
londo^
'I'iSifKl!'!^ ''JftsJ'" "' ' l|11 • "ll " i i mi mi i i 1 i i i i i i i i
I show^theies^ting sales per site, along with the ratio of compliance cost to sales for
i site size. These percentages range from 6.17% to 0.91 % and they are based on a very
ijijl < ,{||]|^ IIIIIII Kill llimiH K, :.- •" ° -i- 5 : I... l , .- : ' :.< •. / M. J : •, i. • J .,
jeWktiye estimate of fienumber units per site. These results suggest that under these
assumptions, the compliance costs will not exceed 1% of sales for a construction business that
builds and sells a typical apartment or condominium development.
'"',.!, 'i p'"!i::!i i
" ^
i,,f!""[ '
i
.ll>!!llll..i<1IIIIH!l;IIX Ililllli
..... ......... I «,|:, (;> ..... ;:: \ijry>f ^
iiiwr ,:'!•• .'ii!1,,,;1 „" '"iin, ii™ ....... , r,, ;,'# .ivi*
' lili!1.!1:.":!,1..'!! •!, SillfUl. •., , i HI.'1 ' »> ''M"11;.,:!1!*!!! :<(• V»W '
.tfvam-: ..... ." '• : ....... P. ; ..... fflp1 1 lit . «,
iSf;, ; "SIB, «[ 'ifliiu:
',1ml! ii, vi,1 ,| Mini
8-12
Final Report
October 1999
-------
8.0 Revised SBREFA Analysis
Exhibit 8-8. Estimated Multi-Family Residential Sales and Compliance Costs by Site Size
'Site Size \t
(disturbed _
area)
1 Acre
3 Acres
5 Acres
7 Acres
» % ~ t f
Compliance
\JCpsS ^
, per Site1 -
$4,579
$11,242
$17,623
$14,249
Estimated
* Number of {
Units per
Site
10
54
33
50
1998 Median Price "
— Condominium ($125,209)
"Estimated
'Sales per site
$1,252,090
$6,761,286
$4,131,897
$6,260,450
Compl. Cost
as % of Sales
0.37%
0.17%
0.43%
0.23%
1998 Mean Apartment Price ..
- ^l($58,496)
Estimated
Sales per site
$584,960
$3,158,784
$1,930,368
$2,924,800
Compl. Cost as
%s of Sales"-
0.78%
0.36%
0.91%
0.49%
* iiv i.wiui wijupucuivv VITOL xvi ui& i, j, oiiu j-auic sues uiuiuucb uic sun crusiuiis cuiuroi cosis anu ulc pOST-
construction runoff control costs, while total compliance costs for the 7-acre sites include only post-construction runoff
control costs (See Exhibit 8-6).
The analysis for commercial developments differed slightly from those conducted for single-
family and multi-family developments. To estimate the sales price of commercial buildings,
EPA multiplied the 1998 mean price for a square foot of commercial office space, which is
$145sq/ft (FDIC, 1999) by estimates of building size. To estimate the amount of office space per
site, EPA used a floor area ratio (FAR) to estimate the amount of impervious surface devoted to
floor area for a typical site. For commercial sites, typical floor area ratios will range from 0.25 to
0.5 (see Appendix B-2). Floor area is assumed to be a reasonable estimate of office space, even
though it does not account for non-office area, since the most conservative FAR value was used.
Also since the sale price of a commercial office site can be assumed to be based primarily on the
amount of available office space, developers have an incentive to mirumize the amount of non-
office space within a building.
To calculate the square footage of floor area for each site category the FAR value of 0.25 was
first multiplied by the estimated impervious surface coverage value of 65% (see Appendix B-2),
then by the number of square feet per acre, and then by the number of acres hi each site size
category. Finally, to determine the sale price for a start hi each site size category the mean price
of a square foot of office by the square footage of floor area in each category.
0.25(FAR)*65%(imp.surf.)*43,560(sq/ft)*site size*$145= Estimated Sale Price of Start
Exhibit 8-9 reports both the estimated sale price of office space per site, and the ratio of
compliance cost to sales price. These percentages range from 0.38% to 0.47%, and this suggests
that based upon current assumptions, the compliance costs will not exceed 1% of sales.
Therefore, it is assumed that a construction business that builds and sells a typical commercial
office development will not incur compliance costs greater than 1% of sales.
October 1999
Final Report
8-13
-------
i 111 nil hKMiiriiillir' Ill'l H''i:
:i!"t!!!:!!!!!!!!ll!!;!!!£! I1"
ii .iiiiEiip ''I ,, ., i,, nii!< ipiniiinn JIIIW^IJIP 4IIII1111 "" i"ii wi, .n fiii'iiL 'iiiLiniii'Vij-iin,,'! Air, 'liiriiiivnaiiipii », •,!',! "',11 pupiiim
SS
8. Revised SBREFA Analysis
'•, i11';,1 '";il,ii
nn Jllllllliiilllllli'i'iiliilllliilllllllill I '"i'l|i
-------
8.0 Revised SBREFA Analysis
the percentage of homes sold that were newly built was 21.6% (Chicago Title Corporation
1999). Of newly built homes only 12% are estimated to be in developments affected by Phase II
Storm Water Rule (see Appendix B-3). So only 2.6% of all homes sold are likely to incur the
cost increase.
8.2 Environmental Justice
Executive Order 12898 established a presidential policy for incorporating environmental justice
into.Federal agency missions by directing agencies to identify and address, as appropriate
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations. For example 'to
assist in identifying the need for ensuring protection of populations who principally rely on fish
or wildlife for subsistence, the EO directs agencies, whenever practicable and appropriate, to
collect, maintain, and analyze information on the consumption patterns of those populations and
to communicate to the public the risks of those consumption patterns.
As described in the above sections, the Phase II proposed rule addresses construction sites and
municipal storm water sewer systems that have not been covered under Phase I. In addition, the
CZARA addresses nonpoint sources (e.g., storm water runoff) located in the coastal zone
Finally, smaller communities outside of the coastal zone that may not be covered by either the
Phase I or Phase II rules can be addressed by nonpoint source programs under the CWA
Therefore, with the promulgation of the Phase II rule, EPA's regulation of storm water runoff
should be fairly comprehensive.
Environmental justice concerns for the regulation of storm water discharges may lie in the level
of control resulting from the different regulations. In comparison to the Phase I rule the Phase II
rule has fewer requirements and offers substantial flexibility in meeting those requirements
particularly for small entities. (The Phase II rule addresses smaller municipalities and
construction sites compared to Phase I, and a subset of these are defined as small entities by the
Small Business Administration as noted in Section 8.1.) Thus, to the extent that fewer
requirements and more flexibility results in less pollutant reduction, Phase II may result in
disproportionate environmental impacts on small communities. However, small communities
may not be disproportionately minority or low income.
Evaluation of the impact of the proposed Phase II rule on minority and low income populations
would require information on the location of these populations with respect to waters receiving
discharges regulated under the rule. This would most likely prove difficult because:
Upstream water quality may affect downstream populations (such that the location
of the affected municipalities and construction sites alone is not sufficient)
The same water body may be affected by discharges regulated under both Phase I
and Phase II (because different size communities can be located along the
waterbody and its tributaries).
October.
Final Report
8-15
-------
.......... ;n ...... P liIllRI, JlliliJiifflilii'yji1' ..... HIM
8.0 Revi
i!;1 Siijt; an, i '''''W'imi,;', iii.< •' .Hi!,,;1,,;:!,
ill;'1.,, ''ill! is1 Idiiiiiinii I
iiii ! ,,i!iilir,|i!' ,,„ iiiSiiiii! I
I
ijiiiiiiiniijii' ..... iKiinin l
91111 ill!'" 'iliiSn niijiil, ,,,ii.|:1"1 m "Vn\; HRIIIBn1!!!: 'i,*, """i,; '• i "fill ,,ii',, I! "I n!' .hlP,,' liXiuil'laml!!!!^ . MiilE inii'l!:ii;i n1 I..',: iW!"' ."', • Hi t m«l I1:" 'VKI ,:'i i H' • I!11i. •, men ItH n Win iilli^l'iiiliii |:< ,i," ,:n i mt i .(• un< n niv i"X"rmtmt "iji : '''jiiK1.;: • "ii- 'JK'IIIK , '• 'i •• >»,'.• "' -• A, tsK i-i:f s>ii:;-:
ijiiiiiiiiH^^^^ "ii: '^iifiiK "ii f ;"ij" i si »i*' f j;?fei i" ;ii; > j w >• iyiJiiAii,; s?»
Dill! u":1;!!;.'1;1''1,,|'1M.. "lEI'i
I ;!!«'' UI,
i illti fi"
requurements
and tribal governments as well as the private sector. Under section 202(a)(l)n of UMRA, EPA
^ iiMi ^^^j^ ^^raT[y p^parel'awniten statement!, including a cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and
, , ____a3cms g^'zjjj-j^g—'—1pe3etal 'mandate'ffiat"may result In the -^^^^.2""^ j§tete~
llUfwrt'cIV ' W i MiUKnugau B B , • SB , .< j . ., . . , „ ,. s -\_ '» • '
I local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate or by the private sector of annual costs in excess
|5Jj;^jj ;:, '^:'^ "^i^OlOS^SE*11-1 -^-s a §eneral matter, a federal mandate includes Federal Regulations that
Etfm'pBsii fcrararceable duties on State, local, and tribal governments, or on the private sector
[•—'" :i ^" ' i;"" - r" !;"pggg^ 1"555)" "gj^jjg^g ~^__^~ 1a^g0iis'^equijre""Qgjce of^if^lgement"and Budget ^^^
I "'"ii'fli1 '*i!1i 'i WifldEI Se preparation of a Regulatory Impact Assessment that compares the costs and benefits of
the action.
" i :• 'M ii;i i g & LiiHKiii^^ ! •« mm^^.^^ • iffm ^f-5i*a
\mirn wsmifQi\i(Z:"X miff, '•nji&c.'.d'.H ^tBitrBi (:^^^^^^^^ KTBJI «; ma 'f.,*«B,'<:.Bir.w t ti n nil rm^ -- if f-. .K^x^'
g| S L,-!:(]-SS*Tn.e rulejs anticipated to cost both the public sector and the private sector more than $100
; anticigated to
'' ' Si" B""ie ^mep^od^'ana^ze?! 1^^-^^ ^ Economic An^ysis(EAJ addresses:''
Section 202(a)(l) — authoring legislation (see EA Chapter 1 and the Preamble to
I
S'laiif; i iriiit
— a qualitative and quantitative assessment of the anticipated
'-'" '•'''" '"' ' il"il"ii'!l"!!l'i' '''-"(Ssfi an3""benefits of the regulation (see EA chapters 4 througjbt 7 and
' iccompahying appendices)
I • |eptij>n: 20,2(a)(3)(A) — accurate estimates of future compliance costs (as
' : :i' '"':::ii '' "''
I IIIK il.',;,!: •: * JH
Section 202(a)(3)(B) — disproportionate effects on particular segments of the
private sector (see this chapter)
Section 202(a)(3)(B) — disproportionate effects on local communities (see this
chapter)
Section 205(a) — least burdensome option or explanation required (see the
Preamble to the rule)
llll'i'-ifllll1),11!": W, ' ll||l I IIIIIII II III 111 . ' I II II I 1 I - Ii
'The $100 million in annual costs is the same threshold that identifies a "significant regulatory action" in Executive
::''6rderl2866. '
'" 8-16
Final Report
October 1999
"! ":' :; Hn ',.'' i"".;,:! ,. I .nil!,:i'S'.iJCi.'^.'+Hp,; Itm':!:''':!! I
Iliali^^^feiijy
-------
8.0 Revised SBREFA Analysis
Pursuant to UMRA section 203, before an agency establishes any regulatory requirements that
may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including Tribal governments it must
have developed a small governments agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying
potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to have
meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory proposals with significant Federal
intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, an advising small governments on
compliance with the regulatory requirements. The Preamble to the final rule summarizes the
extent of EPA's consultation with stakeholders including industry, environmental groups, states
local, and Tribal governments. The Preamble and comment-response document contain '
responses to their comments collected during the public comment period for the proposed and
subsequent Notices of Data Availability (UMRA sections 202(a)(5) and 204).
Pursuant to section 205(a)(l)-(2), EPA has selected the "least costly, most cost-effective or least
burdensome alternative" consistent with the requirements of the CWA for reasons discussed in
the Preamble to this rule. A cost comparison in the EA for the proposed rule showed that high
costs for alternative options (except the no action option) all exceeded $3.0 billion per year
which is substantially greater than the $803 million cost estimate provided in Chapter 4. Under
the CWA §402(p)(6), EPA is required to design a regulatory program to control contaminated
discharges associated with storm water runoff. This rule addresses contaminated storm water
discharges from sources that were not included in the Phase I rule: small municipal separate
storm sewer systems and construction activities at small construction sites (sites disturbing
greater than or equal to one acre and less than five acres).
October
Final Report
8-17
-------
life!,
'
i ii i iii i1 iii i i ii'i
iiii9!« Hiiii'iiiiiii)"1' :> ;:•
liiiR I iii,;'''' >.' liiiiJi, : :>:
''
rrf i-jiiijii ilii :"i: iii" ! 1-ii
; !> • r • ..... . i;i'i;i i if ' - v ,:" ' '•
Xililll ........ JilllLi'ii'IEl IdlE:1!,;: > ..... 1> '. ' -,.3! iii ..... ' , I!" C'i , ' • I" " i, -fjn * f,' V ;• * • .ii!11"""? : i t'j r-si m
A , r1*!1,, i,,.'i ::i'i|i '''.lit.'"ni ,,,'i !,
rliiw^^^ ;,Jlii ' ^!,'::'
| | if
;;,iiniii!' v ."": a::,]!".^
1' 1 '
'"» I1'!:;1 •'., j .'**;! ''iff* ^irrTfctf.ii IE I
ii|,,rj' ' < AI, ijlifi, Tipijji "'i 'i i"1 Ijjjjjijiinil1 !'"liii!i: ^dilliiililjl ''„, *,' Jlil^ ' ,'i i
ir'fiji isasiiir 'i'l'.*! i'wiiiW'*5Si i!i|ii!i*i ,*'.
:,i, i!'n,. i, i , >' "'^iilIIHLIIIlii' ii
?" i'.1-!1:'11:'1; ':::.iS::ii :'i;irlv"I.;;- "i,i"
'", : , ..fu , 'i i ','n, i " uliqiiiiiiiiiiiifi. ",iiiiii|ii!iLi, iT-iimiii I
E ,!• ;::"i| T,,.(|, iii;'fltiilrf^ ' '_IB ||; i'-J1' ''• I"! I:•', • j,; 1 •;., ! i» S»«EV;WKvi' |f:f'KW I
KV\ iil" .lllLiiliT'1' lllHIllii1',,:, II1 "I"'1 ' ' ' iill,illiil 111 J/ilii'
;:"•;: u; ;;;;:' '.;;:,;;:;:; :
ii!tin, nil i, ii, ,1.1 •":,!,.i,.,,1 »: ,i: , ,i"!' ;i i1 n,, r ;"
1 "''iSli'"1' ' ijli
;; : ..j. E,
iii iii ii in cih
Jill '11III3 1 I iii 11 ill Ill1" i Ill
I I II
[ill ~ K*
I ill
IK I Iii;1 'lie
-------
9.0 NO EXPOSURE
The storm water Phase II rule includes a no exposure exclusion for Phase I regulated industrial
facilities that have the potential to reduce the total compliance costs. "No exposure" means all
industrial materials or activities are protected by a storm resistant shelter so that the materials are
not exposed to rain, snow, snowmelt, or runoff. This chapter estimates the number of Phase I
industrial facilities that may be able to qualify for the no exposure exclusion and the net cost
savings that will result. Section 9.1 provides background and an explanation of the Phase II
rule's no exposure exclusion provision. Section 9.2 discusses the methodology and estimates the
cost savings from the no exposure provision for facilities currently regulated under Phase I.
Section 9.3 estimates the compliance costs associated with the no exposure provision. Section
9.4 summarizes the findings, Section 9.5 identifies state and federal costs and Section 9.6
identifies data limitations and assumptions used to estimate the net cost savings of the no
exposure provision.
9.1 Background
In the 1990 storm water regulations, EPA identified eleven categories of industrial activities in
the definition of "storm water discharge associated with industrial activity"(40 CFR
§122.26(b)(14)(I)-(xi)). See Exhibit 9-1 for a description of each category. All operators of
industrial facilities with activities identified in these categories are required to obtain an NPDES
storm water permit to discharge, except those facilities that are included in the "light industry"
category (xi). These facilities were exempt from the requirement to obtain an NPDES permit if
their industrial materials and/or activities were not "exposed" to storm water (see 40 CFR
§122.26(b)(14) [introductory text]). The Agency had reasoned that most of the activity at these
types of facilities takes place indoors and that emissions from stacks, use of unhoused
manufacturing equipment, outside material storage or disposal, and generation of large amounts
of dust or particles would be atypical (55 FR 48008, November 16,1990).
In 1992, the Ninth Circuit court remanded to EPA for further rulemaking, the portion of the
definition of "storm water discharge associated with industrial activity" that excluded the light
industry in category (xi) when industrial materials and/or activities were not exposed to storm
water. See NRDC v. EPA, 966 F.2d 1292,1305 (9th Cir. 1992). The Ninth Circuit determined
that the exemption was arbitrary and capricious for two reasons. First, the court found that EPA
had not established a record to support its assumption that light industry that was not exposed to
storm water was not "associated with industrial activity," particularly when other types of
industry not exposed to storm water remained "associated with industrial activity." Second, the
court concluded that the exemption impermissibly "altered the statutory scheme" for permitting
because the exemption relied on the unverified judgement of the light industrial facility operator
to determine non-applicability of the permit application requirements. In other words, the court
was critical that the operator would determine for itself that there was no exposure and then
simply not apply for a permit without any further action. Without a basis for ensuring the
effective operation of the permitting scheme—either that facilities would self-report actual
exposure or that EPA would be required to inspect and monitor such facilities—the court vacated
and remanded the rule to EPA for further rulemaking. The Phase II rule responds to that remand.
October 1999
Final Report
9-1
-------
9.0 No Exposure
l|i i lllllli In il .....
........
|i in; ' I iril ..... [iiilllliyillu'iii
Under the Phase II rule, the Agency responds to both of the bases for the court's remand. In
response to the first basis, the exemption from permitting based on uno exposure" now applies to
all hidgtrial categories listed in the definition of "storm water discharge associated with
industrial activity," except construction (category (x)) and industrial facilities individually
designated by the NPDES permitting authority. This assures that discharges from different types
u'li'^ffldu^gial facilities are equally regulated based on their propensity to be contaminated. In
response to the second basis for the court's remand, the permitting exclusion is "conditional."
I , £,,
The operator responsible for a point source discharge from a "no exposure" industrial source
iiii '''iJlBrjIIiriHIIllll'', A .......................... • ..... ................ \\\mm\ ................. ,' 'ft, ........... ' ..... ill ....................... ......................... ,il "i, ..... ', ....... ............ .if .......... , ............... u ........................................... ,:i ......... , ..... , ............... .................... • hi,!,;," ihi,,', ..... "" ................................ ....... .............. „„ ...... , ..................... mi, ............ i" ........ ...... , ......................... , .................... ,,' .............................. uPua§e I program that can claim a condition of no exposure, except discharges from construction
and[from individually designated sources.
I E it!
fiJ!"!
lip' Mil rl
III" fHlLJllLU'K
prder to obtain the no exposure exclusion, the discharger of an otherwise regulated facility
jf^ri"' ":r "v:" * iiii^!1]ip^l^E?nit a written no exposure certification that incorporates the Yes/No questions of
§l22.26(g)(4) of the Phase II rule to the NPDES permitting authority once every five years (see
|'§ jgp Exposure Certification Form in Appendix D-l). Based on recommendations of the
3A Committeej the certification requires only a minimal amount of ffiprmation from'the
.""Facility. Mlw ex£osure certificatipns must be signed in accordance with the signatory
requirements of"40 CFR § 122.22. The no exposure certification is non-transferable. In the event
that the facility operator changes, the new discharger must submit a new no exposure
certification. The NPDES permitting authority is expected to maintain a simple database to
^'record Jflie information included in the no exposure certifications and track the facilities.
||.T;fi,,^dition to the written certification, the facility must allow the NPDES permitting authority or
operator of a municipal separate storm sewer system (where there is a storm water.discharge to
^•tfte municipal system) to inspect the facility and to make such inspection reports publicly
available upon request. Also, upon request and where applicable, the facility must submit a copy
of the no exposure certification to the operator of a municipal separate storm sewer system.
„ ,,,„,, , |||, | , ,
""'''"'I i iliSiiiiPi "'
,, i ,,„„„,,,,,, hl, „ iimpiii : mvm, , n ,,, ,
fcrt 'v,]WM^*! ii!!:,i!!!ii!: • J'V
, ,„ ,,,„„ , ,,„ „, ,,, „„,,„„ „ „ ,,„, ,,,„„, „,,,,,„,, ,„ ,„, „,, i,,,,,,,,,, ,„ „„, ,,„,„,,„,„;,,, ,,.
'.' ,.'f* ,''l,,r •':• ill'" WJ'i iv,,1 , "„"!' .J. '.si! i' "i" ,"."!!•' v, :„»"„, ' • 'Li1 1-,' i'ii,''i; lt4tA:>^..^ i
llHiyjl n, irviilsipirii.;!!;, ,
:•'!„:!. '/.il 'li'i ,'!,.,«, .
|, jj,,,,,,,^ , ,|| ; , , ,1,1,11^ .n,,,,,^
• l|*«!!"'i>i .,»',, 'j ," ,,,,,'iii!! ' !" • '!''
i jii1:**,!. IF
!'''''!h;i"!iS,,;i «*
.iiiif -?;;,, •'!•! W1 it
TM*M lllii
Mi I ittWlW "'fl ..flPJi"..!1!1,,: [Hi i' "
''Iffll.'^ ifoy1"?;'"1' "I'"1'1 Illlii1"-111*"'!1' |fc," V'^.t.Vj^!';'•' ""I.' ?v', ':'"|! • :!"|' ••&$'''. |!|?'i """:" "if1'
-------
9.0 No Exposure
Exhibit 9-1. Industrial Facilities That Must Submit Applications for Storm Water Permits (Phase I)
40 CFR 122.26(b)(14)
: Subpart
Description"
(0
Facilities subject to storm water effluent limitations guidelines, new source
performance standards, or toxic pollutant effluent standards under 40 CFR,
Subchapter N [except facilities which are exempt under category (xi)].
(ii)
Facilities classified as:
SIC 24 (except 2434) Lumber and Wood Products
SIC 26 (except 265 and 267) Paper and Allied Products
SIC28 (except 283 and 285) Chemicals and Allied Products
SIC 29 Petroleum and Coal Products
SIC 311 Leather Tanning and Finishing
SIC 32 (except 323) Stone, Clay and Glass Products
SIC 33 Primary Metal Industries
SIC 3441 Fabricated Structural Metal
SIC 373 Ship and Boat Building and Repairing
(iii)
Facilities classified as SIC 10 through 14, including active or inactive mining
operations and oil and gas exploration, production, processing, or treatment
operations, or transmission facilities that discharge storm water contaminated by
contact with, or that has come into contact with, any overburden, raw material,
intermediate products, finished products, byproducts, or waste products located on
the site of such operations.
SIC 10 MetalMining
SIC 11 Anthracite Mining
SIC 12 CoalMining
SIC 13 Oil and Gas Extraction
SIC 14 Nonmetallic Minerals, except Fuels
(iv)
Hazardous waste treatment, storage, or disposal facilities, including those that are
operating under interim status or a permit under subtitle C of RCRA
(v)
Landfills, land application sites, and open dumps that receive or have received any
industrial wastes (waste that is received from any of the facilities described under this
subsection) including those that are subject to regulation under subtitle D of RCRA
(vi)
Facilities involved hi the recycling of materials, including metal scrap yards, battery
reclaimers, salvage yards, and automobile junkyards, including but limited to those
classified as Standard Industrial Classification 5015 and 5093
(vii)
Steam electric power generating facilities, including coal handling sites
(viii)
Transportation facilities which have vehicle maintenance shops, equipment cleaning
operations, or airport de-icing operations. Only those portions of the facility that are
either involved in vehicle maintenance (including vehicle rehabilitation, mechanical
repairs, painting, fueling, and lubrication), equipment cleaning operations, or airport
de-icing operations, or which are otherwise listed in another category are included:
SIC 40 Railroad Transportation
SIC 41 Local and Suburban Transit
SIC 42 (except 4221-45) Motor Freight and Warehousing
SIC43 US Postal Service
SIC 44 Water Transportation
SIC 45 Transportation by Ah- •
SIC 5171 Petroleum Bulk Stations and Terminals
October 1999
Final Report
9-3
-------
9.0 No Exposure
•• WE'! , |:;|ii,lll|1
• 1 it!! .Ui'liiL i,i' liilF''>'«
"')'til "1,1 liiJ ''!• .'.Hi' '
-Exhibit !MU Industrial Facilities That Must Submit Applications
lor Storm Water Permits (Phase I) (Continued)
IE''"1;;••'.. iiiiin tiquwvw; .fin aili :«>!'"*': i'li'it c'ati: i'":is ijiiliL ii'iist* i..1: |
i ill i in I in ill in
liiililililllF i'illilililil!1!.1 •illilnlllii. •(" ; .1 llllliil <::
: iliili
•IH 1!i; ill:' iiullr j 111:;:!!' ' ir'E1'' •
fWiii •> c.r-.
i a "'9,
11 llll'i'SflJ'T'llillllllllllllllllllliO" HI".!!!'!!!!!!1, iii!1""*!!" I'llBUI" i
IN W I'
I {Mi: ,/T'ii lljli I
it/
I '(! iiliLif:!'11.; Illiilr
Subpart
CDC)
(xi)
Description
Treatment works treating domestic sewage or any other sewage sludge or wastewater
treatment device or system, used in the storage treatment, recycling, and reclamation
of municipal or domestic sewage, including land dedicated to the disposal of sewage
sludge that are located within the confines of the facility, with a design flow of 1.0
MOD or more, or required to have an approved pretreatment program under 40 CFR
part 403. Not included are farm lands, domestic gardens or lands used for sludge
management where sludge is beneficially reused and which are not physically
located in the confines of the facility, or areas that are in compliance with section
405 of the CWA.
Construction activity including clearing, grading and excavation activities except:
operations that result in the disturbance of less than five acres of total land area
which are not part of a larger common plan of development or sale
Facilities under the following SICs [which are not otherwise included in categories
(iiXx)]> including only storm water discharges where material handling equipment
or activities, raw materials, intermediate products, final products, waste materials,
byproducts, or industrial machinery are exposed to storm water.
SIC 20 -" Food and Kindred Products
SIC 21 Tobacco Products
SIC 22 Textile Mill Products
SIC 23 Apparel and Other Textile Products
SIC2434 WoodKitchenCabinets
SIC 25 Furniture and Fixtures
SIC 265 i Paperboard Containers and Boxes
SIC 267 Converted Paper and Paper Board Products
(except containers and boxes)
SIC 27 Printing and Publishing
SIC283 Drugs
SIC 285 Paints, Varnishes, Lacquer, Enamels
SIC 30 Rubber and Miscellaneous Plastics Products
SIC 31 (except 311) Leather and Leather Products
SIC 323 Products of Purchased Glass
SIC 34 (except 3441) Fabricated Metal Products
SIC 35 Industrial Machinery and Equipment, except
Electrical
SIC 36 Electronic and other Electric Equipment
SIC 37 (except 373) Transportation Equipment
SIC 38 Instruments and Related Products
SIC 39 Miscellaneous Manufacturing Industries
SIC 4221 Farm Products Warehousing and Storage
SIC 4222 Refrigerated Warehousing and Storage
SIC 4225 General Warehousing and Storage
frwiiiim >
Scarce: Federal Register, Vol. 55, No. 222, p. 48065, November 16,1990.
i;1! "•.•'WMJ ^'tii sJM'fli*.':;4(*i ••.?•;$* ;: ;
JWi.ifv
.: ;:: 9-4
Final Report
<:!4' „' IS'1,!?1 ."i llil . , 'Y I""1 illlllllllli I Ii
I itiiiia^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 1^ ill 11 iliili ill 1 ii ii ii iiiiiii in i ill in i i iiiii'iiiiiiiii iii'i i I'll - j .lUUjMiuiaiLLiiiiaiaLJJii!
October 1999
in i nn ii i 111 inn inlllli i mi nn >• ^ '
i m nn i n mini inn i
-------
9.0 No Exposure
9.2 No Exposure Cost Savings
In order to estimate the potential cost savings that may result from adoption of the no exposure
provision it is necessary to estimate the number of currently regulated Phase I industrial facilities
that may be eligible for the exclusion and to estimate the avoided costs. EPA's approach for
estimating no exposure cost savings involved:
• Identifying the total number of establishments in the United States that have a narrative
description or a SIC code identified in §122.26(b)(14)(I)-(ix) and (xi).
• Estimating the total number of establishments 'that are currently required to have a storm
water permit.
• Determining the percentage, and number, of facilities for each industrial category in
§122.26(b)(14) that have industrial activities or materials exposed to storm water.
• Allocating the industrial facilities in the 10 industrial categories to the 30 sectors in the
modified multi-sector general permit for storm water discharges.
• Developing minimum and maximum unit compliance costs for all facilities covered by
the multi-sector general permit (includes costs for visual monitoring, analytical
monitoring, development and implementation of a storm water pollution prevention plan,
submitting an NOI, notifying the local municipality, and recordkeeping).
• Applying the unit compliance costs for each sector to the number of facilities that may
potentially qualify for the no exposure exclusion.
• Developing cost estimates for completion of the no exposure certification form.
• Estimating the increase hi compliance costs for category xi facilities which currently do
nothing if they have no exposure but will be required to certify no exposure after
promulgation'of the no exposure provision.
• Obtaining net compliance cost savings for the no exposure provision by subtracting
compliance cost increases from avoided costs.
This section addresses only facilities that are currently regulated under the Phase I industrial
program, including those category (xi) facilities that have industrial equipment or materials
exposed to storm water and did not qualify for the original no exposure exemption. The
following sections discuss each of the steps mentioned above.
October 1999
Final Report
9-5
-------
II
lllllllhllllllllliiNlliHi.iiiil'lil.lli: ... '1IIFI
lit;", ninnniiiinin nn,:117!,,!;,,,iini,,,»
II::!!!11]!!1!11 ,. Hill! J'ni!,' ""Mil! I1'1 .'Mil
™:,::,::. •: :'" '.:, :; "i' -, •£:. 9.0 No Exposure
!•!', .ii'QliilllJ'1.:,, V"1 liliilJi'ill iiii
!'!!'•i:iiviiiini!iniiliii«i:iiiiii!;!iiiii|iii|i!i;ii
iiii'i1 ' .liLJIIIll1!:!1! Illi! III! ,::'"! ,
I su'.nEllin: •' ill' i Jllllti'i U"
9.2.1 Number of Facilities Eligible for the No Exposure Provision
11 ."in,, ;i|ii|' "ii:|i'i,!i,
•ill
mm ••i : <' * 'iisis:1.;;,! i; nifto & 'film. til r;i, t >:? ;:ii it ui,sm SA er ..... oTflcilities or ..... inclustnaT acEvitie's "mat have ..... me ..... pbtenHal'to m eet me definition of storm
^^ ..... liil'llllllllll'''' ..... Illllllltlllil!! ..... IIIUIIIIIIW^ ..... 11/1,11*1::' V^^ ..... , ........ ................ •, ....... i- ........... •• I ............................. <1 ...... II ......... ........................... "••> ................. • .................... i ......................... « ....................... ,,_, vri% >-» /- ... . . t '' '
' an industrial activity.1 There are approximately 587,099 facilities in the
that meet the narrative description or have a SIC code identified in
' ..... ™ ~" ......... ™ ' '
'Milly iiUIl,
t!1!'', "Jilt:
"ii !>
'I'llllljir
IIIT11 III I'lllUI1' , II'1 'II.'"' ,
lljll " '"I"
hi Hi'n1 Hi.'1', T i jniiiiinnnniig''iii|iiiiiTi'ii'n«nnnnnnnnnir '''iii, nil" /hase I industrial
.fIStaWishments thatmeetthe_ definjtionofa §torm_ water disch^rge_ associated with an industrial
activity within their stated These estimates assume that every facility in categories I-ix with a
.__..„ 9|sch^S6 i10^ reqliire a storm water permit, and only those facilities in category xi
IP11", iijit'lli1"11!"1!'!1!!!!!!!1! ,:!lil!lllllllll!lll|i||i:!i: ^i'lllPllllllllliri'iiliiNlNi'iiiii1" Fs'iiiiJi'iii: wwii' •« • ""ifiiiin ..1111111111111, wiiiKi i a11 •» ' ""'"t ' 1|"11" "• ' • ¥li » si. "nir-iy - «-» -sr '"«i a"j"" ^ ; ;'• "1 ^ /»
*JS^ta exposure and discharge will require a permit. Exhibit 9-2 indicates the potential number of
SJj&cili^S^tSin''these states that are defined by categories (I) through (ix) and (xi) hi
§122.26(b)(14), the number of facilities estimated by the state storm water representative to have
a Sis'cE^e"meetmg~tfie definition of a "storm water discnafg"e associated with an industrial
actrvity,"and the percentage of all facilities that have a discharge meeting the definition of "storm
water discharge associated with an industrial activity."
, IK' , /.uiMiiF, SihlnillH"",!!1'! Illi!1!"""*" V W!i I
ni: i ii mi;: ' iFi'i ^ • Kiini1"! -i ' " » ."ii!!i!!,,u,,,
:,ii;i;: '.'J'I.IHJ lim. |] t,,:"," ', P irih^^*
i, IIP: A'1.'. I1' '"t«:,!!!" a'vfl i', IP'ri1 :• i,1'!. •', lilpil,'
" ill1" fi I:.!,,' .a-trlllliirillF ' ",, i" ,''!! Ill
i jil!1 "Wi ..... ..... P iiniRft'l . • ...... !l,,,.,,i,',,ll,
..i,1!. r:"'» 'T yl!|: ...... fl
',, ;;;',„ JVn.fift™ SS.A
II ,',, :,'', Ifi!1""!,"!1:.,!!,!, Ilill^Nfll^^ ,:
I'1*1" "• 'ft ' ' I
'lillnfPllllllBl' "I'1 "U" " „ ,
P rnniiii,!' llllii'inilillpi'iilii .PI ;ii
„ .ii'iiMi'w ii"; iii1'. i,!!''!;"!,1!!!'!!1! It i i.ihiNSn.'y.'iipiiii,1 ;, .t ':,: ,,;iiiii., "• i •• i*.,1* • ",'3, i j.,.
illi,
I.. '""i: mill!1 <'!., II Hi , if' „;' , aiij •: TI Tiililil f S .I'llllll] ,,,lll! I'l'T llHI f''".., K' 1111.. 'SI":" t'' ill!11111' Hii1!' JlBilliii"1, P 111 I' ]''i:''"ilillSI! 1" T T,.:!i," '", 'K«S HK, .,il, '.II i:'
^ro'^:-;,,/, rT-J^Ti
D; li'i-lii"!': !;' ii llilKfi Iii''' ,j
llliM.llilll' 'i''1, 'liliilil'"lllil' " ,' lllllli'' I1'1 'ullllli'in^
•I BM;'JW "3
i • ' »f*s.(ii p«(/4 ii i li f « M : ifld'i; ii^ ^^ i. iiKiri:;.::!:! /" „ liKl-'r';: n,':" '• ^ >i: .i'li'iis i;;;::: i >.
ent of Commerce, Census Bureau. 1996. County Business Patterns: United States; Edison Electric Institute,
15^' p-^,-.—^^^^.^ Hazardous Waste Report: Based on 1995 Data; and US EPA, 1995.
Municipal Solid Waste Fact Book. This number does not include: abandoned and inactive landfills, mine sites, and oil and gas
sites; vehicle maintenance activities at rail yards and the US Postal Service; and wastewater treatment facilities with a design
flow of Imillion gallons per day (MOD) or greater.
• i Inn n in i n nil nun nil i n n mini i in in in inn nil i ill n n mil i inn i n inn nil i in iininnninn inn i in n nn linn i n MM i i i inn i i nil i nil n nn n mini inn n
II "
- The NPDES authorized States contacted are: Arkansas, Illinois, Michigan, New York, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia,
and West Virginia. Other states were contacted but the information was not available, therefore, they were not requested to
provide this information to EPA.
i I i II
9-6
Final Report
October 1999
'. n •
i
-------
9.0 No Exposure
Exhibit 9-2. Total Facilities and Estimated Number of Regulated Industrial Facilities in Selected States
State
Arkansas
Illinois
Michigan
New York
South Carolina
Tennessee
Virginia
West Virginia
TOTAL
Total
Number of Facilities1
5,282
22,135
18,648
31,732
5,936
9,688
8,775
3,319
105,515
Estimated Number
of
Regulated Facilities2
2,500
11,000
6,000
10,000
4,500
5,780
3,200
3,000
- 45,980
; Percentage3
47%
50%
32%
32%
76%
60%
36%
90%
Weighted Average = 44%
, . . ^. ,.\. l .
source of information includes: for facilities identified with SIC codes US Department of Commerce, Census
Bureau, 1996. County Business Patterns for 1994; for steam electric facilities Edison Electric Institute, 1995; for
hazardous waste facilities US EPA, 1997. Preliminary Biennial RCRA Hazardous Waste Report: Based on 1995
Data; and for landfills US EPA, 1995. Municipal Solid Waste Fact Book. Note: This number does not include:
abandoned and inactive mine sites, landfills, and oil and gas wells; vehicle maintenance activities at rail yards and
US Postal Service centers; and wastewater treatment facilities with a design flow of 1 MOD or greater.
2Total number of facilities in the second column that meet the definition of "storm water discharge associated with
industrial activity" in 40 CFR § 122.26(b)(14), because they discharge to waters of the United States, therefore, must
obtain a NPDES storm water permit. Source: Personal communication with State Storm Water representatives on
April 23, 1997.
3The percentage of the total number of facilities in the second column that meet the definition of "storm water
discharge associated with industrial activity" and must obtain an NPDES storm water permit.
The percentage of facilities that meet the definition of storm water discharge associated with
industrial activity ranged from a high of 90% to a low of 32% in the states contacted. The
weighted average is approximately 44% for (I-ix) categories. EPA estimates the number of
category (xi) light industrial facilities that meet the definition of "storm water discharge with
industrial activity" to be approximately 8%.4 These figures, 44% and 8%, were used in the
analysis.
EPA determined the number of NOIs submitted to the NOI tracking center for facilities meeting the definition of "storm water
discharge with industrial activity" for facilities characterized as category xi facilities. In the non-NPDES authorized states the
owners/operators of 3,701 light industrial establishments submitted NOIs to the tracking center. The Dun and Bradstreet's
FACTS database estimates that there are 65,091 light industrial establishments in the non-NPDES authorized states. The number
of NOIs compared to the total number of establishments is approximately 6%. EPA also estimates that nationwide the rate of
compliance for storm water permits is approximately two-thirds. Therefore, when taking into consideration noncompliance,
EPA estimates the percentage of light industrial establishments that require storm water permits to be approximately 8% of the
total number of establishments.
October 1999
Final Report
9-7
-------
on>". LI" ill1, nun' TTlinn
....... "OHIil • • v HV iSW V. <:i
/ ' i ........ ?: ' i 1; :«' ...... .'• 'ft ..... : .....
1!'!1 nil- Mviwtt lilDiOT^ -!llliilC • ' ,<*'"ili .1,;,; wi sj tew •ill ttfdfini t",, I'liii'i '!::i !* s;n imjEtito^ iiiiBiii'iirii1! 'ill I
facilities conducts different activities and follows different
materials use and storage practices, the level of exposure of these activities and materials will
varjr Exhibit 9-3 provides an estimate of the number of facilities with and without exposure for
"^j^i^^^Ji^e^o^^jSibit 9-3 mdicates that approximately 76,438 of the 152,677
facilities, M the United States that meet the regulatory definition of "storm water discharge
associated with industrial activity" have exposure and, therefore, must obtain a Phase I storm
permit Exhibit 9-3 also indicates that approximately 76,239 facilities that meet the regulatory
definition of "storm water discharge associated with industrial activity" may have no exposure
conditions at their site and will be eligible to take advantage of the no exposure provision.
nilpi linni": ihinvi In i1'
If'Hflt' 'MM; i'
liw^^^^^^^^^^^
IP ,": '!
ii!:;"1 • ' h1.:
" 933, Industrial Compliance Cost Savings
^ facilities currently regulated under the Phase I storm water program are required to
obtain permit coverage. Under the permit, they are required to develop and implement a storm
t^Sel pollution prevention plan and conduct visual and analytical monitoring of their storm water
' The no exposure provision provides a potential cost saving to those facilities that can
a condition of no exposure exists at their facility because they will no longer be
"^ — annual"cost savings for"ari"jj
was estimated to | be eqiiivalent to the iannual| comDliance cost for an mdustnal
meeting the conditions of the multi-sector general permit. EPA estimates that very few industrial
facilities have applied and received an individual storm water permit and, therefore, estimated the
CoWsavings based on the compliance costs for the multi-sector general permit.5
illllll iillll IliiilII Hi i I i Id II ill i iii i 11 i'i l I'll (ill i i
Water Pollution Prevention Plan Costs
iLlllllllllilil IIIH iMillhiil'lllIli'il
I iiliilLnlili
Ifft'WrinM ' '""« Si
I ii:jiii/:,< A;"
111 I
[™ ^.HSgh and low cost estimates for development of the multi-sector general permit storm water
, ,;!j jp^^^^^g^g^ pi^ were pOTihed' oh SeptemBer 29j' 1995 (60 FR 51108); The cost
estimates have been gj|iate^ to 1998 dollars using the Consumer Price Index and are shown in
Exhibits 9-4 and 9—5. Exhibit 9-4 presents the estimated per facility start up, annual, and total
industrial compliance costs for development, implementation, and maintenance of
e storm water pofluSonlvevention plan, gj^blt: 9-5 indicates 'the 'additional costs that
Illilllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllli I'lllllllllllllllinillliivi!, I'linillP'''!!!^! n r- i, , , „ „„ n
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know (EPCRA) facilities would incur.6
• i in i p 'jifim iiiiii^ " "El ini::1:!!! iiiy1:!'1;'' ;;:'i ^ ;mi niitiTig, :„> ii ,n f! ;> iu, '"•;• v:< > if ii, iiriaw^ 'jiiin • "> Mniiakiiiil'1')'. '^ • iiii'f-i i':1"1' 'iiiiiiii: iiiiiii'li ^ 'K'ln IB! in iiiliaiiB^^^ "itpii i": 'iif I
The multi-sector general permit requires permittees to conduct a number of activities during the
"'" """""l" 'start-up ^ea5-sll0'f|{Je —g^j permj| m"a{ aj-g not required hi years four and five of the first permit
and all years hi subsequent permits. Activities such as plan preparation and start-up costs are not
imposed hi years four and five, and subsequent terms, because the annual pollution prevention
activities are intended to maintain or modify the storm water pollution prevention plan as
11
i i
I ' 11 ii ii ii pi iVft"f mulSiSF^tS"i ^en^,,Se,S!,,^^,,<:h.ose,H,a^ ,!h,e ?55£'5":"^!KJ>.^1"S5^?A-^9£S.22J Els?, ,0,^ 1^"i5?u!Pl *e, !>as,e:!!n,e, iH!E^!
I' I1 ' 11 ii Illilli fill Illllll I permit for industrial facilities* The" mififi-s'e'ctor^enen'r^^ es^llsEnents'
that were ggf previously included in the multi-sector general permit
TThe multi-sector general permit has additional conditions for EPCRA facilities. For this reason, Exhibit 9-5 indicates the
compliance costs only applicable to EPCRA facilities, however, these costs are in addition to those indicated in Exhibit 9-4.
9-8
Final Report
October 1999
-------
9.0 No Exposure
Exhibit 9-3. Estimated Number of Regulated Industrial Facilities
With and Without Exposure
Phase I
Industrial Category
(i) Effluent Guidelines
(ii) Manufacturing
(iii) Mining5
(iv) Hazardous Waste
Treatment and
Storage
(i) Landfills5
(vi) Automobile and
Scrap Recyclers
(vii) Steam Electric
(viii) Vehicle Maintenance6
(ix) Wastewater
Treatment Facilities
(xi) Light Industrial7
TOTAL
Total
.Number of
Facilities in
the US1
NA4
78,757
27,166
1,787
3,581
16,171
993
165,182
NA4
293,462
587,099
Number of
Facilities
Requiring a
Permit2
NA4
34,653
11,953
786
1,576
7,115
437
72,680
NA4
23,477
152,677
Percent of
Facilities
with
Exposure 3
NA4
50%
100%
30%
100%
100%
50%
20%
90%
100%
Number of
FacUities
witb
Exposure
NA4
17,327
11,953
236
1,576
7,115
218
14,536
' NA4
23,477
76,438
Percent of
Facilities
with No
Exposure 3
NA4
50%
0%
70%
0%
0%
50%
80%
10%
0%
Number ol
Facilities
with No
Exposure .
NA4
17,327
0
550
0
0
21B
58,144
NA4
0
76,239
'US Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 1996. County Business Patterns: United States; Edison Electric Institute,
1995; US EPA, 1997. Preliminary Biennial RCRA Hazardous Waste Report: Based on 1995 Data; and US EPA, 1995.
Municipal Solid Waste Fact Book. This number does not include: abandoned and inactive landfills, mine sites, and oil and
gas sites; vehicle maintenance activities at rail yards and the US Postal Service; and wastewater treatment facilities with a
, design flow of 1 million gallons per day (MOD) or greater.
2 Based on 44% of total number of facilities in US. The 44% is an average obtained from Exhibit 9-2.
3The percentage estimates are based on best professional judgement of EPA Phase I storm water staff—Bill Swietlik, US EPA,
Office of Water Permits Division.
4NA = Not Available.
5The exact number of abandoned and inactive mine sites, oil and gas sites, and landfills is unknown.
6The exact number of vehicle maintenance activities will be greater than the number indicated because information is not
available for the number of rail yards and US Postal Service facilities that conduct vehicle maintenance activities. Also, the
number of manufacturing facilities that have co-located vehicle maintenance activities in unknown. Likewise, the number of
Federal, State, and local government facilities conducting vehicle maintenance is unknown.
'Based on data received by the NOI Tracking center, EPA determined that NOIs for light industrial facilities represented 6% of
the total number of light industrial facilities in the non-NPDES authorized States. EPA estimates that the compliance rate for
the storm water program is 60%. When taking into consideration the compliance rate, EPA estimates that 8% of all light
industrial establishments require Phase I storm water permits.
necessary. The cost savings for an existing industrial facility are only the annual costs, but cost
savings for facilities that become operational after promulgation of the Phase II rule will include
both start-up and annual costs. This analysis, however, does not attempt to estimate the cost
savings for new facilities.
October 1999
Final Report
9-9
-------
9,0 No Exposure
!.";*,: BP
' IlllH'i ""''ill I'iiflli
u;
il lit f :i:!!:i!!"!t;iSi''i',! : fiJiLni'i'ii, 'V "',, if crii ! 'i''/'!™!'!'!!!''!!!!1": '« O
: iiiii I ii"1" ;'' ii ii »l 'i'11 liiiiii'ii1' i . . • QQ
'! :"' ' '"' " '"' o\ ,,
HKFil, 4tftf .:^ v.:*":;.«t':*tWH/3
I'liiiiii: '! i'< 'fiH'!!"''^^!!..!!*' IILii i ';?'"; «illl IIBii!11 lift] ':i.< i J&
Bft
•u Uh . | ;•, if i ,1,1: ''!, ' . » i| • ' '"ii'iii, .Hi!! :i ' :;, JIHIII' hi " Jiiii, ; ' - '^j
JLS'ii', | Ifl m, . lljliiiifl1' Jfl, ' ' ;;|||||['(,'|<;' liilill ' ;<*
i v nil „ ' na1!":,, 11,1,1', iim, - i,.. "lup iiiii1 1 1>... :,:'" „. ".iiniii^Siii
'. Illirl.."'!^!!!;!!!^!,!;!!!!!!!!!!,, Hi'jIir'W "i< , ill IBIInl; ,.r ':;„„' ^
'ilSi"!:,,""!"1 ii, <"!>iiiiii, ^'. .ggjii •; /ill 'ftg
1 i|i IF 'ii ins MI, ii'iviiiHiiiiiiiiL "*i .'.i':' >! 'ii'i11:;,.,! jf 'ijiiinijipiiHiiuii niuniii'i '
Hi IIIKI.!'!1:111;.:'''!!!!! iliiuUlill'flli ' .ilin "p. 4 lIliH1ll,i< "iJl/nillllllii C>
i 1 PM
jLiM'!1 r:wv«i i ; BHiasffl
: = "5
'S5
::::,::.;:":':,;" :,:,:,:: ,•'.• , •-•::„'' „„"',:: g
, :„:,:;":;,::" ::: : , • ;.',:- - • ,>-4
"JTTT'i; ••••'' ; -• ~?'»-'-t*
Illiri'';!"'!', ''illllil!!',, I'jIUIII '!' 'I'llllL '"« jpl'lili'"'::! 1 '5' Jj»
EEM^^^ W
I!1 3''" lirillilllll1 1'WIII' 'I' nil, FHT'i jmi '" ' IPlll'fi1 r'1 i"11'" 'llPli""'9lir
L In'l '''I™ 1 1!" ir'i ', II "" ' i I ' T iiil'lli'! ^f:
•I'll', ['„ I," ,11,' Illllr'''!!'",,!!,, ','", "Ln ilill'ul • ."'f'!; ,, '^^
'llll'll'liall'll!1111',,!; III!'' 'II' ";';, : IIIH II!.' '»; '" H^; JI.L iir
lllllljlll|l|'"Ti: I'l'lllii"1:' "' llhuK , , IIIEB'lll :i Iliffl"!''1^)
INIrl I'l'l"!1'1 'l!'"i;:1, Fil',, I'lllPI''!"'!!.'! rt.-g
, ', «„
illlllls.!.!.' iiif'i'!!'..'" mi]! i mi iiiii iiiii'i!!1!',. in, :,;; ";,:i»iiii
;flllir!ieiH IIIH'.'.'' ' ">" illlli'li:'-':1!':'!!;]'':!::]1"^^^^^^^
rt'^iif^lik "',"," .: iii!' "!'• ' I'ii-i^
'^iiiiii'ijl.:>T:r'''>J^^^ t: 'ii'i liilii'^r l,:i':>3' k
i!;|ir^^^^^r^ ', t;. i Bji!',f'!|j'il'SiHKS
i""' '" i' 'ii ."i '" i
Cfl
d
1
T1
HH
!
^
j
5
J
tt
i
a
|
!
a
42
U
"S
3
a
^5
CO
42
CO
42
|
s
ual Costs
a
^
U
a.
S3
t,
35
i
4
4
«
>
1 *«
i 22
i g
i
!•
i
«T> OO
00 CM
o cT
T3- VO f-
•— O ••*•
OO — i OS
OO -3- ««
oo *n o
"> o
t-^ oo^ •>_
o o
T^ »— <
CO CO
69 V*
£ 0
§
Plan Preparation
Plan Implementation
Comprehensive Site
Compliance and
Evaluation/Plan Rev
Reportable Quantitie
VO
CO
CN
VO
co
co
irT
0
VO
CO
VO
"co
1
CO
o
•0
80
Os
C3
6s,
U
BU
=2
42
3
U
a
1
1 g
u .S
g i
•^ P*
ii !i
X 1
g C
G) ,2
§ * 1
2 42 2
10 8 >2
oil
s-eb i s
.ti .S « S
HI s
— i .** tn
« <4-t O VI
«3 ° 5 1
*2 | -2 is
g^_> >%
Source: Multi-sector Sto
/Votes; Numbers may no
Since permit lasts for .
42
Cfi
o..
. Estimati
Requirements for
•
1
,
42.
,H
:~&
GQ
.e
U
.a'
8
en
O
I
t:
42
CQ
EPCRA Facilities
? 0; vo co oo g 5; jn g
T— i rNJ , r ^3 rr\ yj ^j ^ |
<&<&>&><&> Vi
0 CM ^
vo" >— <" co"
CN" *° ^ CN" oo1 co"
8
C3 §
S | IMC
*-j ^*H w C3 O
i
5;
cs
^H
c^
1— S
Source: Multi-sector Ger
vlotes: Numbers may no
Since permit lasts for 1
9-10
Final Report
October 1999
-------
9.0 No Exposure
Exhibit 9-6. Estimated Annual Cost Savings per Facility (1998 dollars)
'Based on annual costs in Exhibit 9-4.
2 Based on annual costs in Exhibit 9-4 plus annual costs in Exhibit 9-5
{i.e.: ($650 +512,043 = $12,693) and ($21,136+512,043 = $33,179) }
3Based on first time costs divided by 5 years plus annual costs in Exhibit 9-4-
{i.e.: (1863/5) + 650 = 1,023 and (139,067/5) + 21,136 = 48,949}
"Based on first time costs divided by 5 years plus annual costs in Exhibit 9-5 and figure from above
{i.e.: (63,642/5) + 12,043 +1,023 = 25,794 and (63,642/5) +12,043 + 48,949 = 73,720}
The percent of facilities that required to meet EPCRA requirements is unknown; this analysis
assumes that 25% of facilities qualifying for the no exposure exemption must meet EPCRA
requirements. Based on this assumption of 25% EPCRA and 75% non-EPCRA, a weighted
average using annual costs information from Exhibit 9-4 and Exhibit 9-5 determined the low
and high range of estimated cost savings.7
Exhibit 9-7. Adjusted Annual Cost Savings per Facility (1998 dollars)
Monitoring Costs
The lack of required monitoring will result in a second cost savings for industrial facilities that
qualify for the no exposure exclusion. The multi-sector general permit includes both visual and
analytical monitoring requirements. The visual monitoring requirements must be conducted each
quarter year by all facilities. Analytical monitoring must be conducted during years two and four
of the multi-sector general permit. EPA estimates that it will take 30 minutes to collect and .
visually inspect a storm water sample and to log the observation. EPA also estimates that it will
take 30 minutes to collect, via a grab sample, and package each storm water sample for shipment
to an outside laboratory for analysis. The average hourly wage for private sector employees
(including overhead and administrative costs) is estimated to be $44.35, in 1998 dollars.8
Therefore, the average cost to collect and package, or visually inspect and record, a storm water
sample is estimated to be $22.17, in 1998 dollars. The multi-sector general permit includes
analytical monitoring of storm water samples for many of the industrial sectors and subsectors.
7For the low estimate, 25% (650 + 12,043) + 75% (650) = 3,661.
For the high estimate, 25% (21,136 + 12,043) + 75% (21,136) = 24,147.
'This figure is based on the average hourly compensation for all employees in the manufacturing sector (SIC codes 20 through
39) and uicludes 50% for overhead, 67% for fringe, and 15% for inflation. The source of the number of employees is US
October 1999
Final Report
9-11
-------
9.0 No Exposure
p I | i in
Exhibit D-2—1 in Appendix D provides estimated unit costs for the parameters identified in the
monitoring section of the multi-sector general permit. Exhibit D-2-2 indicates the monitoring
requirements and estimated costs for each subsector in the multi-sector general permit. Since the
of outfalls willvary from site to site, it has been assumed that each industrial facility will
lillF111 r"!",!' : Jljllt1?"'1 !' illiiiiii' JIIIIIU W11'1!'1,*!! iiiiiin Si • ''ill ' I1, "'"Mi. ' INUI 15, ', r j^ .„ • ,• **, .MM ' '""• "i" jii ; jf«™ y -
, ,, j, jjojlected during the life of the five year permit is 32.
Notice of Intent Costs
i iiii i in i in iiii ii ill nnii i ii i i 11 in n in n i i mi i
The operators of Phase I industrial facilities are required to submit a notice of intent (NOI) under
aNPDES general permit to obtain coverage of storm water discharges associated with industrial
activity! In 1992 j' 'EPA "g^-j^gg 'g-~^ |^-^e—g——^---—j^™ ~^Q| ^^
apprbximateiy $1633, in1998 Hollars.10 Since the submittal of the NOI is a one-tune expense,
an annual cost can be estimated by dividing the one-time cost by the life of the permit, which is
typically five years. Therefore, the annual cost is estimated to be approximately $3.25, in 1998
dollars.
II i III III 11 III I I III IIII I IIII III III I II I III III II III II
Costs for Notification of Municipalities
Under the modified multi-sector general permit, operators of industrial facilities that discharge
into a local municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) are required to notify the MS4
operator (typically a m^cfpafity) that they are applying for a NPDES storm water permit. In
1992, EPA estimated the cost of municipal notification at approximately $16.25, in!998
dollars,1^ Notifying the local municipality is a one-time expense an annual cost can be estimated
by dividing the one-time cost by the life of a five-year permit. The annual cost is estimated to be
in 1998 Hollars.
i " i ' ' „ , ,
!!" ! !!!!l '1!1"!' !l'":1 '" ' '' ' '"' T " '"" ' ' i'S .""".!.'..!'.' ': ! ..'"'' • l| '' :'!'!' "'.i.i '« !!!'",'"": ' !SHS= '"I!!"",:11:1',
; ,;>! '- ^f-JRecgrdkeeping Costs
lit, ifitff\::: m IT.; ' Hi i ia:mBWi! ": iwTja; JP < IK •iri':. !><)::! i xa i . i r IK, '>'': art'i ,; > •:>;;,i i si!';: s '<;,.it ;• •,» tit :i jitir:' isniH ibs.:*:!:: •'. 'r;,,. • is*?; :v :". •££ 'i,;;: \:,TS ':i5Sif,ss
' ' '' " I ' L I I i ii '"''' N :
i i •* :, nine oTjerator oflin industrial fac"i'l'iry""is""re'quu:e'3"to j^et-ajn alfc&ta)' plans',"reports, 'and' inspections
: jpiermif for three years from the date of permit expiration. It is estimated that
^ ^ ___•jj^jj^- j™ - gve ygar perm||5 or |9j5
,,:"™;I!;";;;;::';:' '';; !^=l,iiliI9^§^(bi|ars annually.12
.ISHT'"^ * !* '!''. " "I" 'TI.?The number of samples collected during the life of the five year permit can be calculated by:
ii ," JHiJiiiSi pfJM§]|R OF YEARS SAMPLES REQUIRED] x [NUIrfBER OF OUTFALLS] x [QUARTERS' IN A YEAR]
IfHtr..}'!^ •! Si,]. '• fl|*^ (WBP '^B''!' iS;!;''',» i'l'l $&. IS I; 1 • '';*'ll^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ylrAl lllii' i s if s • • z ; ; a j. , ,v; A ;;.;,'.-:, .•; •?, A •-, ; s' •; w "< v <. ii •; ", t .';;.»„; i
j"!!!!=V':!::!^^^^^^^^^^^": !,!!!!=' ',""' a'"S= SJ^c Cajmus Group, Incorporated. February 21,1992. Information Collection Request for the Revisions to the National
'" '"' "m"p£Jj^miiSjschffge £j-mjnat-on §^stem: Storm Water Implementation." 'K^aiBdToFu"S"ESA*"C>fficeof Wastewatef
Enforcement and Compliance.
I ' 'The Cadmus Group, Incorporated. February 21,1992. Information Collection Request for the Revisions to the National
I Pollutant Discharge Elimination System: Storm Water Implementation. Prepared for US EPA Office of Wastewater
I1 Jill i" Jllllll'lIWi!''' I'l1" • i llf .IfSftj!?.,6?^1111*^?^ *^^ ov'r- ^^,l'Ye"year multi-sector permit the industrial facility will spend five hours for recordkeeping
I \ ! i ""i '•"'• —• "~;l •:' -"""• • activlties'at $43^,67" per" h'oiir. 'For tneserecord'iceeping activiS'es it will be necessary for the industrial facility" to purchase one
two- drawer vertical file cabinet for $208 and hanging folders for $25. The total cost over the five-year permit is approximately
I III:!!' ,.rl<: 'qilllM^^^ Jillll'fi, IK i i iiR "Ulii'ili Sllll-liii I»H^^^^^ •' ii .llllllill.'ill l»] IITW^^^^ t ''i II:!!! 1 i'" -.'. ^T111:!!!!!::}!!! l.i:i '" ilillllilll!!'1. Ill" V 1 uiUSC!!' „ Ilitif ifllllW y-tOlfifi Illil'v!1:1!1; 111! '''iljllhll1::! !>4fi 't. S ' 'llu iiltlM il:' Ill «r i illiliM 'ill! . Ill £ ::'.' 4;' I
p-72 ~ '• Final Report October 1999
in. ,n ii iiiiiii jiii"! in; Hull in,; tiii, "i, i.: iiiiniiiiniiiiinijH iHiijiiiiiiiiini' ';;ms :n,i jiiiiiiiii jiiiiiinniaiiiiJiiinini iiijiiiiiiB:! •• .ami!! ^*:'WP sii.: uiiiiii!!1,, .< IIJIIH ' uiinii1 jiLininiiii.:1. iiiii'i'iiiKiiiiiiiiiui ;:„: j'i:' iiiiiiniiiH :i|ii!i'
-------
9.0 No Exposure
9.2.4 Total Industrial Cost Savings
Exhibit D-2-3 in Appendix D indicates the estimated number of industrial facilities in each
subsector (under the multi-sector general permit) that may qualify for the no exposure exemption
and the cost savings associated with each subsector. The per facility per subsector annual costs
were summed over visual monitoring costs, analytical monitoring costs, submittal of NOI costs,
municipality notification costs, recordkeeping costs and the respective low and high pollution
prevention plan costs. This estimate is then multiplied by the number of facilities with no
exposure in each subsector to obtain the annual low and high range cost savings for each
subsector. It is estimated that a total of 76,239 facilities, currently regulated by the Phase I
industrial storm water program, will qualify for the no exposure conditional exclusion. This will
result in an annual cost savings ranging from $318,825,521 to $1,865,642,987 in 1998 dollars.
This range is extremely large due to the large annual cost range associated with storm water
pollution prevention plans (per-facility annual costs range from $3,661 to $24,147), as shown hi
Exhibit 9-7.
9.3 No Exposure Certification Cost
Under the Phase II rule, industrial facilities currently regulated and permitted under
§122.26(b)(14)(I) through (ix), but have no exposure of activities or materials to storm water,
will be eligible for the no exposure exclusion. The operators of facilities that seek to obtain the
no exposure exclusion must provide written certification to the NPDES permitting authority that
no exposure conditions exist. In addition, operators of facilities that meet the SIC code definition
of § 122.26(b)(14)(xi), but are not currently covered by a permit because their industrial activities
and materials are not exposed to storm water, will now need to certify that no exposure
conditions exist at their industrial site. Therefore, to determine the net cost savings it is
necessary to estimate the certification cost.
Through an informal poll, it was estimated that it would take 45 minutes to complete EPA's no
exposure certification form (see Appendix D-l).13 Similar to a permit application, the
certification form must be re-submitted every five years. The average hourly wage for private
sector employees (including overhead and G&A) is estimated to be $44.35, in 1998 dollars.14
Therefore, the average cost to complete the no exposure certification form is estimated to be
$33.26, in 1998 dollars.
$450, in 1997 dollars.
An informal poll of professionals knowledgeable of the industrial activities conducted by storm water permittees and the storm
water program was conducted. The average time to complete EPA's no exposure certification form was 45 minutes.
This figure is based on the average hourly compensation for all employees in the manufacturing sector (SIC codes 20 through
39) and includes 50% for overhead, 67% for fringe, and 15% for inflation. The source of the number of employees is US
Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1995. 1993 Annual Survey of Manufactures: Statistics for Industry Groups
and Industries, M93(AS>1. Table 2, page 1-8.
October 1999
Final Report
9-13
-------
i iiiiii in iiiiiiiii iiiiiiiii iiiiiii i nil in iiii i i in
III II II iill ! If ii' : i' l „ I'lUliiif'' 31 :, -"' ill'1!,-'' 1' Uil» :,;1 ;^ ,i: lilil'i1! >lliT' iiii<' t
"ii U111,: U' lii II MUiil, II i,1 iiiiiii,, i'" i '»,1 i, '' I1:;;" ',i' ', Gill Jililr °i'«»
I Ill
I
•I I lllllllll
lllllllll : lEWiilriiiil1'-1,: f. lilts -:.,'ill j, 'i11'1!."1: ",'ifli1 I"Q A XT/"»
"": ii: ii ih j IB j",, ii, iii'i'iriiniiH iiiiiiiii ,„ i' I'll1 nil i,;':, i vkiH 'I1111'l'i ail'' 7 . \J 1NU
III
111 11
Hi 'I'M Ill
~: ~ ~ 77! 777,7177 7,," ', ', „ 71 '. 11 „'. I ll 11 17"! 117117 „ 1 11117111]111,11,' 1,7 '. 771171 ,711 Ill 7771!,, Ill
The number of currently permitted facilities in categories (I) throughL (ix) with no exposure is
estimated to be approximately 76,239.l5 The number of existing category (xi) industrial facilities
with no exposure that will now be required to submit a no exposu^e certification form to the
NPDES permitting authority is estimated to be approximately 105,646.!6 The summation of
these two figures results In 181,885 asmeJ total number of facilities that will complete the notice
III1' III1 of certification.
The total cost to complete the no exposure certification form can be estimated by:
' i'
111111 >l li:i:ii ,i ii lit '' ill -: .JillllJi '(iiillll ili,!-!'!!' Ml 1, iiliiiJlii,1,:1 ill i
[LABOR COST] x pQj^gER OF FACILITIES] = TOTAL COST
;I:.: ;'; :„:;; ^ i; ;::: : i ;;;::: ~: ; ; ; i : n ;,; ;;;;; i; ii;,;; :::ii:; ; ;;::];',, ,;:„; : ;.„ ;;„;;: :; ,„,;:: :i;:;;,
•,-, *,, i • , „ I-., ',..•:, ,, ,; •. : •
IK »
: "= "' "1^3126,'in1 i^ilfdo^^
wage of $44.35 for private sector employees in the
manufacturing sector to complete the no exposure
II 111 11,1 11~ 11, II'" \ ' 1 \ II\ I ,1,1 "1[ "certification form in 45 minutes)., i
NUMBER OF FACILITIES = $181,885 (Number of facilities from categories (I) through
—v ;.•;. :=-;-.,1= ,• -.; = * |i== =;., .••; >—?!*'- j^~ ~f'^ ',$$) &$• ,(xi) that have no exposure of their activities and
* i I- ,- :• ij^'il^ •;*£»"•;•»•»'.ii™ iflwll,l'?tL?:*mj£ Tut.;, < < "iiiiiii:1', i"; JillK1 iiiliHlii „ <>l:ili;i ii:,«,!': IIKI''!!!;.!'!)!,! lijiT,!', iiyi liii,,'?: i ,,!iili:'. ill," ;,i: iji'b UJM :! 'iiiiiFH iiiiifiiij.iTlIjK^^^^^ , • >',' 1 '", > Jin •:' :illiiiliiiiiilii
iiEii'i iiiieiM^^^^^^ >< JIT ••awUsing the above formula, the total cost to complete the no certification form is approximately
[' j[7 ~71""1; ,7; 77; j.3$,049,495. "By dividing the total cost by five (the term of the certification), the estimated annual
j^gg^g^-;^^-^ $1^097899.
[i:,1*:1!! ,: l-ffjUW'siJ.'.'! '.'"f '»•]! 1:»m^A'il^J1*MII'^;(,Wj;;;! vi::: 'i-i
•ill'irfS
I I:!: " lllllllll'. k;«^^^
'fiB
I
I ••••I,;:
lfEt"B(iDi| "
nlH'WIlT"1' ..Jli1' , 'llll'llliL'u/ili11,,!,' i;!,!1 1',:"! Oriiili, '"
'illiv11 mnli M|II|"|, y i,i,
.'llUllii, Ii i'lllv illi'iilhill",, "I'll, I
,l!|l|iliIK
AJWHUl^ „„., . ~~ _..^^sike exclusion is an annual net compliance cost savings ranging
i, Si ftm ' |, , •• , '•• ___ '•' 3 , ' a r* , ,1 '1 "
'ZlmmL^^]Uol5^2 to $1,864,433,088. Annual net compliance cost savings reflects the annual
cost savings for all facilities projected to qualify for the no exposure exemption less the
[ estimated total^mi^l.costfor.all.&dlilies to complete the no exposure certification form.
• f^ 9l5
aiid ...... F gSiral ...... Costs
•"'TiJii1!1 r'nuiiiiiiiiiiiii;:" ^ininiiiii *! iin niin nifMi; • .i rUiui
n: yi*;,;, innnni ii i1;1
f^MMlB1'^ !"'• JP!^^!^? $P S^SS^'iS3;^^0111S P101^^3*6^ ti*e costs f°r federal and state NPDES permitting
l:-''•'"-•'•' "'"':: ' ""l ' '"•::;':'' l'*"1" "'""' "s wlf liicreaser' TEe NPDES permitting authorities will need to make a certification
'' riS hi II "ill i" I ' HI I II i'i (i ii II I " 11" illiliii iiillll Ill i
'?See Exhibit 9-3. The total includes industrial categories (I) through (ix) of 40 CFR § 122.26(b)(14).
, iiiir'iir'wThe total number of light industrial facilities in the US is estimated to be 293,462 and the total number of light industrial
facilities regulated by the Phase I stbrni water regulation is estimated to be 23,477 from Exhibit 9-3. The exact number of light
mdSffiS fSIffies with a discharge to waters of the US is unknown. If it is assumed that 44% of all light industrial facilities
ff,\"£ jfjt'&mc discharges to waters of the US (44% is equivalent to'the average developed in Exhibit 9-2) and 23,477 light facilities
, rjij=;L- yjf*£\ =*'-i?jequSre p"h'ase I industrial storm water permits because they meet the regulatory definition of § 122.26(b)(14)(xi) then the number
1 of category xi facilities that will need to certify no exposure conditions is approximately 105,646, that is, (293,462 x 0.44 -
-------
9.0 No Exposure
form available to the regulated community, and then record and review the no exposure
certification forms submitted. However, since EPA has already included a certification form in
the Phase II rule package, the cost for a NPDES permitting authority to develop a form was not
included in this analysis. The increased cost is based simply on significant number of industrial
facilities that are expected to certify to no exposure.
9.5.1 Total State Costs
The NPDES-authorized states and territories will be responsible for implementing the no
exposure provision. This will require the states to record and review the no exposure
certification forms submitted by industrial facilities. It is estimated that a total of 181,885
industrial facilities have no exposure and will submit a no exposure certification form.
Multiplying the ratio of NPDES-authorized states and territories (44) to the total NPDES
jurisdictions (53) by 181,885 results in a total of 150,999 facilities possibly seeking the no
exposure exclusion in NPDES-authorized states and territories. Exhibit 9-8 presents the cost to
implement the no exposure provision in NPDES-authorized states and territories. The annual
cost is expected to be approximately $811,000.
Exhibit 9-8. State Costs to Implement the Industrial No Exposure Provision (1998 dollars)
Number of Establishments Certifying No Exposure1
150,999
State Cost to Process Each Certification Form2
$26.87
Total State Costs (Over 5 years)3
$4,057,343
Total State Costs (Annual)4
$811,469
'The estimated number of industrial facilities (categories (I) through (ix) and (ix)) eligible forme no exposure
exclusion was calculated by multiplying the ratio of NPDES-authorized States (44) to total NPDES jurisdictions
(53) by 181,885, which is the estimated number of facilities eligible for the no exposure exclusion.
2The average hourly wage for State employees was determined by the US Dept. of Labor Employment Cost
Indexes and Levels 1975-1995; Bulletin 2466, Oct.1995. The hourly wage includes overhead expenditures and is
in 1998 dollars.
3Total state costs are reported over five years in this row. Five years represents the life of the certification. In
subsequent permit cycles the costs to process the certification forms may increase because additional facilities
will constructed (which are not included in this analysis) and other facilities will change their existing practices
to make themselves eligible for the no exposure exclusion.
"The annual cost was derived by dividing the Total State Costs by five. Similar to a permit, the certification form
has a five-year term.
October 1999
Final Report
9-15
-------
ill
•dinjiK'j I'lilihW W»!'' .'IB -'"Si •:
•x?
II;HI'iiii,!ii'jl"j .i,: ' >\i,!. n1
!f':l;S9,Oi,NpiExposure
!::'"!i I
Total Federal Costs
1IH J:ill&f:iBKM't!M!<:£'.W Ill
•|!,iill|.|;:'!' Iilll ' I Ill' !":,tar, UK.:'! 'fl.!!!!*! i..t 't -, illli:» iit • ' ;• r Hnivt :' '.'*! I |i" «' .''(Kill' "I"..;: 'i ill'!1!:!!!1!*"*.! l!li|ilrill liliilF.. 'ittKiaLi^Hft ,r .'M&R.tf'WiFfl !l .III!1'!"'" ''itllli!!:.
:::::;::;-, EPA will be responsible for implementing the no exposure provision in the nine non NPDES-
~L— ::;::: ~;;;: ~':.aj|Q»nzed statesjnd territories. As the NPDES permitting authority in these nine areas, EPA
™'!"™:'~ ™"~_" '"!;^j[][ |^ve to record and review the no exposure certification forms submitted by industrial
'l^'i industrial facilities have no exposure and will
submit a no exposure certification form. Multiplying the ratio of non-authorized states and
territories (9) to the total NPDES jurisdictions (53) by 181,885 results in a total of 30,886
facilities, possibly seeking the no exposure exclusion hi non-authorized states and territories.
Jliijiibit 9-9 presents lie cost for EPA to implement the no exposure provision in non-authorized
'™ ;;*••; ^:;:»' ">:.';;"~™fsSies andterritbries'i "The annual cost is'expecteS to be approximately $175,000.
Ill li I lit lifl: . '';!;; S III!"!,! % • 5 If i; i W il I III II llllillil." WWfWM, 1 • i-iS '" '.IWi,:,: 11 i W'&CiWftfivV '. ' i <": , » '.'"!«£''! J ;- „' « 'i si1""" ,.,
i'l .'.iSi;; W (*••')•*) liillllllil ill'
Exhibit 9-9. Federal Costs to Implement the Industrial No Exposure Provision (1998 dollars)
ill , 111 1 1, ( > i i T i i 11, «»rt 1
i i j ' i 1 » i, ' »•»*",**,*
• i i i i « i . r, , 4 i T ,«",*•*-.
1 l ii r i in i * • *
Number of Establishments Certifying No Exposure1
EPA Cost to Process Each Certification Form2
Total EPA Costs (Over 5 years)3
Total EPA Costs (Annual)4
Estimate
30,886
$28.37
$876,236
$175,247
'The estimated number of industrial facilities (categories (I)" tiuwi^ I
'•"-'—" :: I———11' .i—'- -" aSculat^^y n^^piyiing thTi^i(T67non NH>^r^ 181,885,
IIIIJI'1' iljiniJI11', r | I,,]!!, fillllli ;||| i!lhi,n|| '• in"ni1' ",'L ''' ''!>•!''I1' "iiiilPIBi.il ...'liHill'IIIIIHIIIIIIIII \f „ iiiif , ::,i, £1 inra » , ,i" , ' t " i',, ^ MI ,i>,ii, H , ' , ' 111, ii,«. II111 I 111
»l!;jf.: ,.*
:.Jji"Vf iill llllillil I I llllillil I (III III ! 1(1 Ml
9.6 : Data Limitations
IJil'.. ,|. '" " "'flu,''"^ I1.'1!,,:::1"!..!1:111!; ;»
\
There are a number of data limitations that hindered the no exposure provision analysis in this
chapter. These limitations include:
fr
...... IK ......... i,
^^ ...... ' ....... Sill ..... I; ..... 'fStmm ..... l"i;iill ...... in ........ li.!.!:'!!!'..!!* ..... i ....... l.i ...... ill ..... i! ....... '-! ..... J^ii'ilih:;.:'^ ........... Iti.;;.' ..... .!!;:,!l!n;:"li. ..... II ...... 'M,W" \
3P. ..... ati ..... sources ..... indicating the number of industrial facilities that should be covered
\W- JlE-1'! .....
by the Phase I program, therefore, the baseline needed to be estimated and hi some cases
i ........ .. ........... ~ ...... •• reliable data could not be collected.
/.<"!i!! Ill
mil" I.'ZI: I"11' ill!.illlll|.i. Ml.I'll.1.1!"..
I "i'iiniill, < !.'('E..!!!'!! i,
The number of facilities do not include abandoned or inactive mines, landfills, and oil and gas
yKTHBiiH! ipiiii'iiiiiiiiaiii1 ...... ', ruiiiLM^inM^ ..... in,, .imii111:!1 '.iiiiiiiKiiiiiiini'n:' rpi*1; .ihViiii."!"!'!!!! "'" ' » t n » ....... |i,",n f. ......... :.< ''i,"< ...... ...n1 if • ..... "ii-1 'iiiiiiiioii1'1 ni1 "an • "«\,"m iiiJn ...... in.,} «:„ .iiniii > v.'ii >i» ..... :'!'i>,:,^, . ............................................ ^ ................................ ............... rs?
on both public and private lands.
? By estimating the universe of regulated facilities with data from County Business Patterns
"~ ; ::::'"Shereij§iii1|ie,, potential to under estimate the number of facilities, and industrial activities,
igjJIjQafeJijL por example, some facilities may need to meet permit requirements for more than
liliiii*. I wiMHi ':.:»."• 5?si iiiiiii: I ,in.. :t liiii .IB Ri 'IIIIE i dl| !!> '"i! i- i.; 4i*';^^^^ ' lilf * I li J." :!i" MlllllH i«.. '.!'.i,:> llllillil::., «i), . i : •HI 'itwaNK r,", -n1:!: iii^! '* • vn i1'!:*";... ;i"i i1" in '..':' :>.."'•:. !ls v; iMiiiii!' 1911111, ..lEiii;.:', M
j,''^ .•'ii'Jlliiiiii!i;!'!Ji;g^^^^^^^^^^^^
I ' * "
li.ilii, illilii"''
' "ii&i
..... "
, fmalJReport
, :• „ /iii II ........ ! ..... Ililiil .:• &iiii:l, :
October 1999
'"" i:,:"":":"""!":, """"i: 9.'
^
':ji:l;.iiJ!> "iiii, ;:ibi|.||iii!,ii. iiijijii: :•! riii ivEiB:: iifiilii i iiiiiiiriii.:.!1:!;. "iliij I
-------
9,0 No Exposure
may have to meet permit conditions for newsprint manufacturing, vehicle maintenance,
railroads, steam electric generation, and on-site landfills. The method used to estimate the
number of establishments would 6nly count this as one facility in this analysis, but in reality
this facility would have five different permit conditions reflecting each of the above industrial
activities.
By relying on the County Business Patterns there is the potential to over estimate the number
of industrial establishments is some SIC codes and under estimate in others. The County
Business Patterns records locations where commercial transactions occur not where the
industrial activity occurs. For example, the County Business Patterns indicates that there are
over 100 facilities identified by SIC code 45 occurring in the District of Columbia. SIC code
45 represents transportation by air, but in reality, the District of Columbia does not have a
single commercial airport within its jurisdiction. Similarly, the County Business Patterns do
not report data for the thousands of active oil and gas exploration, production, processing, or
transmission sites. These two help indicate the difficulty in estimating the number of facilities
regulated under the Phase I program.
The potential number of industrial facilities requiring storm water permits may be overstated
because there was no attempt to eliminate industrial facilities that may discharge storm water
to combined sewers. Storm water discharges to combined sewers are exempt from storm
water permitting requirements. The exact number of industrial facilities with storm water
discharges to combined sewer systems is unknown.
October 1999
Final Report
9-17
-------
Ill ilk I ,«i I 111 1 I'll
I Ill
ill Hii 1(111 '
II 111 I (III 111 II I III 111
111 111 I 111 111 111 I 111 111
111 II I III111 I II 111 III 111 II
IK I-jliill'l1 iHBlIK ,'IH'1, 'illllHJ) HI /IDlillil! . ... , , ,„
,1 I" iBi .'!• "I'tllll! I' ' JIIIIIIB: till ijlllHX "lltf.f I'1*: Jlllllil, iWUWLffA UK", 111'*! ,{.ml liilltl!11 j'"!*: i.'' J> I'S'''"!'!!:!:! .' ' ''llilllll <:il1:1: v'1"1'! -' ill!)!!:/ ii«:!l "'I*'" "I'':, iLllliiiiilllJIll:!!!' 'iil'll;1"!! 'llfilii™11!:
iil'II' I,;1;*'Is, !f , i, i:, •, i|SI IIIIH^ i.'ll I1'111!,!''•'!:: V-:fJ li.MOUffiM! .i "it i,i'1'- :t::*' l-'.ljJ ••••>%'.':» : :'!;'.i '•*, ''iS llv'SlllEfelfSi'ffijf
I'; I IE:", :'"'» I,,;,'" .,1 n;1' i " iJIIIIB-, iiiilff-l Ellliqii'iK 1liiilii> Mm""iH!iiafim:VX lillli IP!1, ill I1!! sil"i, '"i, *('.. , :!i:.:ir "'dll ill I" liini Biilflr •" ' IK Jlllf .• IJliilli- ifcftJ illiiilC
........ i '!' Hi" iih ,i,,i,,' ill,, mi" ...... HI 'ii'i'iini ...... 'i""i!''ii!'i"!'ii!iii iiiiHiiir «
'
i'iiinnji"'!1 |D ii „ ,1',,' IK ' 'ii'i,*1"!,!,",,"':!' ,, '.,:»: "i1", IIA,,::" ii ..... ..... if
' ll'lli i illllllf' ; i;"" .! IliiillW^^ :, iii; B:»" 'ill!! III! |::i'l|!::IIIl •' ,; ill;! ::;!,:' "/'.rill!!' I)K , f|J', „' 'f»; "I 'gj""',, j' ;ji Ifj1 liiju f^ "|* '" • <• Jt'1" j" '< '^!;» «! * g ;|' iSfl' • '* ilX' !'!llii" ;«iJ!;«111!'";. jtSi'1!!11' fl'S • ;i ii' 5! '"HIIS'iBl: f'"'i *,/' f!1"" ' IllF" ''":
fji v'1'11'11'1'''^!!;!,!, ' ljv Illfi'ljil!!,""' !,!!;!i>!!111 "I!?1!!!! >":'!!!i>|1; i!!!!!!!!!1!1!;!!!!1:!
r1' ' :'.,," 'I'lflll! I
111' iiiifiilllllll'l i'li'f n liMji""!,!"1 mi 'Hi ,!!".i' I, . I'ii; ;ll||!|iiri< , "li , ;, II!1!,'1, 1!|1i"l!i, " "fl'i'i |,l '! ,,i"i „ ' "i11,,!."!.!!! '„ •! " ::«il|!;,!,;,.!:i;:;i!|iii< W!! IJ!"' ",11 .IliiF'Slliij11**'/!!'1'''''!,', '"Vi11,,,.!!,,,' ' ff ,'"„ i
,ii| in""!!, " 'iJ , ':ii '" '',,1 'i,,:,ii':i'l'i ft'. Ii'lR" irtllilKil,!'' i,ii!li,
ill1,1 i I- "i:iili 1 !'' Hi1 liiililil/'llf'!' 'illlllliii:!11111' • Jili'inilllnnl < !!!!'; ^A:" 11; ,;;»j "f ,[,,1:1: y g fgm ;"'[, „ , iggi |, >:, up i< , if >n\,, ,¥!,.' i'*;;,, ;i;|, "/; ,i,;";«' i „ ipigi|i;';,, i|i|gi| r jgggggggg, gig;,,,,,;, ;iig mni'ii'i;!: 'ifii i;,, ,: ':;'<, . «>!'«;;; ' ,, |'i|" \,:;' ,, f ' |jH||ii" <„ ;!;|i|jiT '<:.,,!' 'f^ I
",.,!!!, u!' '''1'™!'!!, "!!!!!l!7"!i'!!l '',!!!„'i'..™'",!
ilililli
• i
• iii
in i
•III 1 I llilllll
III II I III III
i iiiiini inn i iniiiii
iiiii i
/> Siilrii i-, ii fS
i1:1!'1"11,, ''S'l'TUir'kfif iiiriH1 I'liliii'fc
II . ii' ..... " :, W.'.d.i t-W
Ii Iliiill
llilllll ill ill
'•:";:, '» c/1 ..^fTJW.lj^Blfti'MF: I!""IP
^^^^^^ I
IHiULiilLiMlllil'IIIIIUIr'!','!!/niinilllllllilii" 111 Mit|i;' iiilllii
_uV: ,>''_ il'1' I l|!l'iiill'i '..j'ii.v|i_:.
-------
10.0 REFERENCES
Barret, M. E., J.F. Malina, and RJ. Charbeneau. 1996. Effects of Highway Construction and
Operation on Water Quality and Quantity in an Ephemeral Stream in the Austin, Texas,
Area. Center for Transportation Research, The University of Texas at Austin. Report
No.: FHWA/TX-96/1943-3.
Barret, M.E., R.D. Zuber, E.R. Collins, J.F. Malina, RJ. Charbeneau, and G.H. Ward. 1993. A
Review and Evaluation of Literature Pertaining to the Quantity and Control of Pollution
From Highway Runoff and Construction. Center for Transportation Research, University
of Texas at Austin. Report No.: 1943-1 TX-94+1943-1.
Barringer, T.H., R.G. Reiser, and C.V. Price. 1994. Potential Effects of Development of Flow
Characteristics of Two New Jersey Streams. Water Resources Bulletin. 30(2).
Bander, J.W. 1993. Assessing Extension Program Impact: Case Study of a Water Quality
Program. Journal of Natural Resources and Life Science Education. 22(2): 13 8-144.
Bean, N.H., J.S. Goulding, C. Lao, and FJ. Angelo. 1996. Surveillance for Foodborne-disease
Outbreaks: United States, 1988-1992. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. 45(55-5).
Bockstael, N.E., K.E. McConnell, and LE. Strand. 1989. Measuring the Benefits of
Improvements in Water Quality, The Chesapeake Bay. Marine Resource Economics.
6:1-18.
Bondelid, T., AH, G., and Van Houtven G. The National Water Pollution Assessment Model,
Benefit Assessment of Storm Water Phase II Program, June 1999.
Bondelid, T. et al. "Progress in Water Quality: A National Evaluation of Wastewater
Infrastructure Investment, Water Quality and Economic Benefits of the Clean Water
Act", Proceedings of WEFTEC 97, Chicago, Illinois.
Brown, W. and D. Caraco. 1997. Controlling Stormwater Runoff Discharges from Small
Construction Sites: A National Review. Prepared by Center for Watershed Protection for
the U.S .EPA Office of Wastewater Management. Silver Spring, MD.
Cameron, T.A., W.D. Shaw, and S. Ragland. 1999. "Nonresponse Bias in Mail Survey data:
Salience vs. Endogenous Survey Complexity." In Valuing Recreation and the
Environment: Revealed Preference Methods in Theory and Practice. Herriges, J.A., and
C.L. Kling (eds). Massachusetts: Edward Elgar.
October 1999
Final Report
10-1
-------
Carson, R.f /and' RTOSte^".' i^~i^^w^"^m.'^i^c: The Public's Willingness to
Pay for Beatable',Rshablejand SwiffimaB le^j^ Water. Water Resources Research.
|i|i 1 (ill I111
m iiijip'.!'!!, 'ii'ii'1 "wi ...... J'iii is: 'nil1 a: F < ..... 3 • iniii1:; "': .1 '; i !l :;,> , •liii ' ..... ihiFSiiriiii ' /iivfi
:x r "is*, 1 1 mi ....... , s~ : i >>! • ifrt
Center for Disease Control and Prevention. 1994. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.
43(5).
iiiiiiiiiii
in i
Center for Disease Conliol and Prevention. 1998. National Center for Infectious Diseases,
III I 111 III II I II I Pl IIIIII III;I 1IIIB 'tii''1 IfVTWlSPlK'W^fWIr'.HW1!1 'Vt'<^S'lf'ift'':'t'^mWifJ> ik1"!!"'1:') "!i| I jllif!"':,; 'Uii;:', "flRi.'IWi S!" III.''!!!!!'1 :"'.'!!!'!.
Division of Vkal and Ricketsial Diseases.
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvrd/gastro.htm
Cilll HI!!,.'1
" t
in 11
Center for Watershed Protection. 1998. Cost and Benefits of Storm Water BMPs. Final Report.
Prepared for Parsons Engineering Science.
Center for Watershed Protection. 1997. Controlling Stortnwater Runoff Discharges from Small
Construction Sites: A National Review. Silver Spring, MD.
in ini MI i ii IP
iii iv
ChesapeakeSay"p"rogramlLiving' "Resources Subcommittee. 1991. Habitat Requirements for the
• fijli 'I, '',,„ j1' i'"''Jlliiilli'JIIillll'jili'inijii!!'r {KiiiiiiBiiiinnnii1 i iiiinnnini1, n i "iiBt' it amiiiiii1"1" ninL1'wiiiiiiiuiiir1 ? UHIF if»»:< '• \ <„ n' n1"1; >, *:i\ \«j < VXK »•' 'iiiiiiiiiniiii1 wi"». • & »•»» •• » - - rkgroup and the Chesapeake Research Consortium, Inc.
nil* IE; . iiiiiiiiiEj11
on!11959" Chicago Title Corporation's 23rd Annual Survey of Recent
. hr^:/^vww.ctt.com/hbs/defauh.htm[05/13/99]
i'J: andE. Smith. 1995/TheTahoe Landscape: A BMP Education Program.
Conservation. 5(3):272-274.
..... El ..... lift ..... i ..... ii, Iiiiii ...... ^i£Kf.M ....... iiiiii ........ ii,:;, ...... 'i'' ..... '^;:ii>iii-^1vl^ .......
ii: il'1" - Jl I i Illllil Iiiiii 'Bi'flli !' JIIIIH ,: iiiillil! 'fXsmf Kill.: I :,';: SI i. L»iJiif Ii "'i: ',, i'l':" iiiiii!,ill I & i! • WlI 'iillli:1'':;, ill illiiill iiiil^^^^^^^^^^^ ' fill iiiliiiJlliilJlli' &i !. '< iini II l'< ii :;:' (!«', 'illiiiilliil iii', >
'itilKlf^A^Iiil Kity of Olympia. 1994. Impervious Surface Reduction Study. Olympia, Washington.
: ; ; : :"! ' :| ' *
' ' '' ;: r; "; r : :' : ' :' ; :
E.H., J.A. Haverkamp, and W. Chapman. 1985. Eroding Soils: The Off-Farm Impacts.
I ..... :ii::ii,| ...... ii-jsi! ..... pi ..... i; ,-;:«
,£"':•;! : ..... " ,;; ;;: ";'•' ' " ;~ ; ;:; ' :: : -';~"fle" C^nservation'F oundation, Washington, D.C.
ii'Mii!' j:i:!iliiiiiil; ..... ii 1 1 Ji' ...... ti III'!' ' , if ''!>^^^ r "' 'i ilK fflillB ,1 ..... lit i'" : ........ '!«:: ...... "i1 ,..<;. / i::::::icliii!i ..... >< HI ....... ^mism: .aif, ..... i, • i' ; ni> . 'i ........ ..... <' "' i
ijiiii " '< iii'iK .fii'.);,
Code: pfjFederal j^^ 122-26-us Government Printing Office,
, DIG.
,^-jfl^jj^ D^ stoffel, and B. Miller. 1979. Sediment and Nutrient Yield From
^^^^^.^^^--^-—^.^^^.^ g:3Q4_308.
...... i!' IIHIB "i1; 'i»i ''iiiuiiii' 'aj.;,; '1;,., tjiiiii* itiiiiiii'iii "fiii;1 • ,i ..... !,-f LV
;• ..... •'' i;"|:;,, !'"!: "if t1 ' ff •!, •, \ a;" ;; : j ;'i ! .iji'ji a ,:!!:ij|iiiii,;i ft "_, ill1!-!!' "H.'i"
i iiiiiiiiiii1 ' ' nil i n>. ..... 11. r' ''"'i"'!!!!!, ....... ii. :, ,. ..... ' .'.''i ...... i ..... ii'
Final Report
October 1999
-------
10.0 References
Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control and the Brandywine
Conservancy. 1997. Conservation Design for Storm-water Management,
Dunne T.R. and L.B. Leopold. 1978. Water in Environmental Planning. W.H. Freeman and
Company.
Engineering News Record. 1999. Building Cost Index History (1915-1999).
http://www.enr.com/cost/costbci.asp
Ewing R. and R. Hodder. 1998, Best Development Practices: A Primer for Smart Growth.
Smart Growth Network.
Federal Register 63. No. 31. February 17,1998, Reissuance of NPDES\General Permits for
Storm Water Activities.
FDIC. 1999. Survey of Real Estate Trends, Division of Research and Statistics. Washington, DC.
January, 1999. p.4.
Field, R. and R.E. Pitt. 1990. Urban Storm-Induced Discharge Impacts. Water Environment and
Technology. 3(6): 47-49.
Freeman, A.M. 1993. The Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values: Theory and
Methods. Washington D.C.: Resources for the Future.
Freeman, A.M. 1993. The Economics of Valuing Marine Recreation Values: A Review of the
Empirical Evidence. Bpwdoin College Economics Working Paper 93-10.
Gardner, M.B. 1981. Effects of Turbidity on Feeding Rates and Selectivity of Bluegills.
Transaction of the American Fisheries Society. 11:446-^450.
Glanton, T., M.T. Garrett, and B. Goloby. 1992. The Illicit Connection: Is It the Problem? Water
Environment & Technology. 4(9):63-68.
Hagler Bailly Services, Inc. 1997. Potential Value of U.S. Waters Impaired by Urban Wet
Weather Discharges. Draft Report prepared for US EPA, Office of Wastewater
Management. Boulder, CO.
Haile, R.W., et al. 1996. An Epidemiological Study of Possible Adverse Health Effects of
Swimming in Santa Monica Bay. Final Report prepared for the Santa Monica Bay
Restoration Project.
October 1999
Final Report
10-3
-------
10.0 References
Hoehn, J.P. and A. Randall. 1989. Too Many Proposals Pass the Benefit Cost Test. The
Economic Review. 79(3):544-551.
ill in 1 1 in ill n in iii
n i in i i n 1 1 n n i i i i
..... ' 1'' ..... 1 ...... i'' Jll
i I i i i i
J.P. 991 . Valuing the Multidmensional Impacts of Environmental Poicy: Theory and
:™ '™, is-; •">:;,™ ™[; • •-Methods., AmericanJournal of Agricultural Economics. 73 (2) :289—299.
j ' | '' :' " ' ' '!' |'|| ,""'"', 1
^; | Hollis^ G. E, 1975. The Effect of Urbanization on Floods of Different Recurrence Interval.
, ';j'^'ii in*"^^fiWater Resources Research. 11(3).
"I"'!1 &mi Ita W .fitlilil •fiftl IIIIIIIII Iliiil! IS!!:!!:!!11 lilll^fRIi El '"• '"• !!!;„ ',„"!!! ,iifii"/N, •• , .. j, j> ,. ; • i, ,1 , i, i 11 • ,; >;/ ", ,,:•.<•
. ....... , • ..... ..... « ; ............ , ,: .......... <, ...... i
"1' lit :; " ..... < iliiiw <)| !:,; f ' ..... li.Hlliln.1.
.
5ii^:'"^>K ....... ii:Bta©r,
ii-jilHEH- ....... i 'i;' '(I1! K ; [it JIBHIl
lii " iillll'llUiili/iil ...... IllllHDIlK ....... HIM ....... C> lilll!l|i|lll[ ....... > "lil . iil • " I),"'' ..... IKIIH 1 1" ;«, ..... , flu ,'.. |||l"!!!||l|'!l'i J'1'1 ''il'liliiill'^'l!!!!!!!!!!1!!11' :i!!i!'!!!!!!!!!!!!ip!!i!!!!i4i:i';: 'I'li1:"1?!*!!!1'111*!::,!!!!!!!11; I!!!1'1' ''1 '"I! •• I!11*!1 'I!:!!;!1;;:!]!?!!!!111:!!!1!111!!*1" ^/'^ ', W!!11,'11!1!1 ' |:II!1!'1' „ l!'!!*!:!!!!^!'1 'I'V''''^1!!!::'?11!!1!!;:,:1!!1!11:11 I?!!il!l!!!*!!!!!l5: 't "ij!!!!!::1"!!1!:;,!*;1!!!!!;!?1 l!!!!1'1" ^r'v"111111!;!,!* ...... i!!!!!!!1!''!!1^!!;!!!!!1^1'/ " !i l|"!||||l,"; "l|1'"1"1 '' |!!!!!!!i! " !l1 '" !| M|
.sisJss , , ",,,•; 'sxs ..... a:;; Jones, RlC.2 A. Vla-Norton, and D.R. iMorgan. 1 997. JBiqassessment of BMP ^Effectiveness in
Mitigating Storm Water Impacts on Aquatic Biota. In Effects of Watershed Development
i i? ''SB :::ill;T:' : • .............. ' ......... ' ............................ ! ................... ....... ......... ' .................... ' ..... ..................... " .................... ' ............... *' ..................................... ...... ........... ' .................. ' ....... [[[ '" .......... ................. ...... ' ' ' .......... ............................ ' "" ..... " .......................... ' " ...... ...... " ............... " ........ ...... ' "' ..... ' ..... ' ..... 4 ........ ................ "' .......... ' ............ • • '= ................... ................ ••> ....... ..... "' ....... ....... • '" ....................... .......................... • ...................... .........
:,,Slt '' • '111!'!!11'1!!!"»
':jjj.^ ffllK^
BSS'ji''^;1 Kiiv^i'j^Lli^PubMsh6^* November, Strategic Environmental Assessments Division, NOAA,
Rpckvil|e, MD.
iiiiilii
. .
Lemly, A.D. 1982. Modification of Benthic Insect Communities on Polluted Streams: Combined
Effects of Sedimentation and Nutrient Enrichment. Hydrobiologia. 87:229-245.
in ill iiiiiii
Leopold, L.B. 1968. Hydrology for Urban Land Planning—Guidebook on the Hydrological
^Effects of Urban Land Use. Circular 554. US Geological Survey, Menlo Pjarl^, CA.
in i mi iiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiii in i in i i ii i i , 'i::1; Ji :iiiiii
-------
10.0 References
Lopes, TJ. and K.D. Possum. 1995. Selected Chemical Characteristics and Acute Toxicity of
Urban Storm water, Streamflow, and Bed Material, Maricopa County, Arizona. U.S.
Geological Survey, Water-Resources Investigations Report 95-4074.
MacRae, C.R., and A.C. Rowney. 1992. The Role of Moderate Flow Events and Bank Structure
in the Determination Channel Response to Urbanization. In Proceedings of the Canadian
Water Resources Association's 45th Annual Conference Resolving Conflicts and
Uncertainty in Water Management.
Makepeace, D.K., D.W. Smith, and SJ. Stanley. 1995. Urban Storm Water Quality: Summary
of Contaminant Data. Critical Reviews of Environmental Sciences and Technology
25(2):93-139.
Malcom, H.R., RJ. Burby, EJ. Kaiser, M.I. Luger, R.G. Paterson, and A.C. Beard. 1990.
Evaluation of the North Carolina Erosion and Sedimentation Control Program. North
Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, Raleigh.
Marsh, J. M. 1993. Assessment of Nonpoint Source Pollution in Stormwater Runoff in
Louisville, (Jefferson County) Kentucky, USA. Archives of Environmental
Contamination and Toxicology. 25(4): 446-455.
Maryland Department of the Environment (Jim George and Greg Lindsey). 1991. Financing
Stormwater Controls in Carroll County: A Preliminary Investigation.
Masterson, J.P. and R.T. Bannerman. 1994. Impacts of Stormwater Runoff on Urban Streams in
Milwaukee County, Wisconsin. In National Symposium on Water Quality, American
Water Resources Association.
Mauskopf, J. and M. French. 1991. Estimating the Value of Avoiding Morbidity and Mortality
from Foodborne Illnesses. Risk Analysis. 11(4): 619-631.
Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG). 1997. Anacostia Watershed
Study - draft (survey of land use and corresponding impervious surface levels in the
District of Columbia, Montgomery and Prince Georges counties).
Microsoft Network (MSN). 1999. Home Advisor.
http://homeadvisor.msn.com/ns/gettingstarted/budgettobuy.asp [05/19/99].
Mitchell, R.C. and R.T. Carson. 1989. Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent
Valuation Method. Washington D.C.: Resources for the Future.
October 1999
Final Report
10-5
-------
f'Sli ;'!iHi lit OR: iii!" !<
ill Ill €'
• ....... liM f «,, ''I ........ ! ..... ..... :!!!I, I11H ..... i ....... .! ........ !' > T ,ifi:; - ,1 ' i
••• ^Jt ......... ' ii ........ '-" ..... • ..... ..... > ........... ................... ' ...... *. '' ..... ' * ' .......... « ..... '" ...... • ':» ..... ........... :
" » ........ >' '<'•• ..... • •• ...... '"- •' " "' •' "' •' : • ....... '* ; ' J •<
•toast
s aim?,
of Counties R^earcfi'FoundatioiL "97CL j^ grosion and Sediment
oi; ..... Federal ...... Wag? ..... uaEty ..... %ctministration, Water .................
Control
Series, Program #1 5030 DTL. Washington, DC.
....... "" "''~ ™ " '"
j ....... ""\ \,"''~,jp t™ "
National Association of Flood and Stormwater Management Agencies. 1999. Phase II Survey
, ! '"Jin: . • ., . "
DaicTKepoirf. Washington, DC.
f
Natural R^ources" Defense Council ^JRJ)Q_ 19977 Testing the Waters VII: How Does Your
K ;1 li; ;| "'"Ifora/jow |?e^^
"• Jill ' nw i-ii'»"iin .'('"liii! ii,
li'iiiri ii|ii|Jiiiii!ll>l|;i'i;ii ji''1!:;!!! liiRii'\,iii!!liril;iiii!iilil!i:iifi|iiNpliiiilii^ ii'i'lijiibiHi<:I1 < '' i'Vf" ,!:• :„ '''' 'ill n'ii';'!, - iSJiW^ • .ili'iSi1'.1' liin1"'!1 'I1 ' „•,*'. ''Si;:1 , /vrmli'™"1, ! iiiiiliKiiaiiiiU'ijir'iijiiiiJiiii
»!' I'l'' 3" ' ' """ " '
it |,| til;
lllirHI'inVi
:!:NRDC j^^j^fag ^j^^s^^^^^^^
i lllllli liiill
NRDC. 1998, Storm Water Success Stories. Draft Report.
Nelson, A.C., J.E. Frank, and J.C. Nicholas. 1 992. "Positive Influence of Impact-Fee in Urban
Planning and Development' VoMrKor[o/^r^awPla«wzKaKJ^eve/offzewHi8: 59-64.
" ''
ii i 1 1 iiiiii i i iii i i iiiiii i in 1 1 in nil wwr •
,< n ......... t : j i»
, ;<9iiiii»4i!.; 'i'siw'ii1
: ..........
II 11 I llh i
•HI i iii IP
Northern Virginia Planning District Commission (NVPDC). 1990. Evaluation of Regional BMPs
Jiii'll'', j' I ! i in the Occoquan Watershed.
I
Office of the President. 1998. Economic Report of the President. Washington DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office.
I ' " I
I
Paterson, R.G., M.I. Luger, RJ. Burby, EJ. Kaiser, H.R. Malcom, and A.C. Beard. 1993. Costs
1,1 \~s.". iITr'3
g8i(fe«f.1()[^:"T67-i 78."" ' '
:i«lbi.v iji
>! ' :
..lld: ;<„, J,ii<,
ninni'ill'i': i' i 'in,.''urn1!:'",!.,1! n'l ', "'i 'II iinillll, In1"!it,i
' '" ill « lll'l, "l'< LIIIP' IMIIIII1 i'! 'Ill ,11'JI Ir, ",
e , , iiiiii i 'it i •, 'i 'Butf,:: ijiiti: i iiiiiiiii m
•IK jlllllR felllS i,:,:'''!!! IIMi:!)' :ll"Z :r' .' I: I!!1!""::": :!lllllllll!":i' miill'i'.: lllllIU iliillH^^^^^^^^^^^ "i;"j!"' i ' ':!:;»]"'(' I', I:: :,„! JKTll1 I '"Ii 'i tf I "i',:*'','," 'Iji'i-'tM,];,' IIIIII 'li'i; it'lili ni-iillKi 'liliiFI't'"' 11 I
Pitt, R. and P. Bissonnette. 1984. Belleyue Urban Runoff Program, Washington: Summary
"I": "i; i:':r^^r,^™,'"'R~eport. Bellevue,WA:Bellevue Urban Runoff Program.
Eiilit,:!!1,::!,'! i'li'lniii! f'l, , JiL ]•" W- yii,"'! iifi1:: '^S^^^^^^^^^ ':iili!li < .'liildliiiFi'ii/' 'ii^i'Pliyiif'i 'jiiKili ' 'yi' iif wjiifiiii'iii i"' Ii i;.''! iRiiir.'':'!!!!!! ..fin 'lii'iiv,'' ,i ''•; it:.'nisiiiiS^^^^ >'iiii' '-/liiilii f i itjijjH'':.::: ,,;• all iiilii \ : ^'iii",]' „ i!!!'l'i'.iii'i«IiW^^^ ' i ir "ii1" ii'iili I
Randall A. and! R. Stoll.1983. "Existence Value in a Total Value £^^0^ ^^^^
Air Quality and Scenic Resources at National p^,^ a^d Wilderness Areas, eds. R.D.
4 .............. i .iii.!. . ................ n. ~, i Rowe andL.G. Chestnut. Westview Press. Boulder, CO.
III":1 ii'llllili,1 lll -.' '.:i ' 5 |
Final Report
'«' M "s
lllBZi i., AV-P ,
i ji"; iii1;:,,!",:, in;;,, /i"
• i:t:::i, ii r IB s i
October 1999
-------
10.0 References
RS Means. 1997a. Building Construction Cost Data, 56th Edition, 1998. Kingston, MA: R.S.
Means Company, Inc.
RS Means. 1997b. Site Work and Landscape Cost Data, 17thEdition, 1998. Kingston, MA: R.S.
Means Company, Inc.
Ryan, C. 1989. Effective Nonpoint Source Public Education and Outreach: A Review of selected
programs in Region 10. Prepared for US EPA Region 10, Water Division.
Schueler, T.R. 1987. Controlling Urban Runoff: A Practical Manual for Planning and
Designing Urban BMPs. Prepared for the Metropolitan Washington Council of
Governments. Washington, D.C.
Schueler, T.R. 1997. "The Economics of Watershed Protection." Watershed Protection
Techniques Online. 2(3): 469-481.
Sovern, D.T. and P.M. Washington. 1997. Effects of Urban Growth on Stream Habitat. In
Effects of Watershed Development and Management on Aquatic Ecosystems. New York:
Engineering Foundation.
Steinman, A.D. and D.C. Mclntire. 1990. Recovery of Lotic Periphyton Communities after
Disturbance. Environmental Management. 14(5): 589-604.
Stevens, T. H., J. Echeverria, R. J. Glass, T. Hager, T. A. More. Measuring the Existence Value
of Wildlife: What do CVM Estimates Really Show? Land Economics. November 1991
67(4): 390-400.
Toy, TJ. and R.F. Hadley. 1987. Geomorphology and Reclamation of Disturbed Lands.
Orlando: Academic Press, Inc. Ltd.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (U.S. ACE). 1996. Actual Dredging Cost Data for. 1970-95.
http://www.wrcndc.usace.army.mil/ndc/ndni96his.htm.
U.S. ACE. 1998. Analysis of Best Management Practices for Small Construction Sites.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1993.1993 Property Owners & Managers Survey, Housing and
Household Economics Statistics Division, http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poms html
[03/25/99].
October 1999
Final Report
10-7
-------
10.0 References
U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1996.1992 Census of Construction Industries, Manufacturing and
111 " ' i 11 1
Construction Division. p.A-1 http://www.census.gOV/prod/l/constr/92area/ccal Of.pdf
[03/25/99].
U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1997. Characteristics of New Single-Family Homes: 1975-1995.
http://www.nahb.com/sf.html [04/09/97].
i in i iiu iiii 11 ih n 11 iiiiiilii ii in mil in im in iiiiiiii"i'iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiniii • * *- J
U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1998a. Table 3. Weighted and Unweighted Counts of March 1998.
h^:/Avww.census.gov/apsd/techdoc/cps/mar98/table3.html
rjIP'jifiiiijiiiil,,ji'jjjjiiii11 • , lijiiiiiiiiiirti, iwiii," !iiiii'!iiiiiiiSiiiiiiii<;' linliiiiiiyiii'iiiiKi'iiiiiiiiijjiiiiii' 'iiIK i"™' - ,„'is'liiiiiiiij"!iS",i;"i*"»? •''i" cy al;«':' i1 "'• i- iiiiiw^^^^^ ujiiiK^^^^ E,;; JUKI ;:,:.! urt'' / i 1111., „•>. S-IIIHB^^^^^^^^ ' MiiiHiiiiiVin^^^^^^^^^^^ ;<'t" :\K < iiiiiiiiiiiTi;1 'IJKI 'i1' J4; .11 iiiinuiK'" ' > n.'i, .::''iiiiii;,' amwmium I'lin iiii;>i:' > ri
ii iijjiLiiii in, I [fi, hi Today. 1998 Year of the Ocean. Discussion Paper.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1998. 1996 National Survey_
of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation.
11 ii
70-5
Final Report
October 1999
-------
10.0 References
U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. 1996. Occupational Compensation
Survey: National Summary, 1996. Bulletin 2497.
U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. 1997. News: Employer Costs for
Employee Compensation - March 1997. USDL: 97-371. Washington D.C.
http://stats.bls.gov/ecthome.htm
U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. 1998. All Urban Consumers, U.S. City
Average. ftp//ftp.bls.gov.
U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT). 1995. Best Management Practices for Erosion
and Sediment Control. Report No. FHWA-FLP-94-005.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1983. Results of the Nationwide Urban
Runoff Program. Washington, D.C.
U.S. EPA. 1986. Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria. EPA 440-5-84-002.
U.S. EPA, 1990. Information Collection Request For Revisions To The NPDES: Storm Water
Discharges.
U.S. EPA. 1992a. Storm Water Management for Construction Activities: Developing Pollution
Prevention Plans and Best Management Practices. EPA 832-R-92-005.
U.S. EPA. 1992b. EPA Guidelines for Implementing the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Office of
Policy Planning and Evaluation, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA. 1993a. Guidance Specifying Management Measures for Sources ofNonpoint
Pollution in Coastal Waters. Office of Water. EPA-840-B-92-002.
U.S. EPA. 1993b. Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention and Control Planning. EPA-625-R-93-
004.
U.S. EPA. 1994. President Clinton's Clean Water Initiative: Analysis of Benefits and Costs.
Office of Water. EPA 800-R-94-002.
U.S. EPA. 1995a. Storm Water Discharges Potentially Addressed by Phase II of the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Storm Water Program: Report to Congress.
EPA 833-K-94-002. Washington, D.C.
October 1999
Final Report
10-9
-------
si i*'ffl^;j5? i i irtM,
'1^ ..... KM ..... IP^ ........ WBifflM ....... MSM ..... m¥. ...... K«$r«
U.S. EPA. 19_95b. National Water Quality Inventory: 1994 Report to Congress and Appendices.
__™...._.._. ....... _. ..... .— .._.._. ....... '"
'.S, EPA. 1995c. Pathogens and Swimming: Assessment of Beach Monitoring and Closure.
,4!iifc^ I'111 III 111 I il I i in i i iii in i in linn 11 iii i nil nil iiiiiii in i mi iii iii in n mi 1111
Draft Report Prepared by Environomics. EPA Contract 68-W4-0022.
U.S. EPA. 1997a. EPA Interim Guidance for Implementing the Small Business Regulatory
^Enforcement Fairness Act and Related Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. EPA
II lllilllilB li'illl!:: <' lilllllllimiiillf:!'! UliliBid I'll, JIIIBHIIII! Illlllllllllllllilillllim,' JIBWIinM: i : • i i«• I -» "I ilii;;:1!, I i.' if IIHIIIIIIi!. :•', •HIHP'i'iillil'i ,n: '
SBREFA Task Force, Washington, DC. February 5.
11 j'!r« ifi'T.V'iiiiiiii:,,,, f
i,' .......... uit ,;;:•,': < 'f jaw .....
U.S. EPA. 1997b. Document9A: Types of Professional Skills Necessary for the Preparation of
the Report or Record. Preliminary Draft Information, Office of Wastewater Management.
Washington, DC. " •
U.S.EPA. 1997c. Potential Value of U.S. Waters Impaired by Urban Wet Weather Discharges,
, ,,, , , ,, ,, ,, .,,, ,„,,., ,, .Working Draft
iiSim^ ''',""! JIM if ,",! ' ii,'iki:''!;"i''W^^ |n||iiS^^ ' ''ii'i'ii'j'i'iiiniiii' ;i":iiiii:'iii":i " 'ii'ii'iiiiiiiim: ci'iii.!'! inni i" ,,,i ' I, "'ii'M „ ii/iiW iplii11 ill"! ill1 1 • » I'viit,!^ i'l" i' iiiii'i I'liilrii'l''!"!;!!!"!""'!^ i'StiM^^ ''i ;,i','!ii,, i;l'ii timm IIIIIHIIK "i11! I
•H^ ;/,„ i,,: i|iW'',i ,: /;«!*»:"I|l[f.i('!ai| \jiii';'1!;!1!''''1 1!:!!''!!*'1::;:1;''' \w '•» WK^rS"*' ilHiMll i^K; !!» I
iBnuiTu -. I'S'iiisi] ...... U.S. EPA. 1997d. The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act, 1970-1990. Washington, D.C.
^ i'11 rail'* • "l|1 i, liiiiit ii*:! * if tm , : lilt ' lai. ..... K>, ...... i ;, .s^ifrfssr i 11 • "» sm ......... : ..... i* n ...... ii", ....... Kir • ysasK.', , ' tiii: >™i;>;^«MF».jkTi ...... fe ........ 'KOtfim .......... n * • 1;l • ,i»f , • ' l, ,•». ...... t • watjsi tail ...... ........ msm \
^ 1996 Report to Congress . EPA84i-Rr97- '
"
:!::. .i1 "si < "'' i »ii i'Pi< ' M i w ;i < ,• • ft • i ......... n J1"1 "J ' " niiii1,; , • tat ''it • : i i riL'r., in <„, H . :,ii"i
..... i^9^Preliminary t)ata 'Summary of Uran storm Water Best Management
^Practices. OfficeofWater, Office of Science and Technology.
" ' 1 "
[October 27, 1 999]
...... i; 11* ,:
: Ji:;^^^ i
; liB .ilJIli !ili^^ liii il''i^'iW^^ s:,;irW !: i v^, t\
, Micraecongmics. Volume; 5, pp. 167-193. | i | '
Water Envuronrnent Federation and the American Society of Civil Engineers. 1992. Design and
Construction of Urban Storm Water Management Systems. Manual of Practice No. 77.
MM iijiii' in; iiiiiH i,iii, ii iri1,, iiiii'i. ii I'liipii! 't iiiiiii'ii|i4 ||i'ini|l fi, ,:v iiigiiii;iii|ii:i w" iii'i'i|iii,:,,iiK |
: A National Overview of Arnerica's Coasts.
^ ...... 19951 ..... '
Coastal Alliance, Washington, DC.
,. ........ ii|!|ii|"; i'!: IIIT^
!!lll!i!i :> SiJR^ ' 'ii'ili1- ":!>'f:!! "'I'1!:,":' ..... i '|"':<< < "'''ijliiii'l' 'WW^^ li,!;!!:''1''!!'''' {'iis
T ;V i"1!"'!!!"',*1 ' "("!'! ,: 'I' i'!1': ' ':!>•:: ..... ii"!'!!1'' ..... ..... ' ' :":,S!I i ..... , ' " '
'iiia iiiiiiiiHi; iiiinii'i|i|iiiiiiii!.;" n ,,i aHi'iaii" jiiiin iii!, ,,;i :nii'iiiii" i, 'iiij,;' 111111 'amii m' ",", i/, '1,1, ,1,11 'laiiiiiKiiiir naiiiiii.,, ,11.,, iiiiii;;! i,, nini ft': "jiimin,,,!":. .ai,: m
JO-JO
illlllliliilliiiilijIilJIii' ill iillBlli: : Jlnlliilllllllillll1 ..iHliiillililill'P Ijilli,,' i i ill,!,'" ''iilllllli:1:,,, .iHI'li"'!!!'!!,.'..:,, J'G
Final Report
itillliii phiijiA ''i' - Si^ :iiiL!i'i
-------
10.0 References
Whitehead, J.C., G.C. Bloomquist, TJ. Hoban., and W.B. Clifford. 1995. Assessing the Validity
and Reliability of Contingent Values: A Comparison of On-Site Users, Off-Site Users,
and Non-Users. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. 29:238-251.
Whittington, D., G. Cassidy, D. Amaral, E. McClelland, H. Wang, and C. Poulos. 1994. The
Economic Value of Improving the Environmental Quality ofGalveston Bay. Prepared for
the Galveston Bay National Estuary Program. GBNEP-3 8.
Williams, G.P. 1978. Bank-full Discharge of Rivers. Water Resources Research. 14(6).
Wolman G.W. and A.P. Schick. 1967. Effects of Construction on Fluvial Sediment, Urban, and
Suburban Areas of Maryland. Water Resources Research. 3(2):451-464.
Yorke, T.H. and W.J. Herb. 1978. Effects of Urbanization on Streamflow and Sediment
Transport in The Rock Creek andAnacostia River Basins, Montgomery County,
Maryland, 1962-74. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1003, Washington D.C.
October 1999
Final Report
10-11
-------
B ..... 'lii'iinnillllllJi'" ....... III! ..... iJlllir.iil
i"' iiiiBiiBiniiiii!"1:1"1'!'!1 iiiiiiiiiiiini :„ f miiiiiiiiiiPii:! w. ipw;', 11 n - iiBinniiiiBi 'iiiiinniiii ?' • w F 'if. m "i,!1!111!: in,i:;'' IBI ' :iiiiii!l!iiiii;i|i!i|i!iii|ii|i BJ'BC :
•Ei mm !: i -LKTC
i'i,ii»'piii,!,;,,, p ,,piii jiiniiigiiiiiii'' '.' i.". iiii'iiiJ' "p'piiiiiiinii'P innai' i I,PI, , IJIIIIPI'IIIIP. IPHPI ',,,:';f", ,, ,,i:""'i: , „ PIIIIIHP r lira "'r , "!>«'',„ ";,i';;,'':':' ,':"i:i,i'',:i
: .in' i...1. ,'"i'!,|"ii":i|pi.,,,ii:'ii iw,,, Liii'''iii»i''|p, .liipiipiiiipii:, inE,i",piii : "tip,.,,!,:!1,::
(Ill ..... I'll 1,1
iiii, >;wi iiiiini'i"':: i .,' T'| ". •ii'iiii;: ',iii,v i:.:., n "iin, ."• ' liif\~ '; iiiiii """i.":;.:)" n' i , HIF:'! n:": "ie' 'ii: •.„
JiiilPH ' ,,"" lilib^^^^^^^ ,is,""i'ii|,i"'i:,' ')«!r'.' JliCli.',i'Si!",.' 1,!,,,'i'"*::.': "1 l'"l"::",,|'ii":i> j'ili,.:;""
; '• !P.' :, Sill; : ' ;*i ..... Hit :- i; ' , * j< ....... • t> :'5.! ...... , ' , ..... i ....... IKj ...... !|f ;,, S*,"»I &-»:S ..... S
;- , i *.; " " • -• •*!! E ......... . :> •.;«, " ",; ' • • Wi,, ; J| ••! ..... issi ...... ;i '££i, ",-.\ " •.* " "-K
:li|i IB Iiti
;;'' (iiiiiiiip i |i| ilifii ,iiiii,''iiiii'i iii
5'i '"' mfi A i , 'if"1"'1"'!'"' 'iiiin^^^ l!Bili'"''l!l":!"i':i, ,,!„„' ^*a*>:. ,'; ,~<9
'"Jl:"!i2Ji'.:, X"'i
KK't'.ivi. ....... 1< I:1:1, :',,,,, ..... ;i| ..... iiyiiii.;",, i'' ..... 'Jit1:
iiBIIiii Sis
>;l WW'fa.: \,,g:S:',',; (f.WtS WSjPMTilllr W Siliiii Ill
'>',„!'ii',,,, ''«'!,'',''"' ,'i:!!jiH ii'iiiiii^^^^^^^^^^^ jiii
ni ..... ' , ips'iPi'iim,"", !,Bp:"'i,iil;ipi. ,p ....... nip, ..... : ....... IIIIIKIJPPPPPI ,a „ .'/Li'ii'iii,!1 .. "inni
iiilpriniiipiplppippi ipcippiiiilinip, w" HPI, .ippiihipjn,, I
\.% ......... iw ...... '< ......... I!!- ,:*;:',; ....... '"' ...... ;. ....... s ..... t ..... ^SM^
,; ...... MI ..... i« T: ...... .... nil1! ..... •
\m, tw. , I!'"'!" ....... ! ....... lie IP
'iilipiiii1: ii, : iiiii'iT i riiip'iiipi,!!;1 ..... ijii,;,,,, iiiiiiiiui t ,1;!
, , ,
i • «; «. - ..... &_; i» \ -, ..... i1 ,• • •• , i . ..... • ; • " f , i ........ ,; ; „' >
, ii PBI "',,1,1 ...... ', ,i"i"'':', 'iiiii"1111 ....... i::iiiin,,iiiiini, ii,, T^ PI,,;;:] ,« ...PI,;,,''!' „ v
'•'"''ilii':,,-!, -iC'";:'1'':!;;'1"1"1
.••;• .-i;-,, \>
•"!! r-• 'll'*::':f!!:;'' *''',;
,l! !"":»,'.', .'"WT«i I 'jjmf piiiiipihn p;.
I',''IP: i'piimii,:,!'! 'i'if' iniipiiipi1 ir'14 " iftit'p'i'ii'Phiiii : :l"ii"riv ^iipniiipiiiiiiiiini" ' iiiiiiiPliiiiiiiiPtmi'iMii1: PPIP .i'p"'ii'ipiiiiiippir1!!
P, J „ , , ',' ,111 ! "PIL.ililPII...', P"'n, , ,,l'
I"! Ill iil!II,,,|,,i,lv' ,'ii,'''':|iillili,' .'lilBllll'ii, HI", "'",,, .i'-i1 ...I'll!': '.t',,'" a1 11'.1; I'!"!""!, -I "Hi1:,: •<•',•? 'II, i J '
is1" i'',,;' ii:; .P": I,,P" •. I ti;"M >ji. ,i,;"' • • Mf-1- • '„!>';; •. • • • f J'S : : tiliiiiivi ''iiiiiiii'iii!, („ JIH |
P" )M*,f «[.i; l:ill!I,p,' 'llllli , '«••'', ''111,!. ...... i' .lit. "ii ..... ..... i if ...... ii i ' ..... i ..... , ......... ii!,, ';• A,'*,;,; .i/ „,;„(; ........ i-f : %:*, ,„:, ....... !,;,»:,•:,;,!< «,„,:! ...... 'Ifiiii ..... ISIItii):.;:!1::;; ..... J,>.
•Iii' ...... flti.
..... •. J!!'ii: 'iilK Hiipiiii'iiP, ii!:; pp. tin,; 'tlim ....... Ilitlt i'li1,, ', '!.( , SI •«:! ........... li'fi ..... ,'„"',' III"*'!" 'HI1 I iii!l'<: ' ,l,!',,,V,,1'!,,; Hi U :„< i ' iiifP1 "', .""Sill1 . , ,,i iiliiil'11!,',;,1''1!,!, ', iliHllliPA.il'i'Lidii1 l,lli,,'iliiii,,'i||||liiiiilllill
''''X
..... I'!"' ..... 'Hii,:£ ..... i;
^ ....... 1W^^^ ..... 1:
liir ..... I'lM, ...... Sjs--'^ ..... i'
I iiniiii" iinijiiim «»' , ,,,1'
ini: ''» ii!! ''in1! Jut,! !iii!!!!iii]!iiiiir 'i "!!''' ,i.'ii iiiiiiiii^'li: 'I1' ii!!l''1ii!i!!iii|||liilii!!ll i"!11!',,,1; nllilv'''''?, "'iiii'1
" lliru1"i!'Uir "Wlllll fllW1' ,,iil ..ilHil!1" "liPlilllll. ' I 'I1' i il'l! "' "ilii'i,
'ii, .i
ii'liiiiii ullllil, ........ i,'i!|i'i; ........ ',:,'!, ,,i! 'B ini' " IN"' ,1'HI, '\,v, \ '.:::" «.,'Ji\a t '.„ Ill 'ilnlilir.1 i "iiaflllllllllliil'lii'lllliiiJIII1 ........ »il;,:i'»1 »? ........ "I* ..... ll', ..... Ill ............... if, ;,;•.«
I
fhi'" fl' ,« ''iijili"!"!"! ,,'iiiil iliiil'iil'l'i'lll
"HIJI I ni', "lL:llill|l Illlllliilllllli!" 'llillillllllllli'',!!!! Jl,,"",, Pill, I
'
fi 'fi!
1 ill < «i, .1' II iT"? IS!' 'i|i|l|ii« .ni|;:|i| v Jimtl iiil'ininl V, „ , " lul,. Jin ' ' ill ll'm,1, iiiii" jiiPViiillP
i; si!- 1!
> f " ,f ^j«ft*T^i' . jft • ': ' •!'!" ' .''i!!1 1 i,":?.! S1'*!!'' 1!!' ':!' ',,,'''':: Vi ...... "A "'"'i •* ':, " l iii :
-------
Appendix A
Literature Related to the Potential Impacts
of Storm Water Discharges
-------
,
Wffl!F ..... " ..... i::ij:h 'm^^^^ ..... MWi-ytTJA* ..... ••vi^.a
.
a.-^ .......... mK ......
niiliiliiiBiiiii!' '"SPSpiiipiji iJiliiii !> '"I'tJ l!,1!!11',
hJ'^ • :'l*Jit;nil; iiiiiii'1* • l!i*!i
".".Li1 ipiiipi'i'ii'P1 ,• 'i ii,?"'1
iM irap; paaaii; I"!"!!!1"1,;11"11'!"1,;, •'", a, ,, ai/.aa aiipapiinninnagpiinaai'ipaiipiniPiap «(„•
'iinr ,<,„ ': a a,IP ii, aaenniPi aaaa ,; • ,• a VP iaF' i, r; '.. ' s1 a1 ,„ .'"'iiii.ii, ,/n r ,;, PP n,' aa'ainnpanapajap i it aaninp n\
giu1! i, tinnr',!;!!' ii
i'!1''.:,1 • WW'.t"^ -W'"! '" &f ^ i"'1' ''ii
pi,,] 'i,,! , ''ii,,.!)!1,. ; iv, iiji,,!1"!!!!! , • „ ,!» / 'Mr! „ iJ!
II, • .Wl11;;,' f i' ti ilii! I1 ' V"! IIDiiaE B,!, , '•: # "I, '":'«:!'» Hi ,inPl ''"!'' ;?(!! i,, • ,ii ^ IS "ii JivjuWi!,,. 1,1, 'i!,1!,,: ' ",.'' • T !,' '«TiriPPPli nllllllulillllllP1 !,I '«;" M "", i1 I
I ! ! i" I,! \V Ill Ill1 '
iii' filll'tiiir'ir'liailllllllui: , 'IIBiiiililll,'!, "
"i: : t : :.
1 ii ''"J "ifiiiL, ''niiii^iiiii'ii/viiliiiiiiFr 'liiiiiiiiii'Sri1 i;!"'!|ii I
; i i, "Ilillr ,J:ai||aa f'iPlfPira1'1;
iiuiiiiiiiiii' "iiiiiiiiipp ji"!,: •, iiBEiii:, ii,i,,,i,i,iii: jViiiinn^iiPij!1! iiiii,iiipniiinipiii":M|!"'.,,i!in!niiiiinpi>'• r1, 'iPipg ii::iiiii,'i!ii*rr•;wr ^e\ ,:r \ i,',-":',!1, >\, .mn,,i» iiPiiii:,,!!,!,!'i nijiv>^,«,„,: • : faiijiiii,;;, :,,«, '"•,
IE I!1,! *!'",!,;,,,!',:!: ||
. lllilliR!'?!!'1!!"" U'lilBI I
<,„ "<• "'• ,lit' E'\" " ' i, '!,<:„ ai''.,: inni,, lyjiigiiiiiin:1 iiiiiiiinmiiBliiiiiT
: iinijjii!!!!!!; ifii1;!'^' iillLiiiigli^ iMS MSf^ 'iSji^: l !" ''i;i,>i;l! >:II'': ^tf& •''' ^: ',>:i !i,
i: :;,|; i ;•• ':: v* f',1''':, j..jii'1" • iiiiifli fw I
uiiiiii! f :, n I,/ "'«"!i •; tin , IT iiiiiiLiiiiiij,;11"!' ruiior ininif;,, .j/nn
"'./nil1 ,ii«,:;,„ 'i, 't'.,, j. ', ,:iiii;iiiiv
i in" i j P w'.."';. • >• ."'t ,i«•,.!' .»' win »„; w J"!, •,,
aipipiippippiia i appsanpiaiiiinii «i,:" ^',;.!l!:i:.Vi!;]'.:^;; ...... *4!!;:H::;;^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ..... mdmK ..... I^'TI.^''^^-^
•ill!!!! .............. i: - '• t), 111 "i. 3 ...... i «S ', ..... 1 ..... !' 'AMP 1* ' i'1' '!-,.' : • ill ..... iiS ' i. , ..... r . •• :• ..... : ..... ill! ....... i"! ....... : "1 ...... . iM ..... I. ....... .., !; ^ ; ':,;vf ' a ....... if "! ft "Ii ,i«i»! if'!;,; I! : ..... .*, *'« . '^im ....... ;-,!,; ICitffi WW ..... i" :'";i" •" • - ,• ",: >:• i':,; si ' lit: .
,1 1 III!1 "in I illlE R foiF;.1 m ;1: II Ill i! 1 S I i II II I I K iilll
i
II ill I 111 I' ' I"1!! II i •' iHllit ;i»« '«i fmm'' li^a^.'^' i»S£?*iJ:^^:'; ll IIIIISi Sf 'HIS?
i IIP IIP mi iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiia!aaa«j!:a"!ipi»ii
-------
Appendix A
Exhibit A-l. Literature Related to the Potential Impacts of Storm Water Discharges
Study
Description
Results
Jones et al.
(1997)
Macroinvertebrate and fish communities
were used to assess the ability of urban
BMPs to mitigate Storm water impacts in a
suburban watershed. A total of eight
practices were assessed including wet ponds,
dry ponds, a retrofitted culvert, and a
riparian park. The study area is Neabsco
Creek in Prince William County, VA.,
located in a rapid growing suburban
jurisdiction in the Washington D.C., metro
area. The area has undergone substantial
development in the past 20 years and has
been accompanied by the use of BMPs to
control Storm water impacts. The reference
site is Quantico Creek, also in Prince
William County, whose watershed is
occupied by a unit of the National Park
System and the Quantico Marine Base. The
watershed is almost entirely forested.
Alterations in the stream macroinvertebrate
community in the suburban Neabsco
watershed were clear at all sampling stations
even when EPA Rapid Bioassessment
Protocol (RBP) index values were near
reference levels. Taxa richness was
consistently lower in the suburban streams
particularly in the key indicator groups:
stoneflies, mayflies, and non-hydropsychid
caddisflies. In general, the data suggest that
appropriately designed and properly sited
BMPs can provide some mitigation of Storm
water impacts on stream communities.
However, no BMPs were able to restore the
full complement of macroinvertebrate families
found in the reference watershed. The
resulting communities reflect a fundamental
alteration in stream biotic diversity, structure,
and function.
Barret et al.
(1996)
Examined the impact of highway
construction on Danz Creek, Travis County,
TX, an intermittent stream that flows in a
natural channel and through the construction
corridor.
A review of literature shows that, in general,
changes in water quality are the result of an
increase in suspended sediments discharged
from construction sites. The higher suspended
solids levels result in reduced diversity and
density of fauna in the affected area. Fourteen
samples from ten storms were collected at
each of two monitoring sites. The greatest
differences between upstream and
downstream concentrations are shown by
suspended solids, turbidity, iron, and zinc.
Although accumulation of sediment in the
creek occurred during this period, by the end
of the study period the creek below the
highway had returned to preconstruction
conditions. Even though the effects on Danz
Creek were temporary, there is concern
regarding the effects of construction on the
water quality in the Edwards Limestone
aquifer. The Danz Creek lies on the recharge
zone and therefore, higher concentrations of
suspended solids could be expected to enter
the aquifer during the period when runoff
from the construction site occurred.
October 1999
Final Report
A-3
-------
Appendix A
I In ill liiliii Hill
Exhibit A-l. Literature Related to the Potential Impacts of Storm Water Discharges
iiiilllll"'I •' IlUlllilt ."IMG Ill
llllllV Ml IT I1! lii"1!"11 Ill
|i': iliiiK liMHlilli'ii'iirilii1! i1:11:"!
i'"ill: WAI, "ii'i;, '"'L, ili'll
'mas, iiii
Study
Masterson and
Bannerman
(1994)
Barret etal.
(1993)
Description
Study to determine the impacts of Storm
water runoff on five urban streams in
Milwaukee County, Wisconsin. The authors
analyzed storm sewer outfall, stream water
quality, bottom sediment, whole crayfish
tissue, semipermeable polymeric membrane
devices (SPMDs), benthic macroinvertebrate
surveys and habitat.
A review and evaluation of literature
pertaining to the quantity and control of
pollution from highway runoff and
construction.
Results
Study results show that the urban streams are
not meeting their biological potential and
recreational classifications as designated by
theWDNR. Levels of suspended solids,
bacteria, heavy metals, oil and grease, and
PAHs were detected in Storm water
discharges and stream water that exceeded
water quality criteria. Urban streams
exhibited a significantly lower diversity of
fish species and a majority of the organisms
are pollutant tolerant species offish and
macroinvertebrates. Benthic
macroinvertebrate bioassessment scores
indicated moderate to severe impairment. The
study also found a correlation between the
extent of urban land use and biological
degradation and limited recreational uses.
Three of the five streams studied have 100 %
urban land use and were the most degraded.
Two of the streams have approximately a 50
% urban and non-urban land use and
supported a healthier population of aquatic
organisms. The reference site supported the
most abundant and diverse fish and
invertebrate community in accordance with its
100 % non-urban location. Furthermore, high
PAH and heavy metal concentrations (lead, in
particular) were found in urban whole crayfish
tissue samples. SPMD results confirmed that
pollutants that tend to bioaccumulate
(lipophilic pollutants such as lead, PAH,
pesticides, zinc) are discharging into the
streams.
Highway construction may cause changes in
turbidity, suspended solids concentration, and
color of receiving waters. The extent and
persistence of the changes varies from site to
site. However, turbidity and suspended solids
concentrations are much greater after
construction begins. When construction
impacts on stream quality are detected, they
are usually transitory. Prevention of erosion
during construction is important to minimize
the effects on receiving waters. Vegetative
stabilization is the most effective method for
reducing construction impacts.
lu , 'i Ji|
; WS+!1
:^zl
:Hi::il 2!
;;.;„;,;;,,,"";, : ,;,;,;;;';;;;„;; ,;~,,"";;;;,;;;;;;;;;,• •.•,";;;;;;;,; ; ;,;;;;;;,„,;; ;;;;„;;;;;';; " „;;,;;;;;,,;;„1M•,; ; ;; ;;; • i;,;;:, • ,•,~" .,•.,;; ,",,„:, •. „;; ,;;,,„• ..T,,";; ;;;:;;:,
I I,"','"„„ ','"* .!'.! "11-'!",!!,,'!" II "I,"!' illII".,„".„ '"« li."l« M."..\l»rn!nl< "•""I ."'"",T !..!'!'!!'!'"! !' I","", !'!''„'!',",'", !"! ','„„!,"!!!!! ,1!'!!","'I!'!"",
j u_''_ " " ' , , ' „ ' ," , ,, ,,;„:",!>,. ' ' ' I ' ,, ' _.j"._'_'.j .' •. ' ' i '
Final Report October 1999
Cl:
..... lilllll.! ........ :
..... li«^^^^^ ..... ;iiKiW^^ ...... i ...... 9«^^^^ ....... nil ..... lit!" ...... Mill ...... !£ ..... iv
:!m mm
-------
Appendix A
Exhibit A-l. Literature Related to the Potential Impacts of Storm Water Discharges
Study
Description
Results
Lopes and
Possum (1995)
The chemistry and toxicity of urban Storm
water, streamflow, and bed material in the
Phoenix, AZ area were characterized to
determine if urban Storm water could
degrade the quality of streams. The
objectives were to characterize the chemistry
and acute toxicity of Storm water from'
drainage basins with urban and undeveloped
land use and of streamflow from the Salt
River; identify the phases of Storm water
(oil, grease, suspended solids, dissolved
trace metals, and dissolved organic
compounds) that are. causing the toxic effect;
and characterize the chemistry and acute
toxicity of bed material from drainage basins
with urban and undeveloped land use and
ephemeral streams that receive urban runoff.
First-flush samples from urban drainage
basins appeared to be more toxic than flow-
weighted composite samples, and Storm water
was more harmful to fathead minnows than to
water fleas. The most toxic Storm water
samples were collected from the drainage
basins with residential and commercial land
use, and the toxicity probably was due to
surfactants and other constituents leached
from asphalt and resealant. Toxicity was
generally due to organic constituents. In
urban drainage basins, bed-material samples
collected from areas where Storm water
accumulates appeared to be more toxic than
from areas where Storm water does not
accumulate.
Campbell
(1994)
Storm water treatment ponds in the Orlando,
FL area were studied to determine if fish that
live these ponds contained significant
concentrations of cadmium, nickel, copper,
lead, and zinc. The study examined fish
with different foraging strategies to
determine if such differences affect heavy
metal concentrations in the fish. The fish
studied included the redear sunfish, a bottom
feeder; largemouth bass, a predator at the top
of the fish food chain; and bluegill sunfish,
an omnivore. The Storm water ponds were
associated with shopping center, apartment
complex, and road construction projects'
Wading birds were observed feeding in all
selected storm water ponds. Natural lakes
and ponds that did not receive any road or
urban runoff were used as controls.
Significant concentrations of heavy metals
were observed in the fish living in Storm
water ponds, especially in the bottom-feeder,
the redear sunfish. Redear sunfish collected
from Storm water ponds contained mean
cadmium, nickel, copper, lead, and zinc
concentrations that were significantly higher
than those from control sites. The effect on
wading birds and other wildlife that are
feeding on the fish living in Storm water
ponds is unknown and was beyond the scope
of the study. The authors suggest that, due to
the results of the study, attracting wildlife to
these ponds be discouraged.
October 1999
Final Report
A-5
-------
„":iii:, £ f:; i: isnn anil!' fi:ffi'!' lit > ''ft1;, ., VK ijii:.!11,!!,,;]11',:I|;:; in
iffiniflitiifitjiifilinifin HBifiitiii!
::1,: it an1 s* JIB »:!»< <'iiiiiii
,£ liillf < ...... 'JiljE ,,|iji " ,,; l< ! ! ' ullj! illill , I 'II ' {I i If ' I ili! lj«' "• ...... !'!i; : IljjH. • ^iif iljIjWl' Nil'" 1 VJifL^ 1, . , " , IP1 ..... 111! '!« ........ ' i JjiiF '" ii ..... if „ „ iff "I, ' i : :s:^iVt ...... i11 '•"" : ,ii;: •' ;- ' ""ft ma K
! : • < ....... :•
-------
Appendix A
I
Exhibit A-l. Literature Related to the Potential Impacts of Storm Water Discharges
'Study
Description
Results
Gardner
(1981)
Studied the effect of turbidity on the feeding
rates of bluegills in a laboratory setting.
Found, under controlled circumstances, that
turbidity significantly affected feeding rates.
The experiment tested three levels of turbidity
(60, 120, and 190 NTU) and found that
feeding rates at the most turbid level declined
by almost 50% as compared to the clearest
level. The authors concluded that the
reduction of feeding rates may occur in
natural systems subject to periods of high
concentrations of suspended sediments. The
range of turbidity used in the study
encompasses that found in North Carolina and
may be typical of many southeastern US lakes
and streams. In addition, turbidity in streams
from watershed disturbed by construction or
logging could exceed these levels.
Field and Pitt
(1990)
Two studies examined the effects of urban
runoff on aquatic organisms. One study
examined Coyote Creek in San Jose, CA, a
small stream only a few meters wide and
less than a meter deep that drains a
watershed of about 80,000 ha. Upstream
flows are quite clean and downstream urban
flows are highly variable and polluted.
Another study compared two streams in
Bellevue, WA, Kersey Creek an urban
stream, and Bear Creek, a rural stream.
Both studies found significant impairment to
aquatic life beneficial uses, but the possible
causes were quite different. In Coyote Creek,
impairment was attributed to major
accumulation of toxic sediments. Kersey
Creek suffered from increased flows, altered
channel morphology and food availability,
low DO concentrations, and various organic
and metallic priority pollutants. The studies
reveal that the effects of storm-induced
discharges on aquatic, receiving-water
organisms and other beneficial water uses is
site-specific. Previous attempts to identify
urban storm runoff problems using available
data have not been conclusive because of
differences in sampling procedures and the
practice of pooling data from various sites.
The long-term aquatic effects of urban runoff
are probably more important than short-tenn
effects associated with specific events.
Further, long-term effects may only be
expressed at great distances downstream from
discharge location, or in accumulating areas
(such as lakes).
October 1999
Final Report
A-7
-------
Appendix A
i ii 11 nil n i iiii i PI i i iiiiiiii in
1111(111 ii mi inn iiii i n iiiiiiii in i
Exhibit A-l. Literature Related to the Potential Impacts of Storm Water Discharges
JIIIIIU ..... lllliii'i '„?! ....... IP;"" I,!)!) 11 tlililiilii,
1 ! ...... i:i !i jill' '
WE! ilk I!' •fir'ftffii-;
Stndy
Steinman and
Mclntire
(1990)
Description
Describes the responses of periphyton
communities to disturbances that change
local environmental conditions and
biological properties of the system in
question. The disturbances examined in the
paper are floods, desiccation, organic
nutrient enrichment, and toxic pollutants'.
-' ' * Results
A survey of the literature reveals that
periphyton recovery patterns can be
influenced strongly by site and disturbance
type. For example, local environmental
conditions, such as nutrient concentration,
light level, grazing pressure, substrate size and
composition, propagule abundance and
source, sediment load, and stream order,
grade, and channel geomorphology all can
affect the recovery rates of periphyton. In
addition, periphyton communities appear to
take longer to recover from exposure to toxic
metals than other disturbance types, perhaps
because these metal remain in the system a
relatively long time. Periphyton communities
are crucial to stream ecosystem recovery
because they serve as an important food
resource for many invertebrates. Hence, if
periphyton recovery is slow following a
disturbance, other biological components in
streams also may be slow to recover.
:s ' T » :
/• : '
* ; ; v*
visiM i" # ' >
lit
JE ...... ;»^ , ;»iii!|'! i,,i |!i| • • fjStiA ...... ' »!"" ...... ...... 'l ....... S -. . ,
.
.••' 111! " ^iiif'
.,m i;ir;:;' w^m m ;J ! (Bfiwii
K"saL.fr« ! ii. i1 J'ill iii.il'' will
|.|i|iln,,,.|i|lin"lini|llii; , lillii'll 'IIIIIIIL j 111'!!!' 111 I'! lIllliUi..' Jlllt'ili'''lljjlllllllli1'!]:' '"lllPrill
t1!1!'.:;; iiH^^^^ i>^ ami:';,»'am Jiti A, ; iPiiii1:"' M smw & !"!iii!: tm,s,, f .\ ", i w n;M •,. i:
" i', itininii1 iiii'i i. 'in. i'/ , if' i,';' in1!1 ;i.",; ''I'll! ,1 Hi I'liiiiiiiiiiiii: iiiiiiniiii,ii:!ii
/llji'ti'!'.,:"';);:;;,; %:;-. >f¥''!, *J •'::•:•'t'HM VMRiiWU.'''?
ii:ii4i;hiii;:'iii|| ' 'iTi'iii'^ ii:jiiii; vt ,Eni? iili'iiiiiiii'i!!! jiiii'''!!^!,! ,„, iiiin,!, i,iihH!fii!'n;iiiy ii'iiifi 'i1''i''*!."'11'!!!!!' ;T I:. ,i":"',;" ',:i «r is,; •" • ""t ibriiii; 'Jiiiiiii i!"/ /iLiinbitlFH '"!|. '".i
IL'lil'"!!!! ISiliillllJIIIInillllllllllllHhi,,, l in!!!!' illiillWIIIIIi!«l|! iliiKiliill! I'l'liiiEiiiiilliRiiPlii1! ,,1111111111!!'"', jNfllHIIIIli IliillllillliClllli:!!11!!!!!!!!!!!:!!!!!"!!!!,!!!!!!!!!!!!;!:,!!!!!^!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!: /liHiliiil'illliljliUili.iloli'll1,,;11!,'{J1 !, lll-i"1]:! j,1"11,' '-tlA Li,;1"*!1* x,., "i'!'"i" " h!!,1!1' • iiU!"ilK' « f/'lwiiiili1:"1 Illlllll"''!!!^!11:!!!'!1:::"..:^!"
llllll'iil lliiill'li,;,'lll!li|| illllilillllli; 11111111111"• 'to '" . : illllllilhll, ilia ' ii '"illllllilll'^IIL."^!!!.!''.!!!!!''..!!!!!!!!!!!' "> .I'l'lllllllllll'i'l
I'liiioiii1 ii iii'Hi'i,' AiiHiiaiij iir/i'i!^ "jjiiiij:; . j,;1!1 iNiiuf''!!!.!!'!1'';1 iiiinii;. ' :'t s1"! .Jivww'ihiiniULJJ1!!,,,.. ijtiaiiiiiiiik 'Wi*;;. ': w i';\|a|i]ii™^^ ;,;ir,iiiiii;,i'"|!':,:
•IK i «iira^^^^^^^^^^ •: ii .! iiH !«i-<: ii, q ii'iiiiiiii!, Km',, alii • vs ,:,: i *,f *iiimi» *:,;: ':m K i :• • i [i : > ' ^ r, s: i' v a:?'] ,!iiiw^^^^^^^^^^^
,i jyiiiiiiiiiiii'iiiiiii.''!''';;!!'!!::1, iiiiiniiiiinnu1" iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiniri|3iii:ilJ:\jiiiliiiii;;iiEiii|it
; i'i, 'ir, ,,,ii iiipiiBi'ii i'
iili ..... mm, ';:
^^^^^^^^ iliiir
^^ ' :;i ..... iiii! f
''hi^T''!!!!!!.!!!!''^!!!.':'!!!!!'!^!!!!!!;:! "!," ViiKF'illi. titllllll1 i"'".ilSiiniiiilllliHl,1 ilir'HiliiiNIIU'i' 'illliiillll'iilnBui .'iiiillliPIIIIIIP1 "ill, „'",',«'111 i1 ,'.i1*11'i'lii'niilHL'iia L1'1" ' <"i'!'<"r: L !!,'i ', i't :!''lllfliilHiiliillliiiiiiiy'ii'llllllllll'i'i'iiili'.iv'i '»'''JlillllllBlilI'V'llii1'T . PHII
''HIM niiMiiiiiiiiiin::;,'",'! i Hi1 r liBii'iiii, iiinui", iiiiHi i'' :; >i i'';' T1!11;;:1: • 4\\ »,, ,• ,iiii,i:iiiiiiiii.; iiiiiiiFii, '' ss •« •, < .''ii111!;, i": in1,. " K "T iiiiii::: . : HI ihiit, ; <«ii '"a..: •, ^ a "'i' 2s11:11, .iK.: >,|N L :s n\ if „" mst'ii" >i i 'ih. <>' "iiiiiiii Y
,.
lliiiiilnia * mill
I'^ariiliijiaiaiiiii^jii ' if^ •,; aiiiiih aa'aiiijiaiiiiiiiaiiai,;! ijjaa; i^ai |
.••2iKW:>::''ifg
^'...•AJrair,;.."!:.'-*^ ;!,;••, ;,!,,!: II ^ ,: .iiiil
,,in,; iiiiii.iiiiiii; pi;ii h'1 jr'iiViiin,,, niiiiiin:ii!i
ir n
it' a11 : iiiiiit T i :; i iiiiiiii: n ........... ; fi is1 •IIIIIIIIIIIH^ ..... UHT •m ..... r jui:1 ii
[[[ FmaiReport
'
October 1999
..... 'i ..... tii^
IIIII i, 11 ^ ..... n ' ';,i ...... ;h, .ji it , > ..... iiii ,;,ii 'jipiii: ¥ niii si;1 iiniiiiiiir p i" ' ,:, 11, , ' r , ,,111,111 4, Jin: i f ...... ;, , r ....... ' ": "i
!lii;!iii:ii!;|!:i!:ii!!i!liiii4,:;'iiiia !i:i19i:i'!t!l!l!ir!i^Ji!:!n'y Ei:!11''11,!;, lil;:!:^,iiy;l^;;,,,;!l!;!!!!li::;il!l!:!!l:i ^
-------
Appendix B
Data and Methods Associated with the
Municipal, Construction, arid Post-Construction Programs
Appendix B-l Narrative Explanations of Evaluated
Costs and Municipal Cost Data
Appendix B-2 Revised Construction Start Methodology
Appendix B-3 Model Construction Site Plans
Appendix B-4 Post-Construction Runoff Control Analysis
Appendix B-5 Federal and State Administrative Costs
-------
riiiu^
III'!:,1,!'!,"1,!,!,,,,:,!,!!!!!!, i; ,,!|,|ill|i„'!" Plllllll, BIIIHill|illll|i "'S ! JjliliJE'HP'lli Vl|i'i||l!ll '>li:lli!,il Ill, Jlllll'i ,i'l I I'i'ii'lll ill'IP l,lii|i|||||llllllll|i|,,i|| ijlllljllllljjljlllllllp'l"'1,llllll|il'i||i|||l!ll,l l»!li ill,
IllM^ !!itl)k':^^^^^^^^^ JdyLlTOty ili
-!!: : .in:' ' n : ..... ,; It: • ' ...... Hf I's, ;,,!
'i? '.ji "f ; Ii?:; 'if .•ttoT' i' • W i :< 'i Mi
(Illllllll I Illllllll II
t Iii,,,,,, ,„ jt"1 r1 'lilt1 ,t| llillEI
lill'lj lH^^^^^ iimSK Ilii!^ "I1!,! "I il
"I ' , I I
d ....... I"'-,!. '"liiiii • ', .Hi,, ..... ....... :4' ........ , III ...... ; !' MI ; ..... i!l ...... • IB ...... ," ..... iM I
iiBaaiiiiiiBaiipaaaiiiBi!,, i ji™,
^ i • i"""'
l, 'III'!"': <'" ill-"H1 i'lli'1'!!'1!!!!'!,,',,,'1
;-.//fo,-,:f 1
i, I*'!»,''k^JS •!»!:! Ill
ft !:»iii fiSfftJ:'*?!*1 l!!l;ri'"!!l
, aa ,i"j' ! iiiiiia ^iiiiiiiiiiiaaiiiiiilia'11!11'!!!!!1':,,,',™:;-
MM., ,|,|,!li inf ' ill iBIIIIIiiiiillll'iii'ttnn i, : ill|||||||||' i fiMlifi, ' JII'HiJIIIIBi |"',, HLi* ui.;'.!.." ,! liunA, " i.V '" „ '"•. I'll ,l
'inn Hi.1' I Hi ' JIIIIIIIIIIK""!!,!'!;!1!/™:!!! '" 'V! "EiJ1!" ,1^ m t^^uBhi: t11 ^ '•'": i ii1'1 .niisri i™1 „ Ji i,.1 *\
,,!'lJill, ,,4iili,iiiili lllllllllllllHuflnlli,!,1' "'" r ,,:illl!i 'I flllllful1 r' mi, Jllllil'iil1":1.1 j , '• „"."," Hill vi1 Jllj'!,'„ i" fill ;,„ ' / '
'' ,£lf!A jr:: A J,i!!l
l^ IllA
n n n in i vim in in n
,1,1,", :"' 4 "riH,:,,!!1:,!, llhlllilllllirilidi^ll!!!:,, ,"I!,,
,;!:ii ;:i:'« liBiii^^ '"!":> I
''ll:!""1!!",:-!,,',;'! •IT,",," ilVfill'lllll in,' ill',:'(!' tit ",, ll'l'l'. '
: ii pynin iin iiiiin,!"1!! i ,,"J"i;i I,, ii ii'li, ,i ,,:::,: lisr,' „ 11 niiiiK I1!1"1'11,'' ,,"l
[ I*«,',; • iiBpiB""!,! ''h ''''i^aiaia!!1"''!iii||i|':":, : <;"!|!|!|i|i'i!""i|i,i !ip! i ' ''<' "aa'^'-'aiaai"1"1111 ' ii:1,"11!!1!! ' aai'.jiiia1 IIP ''aiaiia iliiiBi':11!1111!!!!!!'!!'!'!'! I
' f|i< ';"i , ,| V ''] I'l'liillK, KlIillKJIIili "!, ,'AII I
, I'-tt"';,;!!!! ,iii!";::IIII. .
• ::::'"£ ijff»^ ,<< , f.^ 'ai «„ ; ii ,ii'it'li||l ' illliiiinnt'll'iii,' \ ir lilpllllglll Slliip
:. 'lli i' K'" .,,I,M iji>iii'" , 'iAvi j'li:!; ' "^ , i!l!"i''/li':i,;"»,'!! 'liiiiEi.i liiiK
,, 'IIKil!:,,,! i"ll I
"i:lini!!i::!: i,! /giiiiiiiiig'iiiiiii:^ ; miw" ni' ri'iji! iii^iiiiihi' ''s~ iini11' a.",:;,: ":i|!i: ^'
!!!,'*:.!!1 iJl \'-'$>, a,i,i.|t,'!,;,,;;! ..': '1,::"..('i'i1 ii":';:"" .i ,'':»S 7" i'WHSt*, JBb I1!!
|i'! I1 IflHJI NI'I'!" IIFiliy ""HI "!,•'.,.! .Si!"1
ii1' aii,'jiiii;,,"j i;i": ' I':,'',.
i.HP:!,;i!>t" LiiiiF,, /I;,;'iiiiiii,.,
1 riiniiiiiii!1 iiiii-i"'*, ri 1,1 nii',,,'1'1 „
n!,, ,llli!lil Hi, >! f !i|» ,i,i|i|'III- < < 1*111111111 ,pi "i". MM'!,, I1 ' " ' mihiMi "I iHllliiniM1!* h
r p'/vjiniiiii!1! i",inn ii'iaiiiii"1"1!!'1":]11! JM
11 Jilt1 » :|P jjllillllllllllllllllll"'1 I"1 llfjllliPI'll'll'l i' ! < W llll
i iii" i ' ic ', .....
' i|p
.iaSr „ m-
, ..... ii aiiBiiin i iiiiinnii, IB ..... :
1!! ......... a,!1:; ..... aaiaiaa;!, i i n n n
t iR"!iii' "»!,;,[, "!';, ,1|'',1,!"i|i|llii!'l,!:!i.|l nil,,, I1',1 "i: »l,,,i'
i «i' in; PBiia ''"' aa; " iiipaaaiiiiii , — P,I
', ,!,i',, * ' ill"'1'!! ii!!i|'i:E1, ' "Hi1!,! : "ixjlilv"'1;. ^iililtEillllllilliilPUiBillpiiani .iBJIIIIHNihi,:!!',' MBIIfi I
-------
Appendix B-l
Municipal Cost Questions and Results from the
NAFSMA Storm Water Phase II Survey
-------
^.^W^***!^*^
IllliiM^^^
iiiiiiiiiiiiir''''!!!!;''''!'11' -lixiiiiiiih Jii
ilill!: .iTT •' < i1 flllliB" " nR
I'E!' ..... iSilllllill!!1!!'"! ....... ;:llll|||||l!ll!!q|^'!i1!!!n!1l|n!l^i!l!i;;i;|||||llll!!ll1l!il:l"l!II^^ ....... Illllfrili ..... ^ii
H;E'«WT..i! .....
ii'ii li;'^tmmm^ ^^SHP' -
iuM"! itMt~i twHiftSih&tfiftii'ii ii "KLwi!~w;$
iiri ...... SEi i MI. ' ..... ...... i,,,!!!*- " ' ' ...... i IHE ...... ..... ' •, iiniE"1* ' ' 1 1111 >.: v*£ \t ' << : ? ^ • ;;; ».. v • ' ^ ' niiiik ';i ,IK '> :svts • IE v - ' «i \ its ..... iiiii1 ? i !i
'IWiW'li'ili11 "li'iil1"!* !• , M ...... "Villln ......... !l,",ll ...... Mil!" •'', VIIi'TH 1 in f.!!'l MW1 ! ..... ',, Mi "ii.i,,,!,,' un"!11 ..."'.Wl'lli ,1,1,' "illnVnillllllllllii', jiFI ..... Li^'AIIIINt rliill' '"Pi,
ll! Illill Ill lllllili!' "i,.!! , lllllia!,,iill,,,i> .I1'' ' ••." IJIIJI1. Hill li'llfhl'lilil!, i!!"F- ill!'' lib i, KM!'"' ill! M 1 , ill.' "si,',]! I "!'!' 11": I;'!', ill,1 Hi! •I!1 1 .'IBIIiilil 'Ulllll'!,""" i!
1* ........ il'i
»ii|i|.| < L l,!lil"i, '! II1,, "'1
..... ,1' ..... MS,*!'
I,:! m-l -iO.^^^.'* 'tfMjii1?}- Oi: W
III! IH^ '• liih'sm tail', :ri , :i iiii ,1 , I 'ii,«] t-1 ?' ;Siiiii is :i:" "!»«: •. •.. :;-> •„ -:
...... ," i ........... » , '"s'l
*v.ii',l*t!S,M
"
'„"•"':,,; |
""• :-; !"•!{::"!! iti'.^".:,:!!
:,,.Trr,,,,; ; I!,),,,:,,;; ,. ;
,,'"E iiiM^ "i,
I,'1 :,„,:: 'i'liipiiiii'ipiti iJi'ii'iiltrii'PPlillltJi'fPlllP! illr""!1,,,, ,'i
'-1 iia'Tr'.^sjrzr^":;1
5.1* j,,!' iK,;",;*1! A»^^^^^^^^^^
]4ffuf\ :,iiiii ..... "liiiiFft'i'iii,,, ' < ,iiiii;:;!!ii"ili:iiiii : Ji
" :iin:|:' ii, ''< ' ,; ' : 'iiiiiil iiiiiiimiiiiiiii1*1!!!'! liiiiiiiift timifii «» „ ' ',;!• iiiiiii:1, ^"
,™!::; ' , „ np'iinr ''"iiLiJiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii^i/^iiJiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiM'iiii "ii'-ni1'1;;;!'
":' „ j,,!; JP! i: ! ": i^iiiii'i i1 '„ " < i i! ..... if! 'ii11 1 a!- iii i- 1 ,,;'•, ' '
" ii " iiii'^'BT1" '' liiii iii1,11 ': ,«! ''viniu in. ' '
ii iiriiiiiiihiitiii,: '• ; '• \ - v "Ii iiliiiiiiiS,*!,; ' "
/iiiri""',?11,,!',!1!, 'i!1!!1'1'!" i!|iii|||l|t;'i (M IPIirliilkfillllil llllllM1 I'lllllUHXlHiiiff'illl I
..»< I, i "' „ »..",',< ,11. I Ill g lil"ni, u I
! lu'Liil'i illi1!'UliiHl ,LfnU!' ,, Lilllhi : ' !l n",,1' Jll!1, ''!„:,Ililllilllll
.i»ii|,,fME "i, "IJ1; ' fllliin^ <; lljllll, ^; i,,|f:|li||ij ijt';,f >'i| I; i J, '111I1"1 »iJjjlll ||',;ILIJiE1:KJlft,.E^lJIIUJjl1 >''',Jiliiftjl< Ij
! •! K:'tm.m':iw a K,I» $ irt!N] f WMi^iiiat. s^t t ;;;: IK ,:,:
lll 11, ,, Iii ,,{11 ,, iiill! ,, Jill..! |ijl If, M Ill , Jill {n,,, ,1)111 ILIL i iii ,,,,,,,1 '"SI Il|,l,,i,,:!l F J :' li'l;! Ij'l'!' r!"!!;,;;)1:111:; fill'"!'!!;:' ,!,» I,,!!,,!,!!,':1!1.!!"'!!!!!)!;) i/jlH^^ ifi'W illllliliW • ' ,li||i|lS|;'l I] "'Ill" i,,HJ I!;!;!,,1' t. ;!n: ii'l^
:
lilllllllllllEKIIiliiiHif" iJtllllll!1' ! '''' . illllllllli!!T
iJIIIElnlEiliEEEi, i:illl:,,:i+ElilSiilll", E ,;ij| lllliEl ,;
'•QTCIh'imr' i,1'1 /'ilMIIIIIIJI
IJIIIIIIIIII''^!!!!!,!!^!,.!!!!;!!!!;! !!Iii:g||||||||!' J IS1 /I Bit
„, „,, ,
,,, ih ,„,,,, , , „„,,,!. ,, .j^, i
• ' '
'] | ';, ; • ;V ,,| j
ijfcgjj] i -jiiiiijii, ''",;,;,, iji 'i,1:;; ;jjjj|;j;:
iiiW dliii; ..a,, liliii
IH™1!!*^™*1.!**:* I!!-!'1
! fill,1 ,"' ,: .-.i, , ,:„ i'lini,'!1 imi,!,i,i ,!:i in niniii Mii'iFii1,!,;::1 ,,,,i,,,,!!i,!ii!rjii^ '"'iiii111,11:!:, ^ ,: 'JiiiiLiitt :ii":iiiii!i!K iniiiFMvUi1'! I11'":,:,:!,,!,!
"iJ1 • !« 'lenf •![ dlllllMlli,,! '' !,!' I'liiaiii""1"'::*" '"I1 *' ,,'i "'I' ' . : Ill ', " 141. , , li li ', ttftf BH ', ?.WH8fc ililill Illilli Jl'i',: ;"QbD<,i ll> "ill1! lilii"1!"'1!1!'!!1!'!
,. .. •; '
•
;i! '"in iii, if;,, ,;'":, ;,::' IBIi-' ^iiislB iiiifi , ",1 "l|!,'!';!!lii,ij! , "S • *;* ' tV j '' J *,* : li!Vil|Vi!i" "i* '•••'"''#'1 ' ",, ,r &; i;!i:i "!• islf I!'1';* ^^HWfJP^ : Jtfff'JWil
• '.111, ill,, Ilih ii;;, i , "Jill,1 III" , l',,,,:i,iillT ,,,'li I C'yiFI' E illlFF i,';"1':, ,|ir ,r '",'";,„: Millie'n'i I1!,,,,, 11, lliif'ii:":'1!!',,,!!'" I,, J1 ,'"!,' " 'III!,'1!: ,,,iii,lii: ', liili ITIli ,; "Hllillllll I'"1;:, UiK, !" , I, „,!' „'!',','
I,'1,,!,;,!,!, ili,'""i",iii iiii, ,,,",„ jiiiKiiiiiil' i 'iiiiil'iiiil „„(' ii,',:"1;, I!" "i'S ^li;,JI;tti.^)'H ' !:' it .1 ' i'Slii:!"! "',! i1,"!,":!.!!!1;,' •;, '"il'ilij '„ ";: , 1 '&&& iii" ..K.'.frTMliilitoV1.*1 i""i ( "ii"!,!,
!i!*i]!!;;I*L1|**l: ''''I-:::!!!!!'!'!' '"'ll 'i"!'"!1" *:t '• ""'i: !*': *^:t"? ','•!,"!,! l|" „ ''Ii"1'!:?""!,1:1:: 'I1' h 'f.H'J* i;™l!" *!!,::,, * '-*1.- ,*" *?**'•:•!.'•" •: ' 'I"!11,:1
i; :,„,,„ ' ,j!,,i,,;,i,,iff", "' :„ , ,,,,'iiiiiii'B i I'll, i, iii in, , : , ,„' ',':ii,ii,ir: , ,,i niBiiiiiiii,';,,!!', ii,,,i , ,, in ,;,,:: '; :„ r1:, ,, Hi'i,11,11!,;'!!1:::!!,,;!,, ,„£,, „ ,'"iv L,,, 'li'"!.!!.':!!1:::,!,,,!'::1!,!! iBilll'iBB'r'Jlllllllllim ',| ,',',:,„'',: ii" "111 ;ir:li,,
11 frill r: Illiili,',, i M ,'l l I'llFjl, '' , ' 1,,' '||, i1'1!!" ,," '"I'BW , •";'", ,1 1 ' "IT, ,!lli:, "T,*"1*,, 'y If, ,'li"' , ,ll'';i;L|, ,i, ':,,|, illTiil'I'llllifi:"!^ , ,, IvF"!'!1!
1 II II II
n:" ^^M
"' ' : : " " ^H
if;?1 '. , ^j: iifiSi ij,';1, ,3 jj!'!,;,11;1! '!' , ;, i* fga , 'iii ',"; [ ^1
r ' , ": i ii,,,::::: in, '!|i"F 'iii/'iiiiiifiii,;":,)!' 'B,!'!;,,,,:,!;!:!' 'i!;1':'!,!,':::!::!':!! iiyFiiilii^^ ,i,'iiiiiiniiii!iiiit^ ^H
"ii'lil „.! „ ,' '''F '!' ', , ;!il!M^ "" "I,;!, i'iiliiil,^^^^^ ^1
, ' i : : I, ^1
'' ' ' ' •
,,„ „,, , ,,,,, ,,,.,, : , ,„,, .., ,,: ; ; , ,,.,, \ ,,:, |
1
1 '' '!! "!, i ih liill ,,,i l:i!i^ ' »' '' lilllllliill L i,',"' li, Jll^^ ^1
U1"1,' InirBU'i'i'lili: !,, li11 ,"ll:lBr,i ' ,i::i''li' ,:',,,! ,1, l,',,,| ", iBI'llMlBBllllillBFLi ', IIIHIl'V'''''!!''^]^^ ^H
,,i|i'!i::ililil'i:i:ii!;" ':• ."i: Hi iii" ,,i,';"t>i i, < , " i1. it "iiiiiiFiii.iJM^^^^^^ ' ii1;!;:,",, '•ai! ^H
•=' '"' ""''" ""' "» ' ' :"'|"; " '" """"' " " ' I;' ' '' 1 " 'i " H
lliri'lihiiB;1:,!,,::,,,;] 7"',j,, ' " ln'llnll,1, 1,! , ,£,11'', Ill'11 , "l,,,1 ,'IIHII, 1IIBI 111, ("Illli''!!!, ll',|,|',|,, ailllll ^H
-------
Exhibit B-la
NAFSMA Storm Water Phase II Survey
-------
IIJIU^ ijlllll!!!": Ik. mill leni ilEillli^^^^^
lEHIilB C!^ '
t^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ •»' "Pi! ! iiiliii?;''1"1?;'iii ftjjffl
iiiiiiiiiiiini|iiiiii|ii i .ii^uiiiiiiiiijiioi'i;", .in, iiiiniii!1, '';, in/up,; . 1111:! .111, n n 'i fl,; 'iiiniiiiiii'i ,in,i i "'iiiiniiiu
is^Tifp iiii;,;,' it, p^1*^ wArn:*
'iiiiiii '• *.* •• '• *•;'.Ktfx'vuf i *! :,11.;' f .1,«:;? -;"i; i,i, : ii r-ir it,;;" in•'iiii!!*iiri"#ns**'">»
1'11, .:/'"'.ft''.:'," '",'&' "Iliillil,!;" '
''.''"iiysiil'""!''"' •!'' i* i i"'"illllfl':S|l": 'iili'llV "« I
lll-i ..... Ill* ........ I if"
'
ifi';1 iJiiH," '"•1 lit :, Hi,: '"'• .,".'• r ms*i • i,;, L* *'; iss -::w
..... M|!< ;
JKlllllll,,1 i T,. 'Uli'!"1 11,, IIIIIII1" 111! ,'i ; '». Ill'l,!1:! ...... '!"! '"K.mB'i '
iiil ...... Sf!
'
'!!;* ..... Bs'tl ...... S
..... 'IV,:!!1::!':! .jnHPH1
% Iiiiiiiiii iii):
>''II" fll'i i ill '"I'lldill,. Ill 'I!,!'i
111! 1" iiil'IH ^ :l:''"'!i:i'"i;
El! 'Hi I! Ill Il::i""'ii - :MT, "I!" il '
.ft It'l"'i HU'V:r:VMUK •"' ' Ill", I'lii'liiiili 'llillf'1'",!
Iililllilfif1 iff ji&S' Aii"!,;* liiiAiii'"liii Vii-W JliiW
11 IK:,,':',[,:, " 'in: ilii'iil,:''
hi'ill"''iii:I"!1:1' ill '111!111
.:. ..... IliCISi ....... : ........... ./,:;.
1 '• 'i in „" :"::i m in in iii' >. ill'; mil jiii: nil iii,' ii;,:,ni, 'nil j : in,,: 'iiii1' in;' iinni i,, 111,,: n. iiiinniits'iiLiii i', ijr'1 a,,1:!'1'*:'
'iine'lllil,,,'",!;,;!1 in,: r ''ii'r '"it"!'""' j "ihii'n'if',,"!!'':"1i; '",11'ii" n n inii,:1':' si'iis,:!",! ii'ii' iii1"!, in "ii;,,,,in!!' ''I,'::1''::' I,,1 in,,:,:i,;:"i
I.!: in-if ""'iSSni'1!! I*1",''',',"1! i ' ill' „«' ..13W,'I'^|(:
|r" i!1'!!!1'!'''!'!!''n'fii"1'ii'if'1 |l|l!|iiiI'"'1'i'l|ii'""ill1'1!! ' ''''' ''I'11'"'!1'"1'1' '' '
Ilililiiliilliii!:1 MTH 'Vt.*a*IB! i* M
WillTi'iiiiiiiJin'ii'"!! lii'liluij'""']'!:'! " 'i i1 ,: ''HI1 /'
id1:!'! I
iiilii'lliiliiilljllllllii'' 'iiiiiilpilill'il ;,in [
M
•illiW
'ifln',:U"!' ,:,:;"' ,ii l; " LI" 11' :K in, :' ' , iiiiii ,,i', ,i i',:, ,ii!i!i,i;:i,i,iiii,, jif ::jii!,i 'iiiiiiiii,,:1^
i!1:11; I'lsi'i! .aifii! ;.*|fJ*|r.|>1SlM!tl!Hti"< I
' ' lll|| 1
• •'!' !'i1 /'ilift1'!'!''si' ';'I! V\',,'ii'rSiiillli'viii!1*!'}Vf iiiipilr^iinii'';:!&;IIr IF' iiiiijljii:,iiliiilift"'! "";:''„ .<,',!i'i! iv, ii' Ir! i,'!"!,i:]'',i.'li'lliii'Mi'l: :illli':» I'niilii':;ii!*,:" '' , „ "I,i!'ii1," :,«iiiiii,ii'liiliffi'iii1!Jiliiii. ' 'iJuliiiiiiiiiiri 'iiliiiiiiiiJiiiiil'liii1'1 iHiiiill
I qiii"",:! IPIiillllllllliii jlil1 ,.
.•iiiKi! ........... iii
I', ,:l,l ill; "linilii,: inn, in: ,,,'lillllllllllH^^ n' " iiliiili' lililll:*!11'1:, i, i ill, 'n "' -;:, ,'"'': "': , I1 ihi'i;:1 ':T ' ii' »' i1,' ! „ ''iimil 'n n»:"'' i ;;} n11'Slllliiiilrt ^^ p ,111111,1', lllllll B,'"'! " i::1',, j,' ,l 11 ;\\ 11 Inl:,%:!''.. '''irinlin ll 'ill1' I1 inhl'in i1,:, ill II" i"'',,. "I., 'I1, , ". I'lji'l'lMI'l 'll.'. I'lblill in
ml lllii''• fii:!iv1 niIIB'' 'IW^^^^^^ ''!'':""':'I.,,11, il',;,;'liiiirl j'i"",',''j'!,"' "'I'liSi1""' n.: I '.iiill'il'ii1 ,iiii"'ilit'i'iibi:''iililiiiln'i':il,i:'3'liii,i, ;,i'i ">i' 111^^ "«'' ''" -ni1'"!':' i .1:1111,1 "iKliiiiilii iliiillillliiii!
"i ' 'ill'"':'"! "I1:1 "I,,'.',,,,,1,1,1" i',,,,!" I" .I::, , i ."I I'llKiil"1"' "IlL/f'li'l'"'"''!'!,:''::''!":: IINIII'IVW^^^^^ 'i'll'ni::i"i' Ill'l'.:'*! 'I'll1, II"11'Hi,'"iHi, "l»'il," r1': ', II 1,1 „:,,!!IIIIII llinninnii:,,:::1!"'" Ji'":"!!!!!!'!'!:'!' ''yillilllilll''!!."!::'':'^
iiii, liiii'1" iii'! i|:i: 'niiiiii-iH^ ".," iii :::' in '"vi ii::i"iil''"' '''' n Li;' H", i 'mil1:,, '"di i'' iin ,n' 'I;1 il 'H:" »'ii !i, 'i'l'' i iiiiiii'"'': iiilp 'in'sS iiiiiiK^ ii'Sl vmiili' iii n'li iiiK^iiniiiiiiiii li" ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
1 :|< I ": :'i 'i'"1 IIII IS illiin!!;" n,, I"1 li "i mill iniil," nil Illllillllli ,:%'' " I' "llilllii'i»i 'Ilini'l"1' 1 I,!, n1" lllii;:111,;1' n
^ ..... ,i,i':u,"::> 'Iiiiiii! ''I'lliilli'liliii"';'''!';'!'' i'l'lllii:;'1::1:111;!
:::;;-> iiiii' iiiiiiitiiina^^^^^^^^^^ i^^
ijll"'iiliiili III11',!,, I- 'iii IliliililM iillHliiilllli:1"!"! CHI1"*t.: "• i!;"!"1';i")l' /A" .!:!"i'i'."'i!!!" i" S"1"11" '' il""!1"!1:1'1 i 'i-il'll'iliHiii''* /US iii
:: iii''!™^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ffi'.*\< mm-. ! ¥ ••» m>^i
i"i""'S". *li»'i11JK*M':.l.
'"'ii";:1'! iii'iS't'ii'ii liJMCjK!]';.
inilll'illlinill!! !,„lllllll!!Ill ' ,"11 ,(' lllljni' nilli''.
nil! 'n' ,111, Ililili "'inn i ,:illlli!l,:il n 1 „,„ :n"| I!' I,! 'll IT 11,1' ulli, ill,,,!:!!" „, Jlllljii, in,'gin'' "ill '!' n 'in
il,,,,! "linn ll,:,:,!''!!,!!!!:!!!'''' ', 'liliigil!"null!!,'li;L
Mil '','1... i./'SiiJK.'ii.V.ii.S.ill IMi"*''', i/KWtBl ''I! f.fr.SB
Kl'iii,;) if.'''..!, iiliifl: "'|i!iii|:'i '•liWl.WW.S
'iin lilil
r,' '"" ' i!»";': I, ', I1::,,"! I'll!"111,';" ,, 1, '.in::1" n" i.' "j,; Hi if, ,:|l|||||i:,', ignlil'ilillli'n ijn!:::: n
i ii']1:: n ''"iHi1 ''a; tn'; 'i:,;, .iiiini i ,i";;;; > -. ':•':; 'V' '.ii,"iiii:i iiiiii i 'liiiiii1 jniiii •.. .• i,!! i
ni,'!"i 'nil',, 'I'li'iiqiiiiiiqi! "iiinii'''!'!!''"!1"'!'" 'iiinli" I
iiif',1.' i'i'ii .itti^Wil I"1!
-------
Appendix B
National Association of Hood and Stormwater Management Agencies
1299 PcnmjrlvaD.:.AveNW. Eighth Floor West uWashbglon. DC 20004
-------
II 111
Appendix B
"industrial" "'facilities, such as vehicle maintenance operations, transportation facilities
, light rail, commuter van pools, etc).? Y N
* If no. do you have an estimate of the cost to prepare such information? $_
* Do you have a program to detect and address illicit discharges, including illegal dumping, to your
, - storm water system? Y N
::",* If y65' wt»t >s the approximate annual cost of this program? S
>n activities involvi
!!!!!!!!!!!»^^^^ „' lav.fiiiW 4. Do vou have an erosion/sediment control program for construction activities involving one or more acres?
null mi mi i mi .iniinii uni,,'iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiniii'iiii riiniiiinii i, IWIIL ^™ S S. »,
V^ =!*! '"'"*!! ^'i1'1!1 s^*1'1 I'SSiF^^ g'p you regulate or impose sediment control requirements on construction activities, management of
construction waste (including human) and debris at construction sites? Y N
j=____^^,,,_^,__,,__^.^^^i^ otner regulatory mechanismjhai requires the control of erosion and sediment to
I the maximum extent practicable and allowable under State orTriballaw. The program must control other waste at the
nfuctlon site that may adversely impact water quality, such as discarded building materials, concrete truck washout and
Cy'iISE TKeprograninaisl include, at a minimum, requirements for construction site owners or operators to implement
!,;^^
•eipt and consideration of information submitted by the public, regular inspections during construction, and penalties to insure
n cornpttance.^ , i i , .
If yes, what is the approximate annual cost of this program? S_
',:;—;: ..... "™ :^;:::,— ;, , ;,::: ...... —- •:— •; ..... :: ..... ; ::—;:;::; ..... — 5.
"
, ..... , , , , ...... ..... . Do you have a program to permanently address storm water runoff from new development and
jiiiliraiiir :ii|: ii ..... x liiiiii • '-ii ........ " 'redevelopment projects that result in land disturbance of one or more acres? Y N
**' ;" 'liliiSi1 '•' .ii 55! . . " ii,"!!-, illllllS^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ !'!' -I ..... ~A~.R 1 .ii!^ :f: SSSfffJate": " S!K)I op ^j— jjj-j^— ^ggjjj.1,, pjj,, to implement site-appropriate and cost-effective structural and non-s
.......... " ............. .......... ................. ! .............. ............. • ................................. ........ ' " ..... '• ' ................. ........ ............. !'!"!"! ............... ................. ' ..... ' ' 'nS/BSn&S&ff&fl&lu-eitBMP's). and ensure adeauate lone-term operation and maintenance of such BMP 's. Tht
management practices \omr a, and ensure adequate long-term operation and maintenance of such BMP's. The program must
iiK^^^^^^^ Examples of non-structural BMP's include
: i"1 ':-; : " •—•'' " • i ; -"""' i " 'foSSamS'^^^aesthat result In protection of natural resources and prevention of runoff, such as growth limits, protection of
wetlands and riparian areas, minimizing impervious areas, maintaining open space, and minimizing disturbance of soils and
yeieuBiSi: Examples of structural BMP's include detention ponds, filtration practices such as grassed swales and sand fillers.
and infiltration practices such as porous pavement.
" * If yes, what is the approximate annual cost of this program? $_
Do you have a program to prevent or reduce pollutant runoff from municipal operations? Y N
''fioi™'llucXfpi5gminSisFRcS&Ti&
'-government operations, such as park and open space maintenance, fleet maintenance, transportationfaciliiies, planning, building
oversight, and storm water system maintenance.
If yes, what is'the approximate annuarcbit of this program? $_
Are"youi aware "that 'by August 7.2001 municipalities less than 100.000 population thai own or operate an
1 "industrial facility are required to submit a NPDES permit application for storm water
•il/'llli'11 'IP Jill .ill! 'i
discharges? Y N
Note: Municipalities less than 100,000 were exempted by a provision in 1STEA in 1991 from having to prnr.it facilities they own
or operate with "storm water discharges associated with industrial activity" except for airports, power plants, and uncontrolled
i jg^jjjjy{andfills. Regulations effective August 7,1995 extended this exemption for six years. "Industrial" facilities that a small
|:: "imoiicipaiity might own or operate that are exempted until 8/7/2001 include: vehicle maintenance shops, asphalt and concrete
i • "Kuejji plants, sand and gravel mines, municipal solid waste landfills or transfer stations, hazardous waste landfills and land-
,,, 'g^l^jv^sites, hazardous-waste recycling facilities, municipal wastewater treatment plants over I MCD, and municipal
coniiruct'umsites::_(including new rood projects) over 5 acres.
„ y ^re\ouawue"tfiat if "You own" oYbperatean airport, power plant, or uncontrolled sanitary landfill, you
equired to submit a storm water permit apllication by October 1, 1994? Y N
Note: Uncontrolled sanitary landfills are active or closed landfills or open dumps that do not meet the runoff control requirements
for solid waste facilities defined inRCRA.
'!l!i":|.:!!::!,l i i!K^^^
......... Sl'f
-^ ......... rJ
"f !':::!j:
; ...... ' ....... ..... «li ...... (I;
Ilil'ilil'll'iSlil'li'IM^^^^^^^^^^ 1, f
iX'ttirii
ifL,; ^,.';.. wr ''•-•••w r;:* n,^
i!,,iiii',i 'I'liipi
11 r'llJj'Slfflllll1 'i'l'l'l!'11:1, ,"„ "!' ' '
111:,,!*,::,,, 'iii'iiii n'l '» '
: i1*'1^!'!:!1? PI .'I'lll :, :i!' "L
iji i,'ii'iliJiS I ii..:!:"1 r »"• ,,i!'ii
'B" 1"iLrfFjrr3i i'i!'"'1 „!:
: 'Wl
IliJIi! ,!iil ..... ijllKili!' iiilli'l'i, , ' ...... •
I, Iliyibf llft'ili I ill,!"!!!,, Illiiilll il" 1 1 "
" • t lii i , - .• ; ,
1 !' Illll'; • • "sT!,!1
1 ;:ii:|l!"|!!!i»i«4J!!",i !i,:i|!!:t!!lli:: :|I: i
.,'»,:„,!' if ii "iii11/ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiinniiiiiii' i
Aiiii.']!,! in OMB; ^
: • ysifv ''i'!!,i:.Hii,!" ,, jiir f!.
' "!:«w ,i,,
,,
' I",,,:1!'! •"' „ jl'l Pill'ii Hi I!" '!l
^/ihljIIT'i; "I liii ° »iil, 'T
iifka iww'"'
11 ...... "' «: ! .illiii11'!!!!." TO r • 'i'lCTIIiSS! ..... ; ,i ' . " ~M "li i v. il
,l| ..... . ' "ilfjiilni M|!!i|nilll4j,, '|, '!;,]„ Ii!i1||in»^ ' li'1
!,' .rj!,,;':', ..... i,.':1."!".':1!" i^iinnnAiiRiff
iJliiUmlf I, ..... ',:•' .liaiKi W1*]!,!5'1'!"!1!!1'11"'" in
'1^
III I II V
" 'iiii|i|ii ii'iPiiii'iiii''^!!!!!!!!!! jRHi ;
V'ii»'« iii iilill'lli
,,, ,,,, P_._P
mr:!!1'!" ,ii i11,,,,™,::/ ' 'Till '"'
Final Report
l^llllllillllll'l'lillll1!1 t.ii! ' w ..... ITilrvlllI'lllllil
October 1 999
.': I :"•:' ii: "" ,l :(>,,i ib,,,,:* ililllj,!11:,, ..... i jiillillli-1 ' ..... Hllj, ;, v:,:; ..... ;,"«£!":• 'lliiif '
ll, '"'Hill I llli 'IMIbl ' , ,,:ll mil ...... Ill "lllllifl 1, I!,,,1, , lillillllilll , ' !l II IPI'T ,n „ !,,>l' jllmll ..... « I! , „,:'!; r, ', ,ll|l i,l, 1,,r :
<
:''if'^ii.,",. .,":1"''iiit'."tlliiii1!!!,,;!'iiiii:*i',S"'''iiiilfiiiiK1?::*;^i ^T"' f-J^?.'^^,4'dii!'.' ^J"1:**-. Ji 'i'1 '$$$&':'X Ivui:':i
ijiiiii 'am
iKiSiiir;1111
I
-------
Appendix B
8.
9.
10.
11.
What is the area served by your storm water system, measured in square miles?
square miles
* What is the area of your jurisdiction, if different from above? square miles
What is the population of your jurisdiction?
Is there an adjoining or overlapping city or county that already has a stormwater program permitted by the
State or EPA that may agree to:
a) operate a joint stormwater program for both your cities;
b) operate selected parts of the program jointly for both your cities;
c) provide you with assistance in developing and implementing your program:
d) talk to you about the program;
e) none of the above;
f) don't know;
What portions of the storm water sewer system in your jurisdiction do you currently regulate, maintain, and
replace when obsolete? (Check all that apply)
Portion of System
Jurisdiction owned properties
Jurisdiction maintained
streets/roadways
Adopted easements on
private property
All streams, ditches and
storm drains that...
Regulate
Maintain
Replace
(check statement below that matches your defintion of storm drain)
serve more than one property have a drainage of acres
contain runoff from a public street or property other
12.
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
How are your current storm water system operations, maintenance, repair, rehabilitation, and replacement
activities funded? (Circle all letters that apply)
Your city's/agency's general revenues
A separate storm water system fee or tax
A combined water utility fee or tax
A dedicated street maintenance revenue
A regional storm water management agency
Other
. percent
. percent
. percent
. percent
. percent
. percent
13. How do you expect to pay for this new program? (Circle all letters that apply)
G. Your city' s/agency:s general revenues
H. A separate storm water system fee or tax
I. A combined water utility fee or tax
J. A dedicated street maintenance revenue
K. A regional storm water management agency
L. Other
. percent
. percent
. percent
. percent
. percent
. percent
-3-
October 1999
Final Report
B-9
-------
Appendix B
!"iji!i|j , '..j'1'1 , ||lllj"!"'i" illlllllllllllllllJII!'!!!1 iM'lHlliri'iiliilHItIlllilil!!:':, Ill1 jilllllli' ., MSilili I '"H'SiniiJ' "I, I' f .fiji,'!!'I i'• m, •!',th'li,, Jilll'SiiL,, ill ,; ill' „.ilL!";I!""LI '!iil,in!llilH"!ll!lii;BII[Li;;"illiil!?[kn, ikR*v iiiiiiiiniiiii juiiiiiiiiiiiiiiin vim, "IIIKIIIIIIIHIIIIIIIIIII "iiiiimi • n iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiimici, N
!,'' "i f lil'i: illi'i'1 sii, Jlillll" 'II..':. I' I!!:"" ii,i! .I* 'll,!11!!''I I W ;ll'! in!'"!!!!:£' t.' in, l:l:lllilllll|i 'i"!l '' i, ' ''ill!1! .* L<*M ::;< ii' ft !'", ,: flf fr! 'i ;• i "ff i,:i|i'i, :• • 1 ivildniilllliiliiniii, * Jllllllill, iilllllinillPlii'i'1' & M "UK 1 .' '•
WW.&M? ':'l«:.i!BS M WM
• l ,(I1!I": Jilt IBS.;!1"dMlMIXii&i'* fill:1 f; 'K•"'"£1 Ii! aiiiiillilil-l ;•':/"!. i,'.:! III1H
njlilliiii" IIIIIKi Hi,1' iMHilnlir .''M "I'll-I
;%|t" !MB21Ci *l'ii
iT'iinlijii1;;'' i ';iii"'¥','! i:.' "'3ijiiinp n'::i! • i: i"1' i!i;:< \ \' \a •• :n. ' '."[iiiiiA, insnii; ijiiiaiiipjilnni'i iiiinnliii1!!';!"" j^'iiif :
,,ni fliiiliiiin ::i.,iii!'i fii1 ..viiiijiiiii"! iriPvii < in ii, , , • • in 'iiiKiiii^iiiii'Viii'iiiiijiiiiiiililjiiiiiiiir'^llllll!lllll|lll'i<<|i' ,rr < <'iiiwiiiNii ,11
' ..................... [ .................... • ......... 14. ............... How ....... do you ...... expect to prepare ...... the ^required permit application when the time comes?
A. : Existing staff
...... ..... ,,, .................... , ,
....................... ........................ ' ............ | ....... '" .......... .................. ........... ............ ' ....... , ......................... EL' .......................... Jlwiiew'tempbrary staff
;;: = - £ ="~: E: , -I ~::1 •• " ±::":,I ........ ; • . ,-::::: 7 ::=;:: D. Consultant , j
...... • ....... ............................. • ........ • ....... • ........... ••'•"'• • ............ • ...... = '-= ...... - ........ • ..... =-E. Do not know
ill i mi 1 1 111 nil ii ill 11111111 i i mi ii 111 1 1 111 111 1 i i ii pLfiiiniiiinvniriii:::1!'!!!!!!'1 .'.iiiiLiLinni ..... iiiniim1 j ,'!: i7i'T vniiK/hiLiiijiiMiiinnnii::1',!!1 nirrH'ii niv'iii'iniin&i 'ninipinin'i ..... iunnninnnniii«M^ ..... "niii;1:,!:;,.:!;: ........... 'im /.:, r:;:;1;:;;;!;;;:;;::11:1" ..... er:
iiiiiiHiiiiiniFi Ljiiiiiniliiiiini in JIIIIIIN :,,]ii!«ii!iiiiiiiii«i«»^ , n ,nn - T mm ,iy' 'f'liiiniiiiinn11. mi11»' j ii»; i ,•/, Mil11, ^vnniiiiiiviiininii?! A^^^ i|, n ni .iiNiiiMinniiiiiTiiiin fliiinin1 u «, • |
-;= "BillMacrissey
''
:iii i: i; i K f'«fi'". ^
• Hill. A, liil T" lit' ' SiWllt1'"" " :" , illiil!1!11 „ IT! • :" i lillF.
I,::!!1; "iiiiRiiii ,}:;'!»ii1,::!; \" "^"'',' iii|i!ii|||iiiii;; ^ n<' .1; •'";' -i1. i,:! ::i" "I :in!H! :'%iiii iKiin'': i't"u".'« .'::;;, ;i ^ '*#., '\Arim l! .t * m^k ':A^iik •' ^ m : :fiiii!r,, | hMiiiinn ;,i''' t >! ;i'' •' iii,'i,:;, ,".-: >"':,i:' ^ .-• 'V.sxm'nir 1,'fRiiiiiPn:
liL; iii ' I
".n1 ::iiiniii 'lit iin1! mil n >; ' .linn1 ' ii nil1!1 n , ' if ii n : : .m ,: • 'iinr™;1 nyiiiih , , . • ,.,i inniind, 'IIIILIL nn ,? n ;, r .s jn< : ....... unniini , n»!. i: > gnniini ; „ ..... iiinininii ', iin11 ,;;i
ISiBrBSwliiw
I'l''^^ L'^^ [n^U jr" ;,,: *,• i- ','< '• j".:i ,': /• ," • i! ,. ',", :: t'.'•'t'.';-M\ \i "+,>. :"' • "j^'~ " : '' '. * "::"' : :;: ' '':'""''' ;:":'" :: " ""'::::' *^>
I [[[ I
Iii'iiiiniiEi'i'jii'iiiiiiiKii:"1 ;iii,niiiii:ii"i:: 3, ii'im"1 iniin i;,"iiiiiii< in,1' w „ 'i1: ,;>,",<, iniiLinn
ii ,,i, f si \# ; n • "" ' <« i. » v, ;
« ; ' ai1 j . 'in ...... \ :r i j"iii IT: i: "i ^ £"
III,, IILI;'I! '.'f^Ulftillil, ^l!:!!iOl1l.l!lll||||||||||, ,i|i < 'i i'l|,i|ilBi:il mi illUlli, "1," i "K" !", jlliiiiilUllhV «IH" Ii"1" illl!'1: V' l, i '"t'l!!"'1'!,, /i.iilfflii, ,i,', il|IHiilli!' ',fi;, ."'III, JW, i >, 'ililil I1! IW Ill 'i'1'il H,li >,' A',,; ?\\i, ,H,''"' ""liilllilhlllllli IB,' i.'!" 'I,'' ,' - WiBf " ,'f •!!",, fiillillll1!1: iHlllllllllllll,'" 'is i'B "
/Jin1 ! i.,'irijii'i'iiiiiiiiiiir/iiaii't . jisi'ii1 »• f : fiM ;iiiiiiiiiii''.i, iiiiiiMr
;; :-|-~; ^,;^S j
S:S= JS* 'i* 'V fS B-10
Final Report
October 1999
:,• ~~
. ,
-------
Appendix B
NAFSMA assigned an ID number to each city and county that responded to their survey. Of the
121 respondents, 56 were able to provide cost information about their storm water programs.
Exhibit B-lb presents the cost information reported by the 56 respondents.
Exhibit B-lb. NAFSMA Raw Data Used in the Economic Analysis
Annual Costs Reported
* •***:?
1 A-,^
* ,V W
*EW£
1
2
4
5
6
8
11
13
14
15
20
22
25
27
28
31
33
35
36
37
40
41
44
46
47
50
52
55
56
58
60
63
64
65
V \ ' ^
Question 1*1,
Public Ed/
~ Outreach ~
-' *!$) ~
27,500
600
2,000
30,000
2,000
3,000
3,000
400
50,000
114,000
1,000
10,000
1,000
200
>, - «
"-Questions ^
- , BliciT 7"
' Discharges ^
v ~ <$> . r
5,000
50,000
2,000
5,000
100,000
100,000
30,000
35,000
6,000
10,000
5,000
75,000
v _B ^
Question 4
Erosion/Sed
Ctfntrof"
($)'f-f
40,000
30,000
5,000
35,000
5,000
4,000
10,000
20,000
40,000
1,040
5,000
10,000
500
7,000
75,000
15,000
2,000
A -^ %
•*
•>*Question*"5
'• 4
Development
* ($) - -
40,000
30,000
5,000
20,000
25,000
5,000
100,000
100,000
5,000
7,500
10,000
50,000
40,000
10,000
5,000
10,000
1,200
3,000
75,000
5,000
5,000
•
* < "•
«K " S-.
Question 6
^Muni T
- V .^M:
Runoff
""($)„" ""
2,000
15,000
2,500
2,000
7,000
500,000
5,000
3,500
10,000
300,000
? ~* <,
'A-w f^ •« ^
" » Questions* /
b. PopSilation^^ *
— -*^(S)
4,900
40,000
30,000
45,000
12,500
23,500
4,406
23,500
150,000
30,000
10,000
15,000
50,600
3,300
100,000
88,000
37,000
13,000
23,000
65,000
45,000
29,800
72,000
15,396
120,000
50,000
25,000
33,000
68,000
100,000
35,000
4,200
33,000
90,000
October 1999
Final Report
B-ll
-------
Appendix B
Exhibit B-lb. NAFSMA Raw Data Used in the Economic Analysis
Annual Costs Reported
ill:: i'i'ii/i'it :-''•
iiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiii i n iiiiii 111 1 in
11 I'lHa^^^^^ '.in, iiiiiib
••III1 "[' lli'l !' '''Illlli'lllf ''I1 i'!'1!' Ill '"'I liiii •••I' ' i "''I1
IIIIIIU Jllii«^ "4 •til JB
ijinipiii'i'^^^^ '.'iiiMKii iiiiiiiinii'iiiiin
•MiiflKjKflHTiittiii im^i
••111 ii'llii'iilllil'IM^ i| ' 'lllllllllllli! Jim
iHpi'iKfi''"'.!!'!!!1 'li' 'i Wl'l'liil
HilSil, ill 1i^^
iBl]WKiUr'H*iJHH
iiii''!''"!'!!' U .Milii IP' '"iii i'1'1 1 i I liii
••i i1!,:! I''! mif'\'fi ; iiiiiiiiii"!'
1I9 i"1'!!',,:!'1'" iiiilllii
,»" ' ii' 'i' ' in ' i" '
i, H| ' , !,, ' ,,,,„,, '"",i, : , Ir '!,,',
i i i i i
t
I i "i ' '
.'I'lIDf
66
67
71
76
77
79
80
99
106
108
109
113
122
123
133
136
137
138
139
141
144
147
%Resp:
f t , -t
Question!
Public Ed/
Outreach
(S)
18,700
5,350
3,650
5,000
2,000
6,100
152,000
40
18%
Question 3 -
Illicit.
Discharges
($)
30,000
1,000
4,000
2,000
500
25,000
15,000
16%
Question 4
Erosion/Sed
Control
($)
1,000 .
45,000
1,000
75,000
9,000
15,000
7,000
10,000
2,000
3,000
25,000
5,000
15,000
30,000
5,000
35,000
10,000
8,000
29%
Question 5
Development
($)
30,000
150,000
15,000
75,000
9,000
18,000
1,000
30,000
50,000
2,500
8,000
5,000
50,000
5,000
90,000
10,000
30%
Question 6
Muni
Runoff
($)
500
1,000
5,000
500
1,000
10,000
50,000
30,000
1,000
200,000
16%
"Hi f ' "I; I11;;1|l'«i,'l™«;:;1 >\ • Sji '" , • "51 K. ") SI!1"™ ' "" ' SWf! i' iliiliiiiifiili "IT! I! , ""I1!"!1!! ," I! -'-Hli ' • .: III!! :' l"l"!!'l Ilill'l!1!1!! HKtfftl '! ' ' V; •! "'ll , ", f. ill' ilij!",! • '„ :lll. ''"II;1"1!"! ' ii" II11!":1 1;,,"1!!;; ''i1 . "IE '. V 1, ;:';" i t1,,,1 : 1"!1!!1' •' I'
- Question 9, r~
Population
80,000
118,000
5,200
167,854
27,300
78,000
19,000
16,000
14,000
65,000
99,000
17,500
26,000
43,000
105,000
250,000
84,105
1,000
43,000
85,000
100,000
12,000
iiiii'i«' 'll' ' 'ii',,ii iiii" iiiiiiiiii 'ii'li-iiiiii iiiiiiiiii"1 '''ii'i'ili
isi:'1;1 , irff i i"1:* iii>": i»!,: . - ii iiiii iii I.BI: y VM.,; ,»< ' UK,, • ;» mi ,.; ;, .; f •""' "?i ; ji;. '-jtf, :,; ;\ ^ .'» »;,t ;;i:;11 •» •: # •; in •;' 5 " ?>f"Wf •.. '' "••** "'mraKfitt limits ;'M * ;" ii ; iini1 ' >•' i1 " y- n« : «•• " n laf • i "i i ' i. 'tmt K • f A
ll'lllilHlll1"!1!!. 'Hi.'"!1 ,,„!'' ,M\f Ill
in/ i|l!iiiii|i|i..!l
l! "I'liimH1!: 'flin'l11 :< "li'
'1',, '<< iiii i 'iiiiii1'11*1 Mi'»< if" i i: i,«;»/ •
\,:,'1JS':'IS I!,!:' ,:'liili'iS ' , i'V!'8,' f,!,',li"1,!',,i'', "
liN^^^^^
ii!iii^
...... Mi ...... Mi!: ..... ..
AUIttf'tf'h*!1 If :f i1 ii'I'll' ix",'!!',:'"
i,iiiR iiiitf t .iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiijJS'jiiiifiiiiii'1; iiiH^^^^ iii/iftif^hiiii • iw11;,.a;
I illlU'illllliL illllllillPII'lilllliil'iClililliiillllll'lllil"1!" 'i. I. ' ill'illigillllllllllll'''^'':!!^!!'!''''!!!'!!!!!!'!'!'!^!!!!!!!!'!!:':!!!!!!!!!!!:!1!! Illli yiliillllllllllllllllliiirPII'liliilllillllllliP i "ii'llllll1 liii' . '"''Mi'l' . "I , Jin IIP'" 1111"!!,;!"!,,'" »' i. ,,;'!! I'lii'i ' I < 'ililJLr 'lilrlllll lil.."i'i|' UIHIL i'iil i'il' .. 'iiirO ,,l"',i,1 Xiniil'lirih'l'illi'iiil'i < I'liPP1 ill . ii'liiiPllllliiiUPiliili'ilP'iOii:1 iillill.'ir X«;i
< ,iiii||,ii ;!,,i'i g;>: '"",,'iniN.,':": iiiJiiiJjpiiiiiiPLii^Kjiijfl ,k;: n'l'iu I
Jilk
i i*!E !• W*! ,, 1"!'.'.:'",i,i!i'ii;!ili,i?i:" f J>'W.3' •iiilli^.liilll^ilelliiiillllilllllll!1'1"'iiHIIlilli:?1',!:,; '•.» I
, n' ,/iiij' -I iiiii'iuniuniipp; ii'i",i ji'iy'iypii'i11'!!™ j'l jiiiiiiipiiip'iiiii'iip'ii'pii'i" iLi'KJi'iii' "ins iiv
I'll |l' I'lhimilii'idl'li ' "if l|l|lii;l» 1: IIP11' "" ''II '"'J'''!!!!!!1! ', SH IllillP I II i, „, < 'II,, ,'i' i 'I' i i' |l' i iillilnltp >l|i, '
^alFS'TU «1'< ::::''i''K,,i'¥ &JMti.
ii i' 'I ...... i '":' i' i ,: if!'' '
H'''!:!' ..... tiiiM^^^^^ i
B—]2
Final Report
October 1999
-------
Appendix B
Exhibit B-lc.
Average and Percentile Costs for Five Phase II Minimum Control Measures
(Per Household Costs, $1998)
^'VH>J
* " «?~ "-
* v^
*** *.
Mean Cost
Minimum
25%
50%
75%
95%
Maximum
*\ Public/ *
Education/
^Outreach -
$0.91
$0
$0.08
$0.37
$1.01
$3.04
$5.97
tf
Illicit
Discharges
$1.78
$0.03
$0.20
$0.75
$2.65
$5.61
$5.95
* f *.-p3f»
.Erosion/ _
Sediment
•**" t
Control"
$1.84
$0.09
$0.30
$1.08
$2.10
$7.92
$13.10
<~ jf
* 4 ~ -a- j f
"& «£* ff
Development '
$2.64
$0.07
$0.37
$1.24
$2.79
$10.68
$17.47
Municipal
j _ * ~, «.
Runoff1
$1.75
$0.01
$0.14
$0.52
$1.63
$9.08
$12.19
- Totals: All
Categories
$8.93
$0.19
$1.09
$3.96
$10.17
$36.34
$54.68
Source: NAFSMA Phase II Survey Raw Data Report, 1998
'These estimates removed the effect of one disproportionately huge "outlier" (almost 15 times the mean cost for
all other municipalities and 4 times greater than the next highest per capita cost) in one municipality's
(respondent number 52) estimate of its annual municipal runoff control costs.
October 1999
Final Report
B-13
-------
,,i illllllimii'P IIIIHPPIIIP,, wi! "PHI ,|1«| npm' II .n.!, in,!;.pip a' j,
,! ','['",! illiJIIIK' Hi i ill ,,i,; '''PI'!' It1" 'II,,',,1 !«!!!!,"fI't ,311 I'll, ' ,,,'V" '!l! ,',''' I, 'fill!iji'' '.HI1!'..'Pip, I..'i, ,i IP,' liPI'llpPlllllliPP ,"'.„ P ,,|',,''.'lllliliii,IliilC i|PI
M ..... Sf ' i It ..... :!* i : !ai
' ..... « M •"*"
I1 1 Wif 111! Ifil! ,,i!«i ...... '
I! !RI1«»iiil 111 ........ KM
...... !" i" illinil ..... E
,W W9Hr« ..... lii! - .'if!'!1 Hi' i : ' I! ..... fc *tt • JS'iJ ....... ', i ........ ,
'fill1: i1! ..... Hill:1 i I ....... ' ...... Airl IKf S 1;"' ..... ::,;!>1R!T"'" ..... : Wi ....... iUI'i) ...... Ii*?!''".' .......... ••• a
:i,«: Mi'#**ie#;i»*l
.'if"!! ; iii,'. Mi"'5 i;,;,, ti^^^^ -,11,111 « is,,'! ilwif
'. HUCi'T S,,.lipii'f''» .',! 'lITiK'^ ''i ;] iiiii::1'"1:!
•.':?,„ iiip.ii ;:: p',pi«'r: IPIIII'II: ' i""1,,1 aiiii"!'.!'!'!.!!'
l,[,;,i'!{';;; „; R!'' /,;' li!;:l|!,;;l!!:!|i:il!jii;li^;!^j|'ii!!;!ii, ;, f SiiiilJ1!1'; i'Hii!^
,. i:f ; fI*,, ;> iiilK^^^ i;!;/: T:t: ",; 1; ,i,
, ,i; a, jit' '«;!'' maiai:'' «" BiS1.:
v ., MI ii, ',. ".i1 '
1 „ il,!!I!1"!:,. '","'»!,," "I'llli'llll.!!,.!1!",,' i ' "ml nil," " !
:,''": Hi,, pi'li.'.!'!'!''.!! 'iiiikiiipi'ii lip,,," ,i liijipr .Pi'iii,.1",, ipi'ljiipi'iiiipiiiipiiiEpj pill*1 ".''iipiipipi. : ii'i I
II. ''Tillllll ' I" ,:.„ ngil'lll
IV^W.V 'illH^^ •lMll(WBEi,ir';'', "'', ' " '; illl! iii'; i,,!, "!'' i'1"1! !!"'.•'r" 'i'Sii'li,; , '>i'*!:lliU'll lijiiiiii" 'jifML'ii I"*""
, "lu'iRjii; '..wtA ..... ::' : ....... :..' .• ........ ••["'i, .'.:*: ..... 11:
« ....... ''•' » ] Mil ..... !«'!! .....
, . , .
..... j'Jl • ;l: r , 7, ,f. s f ! ..... i ,,«; jif J '•:',£ . f m1 '• ;i;«l! ' •;,'- ; ..... " •, * j!| ,., .
'ji&< ....... ; ...... f ........ ,Av''T::iJ'f ...... h!!L ......... r;::!vSiii ....... ^fat i:
- ;,'•;;. 1" 'i ''ilionil'1':'''. f't'.'M ' Mfli]IIX4li'1^^^^^^^^ 'illilie "".liilllll I
, iini, ff, .'!"•''!' .: '' in)'"":,', i (iii!1!1,': i.iiHj!4iM
is" si"!:" II,"'
I!"1 iiiv'Piii'Pi,,™^
! .vi1!'*"11 111!1"1! Iii; II?1!!' i'!l" ', , •!" „„ Jl1 ,»»» "!"''. :"ii':ii:i':: ', ''iill"*JiiH''''':^^^^^^^
'!!'!!'''". , *ii";" ..... iv iiipt'i: ..... IIIIIIIIL "''I'lliiiii ;, '>!! ...... liniiir''!!.!1" t, ">':M 'iii'ii'iiiiaiiiiii:,'.
!' ,Ji ',"•' '!:":IP i i'MM,
1 I'liiiiiilir,,[, ' i
ii'illH ' 'iliRi'P-ii'i i," li ', ,
; •''v „.„' >i:!'''!' '^mi ....... !!ff,i ...... ..... ijii ...... is ..... ill ..... 'Jill .......... mix .............. i ...... iti ...... ir^:^«:>i ......... 'j^iia ..... m&i ..... i?J ..... pw
mi;:' ,| i,,1, T I' i"' T1 "I 'I11 > ""I1,1 'iiiiiilipllllllilj'i"' i" 'i ' , '" lilifl <',i illjllill1 Qinjlii:, 'iiniillllji liljiliilllljllllL' II1'
...... '^m. ..... ^ ..... 1:1 .......... r»t' ..... r
'."'iljin^ llll.jillil illllli:,':,, i.jlllllltv^ rRlllli::1 lliiaiiill ,:i,,,''!i lilL'.!1: iii'1"?")!; iUiliiiillH it' ',1 'riff: • > ,',•: 'i,i: '""iiliiii" 'll'iiiiii! li!*''.1]!' "!!,: •'ills,':"!!)! I!1 pi ii'i Ililliiill i'i ili'l",
if"' ::,]||llll,iillili'''!! IIIH^^^^ ,: j!"!!' 1,1 ,:;,,,iifliiilli'' i iiW^^^ ", • "ill I 'lifli I')",!! 11 ,,''' ii ,1' ill"!; i i:,: ii!", Jiii li11" ii'"'«,, ''lilliiil lit " ,,ii>iii£,: fKi '"V, i' 'i::1
liiiilB 'i'liiiM iiiHik,^ •iiliin^ iliiBi, <:'ii-:l]:iiii^ • n., ii|,iM^^^ :', ",ii , .ii'':'' \ "i!, „ ' j ii" ..iii1! Din,,,',!''>!, 'I'ij'ii'iii,:' 'iiiiiiilii iiii'!",," I in","!',: •',,.
lllllS'i'lllllll,!!!, Illll'lillill lll,l,,hill. I!
PI .in jinni'iip i,' pt, piiiiiiii i!,i!r mi ? iiiiiiii,!!'!!"!:'!!,., p 'ii:;,i'::, r m',, „' pi',,,',; n. MJIU up,, Fiiiinii,' i: ii"m, • '.pin , in.' v" , ', .iiin'iiiii"1!"1!:,', d, ,,"i ', i iiiniuin
11 Ikilif ! ", PJ!! IIII; i, n t , " I : i:
IIP!! I jllllllEI, ': ...... noil"" ,!"! ..... liilil
! jlili!;! ' iiiiii j,ii| I, ; W ..... P'l, ,,! 'Ill', '! ..... J, , , ; , , Kl*, (hll!!!' P !' ,„;; ' T7! !,]PP inj ' „ " ii'i'! i! ii 91111 ,"!i: , ,; KI'iP 1,, ;' '! I;' :" , i! , yiplllM
l f " iill ' ',, 'PP'Pi j ...... »! lillli! L!. Jip1'!,!1!! „ il, 'IP!,,!' illiO!" ,!!'! ' „''" 'SP'i "i , n 'aiiip! Pt ill"'1 1'",,,]'1; ! i»!' " ' I ,.l!' IP.P . , ,„' '!"!,',", 'i „' Ifliil1'!,.1' ', „ , " "!' : ,! n "H'lP ' ; ,'! i; '"I II '!l!,:,!i|i|iliilPi , , " ,,i"lllf, , " |, :'!Pli!!l!l
-------
Appendix B—2
Construction Start Methodology
-------
.i i i,
;:-::: :i „::,:: ":,'„:„',
f !ji!l!!i!llilil1!ll""llll Illlllllll1!':' ,"«":!i,i> V Jlllllil,! "il|l lilHiiiil.!'1!! II ijiiilllllE,., -;.illlf!l lllllilliillll! liijilllt IT:-"' i >:!,i;iii||| tillill 111!:1 TV Mil ii"'•' , ( 1111'. ,i'. ;.. ' i, (Si : <>l • • :".•,,!! :: »"'i, I Hi ill ''"tiiili: . "I illl|lHillH:l:!"Si
iniiiiiiH iitiiii: iiiR^^ :;:ii,,H^^ : liiiiiii '!inm.tir'"i> ,iiiii',,i'Vm"'fit1r.••';iiif 'i1!,,.',i; s?,ii.:iii; if)1,wz • i" • "i mm tfiiiiir-
Hi,, "i I'llliH"; ii" iinililii' I, ,",, „' ' I " :', ' „ 'iiii' ililin^^^^ .'Illlllirii' ',1,!!
liir i'
Ita^ !|lllit Hitf
!ijiii jw.;J*rsiM»i<1 iliiiii,:?.a;;•'';"i'lti».•*,*iSiu'•. i,;'" fc*.• „,; iiiliF Mti'tei Siis! KttVfKi liiiiiii:'! iisi ;i1: ii-fWi,:-ri a^~,,.•;;;•:' ii,, si
fi,; •y.M'.'mty i::/'!.'!1')!!'!1 ii ;JH"^, )' WW.\ iii,* ;i."1 i! OWS M
, 3
p;, if i
nHifiiiiiii'QiiB iiiiw^ ii iiiim iiiiiv^^ ijiiiif -,: • i'"!,;),,, 'I1?' iiiiii 'i "i'"!'!,);"! ii'iiiiinii,!,,: •-,v:ts :•:»:: i'1,,
,,* i \. aattHliiifil- Ma.*iifl, lii:i '
•liJH^ iiiiiin t> iiiiiiiii'iiniii11:1: :':• :miii-"f .liiiiiiEi. i IIIR >' . wAiMitiiiii>i. IB,
-„ I"" ,lf" „: „ " „"" I'illS 'f-lii,t'.e «ii: „ in , i',i, «*!• iitil t;HMKH!l'li,,,!::!,', ;,<":a^:iwwr*'!'iai,i-.iii 'i:!''11-:! ,sms -i"::i!'!, 111 '„-•
„''',": v ii",,!iniii! it1 '"',! ,iii'!,ii,,,iiiii'i,,:,iii I'l'iiu:," ,,,iiiii|iiii,,,,,:,iiii,i,: ,,1,1:1 in "iiiiiii,:„:"!iiiiiii",,,,„,,,,111,11 'liiiii
I"1;;1""'',, f* ' "Si II !«'» •ilJKK !i itK-Ee Mi,
, ',',,i:,, iiii I:"' liiii,"'!,, i us"'"'':,,(, it i i;: „ iiii'iiiiiinii! 1,1 iiiii:, ,'ii i';;:;, :'"i"i«,!iii,, ,»,i 11111:11111111,' iii'1' n,':!", i'lirats"1, im,1,,,' ,,,,1 ifi'iii::
ti'ii!,!^ '',!,! 'lilin^^^^^^^^^^^^
;"!,! Illliilii '"'11111:' ililli I
..Nbit;: „ i ''ilfl: Jlf ;'X7 ft i1 • WifiKOK':,' VtWtf: fi:; &&&'• f't'-' *»': •'" •* 'I"! i '.^'1**! "J'' '^ f'S' ''•' ! :!:l-" ! ••'"'' 'VF' ^SS : ''*":f»t>"S • * f Jf': •'' "^«• ,
ti": ilili' 'is .f1' ;i iiiii 'ill, I ";$lyi",'WK "'' iiiiill,ii:1 Tii'TaiHfrSIfMifc litl-Sij ii• :i'rvi i' iiii'1," V i; !'!:!!F"• ::« " i>i^KW-.H jfflRiitj"'ii!Matfil:,«: fi' ,,:l;i *' 'SSfc'siTt"JB4,; ,:,i» 'Mfli'M I
iiiidiriiiiiii iqiiiiniii1:" ."i.1 i1, iiiiiif i, ii n ,„
ill 'W ll«<'!" "" iJIIH'l111, .1'" Nil III"" llllijIUII'l i
, II,, ,I Ii1, ,„ '""I I l,"i,,, In I'll llll,' ' ' ' il '".HIIIHB",!,,!, ,,l|,,:,, „,'' III ,,,'llll,l,ltt l,,l|, I ,,;,!,,, i I!"'i'',',,"l': ",1'illl, ' ,!, Ill
IIIVIII'ilK'.!!!!^!!!!!!,, ""Illicit!, ,1! I ,illll I
WKII--•:,"[
ilillB iill ' .ijfil: IW^^^^^^^
t: Ill ' IbiifiilRiii.'' illia illlllE A" '",,., "i > Mil.::' i^WIK .i':..... .,1.!IB^XifiC,:VJtStaMI1 !W i:l!( rr.'!
ii1' i.;;;::).":... m Kii 'iiiW! ^iiiiia i;. i..: m,xSill* i i*."^ • i-.' y ii; iii i... nEJi1 '• iRi!'. :«^^^^^ .: i..
I
1 'liili iliiii||||li< ' «l»l!|i i|!!l!l irl
' ....... ' ...... 4 ..... II1':1 iU!. U1 < .
'"i . ! IIP l-i:,,!,!,,
m MIIIIT 4; HIT* a\y\\» •'«' unr iiinJ1"
»*' t •; i''»i: » ....... liiii: ...... "m:'"m, ....... h':1 ..... 111 ii;!..!:;!."':!:.:!,:'.!;,.1' ,,11":
•' II II'IPIP 'i IIII Alii ilil'lliuii'!:":' li"1 I I, IGlinullillliv'l '' . , Will I'll! hlllllillllllll.llB"''!' • ill Hill I1 ' , »!,*!,!, „„'"'!.'! ' n, :iiilll|i"i:' I.» Pill ilil< n M1 , ill I"1; ".Hi1" I": : < '? II1 " llM W,!!: , SlUjiil;1 n''If ' >| il,L, 'iliul: II I'yilll1 lilillillllP 'Ulill,, Ii '+ "''IfJUil'K1 i rU :: If Mr; .liillin, ::' '/I'.ill "tltli"'IIIIIH'JBlinilliilill.l,.. VSK 1 , „' jllllllli
'1 '"' '>":
Jill1:. "IhrV
in '.. 'Itllili,,1 Jlpil!1, 7 'illiiiJIillillllllllillli'i! .ifljlpil lljiVI " I'lijlll I
"J PI1 'MIMIl ' 1,,, , iliililllN' .ii;,,
-------
Appendix B
Appendix B-2.
Construction Start Methodology
This appendix describes the methodology used to estimate the number of construction sites
potentially incurring incremental costs of the Phase II Storm Water rule. In determining the
universe of construction starts, a correlation was made between the information obtained from
the fourteen municipalities on construction starts per disturbed area and data obtained from the
national building permits. The methodology consisted often steps. The appendix discusses each
step in detail. Note that the exhibits referenced hi the text are presented at the end of the
appendix.
Step One. EPA obtained data files from the United States Bureau of the Census indicating the
number of building permits issued by each building permit-issuing authority in the United States.
Data files were obtained for the years 1980-1995. The Census Bureau stopped collecting
nonresidential building permit information in 1995, which precluded the use of 1995 data in this
analysis.
The data files, covering 1980 to 1994, group the building permits into the following categories:
• Residential housekeeping buildings (single-family buildings, two-family buildings, three-
and four-family buildings, and five or more family buildings, residential non-housekeeping
buildings, nonresidential buildings)
Residential non-housekeeping buildings (hotels, motels, tourist cabins, lodges, dormitories,
rooming houses, and fraternity houses)
Nonresidential buildings (amusement, social, and recreational buildings; churches and other
religious buildings; industrial buildings; parking garages; service stations; hospitals; office,
bank, and professional buildings; public works and utilities buildings; schools and other
educational buildings; stores and customer services; jails and reformatories; and structures
other than buildings, such as marinas, boat houses, dog pounds, boardwalks, and outdoor
stadiums)
• Additions, alterations, and conversions of nonresidential and non-housekeeping residential
buildings (excluding "installation" permits issued to cover electrical, plumbing, heating,
and air-conditioning)
• Additions of residential garages and carports
• Demolition and razing of buildings.
Step Two. EPA summarized the data for building permits issued in 1994 in the 50 states, the
District of Columbia, the Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico.
Step Three. EPA removed building permit categories with a 400 and 600 series designation.
The building permits issued for Category 400 include additions, alterations, and conversions to
October 1999
Final Report
B-17
-------
Appendix B
residential and nonresidential buildings, and additions of residential garages and carports. These
structures typically disturb less than 1A acre of land or involve internal renovations. Category
600 includes the demolition and razing of buildings, which may not disturb land. If land-
disturbing activities were to occur following demolition or razing, these activities should be
included in the storm water permit application for the new construction activity.
" • • . * •'' I !•• .'•'.,
Step Four. EPA selected 1994 as the base year for developing construction cost estimates
„ ; because If wasJEe year of most recent data on building permits issued in the United States. The
cost analysis, however, used 1998 as its base year and the number of construction starts was
escalated from 1994 to 1998 using an average annual growth rate of 1.3%, which reflects the
__ __ ^ permits during prior years.
i iiiiiiiif11 jiiinngiiiiii Hi; i
Step Five. EPA grouped building permits into similar types of buildings and activities. The
following equivalents were developed based on commonly used zoning code descriptions and the
: ^j=^= -iijLjf i Census Bureau's definition of building categories:
i
,!!"
* cafe 103,104, and 105 represent other "attached" homes (e.g., apartments, townhouses,
'•'••• -'- •" : •'• '"•• ' -•' " ' condominiums);
11 I
::^^ codes 213,214,318,321, 322,324, 327, and 328 represent commercial establishments;
• code 320 represents industrial or manufacturing facilities;
• codes 319, 323,325, and 326 represent all institutional buildings (e.g., schools, hospitals,
churches, government buildings);
• code 329 represents parks and recreational facilities.
I
Step Six. EPA converted building permits to storm water construction starts. A storm water
construction start encompasses general construction activities occurring on a given site at a given
time; it is independent of the number of building starts. For example, if a contractor builds 20
single-family homes on a four-acre parcel of land, that contractor will require 20 separate
todding permits. The same development would be considered one storm water construction
IIIIIIIIIIIIIII'IIIHIIIIIIIIIIII i llilnHP in iiiinniiiiignii ... _ • • >ij
start, assuming it is part of a common plan of development or sale. Municipalities do not
ordinarily maintain construction records from a "storm water construction start" perspective.
Therefore, to estimate the scope of this category, it is necessary to translate building permits into
storm water construction starts.
In the EA for the proposed rule, construction data collected from Prince Georges County,
Maryland was used to translate building permits to storm water construction starts nationwide.
For this EA, EPA has supplemented that data with data from thirteen other local government
jurisdictions from around the country to develop new ratios to estimate the number of
'"
• ill
i111'ill iii
iiiiiii
111 ii II
IP (in
lull 1
Ill 111 III 111
iii
n
iii
•i
I'll11
'1 11! |i
iiiiiii
in iin ii
B-18
\ Hi n mi i i1
111 Ill il I'll"!
i i iiiiii in n ii in
II1 hi IIIIIIH
•ill1 Illlllil
i i1 1 ill 1 iiiiii 111
1 Illlllil Illlllil
nil i I
1 11
111 Hill 111 111
•B
i i
1, !'!"'
in iin nil in in i
1 Ihilllliillll
ill 1
Ill 'I)
III Iin 11 III n
Uiiilll 1 illl'l
•i iiiiiiii iiiiii in in iii in
Final Report
i IP >i) i iii i iiimii iiiiiif, ii iiiii i ," if
I 'nil "i l11' MI " l i i ' i1 1 11.!
Ill IIIIII III niNi! 11111 111 1 llll'i 1 11 i 1 ii 111 Ill ,11 111 |i|||l IIIIIIII III 1
ill i 1 i I '£ ,'j*] "I, I'i'i'il'JiflWEi'in'Slfl'U
1 1 ll1 Illl'l H
!
111 iiMillil Illlllil 1
October 1999
iiiiii i
1
Id Will ii
mi iiiii'iiiiiiii iii)
i &
IIVlllllllllIllIP Illllli
1 1
.'!,-
in T
ll 'ill
-------
Appendix B
Exhibit B-2—1 categorizes the construction type, the number of housing developments, the
number of housing units constructed, and the number of commercial, industrial, institutional, and
parks and recreational units constructed by size in acres. Exhibit B-2-1 also lists the number of
units per development within the single family homes category. These data are required because
the assumption that one building permit equals one storm water permit does not apply to single
family homes. (The derived values based on this data are designated in the equation used in step
seven below as SFD with the relevant subscript. For example, SFD,/3 equates to the average
number of single-family homes built on developments disturbing between zero and Vz acre.)
Step Seven. EPA developed ratios to estimate the number of building permits issued by
construction type (residential, commercial, industrial, etc.) for each size category. The size
category is equivalent to the land area disturbed by an individual development. Exhibit B-2-2
indicates the percentages used to estimate the type of construction by size category. For
example, Exhibit B-2-2 gives a percentage value of 1.39% for Residential Detached home sites
on construction sites that disturb between 0 and 1A acre. This value was derived by dividing 252
(the number of units built within this size category, shown in Exhibit B—2-1) by 18,134 (the total
number of units built for all size categories of residential detached homes, also in Exhibit
BT2-1), and multiplying the result by 100. Exhibit B-2-2 shows that approximately 86% of the
building permits issued for single-family homes were constructed in developments disturbing
more than five acres of land.
The following example uses the methodology to convert the number of building permits into
storm water permits, as outlined in Steps 6 and 7 for Alabama.
Example:
In 1994 the State of Alabama issued 14,459 single-family building permits, 558 multi-family
building permits, 2,543 commercial building permits, 175 industrial building permits, 233
institutional building permits, and 775 parks and recreation building permits. The following
equation was used to convert these numbers to construction starts:
N4 = (SFB -SFm x SFP4) + (MFB x MFP4)
(InstB x InstP4 ) + (P&RB x P&RP4)
(CB x CP4) + (IndB xlndP4)
where
N4
SFB
SF,
D4
SF
P4
Number of construction starts between four and five acres in State X
Number of building permits reported by the Census Bureau in State X for the
construction of single-family detached homes.
Average number of single-family homes built on developments disturbing
between four and five acres in the municipalities where data was collected (from
Exhibit B-2-1).
Percent of single-family development plans disturbing between four and five
acres of land in the municipalities visited, as compared to the total number of
single-family development plans reviewed in the municipalities visited (from
Exhibit B-2-2, converted to a decimal, e.g., 4.87% = 0.0487).
October 1999
Final Report
B-19
-------
Appendix B
HiiiV^
= Number of building permits reported by the Census Bureau in State X for
dwellings.
|H -'MM mHt*® * '! >*im '' •• iiiilii ~ J &
'Kffjfss,t«A £& gas.* MFp4 = Percent of multi-family dwelling plans disturbing between four and five acres of
Jand HLJ^^IpIffli&palities visited, as compared to the total number of multi-
.^s^,.=i[.; =;., :; sr^v.sj^iiis;!:^,'sE,^fjmilj; dwelling plans reviewed in the municipalities^ visited (from Exhibit
v^mm^'m
"! £•£'&
«ii: vis.*!. "! i iHiir ( HI! "iin
= Number of building permits reported by the Census Bureau in State X for
•;'';« ,.' J^'^'^ '"IZ"","'111 111 ;«p,-,,n "111."' ', 111,1,. 11 11 I i 1 III i ill 111,1,
p = Percent o^coinmerd^ reviewed in the municipalities visited
P^'JffiMii'lrtf-1 1M^^^^ a^five'a^rofla^as'comparedlo the total nu^g—
:: ;;,„; : Exhibit B-2-2, converted to,, a decimal). '
JndB — Number of building permits reported by the Census Bureau in State X for the
;:ii;i;':&=':::;:: ^^"*^> '•• construction of industrial establishments.
= Percent of mdustrial establishment plans reviewed in the municipalities visited
!tl 1—* '"" "~J--"--•'"- -"'""-; Between four "and "five acres bflandV'as "compared to the total number
„ , ,, ,;j..., „. eif!! t W Si^liMffiHt£knsr^Iiewed,^,!!!e."^Pl^!!!68,Y!5^ted.fei1
* !m i! I':, Ii "1 1'^HI' Ill i 11111"' 11 ^llllllllllll Ill i
ll'/'ll Ji:' ^IjllJ^i'^" =111 '""'"'Number' of building jpemiite' 're^r^biy'^e^ensias Bureau in StateX'for' the
: 1,! iiiiil "|l!|!-; 1,!' titbits ml1^ lip: •'JS::, i iilonstraction of institutional establishments.
Instp4 = Percent of institutional construction plans reviewed in the municipalities visited
:=^^^^^ :,:::;.,:: ::::::,,::; i •. • ii: i: •==: ==..::::: •:.:: disturbhig between four and five acres of land, as compared to the total number
;:" ';;;;=/'' '•',o/.jinsti^Qn^ic^Hg^|rjucJjon plans reviewed hi the municipalities ^sited (from
in
i!;:i!ii!;^iir;i^!!!:B :; v-mt>a
= Number of building permits reported by the Census Bureau in State X for the
r~ ;~£i:-~ f- • ;;••:;• -; -~ -:: ~^.' ::—:;::,:::,9onstruction °f parks and recreational facilities.
P&Kp4 = Percent of park and recreational facility plans reviewed in the municipalities
:"":"". ~ """.":;"; ':;=^ "ivisited disturbing between four and five acres of land, as compared to the total
'*i'. .^."'.;.. !!l^."l™ "=~1'. "Sufhber of plans for parks and recreational facilities reviewed hi the .
municipalities visited (from g^j,^ B_2—2'9 converted to a decimal).
i •;;•; *«_- -I; - •" - _"; : ~:: • ;t5s5ig' tKc ^lab'ama data gives the following resuhs:
iiiiiii miml ;. "ii •' ii,:'.'N4= (14,4507(884/44) x 0.0487) + (558 x 0.10843) + (2,543 x 0.0507) + (175 x 0.0515) +
x 0.0722)
;;:;;:;:, ™ •;;:; ':'K»=35+61 + 129+9+14+56
li.'i;;™ ii'Ili: , '"'I'' • Ik;!'1!, £V* '•
jUiJIiil ,:w!inniK n i in ill 11 i iili in i n ii i n i MI i in i i ii in n|i n i|iiiinii|iniin
^^;:-:Ms value is reported in Exhibit B-2-3 in the Alabama row under Construction Starts four to
---::-••'"•; ; •;-'• ""five Acres as 304 starts.
Step Eight. EPA collected and reviewed state erosion and sediment control regulations during
i between one and five acres (Phase II) that are
i •; •:'.•.Brffiiirat n •»<«,!• '; f : j '"i :"> a ;;»" •*, *•:• • »*v*fm "^, • ,, - „,. , ,r ..,, , ,^^S1999
iil v : tiiliii: iili:i:; ^'t^ .n||plwtw:l^«^jililiiiffl Mi,';i4li^i:ft1V:'^?j;/iS!st^':''l. I iiiawiS^ i«a(fi;'j'?wlM. HwM
;|h,,! a,:-iaiiS '\iilf t^f^'-XS^^MMiit^X if%fflH(liiliitiil(irvt i,; J!fc''Si'•,;',''v'1 •$&' 'ii SHtSi.S'.'.SI.^S'
»;;l|K^^ 'i1™^^ i:;l!J':;::^^ i!!!!!¥ •!^:;«lllllll!ll::,ill'l:w:A 101^^ i,1'1,!
-------
Appendix B
equivalent to EPA's final Phase II rule requirements. In states that regulate construction starts
that disturb between one and five acres, or a subset of that acreage range (Georgia, New
Hampshire, West Virginia, and Wisconsin) those starts were eliminated from the analysis
because they already have sediment and erosion control requirements similar to Phase II. The
following states have equivalent programs:
Connecticut (all starts)
Delaware (all starts)
District of Columbia (all starts)
Georgia (two- to five-acre starts)
Maryland (all starts)
Michigan (all starts)
New Hampshire (two- to five-acre starts)
New Jersey (all starts)
North Carolina (all starts)
Pennsylvania (all starts)
Puerto Rico
South Carolina (all starts)
West Virginia (three- to five-acre starts)
Wisconsin (three- to five-acre starts)
Step Nine. The Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program directs municipalities hi the coastal
zone to require erosion and sediment controls for construction starts disturbing less than 5 acres
of land. Coastal municipalities are required to have construction erosion and sediment control
requirements in place before issuing Phase II permits. EPA's cost estimate includes only those
states and counties that do not have enforceable policies and mechanisms for erosion and
sediment controls at construction starts. EPA eliminated construction starts located in CZARA
states and counties (as identified by EPA Coastal Nonpoint Finding Status. April 22,1998)
where CZARA is, or is expected to be, used as the primary enforcement tool. As a result, all
construction starts in the states of Florida, Rhode Island and the Virgin Islands as well as starts
from CZARA counties in Alaska, Massachusetts, and Virginia were excluded.
Exhibit B-2—3 indicates the number of storm water construction starts by state and size category
after all equivalent programs have been removed.
Step Ten. Finally, EPA chose to examine the Phase II construction universe, as presented in
Exhibit B-2-3, by climatic zones. Climatic zones reflect regional variations in rainfall intensity
and amount. This step involved estimating the percentage of land area within each state
corresponding to a given climatic zone and then using these percentages to determine the number
of starts within each zone. The results are presented in Exhibit B-2-4. The total number of
construction starts between one and five acres is 123,145. This estimate was reduced by 15% to
account for waivers, resulting hi slightly more than 110,223 starts. This is the number of Phase
II construction starts that is used throughout the cost analysis. To determine that 21.1% of all
starts may be regulated by Phase II, EPA divided the number of Phase II construction starts by
the total number of permits issued nationwide (110,000/522,000 = 21.1%).
Summary
This appendix identifies the methodology used to identify the number of construction starts
potentially incurring incremental costs of the Phase II Storm Water rule. The Phase II
construction universe comprises 110,000 construction sites ranging from one to five acres hi size.
October 1999
Final Report
B-21
-------
V" ' I11:1" "' '• •' i I '. ' ; ' '' ' "" '• " .'""i I"11"'"" ) ' ''•''•'" '
11 il i : l I I ', : l ::!!!! !• l - , - • , 1:1 : :: i in: I , •
JitlliK^ IHlW IlllllW^^ iXW tm IK !Hin
IM^^ {ii IH^^ i!i> iin^^^^^ ft&ii^i-ifttojwsi in
ll|l|llllll lllllllllll Illllllll III lllllllllll lllllllllll Illllllll
1
s
ra
3
u
in ii i n 1 1 1 1 ii iiiiiii 1 1 i iiiiiii i i "g
in1 i ill 111 llllll 111 IP III ill IIHII 1*9
S
2
iiiiiii in iiiiiii iiiiiii i i iiiiiii iiiiiii i c:
0
o.
•o
llllhliilini'l 1 ,| ...... llilillii'";!, .!»'" Till,;,, ..... fill ...... 1'IPIM^
'
ii jiiiiiijjiiii, iiniiii:! iiii ....... miiiii1 iiiin ..... :,, ninihi; iiiiiii i Sir iiiiv ii ( '* '' ..... i1 ii?li iii
"',' JI
HI
""/A 5.5
m J® »SI
'
* *
1
1
P*
O
J?
'• if C
*• i o
• .'"1
-,J
a
:'.y.
111 .-y;
' 'in *
, - 7irw
•»I
"i o
" 5!
"9 a
i* g
5.
* C
o
3
MB
***
S
' * J '
<- • «:
S
* •§'
«.
T *
, »! -L • ~*2*°.
' " — _
,:, , -, '"• / »-;
. r ' : Sp'
' ' '•§.'
- .. . • y:
:? '- "^:
-."jS-s'T
' II S
•;--i^I
. ,-TQ':
- ....; I., . ;;
" , • • CM . -4**
' ^ I?
•s It
I. ^ «-»
« s-- - ^ - :
Resldentia
J:V Hoi
Number of ,
Developments
* l[, IIII' lip ' NMll'I'l ,,IIL[ „*'', n,uPljJ lj> il',,;,/
• ^s^s1.*
>:v":" ;"l ,":••: :t> o*
., ;; ',r ..":«/]!• -r'-.=»:;g.
^•'-•V;*|$-
; , ' , . *••;- o • ••
;•• -i.
1
s
fl
Vi
*~*
oo
m
f»j
cs
o
•~^
cs
cs
2
; > 0 acre <. 'A acres
I
cs
'/s acres s 1 acre
c
vo
—
Tj"
CO
•— 1
*o
g
t< CO O
cf W °
203 . p
.« *c £3 3
> 3 PJ "5
§ jg P« §
«"§ > 1
5 o> ^*
.S "® *O -4_i
00 c^" 4> C c
1C" O O *, c •
> .a -s s i. "S
•^ *^ ,-» W o OT
£?< .S 3 -^ =>
i § I 1 1 1
a 1 1 1 ^ 1
o G jd' 4^ e
•9 fa o e -s I
§ S " » g 0*
*~1 «2 c "£ f^« >
C* Piii S ^ OJQ 4>
O •« ^ CX gj ^3
"§*§>* S 3 *o
fC *Q j— w IH /"
53 »S c3 ^S *^
»j co tj;; ctf c
^=3 « -S ^ §
5\* • •» G "3 T*^i O
g g 2 -° & *
•3 -a ^ £ g 2
y'c Ss § S •§
"S "2 =1-1 a. S
2 -o s o sr
•|| | s | 1
HJ= 2 S => s
e« ~ o 3 js e
C g ^* . C3 O rt
S M ^ ~ ^ « "3
^ § i 1 i J 1 1
«-:= §cl<§ 23*0
eO ol g •§ 1 S
•3-c SPSS? ~ — "2
jjl
E? « & a- g -a S) o
cg^-gag g-s:g
S ESP MS™
•a 5 a. g §. ^ _- -S
t!
2£? ^3S<*HE_.3-s
.c °>3o l^llj-al
2JS s 2 5 5 J =5 I
2o ^S_g^«-ae
IS ftfSllfj
«•= liJTSsHs
jf* ^ I^S-g §•§
s| 111 l^f-ij
Hill IP I
tss -«-°«i:|~5
3^. — • «8 — n £ T3 °
<* ifiis-ii
§.f IgltJSl
>. C K *-< K 4> t- **2 ui
It l!-j!|Jj2
5-22
Final Report
October 1999
-------
Appendix E
U
o>
53
I
>»
2
53
o
a,
S
s
i
Ed
g:
J%'
E
fj
31
If
o «»
a -<
VO
VO
-5
I
it
it
i-i
a .-g
"S"
v.
11
I I
•s J
IP-
«l
S-8
S,^
%> s
si
S §
October 1999
Final Report
B-23
-------
•IS
1^^ iijf: ^^^ li
'
'^^ (Ill IF illliil1! lEllllilii: Ullllir ''MM' •. •'Wl.'lt.i, lllllIP »M**f HW ..'."It t' 111' 1,1 "il
I
™ • " '• ; --- •••' • ••'" " ' ' ll"ll";l"•'•*• ni "" ;;—i;;1:1::I,::':1:'!„'.'.,~"'- .
^ii ii^^
Exhibit B-2-3. Construction Starts by State and Acreage with Starts in States with
'
:^'±^;^:": -^ 'I;;";, S^
•EEIIS^ iifs IIIIIIIN ,,,(1:
' «,,:, , .
illl'I'S,'!.; A'/MB.CTM ..illiaFTi
•••HI:1 nil 'I'ijl, ,ii" vtliillilllir1 ,11111111 1:, Ml lull Hi Hi
iiKi!: ijiiimi1 'Si IB:11, :>,:,: , iiiiiir,! iiii1
:; i;
-^rurrris,^ ••; ; :, ::;:;:::
H^^ -:''|fB
IlllllH^ "! '" JlllUii1 "'I
Pttl3BlliMlI!ji'.'1t|iii(^WTtil
1 liiiiiiri: fiiiM^^ : IRMI* mi
fflllffllllltlE.ffitf'JfcnMI
ii^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ m
!
; 1
:J!B^^^^
lillllllH^
Iiiiiiii iH iiiiiiiii "iiii1 in n i till in iiii
IH "ill t^9t
;
*
'.
liiiirfw i^hdn^
nigi'l: i iia
l»r'3fWlfc!t';&ii Illlllllllllllillilll
: ii;
H.
'—, ;:
llllllil!l||liiLllll!!i!l!llllllllli||l!'i'':lliilii»'ll||i!||l|n "1, ,i 'MLJllnBB'PPPi.lPI
i iilii'iiiliniili iJlHUll. '•iiiijniii , .<.|' iiJiJIIijlliiirllllllilllllllllllir!!!
.{ , j«; ,„ - ,|1 / f .,' i _"„' '
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
*•* t»*» •
California
Colorado
Connecticut
&C
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
^ouisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
few Mexico
New York
"forth Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
1-2 acres ?•'?
908
25
1,940
737
,669
1,153
0
0
0
0
2,684
563
688
3,005
2,603
1,109
963
908
1,023
871
0
393
0
2,433
732
1,494
242
889
1,068
474
0
403
4,847
o
229
2,619
706
:','. ':2-3ac"res::^,i
480
13
997
392
,368
623
0
0
0
0
0
282
363
1,565
1,349
575
502
483
530
443
0
197
0
1,254
383
785
127
451
549
0
0
215
2,443
119
1,375
367
•;7-;"3-4 'acres;1'. ..".
322 '
9
727
273
2,269
• 443
0
0
0
0
0
190
248
1,044
854
367
322
334
336
259
0
118
0
757
246
531
83
283
413
0
0
146
1,519
77
931
235
•. 4^5 acres ~
304
8
907
275
2,722
409
0
0
0
0
0
243
242
1,035
793
341
300
315
323
233
0
122
0
650
226
524
79
300
537
0
0
133
1,645
68
924
221
Total (1-5 acre sitesjil
2,014
56
4,570
1,678
15,028
2,628
0
0
0
0
2,684
1,279
1,541
6,649
5,598
2,392
2,087
2,040
2,213
1,806
0
829
0
5,094
1,587
3,334
531
1,923
2,567
474
0
898
10,453
493
5,849
1,529
iiiiilil
'I'- iiJE mm IS ill! fi flM'
i',m:*St,i"m':
1 nlllVflllLllllllall1 N
:ll!':liyilHIIIIC:iii:,lA
, "vm,
t«^^^^^ 9WSS ItaWYMlM^^^
! iwfesjftwifl' if , ; :.
".ft'XBM ••'1. llIIIFIlliniKiri'lli'jl Wllliiillliiililli'niiJiiiigiiili iltilillili iiiilii1, iftttCAi. ilnillllllllii'BI IB'
'mll'lliti'Mliif iii'i llliiilliit 'S1,1!1 'Jllill1 ii.!,.,'!]11''!'.!!?11!. •', JiUHilliil'li: liM1' .'linlJ:1!.. llnlilll'i'illllli 'I'/'llillH'iJInl 'ifi'i'iPIPl;::?! iPFiPPlBPiiiiPii'lH
.niiNW Rill iillllh, 'ili!?1!'1;!!!!!»Ul! ill ill!11'' li \ lll'il ""JlSlf'l' r;"11:' "ilMi;1,: PRiiHil, ii:1 I'J'i'iiiii.':" IE JERIIiliJlliiRlilllllllllL'ilII'l"lllliRi
'/till Illlllili irSI'illllillllllll!!!.. ;'!l!i ,„ K K!^ VE& 1l i1'1! "d!1!! ill'1' 11 '.i^lPiii.!!!:'!!!!!!!! ill '; LMl illlPi"1 ?«li'", f, ^IlllVifailPlllliIllllillillllilVPlI;;! H" JJIIilK J'i
n illllllllllllllllllllll! IRIIIUIII'hillljilllllllllLiiilll/ >i. il!niil||liP!.iigiPPiPPniiilinniBli:i!:i1jj.' iJllllllll!1 "I,1*!!!:,ili:< BPHIi Imiiiliil' ill1, ni!...PP!lll !!!iip" L I illiP1' '* '.Ji'"' 'iiiiKjailPlillPPnihji' n! Jlliil!' ir I'lllllllllllii: fl11 H .In!' JIIKVlfflil'liiliHlllJllii', S^llpiiPB:, InP!" ,l if SfllljIKiliI" "li
•m\
r:;,," :: ^:K^^^^^^^^^^^ i '''j^wiiiEi! iiin^ .iiEi [
"lllllfi'iilF, ii:!"!i""l!!!i» JR- ,.i| ;, .iiiliiH'Rraiiili;":11!!« • i- >il.. J'.lliilBII'liii.i »iiii|iii!!|lllkii|ll!li!llllllllll|i||lllllji|'' IBI!"!;! If .n.a'il
: '!:!;i;ill|l;t!ij||.]| i', i«,';., iiliO ,l RiiK1 'i V A,!' ; >'' >\' .ill! R",!* iiilB!11' 'In!'1! i|j|||l!lllllll|lli .1 Ilijillliaii" i i1 • i PR
'' V"1'
.RiI^B^j.MiiRilIli'l.W fir,, ,"Vl"\' J.N
.nlillllRI!1 i/nmi;1 • Riuu'Wllll
ZSX: .S^-24 ' Final
I:1!! | MTlfflSiJDEj'PJl^l^Wlj.J ^,iiif.:'''Wlf':(lf^iifa»ii| |R^^^^^^^ *y ' tywjwi f^st.-'. - j
October 1999
'9S :''TSt!;yiSfiiff''9ii.:"''*^A;i
-------
Appendix B
Exhibit R-2-3. Construction Starts by State and Acreage with Starts in States with
Equivalent Erosion and Sediment Control Programs Removed (continued)
t'..-~-isA--ff]^3iM^^^
o. * ,*- '-i!' '&-'-»'•>, *'+/!)*• -,l.^i-: •*%
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virgin Islands
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Total
('f^Zt&cfesjjj:
1,271
0
0
0
0
477
1,510
4,571
733
426
0
1,370
2,034
562
3,082
157
58,572
i!^.;aeres;' [
675
0
0
0
0
246
799
2,371
393
217
0
717
1,065
286
. 1,396
82
28,477
• •: 5^feacrJes»
470
0
0
0
0
149
541
1,601
279
129
. 0
459
745
0
0
52 '
. 17,764
'JlpRS'Sicre^ftf
458
0
0
0
0
132
511
1,715
266
115
0
412
802
0
0
46
18,332
l^^o^llli^cre^fte^; -:'•
2,874
0
0
0
0
1,004
3,362
10,259
1,671
888
0
2,957
4,646
848
4,478
337
123,145
Exhibit B-2—4 further refines the analysis of construction starts by correlating the total
construction starts of each state with the total amount of pollutant loading. By subdividing each
state by climatic zones, a relationship can be formed between the pollutant loading of each state
and construction starts.
Exhibit B-2-4. Estimate of the Numbers of Phase H Storm Water
Construction Starts by State and Climatic Zone
^jSfate'lls
Alabama
Alabama
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
Arkansas
California
California
California
Colorado
K:'^6sSjimaptic^&e^atejg6ry •."
P
N
T
W,X,Y
D
N
P
A
C
D
D
•'- •\%-6f;SfiifeiantlLriaii^2?
25
72
3
100
100
40
60
12
40
48
8
^^ifrlsl^eirepp-
503
1,450
60
56
4,570
671
1,007
1,803
6,011
7,213
210
October 1999
Final Report
B-25
-------
!
r^-^. Istimate of the NHmbers of Phase II Storm Water
Construction Starts by State and Climatic Zone (continued)
'
I 1 if, ^ ' ,:i; ' UmM
'•!1H^ Hf ijHii'MIill
•i ','t" ! mil
> • ' • ' - • "'
1 SS^liTKST "1 » 55S "
'ifKmtmmm,' • ' 'iiiii :.in
ihiiiniiiijiiiiiiii'iiinii,! »in ii,, i,n ,!!,::' .it. IIIIPIIU IF,
I'lllllllim,,] illl; ; I'P iiiDfbi Vjl1'"! I1!1", iKj 1 |i;
: 'siifiii! TI; , IE [f i
™saK:;r™.! ",r. •«)',;
Iiiii!1! 4 lilM^^ ••""!» IIIM^^^^
iiEi iiiiir:: li-iiiii , ;rHStartsl-r5. acres- ; -.'
1,524
710
184
0
0
0
0
0
268
1,959
456
1,279
539
185
817
6,649
4,423
1,176
2,392
1,690
396
1,856
184
1,527
686
1,806
0
0
0
829
0
• o
509
2,853
1,732
1,539
48
i
'—26, , , Final Report October 1999
• IIIH'L • '"; •' l"j" • '""" ':i11 •"• :1 " • " "•i-r •''•
'-' i iH-'-liMll-' IB .:• ' : « 1 "II «'
i iJilil'i.Hf '« , |i ''lillll P'llil l|;'l;'| i||||, ,|f lm|!,|i|'' ' , 'I,'';1 ihilli ,' hi', ' I'l, L , , ll'libilil" llli II Illlllllll'l lil'l'i Ii
it»^.
-------
Appendix B
Exhibit B-2-4. Estimate of the Numbers of Phase II Storm Water
Construction Starts by State and Climatic Zone (continued)
'? 'Stater y~
Missouri
Missouri
Missouri
Montana
Montana
Nebraska
Nebraska '
Nebraska
Nevada
^ew Hampshire
New Jersey
^ew Mexico
New Mexico
^Jew Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Carolina
North Carolina
North Dakota
•forth Dakota
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oklahoma
Oklahoma
Oklahoma
Oregon
Oregon
Oregon
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
•uerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
•V * ^Climatic Zone Category ' • -
M
N
P
E
G
•M
G
H
D
R
R
D
E
G
R
N
P
T
G
F
M
N
R
H
M
' N .
P
A
B
D
E
N
R
Z
R
P
% of State Land Area '
47
46
7
66
34
20
43
37
100
100
100
57
14
29
100
16
57
27
6
94
42
31
27
68
8
19
5
37
24
27
12
74
26
100
100
64
Starts 1-5 acres !
1,567
1,534
233
350
180
385
827
712
2,567
474
0
512
126
260
10,453
0
0
0
30
463
2,457
1,813
1,579
1,040
122
290
76
1,063
690
776
345
0
0
0
0
0
October 1999
Final Report
B-27
-------
Illlllll I
lllllllllllllllllll
111 111 III
Illlllll II 111 Illlllll 111
Appendix B
"! I
Exhibit B-2-4. Estimate of the Numbers of Phase II Storm Water
Construction Starts by State and Climatic Zone (continued)
1 1
1
1
1
1
nil inn innnnii n nil inn i in inniini i n inn mi in nun
i
iiiiiii iiiiiiiii1 iiiiii iiiiiiiii in in iiiii
fiiiiiB ii hi iiiii r
iiiiiiiii nun n in i n i iiiiiiiiii n i n i iiiinn
i
i
i i
• in i i ii • MI i inn ii n iiiii|iiiii
II III HI IIIIIIIII II INI 1 Illlllll
i 111 i| III IIIII illiii II ill IIIIIIIIII Win I
1
1 Illlllll 111 Illlllll III 1 II II IIIIIIIII II Illlllll 1
1
»
IIIIIII 111 Illllllllllll IIIIIII III 11 III II III Illllllllllll 1 Illllllllllll
II II Illllllllllll 111 111 1 IIIIIIIII Illllllllllll
f ,
,: ' :
;; i : . !
r ""' , • < r I *
j IF State >
South Carolina
South Dakota
South Dakota
South Dakota
Tennessee
Tennessee
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Utah
Utah
Vermont
Virgin Islands
Virginia
Virginia
Virginia
Washington
Washington
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Wyoming
Wyoming
Climatic -Zone Category '"••'*
T
F
G
M
N
P
D
H
I
P
• T
D
E
R
Z
N
P
T
A
B
E
N
K
M
D
~ E
G
~4 %6f Stateliahd Area
36
35
50
15
76
24
11
44
27
11
7
67
33
100
100
40
46
14
30
56
14
100
63
37
27
43
30
Total Starts— 1994
Estimate of Total Starts' — 1998
istimate of Total Starts Adjusted for Phase II Waiver Provision •
'. s Starts 1—5 acres y~K
0
351
502
151
2,555
807
1,128
4,514
2,770
1,128
718
1,120
552
888
0
1,183
1,360
414
1,394
2,602
650
848
2,821
1,657
91
145
101
123,145
129,675
110,223
;4«
"ii™?! "|!
SsPJS 1994\v5g 1.3%. This growth rate is used to estimate 1998 construction starts from the 1994 baseline. However,
EPA recognizes the growth rate for construction starts fluctuates yearly and does not necessarily increase each year.
iiniiiiiiiiiiiiiii'iii'in jiiiiiiiiiiiimiiii'iiiiiii;,,'!! '" sn 11.. 'iiiiniiiii 111111 in: \\:>?„; mini1' fip iiiiiiiiiirviiEiiirnin nini'"i?:"!1, fonii"' • "vw :i; f: mam n.•; n jiiim, ••,,1 m;,i; iiiii'iwiiijiiiiiiiiiiuji"' n<'jnniviT1,m i1,» ,,:»T' tv i PI in 111*1 ,in<;i iTH'jan•v\\ai i "n.i? • ^ i pir ,1,>,t
ilinniir NiEii rn iiiiii HUM,: iiiii11, f[i»,; i jpi,1,1:1: Twill1!!'11 diiiiiiiiniiiiiininii1 'iiiiiiiK „ .iiir ,fi"V' , j i,1 ,. ,/.;;:
iin", Mir'Al1111!,,!1!" »,,i. ,11,11,,, JIIILI.IIIIIII mil;"11™ ' , "< iiii'iiiiiiriiiiiiiii'iiiiiliiiiiiiiHii ii« i.fm.jiii i iii,ii;i|l;,!ir »\: «: .niii'iir
'lirilllii;,; if, llllh^ii'illllliniUllllllilL ilililHi1 jJH 'I,!!1 lli'jnilllllllll'n,': ,:|"i:|"i,: I" 'ilJiinili linlEI1 XK» 'iililNllliJiFli'.llllinnilllillllllllinil!1}!1;!'Illll'i ","i,,< '"IV i^'inTII'lJlllhltnii'"!'!'!''!!!!,!!,'"' illi I'lC'iV li'/llininnf'!"'!!!!'"!
-------
Appendix B-3
Model Construction Site Plans
-------
iiin^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
IJIilH^^^
..............
!!J!":! iiii!'YT:l^i»jiii;::!:M id '3 'iliiif LI ^fc'tf^MjiHiiifi^E*'
BW ...... M ...... ...... tsitfffl; ..... BKWfflK ....... I. ........ sir^wwaB .....
in^^^ ...... is ...... '.aip, ...... mw;B»viy'Wiiiimii»;: ........ .^i siT'Lh'.it
liBlllll MVWW' ilU1' > lllliri. "'ill'""!' . '
IK :! lit;
SIn Ifiif % ..... ii''*; , )• H • ' ' III, illHiii' * ...... i S ;' E "-f '
^^^^^^^^^^
il'TiiiiJliiiiii'1 ''" I1','!1' llliilliT1 i|i||IIFI "!
li.i',' i!»i|.,," i'1' lU,,,,;; ! "'.'i, i I'., nln' fli! f: iliPPpP
,m "ipi'i'i'is'ipnipuppiB, ji'isiii'if.iiiiiiiiii;:1,
jtiiiulp;,, iP'JPiilPBD'PiiP PJPIIiflllln'l I'l'jli iPPHPnpiPlP ,'ii ', n'l IIP'JIill I1"*": ' J; IliililHiilh,' i'^tlllllllllillinilllhWJSli,!!!1' PX,!1' ",
Hiinnni ..... lUiiP
' iiiiF'i , ii,;, i, ' :,,i ....... mi"1 <
I
'/•'IJ'atMES'fi'lB'lIri?'
i:iili;>ii£.i'r''!.1'$fiifcto!v,f1,1 I
li1:.!'1'! niii'i ''diiiii ij 'i' inn||iii|'i|«h,i
3! ..... I; i,;:,:::: :,::':: ..l.IKS'E : ...... "SS ,~iSt "^
, '„ TJIiiiil £:
,:i>ii ^»i tin -> ;" ' ......... ?i> ..... :* 3 ....... t ' '., ;; ' (iiii-" •' ' Oti:,
!!'"' r l!iiiiif'!il'l''!!'f ^':>''' 'ii^ ' ^ii'i '''^''"''filiillif ¥ ii!;^1!1!!1
, ,,'!i ..... ' i. lllf'lliTli kl i: Ji, .
' '''illi'llil"" lllllR'l.iiil.-iilll'ii'""!'!'"!' '''WLilllU11'1!11,! I
ili iilii,, ,,!;,!'i "Hill!,!1 ' f ilii, "iliigilii M iiiiifjii'1: ",iiliHilliilU'liluiiiiyji" Ju HlDillllllliiliifiillinl »
Enl : li'lllii'lilllllillll1''1,"1:::,!! "'., ' ,.«,;!!, l! .KJ iEMIE/nBIIIIIIIIIIPIij I'xlfllll'jinn,, i
llillhiiLllnillP "ElpPhFP'i'Pii "i, i ;, iiPhlllllllllllljiPPIIPIIIIIIPhPii'EnEK I t .l|||!<,,''f '.ill", . ,. >iliilli .< 'BIS'V i :" 1i"*lli
MH'il! y,,,, ai,:,!!,,'.!!!,; '.iiiyi'1!,:'1,,!!'Vn111'1 < II BlUlll
, "li't io,'11!!! '"'f'il >,; in,: niiiviii'''^,!!!!!! 'ml •' '/: iiiilni i*1 - i" 'tin liniiliiiiiiiiiRi'" ni"1" ':f\"'h ;i,i<;i i:i lini 4U i i / ,r ''': illW^^^^^^^^ :!i!i'i,,£ ^['iiut:!,,
1>iK'.>st'\it3'*ji":..i T..u.:iqLwri'*fit'.' js
illiiiliM^^^^
-------
Appendix B
Drawing Assumptions
Detailed drawings of the model sites (i.e., site plans) and the assumed BMPs that could be used
under the Phase II rule are found in the following pages. In developing the BMP mix for each
model site, certain simplifying assumptions were needed. EPA assumed the following would
apply to each site:
• The project area will remain completely denuded for six months.
• The site slopes uniformly from north to south.
• No structures, swales, or other drainage features will impede the flow of storm water from the
northern part of the site to the southern part.
• No run-on will occur from surrounding areas.
• 25' wide streets are located on the north and east sides of the site.
• A stream flows along the south side of the site.
• A 30' vegetated buffer is maintained between the site and the stream.
• . Sediment traps will be designed to a volume of 1,800 cubic feet/acre.
• All BMPs will be properly installed and maintained.
• An existing 4' wide swale runs along the east side between the project site and the street.
This assumption was made because erosion and sediment control plans typically need to
control runoff to and from various existing drainage structures. Although the site slopes
north to south, a designer should assume that a considerable amount of sediment will enter
the swale due to the constantly changing drainage patterns of a construction site.
October 1999
Final Report
B-31
-------
i'lii'1'!!: I
iiillililV '{i-'llllW^
", iiiaiiiilni" ;n, ' i,,,'' .•iariiiippiip 'iimiiiipp 'r" :,iiipp'iiiiir: jiiiimnp:,'j' p":, ,;i;!; i PIUIHIIII i«'i,pi'" IIIIBIIUIPIIT ' aiiiuiiiiiiiiinip iiiiiupp m • p" 'imni, ,n iiiiiiiiiiiiiinipipii'" PIP i ,i 'iiipipiiiip, <«IPMIII
jiii .ii Kiii"1 i" ii, iisv^^^^ iram, IP
''pJ-'t'iltMia^ KJiiill' ":l
v:'!»^^^ iiiiii lispiiirvju^^
' I''!'"''''''""!'!: J1' j!':p»p'P!
: »r ....... Py1!!!!!'!!!' 'iJP:'!"!11''1'11!! ,!
1:1'9 'I111! ;l'l'!!:!!!Jpli!l|!l|l:!!i!111!:
,: i itiWSi'.ti. "i'S iii'M^ I
!K "' « I -,„, i \ IK'1
'I "ill!!!1 •IKIilli
I" 'pi:,,, 'i llll'il .i'lvatJilKJ II :ii|ll"i:NI :> (.''IlllIEk " :i !:":ii';illl'" i;>i!l'.il!:!l"li 7. i "-'!"".nK'Ill :,i
BSi •'.: ,;>, >,/';; (F " '('HH^^^ « ..... [
I'D'iM^^
iiirHMipiii,;!:"; hiiipiiiiiiilDiii'iii'ipp'iiiiiir 'iniiiiiiiiipniiiiiip'iiii i
i'llil*1'1!!1. Ti'ii'llIB:1,:;
'i IKtff!)3t
llil'lii'i1";'"!,;,;;!}'«[''':! «»>>r''yi.i1f*i"'(i» ', iiillil",1
IIIIPIPIII i I P',:i II:I,,!. Pl'lV''"!;!!^!!!!^^'''!..''""!!!.!!!"!!!" !l,P',!!lli IIIi'll,'! I P
it sill,:; jiii1! si iiiiu1' ':i iii'iiii "iiiiii; ~ '"Jin iiiiiiu: '::"ii in ,,: ' 'if"1 ; ......
i'"^!!''^^^!!^^!!!!!1'!!:'11!, 'illlllllllllillll'llli!!! ..... ! i
:!, MU'-f;. WTW »:"'''»!
ai m^wis i! 'PJII^^^^^ N«! ms
^fime^s
v-m mum s
iiiiiiaiiiii,,,,! ..irruiflGBpn '•;,.'"'! , iiiii wratiiiiiiiiiiiiijpiiiviiiiiiMihiiiiiiPiiiiiiiiiiiiigiiiiii! iiiliwr11! Mici,1"}!', "' 'M""1!1!!1!;':!! "P"''..'^! ,::,;;:,:;!£ i"'1:!! .p ' i'"'!,: «: ' & .^h
, „ ' •. ;::1" im j/tin, ". " 'j1;] < • • ~?& • * • '^sm> ,• ;i!!,:fi * ' \" t -• "ii!1"' • • 'W A. K. Jiiii'iniiiiiniii;, 9& • vg ,• i;i!i
nUllii »i',"iii|iii1:,,', Jin Jill11''I111 i,,!!n '"""IW! Ill,ih, ''A .»!! W"1!!!* lihl,,,'1 i"" J'J"'1!1"'' fti'l1',,, ::„ 't WliiP i '„, "',',!• "S:1
•I;! , T'S'll...!!/'''!..!!!'!!!'!!!!.!!''!!!!'''''''!;!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!* • nil ""> illlllSi''''*'!!''!!!!; > II illU "Li I' i[' Til Ihli1"1? "i'1" IP 4, ,i'l|1',''!"",: '!' 'T1!1*!*', ,,II I'l'.* S
iip'l i !. Ii,hi' *'»„„«lli 'Ullull!!\:iip; j|"! IJW Till!"!!illll!'I,„• ,!':lii""!ll|iii!',': il|:!iii!lllliiil''"]• :.i|g;; >n'" I!' ^,\j<•'! <" I!' ' !, I'luFd,''"',;»:j;i!!>''"::!i|l"!:l:i;iii"!,;• ,1? ^gn'ili;") ;,ii'ii: Ji,jmilili;;^I'liinii!!!!"1' ni!,]:" illl HP' IHlllll1
i,' l»'i!'i||l'^^^^ niillll||ill>1'1 ITiiii'T'i ,i, '"'ilill1' ',"1 ;ii!ll:l',i: i!Mi iiTi ' ' ' T' "' ' ' T'illliiiilllliiii'ilIT "ill' ',>l::lliliiilllii" ,iili, 'Till I
...... imm ...... *: ..... s;! ...... i»mm ..... n ....... «^^^^^^^ ..... urn .......... str^ ...... w ........... MM ....... ..... £2!:$fc3flr45tt:fl
„„, ,! i!,,, ,„, ,„ ,„„„ II
1 it iniiiiiii!1. ]"„;;,, -«,!, ii'hdrcsi'iliilllii,'!1'i*11 "fm, ,,''111 !<::!' ..ri,,
'' 'mi11', qiiiliiii:1,", iCH" Illll1 JIUI IIIILW"'1'11, "!! .'I'Xi'1" ' H!l 'I'l&'IT!,!;,,!*1 ulllil ! I'lJ!1!111"1",",1!!1!;;"!1,;*!!!!!! , i.nr'J
' ' I •'• •-1'--':
IIIPIE iii 11"" M'llllllli:: 'IP "li
'I, 'llil"i,|. ''f'I 'ill
iiiiiiiiiLi i iniiiiijiip"' UniipiiiiiiiipipiiiiiiiipiiiPir'i,:! n ' ;„ "i|i'i;i"nh i,p i1:",,"" 'ill'i',/,11'"niiirij'L :,',« VL'In!:' „ ' "it!,; .I1'!.
iii'.,,,,!,.!/! "i : . '"»"
'' , 'Kii
iii i'iitii '
! 4'iii 1H1HK ..... i ........... lilF, J«tl ....... ' ...... ' I;:1!:; i .Hiiiilpit' '*> ;!; ' irillliiiiBi*1! '
iiiir1' 'iiiii
'Hi ! "IIM"1" ' ' ft ..... 'M";:,1! ....... 'i!!!111 ", iifi i!c ..... ........ ' ..... i'S' viSI- ' ..... ' i ..... KKi iii'v^^^^^^^^^^ ''1:
, " . f . i 'niiiiiw^^ m : iii •: i" ; ' , i/ :B^^
iii ':.i:lin^ ii'iM
'!",!,';:"!( a:1;.:'!;*!:'i '"SiSilt!, " ,' ;:H i • i SB1: li'IlliiiC "''BBiltiNKi 11
f^l 11! ff'IWK I -1.?' 1 '[J| I" -!;J ;.''!« I !ii
iiiiiiiii ninrn mi unii' T •'' , ''iiiiiiiinii'i;'" uiini".' ,:i iJ
IF" I IIP I i'lp i." ,""«' , 'II I111"" ,.i.',li .|IH S1' • Ji'Si ' flf", I • »,!!' l*: • i.i I,', ' „ «li'i .'li filiiiii'il If 'i1'1!1., i;" illl,.:" :•„,.'-1"! I'lli"!! I'' TOiilli' "i C,. v •, ,i I'i!'' -J,
iiiiiiiiiii,, mi1 i, iTiiiTiinii iiiiTi'ii ; jiiH' :,iv|iv':" 11111111*1:11111 i;»' 11111111 TTT ;,;„; • in
nny!iiinni;ii::ii'iii:!!iiiii i\iiiiiiiii:in!i!i!'r!llin:!;in^^
imi!1 ,* , I'l"" nil ...... v\\ « jt? "/ . hl : ,;,, ;;i|i|:i: n
iL ^
if :i,,ii: %, iW!11!11 i'i '"Ui" ii'iji1!1 f, ii11 '««; •,< ,
-------
-~iPa *
S;
ec
il I K
c
B
|
I*
rT'
^
lit ill!
i! alll iS'Si
!i!S!fe!l
«. !*8 a 5 »
s
a is fib i
i I |
*
-------
IP Ill
Ill
jiiiiii^ ill ;:!"!!• • W4«:r smxm
P1! I Mlillliilil' JSi lil'lff li! >,«I!" lull! IJIIIR; ill V ^ ill"'!' lllllli!! ill;1' 111
^^ HiR' illin^ lii'liil
.11, I " ,' ' 'l.'llllllll1 Inlll'IP',
ilflllB
lililEili, hlili, |!!:iililllliilkiHliinu li'ii/'ii. liillll I!: Jlif. •i!ii'*i|l!v"lllliiilll!!![ !"
!,,»'i,,nik iriniiir • inw'; mil "M, su,i>:
IIS I! JlllIJ!1'. I !!! !lfliiii:
lil il i, riilLiiJIIIIIilllllllll"'. ,,l inlll
•IB^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ !»«^^
^
V
\
1
I
1
\
\
/
\
1
f
\
\
1
V
-, \
( . . , j
/ !
1 I
\ . , \
\ \
1 I
I 1
/ /
1 [
! 1
\ ' \
i i
/ ' i
\ \
\ \
i • ... i
V V _
/&-
I
!>
II
ii
ii
i i
ii
! i
I:
i,1
•wi
/
/
o
p
I I
I I
! 1
1 i
i I
i i
i i
i i
I
o: £
a: => —>
3 P _
Q]
Z
Ul
o
LU
Is
lllllli i 1111111 III111111 ill l||lllll I I i II lllllli jjjl!S^ 1
' I "ii" ,'t
i'SS^^^ ..... i't'v'l
Ij^'y./'.'.."^!!**';.:.? , -lif iiV^iiHIl^^
-------
\ \ \
i i i i l / / / / i
1111} 111,1
i i i i i i i i i i
• i i i i i
iiii i i i i i i i
i i i i i i i i i i 1
nil, ,111
\ \ \ \ \
/ / / , i / / /
111,1 t i i
i i i i i i i
i i i i i
i i i i i i
/
| / / / /
-------
ifiM^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 10^^^^^ Ill \iSHm \mim< H^^^ Hi I'lliiU
1
!'!' Hill!'! '•iiilllKJIIIIIIII'. Vj'MCTIIIIirililli .JIT .i!!!::/ii,B:il!:i:llir
ii Bl'illlilillriij'llllillillid 'if!"" ill:', • IIIIIIIIIIR'''!!!' iillllil""!1 «i|ir!!!ll|«il:illl!iW', «*i;
I MlIM lilKiliill1 •*;&'< MftEU.tr
' ;,i,ii ilium' < I'liiii'iiii,:,;,!!!:!,;;!!:
'^ i.;.! '• jiiiiii :::< in; 11^^^^^^^ jiii iiii!
i]H^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ''^liii i
10
;iij|i jj.
i!H^^^^^^^^^^^
i['fl UII1 Ihil, Ji'lii Ii'lliL ',«!• 'HPIlii, ' J IFi I"1 liilU .UIIIK ml rw |i||;'
....... ^-u ..... • ....... a ......... i ....... m
ij liiliiiTllii I »",'.;;< ii :! "T!!1 ,,,1*! '» iiii llllllllllilllllJIIIJ11!!'!:11!! III!'11' ;/ ifi<
rtfr HM:Nr 9
-------
Appendix B-4
Post-Construction Runoff Control Cost Analysis
-------
HV^^^ iiiiii mi iiiipij sri" in iiiiiii ii WKIH
,1^^ mifsm vatam-.
IIH^^^^^ IW^ .ip i Hi iiii] Yii!'
i'! •''!":''!!•u, I'iiiliTiiiiuuihiii;!;:, " i,,1: t :i!iilllii,•!,
i:'i;Ii,ii,iiilP' P:''iliiiiiiiiii' liiiivii'liiiiif',,;,'• Biiiiiiinii'i'liiIii"1fr£iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiin.nBliiiiiiiiiiiiiniHBi,,iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii:BaiiB1 >:>,i"K:ii;j,fiiiiiii'iiiiiiiiiiiiipi:1 iniiiiuBT11:,["Sit•»„ *>:ii1 •• •';,, •-' :i;s ,„i•„\.i* B;,'jBijii1;,. „„,; "j:'iiiil*'k/'/ tiiiiaii!BiiiiBiiiii;'BiBiiiiB,iiji":i:iii'.:ii«iiijijjii:ii;i:Pis,i I:iiiiiiian'1 B;'BiBlii11
iiii' iiiiiiiiiiiiii 11,.''' iii: 'i'iiiiiiiijbiiif iiiiiii*! 'ii" liiiiiiiiiiiii' i' "liiiiiiii: £ i!> "Svie" ;iii:iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiniiiiii,i f *i "iiiiiiiiiiii ^: OT :"' ii""1 ,, •'! i'^iii'ljitfiiiii:!" VHW i!!6i „ \A A ivr' MM > ie§^' /' ^ii, \ i':i nt %
'I1 BIBB i III IB,'IBB ' BIB, ' 'ill'" llliil lllllllliLh'IINLiillllll,' 'I,.111 ''''IIIBIIIIIIIII'iji'ijjIiilllBBiiilllllllllllIll ' BIIBIB iBBBi,,'1111!1:,,'!'''!.!,, 'i I'Bl'-BUBIlii 'IBIiBIIBilliB'''!! „, "'i;,, Bii '/ill,'1" "I,1 ilillllllllnlll'l1 B ''lill'i'BBB'B1 liiili'BBIIBBli'B 'tBl'i'iBIBIBM"11,' Jl
iiliilinilliilliiiiliii! ''/iilii'iJiiiililllll'i^iiJi"ii'"', ,llllllllllllllllilllilliiiiillliiill!!1;""':„f'jlllilliiiiiillliillllliiiiii'iilliiiiliiilllllllliiiflili" 4"iiililillllilliji •, iiiii!',1 "l,:'!!'^!*1!!!!;;:.!,..'!!!':]!!!! IlillilPiiiiiiii, liiliii I;"1 'i liiri'iii^linl'li ri^til1 li^^Vpliili1'-iriiiiiiliiliil""'IJJiini!!:!!1'' <''!';|!''"
,
I''!,,",,!1 mlil!1!!!!!' ..'"il'i'iiii !ill,i"'i;,Bilii,liiB!i[liillBii lini;i:H9Bl"lili'iiBIII
iiiBBiiB'niVlirBI
Pi!: hlii' i i fr linilii iriu'Jiiii in1 IBIIIIIIB'hiiBlilll
IMII'iimMrrilBB, U , „ ' ,1, '»i BIB'iiB",,!!! llliliiiilliilllll'IIIBIBIhl11:! ',1 „ „ ' 'I IB ''I!
llil.!')!';,'' f"'1 , *,,,! I CIHIIilU'l'iii I 411, ;,,". iVIJI'l
'I ''BBIIBBi 'IIIIIIII I
' L1 i!111! In 'S'-ll!1 !• I!" 11""
, I,.,• if1' iiiim!i'i "i|,,,,l|,:"':'f"1 i"i,,:IBB ,:„'» J1;,,;!:1' iil;il,,,i1',1'"I,•'!!• illlil'IG'KK ,,,:i , ' 'illJ'lllRI !• J'nlllliUi'1', • i.,i„W', ' A1,"liV^i'Jli',1"' "'I' i"• !"•''IS, •',)! '•".I"!'
,,':"|,,,I I, l!!«^ ';, ii i!iTO''"n "j,,' , uii 'liiiiun,!,!, ,/ ',h,,,i,r ] |'i,in,r '„ ' , ' '"! ",,,'n',, 'r, .iiiioh' !n"J'Vi' ,„!• • • », iiiii wilii'i,"
i igiiiii!! ..... ' " ii.fiii'i, ' iifi'iii '' ' ' iyiiiiiiif; ...... •i<>i'lJli!iiii!!iiggi!iiiiiiiiiiiiii!i'' ' ifliiiliiiiiiiiiiiiik' 'liiiii'iiiiiiii: ' i'
i:i ..... •; ...... i» ', IIK^^^^
> :;" ..... ,-w1 ii l;".: i ..... r. tr "F""g; < i^1! i • '''"ii1:, :iil:ii':''i;!ii!\i;>l'>Fi!!!!iiiiii^ ii^/iiiiiiiitiiiiiiijii'', ' • JBIiEJ* ' 'S?'\ ..... liir'iii'ii;1 KvfnA ..... , :vri ^ ••* firJiirT ii : „ :p " '''''ii'iii' ' <• "iiiin:'" 'iiniiiiiiii11' jil'li'iliiiiiiiiiiiiiiMi'
» ^m» ^ ..... ^ , ....... ^ i *• : , r , ^ ^ ; c ' ....... ."K ..... it :>!;" 'ij!!^,: ..... iw .1 : ^^^^ &A> ^m ,„; ioF: ^ " ^ ^ ...... : ......... ..... ^
' '
iilill'i^i 'i/'iiiihiiiiiii jiili;: ' >.;' '''' Ui ..... J!|i!!!!!!!!i!ni !i'!t' '"• ,»• iiii«:r !i>iii!siiii;i;i,:> ^'iiiiiiiiiiiiiii'ii • liiiiiiwii.l'iiiiiiiill.ih^ '!' ^ ..... iiiiiit'liAiiiif jiiiiiiii1!:^! f ..... '< •' in,, ,.;.; 'US' 'ii ' S,,,?"' • Ilii^'i ..... ii „ ,,'i,, ;: ::i 'IJiii'l; ;; f-1 ",! ^iinv
' ^ '" '11' " " '' '
^^^^^^ • in,,, inr'" iiiPiii1!':11' i ;
.
",',1:,! t. w^ ......
,.
"' . ..... n m:f'i'
| ^ W , "ii^'i1 ' ' i^'iiiiH1!^ '*:' ''w' ' 'T :,,,ii!Jii!iii;i£ •' ' t.iSiiiiiii!i?:iil i!iiii! 'I11;
....... i:,;];^ ..... ' |r:'^u,:' : 'i, ,,i < ....... < ..... ii':i!4:!'vi;ii!<"'<:,' ;!: fws \x^\»xM9S4'
i., CTiiiin1 iniPW1 rtini F i1', ,,:"ii" t ni i!ii:
,^ : fl^i..!^;,!"::;!,1"..! ii"1!,1,! ..... f •: ' .lIllilM;:: Al'Vlllill!: !„ ..... J'l"4 n1
' i "iilfflM ...... !' "I""'1 V" dK'iillilTP1 ..... l:i :! ' "Will' I1;,;!1!.!1
i illViilliiillllllll'i,IlllPliiJIi' illi'lllllpll
lll i III1, iiffll 1', Iff V'. '/ill JW: M ^i i¥nCIIIIIP!'liil i,,< < IIP" • I»,"l1 :,"•,». < E Sill"!1,1 IIIIIPSli hllfJIl1 Ill^'llllllllllllllil, J1'illplllllllill I1":1 ll<'',''< • I
IID IPIIIPU , IIIPIIIFU'i liBBBiiiBniMiiiiB11' 11 ,1, " ImBB'l1 B „,"»/« hi,1'1 ,|" .'ilinii'"'!!; ' "„.,! ll'lllllli1 u''IIIIBIIBilIIBB :i ,BIB, ill",i,-,"'Bi'B I'l'l" flBr',BIB, INPH I'lllllll'i''^'';..;'''!!'!!!!.!,,'!!!!""1 'JT • il'BJ1 ill1 BIB 'iiliiillillll11 IIIIIIBBI .jlllilBBi1 "Illlllllillil1 I
,Si:'' ir jiiiiijjini, p' IB iiiiiiiif: iiii i y .Fiiiiiiiii "j, •, jL' i:., i'':,;! iii"''isiiiiiiir'i' :""i!| !iii iiiii:?' '¥'>!l||li, T1: , Jill! i,'[jiiiBi'liiiiJ1
i Siiii ..... iiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiP -:; iiiii; i a liSSiL n; " • r ii ' ' ; : 1*1 "iiiiiipi'iiiiinr
nmn m i 3®mz ii &M s iii: iX:" w-wm 'imtfmwtffm mi i < ttm*' s; \ i WML
tilillliiliiir'::,, .Jill '<«„
pil i inllllillllirinlllllllllPli, in',! '.hill, i "I'liillllilillllllli'llllllllllhllliiil1 n.liill1:,'!!!,::
iil" IIIII lllli'nl ii'li'llilllll1!11 1"'1' ILfillilll ..... IMIII'ttji,1"! , ,> i!:
Eii jin1"" I'l'.iiiiiiiii'ai'i 1111
IB11 IP'" BIIBIB M ;BlB Bl Hi1,,,, B M"'SnUBB III B, Bill1', B .' nil i"l BM :, IB BIBB1" I'B,, I', nl'i'lKi'ii,,,, '"BIIIIBBI,'»„ ' '» i,i""i" i":'i|' IBB', "i 111 I I,,
I Ill y'HIIB'BliBB iilBIIBIII11 .JIIilllK,!!,;'! '"iBflllB I
"l1 ',"iii N:: HIB/P "";,. riiafVii,!,,'1!:!!1!*.. iri ..'it'll, "
liiiiK ..iiiilill ...... 111.1'''^^^^^^^^^ ..... i!1
' BBIIIBillllll „ IB1!" 'I B IB Bill BIIIIIIIBBII" I BillBBlB f Nnilllllllilllllllll"" i< ' '' mi.' ' ., i i ! BBIiBBB ' iv J,,' It: : i"! lB!" 1 illlln!!. < 1' II,:,,, il* ,B ' BBIB B1 'BII ii,, 1!• ,„ J""'.; !• i; • BBilliBr' i j. .11 iBi'i'-BBiiialil!'iiiBBBB' i, ai BBBBBIB BBIBBB; i
JF\" ."IN.iiiiii:iiiiin,iii "iiiiiS' |i.;' v.irSiiwh&is'WWW Kii^''5^':^7iH^7F"riw'»iJ^SwS|^
1,1: 'li BjIS <' BT i ,/B '.'i. BBBBB" I1" •', HI, •'!,.;' 'i i1" B" • -' l.!!, i. lilBIIBBIIIIBBBIBIIIB^ .. "BuBBlB i 'ilBIBII I
!: 'i ''•:'''.! i'|i:':iin"'i>: iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiir ';:.i ^. I'1 \/^.: iiiiiiiiii': J< :...\ i^t mil;:' i liifsiiiiiiii:'! :ii jiiiiiiiiiiii'
:W^^^^^^^^^^^^ ;:^ I
I I
..... fill!! ..... lilt':"!11! iltlltH^^
..... btM^^^^^^ ...... l ............ lEKI ..... ii'H ..... ;i;!l ..... I ....... !i:Riiii;:ii;;' '•ifliii I
pI'JIIIBB'IBi IB "nil1,,11 IBB"' T iii/11,1
i J.ISift&'^lflt '"ill "l*
iiiiiBBi1,' r i. B: ',';: I'liiiiiiii'iiiiiiiiLii'i'iiiiiiiiiiLiiii; r iiiiiniiiiiiiinii, an v
ll!"[il:, „ UUili'iln III!'',,
lilllllll "'I,' 'I, J!!,,:! 'I 'I ' ,,|,
..... ; S* " i 'i-'iii i 'f 'Mif-lii.','
I'lliJIIIIISIIKiJ'" ,,l|,'.|,, llKi 'Ililililll ',i,»^^^^^^^^^^ ..... '
, ' '* •:, ijtfi
^ .....
S1 , ' '";:,,'1 ';l i|: 1
IIIIIIIIFII ..... :i";,!l!|,,ll'''lli|,ii,!i!!i,'r^^^ ..... I
-------
Appendix B
Overview
This appendix describes the methodology used to estimate BMP installation costs attributable to
the Phase II Storm Water rule's post-construction municipal minimum measure. Specifically,
the costing exercise estimates the costs associated with constructing BMPs that attempt to
maintain predevelopment runoff conditions on post-construction sites. The measure affects sites
on which land disturbance is greater than or equal to one acre and that discharge into a regulated
MS4. However, sites that disturb more than ten acres are not included in this analysis because
the Construction General Permit already imposes post-development storm water control
requirements on those sites (63FR 7858) .
In estimating incremental costs attributable to this measure, EPA estimated a per-site BMP cost
for 12 model sites of varying size (one, three, five and seven acres) and imperviousness (35%,
65% and 85%). This approach was based on the results of an EPA Office of Science and
Technology study (Preliminary Data Summary of Urban Storm Water Best Management
Practices, US EPA, Office of Science and Technology, December 1998b). EPA used the Office
of Science and Technology study to develop a combination of BMPs for the model sites and
calculate costs based on the amount of storm water runoff expected from sites of varying
imperviousness. Based on considerations of site size constraints, total BMP costs and terrain
variations, EPA calculated a weighted average BMP cost, including operation and maintenance
costs, for each of the model sites.
Two additional adjustments refined the per-site cost estimate for post-construction control. First,
EPA included a cost reduction associated with nonstructural practices that it anticipates will be
used to comply with this measure. EPA identified per-site average cost reductions associated
with redirection of rooftop runoff ("rooftop runoff credit"). Second, EPA anticipates ancillary
cost savings because the new BMPs (structural and nonstructural) will also reduce peak storm
water flows, allowing developers to save on construction costs when they build their sewer
connections. The potential cost savings, based on estimates of reduced per-site costs for storm
water conveyances, were also subtracted from the initial per-site BMP cost.
The adjusted per-site BMP cost was then multiplied by the total number of construction sites that
are located in Phase II urbanized areas to obtain a national cost estimate.
Detailled Description of the Cost Analysis
Phase II Post-Construction Universe
EPA derived the number of construction starts affected by this measure by further refining the
construction start analysis used to identify the number of starts that would be regulated under the
Phase II construction program for sites nationwide. As a result, this analysis started with the data
set that is described in Appendix B—2, steps one through seven. Two additional steps, described
below, were performed to identify the post-construction universe.
Step One. EPA used county-level Bureau of the Census construction data as the basis for
identifying the universe of construction starts affected by the post-construction minimum
October 1999
Final Report
B-35
-------
Appendix B
measure (construction starts that disturb between one and 1 0 acres of land and. occur in Phase II
urbanized areas). EPA identified all counties that are located either entirely or partially inside
urbanized areas. EPA eliminated all other nonurbanized counties from the construction start data
^r^Sfet For counties that are located partially inside an urbanized area, EPA assumed that
,. , .............. ,,, ............. cjjns j||||Qg ...... agtiYltyjs ..... evenly ^stributed^and^therefpre, ...... based its calculation of the number of .......... '
' starts on ratio of county^ land located in the urbaruzed area versus outside the
:iii«^^^^^
j££ §tepiTwoT 'EPA removed" cbrJBtfucS6ri"siiarts that were located Hcounties
s under^CZARA m the 'foUowSig ..... sSesrilro
......
^ |ej| Ebt suianzes
^;^^§1^^2S ..... it§ll§ ..... Py acrea§e ca*egory m"at may be agec|e5 ^ the Phase !! rule.
, 'Maryland, ..............................
' ........................... ' ........... .........
[[[ | [[[ ; [[[ ........... ; ................................. ; ......................................... ; .......... ....................... . ............................ ......... ;;| ........ ; ...... ' ..................................... „, ............................ ............... ........................ | ...........................
' ' ' ' " ' ' "
............. tlffl. it" WI'iMl XlljHir'IPft ..... viilllliiitiiieiil ........ iT'l'S! ..... "»:! ..... liifl ....... tlPlllik: ..... ''.B l:(i '-.I' HfS ..... IW'lvrtWftif fJSUiJMl ..... Iflli^^^ ...... ' ...... « ...... ! ...... !! ...... '. hiilffifr^JMIHMKiKu!11 i'Slflttt: ...... I ....... !;''fiiM
•DRIill ..... iilplll ill*:1' iliiliiilii1!!! , 111111 ....... i Jill ....... t J"l:!f I, MUm." .•Bllllli,' '!< "li'i! • , ', i ..... it JltnKK ........ ¥;!! .......... Hill "' i ..... !! . >.| ...... l'i • , il.) •! '!«; '1MB l<;A; •!:; '", " Vi ..... ' ..... 8 ' "XMii .T* •apRiil! ....... IIIR 'iff, , , "!',* Win I Wl"!; J, 1'K •'pgfiHH.tf'ji'U;'1 ..... |ii ..... :• Will ..... I:!!)!!!1 ill, I2IKK
1 1;:1: ' ', iMi ..... LII iiiiwiiri iflkinu ..... i 'iipi!! wipiip:1! niiiiiiii'iiii! ....... w ' anil; 'inii ,:,; v iwi!;" iniiiiiinii ....... iiiiiii v
, i ' "' ' ! .1 «; lun ..... IB , inir: HIIKI ii, ', i „ i; ; jiiiii ...... i . .iiiiii.i>iiii'i!i;i|i|P!i;;' l|!i;,:;,'' JiN I11!!1
Ijllllll'ji||ir,,||"«ii"iilllili'i!i|:i!ii; Illlir iiiil/i Ilki1" 1! ,| iflLif"',.,*!;!* \ MMW,,, J|lllill|liTiiilPil;|:
iiiilllliilllB,, ,,:i, t hilill 'i'! i llliilj, Jin JIKIPII lilllliHIIB in!,,, liKlilllilldil '','
-------
Appendix B
Exhibit B-4-1. Estimated Number of Construction Starts Potentially Affected by the
Phase II Post-Construction Runoff Control Provision
V ~ z * \
v Area" „-
Acreage
1 Acre
3 Acres
5 Acres
7 Acres
Totals
.1 i"*^' *>*, "f ^Construction Stal^; (1998) J "•"-*. ~*. „,* v , * %
-Multi-Family
Residential
(35%) ,
221
287
228
244
981
Multi-Family/' * ^
Commercial/ Institutional ^
2,942
2,451
822
818
7,033
Commercial
(85%)
2,505
1,939
523
384
5,351
Totals
5,668
4,677
1,573
1,445
13,364
Per-Site Costs
Step One. EPA developed a theoretical series of representative sites to which typical best
management practices could be applied. The 12 model sites varied by site size (one, three, five
and seven acres) and level of imperviousness (35%, 65% and 85%). Imperviousness levels for
multi-family and commercial development were established based on a review of local
government reports detailing average imperviousness by land use type (see Exhibit B-4-2). To
account for ranges of imperviousness reported for multi-family (35%-65%) and commercial
(65%-85%) development, EPA assigned half the starts to either impervious category. For
example, of the 442 multi-family one-acre starts, 221 are counted in the 35% impervious
category while the other 221 are counted in the 65% impervious category. All institutional starts
are counted in the 65% impervious category, reflecting the reported impervious range of 50-80%.
Exhibit B-4-2. A Summary of Impervious Surface Percentages for
Commercial and Multi-Family Land Use
V5 M „ **"• „ * Reference » ™ rf „ Jfc-%, *L-"*' ..
~" i -*
^ % Impervious ^ "
- ^ "^ * fr -Commercial -" * ^* ^ ^* "
~~ ? ^ ^ «, v
US Soil Conservation Service. 1975. Technical Release 55. Urban
Hydrology for Small Watersheds
MWCOG. 1987. Controlling Urban Runoff: A Practical Manual for
Planing and Designing Urban BMPs
MWCOG. 1997. Anacostia Watershed Study— draft (survey of land
use and corresponding impervious surface levels in the District of
Columbia, Montgomery and Prince Georges counties)
Maryland Department of the Environment (Jim George and Greg
Lindsey). 1991. Financing Stormwater Controls in Carroll County: A
Preliminary Investigation
85
60-80 (light com)
80-100 (heavy com)
50-70(low density com)
70-80(medium density com)
80-90(med/high density com)
90-1 00(high density com)
82
October 1999
Final Report
B-37
-------
Iliilll 11 111 III III III 111 11II llilllll III 111 IP llllllllllllll1 11 I1! I I II 111 111 I l||lllll III 1 III "I I IIIIIIII I I III III
llllliilillllHlllll IP "111 hi I nil lllllil i llilllll I llilllll11 llllill llllllllllllll I llllllllllllll llllllllllllll II 1 111 1
11 ililllllHIIllll I1 "111
111 llllill llilllll 1 Hi I III I III ill " 1 llilllll I
lllllKll'll II I 111 IIIIII 11 llllllllllllll
Appendix B
II II llilllll I llilllll I llilllll
I1111! I I I I II II II III ||ll Iliilll I IIIIII llilllll II 111 I |l
111 111 llllllllllllll 111 IIIIIIII llilllll I llilllll
III PI ,1 "i ill 'Hiill lllllfl,
• IIIIIIllllllllllllll llllllllllllll 11 III
Illi ilP11 II 'Illlli 'I
111 Illlllllll 1 1 111 ill llllllllllllll'111"! Ill 111' 11111 "|
iiiiiiii 11
IN ii'ii nil i M i iii ii iiiiii in i in
" "" | ™f'm "'['_ ™| | ExhibftB^-4. A Summary of impervious Surface Percentages for
j I | Commercial and| Multi-Family Land Use
liliii't',
NVPDC. 1990. Evaluation of Regional BMPs in the Occoquan
Watershed
90-95
(suburban shopping center/cbd)
, .
*~ : ....... T f", ........... ff 'f'T:;-.1'"1" ';;"•; S'lir.!-!;^*-"! f. -f-?~.'- ,'• A:%^Vl
•;!!;: ..... ii!i,-"i! ........ Bails: 'if ....... :•• ":iir;"1.iif-iifciS ........ >Jr ,g.i:. i-.it v ;,• i:!« •>.•-. 'x.?r
" ' *: '- i
•V-iv,v:^--*^":Vvt^^^f/^Si>^V:-'::;:;'--^."'r.'V-'.' '•• - ; ..'••
m^&.A-^MX •'f-.i.-j » ,-• ?,; it1
MWCOG. 1997. Anacostia Watershed Study—draft (survey of land
use and corresponding impervious surface levels in the District of
Columbia, Montgomery and Prince Georges counties)
50-70 (schools, military installations,
churches)
70-80 (schools, colleges, churches)
: ,*. «i, ;»• fit fer !s;T;i!si-,%st, W& * t *• f f -# .•> :•*• |. i fi • t. • ^^^smssf^^^^
:^;Sa$igfs:^^^^^
US Soil Conservation Service. 1975. Technical Release 55. Urban
Hydrology for Small Watersheds
MWCOG. 1987. Controlling Urban Runoff: A Practical Manual for
Planing and Designing Urban BMPs
Maryland Department of the Environment (Jim George and Greg
Lindsey). 1991. Financing Stormwater Controls in Carroll County: A
Preliminary Investigation
City of Olympia. 1994. Impervious Surface Reduction Study
MWCOG. 1997. Anacostia Watershed Study—draft (survey of land
use and corresponding impervious surface levels in the District of
Columbia, Montgomery and Prince Georges counties)
38 (lots < 1/8 acre)
65 (lots 1/4 acre)
35-60 (townhouse/garden apts)
40-68 (garden apts/condos)
42-56 (4-7 units/acre)
30-50(row houses/garden apts)
50-70(mid-rise apt/multi-unit)
70-80(high density res)
I
qua, iiiiii ifiift
NVPDC. 1990. Evaluation of Regional BMPs in the Occoquan
Watershed
35-75(6-30 DU/Acre)
For purposes of this analysis, EPA assumed that single family residential development would be
able to meet the post-construction runoff control program goal using storm water sensitive site
L-^'TKS^i?- "ii161:6*?*6?, ,?^nl^e ^fftily residential construction starts were excluded from this analysis.
: ....... ~~;^l ...... The ..... M^fi-Sector ...... General ..... Pejinit places post-development runoff requirements on industrial sites
that are similar to the Phase II requirements for the post-construction runoff control minimum
...... analysis ......
i ....... i, i
......... iii Step Two. EPA Wentified five £^ man^ement j^tices gMPs) that developers could use to
idiP^ program requirements of the new developmentA'edevelopment minimum
....... , ............ ij;- ...... ! .......... ........ > ...... , ................... ........... i, ..... ...ii.mi
T The following five BMPs selected for the analysis represent typical water quality
s: dry detention ponct, infiltration trench, infiltration basin, grass swales an3 sand" filter.
§g!iEPA accounted for site constraints resulting from site size and impervious level when assigning
BMPs to the model sites, then developed an average per-site §MP cost This per-site cost was
:J5n_2SI'™, ™:*™13djusted to account for potential cost reductions associated with the redirection of rooftop runoff.
|
iiiiilinn null in 1
; S-3S
FinqlReport
October 1999
-------
Appendix B
BMP Installation and Maintenance Costs. Per-site costs were calculated based on estimates of
water quality volume (WQv), which is the volume of water that a BMP is designed to treat.1
Using Schueler's simple method, EPA determined water quality volume for the one-inch storm
as follows (US EPA, 1998):
WQv = (.05 + .91) A/12
where:WQv = Water Quality Volume (Acre-Feet)
Mmpervious Fraction in the Watershed
A=Watershed Area (Acres)
Exhibit B-4-3 summarizes the results of calculations determining water quality volume for each
of the twelve model sites described above. Total volume, which includes both water quality
volume and detention volume, is not used in this analysis because EPA assumed that site
operators will account for detention volume where it is needed to correct for flooding hazards;
the control of detention volume is not a feature of the Phase II Rule. Construction and
maintenance costs depend on the size of the BMP, which depends on the water quality volume.
Exhibit B-4-3. Water Quality Volume Calculations for Twelve Model Sites
Square Acreage(A) *
Percent Impervious Cover (I) *
Water Quality Volume (acre-feet)
(PXRvXA/12)
P=l" of rainfall
Rv = 0.05 + 0.9 (I)
A = Drainage Acreage
Square Acreage (A)
Percent Impervious Cover 0)
Water Quality Volume
(P)(Rv)(A/12)
P=l" of rainfall
Rv = 0.05 + 0.9 (I)
A = Drainage Area
1 Acre
„ '35 "-,
0.03
65
0.04
85,
0.07
5 Acres
' 35 '
0.13
65
0.18
85 ^
0.34
" ^ 1 *'"'' 3 ./jLcres \
35 „
0.08
^65^,,
0.12
" as^-r
0.20
/ J7 Acres'1"^ ajs.
35 v
0.18
, 65 ^
0.26
-'85*"'
0.48
EPA's cost analysis used the construction cost equations and the annual maintenance cost
assumptions in Preliminary Data Summary of Best Management Practice Cost Analysis (EPA,
1998), which reports the findings of OST's national review of capital costs attributable to BMP
design and construction. Exhibit B—4-4 summarizes construction cost equations and
maintenance costs for each of the five BMPs.
1 For example, a BMP may be designed to capture the first inch of runoff from the drainage area. Any volume of
rainfall over the first inch would bypass the BMP. Therefore, water quality volume for this BMP would be one
watershed inch.
October 1999
Final Report
B-39
-------
• , i;i;;, ,;; ; , ,,,
• • • •- • ""««»»
''';!:
^llllllllll II' /"''I'l'lUIII'IP "('"III
i •.
"' i, • ' •' '.' .« •
niiiinii :, , , M ;, jin iiiiiip1" jbi iiiiii!1 ii ' i iiijn M ii , '„„ 'in :III;H iiiiiHiiiiiK 41 ri< ^ : , jiiU' iir ,,ii i' , "in,1 '!I,IJMII iitaiiiiiiiiM
i Ap'pendlx B
iin! :i lit i!n! iiii':1 In!
iiillllllillliilhlliiiliiliilllilllilllilillllllllillllili',!:^ 'ill ,
''iiiiiuiiiiiijiiiiiiiiTuriiiii
atKasAFs
Ririiiniiiiiiiii iiiiiinn lihiiu • iiiiiiiiiiii!iii:i.i:iiii'"iiiipiiii
.JH ...... ICI ...... iilM^
jn^^^^^^^
...... iiiiiii; iin^^^ .....
Exhibit B-4-4. Descriptions of New Development and Redevelopment BMPs
IH^^^^^ Wmeii
Iliilill, -I IlllH^ O'iJV^
lllliD^ liiliii, •iiiiiil:*
i^^^^^^^^^^^^ ','", I iiiT'iii
1M^^^ 1! In lililli'll
IRilllBl! RIIE "'Iliiilll 'It IIIIIIH^^^
Liiidi'i- '9V ,mi\!i[m iliiii
iiLijiiiiiiLniiiiiiiii aiiiiiiu I'liii'ii,' ' i '.,. iiiDiiiiiiiii 'Piii
p'jlHllliB^ 'llh I'll, H '' 'lll'lllliiil,'" jnlh
iillililKV^ 'ill" H'iiiiiriili1'1''' i
I'iillH^^ B1 III' iT.!,!,'''''..!!!'''!'!! f
IRB
in i jiiiiiiiiiaiiiii/M iKilliiiiiinii Win
BMP
Detention Pond
Infiltration
Trench
Infiltration Basin
Swale
Sand Filter
Construction Cost
Equation
18.5 WQv0-70
l-3ac: 4,400
Sac: 10,400
7ac: 3.9 WQv + 2,900
1.3 WQv
(1 5%)*(%Impervious
area)*(.25$/sf)
4 WQv
Maintenance
Costs1
5%
12%
4%
5%
12%
Notes
Ponds are a reliable best
management practice.
Although infiltration trenches are
designed to last a long time, they
need to be inspected and rebuilt if
they become clogged.
Infiltration basins are not very
reliable, and tend to become
clogged.
Used for smaller development,
requires frequent maintenance in
order to function long-term.
Sand filters require frequent
maintenance in order to function
long-term.
Sources
a,b,c,d,e
d,e,f
g
d
a,e,g
in i| ' i 1 1111111 nil in in nip • iiii.'i
! IIRI'llll'lk ILflhl I 'B ' '"I: ,JMI iJ
''!!!1 Lllnllll :d nlijllMllili.vqnlllllL1,,.!
!!: inuii .: 'iiimiiiiiiriLLi, ; „,:,!! ..... " HP iii'"i inT
;;::i;::';':i= Sand filter volume was estimated at 4^Qv, which is slightly high, to account for the relatively small drainage area.
Life •= Length of time without major modifications or reconstruction
111! I III Illllllll 111 II llllllll||l|l IIIIIII 111 III 111 I 111 nil 111 111 II 11 III II II III II II III I II I 111 111 111 I I I 111) II I I 11 III I II 111 II III I (
a « Brown and Schueler, 1997b
^^^^^^^^^^^
, 1987_,,,,,, ,r .;, M ; ,, i;,'t r1, '., r,
1,1997
iiff™™!!:":'!-!'™ i™^^^^^^ as % of construction costs on an annual basis
Nllinillllilil'ilhl'''"'!!,!,:!!!! : "iflllllliiJiii" .JiiIKi'
:J&s S°,,l||| P,rcyjously» this costing analysis utilizes a theoretical set of representative sites to which
''"^Typical b'est management practices are assigned For each of these representative^ sites. Exhibit
sKows; which jg'jj/fps were Use3 |o develop an average per-site cost. Some BMPs are more I
I1 III "I i 111 111
in i H 11 in
iiiii i iii iiiii nil
;o be Jjsedjftiano&eis for ^^^^zes^of sites and idj^CTe^ti^jreesof|imp£ryipusness.
ie selection of gMps t0 ^5 for eapjj site was based on the following assumptions:
i in i iiiiii 11 nun ii ipi in i i| iiiii i mi
To allow for variety in sites and to provide a range, a selection of three BMPs was typically
provided.
I
I
Engineers will use the most cost effective BMP provided site restrictions are not a factor.
It is standard practice and feasible to select detention basins in the design of BMPs.
Consequently, a detention basin was assigned to each of the model sites.
I iii • in ill iiiii
'lilll'iilil Hill I'I'll1 ill 1111
ill1 IIWI liiilli
II III Iliilllii
B-40
Final Report
October 1999
-------
Appendix B
Infiltration trenches are not cost effective on smaller sites with low impervious levels but
may be on larger sites.
In general, swales are used and effective on small sites with low impervious levels. Due to
cost constraints, sand filters are typically used on larger sites.
Exhibit B-4-5. BMPs Used for Cost Analysis
-I £"*&*,<.
,- > < t '^^
• *N f %J^~S
• 'Site Sire v
* v y ^ -&
-> "(acres) t
1
3
5
7
^x - „ rt
* /j - > t
-»-"'/ *
% impervious
z ••»»,
35
65
85
35
65
85
35
65
85
35
65
85
Percent Selected for T|MPl>esign 1" "r*
Detention
Basin
40
30
40
40
33.3
33.3
40
50
30
40
45
66.6
Infiltration
Trench *"
30
40
33.3
33.3
30
10
Infiltration
V Basin
#>f
40
30
40
33.3
33.3
40
50
30
40
45
,-h '**%
Swale ^
20
10
20
-
20
Sand ,
Filter
20
10
10
10
33.3
Exhibit B-4-5 also shows the weights that were assigned to each BMP to obtain a weighted
average cost for each type of site. Nonuniform weights were provided when one BMP was
believed to be less likely to be selected than the others. The sand filter and swale BMPs were
given less weight than the other possible options to account for site constraints or limited
effectiveness. The remaining weight was then distributed evenly among the other BMPs. For
example, on a five-acre site with 85% impervious surface, the cost of a sand filter exceeds the
combined average cost of the detention pond, infiltration trench, and infiltration basin. Because
an engineer would be more likely to select the most cost effective BMP or combination of BMPs,
and sand filters are used only when site constraints present no other option, EPA assigned a low
weight to the sand filter (10%) and equal weights to the remaining three BMPs (30% each). By
assigning nonuniform weights to the BMPs, the analysis more accurately reflects expected costs
under actual development conditions:
The BMP costs shown in Exhibit B—4-6 are capital costs associated with each BMP for each size
site and impervious cover. Exhibit B—4-6 does not report costs for BMPs that were not selected
for a model site because of limitations related to site size and imperviousness The average
October 1999
Final Report
B-41
-------
|M ..... f(K
',,: "!',- '-'ii'S-;," i
," ilUlllliP, IP ,:,|,|||II,R 'ih, 'illLiiilll l.illlll, illiiiiiliii,,!! ^"lnl'lJilRiini ii,llli,4,,,!l"ii
ICIIUi ' ' I' , 'I1!.'I'll!11' [ilBri11'!"!'!'lif'F lill
il»^^^ 1MB «^^
,,, ,,,,. |i|hted cost was obtained by_ using the weights in •Exhibit B-4^5. The total cost is the sum of
" the average weighted BMP and operating and maintenance (O&M) costs.
T
™fz:::;:^ :";,;; "" ~ f lEhe, Pj&jM,,, costs, shown in the, ..exhibit are,, present value, calculations of O&M costs over ten years
(i.e., two NPDES permit periods) assuming a 7% discount rate. These capitalized O&M costs
I ''^miiii "'"„„,i p iii vi iii,'|^^i^^^Jgi A£S3j^S|!^sis because they_ represent the social costs of maintaining^ the
aggafiflie §JteHS^ii.§$Sl.s,,la§^J^[..in,3Py year- If the BMPs were nol maintained,
3,|r effecJiveness would,dspl,ise. .anintfes overall effectiveness of,this provision of the rule would
" is m ««^^^ ii'
linn rfm K sis! , " ' ; ; , :
, WIIF ..... . Jiiii1 " i , ..... aiii' niiiiJii emW' ; K; •ii, . ...... , ' a ..... , : ...... r •• ix "i ....... i ..... i ...... a. *(• ..... p% ..... ;; ..... IK,, mv ...... i>M^^^^^ ..... MIMW ...... y *• n .......... inui in. ita is ....... , >* :m ..... ,; j if:lss
jl ' ' ' •'!,:, , , ,,,
Ill iiiiiiniiiipp 11, ffi ihlLlllii, :' r '• Jim 'iliiic'i Ilillilli ijin iiJiipi if iii|i=t 1! iiiEi, •
[,! lljiiifl,,!, n" nil ;„ j 'i i;1,, nil, :m!i * * '*!• in. n :•'•": ii' : , '' ' :JI|IM;,:l!| dim1',: r1" „,'" „'ill1 "1 •" I!1 •,' • i A •"I'll'll Si 9 v * llSlllt >,,inii"!" IBi1'' tiii '* i Sill1 lIliiillllllllllllL 'liilllllpilllllP.i,, :,lljliijli,i|lljpiiiliM!lH Jllljillil I
" ;:;•,; ;;; , ; ;„v•;; ,, ;„" •„",, i;,,;;;;;;;!;!:,,,';:;,;,;;,;;;„„;;;;;;,;,;;,,,'",„,„;,31 •,:;;;•;;;;,;;;, —;;;„,,;;';:';,;;,, ';;;;;;;;;"' ;,,„
mm ..... nEnr/w
^ riw; ..... i ...... :;i ..... i!^ ...... !iu^^^^^ ..... i1 ..... iiiiiii;:!^^^^^ ...... ^nia, ..... iiiiii ..... iiw
llUijilli<,ilii|illl:|i iilnlllEini'lliiii'li:', i, >,»ilji'i,i|, , », ju,1" j;,,,,,1!'!!1 lull
LI i' Mill,1 itiiii! il I1 '"'ili!1!'!, H'i,i JSi'ljIllillH
ili! llllllilllinilii!!,!',;!:1'inning I
j|r A
•IlL'llM^ IlllitU^^^^^^^^^^ j,i!lll(|>!,:;i«ij?!8 '
: ...... "f ..... :,''< ..... :, ..... , .......... *:sm'? ....... HI ..... - ..... fis,!^^^^^^
i!,i,,"l| "I'.ii'iiIPP'1"!'':!!!1 'n ' h JiKJIlhi,,, ill!1 ilium iiiilll Jil'lllllllilJiUjll;!!1 i,iili, "illlllllin" illi:" illllllililillllllll1:
'IIIIP1 ii' PiiPli,i"iipllllil'IIIIII.Pllllpm ill ',i|i,iillliiu l|lil,ii,i;,;,ii|ihii I '•,iil'ni'i'iiii'PlliILiiiiii, 1 ill;'1':•,' •JIn, I •< ,i,I!1!, iPP' ,ii:,,|,|ip|' .HIIIPIIIUII;'ill"""!!!!!!!!!!:,',!'''jjl|in|||"|i• .I'lgj'pljjjjjgjjjjlj'jjj!
liiiiilliilllljpl|ii| •„, jnjlnpi,, i, njiiijNiil" I, I"1', •!,„! lli'lil1! 'iiJII'OI'N'ili IP! I1,' ' '! I-, ,:"i,l'lj n'1 iiiiii,.
1I|I1F):",,:|K^^^^^^^^^ lIllllE I'f'iiili/M^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Ilillilli'1"!!!ill'l ''HlviilTlllPP'11',!
;^ r!1'
rSf f f:, t'iii, j!1 iii'i'i'ij"' ;•'!„:';;,; ,,,1; m i!,iiiO!" V< ,;>AI!'1 iiiiili •> ^illlllK'" 1,1 ii ' "i" IR4 i1' <"il" II1- !ini i!l ' "i, WK ]!'%i ill!1"'!, " i Jill 'Jliilli!1 i f: IhiinlllUI ^llllimtF UK! , 11*' Ji IPHili'l!^1 ir1' I1:,'!!1!!,,' ',<
, '"I ' lillll , dT'iJIilllllllll 'I,:1:!!'',:; " ' iHHI1!!,:,:' i,,, >, j lllnilllilllll!1 in ligillliail ^nilllLlnl,!:1;!! "'n!, tmss» 11', il' W i< < ^ n«iu;,i49 i"1" •' !, > ".' I r >'H",' "HIV1 ^ ' iilLiil!Ep ••'• ' 11! ;' \ T; !' !' ij ,ij' JuJlh,!! iMlBi iif" <:,|||!ii< llllllliLli::!!!"""1!!!!!!!!! jiliiqilinillliilli:,]!!:!;
i,!*iW * ;iiil|;iM^ ",!«i;lh,
mill, „
':|ljll"!:/:,|" 111''''!!!!!,*:!
liiiiiiiiiljiliiiiiii'liiiiil^
,,1" < iiiiii,' in , , ,;, ^ ,/ i?" ',,,1 1 111 'iinii, ]<• , 1 1,,, nil r;,,,;! ' 'iinni
..... IHiLiiiiJil'l1 ,'1111 rillL'i li'tll'lllliiiiT1 ''' Ilillilli iiiiflliil'lllil,
I;IIII,,HIII :i ttiiinwi: '•.LiiJiti
'lilkliiffl ,iil,iiiil|lll|ii Tltt
: 'ai i ifiKi'i: ;" i,, mi,' • gn j/inii1 < 'am
iK,1,!1!,I" ''MiiM'iiiii/Hiii;,, ii!!:i ii'in, , i t, 111,111',
::,: i,:?!::' :• • 'iiP'"!,;""!!«" \ »', riiiiin'" ,,n" iiiiiiiiiffniiijiii!!:;' nrwiw twniiKM
i^lil'iiiiJiilli.'lip'.'li'lpiPiliPiSIPIIlllllllllllllllllPIPii!!:1),!!'!!.'11!1!
'lijiN^
iiiiiilllillllllllilllllllliLMlll'iiiimiiilili:llll"' „ in1 illliilyll Ji iiiliiilli'HiLI!1' ';[ilillllliu!'nunJ'JI'"' „ "ViiK!,!,,111111,i'1'!!"!, 11111,,:!','ll"„,111 Jliilimili"'lllliil! ,u':•'!,'t'V'iiiill iiif'lllillipi'"!!",,
, i,,, i! fB-42
"!:, ....... Ell:,-':!!!:11: iilEt'i!, i ..... ii!:'1;;:;!!: ,i ...... , , ' • .......... 1 1: i '! !" ..... 7 :~mi!Mit I: >',!> ...... i! .....
i V ..... iiLi^^^^ ..... iiiilll ^i'l!'
L.aiuiiiilPi;
-------
Appendix B
ffl
•*•»
t»
,
*
- ?„*
^ V
^*
*~
.« •»
*^
^5
'4r'
u
1
"1
'•a
'3
x ^
? * ?
•v
"*-Af
•*
>
%
^
*•
i
»
,
*.
„
3
&*
^3
m
>
\
o
•^
**. <-«
'
/*
&
1
»
»
00 *
«
i
VO
in
(O
in
oo
in
VO
.
in
S-B
"S3
'§ S,
«w«
^^j
^ 2 §
X
Sa*"*
^5 o
CQ ^
s s
®
{ai -g *
M W
2 •»
Sa-
il
i«
**' w
S3
s —
la
s 1
pgj y
w
^1
^ J U
0
in
o
55
o
*— i
^
co
oo
^f
t~
cs
s
wo
3
oo
g
I
B
CO
CN
"2
c
Detention Po
oo
CN,
0
O
0
oo
_J*
0
c?
-sj-
o
1
1
oo
fN
m
o
o
oo
0
o
1
1
r-«
0
Q>
t^
1 Infiltration T
CO
"*
VO
CN
CO
VO
r-
o\
oo
oo
VO
VO
r--
8
•*
s
0
o
CO
CN"
O\
oo
VO
— "
c
CA
CS
Infiltration B
VO
oo
£
— '
1
1
co
CN
VO
3
PJ
1
00
'
1
1
VO
f-
o\
of
1
1
1
1
js
oo
ro
wf
in
t-
o
ff>
^|
rf
in
oo
Tf
00
«
^^
s
"*
m
§
o
oo
in
VO
in
VO
-
^
0
"O
w
'S
1
00
vi
C)
0
t"^
<— 1
^
VO
m
VO
00
o1
oo
t*-
p$
N
fA
\ Total Cost (
October 1999
Fined Report
B-43
-------
Appendix B
tiii'i::;« ' - 4 :,K ' ill L:;I , IK ,i ..... < ' Hiiiii11*1'!1:: , ' IP in , 3™ ;:
IliJli'l; ..... II ..... ii1!!'!;!;;!!!!; "Hi:
1 ' lilliiPliililiJirilBilillP,!,1!!!'1'-!!''.!!!!!!;:..*-;1111
''• -a
1
2b
'" it1 iiisiii
niH ' iieiir ' JJT ..... •: r:11:!,
i' iiii, ivi ',! i ii 'iiiiiiiiiiir
11 wii ........ in ...... iiuiiii'i'iiiii:!::1"!
..... Iiii
" '
-= « ' , " 1 i ,1 . !" ! llii iilll'li ..... 1PH "'b''!.!'"!!! lii I ™ • • ' Iiiiiii! If' "
1' : ...... lillillh • iiiiiliiil^iiVililJiiH ..... "<
iiiiiniiiiii!,; ''Iliilliiiiliiii: i ! !'!, ''Mil! ..... lllllllllllL, :;:'!ii 1 • .......... : . IlilBiii:;!, jij. , ;, ''
'<&
n
O
7:
u
i-.g-
s-*^
i
-
vv
BC
1
-WJ
,.,-oe
"aVJ'il
10.
•'i
oo
t-
Os
vo
>r>
0s"
vo
VI
p.
tN
1
Os
OS
00
oT
vo
VD
Os
oo
t-"
tion Pond
Det
vo
*3-
O
o
o
0
o
Infiltration
Trench
Os
CO
CN
cT
£
OS
oo
en
**
tion Ba
nfi
OS
Ss
oo
SS
ve
o
*n
ff
5
Os
ve
S
•a
"Is
< 0
00
vo
ill 1
B-44
on co
ate cons
ed to c
volume
t B-4-3
nance costs.
ons and Exhi
be
on. Numb
of p
mply this de
d main
on.
cost eq
rmatio
ended t
ation
ction
inf
op
BMP
t are no
truction
for B
MP co
weighte
s exhi
for
thi
Note: Costs are for const
'Refer to Exhibit B-4-4
2Refer to Exhibit B-4-5
'Dollar costs provided in
Final Report
t I! it: ' illEIII! IIHil\J!lfV!if!IIV liiUllililli "i
lllM^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
i'Qs
October 1999
llsiiliirBil'ii,;:1; ,, i;:!:,,,;!"!:;,;''|' ;|:: r i's^irjw^ I
-------
Appendix B
Rooftop Runoff Credit. EPA anticipates that non-structural practices will be used whenever
feasible to comply with this measure, because they are generally less costly to implement than
structural measures. One simple design practice, the redirection of rooftop runoff from
impervious surfaces to grassy areas, can be used as a way to reduce the need for installation of
structural BMPs. In EPA's cost analysis, per-site average cost reductions associated with
redirection of rooftop runoff have been calculated and subtracted from BMP installation and
maintenance costs.
The steps used in calculating the rooftop runoff credit are as follows:
Multi-family sites: The calculations are based on an average density for townhouses of 10
townhouses (TH) per acre. It was assumed that the average square footage of the rooftop was
SOOsq. For example, to calculate a reduced impervious area for three-acre 65% multi-family
sites, the following steps are used:
• 3 acre x lOTH/acre = 30TH
• 30TH x 800 sq/TH = 24,000 sq = 0.55 acre (total rooftop area of townhouse)
• 3 acre x 65% = 1.95 acre (total impervious area on site)
• 1.95 acre-0.55 acre =1.4 acre
• 1.4 acre/3 acre = 46% rounded to 50%
Commercial/Institutional sites: Floor Area Ratio (FAR) was used to determine rooftop surface
area. FAR for commercial sites ranges from 0.25-0.5. For the one-three acre sites a FAR of
0.25 was used, and for the five-seven acre sites, a FAR of 0.35 was used. It was also assumed
for these calculations, a single story building, and the discharge from the rooftops will be from
multiple locations along the roof. For example, to calculate a reduced impervious area for three-
acre 65% commercial sites, the following steps are used:
• 3 acre x 65% = 1.95 acre (total impervious area on site)
• 3 acre x 65% x 0.25 = 0.48 acre (area of rooftop on impervious surface)
1.95 acre-0.48 acre =1.47 acre
• 1.47 acre/3 acre = 49% rounded to 50% (revised impervious surface area)
Results are presented in Exhibit B-4-7.
Exhibit B-4-7. Cost Reductions from Redirection of Rooftop Runoff
'^^^Mi^K\.^^^^^^^^^^^^^:S^£^^^^^
1 Acre
$266
$425
$0
3 Acres
$674
$1,643
$0
5 Acres
$1,048
$3,058
$0
7 Acres
$2,301
$12,097
$0
October 1999
Final Report
B-45
-------
tl^
average'tota
.......... I!;)]!!.:
ie rooftoprunoff credit, Exhibit g^lg1
sites. '
......... I
.............
• •• - ' ' " "'
. lilt II i| , ilU'il ii flllUlinil i, ilpini | „ i'l
~~^~~:~ " '.'.'.".£."'
=• ••• • ••• •• •
mf'M iJipiiiiiiiNiiiiiiiiiiF'1 liniihiiiiiiii' • i:?!, ' ''S'li'iiii lii iiiiiil iiiiifiiii' iiiiiiiiiiii " i
Average BMP Costs (1998 dollars)
Area
(Acreage)
1 Acre
3 Acres
5 Acres
7 Acres
35% Impervious
(Multi-Family Residential)
$2,277
$5,676
$8,760
$16,828
: 65% Impervious
(Multi-Family/Commercial /Institutional)
$4,867
$12,698
$15,353
$31,448
85% Impervious
(Commercial)
$10,486
$15,998
$19,377
$68,996
iiSHiS£{ir1iiMi''.v>SMi. !
!!"' *JTi."
:i !:i:Jii.i
>' .lEKiiK^ fii
, 1
'I ; :|!= _ An §5ci||ary 1®SH§!:, 2l ™ S??*~c9n?^ction rrao^PFov*s*on *s ^a* ^e new gMPs (structural
sewer system.
JT, developers may be able to save on construction costs when they build their sewer
ismbst'cfbselyafiglDeS'^mth^co'staialysis, which
smmm t iin mv ill «connections.
^^rE= ,."';: rii|^
; in the
is'reduce e peak runoff hat must e handled by conventional storm water
poteniiai"fo"f g^ygj^gjg to"reduce"'the"cbst of
The analysis assumed that reductions in peak runoff volumes generate cost savings associated
MBMi ...... i ............................. ! ....... " .............. ........................................... m ................................. m .......... • ....................... ....................... '. ........................... s ..... . ....... • ....... = ............ > ................... • ..... •• ................................... i™.— ............... • ......... s ..... ...... • ..... • .......... ........ s ..................................... 3 ............. ••" .................... ..... i ...... "T1" ..... 9- [[[ « ...................... 3 ............... • .......... «3" ............. TSt ............................................ ...................... '
=;- =:Wim;using smaller diameter pipe compared to pipe sizes that might be required without the
liisi ..... tEe "size ...... of pipe that would be requked to transport the wafer quality
1 JanaJwiSouT5ie ..... useTolPSie" ...... stonn' wato ..... BMP ...... was ...... 3eteimine3 ..... for each of the twelve
. M ..... £jM^^^^^^^ ..... . „ ...... . ..... , , . ................. ' ........... ' .............. ' ........ i ..... »' ...... !M|!||B ..... ,, ..... ....... 1| ...... l|i"|i;<:|" ...... ..... .............. " ............................
iel sites used in the cost analysis (i.e., four acreage sizes and three impervious surface
..... ~^ j ..... ancf third
" m Exhibit' B-4—9 show the water quality volumes
for the one-inch and five-inch storm events, respectively.
" "1' "'" " ~ "'
1!
The standard approach for calculating the size of pipe used in a storm water/sewer drainage
is to determine: the• peak discharge from a given property and then use the value in
equation to determine the pipe diameter. In these calculations, a water quality volume
a peak discharge using Claytor and Schueler's method (1996) (columns 4 and 5
for the five-inch storm (water quality volume without a BMP) and the one-
itef quality volumeYetameffby^BMf^ IlieiC^aiinings equation was used to
.,
iijjK
**^*':- Ho'rm 25^ tSeoinch storm) and wii&buta'H^r7 measure (five-mch storm). The resulting
;=,;^==s:: '"-^r^^': figduction in pipe diameter was assumed to represent the size by which the storm water/sewer
,,.. :.{djainagepipuig'could be reduced because of the implementation of the BMP (column 6 in
' ' " " ' ** " T5SfB£nJ£ '
" ' Jtft , ;:• „ ( • i" !;;„• -. i;;, • i ,- • s ;, :i: ;,;, i; u i ;oui -i: ,„- , »•'» i '"' ' 'n. ••, '!' ill isipsss : i1 :: •••. -n, : i s •, ••=, i i • :
""' "'"i! ! II ! I ! ' II " ! l"l ' i'
iiitiiM^^^ • tii mil i
ininiiiiniinniininnniiiiiiiniiinnnibi, iniiiiiiiiiiinnniiiiiiinin i, MII iiiiiinini "HIIIIU u iii n minimi11"1"! ::nnni:iM inn i'"-'* iii'iu,, i.»
iillill .Kill' JilM^^^^^^^ ' "I!1 T^MMf figtit Ill lillHbll IKIi; "•'.ilillK i IN III Ifii ::li'< i1' i,
1 )H^^^^ iilB^^^^^^^^^^^^
i14i iiRii iiiiiiix;"!. i; iiiit! iu "mm' iiiiit": *n {iiaiiiB, vifm.- m& '•vi<<: a t
! n ';;iite»^fi^'^.jatf!J!»{ii!M!u.;s fin
October 1999
H'liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii !!<",„^ liiiiiiiiiijiisiiiiiiiIiiiilkijiiiiill'!* iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiipiiiiiiiiiijiiiiiiiiiiiiii!'ilii!!iisiiisl^iiii,iiiiiii',L iiiiiiiiiii^iiu!•;'iiisiiiiiiliiiii!!!!1 i•" \> Iliiii i'*;'FSsinirliiiiiiiiiiK^ Ijsi^jin!»iiiifliBiii!!!!!!*^ i^M\,. i*,sul'-i!*^ ^Il<
-------
Appendix B
f
\
J!
(
•8
O
e
<
^
c
VI
o»
u
c
c
0
t
&
c
p
L.
0
^
|
0?
S.
"o
s
IM
S
>M
Cfl
«
1
u
CM
Q
£>
R
«•«
," 5*-lf^
, <3€
•'-Jj
•*•* 1
w.W |J
•*•• Jzj *"*
s-K
/ * o
c -|^
"*" ~ -i •*•* sj
- ~v V*"
% >>g
'"•H
^ *•* i?.-*^'
^ ^^ "**•
r 3
j~ S
(. *
a "3 *$
"" «S &t( ""••
" "
'*
*>*
1 .Srss ^
JJ {M^ O (™
S M 2
«,? *
I* y
» *.""'*
^ O 4) ,|~*~.
3 c^ *S5 Si
i? S" g -g
3 >*» B <3
jj '"' O ""^
x
"
a» "*
h
o e
esj |
o o
—i —
CS fN
O O
oo ts
tS fN
t-
r
SN
~
cs
0
'sT
^H
•T)
C
T
r*-
oo
CN
s
£
CO
c
^
^^
o\
o\
/*o
oo o\
°x ^
^ 0\
11
§ C^S
s °l
VO t~- t~~
en -r> ir» v
T> C3
« •*'
?22 rt
IT
t
l-
s
VI
t**
1
JS 60 <0
.1 -if .2
a -5 J §
§ S c S
4) -S c g
•s e i s
^ S -3 »
<2 «> § "2
•a "° .S «
~S •% © w
1 Jl 1
t 11 1
« § a '"
co ii ™ ^
"u, CJ ••• .71
*O "^ *3 £3 ^3
C O hn e ® "^3
flj *"* S *^3 "O
n. oojs ^ e >»
§ •- w " S 's —•
u
o O
60g
2^ C- ^-^ '^ SI u
StvgtS(§-SIs
i2gSv?8»t§
•s s. &::
October 1999
Final Report
B-47
-------
PI, i, m, ; : , i Appendix B
' '"'''' ' ' ' '• H '' l! J
ii Bii
The cost sayings were estimated by subtracting the unit cost of the pipe size required to transport
bfeg.fiXSSncj^gtojnj volume from the, unit cost of the pipe size required to transport the five-inch I
™ The 1999 Means manual was used to detennine the
rial ;icost per linear foot assuming the pipe was made of concrete (non-reinfp£cedpip£, extra
~i cost-savings analysis used standard pipe sizes; Serefore, if
i drop to the:
), a zero <
•w«S£«analysis did not assume any cost savings associated with construction or maintenance activities.
Because: costs are: measured in dollars per linear foot, EPA needed an estimate of approximate
length of storm water drain pipe adjacent to each" construction start. To calculate the
A. assumed that the one-, three-, five- and seven-acre properties are square in
—•»: ~--~ :: : :'" !;=^^ a53 tfiat the storm water drain runs along one side of the property. Therefore, the total
. ^E:'™.~~":". r^j^".^^! of p|f>mg per property was determined by taking the square root of the acreage area and
•^v^^^^^ggQy^g^ frOm acres to feet (column 8 in gjjjjjgj.
il'uiliiiuiii!!"'
I I ' , Ill :,'|l >"« '•
#l| lijjijB
pfej.ggsjggyings per model site by multiplying three values: the cost savings per
the linear feet per site, and the number of sites. Column 9 in Exhibit B-4—9 shows
of construction starts used to estimate gi^p costs, and column 10 reports aggregate
cost savings across all sites
EH* ii ,.;'
savings per type of model site. Total
$7.7 million.2
« , , , i3iip!*if;;!i^^
: ;•-;; —ir ;:";:,; ;_;-; -;;T -_--- ;;_;-;;,
:'J^ffi$:4:,ii^^^ll'4MT«.vi^&.i:fi^ 'i »,;« I
n ................ .......... j|*|| ............. ' ...... "''"I''1 ' | "u '• ..... • ....... '''"
.. ll , saiv!n,s
numSr o^cons^uctipsterts summarized in gg
o obtam total natona costs, ,
§tijte post-cnstouction nmoff icontrol cte are
mflig-.jft ::,,,,, toW'SiStRfixffiate 78 raonperyear.
:iiiiiiiiiiiii!iiiiiiiiiir''iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiin ..... 14, 'iiiiuiiiiiiliiiiiiJiiiHiiiiiiiiiiiiiiin JP. "i',* ClilllB«ilili,!!ln,UllTinillii inyinillH^
.iiiiii'.iiiiiiiiiiiiii'iiiiiini'r.'iiii1, '''iiiiiiiHi'iiini!!1 iiBiiiiiiiipi; 'inniiiii'mHia! INI \4V",,;iE"»in, Siii'fcj'y,1!!, "iiiiinnnii"( Kuy.-1' i»,,;;:, 'iniu111 nn I!!:i|!|i|iii"iiiiii' iii-T'/ivi'iiiniiiiiiiiiifliiii,
i ijiEjiili, 'f\ a
i: n'1,1!:,1 ' niii,"1:,!,!,,,,!, i1;,I'inN'ii,1:1:
lilihK^ if!'' li'Fi; ' I'ii P; ''jK
!S,ilSl,!£aS,§M Sl a-l
life §11 ffe coqld jjotentialfy reduce storm water diain
IE1- illK
f;!1 lengths for arger developments. Nevertheless, it is important to realize that this analysis includes only_ one type of
g|f!"sS5Jgs. |f the rule encourages developers to implement design sirategies such as clustering, or if'Se rule
^=,^™ggg|ggex.k',,j. .^ {jyjj^jjjg requirements such as street widths or parking lot sizes, the construction cost
IliEii iiiil ..... i ................................. s [[[ = ......... =7 .............. i [[[ a .................. a [[[ *- ....................................... e [[[ '
— :;; ........ savings are potentially large.
Final Report
Ill- :?:=:, :
"Bl :ii!il|iRiPI 3101!" SI I'll IlL^j'Tligillllllillilllllllllfliliiillllinltiaiii!!!!!!::','!»»![ \ I' li!, 'I'll1' f'M ''HilEJlllHiiSaBJIIIIIiHllPI11;:!111' -liiil'r "I, lillilllllliliiillii'liililllillllllr'iliniiiilijlllllll'iiii' £^|T
-------
Appendix B
Exhibit B-4-10. Estimated Post-Construction Runoff Control Costs
"*:?
* ~ ~4 J ft
, > *„ i •>:-?
v*A *•*
„ Area
1 Acre
3 Acres
5 Acres
7 Acres
Total Cost
35% Impervious
(Multi-Family
' Residential)'
$503,163
$1,486,961
• $2,001,641
$3,863,272
$7,855,037
65% Impervious
(Multi-Family/
Commercial/
Institutional)
$14,318,035
$29,571,535
$11,835,630
$23,910,571
$79,635,771
•=•»(•
y
-------
in? ' iiii •; iiiiii;,,'''' ,i ,:'iiir",,ii niiiii'Pi" niiiii'i, 'PiiniiPiiiii'iiiinp' - 'iiiii1 ii >,iiiii ni ii < ii iii: 'ini'iii'iit n1'',' , tsKA i1, i :n,i|iiiii<':"ii'" ijniiiiiHiji'i ,.'
•iP'iiiiiipiii!ii'''iiiiiipii,iipiiniiiiiiiiiiiiiiPi'iiippi'ipiiiiii'ii1,jiijji i",IIIIP ,,,.',iipiiiiiiiiiii"p'ni' 'ii'ijjiiiiHi'ii'lniipiiiniipi'i I'liigpiiiiiniiii'iiii" inn/piii',iiij f i£iA. s^ •" i,^!:;': if liar •„ !i::|1 nil!:1!';:1?'!' f ''^ir\"';::;"!': •/iii!!!,:;,,,!,;,, :,:< „„•; : :, i,;1' n IE in!;:;1':,,':;;:!!!!:"",, • jirr1!!!!!!!!:,"} "lEEiEiiii!!:, '>:"'""'!!!
, <: i'!1!:;,,!!!!,, Illllil" ,,'4 "H",, • „ I!1 n, H! »!''! Jlllllli1 !il '' Ik, /;•",," ,li;i,!lli!'"il!iii'!1:1' iiiipiil!||ii .j'liisi?11'11111 L 19f: "fst •'" 'iiiinn,'":'" i' ',:,*! :• • i iii'n, > , 'I"1'«; v; i;«' 'i ij;; i11''* > si1 's , • u ";| /' Pii i -I'Fi1 LI ''jiiiinii:", ,i,:, • ,., jwi, •',: ::•,; >x '„ :,,u,i:S • , ii!:!1 si' - iii '<: :i,i,' ^iiii'S' iiiiiiiiiiini: '.iiiiiiiiiini!" p' '^ ;\v?t
•»-" "'" ••:-'' ; i ' = 1
''iiiin^lii/'v^Jli''^!!!!!!!^^^''!!!!!'!!!!!''!!!!;'1 """liiSi
, • 'm:\K . ......... r • m „ "
, • i.,iii ..... , wr ; s «• air ; i, v, :• : -MTI
ilriiiiiiW1'' 'iiw'i v • •
'>«, iiiii '! w "
iliiili':,!Mt»,'ff',"("' "fiiiBP:''S -tBB'jr ...'"ii iBll! ' (n'iBH).* '" !*;17t'^il1^':•!'("! n ,' ,:'!'!"'; hf>,M
-------
Appendix B-5
Federal and State Cost Analysis and Assumptions
-------
.:!::". ..... Slili'iS IIV^^ ....... ill I
'tJTajf;i ..... 'ft*1! /•!.;>' am ...... ''^E-II ........ ill^^^^^^^
iiH^^^
. •
111,1 lillnJIIlli i'l''1":,!"1"! rill"
' |i|i,!Bi"'Bi,t!!ii,i liiBVB, ilWIIP HM I I, i Bill11 II... Ifl^JBIBBB I1;!!11!"1!!..""!'!. ' B'lBH" |." 'ill.! li'BIIBr V' nJlLirili.JHI.rpiPflBflEE11.1!1!!!'1! Bl;l,l B'BIBIB'BI
mr&'mffiMtfnii ii^caaX: it1 ii*»i y^.fciw'it'SiE §s<
i*TTffi i! BB&£?!!I&E
P'lJin1.,' j,IBIIIBIIEE;,, iiBiiBiniiii'i1 ' :iiil:ii BB ::j BBIIIIIIB,, TIL;.'... iijiv., BIIBBE'BB JIB UIB r < .'.iip1"1.!"!!!:;1., "MB y!i B « B JMBI IIBBIIIHH • .ii..,,. .if1., JHEIIEIB, BEVBiiiBBiiiBiBiihi,^" »• TBiimiBj''''!,!1 BVIHI
Eiliriir'Hillli, mil1 bill
ill!!! BIIB"';j" 'SHE Illllil ,»l"f P1,, 'BilL IllllllP'li.iillP'PIEillillilllliiK!' UiillEllili1 ilEI'iii',i, „ II "'El' uliF "ililll '; 'VI 'U'V :'l|l|li' ,F .iiilM"1 '<' •' 'PI'I'IIPIiilllB"!' lilllllli UllllllllllllliFPIIlIll' lilE'i'l'ln,!,, J!1, ',, .Eiil.. nlK1 't Wuli ".r !i. II", •. i '". 1,:' J" . mllllllll'l 11f ifc 1"»', ">'' 'P'ii! il" ';BB''l!!l If •' niLI'i' Ulllllillllllllllllllllll IlllllE .flllllllEBii'Ulllliiill, ''Bllll
; ; ji ; ;; ' N nlj '
1 " i. .... . , , . . ^ ... ^ . •• • , ' ' ' , " • 'y.1 ' '•' 'ij, |
!'.|||illl,,ll I,,, 'Illl illll h'lll. • l.t1 "Mil. l!,ii"»!'i'l'. 'llllll 11 , I lli',"'lii ,111111.' .,Ii|.|i||i|lii||.»IU 'iii'llPllllLnlllii i I'll',, '•!,« I!1 P'li.'il,' 'I'll'',"111111111 "y. I!" ' lil|i'j''|i','Ijililiijliillllllll 11 I ll!T|i|ill.Vlini!ifll|.' PlHrPIPinill'''*!'''^'!™!!11 "!/' ' .'i;!'. ! ill" lli.ll II LIUIIiiIllllllU.I .JIIIIIPPIIjlljP1'Pi'i •.' U'lilll'lllll
ill "'niF'i ii i, iiiiiiiiii i "in'i1
III illlilllJiiiililllilliillllliiJI'l'illlilii;. i|iH!ii I Illllllll' ft, ;,l il!,:i!|il ;i!"l u , htWWiH iNiliiiin
'^h:;.;,. ym jifii'iiiji'' .iii. iii
'' ' ' 1 '1 '' 1 "" "
Eliiliii C'li ..'"il JBliiii'lBl'iii"11"''!,' /'IBBB i'ii'i.'1'liPP' il[li,,I'!|
I 1'iii,,,. ,n, i, {Hill', , ,,1111 niii," B i
: ,iNN ....... • • nf if in fmii ..... ••''' ' '"'•«» i i IM n i • « «" •• ™ii.«™. m. riMMNi » n* r* iiiiiiM niiif " wiiiiMNiNriNii ......... . ...... iipli .T..II"
i ,'B' • ,,'iij
'I „:,;'£ ,. f... '•jrifci^S?!...
llftHLil '. ia.Dllllilii,,]: In,!!! .. ]llilllllllliil In. 114 ' "Dlnl :|iil«;<»i ••ilJllllilllliilllnll1 i :il!illlllilB''iL'i iiiiliH^yniiHii'i:,,;,, .|«|li.',i,ll »!£»• Ur •% .'.j1: «|ili' Jill'iilillinlLi!:!;!!:!'',il:iil •"iiipil'liiiTiilii'i":!'I:i'Ji,;'' ' ?'tjt :f,n;i!l'^'I, ^ii'i,,:,»i iili'lilGliiM::;!!::';/'!:!!; ,;,,:i' {"'Sil P'lllllililFi^grniiliii'i„!'" I'l'llllllliii !l! 'ill!!ipi!i<"INI I1" il!il!iii!i, "III!1!:;:;!"1'!!lii";;iiii»iili:l llliiiiilflliliil^illllilliiilllllllllliiiiliiFinilillililliiiili! "liiiilll
in'iili.rMiiiii:" i Si'iiiiiinjiiii'i 'rwm 1*1. .MI 'iii',,'ini|iiii'i|iuiiii'iiiiiii s.'ijiiji.n'.i n1, T'
PI1' ||ll''ll'l|,il!l'il,l|ll vli'lh'I'I'BB'l'1 1' I'l'lilillliB'"! 'li'iBnlBl''!!''!'!1 !|< 'i I1 ,,il',
:i,, I'lin ,i||ii|jii;i'.ii:|||iii|iiii.;;iiii|. i"1 iriii. ' BBiBiBBi,'1'!!11'!111 Bi
'BJBBIillBBl!!;,;!,,!,1' ''nl! r'! BSBBll/'Bi''!'''!!!!111'1 BfBBBB!"1'1!
iJJ^ iPiiJ jC'^'flil; I
iB BE!,|B||iBB' I j! I1] • ''if "i, ii1»" •' "I,1 II'
iiii in iiiiiii'.Ki iiiiii iiiiiir" i B1"' .n ;ii" li BBB liBiLiiiiiBiiiiiliiiiflBB^ 1 ':i
pil'B'lillliiBJB,™'ifji'ih ':i'li;','Biili
liL" r " :
iiiiiiiVFIiiiliiiillliiJiiiili'i!. iiliiiiiiiiit ^: 4!iiii": 1! iiliiiiy" F" illiiui11!111!!! rSS. iPiLiiL !!i :"!!ii!iiiilii!!iiii ^ li Wf 5i'' i •!',>! >: !.miii' "i! • f J i J liiiii ""b liiiiiiiiiiii! \ ^ tn;i i!!:':> ^iiiiii!!!'. '• ^f1^' .:!i!:; 'iiii "M i v • iii1 "ill -i:!^ n iip''". Ilif iiiilEiiliEii; iliiMiiin.^!^^!!.!1 l^i' iihiiiiiiiiiiiiln • • ;<:>iif"":: "i,l!! liiiiailinif! Bfiri :;i<: ',„":' iiii1.!!1!!" ^. ii "i!!.;1,] :">:: J;i T •!;':!" i 'i iiv li"'! Jiii ji!1:' ri,:^! i!'ii«i|Z!iiiii!ii :i .liiiiiiiiiihiifi' tfiiii! I
liipi'iii*^^^^^^^^^ i" fii'iii •,,iiiiiirii;iiM^^ tnii^ s iiiiii
llliri'llH^ ii'llll' Ilillli!:''' ,'IEill illlliH^^^^^^^ ll'ilE'''!^''!*^^^^^^^^^^^ Ill IB''!'',feiill'Si'll:!!!'l!ii!'',.!,.'!'I"'I1'!!11, 'I'':,!!.!" ,'"|i;i,"l:'i" 'Will!,'!!? IBi'n^^^ II!" II lilBill^ ('llllll |
'''1
•I r'ljiBBill1 niii,,!; i; i1,A,i,;; I nij'fi'iiiKiw lull1!' n't.'PIP',,' JIB ..if'.'lh urarjiLilil I, Ulnl11' i«„ L 'TIf n! .rl.il'p" I1 IPI!"BQiilW BBBlBljU .1 IIVBIBBB '• 'I'l'IVIILi'iBi'lBf! B'1" ^"IIIP'ITI'lliW 'llilip"S ILM^ I
iiiii! ( L Buiiiiiii"l! iiiiii.1" i;'"?: i1";.' r:' a'">:> lilliiiiiiiii1;; .«i! v "iiiii",; ''" n Ji:" ";"!i "ii'^'Siiiiliiiiii ^ :" Ji' 'iiti lit ii' •";.': vii,. • Swt: "iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii^ ws iiiiiiiiii :i'S ii1! liiiiiiiiii'i '"i /i'SiiiiiiiiiiiHitiiii"' i': iit 'i"!.1]:«*,:.' Iiiiii';! \xi<:: tv :fA w;y ''%«s iiiiiiBVfl fftiiiiiiiiiiii" 'iii! swiiii,,*: liiiii" iiiii'"'!;;! iiiiiliiiliiiiiiiih Siiiiw i> i*" 3 |
mil ':,:!
I
HIE! ;ilill!llllll illll!" Illliil'"' Illlkllil' ,,, 'Illllll 'III u: ill 'IIIII'IIB^^
, ii' i'' -I ' i -I >''',; si ar
,i,i,Ili,illilE^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ fi'lVJlU^^ I'l'i,;"!:1!!": i'
iHY'iiFillyiii'ii:1:,!!^^^ ,,„ ,,:iiiiiiiiiiiH,|,,,,i ri'ii,: ,',",,"'i',ii"1 ,,,uiiii,
ilH^^^^^^^ liliH^^^^^ Iliiliij;:,! Mim.:
ilillim I'l!" ....... ' IK ..... 'IIIRK I
I"!;, 'iitj " I'll' lliW ..... - 'STIJI ...... J" ...... JKI:, !!] ..... H ..... lit) I *! i 111 , iiili
........ IIIII. " .illllll'
, lit! i-l'lll ...... i ;:lll'll!tl.
:;u^ ...... ' ...... '^liliiiiiiii ^liiilB^ :>iiAt ii¥f^it**i'it«iiitS!Lii''JkP;: iiiiw^
,i ,i ..... ii 1 1 ........... mil: fiiiiiiin ' i „ ..... IL ..... vipiii w^ # ' "I, ..... n
^ ..... ii ..... i: , , m1' , .n, s iiinnm^
.Ull ..... IN ..... II < ' ilIlll'I'W '
"MilillllllllW 'liilililllll^ ' ii'ili1:!1 r,, i' ;ii!!! lijilillliiii! /.CM":!, i""i,.;il!Hlllii;ir , liljIlJiK:!!",, '"ililiHlllii Sl'lMiElllB'/ilBlllBC''*;,;,!:!!!1 'HB Hi;',1, JjlEE:11! h' ':l,,, hB hAJIIlii fflii! ''"„ Jlr SJ. i; flBiil'B,1' n,, BBB, ,:' BBWlBE1 "i11! I'BBBiBBi ''lllliiniipi.liliih1 ''l;'l!;
1 ' i,i , i'tl : t, ,' ! , 'i. .r,.;,'.;,.: i1;,.;. . I-,:'., ill,'1 J-,/: ;" i. ..„: I ;,:• '::' " :.;..
-------
Appendix B
Appendix B-5
Federal and State Cost Analysis and Assumptions
Promulgation of the Phase II rule will expand the universe of municipalities and construction
activities required to submit an application for a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) storm water permit. The Phase II rule has the potential to increase the universe
of municipalities by a total of 5,106 places/counties and to require permitting authorities to
process permit applications from approximately 110,223 construction sites and 19,452 waivers
each year. The annual cost to the Federal government is estimated to be approximately $457,000
and 'the annual cost to State governments is estimated to be approximately $4,861,000.
B.5.1 Federal Costs
Once the Phase II rule is implemented, EPA will be required to operate the NPDES program in
non-NPDES authorized states.3 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will be responsible for
two Hypes of costs: start-up costs and annual costs. The start-up costs include the incorporation
of Clean Water Act 401 certification language into the general permit that EPA anticipates
developing for small MS4s, the review and filing of non-NPDES-authorized States/Territories
plans, development of storm water goals for these states and territories, and the designation of
additional. All the start-up costs associated with the administration of Phase II will occur once
as the rule becomes implemented. Some of these start-up costs may also be incurred periodically
as needed at the beginning of each new permit cycle. For example, the incorporation of 401
certification language into the general permit language is likely to only need to be done once,
while the designation of additional MS4s may occur occasionally at the beginning of each new
permit cycle.
When the Federal government is the permitting authority for the Phase II municipalities, EPA
will be required to annually process the applications, review plans, issue NPDES storm water
permits to the municipal applicants, and review and file any reports. For construction sites
disturbing between one and five acres of land in non-NPDES authorized States, EPA will be
required to process the notices of intent (NOIs) to be covered by the construction general permit,
the notices of termination (NOTs), and the waiver certification. For small MS4s, EPA will be
required to process and review the NOI and report. Exhibit B-5-1 provides the estimated start-
up costs and Exhibit B-5-2 presents the annual costs to the Federal government.
3The non-NPDES authorized States and territories include Alaska, Arizona, District of Columbia, Idaho, Maine,
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Puerto Rico. While Florida and Texas will not administer the storm
water portion of the NPDES program until the year 2000, they are counted as part of the NPDES authorized states
and territories since the Rule will take effect in 2003.
October 1999 Final Report '
-------
'
. . , . . ....
^ •» 1!^^
..fSiill-'l1,! lUC 1IR! iilin^^^^^ ,1(il!K^^^ tfHBg^WiligrnMnMffiitaViWW'I'i'.'iMlir"-'"
11 kih. ' ,r , , ,-•,,'! , , .,::'., ssi :',;:!,! , : ,-
''lilliilliilliiiil'ililiJIf1!!!!,
!llllllllllilli;i::.;ii:i!llllil]l!Ji IliliiJlllik'1 JPIF Jn I!
Exhibit B-5-1. Estimated Federal Start-Up Costs (1998 dollars)
It
i;"f '!« jiiiiiiiiiiiliii^ii
l,;i;;; JS1
'•;,? ir , ;;
-, , ' ,» ,;!!'••!• .' /',' i,f v-i •';•",. /"/•>••'*• "•• i1 •'•'••••,••.'•*"•
i }•;!";, Phase II Program Element ' •
Review and File Modified State Programs
Develop Storm Water Goals in
Non-Authorized States
Incorporate 401 Certification Language
Designation of Additional MS4s
TOTAL COSTS6 $46,879
Respondents
'• •:i$er,-: ' •
Year*
9
9
9
9
'. «Burden-:;"?
.Hours- jier:;.
Respondent2
12
100
5
66.6
'/'Hourly:-;-:
.vyLabor ;-''':
'ft'Cosis?''.'
$28.37
$28.37
$28.37
$28.37
Estimated
£'dort?; -.•='.
$3,064
$25,533
$1,277
$17,005
Annual Cost
Over Permit
Period5
$613
$5,107
$255
$3,401
$9,376
••• i in niiiiiniiiii iiiiniiiii nil inn i ii in 11 ii nil ii HI mill ii 11 in 11 ii iii 11 ii in 1 111 ii i i i in 11 in iii i iii i iii i in 111 nil iiiiiiiiniiiiiiiinnniiiini i in n nil nil in ill inn inn inn in in in iiliiiiinin i i nliiinn iiiiinn iiiiini niniilnin iiiiinn
jejtiuinberjjfRespondents, 9, represents the non-NDPES states and territories that EPA will operate the NPDES
i Hourly labor costs are based upon an average annual Federal employee salary of $39,338, divided by 2,080 labor
' ' '" " ' ' u '"""'"" " " ""' verneac! costs (US office of Personnel Management, 199 8'J.
af the respondents per year, hours per respondent, and hourly -labor costs.
3, estimated cost is divided by five years.
Numbers may not total due to rounding.
KH^^ 11II1K . 4li.traUjI*!]flF! Biaii, IM4'-l 111! "i' Ml ilia illlliiii,'1!!!, ll,,,K ftttliafyiaiKCt!'il) ''•l?'*l.'I?!t ! I'lOli I
I;,!' jut! I'liiillllli I, H'lnli'llNIItU
, ., , ,, ,, ,. , „ „ d*uJub!tBr£r-2£ Estimated Federal Annual Costs (1998 dollars)
Jliillll ,i
f>» ""* N f." |i»" '!'«> ' il SBi'' ';l '' •1'"",; i- !i< *'-v:>l',V, ''" 'r'' '', """'"• *|!
2TiM^ftT^tl:-rC->-'i/jIid"^'?i^^.77^;V'''
Phase n Program Activity
Construction Program
Waiver Cert Processing & Review
NOI Processing & Review
NOT Processing
Small MS4 Program
NOI Processing & Review
Report Processing & Review
Annual Total5
Respondents
Per Year1 '-''
1,607
9,104
9,104
357
357
^BurdenJEfonrs'?'
}^-. ..vs.iiiw*',,,:-,,^ -v\,V'*V.r,V':";i1r
per Respondent*
1
1
0.5
0.8
1.6
-•Hourlytliabor'::-'
.,,,,>,,.;,, .r;, . .-!, ~'.y-.. .--,-. -•
<;,;•' ;:-/.sGostr?;'*.:-'
$28.37
$28.37
$28.37
$28.37
$28.37
Estimated
"'^••'Cost4 ••"*•
$45,590
$258,280
$129,140
$8,102
$16,205
$457,318
1 The number qf respondents per year was based on the 1990 Bureau of Census data for small MS4s and 8.26% of
* Burden hours per respondent were estimated by EPA.
3 Hourly labor costs are based upon an average annual Federal employee salary of $39,338, divided by 2,080 labor
jSSSS^E.,'1.'"^! hours per year and then increased 50% to represent overhead costs (US office of Personnel Management, 1998).
4 Estimated cost is the product of the respondents per year, hours per respondent, and hourly labor costs.
i«^^^ o " i' - ':• "i s Numbers may not total dueto rounding".
!=^^^^^^^^^^ 'fT'!, B.5wK State Costs
: ™-F'C:'States and, Territories that are authorized to operate the NPDES grogram will iexperience boft
"^'1 """'s an3'aiim3 costs.4 The start-up costs include ^e costs associated with revising
'. 2escrige5g 40 CFR 123.62(5), the incorporation
iii'!1
I/'PIIW1 'sniiiiw^ luniljj^^ B r*
44 States and Territories authorize to operate the NPDES program. No Native American Tribes
1B^^^^^ IKI'iil iiil Illia^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ; ,^JBJtI> I |1K^^^^^^^^ I" l!^:'-'':!! i:^^^^^ Illi1:!^ 'V
! liiilliiliilililiilit ''IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIUIIIII' llllllill|l|lll||llllll!,''' T! liiilili 'illliillllllillliiiiiiiillilllllilllllllllili till Sill!' ll!h!'llllllll||IIIIB'!!!ID!lii!lll iinlll'1 ii" lUlnl ii'lf "Ir i tlilllllllillEIIIViJHlUiillli I! 11'!! i! In 0 '<"/• '• 11"» IIIKIi!11 iL' I' !P,I IIHi,i|ll| 'illlL.! <'l!ll!lill!llll!!l 1 iiuill'IT! I! '< < V'llliili:!!!!!1 illllniilClil'iliilJlilii il|illll|l||pliiill|IIIIIIIJII|ll iilll'lll'l l!il< III! "1,11,.! JliI PII'IIIMi'liJ'*!1 ,'< -' illlllllllllli'!': i,, iTlll" ''I'll! Ill !j'lllllll||[llll|l< V' Mi\ VIIIIIIHIIEI1 ilillilflllilllili,,,! lllllli||l|l lllllli'iliir;: "Illlill
-------
Appendix B
of Clean Water Act 401 certification language into the general permit, and designation of
additional MS4s. The annual cost includes the State's responsibility as the permitting authority.
For the Phase II municipal program, States will be required to will be required to annually
process the applications, review plans, issue NPDES storm water permits to the municipal
applicants, and review and file any reports. For construction sites disturbing between one and
five acres of land, the States will be required to process the NOIs, NOTs, and waiver certification
form. For small MS4s, States will be required to process and review the NOI and report.
Exhibit B-5-3 provides the estimated start-up costs and Exhibit B-5-4 presents the annual costs
to the State government.
Exhibit B-5-3. Estimated State Start-up Costs (1998 dollars)
- - /PhaseH
- .Program Element
401 Certification
State Revision Procedures6
Designation of Additional
MS4s
Respondents
Per Year1
44 '
44
44
Burden Hours
per Respondent2
12
100
66.6
Hourly Labor
v. Costs'",
$26.87
$26.87
$26.87
TOTAL COSTS7
Estimated
-Cost! *
$14,187
$118,228
$78,739
$211,154
Annual Cost Over
.^Termit Period5
$2,837
$23,645
$15,748
$42,230
1 The number of respondents represents the 44 NPDES-Authorized States and Territories.
2 Burden hours per respondent were estimated by EPA.
3 The hourly labor rate for NPDES Authorized States and Territories was based on the average hourly rate for state
and municipal employees as determined by the US Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment
Cost Indexes and Levels, 1975-1995, Bulletin 2466.
4 Estimated cost is the product of the respondents per year, hours per respondent, and hourly labor costs.
5 To determine annual costs over permit period, estimated cost is divided by five years.
640CFR123.62(b).
7 Numbers may not total due to rounding.
October 1999
Final Report
B-55
-------
Appendix B
II III 11 liillll 111 III
1 ill
II (Mil I
Ill111! I
fi,
IP 111
Exhibit B-S-4. Estimated State Annual Costs (1998 dollars)
' ,-; - - h-^'i. ;-'t*
Phase n Program Element * "/
Respondents
PerYear1
'Burden Hoars
per Respondent2
Hourly Labor „ ,
Costs*:---- -
, 'Estimated,
Cost4
Construction Program
Waiver Cert. Processing & Review
NOI Processing & Review
NOT Processing
17,845
101,119
101,119
1
1
0.5
$26.87
$26.87
$26.87
$479,495
$2,717,068
$1,358,534
Small MS4 Program
NOI Processing & Review
Report Processing & Review
Annual Total5
4,749
4,749
0.8
1.6
$26.87
$26.87
$102,085
$204,169
$4,861,350
I "I I I '"' I
1 The number of respondents per year was based on the 1990 Bureau of Census data for small MS4s and 91.7% of
total starts that are inNPDES states and territories in E?chib|ts B-2-3 and B-2-4 for qonstruction.
2 Burden hours per respondent were estimated by EPA.
3 The hourly labor rate for NPDES Authorized States and Territories was based on fee average hourly rate for state
anSjnuiupipal employees as determined by^ the US Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment
Cost Indexes and Cevels,' l573'-l555,"SinieSm2466. "
* JEslimated cost is the product of the respondents per year, hours per respondent, and hourly labor costs.
,;~;r:™ Numbers may not total due to rounding.
.;'.'fVB!i; ..... ....... I!'1,;1'1!1' ........ iWj
H'fclT:'.'?,1 ...... 9"', ..... ^M^WS".'..!! ..... ffiiK, ..... ^"SiEIIW ..... ,..i"-/;iE ..... i ...... ll ...... fti^JHf^.^'^"../'.".^-
" i' 'uiiiiiv u diLui viiiiiiir p.:" :IIK HI < i: r i j1 .if i,:, „,'' ^iii i p i11;,: i, ii: inHini BiNinir .w: n? B -' 1111;,
i ' , «fl< I'*1: IF mill, if, ini:«n iiiilii,1 , ' i ii ,' ' f ' i r ,11, ' ; : WIA '<: / ...... iinv ' >'' wi1 £, ..... in,, linin
!H$tfK i*'Mt£HmB !it
!i«^^^^^^^^^^^^ ,i
i-m,'^,. ..... " ...... :i!^^^^^^^ ...... j; ..... im
s
iiiiin '$*•?• \ ^m. iii ii: ti^iiis
^^^ 'fflww
, ll.lllillllliil'l'll.iill'l'tiii;,!..:!!!',.!11:1 1
i!1"!"!1" Illl." mil I""1, ii,!1"1 JiilllPil'l' .hi,!!!1!!1!!!!!!!:;,' tiniliiiniliiili : I.'."1' I'll »„,' I1 < "Ill" "U"'" ''P JJi'llHiiiliiW1'1!11!" Ill, i, " "'iPlillii/iiiill, ,'LII' mill'
WlOTWLilftSCWtlWWM > t!S;-'-;' "i'-iSSII''
i
HP. ii'i'Mm,11: ni1 Mii'i"' I;l"i;i|in« i*'Ji'M'iiiii'ii - >:;l:ii';>in< :l^l,< . ;i t, : K aii 'iin "T.II • ,,ii, " if • •„ '". - :- ,„ ,iiiiiiiiHiini« : • i :tw ' , li
i1: :;\ ....... : j ..... « ' ' i / • i ? „ '; • •'• , F 7 1 ,, : : 1 1:111,1, ^ ;: <;, ii/; ' < , *m\ » n,> • ''i, < i; : t'1 ; , , iir '! ;i
;>,,i
^^^^ '-l' w
' <-!,:
^^li^iiiEJII^'flTillilllilliil:1^
''iHnlllHIIIIil,!! .:|' illl'^lllili'illllllllllllllll |. ':il,i||||iiWi,l!
Illi
i:1,,!; , ill' ...... iilniiiB^^
iiijijhii;1: iiiiiFi ..... iiTii i
...... ' ' «,•!", 'ii'iiii ...... i, '"iw, ..... ; ....... Mm 1 1* ..... !„ ,|, i|,,i, ill; A,, ill > '•,|T ...... ,:,,!,"' ...... I, :;,ir IP 'i,,11,,!! 11: »i- ' WP'JPW^ ..... IIMII : !,; rt |d
' ''K™ '*•!!'' ;;!i|'!"' • i v •i<';!|||!l ';; 'i<; {' "" '7'i' "> ' ' '!--l|!l<< |s<^^ 'I: ..... i
i, »"! i, ...... niBiiiiiKiii:?" ..... ill ..... HI ....... i!,4' ..... jui'ijiih,! ...... Krif nil , l!«: ,, I|M>> ^[iiiiini ...... jiiiim miiiT
..... i .iiiiiiniin ..... i ...... 'i iiiiipiii'iini; ...... ;ii *:>
J!! "'I;::» ii'1,!!! T JI-'IVIJllW A1"' ' :''' "Illi Liif^
;,, .i:! an iii" iiiiiiK > ,'>:. ••> .iiirsii1 iKtiiis^'
J!| , :' ' liJJia, ii," j Hi 'nil" ':ii,:, i*'» J I'llin'll'Pi .Iliwi 'f i
liLilM i ,''"i:il|l;r 'ill'!' '< IIPIiiliMlilil- oil' ,111 IfJIH !t!:i,< .IIHi
• iiii'1 " Iiil li'fif Iliiii I'
"' ..... i iii ..... ..... • ii"1 " ' ' ' 'Tiiiiii1' '¥' 'f f- f"1 ..... "l|1 ..... WW ..... ii ''i11 iii 'i;: I'liiriii1'' i1]1"1' ' ? 'iiiii! 'r '"
iiiiilr'l I1' TMW'V i ^''WlWlf l:":'|l|l;|11""' f VV IPillilfiiiii1'1 "Iiiii '!i
liillll I ill 111
B-56
ii ii i in IK
October 1999
-------
Appendix C
Supplemental Benefits Calculations
-------
•Jill li^fi'^ !!!!!!•
ill S i. .WHIT , ; i; , ;fi , • "> •' ', ' „„ !\ .di1
*! 'in' ' "c - , ' "!«i"':! TIBS & I! IM^^^^^ f'
', ! ' '''''
^ E. '
; $ : * w\ '• A :,,,;i: .
ylllllMlhlhljIM ' n
ii in::,in: iiniiipi1 iiiiiiiii iijii n
! I
i' ii!ii:illiF!!l!!IIII!!!ii!!'il' 'illllll ....... !!!< ...... HIB!" ' •'! i I1!!"!!!1; iiii;:f; ..... :"< ...... K:i '<* m 1 7 ;;n: .^i > "' ' i!?:, liii,,1!; » ..... :! ..... mm '& ..... iJPV'^ ':: :!!; ........ II":!:!:::!:
" '" ' ' ' "'" ''"
'^ ' i;'::l'i;]!J!ii!ii:"*i; " •'!:";: ...... i^m ^ mwm ^"L ''C'flitti : J! '^: 'Ji'i ':<<; ^Vi: iiiliipil^iiii^l'iiiaillllll!!11!' 'ililHiii' ..... ';i'iiiii!!!I I
l'"l!il!'l'! ..... ''i!''1'1'1!1!1!1'!!!!!!!' fiiitii'LiJ'"'"'''^^^^^^^^^^^^ •'!'!'! • ' ' !'!'!'i!!'i \i!!!i!':t!i'i!:ii!i,i:i!!!'!!li!!!!ii;!ll!!!!!!!!!!!l>l "l'i!!!!;!!!!,,!1!!!!!,!!!
'!: qn""1!:::,!!1';; ' i1 !!i:i , jiiiiii ^ Jiiiii '"d,;: , ^ly":; "ii,!;"' ; r rs • in!1:1'
ii! • "> ;/'' ....... 'i:;> i: i1!!"" 'iiiiiiniiri11, : i;,|i:>:i"|i!!! ...... KK ' .::;!"; ^m •'"'• ! :w ....... ^ ^^K ' :t <* !,M.
................................... '"" [[[ ' ............... ' .......................
n; ' "/, '' ' ,ii m • ::"!:;f; ..... iC! ..... !i|iv| ........ i!!1?!!;;!!
•" ililiiillllllK. In, 'iM'.iillllllllllM'i:
^' 'iH'liib • i«ii; u I' i:i; >| , il,« SI ^IMIj'"I;/:' ;ij« iijiiiiiiji, 'ii TV ijii iiiLi', .iiiiiijiiiiiiE Tini ME
li.Bi'H' :V !:iiii, ri'niijiii' ii/|ii>iiiivi' .I'liuiiiiiiiiiiiiii'iiiiij in' ' .,'f, ;n. " tm iiiriiiF itiii
i ./i ...... mi. f an i! n ..... v :y ...... HI ..... iiiiii ......... "i ...... m i ..... : :; • ii; ..... -IIIIK i!'! ft liniffi,'!11 ti-fi laiiiiii1' '. a- ' ' 1111111 ..... lii ...... iBictiii:
i i ,i! iiiiijiiiiiiiiiiji11';iii,!i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiHiiii:, pi'iiiiiiiiiiiK, ''iiHiiiuiiiii ,n;'" i n x i n >. ii i
If /iiiiiiiiii i in;,; <: ,,,,!'• , innnnni'iihttliniiiPNiiiiiJ'r ii'inj" "jj,, iinEiniiil'V'ljiiJiHniili!111!11!!!!!!?1!1:;111*!!!',;!!'11'1'"", "llpijiiiup1 < ;f, IIIIIIM!::! I1;!!!!!!!!:'!1 ^r':; '"lit?11:! :>l|l::!:::ii!:'!!!:: i!!!"!!!111!!!*! l!!!!!!i!i if!:|:i'1 ""P" I'l1**!!!!!1!!!!!1!1!; 11" WRiiiinnnK;^!!!!!,!!:1 i;i!!!!ii:i!!l!:!!
-------
Appendix C
APPENDIX C
EPA developed a three-step method for extrapolating the results of the Santa Monica Bay
epideraiological study (Haile et al., 1996) to estimate the potential health impacts to swimmers in
marine waters of the Phase II Storm Water Rule:
estimate potential range of contamination concentrations at storm sewer drains in Phase II
coastal communities
• estimate potential number of swimmers who swim near storm sewer drains in Phase II
coastal communities
estimate incremental illnesses using "attributable numbers" from the Santa Monica Bay
study (Haile, et al., 1996).
Assuming that swimmers are not likely to swim near storm sewer drains during "wet weather"
flows, the estimated number of incremental illnesses represents illnesses that occur during "dry
weather" when low flows in storm sewers are caused by illicit connections and infiltration. By
targeting the removal of such flows, the Phase II Storm Water rule should reduce the number of
related illnesses among swimmers in marine waters.
Potential Range of Contamination Concentrations
The attributable numbers in the Santa Monica Bay study (Haile et al., 1996) depend on total
coliform (TC) concentrations in marine waters near storm sewer drains. The concentration of
total coliform (TC) in the vicinity of a storm sewer drain depends on the extent to which the
waste water mixes with the receiving water body. The extent of mixing is site specific and
depends on several parameters such as the location of the outfall, the type of outfall, and currents
in the receiving water. All of these parameters can be grouped into one variable, the dilution
ratio. The dilution ratio can be used as a measure of the level of mixing at the discharge point or
at the vicinity of an ocean outfall.
Dilution ratios at coastal sewer drains vary greatly and are specific to each system. EPA does not
have location information for the drains in coastal Phase II communities, much less location-
specific dilution ratios. For a general analysis, EPA assumed that the dilution ratio varies from
100 to 1,000. This range of dilution ratios is representative of mixing conditions encountered at
the vicinity of coastal sewer drains. A dilution ratio of 100 represents a low mixing level at the
ocean outfall and is used to represent the high-end of expected TC concentrations. Similarly, the
dilution ratio of 1,000 indicates a high level of mixing and is used to represent the low-end of TC
concentrations. The die-off and transport of TC organisms is not incorporated in the estimation
since the intent is to estimate the TC concentrations in the immediate vicinity of the discharge
point Such die-off and transport components are usually incorporated when estimating the TC
concentration at various distances from the outfall.
October 1999
Final Report
C-3
-------
'Ill !• 1 1^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Ill
iiita^ i ill IP in i iiii
iiiiii in i iiiiii n • ii
ii^^
ill11! iiiiiiiia i iiiiiiiii iiiiii ni • in i in1 in iiiiiii1 Appendix C
11 nil in niniiiiiii iniinii in i in i
Combining these dilution ratios with an estimate of mean TC concentration hi waste water, EPA
Srobtained! ..... a range of TC concentrations at coastal sewer drains. EPA (1976) reports a mean TC
gSS5en!fation of 3.10S/1 00 ml for the discharge from storm sewers and unsewered areas. The
outfall is 300 cfu/lOO ml to 3000 cfu/100 ml. The low and
range
K'Jjigh ends of this range fall on either side of the 1,000 cfu/lOO ml cut point for the attributable
liinbefs in! the Santa Monica Bay study. This allowed EPA to use the low attributable numbers
ii^iih^'iiiiii^i^^^^S^^S'JiSX^^l^^ijPP.30^8 anc^ ^e his*1 attributable numbers to characterize high health
' ' , ,s impacts.
i. i: uii i ii iiiiiiiwii^^^ iiniiH^^^ »• i,;11 m HI 11 v ,:K i«:;iuiiM Illniaiiiii 11 IHIIIIIIU w^^^ i1 jiiinii nipr 'w; ;i :"< In1:, fl;, iiii iiii: jvliK^ iwn< <«
ijiiiii iiff'^Syi^iiSiEiiiaSiijpBiBiHiiiiifSia^t^j'j •'( jiiia>iiiiii;ffi-ii:^^w*™i«^pii™(ites!«ii*r« LkviAii wvi i \>A>\
Potential Number of Swimmers at Ocean Sewer Drams
• • SSSi, lpiWj,fti:,pi!!Jj • ,
• i T 'Ufi ' in die" s^onS ™™^^ estmiateH th"e 'annual numb'er ofpeople who might Se
Ui!:!!3R3cposed to these concentrations as a result of swimming near these drains: The Section 6.2.2 on
^"*^2^.,^^^t£^JS3fe§S£S^ IS§I3Se,l§cI^M2n§l SfSSISiPg es*un^ec^ tha* approximately 166 million .
•days take place annually at Phase II beaches. Some fraction of these swimming trips
, bring people within one yard of a storm sewer drain, wn|cn js me impact range for the
::S Monica Baj^stady. EPA used the
-^'exposure rates from tiie'Santa M^onica H^ ^g^ ^ ^ggjgg an upper found" of ^% (i.e., of the
11,686 people in the final sample, 827 swam within one yard of one of the three drains in the
!TI snidy areas). The resultmg'upp'eF bound exposure estimate is 11.6 million swimmers per year. It
ESjlS interesting to note that children appeared more likely than adults to swim near these drains;
i made up 48% of the study sample, but they accounted for 62% of the subsample that
wthin one yard of an outfall.
IIIIII III III111 11 IIIIIII I IIIIIIIII III IIIIIIIII III IIII 111 I 111 111 II11 Illlllllllll 111IIII IIIIIII lllllllllll|l II II I I II III 11 III I 11 I IIIIIII IIIIIII I 11 IIIIIII 11 I I I I I IIII I I III IIIIII III II IIIIIIIII IIIIIII IIIIIII
II
The 7% upper bound most likely overstates the percentage ofpeople who swam within one yard
of an outfall because it is based on the swimmers in the three study areas of the bay. EPA has no
estimate of total swimming at the beaches, however, to adjust the figure. Furthermore, it is
unknown how representative this percentage is of j|gg:|^ugon Qj swimmers at Phase II beaches.
«• IIJM ''i*fK^ . I
^'•i^^^f^^^^^^^',]^^^^ses't
Etitw. iiiv*i^;i^ |
...-^^ ^^_ ^| jg xyg sy^jnujej-s at three public beaches in Santa Monica Bay found mat people who
i !!lil|l5llll: I iblllillllllliniC iillllliimllli:,'!!' ' ILllllllliltl iiiilllil J'lllllill'lliiillllllli;il J II J ' " ,' ,;, VI , •• v „,< „< n un i< ,',., i,» ".113 i - PI ,, <
;;;;; ;=^^ ,£s SWiffilWlthiii 100 yards of storm drains experienced increased incidences of gastrointestinal and
.; iihiiiiiiiii'' iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiin '.iniii iiii1, iiiiiinii'i in • ' iiiiJiniiii K ••••••iiiiiiiiili'ilPE'iniiiiniiiiii a ,1 < « L n, a» < , , ,m« S, „ * ,
i i^s< respiratory diseases, and that ilhiess rates were often highest among those who swam in the
• of the storm drain (Haile et al., 1996). The increased incidence of illness was
. swimming in areas where monitoring results showed high densities of bacterial
indicators. The study identified illicit connections to storm sewer drains as possible sources of
:::!T:; "contamination. i . i ,
i Santa Monica Bay "stu'dy did" not" calculate specific 3o^re^6rjse'cl]rves for infection and
: ilhiess as a function of concentrations of the indicator microorganisms such as TC
,,,
' "' f ...... ; .....
mi in iniiinii iii* nun miiii n 11 in i n'li
i in i IIP i iiiiinii|iiiiiii
j j
i, ill t i! inly in1! ,' i ! 1, MI ' iii ! i j i1 in !IJii"' 'i ''I:! mi! ! L iii i ' iii' '.i
-------
Appendix C
or fecal coliforms (FC) that were detected in recreational waters because of the extensive
variability in exposures and observed symptoms in bathers who were interviewed. Instead, the
study presented incidence rates for symptoms that could be attributed to exposures to wastewater
from three beach storm sewer drains under various conditions.
The study calculated these incidence rates, termed "attributable numbers," as the difference
between the number of symptomatic cases resulting from exposure at the drains and the number
of cases at the control distance of 400 yards down current from the drains. The study reported
attributable numbers, which were normalized to expected numbers of illnesses per 10,000
exposures, for several exposure levels that were separated by observed TC concentration "cut
points," including the following:
• total exposures at all TC concentrations;
• exposures when TC concentration was > 1,000 colony-forming units (cfu) II00 ml; and
exposures when the TC concentration was > 5,000 cfu /100 ml.
The attributable numbers depended on the TC concentration and on the TC to fecal coliform
(FC) ratio. Lower TC:FC ratios were assumed to represent higher relative rates of fecal
contamination of the wastewater. Exposures at TC concentrations > 1,000 cfu/100 ml and with
TC:FC ratios of five or less appeared to be more significant in causing disease symptoms than
other exposures. The study presents attributable numbers for each type of health effect by
TC:FC ratio. Exhibit C-l summarizes low and high attributable numbers for five different
TC:FC ratios. The low values shown in the exhibit correspond to attributable numbers for
exposures when TC concentration is < 1,000 cfu/100 ml and the high values correspond to
exposures when TC is > 1,000 cfu/100 ml. EPA used the low and high attributable numbers to
reflect uncertainty about whether TC concentration rates from illicit sewer connections are likely
to be above or below the 1,000 cfu/100 ml cut point. EPA averaged the attributable numbers
across the TC:FC ratios reported in the exhibit to incorporate additional uncertainty about the
level of contamination at storm sewer drains.
October 1999
Final Report
C-5
-------
•iiiiiii iiiiiiW 111 i in in 1111 (in i nil ill i in in i in i iiiiiiilii in I in nil n in i ill iiiiiiii iiiiiiliii 'iiiiiiiililiilliillii 1111 Hi i
111 I lllllll II lllllll |l|lll|llllllllllllll|l HI IIIIIIII II
lllilill lllllll ( I
Appendix C
'''ga ,ii K
„, j , ,,, i i ,hi«£j
f -°
'^f'i'lllR^ JM
l" "3
5 .o 5
, •' iiipn1' jpinnih iil\|iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii!l'l|iiiiiiiiii,iiiiii|i:;iiliiiiill jiiiiiiiiniiiB, < :n nupii ,
m
CB
09
00
CO
OO
VO
1
—
O
o>
<=>
"•*
1
ON
OO
ro
0
09
VO
r-
vo
vo
o
oo
*•*
VD
o
•-H
oo
o
CN
CN
ON
Diarrhea
?
ON
CN
CO
K
ON
oo
^
*"*
ON
CN
CO
~
VO
VO
CO
CN
O
r-
1
o
U
o
vo
s
CO
1
VD
CO
o
VO
1
i
Cough+ph
T— <
CN
1
1
«— c
1
2
vS
J
Tf
""
1
CN
**"
a>
g
>.
i
ON
CO
00
VO
OO
CN
oo
s
co
c-
co
ON
p:
CN
"
r-
VO
•*
CN
co
VO
Sorethroa
ON
oo
9
Vt
CO
09
VO
ON
^
•^
1
O
u
X
2
,
CO
ON
00
ON
ON
ON
S
•— •
OO
CN
O
"*
oo
CN
t-
•"*
O
CN
O
U
33
2
-
oo
vo
ON
VO
OO
o
CN
V)
§
I/I
ce
rN SS c
M 8 §
"o-a
«s H -g
e s I
g •» 1
I §S
« £X «
oJO
in
it
Final Report
October 1999
"" •'
I
[ipiiiiiiiiiiininn niEiiiiininiiiiiiniiiininiiisi'pinnnnnnnni
I
T,
illlliiiTI IIIIIH^^
i 1 | i '
li^ lllllll 1111 " ill n 11
1 |l!
|1 l 1 i
i
Ill 1111 lllllll 1
•111 IIII 1 lllllll
III
III 1 III 11)1 III 1111 111 1 1 1 !l lllilill 1 111
III lllllll 1 1 III lllllll lllllll lllllll 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 III 111 1 1 lllllll 1 II
111 III 11 lllllll lllllll lllllll 1 III lllllll 1 III 111111 III lllllll
1 1 | 1
III IIII 11 II 111 1 lllllll III lllllll lllllll 111 III lllllll 111 lllllll
III
1
Illllllllllll I1 II Pill lllllll IIII III
III II 111 11 lllllll 1 1 1 lllllll
Illllllllllll III lllllll 111 Illllllllllll Illllllllllll III lllllll
II
I'll ii in i i i yiiiii iiiiiiii
i n i in i HI 1 1 i 1 1 1 1
Ml ll llllllllll III Illllllllllll1
111 l ll Illllllllllll l llllllllll
l 111 lllilill III Illllllllllll 111 III llllllllll
""5
ff
Ill
1 1"
* 's
'**»
V
inn in n
i"
-------
Appendix C
Using the exposure assumption described above, EPA multiplied the number of annual exposures
(divided by 10,000 to match the attributable number units, which are cases per 10,000 people) by
the average low and high attributable numbers for each health symptom. For example, given the
average high attributable number for nausea of 137 and the exposure estimate of 11.6 million, the
health impact calculation is:
137 x (11,640,000 710,000) « 159,500 additional cases of fever.
Exhibit C-2 summarizes the potential increase in the number of illness symptoms for the
exposure assumption and the high and low concentration assumptions (i.e., > 1000 cfu/100 ml
and < 100 cfu/100 ml). This analytical method produces a wide range of potential cases for each
symptom because the attributable numbers are based on a cut point rather than a smooth
exposure function.
Exhibit C-2. Estimated Marine Health Impacts Associated with Contaminated Dry
Weather Discharges from Storm Sewers in Phase II Coastal Communities
by Symptom, Exposure Assumption, and Total Coliform Concentration
, '1 ' -^ "
. : " 'i .Symptom
Fever
Chills
Nausea
Vomiting
Diarrhea
Cough
Cough+phlegm
Runny nose
Sore 'throat
HCGI11
HCGI 22
SRD3
„ **' Low Contamination -" -i -,V
, (TC <1000 cfu/100 ml) > ' \ £r
0
0
0
0
119,432
68,446
0
0
78,690
0
35,795
0
- " High Contamination - «_" ^
, % 1 IfTC >1000 cfu/100 ml) % "Ii -I
148,068
86,431
159,475
94,754
220,006
167,624
69,610
249,340
161,338 .
103,135
118,501
119,199
Notes:
1 Highly credible gastroenteritis one (HCGI 1) is defined as a person having either 1) vomiting, 2) diarrhea and
fever, or 3) stomach pain and fever.
2 Highly credible gastroenteritis two (HCGI 2) is defined as a person having vomiting and fever.
3 Significant respiratory disease (SRD) is defined as a person having 1) fever and nasal congestion or 2) fever
and sore throat and 3) cough with sputum.
October 1999
Final Report
C-7
-------
Ill IIIilH^^ IIIIII, , I'I!!",»IIIIIIH^^^^ ': 'I'lllEI1 ililM^^^ lllllIB
lltNEVaiH^^^^^^^^^^ liiliai "illV^^ liill, !|,,, "liilJlllillllilii 'i| ' illliliillllll II, ' , • KHiUi 'ill 1ll|li:!l!i|i!' Jl;i "|l"1 "' ,i' ll!PPPPii'l:!jiiP!p|iiiiiPPPip
,' iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiini'i iiiiiiiiiiliin .in iin pr'iniiiiiiiniiiiiiiiii11 PIIR, iiiiiiiU'n'TiiiiiiiiiiiiHi1,: "iiK,iiiiiiiiini ..... iiiiiiiiiiii1 ym nii ,t. isntf, ....... H,! < • ' ni'ff1 liiiinii m, , ii1 ,. t i iiiiii w upnlnihi" i* 7 !,ni Jiniii : nir" >, in "j a i,,. < tiii'iinni'ii 'i
Consequently, the health risk analysis was not able to assess avoided health impacts during wet
_., ..... , ..... , ' . ,
"rule |s expected to reduce the contamuiation levels in wet weather discharges from storm sewers
"•in J>hase Ii communities, but EPA is not able to estimate changes in Ijgjjg impacts because the
method used can only distinguish between contamination levels above and below the 1000
cfu/lpp ml cu| point; i.e., changes in contamination levels above or below the cut point will not
,_ .......... 7niiii . ........ g^^i^|hangesm ...... sjrnptpms ...... using this ..... approach. Consequently, if people are exposed to
(xmtaimnants in wet weather discharges at pj^Q j| beaches (i.e., if beaches are not closed to
avoid potential health impacts), then there may be some additional health benefits associated
:i ..... -™^ H, w,et w£§the£ flows lhat are. not ..... captured by the
" " ~~ [[[ [[[ " [[[ ........................ ' [[[ ....... [[[ [[[
;is al^jjn^lteitiy^ jKsunrathat there are no .instances>.whena person is swimming next
16astorm sfweTdrain and there is no contaminated water coming from the drain. In the larger
'-= :~jEE PJiiSg II coastal cpjrmunitiesa there may be a persistent flow from these drains even in dry
™«i-I!*™*™ :,,weathe|s In smaller.Phase H.cojnmunities, however, there may be periods when there is no •
.:Jr:i=;:.^c^Qtajriinated flow coming from the drain. Any adjustment to account for this situation would be
necessarily arbitrary and should be conducted only for a sensitivity analysis. The one and a half
_niMuuprdarpfmagnitude range of the current exposure assumption is wide enough to potentially
account for this additional source of uncertainty.
!;!: "inlll! !iI!"!"E,i l< jllliliW .' !,!'Ijlllll "Jl, 'I1, II !!!F,!», ".i1'", 1 :i!H:i«, 1l||llll|!li|< '!!!'I U III1;,, iffil! llhli; '' l!''' *[ / Jl.KIP'fL ,:' u,, • ii,ii,:•„ jji'iiupurniiiP1'1?]1,B',:)ipii'p»: ivik, ,'S1" V" ^ ;in,||"i.i;,,i"iip:ili jfiiii .,,\,.,ev, i,, '"mini,:,,, ii,r
jiPiiii i Pi'iii'uinpiN,:i1, i,:;jiij,,, '.i,ii,;,. ,;,:inmiin,i1 'PPiiP1 >'"BPp,ilkpipfic p?1 • ?»„,,;r•,>,,i? i»"H:,<"',,HP< iyn,, •,,:,,,ev> i,,, "iSjiiiii1;:„> »P1 '," ,'i:,,,'' •, »n,, SK^v>|j/,'>';\:\\x?\p?i',IPP' Jp'i l' i,l!iif it«\ < »r' ill'1' 11*"!;iii:' i': "i.;
iinipiiiiiii11' ^. :iiiiii;:ii«iiiiiiijiii< HrfWH^sMiT*. f w*
'i '" ''
• «i-Jf- ;-*• liiilW
i1:^
V' \ C ...... iii j ¥': ' 'A 1jSM$ "M „ '!' !!;;!'i.:: Illill!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.:' ..... iilliii < "liS^HiNiPlii'!1!]!:, .ii11!''1" , ! ; ji. : < :i!!!!l!!!!|ii ,i< ni I1' "^ f
...... L;''W^
;, 'f. JUff " > ' ' '!!!: • , : i" i !!!!! « l!!i T9 ' l!>1' : K1 l"'i!'1:! ..... i' W \s, ..... tit Wfi^ .l!!1'1!1!1 • ^ i " ' : ' ?!'!*" • i' •.¥ W " r il i < 1 \ l"1:!"1 '"» " ". • ^ ll:l ^ '' !> , ..... I'!"!' !: ,!« :;> ^ ^ '' ' l!l •: :, ' i!!?! :' , !' ' "
fill' p| P Inplpppl l|! Jllllllll " ,|,I|||||,||' |'l|< I II' |ll
Iillliill nPP It'll iPlllllllllliJl' ''llilli!1 '"nH" jlll Illl I'LM! Jlli: "I'll
i;!!!:'1!!::!:;;!;11 'iriiiiiii'ini, iiiiiii, T'^jiiiiiiipiiiin^^^ HI
"i: Winnilllpp l^ilpl?i|li!:i!i,,,,!,]ilP]pii! P,iiijil iPPiiiBBIPp!,.?!!'!1 iP,, "'
^faiiii' 'liw ''fLi^'''^^
;1!:!! i" *||ll|H"Vf'f *' < I
iii' i: Giiirii1 ^ ', iiii : , ^ ' ,t < > '
'< iir"'!':,.)!!",::!!":!!' ' liiillHIIIII'lliLiB!!!',: IPKiiP'.iy'PBBPiPiiii '|p p:
', , .1, n 'iHiin: Ji'i'i1'1 iiiiiiniiii'Ji'ii np1" niiiiiiii"" i'ljiniiiii' iii,,
" vMii 'iWvi'i '1 ' PIDi'!1!!,',"1!, liiPH ,. WiPi'ilL, I",'
I'v:::,^,]]:;1'1:;!!!!',''' 'nli.;!!:!'' r'IPWi. ,ilH f:l:";
I11!1 iiiiii, ,lfifi:'J 11115,1
!!-G-S
Final Report
October 1999
ii, i1 ' i1 viaiiiji
-------
Appendix D
Data Associated with the Phase n
No Exposure Provision
Appendix D-l No-Exposure Certification Form
Appendix D-2-1 Unit Monitoring Costs by Industrial Subsector
Appendix D—2—2 Analytical Monitoring by Industrial Subsector
Appendix D-2-3 Projected Cost Savings by Industrial Sector
-------
1 lllliilllllllliPPPPIIIIE.inllllllllinil'ilinillllllllllllllllllllllll!!: 'iliinniPIIIIIIIPlllPllPil JIIIIIIIIIIHPRI 'iiiillilJIIIIIIiiliijulili'ii''''''!!!!''!''!!!!!!!!!^::!:!!!!':!'!!!!!!!!!!:!!!!!!!!!!'!:!!''':!::!!'' '."IIPiilllllllllK !i.| ' ,,n, Wl ,„'" l!,lil"!!;il ; ,| i'iii'llliiillii-'Ulliilllli IIIIIIII1 , ,,,| ,>:' ' P| i II ';| jiin1]"" ."I; "iiiii'iinillllUiHillllhii I1" F"l,i' It jllii'iiiiPilllO" iilllilllliilliL, 'TllllP'l'fllllllPi!! Hinl.. 'iliilllPliiillllllllI. 111,1! ."ITJiiiiilUlilllllllHIIIIIIIilii! Liiifiliiiiiiim IPIMIPinP'I'ili.l!1!! ll'lillilil./.."!^^'...!!!!!";:: liiu 'iJllllllllllliliinillBPIii.!!!"''1'!!!!!, ' " ' '»IP,.'< '"'LTP'P'lllllPilPilliillllPlpllllllllPinlllllilllllli'l, Illllllllllinillilll,
' ''' 'l"lli'" '" ' ' ' ' ' " '' ''' ' """"'''"l"'1' " '''"""'" '' '!"" " ' l"i"'' ''"' ' "' " ' "' !' ' ' ' " ' " "'ll'''' ' "'''' '"'l|!! ' '' " "l"11' !"''"'' ''''' ' I' 'll'"'" ''' ' "''"'" lll!1"'"'' ''''"''''' P'' ' ""' !""r''"' '!!l1' '" "
;|lllll IHHIjBiTJjii'fT
j>^^^^^^ 'iiii, in,,;, !'t r$»^'iiiiiniBr«iMU:''i;'iT1'i iVroftta'TOJiHuihii ss*trV)»ii! .sis .hiiJiaiiwBwiii1'1ii ,,ijpiii.ii'.yE layp
JjiE^^ 'iiL;i:'i;n iiiiH^^^^^^^^ Kw'iiiiirr' ''iiiiB 'isiiB^^^^ iiiiii*iii! H'Jiipiiiiiii'iiii nii» .1, i IF .msi',:•'is moilt i'"' '• «n?iEi»:'i1«
'flK'Wlf!!i<''J!1,Wi1*;!:'.i
...... if
illJilin^
I'lFiipi"!:;:' , limn, :nvm » »•;• :"> 1.1 asm ....... m> a •• t ^,, ••> ..... , KW^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ;' .>; . Kti "A ........... f "mi
: ..... I'll-pJIlliHllvlli, ......... 1 ...... Ul!!i ...... ihlH ..... vil!!l,i;jl ..... iiiir ....... iP'liUi1' ..... lit ..... 1K"I!9K ...... .: i ,' <::!!«}( i! .....
K'fflBKy il.
!!'!!! iii! iititt iiiiiiiiiiilli "tJI! 'ti" "IfnU''!!! vt^ r/li^OitllLiidllli1,:!111^"'': :-,l Ii1"1 ''''iiliiilibillh!' IliiiliiHI"",. ii iiinilljl^iiiilllllll iBiilPiillaiiHi'l-vi'ri ,, 'FF' "n'Miiifti1 jj,< liiJijitVjiEii,1;,!!' W'MjiiiSOIj'ijiijH,;!''1:::1!,1'!',' i '\\A Stti'l
'
i ^;:'?r'''^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
'iiiiiis^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ •!!•
I
i!ipriiij'^^^^^ 'iii"iiiiiiiiiiii!iii!iii!' iMni: i>liniiiipiiiiii'iiimiiiiiiiii|iiiiii 'UNII •'iiiKi' 'liiiiiMBipii!':'., < : :'I'liiLiiiiiiii'"!",,!: mtm£ii> !l<:"l i""i ll|LllpilBT:"S&mil !1iii^ ^ ^ ^ >
iiiiijifi iiii'ikii i r H'; .i,siiiii t; •ii iif iiii1!", ji jiiiif' > jiiiipi'i::' r,.;:::"!'"! 111^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ :oi' fiiiiisiatvi^^^^^^^^^ > <• """',111!1! iii:i!a^^^^^^ '; '>3"i •"" ' i'lei* liiiiii ;: T niii '•IIIM^^^^^^^ 'JT "V'':i!
p'^^^^^^ aiSiiiiPiW^^^^^ i »!i riin^^^^^^^^^^
a:, ;'!i':'«iii:'1 ??:ii|iijiii^
, 'I'll IIIHiiQlllliii1'! l«!iij| Vl IMC! PiriiliUll
"11'!11 '''nijii1 mil;' JiiJii'i'i'iiiiiiaiBJiiiJ'i'i liii,1
1 ' i 'Sii "iini!? iiiiii'iiiiilini!]!:'']:"'.'
ill Ri!1!,1'!!!!1!!,,1'.,!!' ""'!•
H! f W" Hi|, ihi'VliflKI "IBM ...... TklU'liilh! 'i1 i ' 'ii'1" 'PI1! p " !; i1"1 iiiii1 "iiii"'1! iiiiiiii, iiiiiiiiiiiii Mi'i'i'ij'ilah'iT'ihiiipi'i, i'iiiii ii'Hii'iiiiiiii'iiiiiiili'i iiiiiiiiiiii^'iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii"1 '
," nB ',",'„«'' ''I'h.'ii. i,, iliv'l
nil"! if'">!''„ Si!1"! lI'ltiiliiiiFi'JI
i
ii i ™ 'iiiiiiii1 i
Jlll'^ii/Wi''!!""!!':, H IWIE'l'i'Ti'; ', , ,: Inn1" i ''lllll'iiiil'^W'*1:!!1!!!!"!!
i, juiin
Ij
i ,/PH ijii'iiii ii ihiiiiia liiiniii iiiiiiiiiiiniiiiiiiiiiii I; a;nti"'i ai,' iii"", iii,;"' flln'" fli!!!!'a ' aaiii.' aiilii1'' 'J::: i j™ aiiir 'viii;' ii 'i.iiniiii'i .iiiiliiiiiii11:>:: ii: Jaiair"111!; 'V >. in i:, i a iiiiiiaiiiiil'I
PI i'p fi i'p';,,, iiiijin"C, Viiipip'ipii1 /VPPIL ' '' 'PP
iiaiilahiiaBBanan'iiiiaaai '
' n
^^^^^^^^^^ ^
-------
Appendix D-l
No-Exposure Certification Form
-------
; iiiE 'm&mrm!
"IIP1.1:1 l> ill V^^^^^^^^^^ GUI!V^^^^ illlllllb ii'T'l W: .liltiM^^ MtU*l "!' , " •<,i,i!-;"liiiil! HIV, ffU'im ' i'lill" illiiil' 'f•IPKHKHIW ""'I-'!:'!!'!'Hi 411|iil!!! IlillisliK^ nillili'"!' < itJIHll i f!*: "HI : ' „ > i!ll>.
, ,,. ,,
urn •fi»!!;^i^ i lirviH iJ ii/i^iH^^^^^ ii!:iR^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ii HI • wm ^M*m it'iiii;;;;:^ " !'!:ji::^in^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Bjiiijii: F ,:,•!'•„ mivm,,, SK M>JI CBK IBII <)'; .''liiH^^^^^^^ ijif • :• •<" <; *«ift::•: >(,:'f„;*a liiiE' i:tiim^^^^^ :tt:1;!;^:>
>!<:i!"!' ";• ^ fill Ii! < I? i IliK > 'Smi. , :>< Ilillli11'' i !i3i iii! W^^ if,! > i. ii! !:'V;>:i: '•;;,(! litji f > •!: : Ii:'! K:,- M" :!!!:!i!tii': '1,1 If ¥11! V^^^^^^^^^ «&
i':::;,!,,^ ?'- . iiil (i, «l!liiliE IV
is^'iiiitiia i.'iiiriM^
^lin1;:;1:' ri, ilivi'%!,M^^^^^^^^
1 iiiiiiiaiiiiii11,! w liiiii1,, >,:, i, nuiii; iniiiii1', in "i: iii!| ' iiiiihiiiiiiNi, i"' ii",,,, I'liBiv, i: i "igii'i j, -, JHIIII i, jiiiiiiiy • T i/ • i \: {• ijii' ."'imr,; giiii 1111111: NIT '»i1" „';i "m "< ' "'' S'-r 'iii i1 ,'HT . i¥ i fj. if \" ,i,.''""."", ^;,' JN^I < inn1, :nn ".'viiiii i :,i «n ?• fliii,;, s: x IK iii!11 ;iih;j|!, nt' ;£Us(':f aea& :| i' :i Jii,i»' i iiK,'1 in1: ii ft: i, ii" •„ n; a1;, iiir ifc"1: • i • is:." ic *>f •">
'"' is;-i,'"m>^ f'MMMrmJQKrvm;;i*A a"'w'''* '^m
iiiiiiiiijj i!i»i, in iimi11 111111 JL iiir, i
ii, ',,1 ; I'llnln.'!!''!^^'^^^^!^'1!!/''!!.!'!:.!!!! 'Illinnl Inns i, lliyin'nl IF liy'iillliinilii'llidllluH llfl'iilllillinnllllllllilllnlllinin,, ,,'l!ln,i',l EnillHp lUlinnnill ,'l ,' lln'llllll1: ,4 l|^'lilllllllllllniill!l|i|»^^^^^^^^^ i;1,,:!,,!'1'!":1 i,,llillll|ln, nn
IIEIIilliBliirilll^^^ I
' j!1
• *
• I!
u ..... MIL ..... i:« ' ; ji, , ,.i .......... Hi; ...... u JBII ..... iir ..... i,jii "i i, : ILIK ........... liiiGiiKii, inu £ ' , iiiiniiiiii f ja^ ...... itiiiin '"lip i : ; i •:. '««; " ; * : "smii1 ' i» n ...... • iui! ..... ,14 : "» \"w, hii'
l!^ ........ mS:t3t ..... IK'lliP ...... Killi"! ....... KSM ...... IKWUfSi ...... i;;5':l
1 <"ll||iiillii;,llnl'i,'. I' 1 1,1 L vBBIBl IBBBl iimll
!!!!!l:i!K
ilii^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ iiA^^^^^^^^^ .i
m
-------
Appendix D
NPDES
FORM
3510-11
(5-99)
vvEPA
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20460
NO EXPOSURE CERTIFICATION for Exclusion from
NPDES Storm Water Permitting
OMBNo-XXXXXX
Submission of this No Exposure Certification constitutes notice that the entity identified in Section A does not require permit authorization for its storm water
discharge associated with industrial activity in the State identified in Section B under EPA's NPOES Storm Water Multi-Sector General Permit due to the
existence of a condition of no exposure. A No Exposure Certification must be provided for each industrial facility or site qualifying for the no exposure
exclusion. Obtaining the no exposure exclusion obligates the discharger to comply with the terms and conditions of 40 CFR 122.26(g). ALL INFORMATION
MUST BE PROVIDED ON THIS FORM. PLEASE READ AND MAKE SURE YOU COMPLY WITH ALL REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS.
A. Facility Operator Information
I.Name: I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
_j 1 2. Phone: I I I I I I I I I I I
3. Mailing Address: a. Street I I I I I i I I
I I i
I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I i I I
o-Gtyr: I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I i I c-State: I I I d.ZpCode: I I I I -i•''>'-1 I I i I
B. Facility/Site Location Information
1. Facility Name: I I I i I I I I I I I 1
2. a. Street Address: 1 I I I I I I I I I I
; i I i i
''1 '; I I I I I I I I
b. City: I i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i I teCounty. I i i i t
d. State: I I I e. Zip Code: I I I I I i-l I I I ' I f*
3. Is the facaity located on Indian Lands? YesjH No Q .
4. Is this a Federal Facility? Yes [1 No Q "~ •
5. a. Latitude: I I I " I I I ' I I I " b. Longitude: I I I 1 7t I I ' I I I *"
6. Total size of site associated with industrial activity: _ ^ acres
71 .
7. a. Was the facility or site previously covered under an NPDES storm water permit? Yes Q No I I
b. If yes. enter NPDES permit number _ : _
8. SIC/Aetfvity Codes:- Primary: I I I I I Secondary (if applicable):
9. a. Have you paved or roofed over a larga,.formerty exposed, pervious area in order to qualify for no exposure? Yes
w much area was pavec
informational purposes;
One to five acres |~1
b. If yes. please indicate approximately how much area was paved or roofed over (completing this question does not influence your qualifying
for the no exposure exclusion and is for informational purposes):
:Less than one acre
More than five acres
C. Exposure Checklist
Are any of the following materials or activities exposed to precipitation, now or in the foreseeable future?
(Please check either "Yes' or "No" in the appropriate box.)
1. Using, storing or cleaning industrial machinery or equipment, and areas where residuals from using, storing
or cleaning industrial machinery or equipment remain and are exposed to storm water
2. Materials or residuals on the ground or in storm water inlets from spills/leaks
3. Materials or products from past industrial activity
4. Material handling equipment (except adequately maintained vehicles)
5. Materials or products during loading/unloading or transporting activities
6. Materials or products stored outdoors (except final products intended for outside use (e.g., new cars] where
exposure to storm water does not result in the discharge of pollutants)
7. Materials contained in open, deteriorated or leaking storage drums, barrels, tanks, and similar containers
Yes
D
D
D
n
n
D
n
No
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
EPA Form 3510-11
Pagel of 3
October 1999
Final Report
D-5
-------
..... ip^ ...... f^^
11KB!; i' ,".|UI! , ' ''''lilj'ill'l'i rLiilllliPinP'i'li1!, JllP'ifilllllllllllllllillil1 illFil
111 I,,,1! '
-------
Appendix D
NPDES
FORM
3510-11
NO EXPOSURE CERTIFICATION for Exclusion from
NPDES Storm Water Permitting
OMBNaXXXXXX
Section A. Facility Operator Information
1. Provide the legal name of the person, firm, public organization, or any
other entity that operates the facility or site described in this certification.
Do not use a colloquial name. The name of the operator may or may
not be the same as the name of the facility. The operator is the legal
entity that controls the facility's operation, rather than the plant or site
manager.
2. Provide the telephone number of the operator.
3. Provide the mailing address of the operator (P.O. Box numbers may be
used). Include the city, state, and zip code. All correspondence will
be sent to this address.
Section B. Facility/Site Location Information
1. Enter the official or legal name of the facility or site.
2. Enter the complete street address (if no street address exists, provide
a geographic description [e.g.. intersection of Routes 9 and 55]). city.
county, state, and zip code. Do not use a P.O. Box number.
3. Indicate whether the facility is located on Indian Lands.
4. Indicate whether me industrial facility is operated by a Department or
Agency of the Federal Government (see also Section 313 of the Clean
Water Act).
5. Enter the latitude and longitude of the approximate center of the facility
or site in degrees/minutes/seconds. Latitude and longitude can
be obtained from USGS quadrangle or topographic maps, by calling
(800) USA-MAPS, or by accessing the U.S. Bureau of the Census' web
pageatwww.census.gov/cgi-bin/gazetteer. .• • .•
Latitude and longitude for a faculty In decimal form must be converted
to degrees (°), minutes ('). and seconds (") for proper entry on
the certification form. To convert decimal latitude or longitude .to
degrees/minutes/seconds, follow the steps in the following example.
Example: Convert decimal latitude 45.1234567 to degrees.{"), minutes
('), and seconds ('). ;
a) The numbers to the left of the detimalpoint are the degrees: 45°.
b) To obtain minutes, multiply the first four numbers to the right of the
decimal point by 0.006: 1234x0.006 = 7.404.
c) The numbers to the left of the decimal point in the result obtained
in (b) are the minutes: 7'.
d) To obtain seconds, multiply the remaining three numbers to the
right of the decimal from the result obtained in (b) by 0.06:
404 x 0.06 = 24.24. Since the numbers to the right of the decimal
point are not used, the result is 24V
e) The conversion for 45.1234567 = 45° 7 24".
6. Enter the total size of the site associated with industrial activity in acres.
Acreage may be determined by dividing square footage by 43.560. as
demonstrated in the following example.
Example: Convert 54.450 ft2 to acres
Divide 54.450 ft2 by 43,560 square feet per acre:
54.450 ft2 f 43,560 ftZ/acre = 1.25 acres.
7. Indicate whether the facility was previously covered under an NPDES
storm water permit. If so, include the permit number.
8. Enter the 4-digit SIC code which identifies the facility's primary activity,
and second 4-digit code identifying the facility's secondary activity, if
applicable. SIC codes can be obtained from the Standard Industrial
Classification Manual. 1987.
9. Check "Yes" or "No" as appropriate to indicate whether you have paved
or roofed over a large, formerly exposed pervious area (i.e., lawn, meadow,
dirt or gravel road/parking lot) in order to qualify for no exposer. If yes,
also indicate approximately how much area was paved or roofed over
and is now impervious area.
Section C. Exposure Checklist
Check "Yes" or "No" as appropriate to describe the exposure conditions at
your facility. If you answer "Yes" to ANY of the questions (1) through (11)
in this section, a potential for exposure exists at your site and you cannot
certify to a condition of no exposure. You must obtain (or already have)
coverage under an NPDES storm water permit. After obtaining permit
coverage, you can institute modifications to eliminate the potental for a
discharge of storm water exposed to industrial activitv>and then certify to
a condition of no exposure. " "*.
r -c^ •?.;
Section D. Certification Statement '
Federal statutes provide for severe penalties for submitting false information
* on this application form. Federal regulations require this application to be
signed as follows:
For a corporation: by a responsible corporate officer, which means:
0) president, secretary, treasurer, orvice-presWent of the corporation
In charge of a principal business function, or any other person
who performs similar policy or decision making functions for the
corporation, or
(ii) the manager of one or more manufacturing, production, or
operating facilities employing more than 250 parsons or having
gross annual sales or expenditures exceeding $25 million (in
second-quarter 1980 dollars), if authority to sign documents has
been assigned or delegated to the manager in accordance with
corporate procedures [Note: wording subject to change as
a result of NPDES streamlining, md. II];
For a partnership or sole proprietorship: by a general partner or the
proprietor; or
For a municipal. State, Federal, or other public facility: by either a
principal executive or ranking elected official.
Paperwork Reduction Act Notice
Public reporting burden for (his certification is estimated to average 0.75
hours per certification, including time for reviewing instructions, searching
existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and
completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments
regarding the burden estimate, any other aspect of the cdectkxi of information,
or suggestions for improving this form, including any suggestions which may
increase or reduce this burden to: Director, OPPE Regulatory Information
Division (2137). USEPA. 401 M Street. SW, Washington. D.C. 20460.
Include the OMB control number of this form on any correspondence. Do
not send the completed No Exposure Certification form to this address.
EPA Form 3510-11
RageSofS
October 1999
Final Report
D-7
-------
tit'limit 111 i
\im"r&",'. SsfeiOTira'r.'ifciiiiiSTSjSM.
"iii|i!iHi,!!i,, i- ni',1,, isni'ii iiiii, aiii iiimii ;,v •IITM i,!;,,:; n :,:" i
,,, ,, , ,, ., , ,,„ „ .,
1''i 131 :%«! f Si:: "-:im9i"" ,*' 1 liiill1 MS ii! III! ^•.-
'MM ii i'liE'i iiiift Vila. ,:i,,iH^ LippiB.i.i'iiniiiM'jMJKin.a'M.ct.; M.ai!:iii iT'spsss/ii"* ir«!fif;a»t, ii'ipiiw^ '«< H; mm :is» S'temai ft ,-x i ;i li.iiiK^^^
iiniiiii "nil iliiiii'iliiiii "liiiM^ ii iioM^ , '"ii"), iiiiiiH^^^ in .i'liiiRi nil,,: i, 'iin ti. :„; • iim ii,)*! <: 11 -ttijin, iii*"i .I'li iniiiiiiiii! i • iiii •iiiiiiiu, I-MIIIU i,:',i iii, 'iKi'i >" {"iBiiiii1','! uav- iiiii1!"111:::' i," ; <:"i iii!"1',"!' Ilia)' Jill IE ill, iiiil'iii::' '"tH^^^ ilillllllllli,,!:' "I, iiT,:"':,''!! ii", ii, .""JN IlltiDII I" ,!,i> "i ,1," ::„':,:, nil! i '< 'I/ i,i!i,,,i:',!(" "ll, iJK'.WiS" I1,, nyi) ,1 tllia^^ i!:,:,::!,::):'"' idti"
l!!,iii;;;ii !!!!: %j S»^^^
i! i E : I »^^^^ I :j): 1;
iWarSSiJIU y Sfi: mm, ill l^miillWjillitti ii' i II' Si
!!!i!!' * iii i!3'!!!;!111!1'11!!!!1!!11!!!!1 "I"" • i'1? "* i!!!1!!"''; f ii'illi,; f!* 'ii!!!!!!!1!?1 i!!!!1!!!111!!!"" •'' •' i, iipi" 'T ' :'!l|" -\ St'" iSilipliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii1!!!!!!!11' li!!!!?!"!!"1', iiiiip iiliiiilfil''• fiPf • I;B!' S!!!! I"!1'''!!, !'!l' iiiiiiiiiiiliiliiiiiiiiiiiii'1'
||,;.;| iilf&ftiKftiMI
ilfi, l^iiwiffl NKBLW
:il!K
*, 14 *f 5tjfTJU!tta < 1*1* IIP; !H! ^' 'MM ,', ::!• i "i Jiav ^ii^iift iikii iipii11 d||p;i|^';";, ijiiii sii awii'ii IIB I'i
1 '
ri? ii«va*i;aHi7,i:!riffl.iK m
:i,'i»!''.!l'," 'M '" "'III1 ",i,''PIH!"! illlllliili'lliliPliiilllllliljIlllliJ ','iilljlllllll||||llli"!P' ''in'", I'PIII
^^ li|: 'i:*! r'j- i* ;i»•' IK^^^^ fm f* k'iKiifB in; : : "iir i'; i. ,>:v'«]' •': "< t'' KJI! ir:!)iii;> niiLif J it' iiHi'ii1' MB tm.s-t j -iiv1 | < i;"-»'itfliir i< :|ni !?.'. n i i it -1 -iiwt |iv^^
ii1!!)! ,i iBiiHi, 111,'i.ijiji iiliiin^^^^^^^ 'i|i|i:">!:iv:/ t,• niit '<:•iiKiiitf'i ; iifiiiiii t :K-wtsta• IIIIIH,'i;:1'!'!!1:,! •in.;!'! f1;fii uiiiiiJH^^^> '.iiiiiiiiiLiii;,:!l:|li 'i'l-it < hisiiH^^^ liiciii.::;!'!^^
IIE:^ iNii^lii!i\B^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ :i '^..i,,''iIi:';::,JJB^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ i!K^ SiJiiM''!) li^'i Htf;L"rili:*'ii ^,lM3ia*.&$® 91
! I1,!! I
ill1 !,, "j*1"!! !J!«; I ill1!
,
iiiiniiiiii"pp"i't iiiiiiiiiiniiini iiij ,ni
liriiB^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
,,l:ill!Eli' 'iil!i 'JiiiiJ : ', Vi:'!',1! Xlll '' ii imi1:1,, :• lilif'l '''ilS'i]): „ ,,!,!,:•!!': li'llli! 'ill'''!' I"'1: t!i!i» Iii
in,••liiiiliii ,,',: i«,:iiii 'iiii'iiii: 'i iiiini'iiij: niiiiiiiiiniii'i','! |g:i i
'ill ;,i!!i,IX^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
SI
pppp'p'1;,:;, si: yiniinr iiiiii'iiiii"1 iiiiilip!""ppi!iii „ Piii'ppiiiiiP, i irPT'iPUiiiipii1 nil ,i, i' i 'T'wl"'^!!!!!!' t1' ,ii' jpppiiipppiiippi, 'in'mniNi!:]!:!!!!'1 ;i!ii>,, i'l'iiiiiiiiioiiinK'ii i^PiiiiliiiiiiP1: it! >A ;; fi: u iPiiiiiii.i'PiiiiiiiliiljiiJiPiiipni ,1,;',;'' tin1 Htj1 'niKiii, ^'
!> ' 'iiiiiiijiii'iijifii''^!!!!!!!!.!!!!'';!''!;,!'1:1; ijiiiicii'iinii:;::
Ill'-i TIIUII I! 'id y 1!) nisi'!!:;! lli|!l,l!ll(!i,i injlln
IIB^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ii£
Fiilflilljllil Ill Ililillillli1''1,,,,"" llliii!Ti,i"ill!l :
,,'J'lli'1 '!;' ii,[ilPil|"|lilllliinPliPilPiiii!|ip'lii:iiliillllllll!illP!ll Vllllllll',"iiillllPIPili!PPiiiiPIII
' '" liy;.!:,. ' iii I
IJXI "i-Niii I
i::iii<«: jiiiiiiiiii'inni?', viiiHiiiigr'iigisiiggg; 'JF;' '• ^{iiiii 'niiinU..'!^^!!''!!!!!!!!!!!::" ^
miiini" ,r m
• :: ! il * ; • ' "€i! ! WSi ' ! ill m !• WX*
til ii'iiiiii/Wi!1! Jl.'K'!'„:';,i liil'11' IHiu!,:1
ii>!ii:llP^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ i^^^^ ;:iH
r:,,,! ,"
I '"'
- if^^^^^^^^^ ••:;;: :K»^^^^^^ , ii1-111, ?"; Tiitiiiiiu^^
laiiKiii'iiiiii'ii'i'!"11
liE'tllll''!'!'
ilii,;;!"'! „ 'iiiii'iiiiiH
,,^^ 'HI':!! iili1!IKf,, , ,^
'ill lllltlf! ill!!111 ill),,]:', 'i!'"!11 iUill'll !'' ' !H|!: -i:!:!!' 'i)!,!!!,""!!!'"'! flllllH Ill |
JUIl [, iiiilliU^^^^^^^ Hi,,
•'iiiBiiiiic 'Si ]" ii'iK^^^ iriip'i,ii"'ii!ii,,i,,'"i iii'iKii'i'i!: tffm*m: iir.'FK^^ i
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!'""'- """IB',SS'ti iiiiiiiiiiiix,"iii!'i;ii»^^^ , vjS? ii'ii'iiS^^^^^^^^^^ -'i;.itiiiiiiiiiiiiiiM^^^^ uj?>.JUL'»*JwiP3uiBi*i'*j• iiii"lii!'!,!:1 "i""i,'• iiiiiiii!'1 in!.*£".%,:'!•£?Ii1!*SBK'i'!!''*jflBiffiiiii" ""'" ' !!!!!!'!l!!l!: "!i" :"i:!l'J:"i::'"1"'" !l!!!!':i"'"L::!!!!!!!!!!!:I:''!!!!!!!!!!!!'!!'! !!!I!!!!!!!:!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"illil "ii,,:,":' ,!' ili'-'illlHi'ia^^^^^ I
"I'll,,' I' 11 '""'ill nil' i"l,l '''l|l,,::'ll|ll|,,iii,, i|»l,i| Ill, „!:", II! "I i iiii
i'inlldlilEli1,!
!',„ i"!)1"]'!'" "ill I' ',1't!!!''"" iiilill! !|!!!11''''»^^^ I
li'-l I1!,],;,
Illlllii!^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ i!1' '
t,"", as i r,ft->
'iiji!1' r ' "M: 'ijij'"1"nil 'jiiiini'i
!i;"i,,, /.S'h1-:;; igi
'II 111'.«P!I t,',..'!:,»i'!!I!,,,P'"1'ill,' «li"ill*!'Vl, ii-ilitt'Pillliiiiii(, iiillllllliillii1*'"!!Hi1 It' Pir,i»
iiii iiiiS 'ilEii!!!! !•:;!!
IIIIIIH^^^^ 'liinilll' i K, iaiM^^^^^^^^^^^^ ii! Ii, i iij|!|l"i"|! "!"!l,i,, Jini IHi1,;1!!.::,"!,:" I "lit iltl!';i,, :"> ifSiV ' I,:*; lillilKi1:"] illflj;',, liiiii1!:!!!),! ;: :,;!)i!fl|i''i!" ii, iiiiii iVl :;ia IPE
; \ " ; I / ; I I j! ' I |° ; ^'j |
iB^^^^^ I
:', il'lill' i'"' ,11 r fillip lili!:,1'', ':'^':^illlllil!i'|l':ll ,'!' i;::''W , i,'!!' ''''' 111 "S"l ill1''!' i v '" illlllll ^
llil'if illH^^ .i'li'! i1 1,!',;* illH^^^^ Eiiillf': ill: A^^ ',: III I
1; f iiippii IB „ ipppppipppippiiiiiPiiiii \:\ fi, \fm\\\\ npiiiinPiPPii:;1 iiiipPijiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiPi'iii iii jiinniiiiiliiiiiiE 11111 ill \\ I'liippripE'ipii'MiiPiii!1"' n iiiiK11''1":: paiiini'jpiPniiiPiiiPini11 lit ,'inv:, n 'i iin i :v, :• i, i i'l.ii'1; \M\ :iiiipiiiiiiii!niiiq;:;.jiiiiiiiiiiiiiiin"i ,L. 'f > i ,1 ° <; liP1 in'ii'ii'iiii • < I'PUPiiiiiiVi"; i IIIF wiii" '" '''iriiiiiiiiiiiiiiPPiiiii1'*1 T1 ivi"'
-------
Appendix D-2-1
Estimated Unit Monitoring Costs for Multi-Sector
-------
iir '
iil'l "I
!m^:
ilii:
:-' v j •"•• ^ IP • .T, ii,- ,, i,,,!i,, i |i,l|..,;l hiliiinii, 1,1, ..,i
1 IIP i',1'", "luniii ,:P E'sip'iii i BiJiiiiiti'EEii ,i "iiiiiipi'Er 'in npEPiniiit1:: jiU'iinn,!" • i, SIB:, p lain,; BiiippBiiiU'i ' BJ IP"- iitiinip, JIPPPIIIII: , v > wn: H..PI P i, iiiiiiitiBiiiipjpipiiiipiiP111! v jinlniii,1 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIPJI :' VJP BijiiiiitiiiiPiniiBiiiiiiiip'i, iB1 IIIIPIPIIPP IP'NIIIIIIIIIIIP,: r \ ••,, PEP PUB :n,ii". < • 'JEP 'PEIIEEPI IEP PUPPPIBI:, „: i' ,m, ,PI«II iii," i iiU'pi'HiiiipPni.EEE.Bi'upiliiBiiiiiiilBiiiBiiiiii PiBiEiinniiiiiiliEiiJi;,: n PJIBBBI
^SE^ViJ.
.' : ' ' ''"
"'3:1
IH^ .1 I llllllllilL #••'•.,'»!
^^^^ '
•iiSiiSS^ !BS:^^
IIIIH^^^^ i; Ililiillti.!*; I I! HIM IlllllH^^ lihllil
UiillW lillllH^^^ MKAW ilii
, iii ,li/,|liiiVl,,ihl,iillilllii:?VJiilJ''lil»F l "fnni" ipjiiirn,1!!! JiPfllli iKdPllliiii11, 'I'iiilli'iWiii iillilllillliliiH^ Ilijlii1 jiiiii i'llilli,1' iiilRII 'Ii Ilifiiliili'/'illUI JliiiU'1' il in M ' *'li» i, WHWWiH
Illli'I iililllli! !l|b^ IIIIIV fv,; ,:. WMnWit-iiaEr,. I IIillM -
iii'ifi'i; i»> mjiif tm • • ! f'..aKRaanfisis a
wUrjfli'i
IR-HiiK^^ «M iraMKHMM Ml';,' nil!
£»3lft':KSiB88»SE3$('1i!4S'<
m mimz ,- ; i
liiii'iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii" „ ::i 'ii,in!,'iii!'JM,!ii, IN? ,i? " iiiii fiJiiifiiin"?1 iiifjliiiiiii"iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiir'iiiiiiiiii'i1 iiF'iiiiiiiiiiiivi ''^.TiiFJiHiiS11' iuiiii'iiH :,' ,'iiL :; ii,: 'ViviMiiiiiin^ , ^ '^i1, ii1 i ' l^^i?:ili!:,,i•llllliFii^^l'M^ ; >!„ ::' Jiiiinii''''^'" liiJiiiiUFiaiiiiiiiiiiiiiii!;
2!! n*i,i|-Jiii" SlilFS111;.!*,' ', 'iiiJT'M1 " ""IS
i,: iii'.L:™::,,1: " "iii;!! , i!!:!: :!!!! , ",,!!!!!
iji ii'fii'w11"111!*"1 liiiiiF'ir!" ' ''.jr,1 'n":1;1,,:-,:!!,!
..... ':, • <<;i!: '
i SIM ' •' iiiiii,,,,!, 'ii>i !•••• i i- laii/ii-'pH^^^^^^^^^ 'miia ...... ta |
iJIIIB ..... I(K^^^^^^ ...... iS,;;!' lir! .......... F:mt2 ...... SH^^^^^^^^^^^^ ....... ii.1! ..... iKiJIK ..... ...... ::!:ii:^i!rl;il,9ll£ Ii <* 'MP. LW'S ..... ill! ..... ! ..... liH^^^
', ...... 'Vi'i lilW^ ;:!>::•'>' '.iiiill! ..... iiU^^^^^ Jrlii, :i ..... |]P ..... KM IijiM^ ......... illilh
iB^^^^^^^^^^^^ iB^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ..... . ..... iiM ..... kp:"'
\
ti'ifHiii1:!!!!
*!!S^ IB!1"; Jffi I
lu ;i i " :W!i jih , " ' iiiiNnu1 1 IF : ":: ' • «» ..... ui ..... rinniiiiinnppiiinniiii ....... v 'i
iii1",:1!,1!!,,,"!!' iiiiiiinimiH! in i; i»niii»|ipi!B»|i!piiipii:pi!il!iMH|1; i11,, JBII fPiPPBiP'iipp'iPiPi'iipnpiiriiiiii"! "PPBIIIIIP f :'i9in:,ip:itP! i
PI "'1 "pin i! ;'; p11 *i <",; jpidPliiBip 'P'i> '"p,!1' ; ,i::,,,ln < <, i;liniiii i, ,;B» , i, 11,1 I'PJP'JPPPPBPB , ,ipp i IPPPPPEPP < .iiiniiiiihi'iii,,!; ,n',f ,1 'ill I
jppppiiipni 1,1,' ,'i' nipiip '.PI:, iiiijiiiiiiiniiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiini,!,!, i T" 'ii'iiifii'iiiiilii, , IIUIIIIIIIBIililllllllEBII: JiPIIP J BlpTiBIPP1 1!iP JI:iii,'''Bi! JIIIIIIIIIIBiill , JIBIE '.'V
, "• i, nppd ip'ijb;" i * v \, •, i ii'jnimi nn< inip'fiii!;1 iPiiiim'" JP? IIP, "T PII 'BBBC t' PII: ^ i» UPPP, .piiiiiipippipiippniii: i:," PiBiiPJii::,,; "iinim i IIIIPPPIPIP ..'' :»«:«:m\' BKPii
'1 ' iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii; p .niiiiiiiiii "iiiiiplii1:', 'fp.ip'I'iBiS'i'iiji 'sijiiifiiiiiiii' 'ii;iif: Jiiiii "l!l' ^.'i'r 'i1"1^"1!, '"„ W>\: "MSA !""i;;|l|5ii|i|iil!:li!i!li!Bi>ii'-iiiiiii,«iiiSrt jliiiiii1 B
JH^^^^^^^^^^^^ M^^^^ mmt
i niiinii»iJiiiiii!i'i]iiiiiiii'::iiiii;iniipini;!l>iinnnniiiiniiiiip'|ii>>> ^iiiiii'''''^!!!!!.1 iniiiiitPi i:i;,i,;i!i;ii"" n i.' iiiniiiiiiiip>iiininiiiiiiii::>>:!iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiinn;f ~ iiiiiiiii
,1; iiiiPEiPKiiiiini!:: ,i:H!!in
-------
Appendix D
Exhibit D-2-1. Estimated Unit Monitoring Costs for Multi-Sector Permittees, in
1998 dollars
Parameter Mean
Aluminum $14.22
Antimony $13.20
Arsenic $13.20
Barium $14.22
Beryllium $11.56
Biological Oxygen Demand $25.39
Bismuth $14.22
Boron $14.22
Cadmium $11.56
Calcium $14.22
Chemical Oxygen Demand $25.39
Chromium $11.56
Cobalt $14.22
Copper $11.56
Dissolved Phosphorus $10.16
Fecal Coliform $15.91
Fecal Streptococcus $ 15.23
Iron $14.22
Lead $11.56
Lithium $14.22
Magnesium $14.22
Manganese ' $14.22
Mercury $19.80
Molybdenum $14.22
Nickel $11.56
Nitrate/Nitrite $10.16
Oil & Grease $32.16
Parameter Mean
Organic Nitrogen $15.23
Palladium $14.22
PCBs $73.63
Pesticides $109.17
pH $6.09
Platinum $14.22
Potassium $14.22
Selenium $13.20
Semivolatiles $317.36
Silicon $14.22
Silver $13.20
Sodium $14.22
Thallium $11.56
Tin $14.22
Total Ammonia $22.01
Total Dissolved Solids $8.46
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen $13.54
Total Phosphorus $9.65
Total Suspended Solids $8.46
Vanadium $14.22
Volatiles . $137.10
Zirconium $14.22
Zinc $11.56
Total Cyanide $28.10
Total Phenols $29.45
Note:
These values represent the mean values from four vendors of monitoring supplies and services. Some of the vendors
have requested that the data remain confidential and others have their data on the World Wide Web.
October 1999
Final Report
D-ll
>\
-------
1* ..... & ........ 3»!it>.
r.w;i ..... I
••^^^ 'Slit,! ilJinillH lllii '
!":, . .iiiijli iKIlililiiMl!11! i' •!:' :::i: wf I1: JSIK 'Hilling mi"
II1 III!"!!,! "; IIH^ liil *!!4:1H^ ....... llllili
Illlllllllilllr HW ''i , Jllli V iBIIilliMlli 'liij I ' II lln , "I" "' : ...... il
'!!« , ...... !i(l|i: T1|lill!' W'.l Sjitllipif 'Si II" :<<>> *, ....... ' ,'" • . ill'!! I":!' vjli»! 'f
li ilHiilllil III " I, ....... J'P'ii 1U ' :: ..... lit if 'IIP" ;|II|! /Ill ...... I:"" ' 'I, I1 1 ' iilllll'1 1 1. '' ...... lill'illlllllln II H ' ' llll ........ ii'l'i'i » 'Wl, K ....... W
lllil'IR^ ft'u«.,1CitB '• liW^ ii
i Puil ..... ' ........... V! ..... JP.HTIFI K Wl ......... C ...... if) ..... !!"»
^^^^^^^^ lliii;;] ...... 7«i:^ .......... '. > " trtii'liiiiB^^^^^
ilrri-' iB^^^^^^^^ liili! ;':!w i:;!»^^^^^ : I?iji:i Tiiiiiiri iiiiiiM :jf«!j^ ii1': '';;<:i i: as»
K^^^
f SI! liu!!'': AIIIIIK^^ lit I
11!!11!':1' ii. "lui "ni 'UiiiiiiiiliiiiiiT 'iii'iiniiiRi'irii'Viiii: ii'inii
l
I"!'".!.,^illlllllllii lllll'IFllit'ia^^^^^^^^ /n;,::: "i"' III 'SHI'!);.,m IlliK ;
iinnii niMiiiiiiih 'iqiiiiLiiiHirKiniini'i',11 i1: f LI , ifi'iii/Niiiiiiirv iimiKijiiiiiiiiini w, ill
nilKlii^^^^ '!B!W litlllliiiiJfK:,!!:^ liEi!-
»^^^^^ ,ai;,M^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ IK I:
i Eii::!^^^^^^^^^ •1(1! lili Ei'''»"i:ilvjlllia^^^^^^^^^^^^ Iilllll ill!
mt m \ mmn\ iiiiiiiiinJi 'iiUiis'ii'i k 'V iini
in 11 ii mi
i
! lllfFli. KII! I IlilH^^^^ jiiHIll" lilllll IliilRli IliJii!'!]!!' il'illli: lUfl flit IJ'illui • !• liilil i: IK i:W 'iv ,'i IF ilir,; 'I! 111! IIIIIII11 111'1'1' '•: IMIS IlillV CC''! B 'I1"'(' liill mi : * "f'illf~il >''"': "'„ '•''!,
fm, •eiiiiii
iifr-iiiiiii.:': iiiH M. K 'Jiiiit , ,!::i> ii if:: niiM 11 :"f',?s fiw^^ i-i iiiiif^^^^^^
!!W^^ ;'";;\JlK^^^^^^^^^^
HftTsMHirra ._
"Ill111'111 fife i? IhiiilEllh/lw^
'HilJIIB^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ lilllM
iir''i:i^^^^^^^^^^
, .,«, ,.»t!iM§j;;v» (•m^ji^ts/iiifm^ «
I
-------
Appendix D-2-2
Analytical Monitoring Costs by Multi-Sector Subsector
-------
lit
, l|lliiinii!ii run! ': unit nniiiiinr'i'infi inniiii' iniiiiiiiiiiiiininu ^ininiiiBi;! i IBBE HH11:11 -• iiiiiiiiiiiiiin ;,i, <
iNJjpiii!1 ipiiiif^ih.''''!!'!!!!* .iiEiiiiiiiiiili'"«! ', ',ni *"';:• rri'S^li^iiiiipFs1 '53
j ''ihinli liijj";'1,'fhhSi> i" JillSilii* «iil«l|i,i'l'ii'i!' iiliiiliniiiii1' "iiii1 !•'"''iili LI iii**:i :1'!:yiiil^,|lXjiiiiiii|iii;;iJiiiii3ll,,liil!i|iiliii,Jiii'iiih|iii|ii iiiiihliiiiiiliiilf''^^'!];!!!!!!
i fii1 jjjiijiii iliilisiii i:|i- i T lii'ii!:1 iiiiii i|ii:;: \ , iiiiiifiisiliiifiiiirii'lliiJIIiiiiliEi |'i' ijiiijijinni iii'iiiiiiiiiii:! iiijijjjiy
, iji'i/j::,!.,!!, iiiiiiiiiiiliiil'iiiiiliiii'i'i'l',',;!;,!!-!'!: •i'iiiiiiilVli'vdiliill! illllFl|i;Ililllllijllllllli!!il illllliiiiiElliiPII
I: ,i|i,::,| '", i"E"|,|n', :| ,;, i
'li'liillllllllifi'iiidiliiillliiililiillliilil! ttHHW.?<:Mfr."i iiiiii' r.f'P'lMtfli
1, 11:1 ITS,, ll'iiilni'V BlIiEilBP• '1BI''!'" Ill'l'''!! E .''I'JI1'1'!'1"!,' PIP i"" r IIP I, PIPE-1 '''"PUP, I'll1'1!1'1 B1" HilB' Hjj
:; i! iiiiiiiBiiiPEi jipiiiiiiiiiiixE<: ,EiEEiip n, i'ii »i !;i:'' •:« E >;,: E11,, < iii!!' i1"' • EiiJiBi,!,;; irwf,iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiniiiiiiiiiiiii;;,: E
:l!i, ;!^li^
I iBii i ';| iPPIIII"! Hill' ill' Illllllllllliii;!,1 'lllllil ijii, jiJE'lliiilllllllllllllllllllllllll1 p'l'jIEII1! m BB'l IIII
»ii< .nl ...... liii'l!11 ' .nil!1!," Jillt, ilEMii, , 'ill, ii ,,,,»' :i!!ll< ":;• ..... !,„!,» ,!i|! Wi .Hb
A IIHIUII W mV«Vr\ ..... UliBIJilliliilili 'TillllllLnillllilllJ1! ...... IllUlii ' ,.
, j
," a |||p!,||i,i il 'I,, ' iiiP'iii'PIE, ill l:i,'ii,,i • ,;;|in|i, 1111, Jll, iiillllllll,,BI!l,ih ,1 JSP'-iiiE^EIEE 'fEPH •I'^ilplllllliil'1",!: .iPnll"' H'i
; : ii""; i; ; '"; i i : : I'll , i; i
ii||||||||l|l!!i|!i|||P!,i ' iilllBlli,1:;,!!!!,]!!!. JIBi.!'-;"*! I lii'illllliJ'iFllilllIJi Pll'l"!',"!!'"!! lir,111'!!1"11 P 'IIIIIIPIPPITillllllllElhi'iiP .I'l'nl'll'illi ''I,'1 "PUPII": '"lir'PPillllPPII! , I 'jUilPHIIIllBPiM'IPPj |l|l|l|li||llil,l|,|lllll|ii'l i;, Ellllllim 'pll'lllii' 'IPIIiPIIIIII'li''!!',,!,!!!:!!,, „ yjllNm'''''''!!'!!'!! , ii,,,illl|i,l',: 'liiiiijl''*1.''',!l,Pl!lllll|PP| illiilllllllllllli,!!1::!! l»iiPII|llll I
'' ifijiiiiiiiiiii,.':;^'':!!!:!.;!: ^iijiiiiiiiiiiiini'ilii'ii'ii: «iiiiiii!iiiAiiii!iii|lliiiii!Hiiigi^ iiiiiiii
iliEiliillllllllllllllillil'iiiiil'EliiillililllllillllllllPllli-iPIP! I n illlllllliaili'l Till Ellliillllll, Ii!'!,, IJIInPI11,
i;l!!!;!!;l:^;,:l|:g^!E:!l!:;;i!ll!!^ Iiiiii!
"1!1'!!1!"1 f'FF'F!!^'11*?!!'1!51!!1!111'111'1'11! I"I!I!I|!!II|M!!!!!!!!! '"'"'l! I!!1!!!!"11!!!!!'11"11!'1! I!1!1!!!!!"*!1!!1!!!!'!"11" li'i I1'1'''1''!!!!1111"1'11!!
"'L'l"1"1'l'"1"1!"""!"'"'""'" r'""'' '''! ll!l
i'X ....... [IIP """!:
^^ ..... M ..... H ..... i11:;!::!^ .....
i; i: ""''lii, liiPliii,; iiiilisip '"'TiRiiJE'siiJiiiFE1";; 4;:ii;ifiiif '; .tpi jiiiiKifiniiiiii'ti '> Kiiiiiiiiini1!'!' l
<• 'F'is; v. ,111, ' >: ,i;ii:',;i '
,,:::,it;ii,i
::,"',[„„
,!,
', IIIV lllllil,',, i,, 111 I, ,11'
"1 ''"JiiiipM," ij 'Tiiii ..... ifiiiiiiiiiiiiiJ ''iiiii/jiii;'! jin1 'I ,iiiii ' iiuif
Ti I'lti1" "iiiiifi'iJiiiivalsiJiiiljJIiiiiiiii'iviiii'it;,,, "'>ni iiiliiiiiii!i,Hiiiiiiiiiii!iiiiii:i:vii|i,iiiiiiii ....... liiiii'ii,i Si
it • :'- in^i iiiiiiilijipi jiiiii;!> jliiiii >! !
I'illlllillillllllEITIIilillliliiiiiiaii'iilllliiilllllljIirfi "111, II1"1
ii'iiiiEii, ,niiiiz:ii,H^ ii'iiiiiiTiiiiiiirii:! i':,i, i,,, IF! iiiiiniiiiK,,,,1! r.;,*: i" •IIIMIIIK '1,1'" nniiiK
iiviirii'iiniii! ""iiiWv!!!1 i'l'i'iiiisiijii**1 i
si i11?11: in ,''i,, mi,1 ii!1"1!,!!!1!:: niiiii!,1!!:::!, ,i'
ij. i |::, ',,Piitpiu1 :i;„«":,;;>,' ,r•„ iiiiiiBif,;p'iri'ijiSPi1,1 Piiii,i'liii
. P .JIlli'lB III!1 <'[,, Bin,;'l EPIiii ilipjRlii |l ^W"'M i,lli iiliPE'E i1' ,1BIEE!,::!1:,!: J
'illfLhlililili'''!,!:'''!,
ii'iu i:i< EiiniiiipiiiiJiiiiiiiiBliiii,, ii ...... i::"!i i,ii,ii!ii|iiil:n • ,,„«! iif mi::' iS I li^iiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiniiiiiiiiiiii i: 'iiipIIIIiiiiH'i; iiiii |
iiii iraniiiiiijIlLii'i1 Liniin,;;1'!!! ;, niTiiri mill
ilillll!1 ;!!':„„;»,!:
— ..... ;jj~.|..-J|i
I
itiiiiFcriTa^^^^^^ • .ji i iiiiBF ii'iii i11, iiifi'iiii:
Ii ,,!l!!li!"llllili >! I iiil-
•i. i .'ii- •.,: ,1 ,,;,!,!",: ii*" ,!::i !::• /liwuii,,, ,11'lii,,"! ,,,i: :,:ii,:iiiiiiiw.;, a i iiiiiiiia^^^^^^^^ visit,'; 11.1,, traw^^^^^^^ xsitiaiiiH 11 n j),ii>-,u^^^ , : :,:,-i
i lii (,t MlltW iiiliM^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ i,,iilM^^^^ JiliiBliiii,
'lit
! "'* "I
ill ,1,11 lllllil,,I,!,,',
•jj"
-------
Appendix D
u
0)
(0
A
CO
u
o
CO
•4=
(0
o
o
O)
c
c
o
re
CO
CN
Q
X
u
CO <_,
's m
1*1
»- TO,— ,-
o c: ;H .,
te = w
or o •*«
Jjw'
•*» tS
g"g
I
JS
o
s
CO
e
CO
CO
O
co
O
I
o
J2
g
I
•= CD
1
rganlcC
JS
CD
CO
UU
£2
J2
3
o O.
CO
ls
O
To
October 1999
Final Report
D-15
-------
i m iiiiiriiiiiiii"'; 1111; i«i up1' HUH: ..wiioiiRiMi . IB '»' •»>" I'l1!1;:. ,, 1/11,,» IIP 11 if MII« ai iinnipi'f M; ' \ at • in
IIIIIXiilliH^ lllhlilil Ilil! •!'• Jtili i! af.:!"']! i!!3IK^^^^^^^ I^IIIIB^^^^^^^^^ illtB^^^^^^^^^^ 111!1!!l!V ^
D-16
FimdRegart^ _ ' ' October 1999
..... ..... IS
m :•' >:31B ;^^^^^^^ ii^iIi!:ii::i:B^^^ m
~:^S:.'^:^i\
-------
Appendix D
•a
o
c
o
o,
3
u
o
I
CO
u
o
CO
o
0)
S
(0
o
**
|5
LU
o .&£;.
e- 2
03
o
=
oal
and
§
=5
et
Ref
IO
a
CM
tf*
O
TO 0
£
fe
October 1999
Final Report
D-17
-------
iiiiinuimin isiuiinuBir ,in: rnn
.Oiiilliu:;'. lllll SIIIIIIIIIILijiil! »i ml
rai ;'i", JiUlliHIIIIIIlb":; Ilililllili! ' t ilH'illi; I"!. 'nClnimiil! < l|!!l!ii!:> V, "IS' I
' ''id IIPPI11!!!11!'1!!"1!!:;,,:;! 'I'll!" Sufi!1 .i'li'iil"'!1' "M|l!!iiil'" ,,.i:;i'in!illli:i''f ^i
I T t'i, Ji; I'iiniillK'iiiiin'UK LIII", t; ii'Vil'JiUlii't,,,! Ili'n11' Kn 111! ilill!!!; ^lii
.NUiiA 'iiiN Jin11;
VlilliiW^^ innill IIK^^
ililiiiiiJlliiil^fii'r'l^
3 lill Ili
iilllllli!lillriiiU!9iilllili IlllUUIIIihi'iii' "i fl Jll!J lllll1' III i Jill!!''I ,£•»
JJB
IK Om!
-------
Appendix D
•o
o
O
0)
I
(O
5
o
0>
CO
(0
o
O
O)
c
CB
"5
<
CN
X
u
V
'K :-j^_d CO ^rf
* /E^e o
TJ
-S-.g-Sy
|*?£
'1-1
"f °.l
*o °* c
1 § '1 £
:, . C
» ^ o o
I w o *•
ili'i
I « J2
:V'B)2
• Is
'
-
- »
J
o
fe
-4 o
"" * ^S
t.' w
od and Kindred Products
LL.
— i
S
73
cS
^
i
2
2
2
2
CO
s
I
5J"
2
CU
^
Q
O
O
§£
Fat and Oils Products
i--
^^
o>
Handbags and Other Persona
CO
•=;
CD
CO
-------
:1!!<
mi'm, IB^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Sim ii>::il!i£
IK
i^^^^ iie^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
i Ei i!"";' il*:il!!K^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 1!C^^^^
(:,!l«^^^^^^^^^^^^^ J!f:«r i!«M^^^^^^^^^^^^
I'lfllillili iMIIiiilii J.'JK'} •» HTViiliiM^^^^^^^^^ i! Ilia1 W'lifim, Hi
I
!» I!!!! I
!lii'! HiiliiiiS
I
iiiiii iiiiiiiiii' iiiiiM ^
i
I«-
11*
llsl
E S o
«g.°
i
SJ
ra
Se
ber
cel
G
te
cil
elry,
cts
P
SI
If
8
CM
CM"
Si
Prod
ral
CM
CM"
et
g
sf
•a
c=
CO
0".
I4
S
I
g
s
a.
&
li
if
CL
s
a>
s
ss.
W! !ii "i'S^S, ' '"IHv iipliH^^^^^^^ " '!
n^ ..... »>^I^K
October 1999
"'":': U'^iilllii''!1 'ii'illll'll'l'I"''"'"'''iinliiiill! I
I
': Vlt.1!:1/"!!,.! MHi, W iliiilllK. L [Tl'-ili '''iillElinii11!!::!! ' ,i !!|T illiniii:!:!,!:: ill!?' i:,,;!!*1 , 'I'ril
lllliili:!:'],:'!!!!: illJIiES t 4IilK'::ii I
-------
Appendix D
(I)
3
C
+3
O
t_
U
0)
i
CO
3
0
0)
(O
*J
3
S
0>
o
o
0)
c
1
c
o
S
"5
^%
^
"«
c
Q
4->
S
X
UJ
*a "
•to "" -"
£ c*<
j|sl
UJ
.i.' m
, Z C
v. ra c
^i|j
= o A **•
^. &
•S J
OT
:<
2
^
^
^
-------
i.lJLil'llPplllUili'lilllilPllJiillliHilllllllllijIlllllPPljI'iriUHil'-'ilh
"iiiiriiilii'iiiiiiiiiupiii'mi .in.ii I'll: <
:!|i;;|l|llili!1Bi!'Tl:!il|llllillli;!|'l,,!!!!!iri!!iil»i PiB, 1IIIIIIIIINIF; "I" • "in! Wll, ,111
pnPP p'lpjinPPPPPPPPi ilH :'!'•' " ,1 ! 'I111!:! ..... :,< ' '"If; !„ li :]' [,' „ M, I..]":1 W/ illPdiiPPIIiili!11!" • i. li'ii1',,!' 11 :iilllllil|llii!illilin:< liflW Jib, Him!: ...... F 'ClIIIPP" 'I™ i, I'uiilillilPPP'iiJhii, 'iftlllilltaiill'li; "S\\ "Hi, !! '" ' PPPPPIIIB •' ijiiiilnli I
..... i^^^
jiinm!: fp.
,'Wim^ E;I|!!: '«'!' ^iii
1 '" """"""""' ^tri'tMHUUHPflp^t!!
r-!AJ!, iii ll.i,Jillpiilil!l nn,'' I n.llllH'P, inUlllllllliiililliiilh III .llll!"!!, ' • I!!, BjBIIIBIIfli,,' B'PBBIIBS'UB'ilBIB'1 !'iilil|iTiilB|Bliliii1BII'BBIi i*1 •;.,,!, i;,' IliilllllilPI'llt'iivlllpiiIlP IIP 'Ii iiii Jllll'i SjpTBjB .'lillijIljlllllijIlllllljllliljIljlljL'IPI1:1 '',•• ,l|,'i|l!|"Pi 'i. " • ,Bll ' "4 illl ilPil: 11]»:' aiLMIPPIillllllllllllPlidil iiiBBIlBlPliEJil1 'i llll B|ljlll
"'"'"'i "_'^" 7" 7JT tit IIII"" II"""I '. ,."!'"".'. "I
' "il "|!" 'I T". | iiii!"1! "",'"'! !i
' '-' '3 ;::: ' :"; : '-
l;;;f i iKpiip i • <' •*• I • i. «'''IB BBBIBBIBBBB, 'In • «B jllii ,h,i I1! 'in,' ,1, iiii'" iijl:B 'ii Bl' f-9'i !'9>tmf*' TV- V>, JBl 19" < 11:1 'V '!''V»<. ''I'liiaiillllHIiil 31; •';,, :V''' "''T!
i B,,: JBBBiBJiisllllllBiBhllilBBiBiiii, 1111' B' III i]|l|ilh,Bll" flli" '', IB1' B^BIIIB,. Li,, BUBIIIB BpliLJIIIBIIIBIflillllJInillB 'AlllllllBB BB I
!:i?:|':!!!!!!! I:i:!i''!:i;i!!!!!!!!!!;i!!!!f!!!!!!!!!!!!!!^
^^^^^^ ii'ijiin^^
liiliJIIiV1 '"ill1!!!!!1!*' iliM^^^
^^^
" '" « ™'" " ' "'
riylilillilliilllllillllliiJ^
IMII1 ',,BB BBIHEBBIIIIIIIIBB'il Ilili, yBBB BBBBBBBBIII BiiBBIilB'B IB'1 !l,' ,,
1 pi|"<":!
-------
Appendix D-2-3
Projected Cost Savings by Industrial Subsector
-------
'if lIF'lFh iSSSSSSISSniSiiSl) I'ViniSliii1!! I"
i:^ IIIIIIH^
iiiiiiiiiiii1'!1 J1"
1 „ „ Pl!l,,»!!illpll«li»»!,,ll!H,":,;nni»nPll:;i;«PHl,.i[:n i .i
«FFi Kfim^M>f JKJ
^Ittl'^MWfflBEIVI
in inn;; ,i, :pip!p"i'i!»i»i!i,i mui' i, "iii iiniiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii. g, >, 1111111111111 .jiriLiilmi i. Ui; •:. • "iiiiiih i. ii'''ii nil n full limn
n ,.,: HI ' ! ..... ' !!H1" lUii lilk '"!IT i "lilln ill!1 ,„!" Illlln
lllllllL'Riil"11!!!1 ..... N'l! , . I'Jilpi: ..... , i i^lS^^ i
»!X'lilMMfl ii;"
IIH^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ fill,
..... rK-itiB
..... l^litik'lHiiS ..... IliiEiiUI ..... IF!' ..... ^Smi':! .......... Kf'!':] ....... IjllB-:!^ ......... 'i:;'
^^^ ':;;ii^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ! Ill vi !
I
"TBl HI M,,!,! USf-. i;:" '>:!:l.iitji illiil!! I
lif^!! Ill
I i
ill mm iiai.Lat'S;: m
: I
i;!""; sIliiB^^^^^^^ FiX'iiiikiAHMffX'BttM i. iii,! i,1.! iiliiw iHiiiiJiiiiiiiii i/ I
ii li J![ m OSS i ill mmH " " ' "
I:??1 sWHlS|*ii:tJ|BR iii! J!P i;
ipiifljilM ' lil" li!,:f! !!•• :'i!( ilJHilii.J'iH^^^^^ H'fllB
llllllli, lll'l'illililillll:} ft yi'iililiiil'il lilllll1' L 'Ji! !!!' !Z:I "l'!"l SV'qillllliili.! llllllill njlililil!'! -ill "Sill '•IX-ili1 lii'iiiiili"!! Vf ill ""ill • Ul" •i"!1!!!'111!':1 • :> ;;,i V!!1!",11,":!:, tl Jk 'i'lli'i' ililillcfiiiii!!"1;1!!!!!^ :L il""!!")1!!" /Illilli, "111! rilil'ii: IBlt1! '• ::'i" iii'lIiVl';11!!""!!'!.!.!!'!'' I.':!!!!:1 ''lillfSfilStiil'ilil'Fi11:'1! "ni-i ;i li'll,:', lilSlllSSlS/IJ^SlrailliiL' lilllilSf; Ill |
' - , , F : ' " l'"11,,li , " '
ii tiiiii' KuKif. '": , pi; t, ;„, s i>iiiii:,' Biisiji iiiiiii1111 • 'i'!" >.f i 'if11! :i:;;;3ii iiiVi' iitiii1 :*;. •::;;'' H , :<; • >"i, Aiit: 'nEii'i -IM s*>xi ii IHM *:i:; 'life'"1111! iiui •'«f,a si- ii1"!!'!::;!!}'!;;!!! in::,!:1:1 «iii!:!<:iiii a .>' ^ •'&>: ' li liiiKy^^ "-K;' ' ':i!':'!iii
(:Piii^lll&W '"''Si'^iK^ 'it::::!'!;:'" ,i:!::r .*Mb4k .v.w
ll|i IF-, ", "" IIIFIIIIIi; ;< lllliljiinlFli' illliii. 111;!'
In/III1::1 > llnPlli, ' ,,,i:,lWililll|IIIK „ i1 Ill] I
I;!1111!!!1',,f ],, • j1!1111!!1'", t^!^ "i"1';1:!,!1:,:',!1!:!1; < -i'S, 'll'll'J'n: i111,;!;,;'^!'!!!!1!!'!:1; :'"l: , "nJV'if "i,i,l, Jlllpi !llh|igiilEIIII|igi|i' nillE'll!!1'1!, '"'"..Tllllllll!
isrm,i>i „ <:, «t\«'"'liiii*:; :!|Ji > n\\ii<• «<:>\fimmm. :,si >:< • v^t, i:<,;,i,iiiiniii,iiiiii • ' !< '
,i!Iitrli
iii ijiiiiHiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiriiiini » ^,1^ v>,:>\ *'j ' i ..... oi" XT iiii
niii! Jiiiiiinuiiiii 'IIMIIIIJ" iiiiininB'" i
' ........... I ........ i!!
niih''!!!"1 ,;;:, ' " .......... >ri ' i, ^ '.liiiii'ifi'iiiiH!1"1!;,:!'!'! HULL, ' < i," ' ':> < ....... '»:, iitjc1 111 :i;fii;i]!i«ii':i:":iiiiv|i!i|iinnnnni:i!ii|ii!ii«!iii',i! ''.
Siiil^a^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
~!;i::'!J!!!!ii!^4^.;;!l;v ........ k!!>>j:;,v ...... ^^ ...... il'llli;^! ...... I .....
™ ...... it ......
caBM' j ,:>!;,sis!' w; |i' w , ?' ...... »; "is ......
'^ ...... I!!»^^^^^^^^
'II! IIJIII, inl11 Uiill'ilIlL P'l.ll'lllliiJ'll'
'''ii--"Piiv 'I''..!:!1,''L'i-llilSliiiii'W^ 'illl'iillinil'liiiii'iiiiiilii'Slii 111111111111 iiiiili'lilip1 'I'-'„'"'''li, ' liPIPVIjiilliBPI,S'iliifSiillil'' ii'iiillllippjl'1'" ''Pi-iiiiHiiiiiiii"'!!'!i"l''"'''I'1 lull1' '"'Illllliliiiil1 -l-ii I'1!1
IIIID II'" ' I lllllllp:,ll!,llllllll,i,llll|i'li,ippillllll!llli, "'I'l.lliI'MllimiilllllpulllllplllilllJlllllli-llll' , ,'ln IIIIUnl'illllllllllllll'l ml'MliU'mi lllllil Pi'llill, II, "lllllllllllplllllllplL1" II "'i-l.l, il '"IIIIIPPPI VilllllllllllllllllliHI,.
i 'i'l'Sp'-iri ! i'li Ci Iliiiii^^^^^
^^ ..... I
, ' ',| !f! '1,1! 1,1'!, ii"L , ''INI,1 /ii jjllll"' i', I '"flUl ..... , '„«• \ "'',r ' !!' 'I'inlllllllllllliLL "lIUI'il1 ,|l",
L.iiilH^^^^^^^^^^^^ ..... ii ...... ' ..... £
l<:::illlllll!llllllll:l!!llll!lllllllllllll"ll:l:ll:::il!
iliaiii ..... jiM^^^^^ ..... uiiiiil
T ii!PnP!i!i|iiiiiF;!iiii!:!jnnnilnnnni,.ii!:pnnpiniiP!iii;!i!::!|!ii|ilUB|11:1
-------
Appendix D
Appendix D-2-3
Projected Cost Savings by Industrial Subsector
Exhibit D-3 indicates the estimated number of industrial facilities in each subsector (under the multi-
sector general permit) that may qualify for the no exposure exemption and the cost savings
associated with each subsector. Below are explanatory profiles of each column in the exhibit.
The column "number of facilities with no exposure" represents the estimated number of
facilities that by definition require a NPDES permit but may qualify for the no exposure
exclusion due to an existence of no exposure on their site. (See Exhibit 9-3.)
Visual monitoring annual costs were estimated by multiplying the average wage rate by the
number of monitoring events in a year. If the average cost to collect and visual inspect a
storm water sample is $22.51 and each facility is required to conduct visual monitoring
quarterly and it is assumed that each facility has four separate outfalls, the estimated annual
cost to collect and visually inspect storm water samples is estimated to be $355.
• Analytical monitoring annual costs were calculated by, first, determining the parameters to
be monitored for each subsector in the modified multi-sector general permit and, then,
adding the mean monitoring costs indicated in Exhibit D-2b for each parameter to the sample
collection costs of $22.51 per outfall (see Exhibit D-2b). It was also assumed that each
facility would collect samples from 4 outfalls per sampling event. A total five-year cost was
calculated and then divided by five to provide an estimated annual cost. (Analytical
monitoring is only required to occur during years 2 and 4 of the permit.)
The low and high storm water pollution prevention plan costs were previously calculated
in Exhibits 9-4 and 9-5: Since facilities have already implemented their storm water
pollution prevention plans it was decided to assume that the per facility pollutionprevention
cost was equivalent to the annual cost, not the total costs.
• Per facility annual low costs are the sum of visual monitoring costs, analytical monitoring
costs, lowpollutionprevention costs, plus expenditures for submittal of theNOI, notification
of the local municipal government, and recordkeeping. The high per facility costs are similar
except the high pollution prevention cost was used instead of the low pollution prevention
costs.
The annual cost savings (low) is the number of facilities with no exposure multiplied by the
per facility annual costs (low). The annual cost savings (high) is the number of facilities
with no exposure multiplied by the per facility annual costs (high).
October 1999
Final Report
D-25
-------
IH^^^^^^
"ii ::::!• lili
ii ; ,,,,,, , .,.,_ ,, , ,jj , , ,
•:niK^^ UW^ I '.n
mini in,: IIIIIMII ii III! II mil II,! < nun ,!, iiillllilin1, lllllllllliil Ililn, dull liid limn
lirillpilil llllilll'VL,11!1!,:
illl iliiillillllliliillllMilii
ill in 11 in lili iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ill
J8
"o
o
oo
CD
CD
W
P
o
Q.
75
TJ
C
CO
en
I
CO
*=
I
o
CL
o
4-1
15
— ro co "?-"
3 3 Q-
*
o
1
1-
•g
(D
to
• -3 ' -
V)
mber Products
<;
O
fl>
CO
CO
CM
m
r~
O5
CO
ea-
§
CO
0
o
00
in
1
in
CM
w*
o
in
w-
N
Tl-
te-
a
CM
CO
S
o>
c
General Sawmills and Plar
g
o
s
CD
CM
to-
S
CN
5?
to-
35
00
•l
£«•
S
O]
c
CO
CO
CL
T3
I
CM
5
CO
CO
O
•
CO
35
CM"
35
S
ttt-
S
ro
•*
<«•
O5
iO-
o
o
CO
5
5
CO
en
S
5
CO
35
CO
CO
CM
•*
•*
to-
1
O5
CO
h-
to-
g
O5
cti
<*)•
S
•*
w-
^
in
£«-
p;
'"
JO
c
iZ
o
_o
Li-
Hardwood Dimension and
T
O5
CO
00
CO
O
W-
CO
r~
r*.
in
CO
w-
g
05
c\i
v>
•
LU
1
CO
|5
D
O
Q.
[3
CO
Tj-
g
in
CO
m
CM
:o
CO
co
in
£
g
O5
S
W-
1
•*
w-
m
*e-
M
0
E
I
5
CO
J£
5
:5
TT
TJ-
Si
CM
CO
CO
5»
1
0
O5
CO
O
in
05
S
th-
S
M-
W-
m
E/>
CO
in
2
CO
c
2
o
T3
O
O
•*
00
^
s
CO
m
w-
5
O5
^_
§
(/>
O
in
O5
cti
tf*
s
•*
W-
m
cv>
m
CM
CO
CO
n
m
Wood Buildings and Mobili
•t
CO
o
CO
CO
^—
to-
1
T_
O5
M
to-
n
O5
cti
to-
%
•<*•
<«•
m
iO-
8
CO
u
Reconstituted Wood Prodi
•
in
«•
^
CD
1
D
8
T3
O
O
>
•t
o
e/9-
g
m
N
O5
in
CO
w-
en
a
1
c
I
T3
S
i
D
CO
CO
a.
CD
o
cii
CO
(35
in
CM
00
O
CO
w-
O5
35
m
V"
1-
(/*
o
•2
I
D.
Q.
CO
CM
in
CO
CD
to-
§
fs^
bO-
35
I
4-i
1-
(/>
»
Paper Mills
CM
CO
5
05
V"
5»-
b
^
O5
35
OO
tr
»
T—
T
tf*
O
o
ro
5?
>
1
B
CD
Q.
0_
co
CM
CO
CO
CO
S
CO
co
o
CD
CD
CM
to-
05
O5
m
3
•ri
^
**>•
0
CO
CO
1
m
T>
Paperboard Containers an
Tj-
S
CO
t&
CO
T—
CO
3
35
I
r
ea-
'O
CD
1
•e
Converted Paper and Papi
Products
in
c/»
o
§
I
g
CO
to-
i
CO
co
hemical and Allied Product
o
0
t
2
fi>
CO
CO
CO
o
CO
CO
in
T~
1
»
1
•<*•
ea-
rn
CO
no
to-
M
CO
15
M
Industrial Inorganic Chemi
O3
CO
O5
!•-
CO
CO
CO
ea-
8
CO
oo"
s
o>
o
03
I
CO
Tf
ea-
ts
T-
w-
in
in
co
c
'55
CD
or
_o
j=
Plastics Materials and Syn
CM
oo
h-
CO
CM
OO
CO
OO
e/>
CO
CD_
^.
to-
O5
g
cti
fa-
CO
T—
fa-
f—
•f
CO
E
Q
CO
m
m
OO
o
CO
CO
w
3
CO
3O
I
x>
•3-
M
O5
in
cti
to-
2-
IS
in
o
CO
tn
CD
CO
c
UJ
Paints, Varnishes, Lacque
and Allied Products
m
CM
§
CO
CD
CM
in
to-
r—
CD
OO
oo
to-
ot
35
in
»
CO
a-
•*
CM
_co
Industrial Organic Chemic;
CD
S
CO
CO
o
m
ta-
in
to
CO
o"
CO
O5
ea
h-
35
S
T"
S
oo
(35
Tf
ea-
M
CM
Agricultural Chemicals
i
00
CM
N-
(/»
in
m
c>f
CO
CN
O5
O5
in
s
CO
T"-
T^
cS
%
m
u
•o
2
Miscellaneous Chemical P
CO
\0
-------
.
O
Q
CO
o>
o>
(0
V
Q.
"J5
(0
T3
0)
U)
(O
to
O
o
"nj
O
O.
*?
cji
Q
£
~vVx
•"• ^— ,
™"? CB y^ _^
45 s to o
-O pS- Ov*f"
I™ J? CJ ^^
*
_,
slif
§o •« o •"*!
t ^ v "%
£ o
SJ*1 ° "~*
— *3J *-*
«->§ « ^
§||18
x \
<, *•» ,£
0 -W ' £
jjj S:=c g
l£st
-« ,
- t .
» "
E ,-
' W
T?
,*• ~ *
' .. f , _,
< , v
-• ^" A=?
>' j§ "
' a>
-. _•§
' <0
:M_
N
tO L
Is* C
§ ^
•= 5
3
-a
TO
e if
§ 8
^0
TO
CO
J2 ^
"TO .S
&
_ n
¥ S
" i
o ,£
or "5
T3 (§
i ?
£ i
£ |
io "co
!»!
T-
i- ^S
O 3
5 =
a> TO
r> 5
5 §
^
^
CO
frt
tf>
CM O
a> ee-
m
N
a> io
s a
s as
CO CO C
m T
««• ee- e
o>
~
ts
•f°
S |5
o
o
CO
Q.
(— >•
5 C)
— ^
£ i
1 - in c<-
^f 1 t1^* C
CO^ CO CM CT
"" > CO •*
y> 69- &
«5J|o S
•*- CM CO CO
n co co o
& •* CO CO
to- ,_r eo
» CO CO CO
» CO CO C
n in in ir
e- eo- EO- ft
0 CO CO CO
— T- T— T—
— T— T— V
9- to- 99- ee-
r o CD CM
- CM CO C
T- CO C\
m -o
i
CD o CO
eo c •«
CO =1 H
£0; |
°-
Glass and Glasswar
Glass Products Mad
Glass
Cut stone and stone
T— r- r-
•* in r^ CD if
CO T— CO CM C
in c» co t^ cr
co s. r-~ h- ^t
T^ ^™ 'a; [
CM •«— CS C C>
c\ ** T- CM" v
<* E E
N CD O T •*
3 CO in CM t-
•n w- CM 'S- CM
EO to- ea- to
CO O) CO CO O>
n co en co c
in in m m u
£» eo»io
CO CO CO CO CO
S10 S|5
L?
c '
' 7^
1 " 1
ti
c E
~ o"
Morasive rroaucts
Asbestos Products, '
Materials
Mineral Wool, Insula
Nonmetallic Mineral
Hydraulic Cement
T- T- r- CM
o m co co
r- CD co in
CD CO CO CO
O3 O 1^ •*
^4 ^ O)
CM ^~ C ^
co" CD" ** •<-"
io in
w-
sss?
co r«- I-- co
S!2?§
in o •<- o
CO CO CO 0
CM CM CM 00
CO CO CO CO
e- eo- ee- eo-
CO CO CO •*
•*•*•* co
CO CO CO CO
ee- to- w- w-
8885
&&££
O CO CO CO
5Sro|
« 1
3 =-
. -o 0-
J2 o -a
D- H n
structural uiay hroa
Pottery and Related
Non-Clay Refractorie
Concrete, Gypsum, i
Products
CO CO •*•
N- O
in CO-
CM
in
CO
05
T_T
&^
S 3
5
«•
I i
I I
•* co
co in
CO f-
tS lo-
co
o
1
minerals ana eanns,
Otherwise Treated
imary Metals
Steel Works
CM f-
CM in
CM m
T™ O5
^ O5
CD"6*
f°>
co in
CO CD
** *o-
"
h- CO
T- CO
•<- m
n T
T- CO
f~
j.
5 O
..
i
en
Iron & Steel Foundrie
Primary Smelting ant
Nonferrous Metals
Secondary Smeltina
!
1
I
!
-------
a i
ll| I
Mill Jill riP'-'lllllllllllllllllll1! illlllllHI'VllHIII
\ , , ,M||I _ , | ± , >S.
, lllllil,i
:1H^^^^^^^ a>
<
o
D
00
o>
o>
0)
o
a.
15
s
CO
•o
a
0)
D>
0)
o
o
To
I
Q.
S
eft
4->
!5
|
_"««-••
3 5 m B)
° c ° I
5 HI
o £ § °.
>-£o=i
* .
o §-js£;
ce e co S
0.
& '• ;
'sl.s?
co n co o
CL
— O) :
o •§ To w
&s if
co c 5 o
< E
o S £
fe= 0 3
5S-c g
E <* s a
§ CO * X
2 U. HI
' CD
1
£
u
o
CO
J3
CO
.—
Nonferrous, Metals
^j.
oo
m
•*
o
CO
m-
CO
§2
oo"
CO
o
ee-
CO
CO
oo
S
3
(S
I
$
CM
_
,
Rolling, Drawing & Extruding
Nonferrous
«
CM
m
o
Si
00
00
£«•
CO
CO
o>
in
in
s
oo
Si
te-
3
S
X)
N
CO-
in
CO
Non-ferrous Foundries
co
fO
(V.
CM
T—
in
te-
864,835
»
1
CO
ce-
o
T-
CM
•s
•o
o
Miscellaneous Primary Metal
f-
w-
o
W-
m
e*
s
ee-
co
CD
!i
<
o>
1
ro
O
o
03
Q.
8
x
"3
c
CO
CO
etal Mining (Ore Mining and D
.ands
. ^o
3 S
l_ T3
O CD
CD c
CO 0
r>
w-
3
3>
n
Si
CO
ee-
o
Iron Ores
T-
&9-
3
O
ee-
1
S
n
o
Copper Ores
CM
o
»
%
03
33
m
.»
-
ee-
o
Lead and Zinc Ores
CO
£&
3
O>
O3
in
«*
^
S
o
Gold and Silver Ores
*
y^
%
»
n
•*
T-
cS
o
E
•5
Ferroalloy Ores, Except Vani
in
t/5-
3
m
T—
S
O
Metal Mining Services
CO
o
%
n
£
T—
IS
o
Miscellaneous Metal Ores
t*-
r>
te-
69-
|
o>
n
ta-
in
CD
u
10
u.
CO
m
oal Mines and Coal Mining R
o
X
t
CO
o
w-
o
69-
§
(«•
CO
X)
3
ro
o
T3
"5
CD
o:
Coal Mines and Coal Mining
Facilities
T—
0
o
co-
in
Si
Si
te-
03
in
and Gas Extraction
O
•
i
o
CO
0
o
O3
O3
in
Si
-
IS
o
CO
m
O
Crude Petroleum and Natura
*-
^>
3
33
n
Si
-
te-
o
Natural Gas Liquids
CM
&^
g
03
O3
m
-
tS
o
Oil and Gas Field Services
CO
EO-
g
n
d
-
ee-
0
Petroleum Refining
"*
c/>
g
ii
in
S
o
CO
CD
5
"S
D3
C
C
CO
CD
c
CD
•«
CD
C
?>
8
Mineral Mining and Dressing
ds
. "1
—3
<- £5
0 CD
0 TJ
%1?
o
te-
^
§
<*
o
CO
IS
c—
o
Dimension Stone
T—
O
CO-
o
3
v.
O
CO
te-
03
^-
O
D3
C
T3
0
1
1
S
m
o
c
CO
Irf
1.9-
o o:
•^
o
to-
3
g
'
3
CO
cS
r*
o
ro
"55
LL.
Nonmetallic Minerals, Excep
••"
o
te-
o
ee
CO
CO
CO
CO
S
in
S
o
Sand and Gravel
CM
o
(&
3
O3
g
CO
s
o
CO
s
CD
C
r*
Clay, Ceramic, and Refracto
CO
t
i
-o
I
iiiiini iiiiiniii i 'i |i 11 ..... i|iii
iiiiiiiifiiiiiiiii
II III l(|i 'I 111 (111! Ill I 111 (I
inii in1 pii i iiii <
i "Hi in iliw '"
I
(111
-------
X
-*-H
1
I
-------
iiH^
JS
o
Q
03
O
o
T™
js
0)
<1)
E
o
Q,
_
I
(0
SJ
•o
C
1—
aCJ
l(jii
0}
O)
c
get
CO
CO
o
O
TO
*5
C
^2
0
u.
m
'::
= -« ^g 5?
W C cfl £>
^ c QX.
3
3
3
Q-
1
CD
m
o
CO-
33
n
1
^
•^t
o
rn
Z3
3
i
1
3
n
CO
3)
CO
CO
o
CO-
•*
8
co
Tt
in
in
o
a>
5
3
3
0.
3
CO
LL.
S»
O
CO
g
(33
33
in
1
'S-
o
CO
0)
CO
u_
CO
3)
S
>
CO
m
CO
o
CO-
O3
(33
m
I
TT
o
Miscellaneous
O3
o
CO-
(33
33
in
•<*•
CO
o
3
3
3
3
CL
§
n
a
o
o
CO
g
m
*r
w-
CO
EO
CO
r
n
•s
>iH
D
C
CO
S
•o
n,
0
n
CO
^
O
•a
c
CO
2"
CO
Q.
a.
1
>
q
0
1)
O
O
CO
o
CO-
33
n
»
TT
o
o
e
Q.
H.
(1)
O
CO
EO
(33
33
in
S
•«r
o
frt
ts
T)
O
Q.
T3
0)
n
£
Z
0)
S
3
CO
5
a.
a.
CM
o
CO-
o
EO-
33
i
•*t
o
(0
D)
•n
c
u.
T3
CO
Boot and Shoe Cut Stoct
CO
o
CO-
g
33
S
»
•*fr
EO
O
Footwear except rubber
CO
o
CO-
EO-
S'
rr
CO-
o
co
c
Leather Gloves and Mitte
CO
o
CO
EO
1
N
.^T
eo-
o
Luggage and Cases
CO
o
CO
o
CO-
33
n
-^
•*
o
J_
CD
CO
—
CO
c
§
CO
1
o
CO
3>
- "o
CO O
r o
CO
o
CO-
o
EO-
1
»
T™
•*
to-
es
Leather Goods NEC
CO
o
CO-
EO
N
N
S
CO
EO-
urniture and Fixtures
_^ •
>
q
^j
1)
CO
O
CO-
»
1
i
^i
•*
o
Furniture and Fixtures
0
eo-
»
1
•*
T~
,^
O
2
2
CO
5
2
3
3
>
CM
EO-
»
CM
i
,
O3
in
CO
O3
c
x:
•2
S
3
a.
1
o>
c
fS
c
1
X
0
o
3)
CO
o
CO-
(O
1
i
CO
^r
o
ra
E
CO
5
Q.
T3
C
CO
f
E
L=
0
CO
o
eo
c\i
lo
g
CO
eo
CO
•=
3
"S
CO
3
C
^:
co
3
O
0)
C
CO
8
CO
T3
C
CO
co"
•g
3
•D
P
U
03
CO
Q.
CO
g
0>
c
CO
8
CO
S
1
t
• CO
>•: .g
O to
^3 -J
CD cj
CO £
g
Efi
X
«
CO
P!
EO
O
$
O
CO
03
J3
3
(5
c
o
co
1
is
t
1
I
1
III II
-------
Q
M
~5
a
00
o>
cr>
c
CO
o
o
E
o
n
re
is
CO
•o
CO
O>
.£
co
CO
CO
o
o
CO
0>
o
a.
Cjl
Q
3
X
ui
fjjf
^ (R .» ^^,
«* 3 -2 3
o c g c
£.'
'S 3^2"
"ii 5 o 5-
o)
a.
&
= 55 » -~.
« i » o,
•I 5 o ~-
<»,**•
[L
^ c —
3 >C g «2
0 C ^* '/3
^ £
0 CO g>
OJ S § OT
: o "5 a.
^ ctf x
Z "£ UJ
d>
CO
V.
O
•s
a>
s>
3
CO
o
&
o
3
(0
T]
CO-
CN
•r
It
CN
£
O
i_
0
S
1
o
to
3
5
5
3
3
3
•
/ cy
3 O
O- EO-
n a
o oc
^
9- i&
Nl CN
• •*
J CN1
3- CO-
> O
O
02:
i
o
sl
- a>
1
!
i
c
c
o
CO
J
•*•
CO-
r-
•^
O
>
3
3
V
1
\
3
3
•
i
j
N
: o
3 t&
3 O
^ C37
^ C3)
J •*
9- S
•5
3- E/3-
> O
^j
I
O)
5
Q.
CO
3
CO
1
l-s
rf §
1— .0
"o £
Q <
CNI
o
y^.
o
n
•*
e»
CO
•*
o
5
>
O
3
5
0
) ID
1 0)
i|
M
O
\&
O
a
3>
in
•tf
CO-
CO
&
o
in
CD
>
>
>
3
O
J
*»
i
CD O
3*.
= |
M
C
g
o
a>
3
^5
W-
•sl
O
CO
a>
5
?
1
3
I
ID
3
O
>
5
8
>
s
N
: c
a>
u
K
EO-
3 ,_
o- r^
Y
a o)
1- C33
M m
J- i^-
9- S
SS
*> •^f
9- &>
CD
3)
l>~
.2
c
ij;
•o
i
i5
' 1
CO
l~
1
fj
T-
: o
3 O
o to-
0 CO
5 !Q
0 N-
1 CD
- in
CO
n
f$-
o
0
5
>
O
__
^
Jo
1
T3
CO
3 CO
O X
T-
r>
ft
o
CO
£
m
&
g
S-
r;
1
o
U
3
>
i
3
5
3
5
O
>
i
>
i
i
o
to-
es
CO
S
m
S>
CD
S
CO
n
o
S
o
3
j
J
5
3
a
3
= to"
; co
i — "
0
ft
,-,
c
in
CO-
c
S
'S-
CO-
o
ampings
j>
3
i
co
O)
31
5
I
o
CO-
o
co-
co
n
m
CO-
4
CD
in
S
CO-
o
3>
5
)
®- 01
0>-g
: O
3 O
go
C CO
I?
3 N
11
^^
O
CO-
h
in
co-
co
in
T3
)
S
]
ID
Misceiianeo
Products
o
CO
£
in
o
•**•
r:
co-
o
u
2
3
3
erware, a
/>
i
>
•^
o
A
CO
T}-
X
"3-
TJ-
fl
o
n
0>
>
5
J
•o
)
:
•a
CO
5
3)
)
O
•>
N
O
H
§
^-
io
co"
f>.
u
3
CO
>
"5
CJ
5
5
O
o
3
1
i
3
a-
J
3
^
5
L
3
.
U
O
o
f/X *«%
g§
^f Tf
co- 5
CO CO
"*•" •*"
0 O
1
3
3 §5
= Q
§1
a §
if
1 1
r- ,-
I
-------
I I
im^ ini!!!;;!!'!;
iiilill
iPliilin
i
"o
Q
eo
^™
'JE
1
o
o.
"5
•j:
to
3
73
s_
0>
D>
$
•*•*
CO
o
O
is
*=
0
Q.
to
^
Exhibit D
. „-
|i-tl
^" ^ f^ ^^
111!
^ o •••*
' '" ; •
^fc.
£r • , " .
iH 43*2"
RJ g; 10 wj|p
liif
J> ^ •*•"*""
Q.
•
gf_
ffjjts
•*!=
3 w , g
5 =* ° i
- ^ "S CL
|fi- :2
CD
CO
-" '25. ' :
''1 ' " --' :.
£
o
CD
•fl
CO
0
f&
V
m
^j.
S
§
ri
CO
3
2
rj
|
3.
3
5
~
^.
3
, Electrical, Phi
o
5
5
J
o"
^
.
3
J
1}
O
te-
»
05
7)
in
a"
««•
CO
V)-
o
I
)
D
O
3
5
|1
5 E
= Q.
J "^
JJ QJ
O
p
35
n
a"
CO
•^f
w-
o
35
5
5
3
0
0)
J
3
= 0>
5 S
CO 3
3 Js
i (O
5 c
o
c/>
K
CD
3
IT
1
CO
v>
o
t .
5
5
D
3
5
3
1
5
j
o
w-
»
m
•*r
CM
rf
CM
(f>
g
O
W-
0
srtent umissio
3
5
^^
t*
•
3
*
L_
3
5
>
o
69-
£
0)
X
1C
a"
w-
CO
w-
o
~
3
5
2
5
s
3
3
3
-
r
|S_
CO
CJ>
cv
r
1C
cc
a
§
1C
X
o
5
^
5
5
•a
co
m"
CN
co
a
co
1
i
Q
as
UJ
CO
&
o
z
1
c
o
4_*
CO
o
i£
"o
c
•&
CO
o.
"o
"c
i
.8
in"
CM
co
cy^-
•s
o
z
*4—
O
1
J3
Z3
CO
^
cT
C)
CO
€0-
fr
O
1o
o
o
D>
"C
O
o
E
CO
_co
£o
CO O
£s
— S
?•&
Includes annual expei
recordkeeping costs
u.
T- «2
oj
CO
E
To
0)
x:
.D)
'<—
CD
*^
^
t-
s
to-
C
CO
&
CO
E
1-
^
?r
—
r*
l_
*^
CD
CO
co"
CD
1
To
o
o
c
CO
Q.
.0
1
CL
.0
T5
CL
0)
CM"
§
o
o
1
E
3
CO
to ^
8 "33
O)-—
•i ^
O OT
~ (/)
o 2
*O>
s =
">« c
"co co
||
8§
— o
2 °
'E jo
E 2"
11
.52 §
•5 1
E Q"
|i
**~* ^5
m D-
|5
JO 73
O CO
CO CO
" to
CD o
CD °
5 0)
ft
O J;
The per facility annual
[ification costs, record
. o
£
CO
o
Q.
CD
O
jr
"i
.i
'o
•*-
0
CD
JS
E
a
CD
^
J2
T3
.32
CL
:c;
|
§""
To
c
ro
•— •
"o
5
o3
a.
CD
CO
CD
•a
52
CO
r«"^
To
o
CO
i
CO
D)
CO
The total annual cost!
h ranges.
O)
•^f !c
-------
Appendix E
The National Water Pollution Control Assessment Model
-------
jiiiniihii'iiiiPiiiiiiiiiiiiiili'; iiiiiiiiEiff''iiK' EBIIIME' if .EIEE'
,i", . t, :; ihp," , • iinjiiiiiniini: EI • < 's/i ,i •• ir; •• u
HF ..... •iii",i ..... i* Mii'i11!1: f. HP , ; n 4 , v, \a\\\\\\w\ tw;« 'im iiin EII :•• ..... IE "1111111:1111 It :i iiniiipinii /i\e " • , •»* "i ini:!,! INK ......... 'ii ifi i;: ..''vi1 i>. ;
:. 1H^^^ •. !'/ tffi^^^^^^^^^^^^^
111; -('III'',.! "I'll IIIIIIH
ilEM^ fflJiS'illli* ' '«IS» j'1 116 I'll! ...... i iiiBVi1
H IH ....... pi liK" ' 'UjjIljN ' IP ! r '" J1 Cllii" ...... ' l!" lljjIiKIH'll !' I'liJ i1 lj«jjj|Kij!BD *B J ^
li iiini1"' "n.": i flU'' . i1'1' 'J1 in11", '.' 'i,i H ii ji:,," Uiiii1", i ;'i; i, "nigiiijiiiiP:' if1 T 'f iii
'mm sia
llJRii!; !fi
•'•I'llll''''.'.''!..''''!*
'i 'liLPBITMInn In:;:1,'1!!'!!' !'
! HM,, "'Bill!'!':! 1 "I|!|:',||,"lli|.!<"! TIRI: ' ;«!,'jjlll! L! Kg • i !l> m.I1!!!!!"!"JiPIL1«!! I1 ,„'ItU! !i'i II I rMIIIP :ll|i' :|LIIP!1 Ill ' ':;,'",„'/Jrfflilili ,!l IliVJIIIII
IP 'iiilPiliilllK'lli , l i|n|||i;i|i|||,iP|| IE!! m ,' ,• ilW1', ,i
lilll^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ,, lilliij tiiililE1 «li' ail Hliillr
lEjiS^ h;;iiiiii>:* iiiiiiii;"hi1 'isI!' !':IIPILI:'*"!
llllili iJlliii1' llllSiiiilli1 {liniil Oil [!!'. 1 Eiij1. , lilEMiiiilir1! >; !' Kia'U^^^^^^^^^^^ II!1 (f 111 •" ilEP'j'IP lilllillf"W1 illlllillilinp^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ''
.iTiJihi • ; ii1'*:! a i i:i\;jiiifii.»^^^^^ in^ ?"
.iMiUiillill"! iniiiiiiiiihmiili n
' i" Hi,,! fli ' 'lili'llilliii.liUII"! n, 'i|||ii i |i« itililllihl IllliJllliii HI i/lill'li' ii||||||li|i||||||||||illl Iri'l II 'il i' II'1' " 11 niillllH i[i|l! JJIii'il1 ii .lilL; I'llll l»i INI '''ill'l11!1 ' r'!.
P'.'miiii ipipiii'ii'iniiii'ii'ii 'iiniiiiiiiiiij1 .iiiiiiiiihiiiiii Ji'i'iiU! nun; iniii
, iTIki ...... 'Mi1!, ..... il ,rillH! ...... iiJlLiEWi1":'!'! 'H ...... Illluiuiillllllillllljiilllh ' ii'!' i 1' ' .Ii I'"* 'in! tJ ",! ....... Illlin1!:1'1^: Ml I,!1!!!!,,1' :.'!:. IJIIK ..... 'il'li'l'iiil
H^ nilil;llii''«ai|iaii" iilllllllliihHIIII'i;, ''i i'i ..... r.'filBI1 1 illllllli ...... !f:"i .JIIillll'lll'HIPIIiBK:"11,11 ift/i!1 /Ir
ggijijii 'fjj^r.: |jijji|ii|!^ WH^WW'JPJJ I
, I, „, -' •„; y ; ',, ,
4;: : : :' "
'MWIIIiiB'iW' i!li"Hilll!fli|i'jlllll
IlllllH
,
;ii,,ii!! ..... i
":S ..... !!!''!^i«
ij.iiiuiii iiiiii.iiiiiii.i '» Miiinii aiiiiiiii"i!,iiiiiii,iiini;iiii:' inn ..... i ."iii1!!1 u'l'i' i n ,i T 'I JiniiiiiRHiii .ij:"1 !AW v/ ..... iiiiiiiiiiiin.iii ,iL,i "Hi ¥"i" ...... ipi'i i, ^"Laiin"",;!!! ,»" "ii ..... 'iiiiiiniiiiiiiiiiiii,:::'' ..... IP ii'inPiiu '"n-
^i ...... \ ..... i ..... m^ ..... tm ..... s: ....... mwm ..... ;> ..... i
Slt, SH'i ..... ilii;^ ........ ! ..... liiiih ......... ':iili ........ Fill ........... i:!:^ ..... I
......................................... . ..................... : ................................ ,. , .................. ...... ................. ................................ i;j;; .............................. ; ........ :; ....... ; .............................. .................... , ........... ......... „,
' ' ' ' """ '" '"" " ' " " ..... ' ' "' "'"' ' ' ..... '' '" " ' " ' ' '" ' "' ' ' ' '" "' '"' ' ' "" ' ' ' ' ' ..... ' '' ' "'" "' ;;'"" "
, , , i«| nni rr IP i i '"p '• it» 'ir • "ii - p' '" • MI • i T »" piwipp '1 " 11 ' ' i' »ir 'i
:* •iiiililiin!!!1 f i< 3iiiii!|iR 'i!iiiii|iiil!ii;;i!i:iiii!!;! l! -! ^:L\\ 'y,?*\ !' vail ,!!§ ' '! ,ii • it ,:ii "'' ; :ii:i 'i1:"' ''"si1 i!nni!!iniiiiii!i 3 J!!iiiiR«ii;!iii IK;!IRP!!L .liiiiiiiil ili
' i ! \ i w, \ : i ,,1, , » , •, •,;, i , i uiirti ; .dnnniii i; , «;iif f < • <> tt I
IK ['-*%;i"llli!l!1":!; ^^M:^^;!l3S*'f!5l';'^ |
1H^^ ....... 19:^ ........ Ill ..... in^
..... • ..... t"il!<: .....
' t
' ...... ;l^
, I1 J|i|i||i||IB'liill|i|lllll' i! "!IIIIIIIIVilfiK Jlhl INilfl IK ,ililllllPlllil||,il i,1 In'"!1!1,9KI' i'lllillllllltl" ,,,^,™lJrtlliJllli|liji|lltl!l!ii ill, '! ililJJ"l'ih':, ^M", "'"Li. Tllllllllllllllll l|:illll!''li!;iillllll<'ll!i|lllllllyl!i,l:'Vri|:ii|llliliilllllll|i|ll;llll'!lllllll'Flll|i| i::
liiini iJPI InlPII, i,P !i|'|i ' ill,1 ', 'ini'lill jijiih PiPipPPiiPPPhPiipniPPPPniPF' . /"Kir 111, ...... , i hllllUU ..... Illpllinill ..... JllhiP1 lllllll|lllill|ni «i|llllllllllll|IPIIll ....... >l ...... Plllllll
' I j
1 i" • ''I BUSH EEEEIEliiEEJ1 i'" Li' i:l!'< J!, ilfllBPE lilJIE,"" >' ilBE''" iii' luE lEBliiil'JIEiiBliBII iiiiiiii, Jnil: i< <, '"E,»I1 EBB, "ElElf1 Jli "HI1 EillllilililEE i1 r, ii I1 i'l-E! " :¥' ivjilKL .in.li'PlhJIIIIIIPIIIIIliil1' "EEE!,, il if Plillpill1 iiElllElE! '|lii ill EEEE'" Ei!,f i infll L! l << " lllEBIn'i "P IjiiEilfllEI, JllilE|Elllli|lllll|lE ijEplliEIEliEEiiliiEilEr. I
EIIIIIIIIIEIEIIIIIIIIlE^EIIiilllllllllllEII'^iJillEi I
-------
AppendixE
RESEARCH TRIANGLE INSTITUTE
The National Water Pollution Control Assessment Model
Benefits Assessment of Stormwater Phase 2 Program
Timothy Bondelid, Research Triangle Institute
Ghulam Ali, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
George Van Houtven, Research Triangle Institute
Fig 1. National Water Pollution Control Assessment Model
Components
Prepared by:
Research Triangle Institute
Center for Environmental Analysis
Water Quality Program
P.O. Box 12194
3040 Cormvallis Road
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-2194
Prepared for:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
401M Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20460
October 1999
Final Report
E-3
-------
'i lisifii^IB;:aipp''i^^^ jf jjjlijjjjjjjjjjjjffpnS^X&i *FTKNJl>'!l!:?"'!iii•,:"'"«i iEi(Iliii!^!1'i!iii:iii!!!!!!!!!i!!!!!!!!ii!i!!!"ii!!i! '• ii!i!i!!!!i!!!!!!!!93^L^^ l!i!£!!!!l »i""'!I!!!!'! .Wlf
„, h hij iiipi _ j , „„ Appendix E
'ii'i „ jinnJ «|«iiiiiii!iiiii«!|:i * mini1!1 ilnifqiiiF'iniiiiiEiii,:i iiiilliiiiiinni iiiii 'liiiiiiiiniiii! ii IIUIDIIIUI mi miViiii1: ni ':!iii.»i! iBiiwuiiii! iiiii1 fliis;!1 iiiiiiiiiiii'i t 7 iiiiiiii'iiiiiiiiriiiiiiiiiiiii^iinnriii"1, iinKi'im VIM nui .,/, • '• iiiiiii'iiiiiiiniiiiiiiiii'i'iiilnini. "'Tii
' Ef1'11;; Jliiiiiil liiillirlillil tflf4J&»} . HK*^'
:::,£ inil;;]',;,,, iiiiji fiji njji!iiiiniiiiiiyif !!, !„!; !i > ''iH'I'ili1 ,l!ll,i,iillli,|.|i I II 'JllllllliillilllllilEiiliin. |i * i l.illli' iliilli'llllliil'iiillliiill IlllilillilV.', I Ih' 'I ,!"' IlilllKiiLtii', ill1" 111 Jaiillll" III I 'hiilKf' 1 iiiiW'iiHilllii1 JIIU'Fi I
"The National Water Pollution Control Assessment Model
"' :''^|B^y:%radeTid,'%e^rc7>Tnang!elffsfitate
Ghulam Ali, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
George Van Houtven, Research Triangle Institute
^^"^^TjaepvejEpll opjective of this study is to estimate the water quality and economic benefits that can
result from various pollution control policies. For this purpose the National Water Pollution
Control Assessment Model (NTWPCAM) is developed. This model estimates water quality and
:: ; , • the resultant use support ifor 632,000 miles of rivers and stream in the continental United States
134,§00 miles of smaller streams associated with construction site runoff! The focus of the
; in this study is evaluating the economic benefits of implementation of the stormwater
iJI jule. To gstimate economic benefits, the model first develops the water quality baseline
" " " " i in water quality as a result of the additional controls of the
rule,,on construction shes and the automatically designated municipalities in urbanized
are many input databases (point sources, combined sewerage overflows, urban
» M •& 4 , , St • Ill'
a
Si
NWPCAM. To develop the water quality baseline, loadings from municipal and industrial point
••KJJ 5££SOJ!iiKtes.§§ wallas nonpoint sources including rural and agricultural sources are used. Table 1
gimmgijgeg^e p^mary ^sumptions used for the: development o£tiie baseline and Phase II
analyses. The model uses various studies or data sources for estimation qFtliese loadings into the
.^iJtJS waters. In view oFtheseloadings, NWPCAM projects the water q^i^ changes in the '
network of streams and rivers. To identify the effect of the Phase II controls for 120,047
i^. construction sites and the 5,038 automatically designated municipaihies m the urbanized areas,
—^.-:—^~~ the model takes mto account the reduction hi loadings and projects the instream changes in water
in terms of swimmable, fishable, and boatable waters on the basis of standards for the
oxygen, biological oxygen demand, and total suspended^ solids
™ model then identifies where the water quality change takes place so^tbat&e number of
•mw'jiiir households associated with those waters can be identified. Once the numbers of households are
p i ,;,iii; , ' i ir hi I" '' "' ' ' IIK ' ' •• i '' ''''"'i" '' '''"'" i'' ' ' I'1' i' ' ..... i' '•' ' '' ' '' i ..... ' ' '
esthnated, the study uses the willingness to pay (WTP) for the improvement in water quality to
>le, fishable and'b~b~atable t6~monetize economic benefits. On the basis of Carson-
of I,! 77, $158 and $210 per household for swimmable, fishable or
rs, respecely, th'e water qua. me^' '^ne Benefit estimates are
Sased on tEe improvement in local and non local waters. The local economic benefit analysis
;:::ji::t:::;7; ; :::^^^^ ^^tS«il^^;^"^i,,';:^«',.;u;;.^ .n^™
.; I &£ ', , , , Final Report ' ,' ' October 1999
"' i •' ' . . '•••.'• ' ' '• , .•::•.. , . , I- ' , . .- , .( ;; , .,••
^^^^^^ 1
-------
Appendix E
uses a definition of "local" that differs from the original Mitchell-Carson Survey, which
considered "local" as "state." In this analysis, "local" waters are defined as reaches that are
located near each of the population locations. The definition of "local" depends on whether it is
a Census Populated Place or Minor Civil Division. For Populated Places, a circle with an
equivalent area to the Place was drawn, centered on the Place Latitude/Longitude coordinates as
given by the Census Bureau. Any reaches that fell in whole or in part within that circle were
considered "local" to that Place. For Minor Civil Divisions, the closest reach is considered to be
the "local" water. The estimation of the "local" benefits is based on use support changes in
reaches that are "local" to each population location. The benefits depend on the portion of the
local and the national impaired waters improved as a result of the phase II soil and erosion
controls for construction sites and the application of pollution prevention measures to control
storm water run off from the automatically designated municipalities in the urbanized areas. The
benefits estimates fully incorporate the "small streams" benefits as well.
Thus, the model estimates that implementation of Phase II controls, -without the consideration of
post construction controls, -will result in an increase of 4,127 svoimmable miles, 4,548fishable
miles, and 2,936 bootable miles. The total benefits of Phase II controls for 120,047 construction
sites, -without the post construction controls, and 5,038 automatically designated municipalities
are estimated to be $1.63 billion per year.
While the numbers of miles that are estimated to change their use support seem small, the
benefits estimates are quite significant. This is because urban runoff and, to a large extent,
construction activity occurs where the people actually reside and the water quality changes
mostly occur close to these population centers. NWPCAM indicates that the changes hi
pollution loads have the most effect immediately downstream of the pollution changes. Thjis is
because rivers "treat" the wastes (using similar processes that occur in a wastewater treatment
plant) as they move downstream. As a result, the aggregate willingness to pay (economic
benefits) is large because large numbers of households in these population centers are associated
with the local waters that reflect improvement in designated use support. If the waters are
improved in reaches that are further from the population centers their economic value is
comparatively less. NWPCAM benefit estimates "capture" this economic phenomenon.
Moreover, the model fully incorporates the construction sites modeling (including the "small
streams") and an unproved population database for the estimation of benefits. In addition, the
benefits estimates are derived using rather conservative assumptions of the pollution control
effectiveness of the Phase II program, although EPA believes that the actual implementation of
the Phase II minimum measures will result in an overall program effectiveness of approximately
80%. The Phase I and Phase II urban runoff controls used hi this analysis employ pollutant
removals that are characteristic of detention basins.
To determine the impact of the alternative assumptions, a sensitivity analysis is conducted.
October 1999
Final Report
Er-5
-------
i 11 I n l" i i in i i i i i i i in ii i' I n n i 11 MI i mi n in i 'n ' 11
iiiiiini i niiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiini iiniiiiiiiiiiiilli nn in n iiininn iniinii niiiiiiiiiingiiinii inn in in iiiinii i nil ininnni iiiinii in n ill nil i in in HI in i HI niiiniiiiniiniiniinnini iiii|iiniiniiiiniiiiiini iniiiini||iii niiiiniiii|iiiiinlliliiM i i ill in nil i inniiliiiiiiiing|i iniiininni ill iininlii innlniniinn i
nn iinnninnn in nlliiiiiniiinnnn nnnniniini nn i nun iiininn n i inn in mill nun n n in nil nil i i 11 iniinii iniiiii n 11 n MI iiinii i nn in n in mi i imp inn inn linn n niininnlinn In in HIM mi inn inn inn inn nn iiilinnnnii i nil niniinn mi n n in n iiiiiinnn in iiiiiiinln iiiiinlnnnni i
i I
Appendix E
. .
III Illllliillllllll 1 Illllll nil I 111 111 II 111 111 III II 11 111 111 III i 111 II 111 |i 1 Illlllllllllll lllllllllllllllllll III III III III I n ill i III III 111 111 III 111111111111 lllllllllllllllllllllllllillllllllillllM 11 ill HI III ll ill II III i I in 111 1 Illllllllllliill ll(l|lll Illllllllli
Table 1. NWPCAM Summary For Stormwater Phase II Benefits Analysis
ill ! ill
I' .[i'l'illRIIIIB11|,| li'lKlfiUI!
llllllllllllllKrilillilllllliinvlii' ii
. !!!!:!
1
'^^^^^^^i^^^ii
:ii " ;":;:
!!!:!!!™
'! |
!l •!|!ll:j
'hillllBl''!!'...!''!..!!!!!!
1 1lllllll lillli^lll
rf-i -
l
'Si
\ :
iiljiiiiiiin'iiniini
i^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
ib:,::;
m
"ii^I, 1
^=i
fii'iiiii
SR
^mm
i^mia,
^m
iliiiiiiiil'illliijhii
Variable
Number of Construction Sites
Number of Acres of Construction
Sites (Estimated from Input
Dataset of Numbers of Starts)
Construction Site Parameters
Construction Site BMPs
Combined Sewer Overflows
(CSOs)
CSO Runoff Control
Urban Runoff Sources
Note: Population adjustments
made to reflect 1998 values and
populations served by CSOs.
Urban Runoff Controls
Swimmable, Fishable, and
Boatable Miles
Fishable and Boatable Miles
Boatable Miles
Mo Support Miles
Economic Benefits
•Baseline For Phase II
Current State Programs: 100,316
Phase I: 184,520
Current Programs: 207,869
Phase I- 1 845204
7% Slope, Medium Soils
1. Between 0 and 4 Acres:
Silt Fence, Seed & Mulch, and
Stone Check Dams
2. Greater Than 4 Acres:
Seed and Mulch, Stone Check
Dams, and Sediment Traps
742 CSOs on 505 Reaches
Detention basin-level of control for
CSOs, capturing 85% of the runoff,
with 33% removal of biological
oxygen demand (BODS), 60%
removal of total suspended solids
(TSS), and 70% removal of fecal
conform (FC).
Phase I: 1,723 Places, 72.4 million
people
Not Phase I or Phase II: 35,71 8
Places with 81.7 million people
Capture 85% of the runoff, with
33% removal of BODS, 60%
removal of TSS, and 70% removal
ofFC.
219,547(32.91%)
418,190 (62.69%)
480,515 (72.03%)
186,589 (27.97%)
• With Phase II Implementation
Phase II: 120,047
Phase II "R" Waivers: 13,057
0-1 Acres (Unregulated): 91,332
Phase II: 289,8 19
Phase II Waivers' 33 517
0-1 Acres (Unregulated): 45,491
7% Slope, Medium Soils
1 . Between 0 and 4 Acres:
Silt Fence, Seed & Mulch, and
Stone Check Dams
2. Greater Than 4 Acres:
Seed and Mulch, Stone Check
Dams, and Sediment Traps
Phase II: 5,038 Places, 78.5 million
people
Capture 85% of the runoff, with
33% removal of BODS, 60%
removal of TSS, and 70% removal
ofFC.
223,674 (33.53%)
Increased 4,127 miles
422,738 (63.37%)
Increased 4,548 miles from Phase I
483,451 (72.47%)
[ncreased 2,936 miles from Phase I
183,653 (27.53%)
Decreased 2,936 miles from Phase
I
Local: $ 1 ,40 1 .4 million
Non-Local: $ 227.1 million
Total: $1,628.5 million
E-6
Final Report
October 1999
-------
Appendix E
Alternative analysis assumes different levels of controls, such as 60% or 80% pollutant removals
for urban run off. Supplemental sensitivity analysis in conjunction with the controls in the 60%
to 80% range indicates that the estimated economic benefits in NWPCAM increase by $200 to
$300 million from the $1.63 billion estimate, respectively.
The benefit estimates can be considered quite robust, since model sensitivity analyses have
consistently shown that the estimates are stable, even under assumptions of large changes in
model input values. As an example, tests were conducted in conjunction with this analysis
assuming that the construction sites loads are off by +/- 25%. The resultant local economic
benefits estimates show a change of only +/- 5%. Moreover, a statistical groundtruthing of the
model to Storage and Retrieval ambient water quality data indicates that the NWPGAM
"baseline" scenario can also be considered as a reasonable predictor of the actual use support
circa for 1990s.
October 1999
Final Report
E-7
-------
^ BHIIIW^^^^ It'ilM^^^^^
•111! [ill KM IllUii Ill " ,'ii IIIilH mmWGfiKf MI!M^
!!W^^^
fVIIIIlilIDIH^^^^^^^ lilllllillKIH^^^^
Hlil
:MIH^^^^
• "' " Introduction
liiiL
Under PL 92-500 in 1972, now known as the Clean Water Act (CWA), Federal authority to
regulate water pollution control facilities was expanded The CWA established a national water
pollution control policy based on technology-driven effluent g^^^g j?or industrial wastewater
j^ajgtojmira level o£secondaiy ^eatoent for wastewater_discharged to surface waters by
facilities. The goal of me CWA was to improve water qu^ji^ conditions to attain
"fishable and swimmable" waters nationwide. The CWA's national policy requirement for a
•'minimum level of secondary treatment for municipal wastewater facilities was seen as a feasible
goal tEat coui<3 result m significant improvements in dissolved oxygen levels as well as other
related water quality and environmental benefits. Questions concerning the environmental
sie. £2S"£~£~v.e«e,s,5, SlJMsJsIS^
Congress, special interest, environmental, and business advocacy groups.
Mll!:^ KlltUnfortunately, infbrmation on the status of our Nation's waters'and the influence of control
measurej ogvgtgr .quality is not comprehensive enough for such an analysis CECnopman and
Smith, 1993). Although the 1972 CWA included provisions for program evaluation, Congress
cchiottinzetheU.S.Environment
i^
• among the states or to coordinate the states' efforts to gather, store, and retrieve data.
J:S: Geological Survey (USGS) maintains two long-term, nationally consistent, surface-
• monitoring networks—the National Stream-Quality Accounting Network
EiJIsy.ejQged *° monitor water quality trends over time, particularly those "resulting from large
recesses, such as changes in land use and atmospheric deposition, rather man localized
effects such as changes in the amount or quality of point source discharges" (Lettenmaier et al..
,|
Others have modeled water quality in attempts to address policy-relevant issues, but did not take
into consideration localized changes. Gianessi and Peskin (1981) mclude many gollutants in
tEejr watgr .quality ng^^ model; however, their measurements are appropriate for large-scale
notcaethe ..... oeidTooISsources!! ........... EPsOfficeof
rater us,ed time series monitoring data from 22 major waterways to etect ends and changing
Conditions of several chemical parameters (U.S. EPA, 1992c). These analyses, however, were
not intended to establish cause-and-effect relationships. A second EPA effort (U.S. EPA, 1992a)
ie effectiveness pftihie Cpns^tructipn Grants ftogram, but again the case studies were
tedtg major waterways.
f;,i|os| ol,the ajyerje effects of point source discharges, urban runoff and construction site runoff
^^^^^in^ limited numberpfmiles immediately downstream of the discharge. In addition,
many point sources (i.e., major and minor dischargers) are linked to the EPA river and stream
eJiPAJRiyer. EegchFile. Tfierefore, an accurate assessment of the effectiveness of
water pollution controls should concentrate on these waters. Although no single
K^^^^^^ !! !
-i :: ' ; ' : : "::::::: ::f: : ;
-liiillli! : ::•- Ill
Miiiim^ iiiiiK^ iiiiciv^^
-Tl aSfiT"11!!:'111" "I jIHIliili;^^ II Ill1''1";1' I:1!1"' l;!l||'";"'-7^ I I'll "ijlilr—nfiji'i ',
-------
Appendix E
monitoring program captures the relevant population of waters downstream of point sources,
EPA did support the database development necessary for modeling the ambient water quality
effects of controlling point source discharges of some pollutants from most major industrial
sources and almost all municipal sources (U.S. EPA, 1993a).
The inconsistencies in data reported by the States, coupled with the diversity of objectives of the
national networks, seemed to preclude the aggregation of this data to assess national changes in
water quality as a result of changes in point source loadings. However, a recent analysis (Tetra
Tech, Inc. and Stoddard, 1998) of Storage and Retrieval water quality database (STORET) has
demonstrated that there have been in fact significant, detectable improvements in water quality
over the past 30 years, and that this can be shown using statistical analyses of STORET data.
This analysis also reviewed several case studies, including those of the New York Harbor, the
Potomac River, the Ohio River, and the Upper Mississippi River plus several others that
demonstrate significant improvements that have taken place as a result of point source controls.
However, this type of analysis cannot be used for estimation of benefits of the stormwater Phase
II rule. Nor can it be used to establish a cause and effect relationship required to estimate
aggregate economic benefits of a specific storm water program. To quantify benefits one needs
to establish not only the cause and effect relationship between the water quality and the storm
water pollutants but also to quantify it. Therefore, the National Water Pollution Control
Assessment Model (NWPCAM) includes the set of mathematical relationships that approximate
the hydrological/ecological processes with reference to fecal conform, biological oxygen
demand, oxygen demand, total suspended solids that affect the instream water quality.
In order to estimate benefits, the model first develops the water quality baseline and then
estimates the further changes in water quality as a result of the additional controls of the Phase II
rule on construction sites and the automatically designated municipalities in urbanized areas. To
develop the water quality baseline, loadings from municipal and industrial point sources as well
as nonpoint sources including rural and agricultural-sources are used. The model uses various
studies or data sources for estimation of these loadings into the US waters. In view of these
loadings, NWPCAM projects the water quality changes in the network of streams and rivers. To
identify the effect of the Phase II controls for 120,047 construction sites and the 5,038
automatically designated municipalities in the urbanized areas, the model takes into account the
reduction in loadings and projects the instream changes in water quality in terms of swimmable,
fishable, and beatable waters on the basis of standards for the level of fecal coliform, dissolved
oxygen, biological oxygen demand, and total suspended solids in waters.
Purpose and Objectives of the NWPCAM
The objective of this work has been to build a national-level water quality model to estimate the
water quality and economic benefits that can result from various pollution control policies. The
result of this effort is the National Water Pollution Control Assessment Model. This model
October 1999
Final Report
E-9
-------
Illlllll 111 11 (lllllllllllll lllllll III III! Ill IIIIII 111 111 III 1111111111111 111 HI llllllll|l 1111 II II III 111 III III 111 111111 III 111 Illllllllllllllllll III III1IIIIII1II1II ll|l|ll ill 111 III 111 111 Illllll III III Illlllllllll 111 I IIIII lllllll III lllll|ll I Ilillli^ lllll|lllll|l|l|lll
III 1111II IIIllllllllllH 111 II ll||lllll lllllll lllllllllllll
I
lllllll
Appendix E
i iiiii iiiiiiiiii ill i 111 iiiiIiiii11iiiiiiiiiii ill
i
, ,„ I , ..' i I ', .
estimates water quality and the resultant use support; for 632,000 miles of rivers streams, larger
lakes, and some estuaries hi the continental United States plus 34,500 miles of smaller streams
1111 iH1! ll Hjln y^H added from construction sites,analyses. The mode! was used to examine policies that include tie
Construction Grants Program, overall point iource" pollution control policies^and wet weather
controls sucjias controls on combined sewer overflows (CSps). The model can be run for
various "baseline" conditions and for alternative scenarios, such as implementation of Phase II
stormwater.
........ 1;
The NWPCAM has been used for modeling current conditions with analyses that focus on the
,,!„„! ...................... efiecls.^lvarious, control policies ..... can' have on current water' quality. The model has not yet
1 been ..... usetlas ...... a predictive tool for gfure conditions but can be used for predictive analyses by
applying ..... ^o'wIE ..... g^.^ ..... to various ..... loacffirgs. [[[
Si™*?*- ..... ''' .: ^^[he scope and objectives of the
ft very different from a ^,jca| site-specific
1'!!!!!, rimyi,, n mi nil in mi in i nn nun iiiiiiiiiiiii in nun i n nun n nn \\ inn inn in ml in i* inn i
9 'j^inmig-level simulations to determine the effectiveness of
scenarios on point sources.
1 11 liiiii I iiiiiiiiiiii ii iiiiiiiiiiiii i ii1 iiiiiii i|iiiiiiiii(Miiiiiii iiii iiii 1
i in i ill i in iiiiiiiiii i iiiiiiii iiiiiii iiiiiii in i iii(i |
To detect significant local-scale changes hi water quality.
_'<..' - " ' • I
•H^ nil! I INCH! IIIIIIK
at larger regional and national levels.
|, | | ; ! ' "IS" "' ;,j!i ' I! I'l'j ' !'"
i'!|ijllllljii||illj!|l|i|||!ij.jj;l:' JiiiipiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiniiiniDii! nun iiiiiiiiiliniiiiiiiin!' lllliJlQlllliif Giiiiiiiiilliia liiii'iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiriiiiiiillliiiiii! i iiiiiiiiiiiii liUiiniiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiinniiiiiiiini. Jiiiiiiiiii:iinii: Jiiiniiiui i* iniiii1; i* i i,; nn. Jiiiin*1. ISIIIIIIIIIHII!, I'liiii'iiiiiiiiiuw.iiiiiiiiii;! m, iniiinuiinniiiiii,, innnniiiiiiiiiiiDi iiiinn;:1";. iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiniii'i > tiiiiiiiiniiiiiiiiiiiur .iu n nim ."Km mum i i ijv H, •,, vinu»iiii;iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii:;n niiiii'ii'ijjniiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiini'" in'mminn 'iniiiiiiiiiiMiiiiiiiiii1
Tojink policy-driven changes hi water quality to populations and to estimate the resultant
, ,, , _,, ,,. , ; , „ ,,, e^nomicbejaefits.
in!',«ininir^^ i n 11 11 nil iiii 111 n 11 ill :S^^^^^^^^ II!!K«^^
• To design a national-scale model framework that rests upon a foundation capable of
performing hydraulic transport, routing and connectivity of surface waters in the entire
continental U.S.
1 i,, <: a iii, fiiiiiiiiiii iiMiniiir :yn^^ IIIIIIIIMKV^^ I;IIK< in iiiiiiiiiniiynii'n1 i;n IPIIII:" h t: ;;i" iilip'in ' iiniiHi, jiliiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiflpiiii iiiiiiiiR Bpiniini^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ i ivii**:* 11: :ii 11':' i., ",i -..' n iiHiii!1 IILI* *« „ 11 'Him»
••;•'• ' ; ;: • j1 ^ '•
• Jo, §ejecj water quality state variables based on a relatively simple kinetic framework that
i n iiiiiniiiu .........
to estimate economic benefits.
; iniiniiilni^^^^^^^^ ...... iiiiiii1 ^^ ...... oiut^ ....... niiiLiwiiii\ jv * j ^ ..... KI ........ «
-------
Appendix E
System Enhancements for Phase II Stormwater Rule Analysis
The benefit estimation required significant enhancements to the databases and NWPCAM
framework. Primarily, it required an explicit identification of Phase I and Phase II urban runoff
locations. Moreover, it required the development of the submodel or sub-system for analysis of
construction sites. An improved database of populated areas, including Populated Places and
Minor Civil Divisions (MCDs), was needed to provide a clear assignment of Phase I and Phase II
regulated communities and other urban runoff locations. A new database of construction
starls/sites was also needed to estimate the locations of the construction sites across the country
so that they could be integrated into the NWPCAM framework. The development of the
submodel was required to estimate and route the loadings from the construction sites into EPA's
Reach File Version 1 (RF1) stream network.
These enhancements are discussed in more detail below and additional technical details are
provided later in this report.
1. In order to provide an explicit breakdown of Phase I and Phase II communities for
estimating benefits for the Phase II controls for automatically regulated municipalities,
Census Bureau databases of population sites, based on their files of Populated Places and
Minor Civil Divisions, are linked to NWPCAM. This enhanced population database
provides a better understanding and estimation of the urban runoff loadings in the
modeling and the estimation of the "local" economic benefits. Moreover, there was a
need to establish a cross-link between the Populated Places/MCDs and Construction Sites
so that sites can be geographically located for assignment of Revised Universal Soil Loss
Equation (RUSLE) coefficient to estimate loadings for RF1 NWPCAM framework.
Obviously, without the establishment of such links between locations of the construction
sites and the populations centers, economic benefits of construction site controls cannot
be fully assessed. As a result, there are separate urban runoff loading estimates for the
42,479 separate Census Bureau Populated Places and Minor Civil Divisions in the
system, with estimates of annual pollutant loadings for each place and each portion of the
reach associated with the place. The source of these loadings is a database of urban
loadings by county that is a counterpart to the rural loadings source database. These
places are also used for estimating local economic benefits based on changes in water
quality on reaches close to each place.
More specifically, there was a need to identify the specific Phase I and Phase II places in
order to model controls on their runoff. To accomplish this, data files containing the lists
of communities making up Phase I and Phase II were merged into the enhanced
NWPCAM places database so that explicit identification of places associated witii each
Phase could be made. In addition, the NWPCAM database contains an overlay of
Urbanized Areas, in order to identify urban communities. The Phase I or II places were
matched to the NWPCAM places database. As a result, each place is identified as either
October 1999
Final Report
E-ll
-------
lib iiiiiiiiiiiil iiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiii in iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilliiii nil iiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiM^ in nil iiiiiiili 'iiiiiii in
11 III III II llli I III INI I I illllll III 11 I ill 1111IV 111 III 11111 ii lllinilll|||l|llllllll ill |lllllll ill III I
I llli III IIIII I 11 lilllillli III n III llli I II illllll I Illiilll illiilll III 1111111VII I
•iilllliilliiini n mi MI n iiwiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiii IIIIMIIIIIII inn
Appendix E
nun iiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiini i in i
l i ill nil llllil|llli i
i
Hill
i in
a Phase I urban area^ Phase II urban area, or other. Consequently, 1,723 separate places,
comprising 72.4 million people, are incorporated as Phase I urban sites and 5,038 other
places, comprising 78.5 million people, for 1998, are included as Phase II urban sites.
The rest ofthe 35^718" places 'and minor "cKvfl divisions comprise 81.7 million people
including^e^CSO pojjulation1. The population totals for Phase 1 and Phase II places for
1998 are adjusted for populations already served by CSOs, using d^tafrbm the CSO
NEEDS Survey. However, there was some problem hi matches, mainly because of
differences in place names between the various files.
, in h1
laces database contains many small communities with less than 2,500
) ..... so ..... ISe ..... total ..... mmBer'oFpeopTe ..... assignecTfb ...... paces mKWPCART is greater than the
reported Census Bureau urban population. The Census Bureau defines an urban place on
the basis of population of greater 2,500 people. By using this definition, one can
ggmpare that portion of populations which is associated with those places, in both
databases^' l§£^al^^^ ........ ^Z l^pslng'tne ...... (Census ..... B'urelm'definilion of
'11ll ...... m" urT>aiiizeci ^^""553 design ate'3
llllilllliil Nllllll Illlilillill1 (111 11
III II 11
places with more than 2,500 people), an urban total of 192 million people for 1 990 is
found TWPCAM. ............. Jn_ajmparisbn, ^e ^^§H£,5^5^,?i^^1.^VP?Pu^on ®f 187
..... ............. ...... — — — -•-
NWPCAse
'
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiii
database).
consuie'reS ^reasonable difference, given'tEe''!
im multiple Census Bureau databases.
%iiiJH^ iiiiiii iiiiiiiiHiiiii iiiiiii itiiiA^
I,!™;;; „::; !__„ "rilzlplii™ i
111! IIIIIIM
The point sources of/4'2 separate CSO loadings^' on 505 different reaches, from the
Illlllllili' l|I411lllllll Hill
iniiiiii 11 PI
iiiiiii iiiiiii iiiiiii
iiiiiiiii iiiiiii1 iiiiiii
NEEDSSurvey, are included in the RF1 framework. The urban runoff loadings for Phase
I and PEase""!! C4~j25j^2geg ^ ——-ij^g-g ^ |g- &$Q pbpula£[ol^j so'fEaf double-
i, counting ofurEan runofTIoacIs does not occur" TEat i'sj urblinlrunof? loadings are
i iii in iiiiii subtracted" ifitcan "be d^tennlned'uiat'me runofT loadings are
accounted by the
-------
Appendix E
sites under construction by size range, such as 0 to 1A, Vz to 1 acres, etc. The annual
estimates of loadings are based on application of the Revised Universal Soil Loss. This
equation determines the soil loss on the basis of rainfall, erodability, slope,
preconstruction farming conditions, and the application of the best management practices
on a construction site. To account for the climatic differences, the coefficient values of
RUSLE are separately developed for 15 representative cities. The coefficient values that
relate to "Representative Cities" are presented in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers study
for OWM (COE, 1998). To determine the boundaries of the representative cities for
determining the number of sites for a representative area, a correspondence between
Major Land Resource Areas (MLRAs), which characterize soil and climate for estimation
of erosion in various parts of the United States, is used. As RUSLE coefficients also vary
by slope and soil type in the model, a 7% slope is assumed with medium soils in this
analysis. On the basis of MLRAs and Representative Cities the RUSLE coefficient are
set for every one of the 19,378 construction site communities. Table 2 shows the RUSLE
coefficient by "representative city" for pre-construction and construction conditions with
no best management practices (BMPs), and the coefficient for each of the construction
BMPs. The use of these coefficients is discussed hi the "Construction Site Loadings "
section.
Two issues related to construction site loadings and use support are addressed in the
development of a new "small streams" .modeling component. The first issue was that
many of the construction sites were on small streams that were not already included in the
NWPCAM/RF1 framework. The second issue related to the estimation of reduction in
loadings from settling as runoff from the construction sites flows to RF1. Therefore, a
"small streams" water quality submodel is added to the NWPCAM. The model routes the
construction site runoff to the main NWPCAM/RF1 network. This model decays the
loadings using the same methodologies as for the rest of the NWPCAM. Data for flow in
the "small streams" is based on a hydrologic analysis that relates distance from RF1 to
drainage area, and then uses an RF1 flow analysis to estimate mean summer flow as a
function of the drainage area. For this initial work on "small streams," a straight-line
distance from the construction sites to RF1 is used, that is, sinuosity of the streams is not
taken into account. The instream water quality modeling itself does not utilize sinuosity
as a parameter, but some future work with sinuosities could improve/change the lengths
of the flow paths.
The Phase II rule provides exemptions for areas of low rainfall. This exemption is
implemented by exempting construction sites between 1 and 5 acres that have a RUSLE
rainfall erosivity factor ("R") less than 5. The average construction period is assumed to
last 6 months, so an R factor of 10 is used hi this analysis to account for a full year.
Because the MLRA's are overlaid on each community with construction, an "R" factor is
assigned to each site. Phase II controls are waived for sites with an "R" factor less than
10. In examining Table 1, note that the "Las Vegas" representative city is the only one
October 1999
Final Report
E-13
-------
JS
Appendix E
-III'!
is*!"1 ^'l^s
^"i^^'^'.^'^^^ii^.MLRAs will havejhis particular waiver.
factor less than 10Aso that those sites that fall .wijhin the "Las Vegas"
'ilia,"
'!1"I'SI RillIK ("Sill I1,!'"
are mcprporated by adjusting the respective RUSLE coefficient that
;a given §MP7OTmuLtiple BMPs! The BMPs are based onCOE ' '
report arid are selected to be consistent wjth'the Phase n economic analysis carried out by
Qffice of WiitewatetManagement: for sites between 1 and 4 acres, a combmation of
silt fences, seeding and n^gg^ ^3 stone check dams is used For sites greater man 4
i; a combination of seeding and mulching, stone check dams, and sediment traps is
used. These BMP effects vary by MLRA, since the RUSLE coefficient vary by MLRA.
Upr estimates, the baseline modeling of the construction sites assumes BMPs at all sites
greater man 5 acres (Prase I ™™2™1 2S? t§£ -SMF 5255E2!8. ,™£ ™£Sik SH^HM ,?ii?e.
II IJIIIIIJIIIIilli'illlllKt
programs so that benefits of these controls are not attributed to the Phase II rule.
TJie economic benefite .analysis Q^tchell-Carson}_ incorporates tiie m^ra^dppj^ation
' " " T' , " " 'Sraiil stream§" analysis. This means that the benefits
on Better;Jgfined.sei of populations iian hi previous versions <
3
I'lp
|!IH •
'IliiiiiiiiiiE1 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiii'iiiii,!iiiiiiiiii: IP iilliiiiiiiiiiiii'n.iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii! , iiiiiiiiiiiiniliiniiiiiiiiininninT nil, .iininniii iiiiwiiinnnniiindii.'! 'iiinnnniin:nnninnii<,,,, n iiiiiiiiiiiiiplliip
Methodology
reflect some oftheater quality improvements that can be expected at the
streams that are most likely to be affected by many construction sites.
••A Eiodel, for predicting water quality and beneficial use attainment under different policy
e r
Illlllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Illl Illllllllllll
, , ,
pouit and nonpoint sources. Decreasing discharges from a specific point source, even going to
zero'Sscliargej may Have little or no efSct'onbeneS^
sources are jjgjf^g factors. Second, streamflow and stream velocity data are required to
simulate dilution and self-purification effects through pollution decay. Third, water quality
-.,— ,s—~.
1(11 111 1 Illllllllllll
111 III Illllllllllll Illl III II 111
ill iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiii in
•iiii
i iiii
i iiiii in iii iiiii
I I
must be related to beneficia use attainment and must reflect
„ i i ',iii,'l ', ' , "II ..... • „„, "
all of the essential processes that limit point source controls. Fourth, a methodology is needed to
characterize point source loadings under different scenarios (i.e., no treatment of point source
discharges or limited treatment in the absence of the CWA). All of these issues must then be
integrated into a river network that can characterize a meaningful "universe" of waters. These
integrated into me j^-^pQ
l ill iiiiiiii ii ill 1 1 inn mini iiiiiinii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiini iiiiini iiiiiiiiiiini inn in 11 i nun nil mi mini ninninn nun nun inn inn ininnii mi
111 Illllllllllll 1 111111 II 111 III III 111 ll ...... lull |i||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 111 ill in ill ..... II 1 n III 1 111 111 Illl ....... I ill ill 1 1 II 11 I Hllllil I II 111 111 Illl Illllllll I llll|ll||llllllll
In addition tq predicting water quality and beneficial use attainment, the NWPCAM can be used
to estimate the number of persons living near changed waters. This is an important dimension
for evaluating the economic benefits of pollution control policies. It is not enough to know how
manyjniles ...... of rivers and ..... streamshaye ...... been mproyed; one also wants to know how the, changes
affect the nearby population. A first step hi this direction is to determine the population
basic, but essential, components
1 iiiiiii in in nil ....... " .........
Illllllllllll Illllllll Illllllllllll Illllllllllll II I Ill
111 111 I Illl I
n nnnl|i iiiiinn i
II ill 11 Illllllllllll II 1
, .,, , Final^Report October 1999
.,!': 1!!^^^^
IIIIIll !h'l !I::;;!1||I|
-------
Appendix E
proximate to the improved water resource. The next step involves estimating the population's
willingness to pay for the water quality improvements.
A major challenge hi developing the NWPCAM was to "wire" all of the components into one
system, all of it linked into EPA's Reach File Version 1 river network. As with many models,
the bulk of the work is in managing the data so that the numerical modeling can be applied. The
effort expended on constructing and integrating the input data at this national scale is much
greater than that required for the actual software implementation.
A second challenge was to develop simple yet valid approaches to the water quality kinetics.
The principle of "Ockham's Razor" (named after a 14th century monk) is applied, which states
that, given no contravening information, the simplest solution to a problem is the best.
Fortunately, there are traditional approaches to water quality modeling that employ simple
steady-state linear modeling approaches (i.e., first-order decay). These techniques have been
employed for many years for wasteload allocations that have formed the basis of pollution
control decisions. The large body of work using these approaches also provides a basis for
setting model coefficients at reasonable starting points. Therefore, the NWPCAM employs
steady-state first order decay processes as the modeling approach.
A third challenge addressed in the model development was to provide for incremental additions
and improvements. A model at this large scale must, by necessity, be incremental in its
development. For instance, the first version of this model (called the Clean Water Act Effects
Model) incorporated only 5-day biochemical oxygen demand (BODS) and total suspended solids
(TSS) and had urban and rural nonpoint sources, municipal point sources, and "major" industrial
point sources. Major point sources are defined by each State as those point sources that have a
"significant" effect on water quality; there is no clear, universal definition of significant among
the States. The next version of the model added fecal coliform (FC) and dissolved oxygen (DO)
modeling, with the same point sources as those used in the first version. A third version then
added combined sewer overflows and approximately 20,000 "minor" industrial dischargers. In
going from the first to the third versions, the scope of water quality parameters and pollution
sources were both increased. It is this third version of the model that is presented in this report.
Plans are underway for further incremental development. A preliminary version has been
developed that models toxic water pollutants, and this model is undergoing further development
at this time. It is also expected that nutrients will be incorporated into the model in the near
future. Modeling of nutrients and the resultant algal growth cycles poses particular challenges.
Up to this point, the conventional and toxic pollutant modeling techniques in the inland waters
have employed linear kinetics, which allow fairly simple closed-form solutions. The nutrient
modeling will be nonlinear, so numerical integration techniques will be needed. One significant
impact of adding nutrients to the model will be the introduction of ammonia and nitrogen, which
would deplete DO further. We recognize that the exclusion of ammonia from the DO modeling
has been a significant limitation, and this will be addressed hi one of the next incremental
October 1999
Final Report
E-15
-------
If; liil^^^^ _ • !« , i : rwi,i;i •• IK
llJIiflljj
( Illlill II,
n I nil I inn inn iinn|iiliiiiin|||iin|iiinnn nn I inn nil iin|iiiiinliiinn|v I iiiinin in I l II i
Anothejsignificant improvement that will take place in a future nutrient modeling increment is
enhanced modeling in lakes and some estuaries. Lakes and estuaries are currently modeled as
ohe-duT^nsipnal 'systemsj'lS'e nutnent modeling ^g^ «™ .-—.-—- ^.- •——•.—y^™.^^.™^.^^
^d"perQaps three^dlmensiraia^ mo^eTing^i^que'siD^iesB waters m"future versions. The
current NWPCAM models everything as one-dimensional, which means the waters are
represented as linear features. Two-dimensional modeling will permit modeling "wide" features
such as lakes. Three dimensional modeling add the depth variant to the two-dimensional
modeling.
ajor incremental development that is expected in the near future is a separate effort
to model estuarine and coastal waters. This iricrement will require significant effort because
these systems are much more complex than the primarily one-dimensional inland rivers and
modeled in the ^J^Q^J^ -j^e estuarine and coastal modeling will be
streamflows and
using the
pollutant loadings as inputs to the coastal and estuarine mode]
i 'BiiiiiiiiiiiiBiiiii % ;,,i::i' riilii'iiiiiii111!:,!!!"!!'. .Hint JiiiiiEiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii'iihi1' BB!iii''!i!ii ' ii|jii iiBiiBiiiiiiiiiij|iiiB!ii|i:; iiii: IBIM; .iipiiiiiiiin i
,»: :,i;i 'Winiii'k:!1!!/!': '"i,"!' n ininiiiir: iL Asm;. :iii!;/i£''», •; v\. I'lJiuiiinniit iiii
J'illlliriilllir'llMiiiiliiillililllJhiiilllflBiEi.E BliliiBBSlKiiJr!„" i,,!1' 'TliiJkJiFJIIiBIBI'v", •, "9,"'f^&M
IH^^^^^^^^^^^^ ifl^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ lllK^
;;jili»^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
;;;,;„;„; ;;;";;;",,;„,",;;;;;,;,;;;;;;;; mi;;;";;.;,,;,,'."" i';;,„;;;;, '.'",,,;:""„' Jr;,,;;; "',,'„";"„;„;;;;;!; ; iri""..™™;;;. ' ;;; 'i,iii;i,,;
! ! | |,|| |M |n,
iiiiiiiiiiii/iiirisfiiii.ii'iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii'iiiiviii'iiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii'iiiiiiii 'iBliiiii1; iiiiii!'"', T'liiHiniif,"T-f 'jji'i1 '" ili'iEiiiiE'''^'!'!!'!!!!^!!''!!1 i'<, iiJitiiBif1"1!!' B'iEik'BiBiiBii1 :ii:!iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiifi'B
11 . , "i;ii! •
M
lliillli!!!i:!!iil|llll!!jl!lll!iiiiiJ!ll!!i!!ii!illilh^ ...... !!lt]!ll!l
" "
iii!iiijiiii'iiiiiilili.riiiiiiii:!i •;.; iin!1
ii'nil1 "'iiiiii'* jir.it,,'!!] 2il'S|||:°iBU!PIE^BBB|B:B||B^ liiiillllJtjiillillllllliiFtiiilijjIllilJiijr'iii'l'1!jfiirBJBjjjE^ iiii11!7||11"iJiBiB1!w''J''iiji|iS|||||i« il"'l!':;nj,5'BJjjJBJJB;[||||pi||||i'fl |H|||||
iiiiH^^^^^^^^^ diW^^^^^^^ i%Iiffi^^ 'tiM ii liiB I
2The NWPCAM is being reimplemented on a PC using Microsoft Access and Visual Basic. This step will
make the modej more accessible to users and will 'improve mgage"s" topos^ocesslEg'anai^es' such asthe'use of
ArcView Geographic In^>rma'?on "System mapping of results.
B-16
Final Report
October 1999
-------
Appendix E
Modeling Approach
The NWPCAM performs national-level modeling of conventional pollutants in the major inland
rivers and streams, larger lakes and reservoirs, and some estuarine waters in the lower 48 states.
This is done using the RF1 framework, which covers approximately 632,000 miles of rivers,
lakes, reservoirs, and estuaries. The best available nationally consistent data sources were used
to predict ambient concentrations of BODS, TSS, FC, and DO along all river reaches. The model
controls for loadings from both point and nonpoint sources, and uses streamflow and stream
velocity data to model pollutant fate.
Estimates of total stream miles in the United States range from 1.2 million (U.S. EPA, 1992b),
an aggregation of states' estimates, to 3.6 million (U.S. EPA, 1993b), calculated using EPA's
expanded surface water network, Reach File Version 3 (RF3). The latter estimate includes
intermittent streams. The subset of river and stream miles included in RF1 are the major rivers
and streams. Therefore, RF1 waters are not inclusive of all of the Nation's streams. Nonetheless,
this system does include most waters affected by major industrial, municipal, and CSO point
sources and major urban runoff.
The water quality parameters used hi this approach (BODS, TSS, FC, and DO), were selected
based on several criteria:
• They can be modeled reliably using simple first-order decay kinetics.
• They are key "conventional" parameters targeted in wastewater treatment.
Common wastewater treatment characteristics for these parameters are well known and
consistent, so that estimating reasonable loadings corresponding to differing levels of
point source controls is feasible.
• Detailed data are available both on point source loadings and nonpoint source loadings of
the pollutants.
• Existing indices of beneficial use are based, in part, on these water quality parameters.
DO is a widely recognized indicator of beneficial use attainment and is a primary instream
benefit of BODS control. Modeled values for percent DO saturation are based on mean summer
water temperatures. The classic Streeter-Phelps approach is used to model DO as a function of
reaeration, UBOD (i.e., ultimate BOD, estimated by 1.46*BOD5), and sediment oxygen demand
(SOD). Reaeration is modeled using the methods applied in the WASP model (Ambrose et al.,
1987). This method estimates reaeration as a function of stream depth and velocity. The
streamflow condition modeled is mean summer flows and velocities developed in conjunction
October 1999
Final Report
£-77
-------
with RFl (Grayman, 1982). Stream depths are computed using stable channel analysis
(Henderson, 1966). SOD is modeled with a default value of 6.5 g/nrVd, increased to 1.5
Fecal cpljforms are included as a fourth parameter because pathogens are clearly important in
s|:;d^ej3n|nin;g whether water quality supports swimming. The model employs a simple first-order
"••^ 'fFdecay model using data from CSO loadings. The municipal effluent values are set to a low
!T4efgu]kyiijHe_a§ disinfection' is ....assumed,to occur (except hi no treatment scenarios). There are no
industrial point source or nonpoint source estimates for fecal coliforms in the model.
The fatg of JSQD5, TSS, and FC is modeled using first-order decay equations. The percent DO
the Steeeter-Phelps
act'" ~"' "'"""" L' J a' "" " " " '
is, DO is modeled as a function of reaeration, UBOD, and sediment oxygen
Demand. Reaeration is modeled as.a, fraction, of average stream depth and velocity, with stream
deplh computeS using stable channel analysis (Henderson, I
"iiss.^!. is™'SsiDie.se polhitants form the basis for linking water quality to the Resources for the Future (RFF)
iuality Ladder, This ladder| is used as a inform basis 'for assigodng four catejories of
jne|}cia| use gupjjort !(swimming, fishing, boating, no use supporQ to each computational
Because the model includes
. ,,
under ren scenarios (e.g., "wiout; polution control poicies''), the mode! can be
:^f3BH8 ..... |g ...... ^in2aj:ejhe_ef&ct.ofchanges in water quality or beneficial use on persons living near
those river reaches. This is an important dimension of evaluating the economic benefits of
^Jwic^ing water quality.
Model Components and Processes
Figure 1 shows the components,- processes, and sequence of actions that are required for a
NWPCAM run. ............ Bosgs ..... m ..... bojd ..... are ..... cornponents that have been either added or significantly
enhanced for t|ie Storm ..... WaS "Phase'll ..... aii§lyses^ ..... The cenS^'pS'of |the ..... " .............................................
the RFl Routing
jg primary inputs to this modue are the RF1 routng framework,
|||||point source loads, cpjnRned sewer oyefflows, NFS loads, reach flows and yelocMes, and
pollutant decay coefficients^ The routing module computes pollutant cpncenttation^
subreach. | These ...... concentrations ...... are then compared toi _the water quality "ladder to ' determine
which subreachies (i.e., river and stream miles) are not meeting a particular beneficial use Next,
the number of households corresponding to these reaches is computed using data from the 1 990
Census of Populated Places.
The upper left portion of Figure 1 shows the processing of point source loads. The 1988 Survey
(NEEDS88), Permit Compliance System (PCS), andjndustrid Facilities Dischar|er gFD)'
databases are joined to create a consolidated point source database. This database contains a
unique set of poUu^^ loadings for each discharger Sat is in NEEDS88, PCS, and IFD, together
JS-18
.. lllllNlllilliilillliilli1!!! Ill I Illlilllllililllil 111 "I 111 111 lillllb iliillllllllll Hill" 1 i II ill 111"!
iiilliiiiliiiiiiiiili iiiiiiii in iiiiiiiiiiii inn in i iiiiiiiiiiii mill i inn n i in lull in inn iiiiiiiiiiii i iiiiiiiiiiilili 11 ill ill inn in 11 i
l( " n III
Final Report
I ill 111]
lull 111 lli|ii|| In Illlilllllililllil hi II IIIIIIII
October 1999
II I Illlilllllililllil Ill i ill I!! 111111 IIIlllllll illlilllll
I ^ ' ' I 'I
-------
• Appendix E
with, the links to RF1. The point source loadings are then adjusted for the relevant point source
control regime being evaluated and are entered into the RP1 routing module.
The upper right portion of Figure 1 shows the processing of the urban runoff and rural NFS
loadings databases. The urban and rural county loads are combined and allocated to each reach
based on proportional lengths of reaches in each county and the relevant Sediment Delivery
Ratios (SDRs) for each watershed. The Urban loads are adjusted by CSO loads to avoid double-
counting. The SDR is a coefficient that represents the reduction in pollutant loadings going from
the field-level discharge, down drainage channels and smaller streams before reaching the river
network (in this case RF1). In essence, the NFS loads are multiplied by the SDR to get the net
loading to the RF1 reaches. The NFS loads are then entered into the RF1 routing module.
Pollutant loadings in the system include 24,854 minor and 2,261 major industrial point sources
and 9, 890 municipal point sources (publically owned treatment works, POTWs). The system
includes 742 CSO loadings on 505 Reaches. The model also includes urban runoff loadings at
42,479 individual places (Phase I, Phase II and other) and 509,272 construction sites. In
addition, NWPCAM includes the rural loadings, primarily from agriculture.
The 37,005 point sources hi the model are linked to 12,676 different RF1 reaches. Figure 4
shows a map of the reaches that have point sources. This map shows the distribution of point
sources across the U.S. The pattern is as one would expect, with most of the point sources lying
in the eastern half of the U.S. with the exception of concentrations located around major cities on
the West coast.
The model includes options to change loadings in a way that can simulate various pollution
control policies. For instance, urban runoff loadings can be changed that can simulate the
pollutant reductions that could be expected from detention basins, construction site loadings can
be modeled by applying coefficient that simulate the effects of various BMPs, etc.
There is concern about the accuracy of the inputs to the model and the effect this could have on
model results. The effects of errors in the input data elements that have an "*" next to them are
addressed in a detailed sensitivity analysis. As can be seen hi Figure 1, the sensitivity analysis
addresses each of the major inputs to the water quality model.
October 1999
Final Report
E-19
-------
I.
i ill
ii i i
1
iiiii ii1 '"'"i ip^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
•in iiiinnn iiiiiiniinn in iii 1 1 i iniiiiiinii iiiiiini i iiiiiii inniiiiiii
•••n i iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiii i HI in n iii n i nnniiiiiiinin iniini n i i niiii 1 1
i
i
iiiiiiiiiii iiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii in nil 1 1 iiiii n iiiiiii 1 1 iiiiiii n i n iiiii ii in
iiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii'i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii in niiii mi i1 iiiin1 ii
i
m\ ill ii Viiiiiii iMii1
1111111 iii iiiii iiii i i iiiii in 1 1 in i iii
'
Illllllllllllllinnilinilinilllllllllllllinillllllligiiligililllllinilllinrinill "IH!":1! IIIIIIIIIII' IIIIIIIIIIII '' 'i » I'l 'llulliillllili
••SliliS'^*!*!^;"*:*!*!!1
IK
•H^ liw^
III!, ,
llniiiiiiiii ! 'iiuiiiH^^ n 'ft' jiiiniiinnnniiir
IIIIIH^^ :ivi|i||il' IIIK
; | ••• | '
liilllllllllli n 11111 n mi i 111111111 nil in i ii iinnnin nun
IIIIIIIIIIII Illlllliillllil ill llll Illliil Illllli1 liilllllllllli 11 HI
NEEDS Surve
-POTWs
r
' I I «'
IIIIIIII II III II III III Illllli I IIIII I IIIIIIIIIIII iilllll IIIIIIIIIIII llll IIIII llll IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIII I II IIIIIII I llll I l|lll|llllll II I III IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII II IIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIII IIIIIIIII IIIII liilllllllllli IIIIIIIIIIII
PCS
1 I
iw •ii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiH "ii
i
iiiiiiiiiii i (niiii iiii n iiiiiiiii in
Scenario
Definition
Scenario
Definition
t1
IFD
I
rt
Integrated
Point Source
Database
}
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
*
P
Adjusted Poin
Source Loads
RF1 F
Veloc
Tempe
n i I "1 ill'innLL
t
Construction
Starts
Consti
Starts
, : i : t ^
'"nil 1'
'
IIB^^^^^ Illliil iiiiiliillllllliiiiii1 1 iiii 1 1
ii
|lill 1 llhiM|iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii|i iiiiiii iiiiiii iiiiiii
Phase 1/2
Assignments
Reach File
Version 1
•
RUSLE
Coefficient
Scenario
Definition
*
Com
.____« Tr
«* Ove
bined
wer
rflows
Phase 1/2 RF1-County Sediment
Assignments Links °el'very
Ratios
I ' ' I
It t 1
Urban Runoff ^- en|tauase Rural Runoff
i
RF1 Routing
Database
: t i
:lows,
;ities,
natures
xiction
Model
i
1 '
Census Plact
""" Database
*
' to
L
i n i ii'"
IIIIP Note: Boxes in Bold Represent New or
Significantly Enhanced Components for the
SW Phase 2 Analysis
_
f
i .,.,
^ Scenario ^
^ Definition
' f
Transport and
Fate WQ
Model
•\
Instr
Concer
\
"
\
earn
itration:
r
Use Support
I
^ ^* Decay
^ Coeficients
^ Water Quality
"^ Ladder
r
Populations
Affected
I
r
Economic
Benefits
^ Willingness-to
^ Pay
III II II I
II IIIIIIII l|llllll IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII^ liilllllllllli liilllllllllli IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII llll IIIIIIIII III II IIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIII lll|l llll IIIIIIII 111 111 III IIIIIIII liilllllllllli III IIIIIIIIIIII llllllllllllllllllllllllllll IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII III IIIIIIIII II III IIIIIIII llll III IIIIIIIII IIIIIIIII Mill llll llll III III liilllllllllli
Fig 1. National Water Pollution Control Assessment Model
Components
E-20
Final Report
October 1999
iiiiiliiiiii iiiii 111 iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiii i i|iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiii
I I"!!! ' """"""""
iiiiiiiiiiiiB iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii illllli iiiiiiiiiii ii||iiii|iii liilllllllllli I nil ii iiiiiini i ill i i i
iiiiiiiiiiiitt iiiii iiiiii|ii in iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii 1111 ill ii ii i ii in iiiii 111 iiiii 11 inn in i in 11 inn inn
III 'ii i
nil i llllllllllllllllllllllllllll iiiii|iiiiii|iiii^^^ i illllli iiiiii|iii|iili in i ill 111 in llllllllllllllllllllllllllll iiiiiii liilllllllllli
•iiiiiiiiiii llllllllllllllllllllllllllll iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i iiiiiiiiiii n |iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiii In iiiiiii n i iiiii|l|i i llll iiii|iiiiiiiiiiii i ii iiiiii|liiii ill i|ll|^^ ||ii||i|iiii|iiiiii |
-------
Appendix E
Transport
RF1
The EPA Reach Files are a series of hydrologic databases of the surface waters of the continental
United States. The structure and content of the Reach File databases were created expressly to
establish hydrologic ordering, to perform hydrologic navigation for modeling applications, and to
provide a unique identifier for each surface water feature, i.e., the reach code. Reach codes
uniquely identify, by watershed, the individual components of the Nation's rivers and lakes.
RF1 contains approximately 632,000 miles of rivers, streams, and larger lakes. There are
approximately 68,000 reaches, of which approximately 61,000 are transport reaches (i.e., water
flows down them) with an average length of about 10 miles. The remaining 7,000 reaches are
nontransport reaches (e.g., shorelines).
Estimates of mean and low flows and velocities for each transport reach in RF1 have been
developed by Grayman (1982). The estimates for mean summer flows and the corresponding
velocities were adjusted using mean monthly flow estimates for RF1 reaches (Grayman, 1982).
This data provide the basis for the pollutant mixing and routing components of the NWPCAM.
Routing
RF1 has a very powerful routing design ideal for upstream and downstream. This routing design
works reach by reach, requiring no more than one Reach database record to be "in memory" at a
time and can be set up to run quite rapidly.
There are four fundamental variables involved in the routing design. The basic routing variable
is the Hydrologic Sequence Number (SEQNO). This variable gives the order in which reaches
are processed. Figure 2 shows a simple river network schematic with the SEQNOs labeled on
each Reach. In addition to the SEQNO, three other variables are essential to the routing design,
LEV, J, and SFLAG. LEV is the stream level. A mainstem would have a LEV=1, a tributary off
of that would have a LEV=2, a tributary off of that a LEV of 3, etc. In RF1, the maximum LEV
is 10. In the routing design, the LEV is, in effect, the array subscript for holding accumulated
October 1999
Final Report
E-21
-------
n iiiiinn iiiiiii|liiilili|iiiiiiiiiiiiM linn iiiiiiinni n 11 in iniinii 11 in in nil nil i in in nniini n n i in n in i n i ill in i INI i inn i iiiniinnl in inn nil in i nil n 11 i n il Iliiiln inn n n i nil i in in i in in iiiiiniinllniiini nil in i nil iinilinii nil illiiiini
I 1 I ll II
"I I l»
IIIIIIIIIIII 111 II 111 ..... Il III i 111 I I
in ill ill in iiiiiiiiiiiii . j- i-<
Appendix E
il i i
i n 11 n I nil n in i n in n i i n i in n
iiiiil in ii|iiiiiiiiiiiiii in iiiilllli iiiliii
lllii«|
IP I 111 I Illllllilli 111 • I 111
II
i llllllilll lull I lull Illlllilli II hi 111 l if I Pill I III III I III 1 III 111 ..... Ill l il I II il i II 111 In I III I 111 1 1
I ( llllllilll 1 1 lill'll i ..... I III II IIIIIIIH 1 1 1 111 i II ...... Ill In i I" illllll llllllilll ..... i ll III1" I 111 'II i 111 ill 111 ....... II II l 111 I ...... Ill1' 'U ill I I I ' I IK1 ill! 1 1 11 I1 1 II illlill 111 il ..... Ill l 1 llllllilll Hi 111 1 111 1 1 1 1 111 1 i " I III i III
Illllll Illllllllllllllllll
llllllilll H I Illllll 111 111 III llllllilll i llllllilll
llllllilll
111 i iiiilllli |i i ill iiiiil i n lull i in iiiiil
jiiijirii^ ..... iiiiiuiij^
,111 !iiiiniiiiiiininin|j!iLt > iiiinniiiiiiiiiiii,. ...... • iiiiiiiiinii'iniiniiLf niinniiniBi! 'iiiiiiiiiinn : v >; : > \\c !:: i iiiii^iiiiijijiiiir^iiiii.Li'iiiiiiiiiiiijiiiiijiwi1 iiiiiinniiiiiii! w
Illllll l illllll III III IIIIIIIIIIIII |illllll
'I I'll Illllll!llllllilll |llll|ll|lll|ip
1 ill ill 111 111 llllllilll IIIIIIIIIIIII illllll
11 UK ;!inii!i!ii!:Kijn inn inn iiinii'Ti nrunniiiiiiiiiH^ i<- nun. 'Hinc w >, iiiiniidliinikx' t; I'lnFinmii, lumiin HniiiKiiiinniiK .pniiiiiniiii siyninsjiiii1'!* it. J<\) am. n i: ,
-------
Appendix E
Loop over
SEQNO
Yes
No
1
VAL(LEV)=0
Calculate
RCHVALUE
I
VAL(LEV)=VAL(LEV) +RCHVALUE
VAL(J) =VAL(J) H-VAIXLEV)
VAL(LEV)=0
T
Figure 3. The Basic Routing Algorithm
and one 0.5-mile segment at the downstream end of the reach. This means that the new Reach
File contains many more reaches than the original RF1. While the original RF1 contains
approximately 61,000 routing Reaches, the expanded RF1 contains approximately
655,000routing elements. The routing variables, i.e., SEQNO, LEV, J, and SFLAG are set for
each segment so that the same routing algorithm described above still works for this expanded
Reach File.
Pollutant Loadings
Point Source Loadings
The point source data are from EPA databases (U.S. EPA, 1990; Terra Tech, 1993). Two sources
for point source loadings were available: (1) the NEEDS88, which contains BOD5 and TSS
loadings for virtually all municipal wastewater treatment plants hi the United States, and (2) the
PCS, which contains data from the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
Discharge Monitoring Reports. If data were available from both NEEDS88 and PCS, the PCS
data for 1990 were used.
October 1999
Final Report
E-23
-------
"TTtig|ackojf^ingrSischargers (representing many thousands of dischargers) was considered a
significant issue hi the first versions of the model. Loadings data for minor industrial dischargers
^lis not consijstently available hi PCS. On advice of PCS staff, only major point source loadings
' ....... ......... "" ................ ' ' ............................................ "' ...... ' ................ ......... ' ........ " ........... A ..... third ..... soSce'oFpoint source data lie ' ffip database, is use3
can
iCtion witE PCS to estimate loadings for minor dischargers. For many minor
;ers, 1H3 contains data on trie type of 'industry, represented by Site Stendard ^dustrlal
Classification (SIC) code, and in many cases the wastewater flow. To develop loadings
gsjimates, for, minor dischargers based on this data, a methodology is adapted from techniques
'" "' - - -- - j - - - - ; Administration (NOAA) staff for
data is available to compute
s) by pollutant
i andTSCJIDS), 21
-------
Appendix E
1975). SDRs are estimated for each of the 2,111 watersheds in the NWPCAM. The
methodology for developing the watershed-level SDR estimates is covered later in this report.
The 37, 005 point sources in the model are linked to 12,676 different reaches. Figure 4 shows a
Figure 4. NWPCAM Reaches with Point Sources
map of the reaches that have point sources. This map shows the distribution of point sources
across the U.S. The pattern is as one would expect, with most of the point sources
lying in the eastern half of the U.S. with the exception of concentrations located around major
cities on the West coast.
Construction Site Loadings
The construction site loadings of TSS are based on a methodology developed by the Corps of
Engineers for USEPA/OWM. This methodology uses the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation.
The revised soil loss equation determines the magnitude of loadings taking into consideration
rainfall, soil Erodability, slope, farming preconstruction conditions'and the application of best
management practices. The coefficients (Table 2) used in the RUSLE are:
R - Rainfall Erosivity
K - Soil Erodability
LS - Topographic
October 1999
Final Report
E-25
-------
i|iiiiiii iiiiii nil i
I
•iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i in
in
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii in iiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
i!
III II
111 1 IIIIIIIIII IIIIII IIIIII IIIIIIIIII 111 111 Illllllllllll 1 11 111 111 1 IIIIIIIIII 111 1
III 111 111 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Illllllllllll IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 1111 111 IIIIII IIIIII 1 111 11 IIIIIIIIII
1 III
il nil i 1111 iiiiiiiiii in i ill iiiiiiiiii in 11111111111111111111111 i iiiiii in n
iiiiii i 1 1 iiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii in iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii in in
i i in
IIIIII I1 III 111 1 1 111 1 1111 1 1 111 111 Illllllllllll Illllllllllll
1 111 1 111 IIIIII III 1 111 111 111 11111 III IIIIIIIIII 111
Appendix E
i i in i i nil n i i
i i 1
11
C - Cover Management; Includes 2 BMPs: #l=Seeding, #2=Seeding and Mulching
P - Support Practice; Includes BMPs Such as Straw, Sediment Traps
,1
Table 1. Soil Erosivity, Erodibility, Topography, Cover Management and Support Factor
' Variable Values
..... Illllli Illllllllllll I
Representative
City
Hartford
Duluth
Las Vegas
Charleston
Bismarck
Helena
Atlanta
Denver
Boise
Nashville
Amarillo
Portland
Des Moines
San Antonio
Fresno
R
130
95
8
400
50
14
295
40
12
225
100
65
160
250
12
Pre-
Cons.
K
027
027
0.27
027
0.27
027
027
027
0.27
0.27
027
027
027
027
027
Construct
K
0.34
0.34
0.34
0.34
0.34
0.34
0.34
0.34
0.34
0.34
0.34
0.34
0.34
0.34
0.34
LS
1.06
1.06
1.06
1.06
1.06
1.06
1.06
1.06
1.06
1.06
1.06
1.06
1.06
1.06
1.06
Pre-
Cons.
C
0.283
0.225
0.04
0.359
0.206
0.16
0.34
0.214
0.143
0.34
0.298
0.228
0.309
0.361
0.113
Construct
C
0.878
0.873
0.809
0.917
0.844
0.827
0.898
0.841
0.818
0.891
0.859
0.864
0.885
0.877
0.822
Seeding
C
0.44
0.666
0.458
0.546
0.655
0.655
0.578
0.697
0.567
0.538
0.573
0.263
0.643
0.536
0251
Seed&
Mulch
C
0.261
0.362
0.139
0.295
0.345
0.379
0.385
0.365
0.442
0.408
0.408
0219
0.451
0.434
0.202
Pre-
Constr.
P
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Constr.
P
1
1
1
.1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
STRAW
SDR
0.65
0.65
0.43
0.8
0.58
0.41
0.76
0.54
0.41
0.69
0.72
0.43
0.69
0.77
0.4
sat
Trap
SDR
0.49
0.49
0.4
0.66
0.45
0.4
0.61
0.43
0.4
0.53
0.57
0.4
0.53
0.62
0.4
STONE
SDR
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
Sed
tn
SD
0.-
Ox
0.^
Ox
Ox
Ox
Ox
Ox
Ox
ox
"ox"
Oxi
JlUII ,1 ,Hi,iV ill'li MlilB:!,.! ll!,f liilillllhPliilii i Illiillllllllinil'l Hilll'i "liiHHIIPR lil, 'il'IF: III
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII! T "Ilillill!!1! ,iii'"';!!l „ iilllllllllltPlllinilllllllilJI'lllllllVI "IP4" 'IIP" I'lPIIIIPPlll!!,1!11!!"!' P illlll111'!, IIIIII 'il'11]' i 'Jill! K FlliPflllinilHliiii ,S': • ""P'' fit ' 1. 'ir":illllll|liilllill III1 'IP'iiiljillll'Pillikliliniill: IPIIP'iiiEnillllliillHilllllllPLiHf' iijllllllllllllinijll,:ll|llir"l'|l. ! .1,1 'lllij, , , liil'Tl "ili'lli1"'!''! "Rjllllllll iii illlSlilPlPlllllllir: ii .11 ii!., 'i'llll! IlllllPilJIIillillilli; \,'., IIP ,i ,. 'i •. ' ihlillillllFIIJilllllllii1'! i'Jiill'jil illillllllllllllliilllllPjjII Ijilllllltiln; ,' li.illH
Ill !|P ' illlillpiiiei, liillr Illllllllllll I'll!!!!!1' iilllll, Illllll I"! I:, II' .ill Ii Hi: 'Illl ll'llillillll!!!!1!! iilllllllil iff iiPI'l ; '"iiJiii'iiii ..... 'iiiiii|iii|i,jiiiiiiii" ji'iiiiii'iiii,1;!1! ...... iiiiiij,< iiiUMUini ,; ' ' iinii111 r v ^iiiiti'iiiii/Mii'iiiiiiiii'iy, "•iiiiiiii|iliiiiiiiiniil ', jiiiii'i'iiiiiiiiiiiii.'!!!!:!'!]!!!,!1,,1' ;;,:!! 'r'v'K t .
1 ' '' '' 1'"!11 :ll!1i:*l|ll|lill|:!li!l|i!!1 • IF Fi1 1!"1'1'1111 iii1if lilli!ii!!|l||l|!i!S '•' :t
' ......... ...... ''I'" ...... I" , " ..... [I .......... "iiijjili'Hliir'njf: ;;||p| ;»! ',; ,;, iijipjii,,; IP1"!!'! ijjtjiijji1, s jj'i ;, Jf j,; Hji1 ."L , >, i,!,,!,, Kj1 ,,.,, , • 'lij " .flilllFiij'! ' i '"Hill '' I ..... SBIIilliil < I ' <
, iiii „ iiji rii|;iii|iik • iiiiiii- . iiJi - 1 ii » • riiii1' m \\ 'iiii IIIIMI' ' iii iiliiii .NIB i K ill
iiiiiii iiiiiiifiiii " '< 'iiii»" ...... iiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiinit^ ,ii" i. I'M: .ii1:1 ' i iii
-------
Appendix E
The coefficient values used for these variables hi determining loadings are presented hi the
Appendix. In the COE methodology, the RUSLE coefficients are defined based on climatic
zones indicated by 15 "Representative Cities" to account for the impact of climatic differences,
and the BMPs to be considered. To determine the boundaries of the climatic zones represented
by these "Cities" Major Land Resources Areas/Regions are used in this study. As a result, the
"Representative Cities" are linked to Major Land Resource Areas so that all of the construction
sites can be assigned the appropriate coefficients to incorporate the impact of the climatic
differences in estimating loadings. Figure 5 shows a map of the MLRAs and the corresponding
"Representative Cities" assigned to each city; this is used as a GIS overlay on the construction
sites locations to determine each site's RUSLE coefficient. The construction sites loadings are
based on a list of 19,427 communities for 1998 in the continental U.S. with estimates of numbers
of construction starts/sites of 509,272 (Table 3), by the following size ranges:
0-'/2
'/2-1
1-2
2-3
3-4
4-5
5 +
Acre
Acre
Acres
Acres
Acres
Acres
Acres
Table 3. Number of Construction Sites by Size Range
r 'Size Range
(acres)
0-'/2
y2-i
1-2
2-3
3-4
4-5
Greater Than 5
Total (509,272)
Phase I and Existing ,
State Programs
11,092
11,889
33,255
19,228
11,665
13,187
184,520
284,836
Phase II and Unregulated 0-1
Acre and Waived Sites
46,015
45,317
5,685
3,241
1,701
2,428
N/A
104,389
. ;phaseir::^
Sites s~' ,4'
N/A
N/A
58,702
29,305
15,676
16,364
N/A
120,047
October 1999
Final Report
E-27
-------
1H^^ '
'Jil'l'.*"',:!'!'! IIIIPIIII'l'lilP'iiiliJ^lt'lllBflllfllllllliiJIiflll.illl!:1111"1'
1 viiiiii1,,! :iiliinii' 'iii:!: iitraifaiii'i'Si ;
:•• i Ein^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ii!i,ii:':^-:iiin IIB^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ |
'^: illliilllllH^^^^^^ Sl/Slli 'iii^ ^ *** ^*
Jii ^ju in:; Tiiva"11' »"! iii: '"if >
iii''''^^ '
1 • .<••
Major Land Resource Areas of the Lower 48 States
iilB i!liii!::ill
^^^^^^ ilil!1! :"!!,! iiiiiiB :i!K :;;•! I'ViiiM^^^
liiiiitiK^^^^^^^ iiiLriiiiJiiiiiiiiif itiiiiiiiin; IIIIIIIH^^^^^^^ I'liiii 'i1 >'i" iniiiiiw^^^^^^^^^^ »• kill!" MIIIIIIM^ I'",!)!!- Tir aii'i'll I ih>!l«^ rllllli;'* : ''LllillitWlIfB^^^^^^^^^
.••IK lirsi, E—28
-------
Appendix E
The number of construction sites and the communities is based on the construction site3 database
which was developed by EPA for economic analysis. This database provides a list of 19,427
communities with estimates of the number of construction starts/sites in each community. A
database containing the exact location of each construction site in a community does not exist at
the national level. Moreover, it is impossible to develop such a database. Therefore, these
communities are treated as point sources of construction loadings in the model. The loadings are
estimated on the basis of the RUSLE equation for each community. Construction site TSS
loadings are determined as follows:
1. Calculate Site Unit Load (SUL) hi Tons/Acre/Year for each size range:
The COE methodology assumes 6 Months of pre-construction activity followed by 6 Months of
construction activity. Therefore, this equation has two separate components associated with
preconstruction and construction conditions. The unit load for each site varies depending on the
site location according to the climatic zones and the BMPs applied. If no BMPs are applied on a
site then the corresponding variable value remains constant indicating no reduction in loadings.
2. Calculate Total Sediment Loadings (TSSL) for each community in Tons/Yr:
TSSLcom = £(SULSize * nsites * Size4)
Table 4 presents the estimates of the construction site TSS loadings by size range for the
"baseline" and the Phase II scenario conditions The table also shows the percent reduction in
TSS loadings by size range. The reductions only occur for sites hi the 1-5 acre range (the scope
of Phase II rule), and reflect application to only those sites that are not covered by existing
equivalent state program to control sediments or have an "R" factor less than 10.
3The distribution of Phase II construction sites by size is presented in the Economic Analysis of the Final
Phase II Storm Water Rule, 1999. The distribution and total number of sites presented in the Economic Analysis
(110,223) is slightly different from the distribution and total of sites used in this study because the waiver was
based on a slightly different data set.
4For estimating TSS loadings, mid values of the ranges, and 10 acres (assumption) for greater than 5 acres
sites are used.
October 1999
Final Report
E-29
-------
J; | I I; I I i I • ;
....... ....... iiiiiiii •••i«ir ..... i .............. int
l
[[[
Appendix E
^ 1V^^^^ V^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Si
, | ,;,
IIIIIIIH Ilillll 1 Ill11 illlllllillilll1
1
Illlllllillilll 111 Illllllllllllllllll Ill IlllllH 111
iiiiB ill1 i ii mm
i^,\m ill) iiiiiiiii * iiiliip
Si«^^^^^^^^^^^ i immn
ill Ml III Illlllllillilll il IIIIIIII 1| 111 l|ppi|i|
Illlllllillilll 'Illllllllllllllllll1 Ilillll 1 pill1 IIIIIIII
1 ' |, rl „ i i' ,,ni >• u ' ;: ' ly1,,"' 'i" '::'. : .HP
• -, :;, Size Range • • .
0-'/2
K-l
1-2
2-3
3-4
4-5
5 Plus
Total
Baseline
Loadings " :
404
1,185
3,506
2,893
2,230
2,951
18,418
31,587
' • . . ..;..•,'••*.'•'
: ': - '•• 'V :3?b$lSQ:TL •••••'•:,..••.. \.;'v:':,:j'!u:
• •-•- ' •-"•.!. Xoadings"":> '"'':-S
404
1,185
1,566
1,377
1,065
1,453
18,418
25,468
Phase H Effectiveness"
0%
0%
55%
52%
52%
51%
0%
19%
3Qnstruqtion sites greater than 5 acres (Phase I sites) and less than 1 acres are not regulated by the Phase II rule,
therefore zero is shown for the aggregate effectiveness/impact of the program in reducing over all loadings at the
nationallevel.
ra mites loadings due to Phase II soil and erosion contrqlj contraction starts/sites presented
•IH^ IIIIIIIIH in the follgwing states because of equivalent programs are excluded.
Deja>vare,,'(all sites)
New Jersey (all sites)
• North Carolina (all sites)
• Pennsylvania (all sites)
five-acre sites) • Puerto Rico
: j,;;:'— : ;B!Maryland (all sites) • South Carojma_ jajl site)
'"''_ • _ WestVirginia(three-toifive-acresites) •
pshhie (two- to five-acre sites) • Wisconsin (three- to five-acre sites)
1111363
[Program all construction sites in states of Florida and
lie Virgin Islands and Virginia are excluded.
iis
However, these sites are included in estimating lie baseline loadings presented in this table.
• I," F [Hill,. 'IPIII' III, "i" 1 „ ' I , f ClP1 II i'i', il"i .illlllillilllvliliill'i'J J1 /All JIIIIIIIIIIIPIIHPIIP 'J11!"! < , l.iBI"11 J.iini'lMli,::
UI'lHfiU'I'tli TiiJ^'Hllllliii'iilli."!!!!1 'Lirtli"1!! illlli'
IkilU'llRllllllll."!!!,! ilji1 lilljill'llNllll.iin.iLjIlllilllllllllllllllllljIdji::,!'!;'!1 liK /* ll""™" , ",
ii|"it|, II:: I! J|!!!!«l!:jliii:!|» 1||!!,, t'laj'i : |T Jiil'i 'lit.: 'I. »j|jjj!!!!!!jjjji Vi1' >l'l|i< *f I!*™!!"]™!11'j'jf .lij* '''
...... flll'l;
-------
Appendix E
"Small Streams " Modeling
Construction sites loadings are routed to the overall NWPCAM/RF1 framework by assuming a
"small stream" into which the loadings are placed. For each community of construction sites,
one small stream is assumed to transport loadings. Thus, 34,500 miles of small streams are
added to the water stream network. The rationale for this "small stream" development is that
many, if not most, construction sites are on smaller streams that are not in the RF1 network. As
a starting point, the length of each small stream is assumed to be the distance of the given
construction site community Latitude/Longitude coordinate to RF1. The flow in this stream is
estimated in a two-step process. The first step is to estimate the drainage area as a function of the
length of the stream. Data from "The Water Encyclopedia" (van der Leeden et. Al., 1990)
contains analysis of stream lengths, stream orders, and drainage areas.
Using this data, a log-log regression fits the table quite well (R2 = 0.9998). The resulting formula
for estimating drainage area as a function of length is:
"DA. = 1.086 * L1-868
where
D.A = Drainage Area in sq. Mi.,
L = Length in Miles.
The next step is to estimate an average summer flow hi cfs/sq. mi. This was done by analyzing
the mean summer flows at the headwater reaches hi RF1. Separate unit flows were developed for
each of the 329 USGS Accounting Units (the 6-digit watersheds). The headwater drainage areas
of the RF1 reaches was estimated by dividing the total lengths of headwater reaches by the total
reach lengths. The unit flows were then derived by dividing the total headwater reach flows by
the estimated headwater drainage areas. This produces estimates of unit mean summer flows in
cfs per sq. mi.
Thus., given a length, a mean summer flow is estimated for each construction site. A minimum
length for the small streams is set at 1 mile. This minimum is selected for 2 reasons: (1) 1 mile is
the standard computational element length hi the NWPCAM system; and, (2) the analyses of
stream sizes and orders in "The Water Encyclopedia" finds that the average order 1 (headwater)
stream length is 1 mile. Stream velocities and depths are estimated using the same techniques as
for the rest of the NWPCAM/RF1 reaches. Background concentrations for TSS are assumed for
each "small stream" based on an analysis of STORET ambient water quality data. The mean
annual loadings from the construction sites are placed into the "small stream", then decayed and
routed to the RF1 reach. These routed loads are then used hi the NWPCAM/RF1 framework.
For each "small stream", a use support under the given conditions is computed by comparing the
modeled concentration of TSS at the midpoint to the RFF Water Quality Ladder criteria
October 1999
Final Report
E-31
-------
ill linn 1 iln I i ill i in i in i IIP n
in ill i|iiiniiiigggi^ iiiii |iiiiiii|ig||i •
Appendix E
I Hi I Ill |l( 11 III Ill^ ill III Illllll
II I I I 'ill '" 111
I III
I.I
II jl, III
I I I) III III
I I 111 II I I J ill J
I ( presented in the Use Support section. Each "small stream" therefore has an associated length and
""" " " ' ! ' ' ' ° "' ' "' '"" ""'"' 1 " '"' "" S'5' ™ " " "" "1"1'"3- " WRS1^ ! 5 rSTPT! |^gJ-» gj£J summarize
stream s-5rare directly linked to the
economic analyses, so that the "small streams" ^g
4. Using a database combining Census Populated Places and Minor Civil Divisions, 19,378
(99.7%) of these named communities were linked to Populate^ Places/MCDs with
Latitude/Longitude Coordinates.3. Similarly, loadings for each community are linked to the
NWPCAM/RF1 framework.
I
11 Illllll nil i ill I iinnlin il
iiiiiiiiiii iiini in i
11'""l ^Development of Baseline
To measure the impact of the Phase II rule, it is essential to develop the baseline. The baseline is
not exogenously given for measuring additional improvement in water quality, therefore the
;;]i£0£isu^[ustnal point sources, municipal point sources POTW loadings, and rural loadings primarily
. ^^^om agriculture. For mdiyjidual places the model first_ derives |me loadings based on the Lovejoy
estimates and then employs the ^applicable controls to determine the magnitude of
The NWPCAM estimates baseline loadings on the Basis of following
iiiii i iiii iiiiii in Hi in iiiiii iiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiii 11 in i ii iiiii
. .
1. All CSOs are controlled by detention basins and assume 85% capture of the
i^;1:,:;: — •;;,--i rungff £the'85% capture is based on NEEDS Survey ''assumptions),
"T' ; Detentiorrb^^ aj -—£' pftte i~723 m^vT<¥S NWTCAM Ehiase
urban s"ites and assume 85% capture of the runoff,
, Jl ;] Constnjction sites BMPs are jn place" Eased" on" existing state and Coa
ct .Amendment programs, and
Construction sites ]BMPs are in place at sites greater than 5 acres.
• ';. , " ! : 8 1 ':,' , i I | ' 1 •
I 111 ill IIIIIM^^^ lllilllllil i II
: II sjjenane.cojidjtions.take the baseline, conditions and further impose:
1. Detention basin controls at each of the 5^938 individual ^^Q^J- phase u urban
sites and assume 85% capture of the runoff, and
n i : 2,f •••• Construction sites BMPs, are in place _at ates between 1 and 5 acres with an "R"
1::: ~~~ ~ : ;:„::. "::~::i^;:::::::::::::,, ,f^or> 10 or not ..aiready controlled by existing
iniiiiiiiiniiii.i; < iiiiiiniiiiii jiiiiniiiiiiiiiiiiiniiiiiniiiiiiiniiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii, , ;• IIIIIIIIIHIIIIIIIII !i» III,,,IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIPI
^:?^ ?32SlI ISTS
i iiiin^^^^ muss i
llllllH^^^ 'II •hiiiliH^^^^^^^^
lull, OIDIIlgLI i IIIIIIIIII, II Illllll IIIIMIIIIIIIIfll „ jllgl'l IIIII.illllllllllillllhllllill
Illllll
Final Report
October 1999
i ' i i".iiiiin,i'ii! |iii< j, uTi'iri'i «: iiiiiin JIIIB" < mini i' ii
-------
Appendix E
contained in discharges, whereas the Phase II program includes structural and nonstructural
controls. Therefore, model uses detention basins as a proxy to represent the impact of the
municipal program. Based on surveys of existing literature and textbooks (e.g., "Wastewater
Engineering", Metcalf and Eddy, 1972) on removal of pollutants from detention basins, the
changes in urban runoff loadings due to controls assume 33% removal of BODS, 60% removal of
TSS, and 70% removal of FC. These removal rates can be considered as reasonably conservative
median values. The model uses these loadings in determining the impact on water quality. The
cumputations are presented in the next section.
Model Computations
Temperature and Saturation Concentration of Dissolved Oxygen
Instream temperature data consists of the mean summer temperatures, by Hydrologic Region,
derived the STORET database. This data is used to calculate the saturation concentration of DO.
The model then estimates the DO by subtracting the computed DO deficit from this saturation
concentration. Table 5 shows the mean summer temperatures and DO saturation concentrations
for each Hydrologic Region. As described later, the instream temperatures are used for adjusting
several model coefficients. The DO saturation concentration is computed using a multiple
regression analysis from EPA's QUAL2e water quality model.
Stream Flows and Velocities
For the NWPCAM, streamflows and velocities for each RF1 reach come from estimates
developed by Walter Grayman for EPA (Grayman, 1982). The flows are based on an analysis of
USGS gaging station data. For reaches that did not have USGS gaging stations, or did not have
stations with an adequate period of record, the flows were interpolated or extrapolated using the
relative values for known streamflows versus "arbolate sums." The arbolate sum of a Reach is
the sum of all reaches upstream of that Reach. Flow estimates were developed for mean flow,
low flow (approximately the 7-day, 10-year [7Q10] condition), and mean monthly flow. For the
NWPCAM, a mean summer flow was developed for each Hydrologic Region by averaging the
flows from June through October. Table 6 shows the results of the regression of mean annual
flow on mean summer flow by Region. The QMULT is the resulting multiplier used to adjust
the mean annual flow to a mean summer flow. This mean summer flow is the primary reach
flow used for modeling in the NWPCAM.
October 1999
Final Report
E-33
-------
mai. iiii v BijiiKi
i«|»Bl«^
Illllllnlii, ''il'll'Siil'llil'iiiiiiliii "'i1'1!!" nlliHIil" "11 JllnlHl'lEnltiihR '" I ....... Ull" II : ,.: I1!!!1 nH| III!1 ".JIBS .Jhi'iilllliiilNllilllllhiJ"!!'"'!!'!,!!! :„ »i linijiliilll1! ..... ||i||i||||!l!ii'!i."< ll!,'1 llliiiiinillBllli f, Hill ..... IIIIIIi'illlljllliiiilJi/'Tllilhiliilllllllliillll'i'lWii.iii1;!!. I!!!!!!",' iBiiilIK1' i Mil 1ilil|i!!»lti|1|.1iiJ!j«illlll|:';;'i!lll|i|!1iiiiliill'''il||i!i,i:illli:ll:iiiilllll!l!'!i|||ii,' • 'miLllli', " Jllllnlllilll'l' ^
.............................................. ' ........................................ ; .................. ; [[[ ji ..................... ;
1: : III" .il. n ...... I ...... Kill1 iJllllili'1'!! ' .Jh'iili," ', .1111 nflllllllllillilllllllllllW illipli ..... lillii'liriL'lllllir 'I ....... .'Illlllilliiilirillll'llllllii .liinilllinilllllllilllllllllillll11!',11' I III I1!! ...... I'llllil II.IJ'I i, <,,'"i ' mil, : ' ..... lliMiililillihllllill Illlj' lllll.iil' ' , < illlli.|i|,|i|'lliil
Wjn^^ ........ IliVylH^
Appendix E
I
:*•;, , 'vmim iini£ IIBIIIIIIE i jiiiiiR1!;, i iiiiiii > t'li
'HfKl.'UB Illlilin I! 1 ill 111111 111 ill llillMlllllllll I Pllllllil l|l|lllll|llllllllllll| liillliill 111 lllllllllliil|||i II 111 I I1! 1 lllll'11 'Illlllllllllll'll IIIIIII III ill I
»«•;; :;;;«i ^™*« ;!»!•!";!•!!!• :!™^^^^^^ Temperature and DO Saturation
=!:::=:::= :=>>>=;,,,, :^:==::,^ ::
jj~
ill' ' ^ '"^ "" " "" , " " "
iilii^^ Illiiaiilliir'.-!
iiiiiiH iiiiiiiii'iiiiii];,]^^^^^ in
l^;!^™:^^.!!!1**™ :!
i
:s»;sK»«^B»a :',:;• iiiiiis^^^^^^^^^ ;«" =-n
!— :rr?r=:.r'™:^ " " ^r1^"
itifmiiiiSitm iiiiiH^^^^^^^^^
lita^^^^
h^ ~ iiiir? it"'"' nn '" ™ w
!W
"1 1 ' " ' ! " !
!^^
|l^^^^ IIB IliS^
_ ' ,;:,'•:' | , f •;, ,
i^^^^^^ m£ i^
; ^ni* , „
|!!l{J! ; ; « i [
.• ..:-'„•;•.'! ,..'•; Region .:' •:'.'-•:.:.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
: Mean Summer
Temperature ©
18.50
22.50
26.00
18.90
21.90
24.20
21.00
27.00
19.00
19.00
22.50
27.44
19.60
13.00
23.10
15.00
13.50
20.70
Saturation Concentration of
J»O(mg/l) *
9.3709
8.6603
8.1137
9.2952
8.7607
8.3870
8.9151
7.9686
9.2764
9.2764
8.6603
7.9061
9.1653
10.5368
8.5621
10.0840
10.4202
8.9677
-------
Appendix E
Table 6. Ratio of Mean Summer Flows to Mean Annual
Flows with r2, by Hydrologic Region
:REG
i
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
IS
~ .QMDLT _lZ"
0.61570
0.51487
0.49160
1.03010
0.46148
0.63766
0.91831
0.70271
1.03865
1.14324
0.80123
0.65310
1.15050
1.15698
1.12585
0.90159
1.17489
0.58765
¥
r2
0.97610
0.98305
0.92584
0.99924
0.99215
0.97408
0.99835
0.99903
0.98480
0.99513
0.97457
0.92625
0.96363
0.99348
0.99650
0.92208
0.98593
0.87646
Velocities are based on estimates also developed by Grayman. These estimates are based on a
compendium of time-of-travel studies. Velocities for the mean summer condition come from a
log-log regression analysis of mean flows versus mean flow velocity by Hydrologic Region.
Table 7 shows the results of this analysis.
October 1999
Final Report
E-35
-------
Appendix E
r—::-
I, | | Table 7. Coefficients for V = VA(9"), with r2, by Hydrologic Region
1
II
iii
ii
£
*
i!"'',i| '
"C=
iii
i ' In
,j .,
:: v,;(: i
'I'"!1 Illlllllll lllllllilP
ll.'l IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIHI
REG
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
VA
0.22185
0.23365
0.21836
0.22574
0.24173
0.23020
0.22324
0.28393
0.18801
0.22650
0.21718
0.21198
0.20999
0.24428
0.26391
0.21151
0.20565
0.19500
VB
0.28841
0.28288
0.29048
0.29507
0.26899
0.28499
0.27796
0.25710
0.30005
0.23037
0.27234
0.27369
0.27549
0.24088
0.17197
0.26507
0.28129
0.30904
r2 '• •'
0.93793
0.94476
0.93925
0.91129
0.90456
0.95693
0.93871
0.94205
0.88882
0.86182
0.87888
0.88289
0.90543
0.88334
0.76953
0.82518
0.91492
0.89871
' 'I Stream Channel Geometry
Stream channel geometry (depth and wetted perimeter), which is used for modeling of TSS and
is!DO, is estimated .using a "stable channel analysis" developed by the U.Sl Bureau of
Essliing&SS (Henderson, 1966). The analysis considers the bed shear in relation to the local
de^A^ ^ch ipoint The result of the analysis is that, given an assumption for the channel side
jSjSJ|||E iKJ 11||^
'" ividing file s|^5:Jjow gy |ge vefocjty:
f'tiiliUi IIM
i ft
l> Il||llllili!lii!ili1i^
-------
Appendix E
where
FLOW = streamflow (fWs)
VEL = stream velocity (ft/s)
AREA = channel cross-section area (ft2).
For the NWPCAM, a 35 degree slope side angle is assumed, which is the angle considered
"typical" hi the exposition by Henderson. Under this assumption, the RF1 reach channel
geometry is computed as
YEAR
P
(AREA 72.86)
Y0 * 0.445
4.99 * Y0
depth at channel center (ft)
• mean depth (ft)
wetted perimeter (ft).
Sediment Delivery Ratios for Rural NPSs
Rural NPSs are modeled as an average annual loading with a SDR applied to each loading. As
described earlier, the SDR is a coefficient which takes into account the losses in pollutant
loadings as the water and pollutants move from across the land, down smaller streams, and then
to the RF1 reach. In the NWPCAM, the relationship described hi Vanoni is used for developing
SDRs in each of the 2,111 cataloging units (CUs). This relationship provides an estimated SDR
as a function of drainage area. The drainage area per mile of Reach is calculated as
AREA
cu
cu
2_,RCHLENGTHSt
(2)
cu
where
ACU = drainage area (mi2) per mile of Reach
AREA = CU area (mi2)
£RCHLENGTHSCU = sum of the lengths of reaches in the CU.
The SDR for each CU is then estimated from the log-log plot from Vanoni as:
SDRCU = 0.422 *Acu<-°-31> .
(3)
Modeling Water Quality Parameter Fate
October 1999
Final Report
E-37
-------
.^ Appendix E
t^El^b^ea on &e following
'Miiiiiiaiiiiiilaan
iter is assumed to be driven by
equation:
4?cay process,
iniiiiMi: i>",, lutiinii an ••it nil in, ''jitwuM ,' I'/iiii'iiiiiiBiw :•; ;i:>:::' • >**i i«i »^^^ •an
iiiifl^^^^^^^^^^ f]r
! !(!H^^^^ ' llllillt iIWUHma.'HIE'/^JH'fMnfU i! MfflWfW !! Li i! iCIH "^ _ v- ... _
:: itniiiji:. jiBi'i ''iiitst: i* lit; i^iiiCiiiiiiiiiiiK'v, iiiaiiiiint i *t,,i iiiiirunu^ ij: ii'iiiiti < jiiiiiiniiiiiinr .'iv"'!.!!:!;:1!,!!11!,!!1!!!1:*!,1 iiiinitiiiiniifinnu^^ =* J\. ^ C .
I::! illpvllK ' iiW dt
BUI iiinni
mi n;JiJiiiiii iii as: aiiiaaj '11111 * ""iiiaati1" iniiitii1 s <:n,, ''; a n ,ni>' IN;
• 11 •l; ,I;;:;II:P" < f luiiiii1 i,iiiii::i' H, \ •• ' ijihiiBi'iniiii!11'!!1' n >nlll ! , ,„ lhl> |r ln> ,„ , , ,
||||||M^
i^1'l«:i»^^^
I
l i.j ' !!«I1(M^^^^^^ <:'ii"i!i!J <' Wi!i
-------
Appendix E
TSS is modeled based on a presumed net settling velocity, V^g, of the particles. Research and
literature searches have found a "typical" range for particle settling to be 0.1 to 1.0 m/d. The
default net settling velocity, V^, used in the NWPCAM is 0.3 m/d, which represents a "fine
grain" particle. Using a given settling velocity, and the estimated mean depth of the
channel,YEAR, a first-order decay process is developed by estimating K^s as
K,
TSS
TSS
(YEAR * 0.3048)
(7)
Fecal Coliforms
FC is modeled as a first-order decay process with the default decay rate, KFCinput, of-0.8/d, with
the following temperature correction:
KFC=KFCI. *1.07,
(8)
where
T = stream temperature (° C).
Dissolved Oxygen
DO modeling is dependent upon several interacting parameters: the oxygen demand from organic
materials (BOD in this model); the Sediment Oxygen Demand, the reaeration from the
atmosphere, and the saturation concentration of DO. The actual modeling is of the DO deficit
from its saturation level, which is useful since the RFF Water Quality Ladder used for the
calculation of economic benefits uses values for the DO deficit. This modeling approach can be
found in various places in the water quality modeling literature. A particularly concise source is
The Temporal and Spatial Distribution of Dissolved Oxygen in Streams by Dr. Donald O'Connor
of Manhattan College.
The Ultimate BOD load is the deoxygenation caused by biochemical oxygen demand. UBOD is
estimated from BODS by the following relationship:
UBOD = 1.46*BOD5
(9)
The Sediment Oxygen Demand, SOD, is a deoxygenation effect caused by the benthic demand of
bottom sediments, and is expressed as grams of oxygen per square meter of bottom area per day.
October 1999
Final Report
E-39
*V;
-------
; finjhe reacli igiaejiaiejy upstream. Reaches ^Q^^ by point sources are
"^ |J™^^^^^^ to have a 5|gher goD because of materials deposited by those point source(s). ffthere
1. If there are point sources
i set to 0.5 g/i
SODjnput is set to 1.5 g/m2/d. This term is then divided by the ratio of the
i, cmssrsection area to.its....wetted perimeter, AllEA/P, to get the correct units for
NWPCAM, the actual modeling is of loads, so the
ie streamflow (in m37s) to get the correct units for
is also adjusted for stream temperature. The final formula is
atiOn of mg/L of O2 demand.
D in g/s.
'tamm. ! 'u
I; 4 :;>
Iilillli , JPIIIIJil,! IS 111!1,!. ili'iliii1,!!', 'PIIHUIIIH^ i|'': n Jlr'nllF" i
(10)
jinijjn^ nnH^ GJIH^ H^^
' ' ill "!' "' ' ' "
fg,P_er day, K2, is the reoxygenation rate and represents the atmpspheric
water with O2. A slow moving, still body of water will have less
extensively studied over many
ii ,h i' ||j • i ' •„ , , ' " • ' i , , I! i. i
years, and various researchers have developed methods for estimating it based on depth and
velocity. The NWPCAM uses the method used hi EPA's WASP model, which combines the
] ; ] ; results from three, researchers: O'Connor-DobbinSj .Owens, and Churchill (Ambrose, 1987).
^liriirf^^Each researcher's studies tended to be in different ranges of depth-velocity combinations. The
form of the equation for estimating K2 is
::jK:2 = REAK *
::::;:.:: :::::;: tt?f VTERM
m
_ ................................ , ........ ................................. , ..... ,
i"'1'1'!!!,;, uninnSiiiaK^ , liiiiiiiiitviiiuiilniiiH iini:! xi iii" "
'
i in* iiiiininniaiiiiiiiiii,]:!'! < jiiiiii'is ii JF !iii'ii:iiiJiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiL:uiiiiiiii ' jnihiiidiiii: ; .i .i I ::m»:, 'iiiiiintiiiiiiiwiiiniiiiiitiiiiii ^ri: I, ' " JIB jiii11"' jiiiiiiiiiiiiiifl
iiiilliliii if . ;ji::n^^^^^^^^ - ,,:::..:
(11)
I III III II III II II II Illlllllllllllllllllllllllllllll I I III 111
i, i|i(iii ,i, p iiif^ (i if)
VELm
= reaeratipn rate i
= velocity ^ti/s)
:^= ';: : : : :; :: : iiYBAR,,, = depth (m).
;-.«; =;• ^,wuwg jv/j ^jj-j^jgjg VTERMj andDTjERM values are ouw;
ii^yiESpecific estimation method for S depends on the stream
:, „;: • is i si -given reach.
in Tab'le 8^ .The ^ _ ,pr
combination in the
...... !!;<||
^ , '"IIPWI "'
iiiiiiH^^^ Jiiiiis ....... i ..... iiili^
:!:iin «,!; ..... -/it;1: .......... yntTiM^^^ ..... iiKiLi:''!'::'!111.';!11)1! ..... iiiBiM^^^^^^ ...... ifi"!!:1 1 iiiii ..... if : liiiiiu i,i!i:!iniiR
iiiffi ...... SK"«M ..... iii ...... ififi? ..... m
:ii!l!IB illlll
'lllillllllliiUI
:*BI
lii'ili'tll
iii^^^^
I
, L,
JS-40 • Final Report October 1999
111, IIICl rlllilK^^ •»BtW^^^^ rait,, • •! iilR !i!K aililZJ^ ItM'Hi BillM lim»!l,,>
lammn^mt liiit iiiiiin
-------
Appendix E
Table 8. Reaeration Calculation Values
""* " - ' * "" i «
••{'"•*'
REAK
VTERM
DTERM
Owens
5.349
0.67
1.85
*'* CJrarchiiuu"",-
^ * "* m •** f 1
5.049
0.969
1.85
- O'Connor-Dobbins
3.93
0.5
1.5
The K2 estimate is then adjusted for temperature as follows:
K2 = K2*1.024(T-20>.
(12)
The Dissolved Oxygen Deficit, DO^f, is the deficit of DO from the saturation concentration. It
is a function of the deoxygenation from UBOD, SOD, and the reaeration as represented by K2.
The formula for computing DO^f is
deft deJO
BOD
K.
'SOD
where
DOdefD = uiitial DO deficit
DOdeft = DO deficit at time t (d)
The actual instream DO is computed as
DO = DOSat - DO,
'Def
(14)
Use Support
Use support is calculated using a modified version of a water quality ladder developed by WJ.
Vaughan for Resources For the Future, by choosing appropriate reference conditions for BOD5,
TSS, DO, and FC that correspond to swimmable, fishable, and beatable quality waters (see Table
9). The RFF water quality ladder parameters are DO, BOD5, turbidity, pH, and FC. For use in
the NWPCAM, two modifications are made to the ladder. First, the original ladder contains pH
as a criterion; pH is not modeled in the NWPCAM, so it is not included. The second
modification is the substitution of TSS for turbidity (JTU). This is a reasonable substitution,
since the original development of the JTU measurements were in terms of controlled TSS
October 1999
Final Report
E-41
-------
'"! ' ' • ! """["; I ' ;""' r,1"'1! % , '""!'; ! "i?!
are ..... directly related. The omission of pH, nutrients, and the other
§gSS,fflilS§ ..... li
'
of these other factors
imii:;i~ ;i
The model cpmputes the beneficial use for river and stream segments of one mile or less by:
(1) deterjnining the values for each water quality parameter, (2) comparing these values to the
~4?r -referenceconditions for meeting each of the beneficial uses, and (3) assigning the beneficial use
to the entiire segment. Use support for any given computational element is based on meeting of
iTEIilSy o"f the four criteria. For instance, if the FC, BOD5, and TSjS limits are met for Swimming,
:^^^^^^^^^ linii| S>rJDQ |§ me! only for Game Fishing, then the computational element is classified
=~8S Gamegishing. Every computational element is assigned a use support classification. If any
" "ig criteria is not met for Boating, then the element is classified as "None", indicating no
" use support.
^ iii -rill
in iiiiiiiiii11 iiiilii iiiiiiiiii iiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i i iiiiiiiiii
in iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii n iiiiiiiiii iiiiiiii i iiiiiiiiiiiii i iiiiin
i iiiiiiiiii i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiii (ii Piiiiiiiiiin^^^ iiiiiiiiiiii||ii
i 11 in 11 i inn iiiiiiiiiiiii i iiiii|iiii iiiii in iiiii iii||iii iiiii in i iiiii iii iiiiiiii|iiii
Ladder
Pill 11 111 I 111 llllllllllllll(lllllllll III I III Illllll Illllll III 111 ill lllllllllllll
III I lllllllll III 111 Illllll 11 Illllll I lllllllllllll 111 lllllllllllll
llllllllillilllllll
lllllllllllll 111
pMW
illlllllM^ til
diiiiiiiiLJiinirEnii luiiiijisi :u
ills
H5i:™5H!! -1"1
T
.Beneficial
:,l::;'-tjse
Drinking
Swimming
Game Fishing
Rough Fishing
Boating
Fecal
Coliforms
(MPN/100 mL)
0
200
1000
1000
2000
Dissolved
Oxygen
(mg/L) /(% sat)
7.0/90
6.5 / 83
5.0/64
4.0/51
3.5/45
5-day
BOD
(mg/L)
0
1.5
3.0
3.0
4.0
, Total
Suspended
Solids (mg/L)
5
10
50
50
100
iii in 11 iiiiiin" 111'
Hill 1111111 illli
in i iiiilii n 11 in in i mil inn n Iiiiiiiiiiiii iiiii in ill i in n n i n i in n i i linn n iiiiii in i in n iiiiiiiiiiiii
lllllllllllll iiiilii ii i |iiii i ii iiiiii^ iiiilii ii|iiiiiii ii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii n i|i mill 111 iiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiliri
,:IIIM i iiiiiiiin iiiiw^ IIIM^ nil i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iii i in iiiii in iiiiiiiiii iii iiiiii ii iiii iiiiiiiiiiiii iii i n i iiiii ii in iiiii iiiii iiiiii i iiiiiiiiii
[^^SSHrasS^lsils IQ |s a sjunmary the number of miles meeting the designated uses as .defined in. the RFF
" ier under baseline and Scenario Phase 1 conditions. Miles are reported for
1 no support, plus changes in miles in each use category.
|||m I;; ; j, ;,i ; | ; | ;; j j • • j
i1 iiiiiiiiiii;;i ipinciiiiiijiiiiijin is iiiiii, •a \::a•. ", npijiiiiii'ininnaiiiie'iiiiiiiifiiin v:v aaiw1 :ni liiNiTmi: ><,, 4 *iiii; ii«, JIIIIK : qiiiini1: iinn ii", fit jiiiiiiihiiiiniiiF: > ,aii'i 'H: ainiii yji1 iiKHiiidi'iiniHiiiiiiii, Jiiiii't'i,, '7' 'i ""iiiiiif s: •. ^ „;:; ^uiiuinigi;'::;!, 1:1
1, : niiiiiinu:" iii i,; Kiiiiiiiiggni'''!!:!!:' '.in e: : ir", < i,,' HIH ii'ii-w'uii'iiiiiaiiiiiiiinii 'iniiKiiiiiiiiiiiiii jHV'Bhiiifliipijii;, jiaii1 an nir'iiiii1 >,;IE iiiiinii IK IFF,, HIP iiiiiiiiiiniiiiniHi' < iiiiiibn11!' jiniEgi''!'!!!!^!!!^'!]!!^!.!^!!!!*!!!! 'iiiiiKHiRn1 it ? ^ IIIIUHII : i, "i,:ii; m* iiniKipiiiiiiiiiii'i
IH'iH^
i i1:,: IKI ai,,i'i i' u1, j,: •• iipiiiiiiHiiiiii1,1! fiipiiiiii'nin11 'ViiiliiiiHiiiiiiiiiiiii,,,ii ,,
I lllllllll|lllll«|>:II ' s \ si JEHU jiri.jiiNinpiiiiiiiiiijiiiiiiiiiiiLiii. :• wi vmt< •
iii:Lfei;:iigig!!;;::iiiiiiig,iiii{IN:!:iii!i!«iiii;ii::iiiiiini!iiiiiiij^ iiiiiiiivjiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
-------
Appendix E
Table 10. Summary of Miles Meeting Designated Uses
Under Baseline and Scenario Phase II Conditions
< *
* Use Support
Swimming, Fishing, and Boating
Fishing and Boating
Boating
No Support
Total Miles
.. » ,-i * Lf«.*jT.
Baseline Miles
(midjl99*0s) \ t
219,547
418,190
480,515
186,589
667,104
'"-:tv ,;
Phase II Miles '
•* i-
223,674
422,738
483,451
183,653
667,104
Change in Miles *-
(Phase H- Baseline)
4,127
4,548
2,936
-2,936
n/a
Economic Benefits
Literature review indicates that the Carson-Mitchell study (1993) represents the best available
source of nationally derived values on in-situ and existence services and, thus, is used here to
develop the benefits of the Phase II controls for construction sites and automatically designated
municipalities. For determining economic benefits, the willingness to pay (WTP) values
estimated by Carson and Mitchell are updated to 1998 values. The WTP values are
$210/household/year for Beatable, $158/household/year for Fishable, and $177/household/year
for Swimmable waters. Also, since the populations in the NWPCAM databases are for 1990, the
populations are uniformly increased by 8% to reflect the U.S. population growth from 1990 to
1998.
To apply WTP estimates to valuing local changes in water quality where only a subset of the
waters are affected, Mitchell and Carson (1986) describe three "multipliers." First, ^percent-
local multiplier, which defines the percentage of the stated WTP amount that is applied
specifically to water quality improvements in the local area in question. Second, an impairment
removal multiplier to describe how WTP changes in relation to the fraction of local water that
improves (the stated WTP applies to improvements in virtually all unpaired waters). And third, a
population multiplier, which is simply the size of the population benefitting from the local
improvement in water quality.
Percent-local Multiplier: In their survey, Mitchell and Carson asked respondents to apportion
each of then- stated WTP values between achieving the water quality goals in their own state and
achieving those goals in the nation as a whole. On average, respondents allocated 67 percent of
their values to achieving in-state water quality goals and the remainder to the nation as a whole.
Mitchell and Carson argue that for valuing local (substate) water quality changes, 67 percent is a
reasonable upper bound for the local multiplier. For the purposes of this analysis the locality is
defined as urban sites and associated populations linked into the NWPCAM framework.
October 1999
Final Report
E-43
-------
1
!•
| 1 I
in in iiiiiii 1 iiiiiiiiii 11 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiH iiiiiii
ill i iiiiiii n in n in ini
Will mill 1 |i Illlli III
i
i i in ill ill HI 'in
MI nil IIP iiiiiiPi
I1!1
III 11 II II 111 111 III II 11
ii^liiii'iiikiiiiiiiii
i
lignum mi in iiiniiiiliiiiini
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
i
•i|in mi i nil ill iininni i n |ini iiiiini
1 111 111 111 I |H IIP lililillllllllll
MI in in
HI 1 fill 11
inn i n in in niiini|i
1 111 II IPli ll'il III Illlllll
•11111 1
Appendix E
ill Mil I III11! if i Sill Iiiiiiiiii! liM IIIIIUR^
ipairment Removal Multiplier: Mitchell and Carson define a simple multiplier that is
essentially the fraction of total local water that is initially below a beneficial use target (boatable,
fishable, swimmable) but that would attain the target as a result of a policy change. As a lower-
bound approximation, it is assumed that the WTP for partial attainment of the specific targets
varies in direct proportion to this multiplier. Therefore, for each beneficial use category, the
Multiplier is calculated at every urban site that is projected to attain the level of use support as a
htfSi&tof Jne_policy.
1 'I I
lulation Multiplier: The affected gogulatioii is defined as the number of households living in
Ity of a water quality improvement. The populations are based on the Census
associated with each urban site in the NWPCAM. For each beneficial use category,
attains the level of use as a result i
,
]|g ...... defined ..... boun9aries ..... of a^popSated pjace, then each household wiSn the populated
ace :is included in the multiplier.
| .....
benefits analyses use a definition of "local" that differs from the original
1^ Survey, which considered "local" as "state". In this analysis, "local" waters are
that are located near each of the enhanced population locations. The
'.i,, , , ' '' ,' i,' „, , | •* r, ........... ....... , ......... • , ........
P depends on whether it is a Census Populated Place or an MCD. For
^^^ Populated Places, a circle with an equivalent area to the Place | was drawn, centered on the Place
^l^ng 'coordinate as given by the Census Bureau. Any RF 1 ' reaches "that fell in whole or in
S~ ...... TIT. ™.£irparf: within that circle is considered "local" to that Place. For MCDs, the closest RF1 reach is
Dnsjderedjhg ...... "1°,£2E ..... water, "Local" benefits ...... are ...... computed based on use support changes on
Nfjjhe ..... RF1 ....... rgches that ..... are ..... "local" ..... to ....... each population location. The totals for miles and economic
lefits also fully incorporate the construction sites "small streams" results.
^•^ :S7=™m3^l® !„! §k°,w,§ the total number of households that are assocjate,diiiwi&i|itheiiii"lgcal: waters",that
reflect increases in use support. The number of households is computed by dividing the
"; the average household size. Note that even though the miles that
change use support is a small percentage of the total miles in the NWPCAM, the numbers of
::F "households "associated with these changes is quite significant. Resultantly, the magnitude of the
: is a|so significant because the geater is the number of households associated
Ivith local waters the greater is the magnitude of economic benefits according to the economic
ffieory for environmental goods.
"If!
vmssi iiw^^^
iipiiiiiilrifi'iiiidiiiii'ilu ''ffi'PiinipipaiiniiiipiiPPijniiniipiiiiins
i|iii!iii|iiiiiiiiiii«iiNiiiiiiii;iiiiiiiiiiiiii||iiiiiiiil<,;i!'ill!ii«iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilii
f ilii'lliilllHIJiillliil IPI^Jlllllllillliiillllllllllllllllllii, l filllllllBin! i HPIlillilPill
^iliiqilllllllllVlililllllliyilbillilllllEll^^
inn
ililllP'U1!1!!!1!"!:1
iliiliiijiRlGili1"!]
i!;,:<;!!lil; iniiill" Ilillt^liiillllllliilliill^^ I'1! I'l'lllllGillB
iiipiifiiiiiiiiiiiiniEii, isii r' P iiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiinniihiLii inr jiiiiiniiiiiiii|iniii:Jiiiii!ii
il« IIIH^^^^^^^^^^^^
iV;IM^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
.Fjjftal Report
Octo^er J9"
...... » ..... iiiiiiiiii ..... yjixtnw ..... iis
;:!i!B^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ........ m: .......... 31%
• ........ IPI, t:~iiiii^in^^^^^^^^^^^^
-------
Appendix E
Table 11. Households Associated with "Local" Waters that reflect Increase
in Use Support Under Phase II Rule
V- f X *" > * •* ~-
-- 1- , ' j t * Use Support
Swimming, Fishing and Boating
Fishing and Boating
Boating
4 " - - Households (millions)
24.2
25.7
23.4
To apply Mitchell-Carson results to value nonlocal water quality changes, a similar approach is
used. For each category of beneficial use, the fraction of WTP that is assumed to be for local
water quality changes only (67 percent) is deducted, which leaves 33 percent (of total WP to
attain each use target) for nonlocal water quality changes. This value is multiplied by the
fraction of previously impaired national waters (in each use category) that attain the beneficial
use as a result of the policy. To measure aggregate national WTP for nonlocal water quality '
improvements, we then multiply this value by the total number of households hi the U.S. Using
the methodologies described above, Table 12 summaries the local and nonlocal benefit estimates
due to Phase II controls.
Table 12. Local and Nonlocal Benefits Estimates Due to Stormwater Phase II Controls
•^ | i- VrfcV ^
V-— * 3j nK,j. VdC ^ »• jf
*-*«•' It* * ~
* CSUPP°rt> »,„
Swimming, Fishing, and
Boating
Fishing and Boating
Boating
Total
JLocal Benefits
($miffion/yr)
306.2
395.1
700.1
1,401.4
- Nonlocal Jfenjeflts[l «lps,
($miffipn/yr)\ ^
60.6
51.9
114.6
227.1
- Total Benefits ,
^ (Smillion/yr)
366.8
447.0
814.7
1,628.5
The total estimated benefits of Phase II controls for 120, 047 construction sites and 5,038
automatically designated municipalities in urbanized areas are $1,628.5 million per year. It is
worthwhile to note that while the numbers of miles that are estimated to change their use support
seem small, the benefits estimates are quite significant. This is because the vast majority of the
water quality changes occur where the people live, and the NWPCAM modeling "captures" this
phenomenon.
October 1999
Final Report
Er-45
-------
iiiiii
I
MB Hlllfii:
jif^i'IisjOfe ..... n$odej[ ..... estimgtes^ ..... that ..... implementation of Phase II controls, without the consideration
teir use support seems smal, the frenfs estimates are
effects are primarily local. A strength of the
it applies the broad-based policies while also being able to model at the local
=]evel. tM»aniiiinmc^iiand2ito a large extent construction activity, occurs"where tire people reside.
: immediately at and
dy|l^mce downstream of the pollution changes. 'This is because riverS| "treat" the wastes
' "1 "
: occur in a wastewater treatment plant) as it moves downstream.
• a given stream or river, the "memory" of the pollution hi the river can be
i or35 mile^^ownstream! TTGerefore'^ consols on^eppni^oia sources mosti^
"!U!!_^ Sffio^ove m^waleT quality neir'wHere the controls are hi place, which is also where the people
The benefits estimates hi this analysis are derived using conservative assumptions of the
i control effectiveness of the Phase II program. The Phase I and Phase II urban runoff
.i cor^jjgjjj|edjji this analysis employ pollutant removals that are characteristic of detention
i_^ basins. j|l|ejrnative sejisjtivity analyses assume dlWerent levels of control, such as §0% or 80%
: removals"for urban run off. Supplemental analyses in conjunction with these
idlcate'tSat controTs in th'e 60% to 8"0% range" will increase tile economic SeneBts
lates m3f$fi£2&ffi$2QO million to $300 million, respectively.
inS nitttftfiltwiuMMfcii1 si!*!! uWi; aitii IEM IM^ »;
I Hill |
l1: lllliCi.' I"1 II!":!', Hi'lnli! Illli Jill
•li,1'"
isults can be considered 'quite robust, since model sensitivity analyses have consistently
shown that the benefits estimates are quite stable, even under assumptions of large changes in
model input values. As an example, tests were done in conjunction with this analysis assuming
ie construction site loads are off by +/- 25%. The resultant local economic benefits
estimates^Qw_acharige of only +/- 5%. It is worthwhile to note that sensitivity analyses
performed on the NWPCAM indicate that the system estimates of changes hi use support are
fairly steady under changes in flow regimes. For instance, a global change of +/- 25% hi flow
yields a change of approximately +/- 14% or less hi miles of change of use support when
•^comparing a scenario to a baseline run! Other tests indicate that the resultant change hi economic
': ' ' 14%. ,. ,' ', " " ' '
e;jA^^ !iAiim M iiriiH^
:KM^^ «i«iHn^ rwr ici ''aiiiiiiiM^^^^^^
iiiM^^^
:ss uoproved modeling of wet weather runoff events.
Some methodologies that could be applied include use of a stochastic process that would
l^:^fL:•ZfI~'=^:5I^3!^r^^!:::!:l~:^: ~~^^^^^^^^^^^
October 1999
-------
Appendix E
randomize events at various urban sites, using a pattern that reflects the statistical distributions of
storm events. Other areas include using the NWPCAM for forecasting by applying growth
factors to the loadings; this could be implemented fairly easily once these factors are determined.
Another area is evaluation of Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) policies. The NWPCAM is
unique in being able to integrate most of the individual discharger and watershed-wide processes
on a national scale, which can facilitate use for TMDL policy analysis.
October 1999
Final Report
E-47
-------
IS^
ihlllllllllllijiiilhlilllliilillllii
Fininnnniiiniiiii''''!!'!!!!!!!!!!:
!WvflH$ij||BI
I" I IIIIIIIIII lllpllH I ill IIIIIIII 111 III III II 111 111IIIIII 111 III I 111 111 III I 111 II Illlll I 111II III 11 III III
II
1 11111111 11IIIII
Ambrose, R.B., et al. 1987. Wasp4, a Hydrodynamic and Water Quality Model - Model Theory,
::'±±:~'t&crfr Manual and Programmer's Guide. EPA/600/3-87/039. Environmental Research
Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Athens, Georgia.
I i
llliiill Illlll Hi lliijllllllilllllli Illlll lilift
Iii)' mini i1, i iiiiiiiiiiiiH ii1 iiiliii llliiiii 111 'HI it! HIM 11111 "iiiiiiiiii i i i iiiiiiiiiiii • iiiiiii i i I i. ijf "i"; .,,. » i
R. T, and R. C. Mitchell. 1993. The value of clean water: the public's willingness to pay
|Jr'''Eoatable! SSGaEIeT^wmTmaSKe^wa^qualily, Water Resources Research, 29(7), July.
'a ta^^^ "mm iiis ]
aii'i'ra^^^ iiiH^ I
NIL IIIIHIIIIIIIIIIIH^ ;::nil|lllllH^ IIHIIKIIW^^ iiHIIIHIil^^
FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 1987. 36 Dgem: the 36 Sector Dynamic
^GeneralEquilibrium Model. Final report. Washington, DC.
" ' '" ' ' :K^ iiL'iiiiiiiiiJi1! liiii llllilll Jill!11
iin ii|iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiLiniiiiiii • iiiiii.ni1 w, iiiiiiiiii|iiiiiiiiiiiiiriiiiiii::iniiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiriiiiii! iii'iiiiiiniiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiPiPi in niiiiiiiiiinnnnnnjK,.: iiiiniiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii||:F!ii:iiniiii:iiinni; 'ininiH iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiviiiiiiiiiniJiiiniiiiiiiiiiiiiiiTiiiiiiiinPiiiiiiiiT" HIIH«I iiiiiiiiiiiLiiiiiiiiii'iiiiiniK.!!:,nnHnnnnnnniiiiiininiinninni'iiiiuiiiin ii'ininnJiiinninniiiiiiiinnH juiiiiii": ni!iiiiiiiiiiii|iii|iiiiiiiii;.'i jiiinnninnninwiiiii'innniinniiinniipniniinniiinnnniiiiiiinnnEiiiiniiniiiii'iiiinn IIINU iiiiuiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiaiiiiiiniiniii 'hiiiiiiiinniiniinr "i,ni* nniinnniinini.!!!!:. •' m.1. "< «» ««nnnnnn i" n n«m nnnnnnnn
Jrrf^j'ri'i'&r Gianessi, L.P., and H.M. Peskin. 1981. Analysis of national water pollution control policies: 2.
''• " ' ' ' " '" s secdmelDSconEoT Water ^g^^as Research, 77(4):803-82i.
Grayman, W.G 1982. Estimation of Stream/lows and the Reach File. Prepared for U.S.
'i« Environmental Protection Agency.
Henderson, F.M. 1966. Open Channel Flow. Macmillan Publishing Company, Inc., New York.
™™" ^"""'Kn^pman^ D*! S™ a^RTA! Smith" 1 "993~' 36 y-e"5-s" oTtEe'Oean Water Act. g^^——gw^ 35(1): j5.
~E~ 41.
Frits van der5 F- Tro*se> D- Todd- * "°- The Water Encyclopedia. Lewis Publishers.
Lettenmaier, D.P., E.R. Hooper, C. Wagoner, and K.B. Paris, Trends in stream quality in the
' ...... ....... ...... ....... ...... ~"
, 1991.
^mfiHiiQ^'K^i L^y^j'^y" g—g— g- gg^iiges 'in crqpIanH loadings to siirface waters: Interim report No. 1 for
the development of the SCS National Water Quality Model, Purdue University, West
••
"''" ' ;;;" !
Mmm& jfiijmi mmm
i"! j---|—'g|~g—'g™ a^ B^rVara'D'unRelberg, Wafer'quafity and agricultural policies in the
1990s: Interanau^poit'Na 3 for Sevelopinent oFfne SCS' National Water Quality Model,
:, IN, 1990.
Metcalf«fe Eddy, Inc., Wastewater Engineering: Collection, Treatment, Disposal. 1970.
Mcgraw-Hill.
iiiiiii iiiiiii iiii i iiiii in 11 iiiiiii i
lli'liliillllilir iiii iiiii i mi nil" iiiiiii ii iiii
L, R. C. and R.T. Carson, 1986. Valuing Drinking Water Risk Reductions Using
Contingent Valuation Method: A Methodology Study of Risk from THM and Giardia.
Washington DC: Resources for the Future. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental
Iii •
E-48
Final Report
October 1999
I ii
-------
Appendix E
Protection Agency.
Tetra Tech, Support to the 1992 Needs Survey CSO Cost Assessment, CSO water quality
modeling; draft report, EPA Contract #68-C9-0013, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, DC, 1993.
Tetra Tech, Inc. and Andrew Stoddard. 1998. Progress in Water Quality: An Evaluation of the
Benefits of the 1972 Clean Water Act. Draft Report to EPA.
United States Army Corps of Engineers, Chicago, IL. Analysis of Best Management Practices
for Small Construction Sites. June 1998. Report to EPA.
U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency), Environmental and information systems
compendium, EPA 500-9-90-002, Office of Water, Washington, DC, 1990.
U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 1992a. National Environmental Benefits of
Secondary Treatment: a Retrospective Look at Progress Made under the 1992 Clean
Water Act. Draft. Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 1992b. National Water Quality Inventory: 1990
Report to Congress. EPA 503/9-92/006. Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency), Water quality inventory of twenty-two major
waterways (preliminary draft), Washington, DC, 1992c.
U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency), A Primer on the Office of Wastewater
Enforcement and Compliance and Its Programs, Office of Wastewater Enforcement and
Compliance, Office of Water, Washington, DC, 1993a.
U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency), Draft national water quality inventory: 1992
report to Congress, Washington, DC, 1993b.
Vanoni, V.A. (Ed.). 1975. Sedimentation Engineering. American Society of CivilJSngineers,
New York. NY.
Vaugn, W.J.. The Water Quality Ladder. Unpublished Report.
October 1999
Final Report
E-49
-------
"' ' iiiJiiiS^^^
•ill, illihJi riRilillFJ."*! iliiiNl'li"
jLiiiiiiiilijiiiiliiwiMn'!' ill"''!' iiiiiiPiiinBi'''!!!'!! „ '•, i i' liniiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii! r'liaiuiiiiiipLiHiiiiiiijiiiiii' li'iiiiipniiiiliiiipiii'' liiiiiiii Jtlim!' "Si!"iiisi
1 ,'llllri!! fl M. Illllllli It nlllil;
iriMtgriiW
,: ..... iiiiiiiiigfiiiggiiii:;:!, ...... iLiiiiiiiE1;:::!!!!:^!!!!!!
'.',!! iiiij ll!!ii! tlillllHM^^ Ik1!'HP1: I' i,!!h mHHiFI iliil1: V^^^^^^^^^^^^
JIWI! ii"'PtiXiil:rill, ''f\\l JiKII,<
-------