Economic Analysis for the Water Quality Standards Regulatory Clarifications (Proposed Rule)

                                   July 2013

                     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                                Office of Water
                       Office of Science and Technology
                         1200 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W.
                            Washington, D.C. 20460

Table of Contents
1.	Introduction	1-1
1.1	Background	1-1
1.2	Scope of the Analysis	1-2
1.3	Organization of this Report	1-2
2.	Baseline and Proposed Rule	2-1
2.1	Administrator's Determinations	2-1
2.1.1	Current Regulatory Framework	2-1
2.1.2	Proposed Revisions	2-1
2.2	Designated Uses	2-1
2.2.1	Current Regulatory Framework	2-2
2.2.2	Proposed Revisions	2-2
2.3	Triennial Reviews	2-3
2.3.1	Current Regulatory Framework	2-3
2.3.2	Proposed Revision	2-3
2.4	Antidegradation	2-3
2.4.1	Current Regulatory Framework	2-3
2.4.2	Proposed Revisions	2-4
2.5	Variances	2-5
2.5.1	Current Regulatory Framework	2-5
2.5.2	Proposed Revisions	2-5
2.6	Compliance Schedule Authorizing Provision	2-6
2.6.1	Current Regulatory Framework	2-6
2.6.2	Proposed Revisions	2-7
3.	Potential Incremental Costs and Burdens of the Proposed Revisions	3-1
3.1	Data and Methods	3-1
3.2	Estimated Burden and Costs	3-2
3.2.1	Rulemaking Activities	3-2
3.2.2	Administrator's Determinations	3-3
3.2.3	Designated Uses	3-3
3.2.4	Antidegradation	3-5
3.2.5	Variances	3-9
3.2.6	Summary of Estimated Burden and Costs to States and Tribes	3-13
3.3	Estimated Burden and Costs to the Agency	3-13
3.4	Summary of Potential Burden, Costs, and Uncertainties	3-15
4.	Potential Incremental Benefits of the Proposed Revisions	4-1
4.1	Benefits by Proposed Program Area Change	4-1
4.1.1	Administrator's Determinations	4-1
4.1.2	Designated Uses	4-2
4.1.3	Triennial Reviews	4-3
4.1.4	Antidegradation	4-3
4.1.5	Variances	4-4
4.1.6	Compliance Schedule Authorizing Provisions	4-5
4.2	Benefits of Improved Water Quality	4-6
4.2.1	Market Benefits	4-6
4.2.2	Nonmarket Benefits	4-8
5.	References	5-1
Appendix A. If the EPA Required Adoption of Antidegradation Implementation Methods as WQS	A-1

List of Exhibits

Exhibit 3-1: Summary of State Government Average Hourly Wage Rates (2010 $)	3-2
Exhibit 3-2: Potential One-time Burden and Costs Associated with Rulemaking Activities	3-3
Exhibit 3-3: Potential Annual Burden and Costs Associated with Proposed Revisions to Designated Use Provisions[1]	3-4
Exhibit 3-4: Potential Annual Burden and Costs Associated with Choosing Pollution Prevention Alternative in Tier 2 Antidegradation Requests	3-7
Exhibit 3-5: Potential Annual Burden and Costs Associated with Providing Tier 2 Protection for Waters where at least one of the uses specified in CWA section 101(a)(2) is attained	3-9
Exhibit 3-6: Potential Annual Burden and Costs Associated with Additional Documentation Requirements for Variance Submissions	3-11
Exhibit 3-7: Potential Annual Burden and Costs Associated with Renewing Variances	3-13
Exhibit 3-8: Summary of Potential Incremental Administrative Burdens and Costs Associated with the Proposed Rule	3-13
Exhibit 3-9: Potential Incremental Burden and Costs to the Agency Associated with the Proposed Rule	3-15
Exhibit 3-10: Summary of Potential Incremental Administrative Burdens and Costs Associated with the Proposed Rule to States, Tribes, and the Agency	3-16
Exhibit 3-11: Uncertainties in the Analysis	3-16
Exhibit A-1: Potential One-time Burden and Costs Associated with Developing or Revising  and adopting Antidegradation Implementation Methods as WQS	A-2
Exhibit A-2: Summary of Potential Incremental Administrative Burdens and Costs Associated with the Proposed Rule, including Requirement to Adopt Antidegradation Implementation Methods as WQS	A-3
Exhibit A-3: Potential Incremental Burden and Costs to the Agency Associated with the Proposed WQS Regulation Revisions, including Requirement to Adopt Antidegradation Implementation Methods as WQS	A-4
Exhibit A-4: Summary of Potential Incremental Administrative Burdens and Costs Associated with the Proposed Rule to States, Tribes, and the Agency	A-5

Acronyms and Abbreviations

BLS			Bureau of Labor Statistics
CWA			Clean Water Act
EPA			Environmental Protection Agency
FTE			Full-time equivalent
GS			General Schedule
HAU			Highest attainable use
ICIS			Integrated Compliance Information System
IDNR			Iowa Department of Natural Resources
MODNR		Missouri Department of Natural Resources
NPDES		National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
OES			Occupational employment statistics
ONRW		Outstanding National Resources Water
PCS			Permit Compliance System
States and tribes	States, authorized tribes, and territories
TAS			Treatment-as-state
TMDL			Total maximum daily load
UAA			Use attainability analysis
WQBEL		Water quality-based effluent limit
WQS			Water Quality Standards

Introduction
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (the EPA) is proposing changes to specific program areas of its Water Quality Standards (WQS) regulation at 40 CFR part 131. This report provides discussion and analysis of the potential costs and benefits that may be associated with these proposed revisions.
Background
Section 303 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires states, authorized tribes, and territories ("states and tribes") to specify designated uses for water bodies within their jurisdictions. These uses reflect the national goals for water quality defined in section 101(a)(2) of the CWA as the "protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife, and recreation in and on the water." States and tribes can also designate uses other than those specified in section 101(a)(2) such as public water supply, agricultural water supply, industrial use, and navigational use.
Once states and tribes designate the uses of waters under their jurisdiction, they must establish water quality criteria protective of the designated uses. The EPA's regulations at §131.11(a)(1) provide that states and tribes shall "adopt those water quality criteria that protect the designated use," and that such criteria "must be based on sound scientific rationale and must contain sufficient parameters or constituents to protect the designated use." States and tribes must also adopt antidegradation policies to protect and maintain high quality waters, and existing uses of all waters, and identify specific methods to implement those policies (§131.12).
To remove a designated use under section 101(a)(2), the EPA's regulations require a use attainability analysis (UAA). As an alternative to removing designated uses, states and tribes may also allow variances from WQS. A variance is a time-limited designated use and water quality criteria targeted to a specific pollutant(s), permittee(s), and water body or water body segment. Variances are different from changes to the permanent designated use and associated criteria in that they provide states and tribes time to improve water quality when there is uncertainty regarding whether the WQS is ultimately attainable and/or what the highest attainable use (HAU) could be.
The EPA regulation requires that states and tribes hold a public hearing to review applicable WQS and gain input from the public at least once every three years (i.e., a "triennial review"). Public hearings on WQS provide an essential opportunity for the public to become involved in the WQS setting process, provide input, and make their concerns known to public officials. In addition, the regulation requires states and tribes to consider whether any new information has become available, and revise standards accordingly, if uses specified in section 101(a)(2) of the Act that were previously unattainable are now attainable. The results of these reviews, regardless of whether the review results in the state or authorized tribe making revisions to their regulation, along with any information supporting a WQS revision (e.g., UAA, methodologies for site-specific criteria, general information aiding in determining a submission's adequacy), must be submitted to the EPA for review and approval.
The EPA is proposing to revise the current WQS regulation to address several issues governing Administrator's determinations, designated uses, antidegradation, variances to WQS, triennial reviews, and provisions authorizing the use of permit-based compliance schedules.
Scope of the Analysis
This report provides estimates of the potential administrative costs that may result from the proposed regulatory revisions, above and beyond the costs associated with implementation of the current WQS regulation. Because the proposed regulation does not establish any requirements directly applicable to regulated entities, the focus of this analysis is the potential impact on states and tribes. Although some of the proposed provisions may lead to increased administrative costs, some of these costs may be offset by reduced costs resulting from improved understanding of the WQS regulation and clarification of the requirements of certain provisions. This analysis does not address this potential for offsetting reductions in administrative costs.
Organization of this Report
The remainder of this report is organized as follows:
Section 2 describes the specific WQS program areas to which the EPA is proposing changes, and the proposed regulatory revisions.
Section 3 describes the data and method for estimating the administrative costs that may be associated with the proposed revisions, and the results.
Section 4 qualitatively describes the benefits that may be associated with the proposed revisions.
Section 5 provides references.

Baseline and Proposed Rule
The EPA is proposing changes to specific program areas of the WQS regulation at 40 CFR part 131. This section describes the current regulatory framework and the proposed regulatory revisions in the following program areas: Administrator's determinations, designated uses, triennial reviews, antidegradation, variances, and compliance schedule authorizing provisions.
Administrator's Determinations
Section 303(c)(4)(B) of the CWA requires the EPA Administrator to promptly prepare and publish proposed regulations setting forth new or revised WQS when the Administrator determines that new or revised standards are necessary to meet the requirements of the Act.
Current Regulatory Framework
Currently, the EPA Administrator uses discretion in issuing determinations, after evaluating all relevant factors. After a state or tribe submits its adopted WQS, the EPA has 60 days to approve the standards, or 90 days to disapprove the standards and to specify changes necessary for compliance with the regulations. If the state or tribe does not adopt the recommended changes, or the EPA Administrator determines that additional WQS are necessary to meet the requirements of the CWA, then the EPA is responsible for promptly promulgating new or revised WQS.
The current process by which the Administrator determines that new or revised federal standards are necessary is not always clearly understood or interpreted by the public and stakeholders. In some instances, this lack of understanding has led to a mistaken conclusion that the EPA has made a 303(c)(4)(B) determination when, in fact, the EPA has not made and does not intend to make one. For example, Agency memoranda or documents articulating areas where states and tribes' WQS may need improvements have sometimes been construed or alleged by stakeholders to be official Administrator determinations that obligate the EPA to propose and promulgate federal WQS for such states and tribes.
Proposed Revisions
The EPA is proposing to amend §131.22 to add a requirement that an Administrator's determination must be signed by the Administrator or his or her duly authorized delegate, and must include a statement that the document is a determination under section 303(c)(4)(B) of the CWA.
The proposed revision would allow the EPA to effectively provide direct, clear, and transparent feedback on state and tribal actions, and to maintain an open and constructive dialogue with states, tribes and stakeholders on important water quality issues without potentially triggering a mandatory duty on the part of the EPA to develop WQS before either a state, tribe, or the Agency believes such a course is appropriate and necessary.
The burden and cost implications of the proposed revisions regarding Administrator's determinations on states and tribes are discussed in Section 3.2.2.
Designated Uses
Designated uses communicate a state's or tribe's environmental management objectives for its waters and drive on-the-ground water quality decision-making and improvements. Designated uses are a key component of a water quality standard and, as such, play an important role in the effective implementation of the CWA.
Current Regulatory Framework
Under section 303 (33 U.S.C. 1313) of the CWA, states and tribes are required to develop WQS for waters of the United States within their state or tribe. WQS shall include a designated use or uses to be made of the water and criteria necessary to protect the uses (CWA 303(c)(2)(A)). The CWA specifies that public water supplies, propagation of fish and wildlife, recreation, agricultural uses, industrial uses and navigation are the beneficial uses to be considered by states and tribes in establishing WQS. Designated uses are defined at §131.3(f) as the "uses specified in WQS for each water body or segment whether or not they are being attained." A "use" is a particular function of, or activity in, a particular water body that requires a specific level of water quality.
States and tribes have flexibility when managing their designated uses as long as they meet the requirements of the CWA and the implementing regulation. Specifically, the WQS regulation requires states and tribes to conduct a UAA when designating uses that do not include the uses specified in section 101(a)(2) of the CWA, when removing a designated use specified in section 101(a)(2) of the Act, or when adopting sub-categories of such uses which require less stringent criteria.
Proposed Revisions
The EPA is proposing to amend paragraph (g) at §131.10 to provide that where a state or tribe demonstrates through the UAA process that a use specified in section 101(a)(2), or a sub-category of such a use, is not attainable, then the state or tribe shall adopt the highest attainable use and criteria that protect such a use (HAU). The HAU is defined in the proposed rule as "the aquatic life, wildlife, and/or recreation use that is found to be both closest to the uses specified in section 101(a)(2) of the Act and are feasible to attain, as determined using best available data and information through an appropriate UAA." The purpose of identifying and adopting the HAU after conducting a defensible UAA is to ensure protection of whatever aquatic life, wildlife, or recreation use and criteria that are feasible to attain in light of the associated UAA data evaluation and public process.
The proposed rule offers examples of how states and tribes may choose to articulate the HAU:
Use a refined designated use structure that is already adopted into state or tribal regulation.
Revise the current designated use structure to include more refined uses and/or sub-categories of uses.
Designate a location-specific use and adopt criteria to protect that use.
The EPA is also proposing to add the definition of HAU, as defined in the proposed rule, to §131.3(m). In addition, the EPA is proposing clarifying changes to 131.10(g), 131.10(j), and 131.10(k) to clarify when a UAA is required and when a UAA is not required. The burden and cost implications of the proposed revisions regarding designated uses on states and tribes are discussed in Section 3.2.3.
Triennial Reviews
Public hearings on WQS provide an essential opportunity for the public to become involved in the WQS setting process, provide input, and make their concerns known to public officials.
Current Regulatory Framework
Sections 303(a) through (c) of the CWA require that states and tribes adopt WQS applicable to their interstate and intrastate waters and that the EPA review and approve or disapprove these standards within 60 or 90 days, respectively. Section 303(c)(1) further requires states and tribes to hold public hearings at least once every three years for the purpose of reviewing applicable WQS and, as appropriate, modifying and adopting new or revised standards. Any such revised standards must be submitted to the EPA for review and approval or disapproval.
The results of these reviews, regardless of whether the review results in the state or authorized tribe making revisions to their regulation, along with any information supporting a WQS revision (e.g., UAA, methodologies for site-specific criteria, general information aiding in determining a submission's adequacy), must be submitted to the EPA for review.
Proposed Revision
§131.20(a) requires that any water body segment with WQS that do not include the designated uses specified in CWA section 101(a)(2) be re-examined and updated if new information becomes available to indicate that previously unattainable CWA 101(a)(2) uses are now attainable. However, because §131.20(a) does not include a parallel statement regarding water quality criteria, states and tribes might not re-evaluate their existing water quality criteria once every three years to ensure the criteria continue to be protective of the designated uses, even if new information such as the EPA's new or updated 304(a) recommendations has become available. Although the CWA and WQS regulation clearly require states and authorized tribes to review the applicable WQS at least once every three years, including designated uses and criteria, the EPA is proposing to include an explicit reference to 304(a) recommended criteria at 131.20(a), to parallel the existing reference to designated uses.
Because the proposed revision regarding triennial reviews clarifies an existing requirement and does not establish a new regulatory requirement, the EPA estimates that this revision is unlikely to result in incremental burden and costs to states and tribes.
Antidegradation
The CWA antidegradation provisions are intended to help states and tribes protect and maintain high quality waters, as well as waters identified as outstanding national resource waters, and existing uses. While designated uses and criteria are tools states and tribes use to achieve the CWA 101(a)(2) goals, antidegradation complements these tools by providing additional protection for high quality waters that are already achieving the CWA goals.
Current Regulatory Framework
Currently, state and tribal antidegradation policies must provide protection for existing uses of all waters of the state or tribe, whether or not the waters are of high quality. The current rule requires that states and tribes adopt specific antidegradation policies and identify methods for implementing such policy (§131.12). The regulation also requires that, where thermal discharges are involved, the antidegradation policy and implementation methods must be consistent with section 316 of the CWA.
Generally, states and tribes establish their antidegradation policies in three tiers:
   > Tier 1 protects the existing uses for all water bodies.
   > Tier 2 protects high quality waters with water quality higher than necessary to attain all CWA 101(a)(2) goals. States and tribes develop methods to determine whether and when the lowering of water quality in Tier 2 waters is necessary. When allowing the lowering of water quality, however, states and tribes must ensure that existing uses are protected.
   > Tier 3 protects water quality in Outstanding National Resources Waters (ONRWs), which are established by states and tribes. No lowering of water quality is allowed for these waters.
States and tribes adopt antidegradation policies into their WQS and submit them to the EPA for review and approval. States and tribes also must identify the implementation methods used to implement their antidegradation policy. States and tribes continue to have the flexibility to, but are not required to, adopt antidegradation implementation methods directly into regulation or through incorporation by reference, as long as the state or tribe meets the requirements of §131, Subpart C. Although the current WQS regulation requires that states and tribes adopt antidegradation polices and identify implementation methods, it does not contain specific implementation requirements nor specify the nature and degree of the EPA's authority over implementation.
Proposed Revisions
The proposed rule requires that states and tribes ensure they provide antidegradation protection consistent with §131.12(a).
Specifically, the EPA is proposing that states and tribes:
   > Identify high quality waters on either a parameter-by-parameter basis or water body-by-water body basis, provided waters are not excluded from Tier 2 protection solely because not all of the uses specified in CWA section 101(a)(2) are attained.
   > Make a finding that lowering high water quality is necessary, per 131.12(a)(2), only after conducting an alternatives analysis that evaluates a range of non-degrading and minimally degrading practicable alternatives that have the potential to prevent or minimize the degradation associated with the proposed activity. If the State can identify any practicable alternatives, the State must choose one of those alternatives to implement when authorizing a lowering of high water quality.
Reviewing antidegradation requests that include alternatives analyses will result in potential incremental burden and costs for states and tribes that do not already do so. In addition, prohibiting the denial of Tier 2 protection solely because not all of the uses specified in CWA section 101(a)(2) are attained may potentially result in increased burden and costs by increasing the number of Tier 2 antidegradation reviews by states and tribes that currently engage in such practices. The burden and cost implications of the proposed revisions regarding requiring alternative analyses, and prohibiting the denial of Tier 2 protection solely because not all of the uses specified in CWA section 101(a)(2) are attained are discussed in Section 3.2.4.
The EPA's proposal specifies that the EPA is also considering and requesting public comment on whether to require states and tribes to adopt antidegradation implementation methods as WQS. Such requirement may improve program implementation, ensure consistency with the CWA, and provide transparency as to applicable state and tribal antidegradation review requirements. Requiring states and tribes to adopt antidegradation implementation methods may result in a potential one-time incremental burden and costs for states and tribes. Therefore, the EPA is including a discussion of potential costs in Appendix A if the EPA were to finalize a rule requiring adoption of antidegradation implementation methods.
Variances
A WQS variance is a time-limited designated use and water quality criterion for a specific pollutant(s), permittee(s), and water body or water body segment. A WQS variance can sometimes be preferable to changing the designated use and associated criteria because it provides time to improve water quality when there is uncertainty about whether the WQS is ultimately attainable or uncertainty regarding what the HAUs are for the water body.
Current Regulatory Framework
The current WQS regulation provides only brief mention of WQS variances in §131.13. This provision indicates that WQS variances are general policies affecting the application and implementation of WQS, and that states and tribes may include variances in their state and tribal standards at their discretion. States and tribes have expressed that variances are useful when WQS are not attainable today (or for a limited period of time), but may be attainable in the longer term.
The EPA has encouraged states and tribes to make use of variances where appropriate, as an important WQS tool that provides states and tribes time to make feasible progress towards meeting WQS prior to considering a permanent use downgrade. Although the EPA has addressed variances through guidance, memoranda, and approval actions for many years, the EPA's WQS regulation lacks any regulatory specifications on variances.
Proposed Revisions
The EPA is proposing a new regulatory section for variances at §131.14, which will address the following key topic areas: applicability, submission requirements, implementation through permits, renewal, and variances in states with promulgated variance procedures. Specifically, the EPA is proposing that:
   > States and tribes include information in the variance identifying the permittee(s) to which the variance applies, the pollutant(s) for which the variance applies, and the exact location, water body segment, or water body to which the variance applies. For a water body variance, a state or tribe must include identification and documentation of any cost-effective and reasonable best management practices for nonpoint sources related to the pollutant(s) and location(s) specified in the variance that could be implemented water body-wide to make progress towards attaining the designated use and criterion. A state or tribe must provide public notice and comment for any such documentation.
   > Variances specify either the highest attainable interim use and numeric criterion that will apply during the term of the variance, or an interim numeric water quality based effluent condition that reflects the highest attainable condition for a specific permittee(s) during the term of the variance.
   > Where a state or tribe adopts a variance, the state's or tribe's regulations continue to reflect the underlying designated use and criterion unless the state adopts and the EPA approves a revision to the designated use and criterion consistent with §131.10 or §131.11. The interim requirements specified in the variance apply for CWA section 402 permitting purposes and in issuing certifications under section 401 of the Act for the pollutant(s), permittee(s) and /or waterbody or water body segment(s) covered by the variance. All other WQS not specifically addressed by the variance remain applicable.
   > No variance shall be granted if the designated use and criterion can be achieved by implementing technology-based effluent limits required under sections 301(b) and 306 of the CWA.
   > Variances include an expiration date that are as short as possible, but expire no later than 10 years after the date that the state or tribe adopts the variance.
   > States and tribes demonstrate that attaining the designated use and criterion is not feasible during the term of the variance. This demonstration must be based on one of the six factors listed under §131.10(g), or because actions necessary to facilitate restoration through dam removal or other significant wetland or stream reconfiguration activities preclude attainment of the designated use and criteria while the action is implemented.
   > Variances serve as the basis of a water quality-based effluent limitation (WQBEL) included in a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for the period the variance is in effect. Any activities required to implement the variance shall be included as conditions of the NPDES permit for the permittee(s) subject to the variance.
   > To obtain the EPA's approval of a variance renewal, the state must meet the requirements of §131.14 and provide appropriate documentation of the steps taken to meet the requirements of the previous variance. Renewal of the variance may be disapproved if the applicant did not comply with the conditions of the original variance, or otherwise does not meet the requirements of this section. For renewal of a waterbody variance, the state must also include documentation of the cost-effective and reasonable BMPs implemented to address the pollutant(s) subject to the variance and the water quality progress achieved during the variance period.
The burden and cost implications of the proposed revisions regarding variances on states and tribes are discussed in Section 3.2.5.
Compliance Schedule Authorizing Provision
In In The Matter of Star-Kist Caribe, Inc., ((3 EAD 172, 175, 177 (1990)), the EPA Administrator (in an appeal of an EPA-issued NPDES permit) interpreted CWA section 301(b)(l) (C) to mean that 1) after July 1, 1977, permits must require immediate compliance with (i.e., may not contain compliance schedules for) effluent limitations based on WQS adopted before July 1, 1977, and 2) permit compliance schedules are allowed for effluent limitations based on standards adopted after July 1, 1977 only if the state or tribe has clearly indicated in its WQS or implementing regulations that it intends to allow them. The latter requirement ensures that a permit including such a compliance schedule still meets WQS under CWA section 301(b)(1)(C).
Current Regulatory Framework
The EPA's current WQS regulation is silent regarding compliance schedules and compliance schedule authorizing provisions. As a result, despite Star-Kist, the EPA is concerned that state/tribal permitting authorities may be including compliance schedules in permits, thus delaying compliance with a WQS-based WQBEL, even though the state may not have authorized the use of such compliance schedules in its WQS or implementing regulations.
Proposed Revisions
The EPA is proposing to add a new regulatory provision at §131.15 to codify the decision in In the Matter of Star Kist Caribe, Inc. (1990 WL 324290 (EPA), 1990 EPA App. LEXIS 45, 3 EAD 172 (April 16, 1990)). This new provision would clarify that a permitting authority may issue compliance schedules for WQBELs in NPDES permits only if the state or tribe has authorized issuance of such compliance schedules pursuant to state or tribal law in its WQS or implementing regulations. The provision would also clarify that individual compliance schedules issued under such authorizing provisions are not WQS but must be consistent with CWA section 502(17), the state or tribe's EPA-approved compliance schedule authorizing provision, and the requirements of §§122.2 and 122.47.
The proposed revisions would require states and tribes to adopt compliance schedule authorizing provisions in order to include compliance schedules in NPDES permits. States and tribes would need to submit such provisions to the EPA for review and approval as part of WQS. The incremental burden and costs associated with adoption of such a provision to state and tribal WQS are already accounted for in the rulemaking costs described in Section 3.2.1.

Potential Incremental Costs and Burdens of the Proposed Revisions
The EPA's proposed WQS regulation revisions do not establish any new requirements directly applicable to regulated entities. Thus, the focus of this analysis is on the potential impact of the proposed regulation revisions on states and tribes that implement WQS. This section describes the data and methods that the EPA used to analyze the potential administrative burdens and costs that may be associated with the proposed WQS regulation revisions (Section 3.1), presents the results of this analysis for states and tribes (Section 3.2) and for the Agency (Section 3.3), and discusses the uncertainties associated with the estimates (Section 3.4). Section 3.2 follows the same organization as Section 2.
Data and Methods
The EPA assessed the potential incremental costs and burdens associated with the proposed WQS regulation revisions by first estimating the incremental number of labor hours required by states and tribes to comply with the revised regulation. The EPA then calculated incremental costs associated with those additional labor hours as the product of the average number of additional hours each state and tribe require for each provision, the number of states and tribes potentially affected by the provision, and the average hourly wage rate to perform the activity. For some proposed provisions (e.g., those related to antidegradation), the EPA estimated incremental labor hours on the basis of the number of permitted dischargers in applicable jurisdictions. For these estimates, the EPA used data from its Integrated Compliance Information System for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (ICIS-NPDES) database to calculate the number of permitted dischargers.
The EPA estimated the incremental number of labor hours potentially needed to comply with the proposed rule using historical EPA information and data, and the historical knowledge and best professional judgment of the EPA's personnel with experience administering the WQS program. The EPA first identified elements of the proposed rule that could potentially require additional labor hours for compliance. The EPA then solicited estimates of the incremental labor hours that may be required to comply with each element of the proposed rule from the EPA's personnel at the EPA Headquarters and all 10 regional offices. Most of the estimates were based on best professional judgment. The EPA compiled and summarized the estimates of required labor hours and developed a single final estimate range for each regulation revision element by consensus.
The EPA estimated the cost of labor for states and tribes from data on state government hourly wage rates (data are not available for tribes). The labor categories chosen as applicable to WQS regulatory revision efforts are Environmental Scientist, Department Manager, Environmental Engineer, and Economist. Exhibit 3-1 shows the 2012 labor rates for these categories, inflated to March 2013 dollars using the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Employment Cost Index for professional and related state and local government workers (116.0/115.0 = 1.01), and accounting for benefits using the BLS Employer Cost for Employee Compensation for state and local professional government workers (32.7% of total compensation is attributable to benefits). An average wage rate was used because the EPA did not have information on the division of labor hours by professional category that states and tribes use to administer their WQS programs.

Exhibit 3-1: Summary of State Government Average Hourly Wage Rates (2010 $)
Labor Category (OES Category)
Hourly Labor Rate
Hourly Benefits
Hourly Wage Rate
Environmental Scientist (19-2041)
                                     $28
                                     $14
                                     $42
Environmental Engineer (17-2081)
                                     $33
                                     $16
                                     $50
Economist (19-3011)
                                     $30
                                     $15
                                     $45
Manager (11-9121)
                                     $36
                                     $18
                                     $54
Average
                                      --
                                      --
                                     $48
OES = Occupational employment statistics
Source: BLS (2012; 2013a; 2013b)

Estimated Burden and Costs
The sections below describe the EPA's incremental labor hour estimates associated with the proposed rule and the resulting estimated costs. The potential burdens and costs include those that are likely to occur only once, and those that are likely to occur on a regular basis.
Rulemaking Activities
The proposed rule may result in the need for states and tribes to modify their WQS for the purpose of adding specific requirements for the issuance of variances or provisions authorizing compliance schedules. Thus, states and tribes may need to initiate new rulemaking efforts or increase the scope of other planned regulatory changes to accommodate the revised federal regulation.
The incremental labor hours required for rulemaking efforts will likely be state- and tribe-specific, and depend on existing WQS, the level of public interest, and state- and tribe-specific administrative procedures. For the purpose of this analysis, however, the EPA estimated the incremental level of effort ranges on average from approximately 100 hours for relatively small rule changes (or those that may be performed in conjunction with the triennial review process) to 500 hours for new or more complex rulemakings involving more than one provision. Using the estimated average hourly wage rate shown in Exhibit 3-1 ($48), the administrative cost associated with rulemaking activities for each governmental entity could range from approximately $4,800 ($48  100 hours) to $24,000 ($48  500 hours) per entity.
Fifty states, 5 territories, the District of Columbia, and 39 tribes with authority to administer WQS programs have adopted EPA-approved WQS. Thus, a total of 95 (50 + 1+ 5 + 39) governmental entities could potentially be affected by the proposed revisions to the federal WQS regulation. Using the conservative assumption that all 95 entities would undertake rulemaking activities as a result of the proposed regulation revisions, one-time incremental costs could range from approximately $456,000 ($4,800  95) to $2,280,000 ($24,000  95).
Note that state and tribal rulemaking activities associated with the proposed WQS regulation revisions will most likely be required only once. Thus, the estimated burden and costs associated with these activities are one-time costs. Furthermore, these costs may be overestimated for some states and tribes that currently have WQS in compliance with the proposed regulation revisions, or if current state or tribal policy does not permit WQS actions applicable to the proposed rule.
Exhibit 3-2 summarizes the potential incremental one-time burden and costs associated with rulemaking activities.

Exhibit 3-2: Potential One-time Burden and Costs Associated with Rulemaking Activities
Burden per Rulemaking (hours)[1]
Cost per Rulemaking[2]
Number of Potentially Affected Entities[3]
Total Burden (hours)[4]
Total Cost (2013$; one-time)[5]
Annualized Cost (2013$/year)[6]
                                   100 - 500
                               $4,800 - $24,000
                                      95
                               9,500  -  47,500
                             $456,000 - $2,280,000
                              $30,700 - $153,300
1. Reflects potential new or increased rulemaking activities to adopt provisions consistent with the proposed rule into WQS.
2. Hours per entity multiplied by average hourly wage of $48.
3. Includes 50 states, 5 territories, the District of Columbia, and 39 tribes with authority to administer WQS programs and that have adopted EPA-approved WQS.
4. Burden per entity multiplied by total number of potentially affected entities.
5. Costs per entity multiplied by total number of potentially affected entities.
6. Although the EPA expects rulemaking costs to be incurred over an initial 3 year period, total one-time costs are annualized at 3% discount rate over 20 years for comparative purposes.

Administrator's Determinations
The proposed rule clarifies the definition of an Administrator determination. The EPA assumes that such a clarification will not result in incremental burden or cost to states and tribes. To the contrary, increasing the clarity of what constitutes an Administrator's determination may result in burden reduction and cost savings by reducing litigation due to regulatory uncertainty. However, the EPA has not estimated such a potential reduction in burden and costs. As a result, the EPA's estimate of the total potential incremental impact associated with the proposed rule may be overestimated.
Designated Uses
The EPA is proposing to revise the WQS regulation to require adoption of the use representing the highest attainable use (HAU) when a state or tribe demonstrates through a UAA that a use specified in section 101(a)(2) or sub-category of such a use is not attainable.
The current WQS regulations require states and tribes to conduct a UAA to remove designated uses. However, the current WQS regulations do not require identification and adoption of the HAU. Because the removal of a designated use and the adoption of a designated use are similar WQS actions, the EPA is assuming for the purpose of this analysis that there is no incremental administrative burden or cost associated with adopting the HAU instead of removing the current designated use. However, the proposed WQS regulation revision may require some states and tribes to modify current procedures for conducting a UAA to include identification of the HAU. For states and tribes that do not already conduct UAAs that identify the HAU, the requirement to do so may involve additional labor hours resulting in incremental costs.
The EPA estimates that approximately 8 states do not consistently identify the HAU when conducting UAAs. The EPA further estimates that a single UAA that does not determine the HAU requires approximately 100 to 500 labor hours to develop, and that as much as 30 percent additional effort may be required to determining the HAU. Thus, the EPA estimates that an additional 30 hours (100 hours  30%) to 150 hours (500 hours  30%) per UAA may be required to determine the HAU for states that do not already do so. Using these estimates and the hourly wage rate shown in Exhibit 3-1 ($48), the EPA estimates that incremental costs associated with identifying the HAU can range from approximately $1,400 to $7,200 for each UAA.
The EPA considers UAA activities recurring events to the extent that states and tribes periodically conduct UAAs as needed. However, their frequency of occurrence is highly variable across states and tribes. The EPA estimates that states and tribes conduct an average of 1 UAA per year. Assuming that 8 states do not consistently identify the HAU when conducting a UAA, and states and tribes conduct on average 1 UAA per year, a total of 8 additional UAAs per year may be associated with the proposed WQS regulation revision. Using the previously estimated additional cost of $1,400 to $7,200 for each UAA, the EPA estimates the total incremental labor hours and costs associated with the proposed WQS regulation revision requiring identification and adoption of the HAU could range from approximately $11,000 (8  $1,400) to $58,000 (8  $7,200) per year.
Exhibit 3-3 summarizes the potential incremental annual burden and costs associated with proposed WQS regulation revisions associated with designated uses.

Exhibit 3-3: Potential Annual Burden and Costs Associated with Proposed Revisions to Designated Use Provisions[1]
Burden per Entity (hours/year)[1]
Cost per Entity ($/year)[2]
Number of Potentially Affected Entities
Annual Burden[3] (hours/year)
Annual Costs ($/year)[4]
                                   30 - 150
                                $1,400 - $7,200
                                       8
                                 240  -  1,200
                               $11,000 - $58,000
1. Reflects potential incremental effort to identify the highest attainable use (HAU) in the context of a use attainability analysis (UAA), assuming one UAA per year.
2. Hours per entity multiplied by average hourly wage of $48.
3. Burden per entity multiplied by total number of potentially affected entities.
4. Costs per entity multiplied by total number of potentially affected entities.

Antidegradation
The proposed revisions to the WQS regulations may result in incremental administrative burden and costs associated with antidegradation implementation. The current regulations require states and tribes to adopt an antidegradation policy into state or tribal WQS, which are subject to review and approval by the EPA and identify antidegradation implementation methods. The proposed WQS regulation revisions will add specific implementation requirements that could result in incremental burden and costs associated with the following activities:
   > Reviewing antidegradation requests that evaluate a range of non-degrading and minimally degrading  practicable alternatives that have the potential to prevent or minimize the degradation associated with the proposed activity.
   > Reviewing additional Tier 2 antidegradation requests due to an increase in the number of waters subject to Tier 2 review.
For the purposes of this analysis, the EPA classified the potential incremental burden and costs associated with the antidegradation provisions of the proposed WQS regulation revisions into the following two categories:
   > Recurring burden and costs associated with the additional need to review antidegradation requests that evaluate a range of non-degrading and minimally degrading practicable alternatives that have the potential to prevent or minimize the degradation associated with the proposed activity.
   > Recurring burden and costs associated with an increase in the number of Tier 2 antidegradation reviews because waters will no longer be denied Tier 2 protection solely because not all of the uses specified in CWA section 101(a)(2) are attained.
Alternatives Analysis
When a discharger proposes an activity that would lower the water quality of Tier 2 receiving waters, the proposed WQS regulation revisions would require states and tribes to:
   > Evaluate a range of non-degrading and minimally degrading practicable alternatives that have the potential to prevent or minimize the degradation associated with the proposed activity.
   > Implement one of those practicable alternatives identified by the state that either prevents or minimizes degradation associated with the activity if the lowering of high water quality is permitted.
These additional requirements may result in additional administrative burden and costs to states and tribes that do not already perform these activities.
 Incremental Burden per Review
The current regulations require states and tribes to adopt antidegradation policies in their WQS. For the purposes of this analysis, the EPA assumes that all states and tribes already review requests to lower water quality in Tier 2 waters. Nonetheless, the EPA recognizes that the proposed WQS regulation revisions may increase state or tribal administrative burden associated with Tier 2 antidegradation reviews because requests may now include analyses of pollution prevention alternatives where they previously did not. The EPA estimates that a single Tier 2 antidegradation review requires an average of approximately 100 hours to 150 labor hours. Furthermore, the EPA assumes that a Tier 2 review that includes an analysis of pollution prevention alternatives requires approximately 30 percent more time than a Tier 2 review that does not include analyses of pollution prevention alternatives. Thus, states and tribes that receive requests to lower water quality in Tier 2 waters that include analyses of pollution prevention alternatives where such analyses were not previously provided could incur an additional administrative burden of approximately 30 hours (100 hours  0.30) to 45 hours (150 hours  0.30) for each request reviewed.
Number of Antidegradation Reviews
Estimating the total burden and costs associated with an increase in Tier 2 antidegradation review effort requires information on the total number of reviews performed. The EPA estimates that 16 states, 4 territories, 34 tribes, and the District of Columbia currently do not require identification and implementation of pollution prevention alternatives consistently for all Tier 2 antidegradation reviews. However, only 7 of the affected tribes with approved WQS programs have dischargers (according to the ICIS-NPDES database). In addition, the EPA does not have data on the number of Tier 2 antidegradation reviews each of these entities perform. Therefore, the EPA used information on antidegradation implementation available from states with available information (Missouri and Iowa) to estimate the number of antidegradation reviews performed by all potentially affected states and tribes.
For the purpose of this analysis, the EPA estimated the number of antidegradation requests in all potentially affected states and tribes by using the ratio of antidegradation requests to total dischargers in the states of Iowa and Missouri. The Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MODNR) estimates that it receives approximately 68 antidegradation requests each year (MODNR, 2008). The EPA's ICIS-NPDES database indicates that as of 2013 there are 3,243 individual NPDES-permitted dischargers for which in Missouri MODNR would be responsible for conducting potential antidegradation reviews (i.e., excludes dischargers on tribal land). Thus, the number of antidegradation requests received by the state of Missouri is approximately 2 percent of the total number of NPDES-permitted dischargers each year. The Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) estimates that it receives approximately 104 to 164 antidegradation requests each year (IDNR, 2008). The EPA's PCS database indicates that as of 2013 Iowa has 1,613 individual NPDES-permitted dischargers for which IDNR would be responsible for conducting potential antidegradation reviews. Thus, the number of antidegradation requests received by the state of Iowa is approximately 6 percent to 10 percent of the total number of NPDES-permitted dischargers each year. On the basis of the information available from these two states, the EPA used 6% as the ratio of antidegradation requests each year to total NPDES permitted dischargers for all states and tribes because it is the average of 2% (Missouri) and 10% (upper range of Iowa).
Total Incremental Burden and Cost
The EPA estimated the incremental burden and costs associated with potentially increased effort required to review antidegradation requests using the estimated total number of antidegradation reviews of potentially affected states and tribes, the estimated additional labor hours required for each review, and the estimated cost for each of those additional labor hour. These potential incremental costs are shown in Exhibit 3-4. The EPA identified the number of dischargers in affected states and tribes using its PCS and ICIS-NPDES databases, and estimated the number of antidegradation reviews by multiplying the total number of dischargers by the estimated ratio of antidegradation reviews to total NPDES permits (6%). The EPA then estimated the total incremental burden hours of affected states and tribes by calculating the product of the number of estimated antidegradation reviews and the number of additional hours for each review (30 to 45 hours per review). Finally, the EPA estimated the range of incremental costs for each state and tribe by multiplying the range of incremental burden hours by the estimated average hourly wage rate of $48 (Exhibit 3-1).
The EPA estimated that 744 antidegradation reviews may require additional effort because they include analyses of pollution prevention alternatives where such analyses were not previously provided. The EPA estimated that the total incremental burden for all states and tribes to perform this activity could range between 22,320 hours and 33,480 hours, and the total costs associated with this incremental burden range between approximately $1,041,600 and $1,636,800. Note that these are average estimates, and do not reflect potential differences in water quality and the geographical distribution of dischargers relative to Tier 2 waters.
Exhibit 3-4 summarizes the potential incremental annual burden and costs associated with reviewing pollution prevention alternatives in Tier 2 antidegradation requests.
Exhibit 3-4: Potential Annual Burden and Costs Associated with Choosing Pollution Prevention Alternative in Tier 2 Antidegradation Requests
Total Number of Dischargers in All Affected States and Tribes[1]
Potential Number of Antidegradation Reviews[2]
Annual Burden[3] (hours/year)
Annual Costs[4] ($/year)
                                    12,402
                                      744
                               22,320  -  33,480
                            $1,041,600 - $1,636,800
1. Based on data from the EPA's ICIS-NPDES database for 17 states, 4 territories, 34 tribes (only 7of which have dischargers), and the District of Columbia. Note that the number of dischargers in each state, exclude any dischargers on tribal lands since the state would not be responsible for reviewing antidegradation requests for such dischargers.
2. Represents 6% of the total number of dischargers in each affected state or tribe, the midpoint between 2% (MODNR, 2008) and 10% (IDNR, 2008).
3. Calculated by multiplying number of antidegradation reviews in each affected state and tribe by potential per review burden of 30 to 45 hours, and summing across all affected states and tribes.
4. Calculated by multiplying number of antidegradation reviews in each affected state and tribe by potential per-review costs of $1,400 to $2,200, and summing across all affected states and tribes.
Identification of High Quality Waters
The proposed rule does not permit states and tribes to deny Tier 2 protection to a water body solely because not all of the uses specified in CWA section 101(a)(2) are attained (termed the waterbody-by-waterbody approach). Thus the proposed rule has the potential to result in the identification or designation of a greater number of high quality waters, increasing the number of antidegradation requests states and tribes receive and would need to review, resulting in incremental burden and costs.
The EPA estimates that approximately 7 states and tribes are currently using a waterbody-by-waterbody approach to identify high quality waters. These states and tribes are excluding waters from Tier 2 protection solely because not all of the uses specified in CWA section 101(a)(2) are attained. The EPA estimated that, in order to comply with the proposed rule, these 7 states and tribes will choose to continue using the water body-by-water body approach. However, the EPA assumes that these states and tribes will most likely revise their implementation methods so that they are no longer excluding waters from Tier 2 protection solely because not all of the uses specified in CWA section 101(a)(2) are attained. The costs of the one-time rulemaking to revise implementation methods are estimated in Section 3.2.1.
Once the estimated 7 states and tribes revise their implementation methods, they will likely provide Tier 2 protection to additional waters. The EPA previously used information on the annual number of antidegradation requests in Missouri and Iowa to estimate the number of antidegradation requests states and tribes typically receive. The EPA assumed that the number of antidegradation applications as a percentage of total permitted dischargers in these 2 states is representative of the number of antidegradation requests in other states and tribes that currently exclude waters from Tier 2 protection based on the impairment of a single parameter. The EPA also previously estimated the number of Tier 2 reviews as the ratio of annual antidegradation to total number of NPDES-permitted dischargers in Missouri and Iowa (6%). The EPA used this percentage to estimate the number of additional Tier 2 requests requiring review by the 7 states and tribes that currently exclude waters from Tier 2 protection on the basis of the impairment of one water quality parameter.
Using the EPA's ICIS-NPDES database of dischargers, the EPA's estimated that 575 additional antidegradation requests may need to be reviewed in 7 states and tribes that do not currently provide Tier 2 protection to waters on the basis of impairment of a single parameter or group of parameters (9,578 dischargers in the 7 states x 6%). The EPA estimated the number of labor hours required to review a single Tier 2 request that includes an analysis of pollution prevention alternatives by adding the range of additional hours the EPA previously estimated to review pollution prevention alternatives to the estimated number of hours required to review a single antidegradation request that does not include an analysis of pollution prevention alternatives. Thus, the EPA estimates the number of hours required to review a single antidegradation review that includes the analysis of pollution prevention ranges between 130 hours (100 hours + (100 hours x 30%)) and 195 hours (150 hours + (150 hours x 30%)). Hence, the EPA estimates that the total incremental burden for all affected states and tribes ranges from 74,750 hours (130 hours x 575 requests) to 112,1250 hours (195 hours x 575 requests) each year. Assuming an estimated average hourly wage rate of $48/hour yields total incremental costs that range from approximately $3,565,000 to $5,405,000.
Exhibit 3-5 summarizes the potential incremental annual burden and costs associated with providing Tier 2 protection for waters where at least one of the uses specified in CWA section 101(a)(2) is attained.
Exhibit 3-5: Potential Annual Burden and Costs Associated with Providing Tier 2 Protection for Waters where at least one of the uses specified in CWA section 101(a)(2) is attained
Number of Dischargers[1]
Potential Number of Antidegradation Reviews[2]
Annual Burden[3] (hours/year)
Annual Costs[4] ($/year)
                                     9,578
                                      575
                              74,750  -  112,125
                            $3,565,000 - $5,405,000
1. Based on data from the EPA's ICIS-NPDES database for 4 known states, and the national average number of dischargers per state for the three other states and tribes (i.e., 3 times the average number of dischargers in states currently using a waterbody-by-waterbody approach (1,422)). Note the number of dischargers excludes those on tribal lands because the state would not be responsible for antidegradation reviews for such dischargers.
2. Represents 6% of total number of dischargers, the midpoint between 2% (MODNR, 2008) and 10% (IDNR, 2008).
3. Calculated by multiplying number of antidegradation reviews in each affected state and tribe by potential per review burden of 130 to 195 hours, and summing across all affected states and tribes.
4. Calculated by multiplying number of antidegradation reviews in each affected state and tribe by potential per-review costs of $6,200 to $9,400, and summing across all affected states and tribes.
Variances
The EPA is proposing to revise the WQS regulations to provide more specificity and clarity in the development and use of variances. Most of the proposed revisions specify or clarify current practices and thus are unlikely to result in significant incremental administrative burden and costs. However, the proposed WQS regulation revisions also include new requirements that specify the type of information and documentation to be submitted to the EPA for review and approval of variances, and specifies 10 years as the maximum allowable duration of a variance. These provisions in the proposed WQS regulation revisions may result in incremental burden and costs.
Potential incremental burden and costs associated with the requirement that states and tribes adopt certain variance conditions into state or tribal rule have already been accounted for in Section 3.2.1. This section estimates the potential incremental burden and costs associated with providing additional documentation when submitting variances for review and approval, and the expected increase in the number of variances submissions that states and tribes will review because variances with a duration longer than 10 years will be subject to review and approval more frequently.
Submission requirements
The proposed revisions to the WQS regulation will establish a standardized format for all variance submissions to the EPA that includes information and documentation to justify the granting of the variance. At a minimum, states and tribes will need to include a description of the pollutant(s) for which the variance applies, the location, stream reach, or water body to which the variance applies, and either (1) the highest attainable interim use and numeric criterion that will apply during the term of the variance, or (2) a numeric water quality based effluent condition that reflects the highest attainable condition for a specific permittee(s) during the term of the variance. To document that a variance is needed, states and tribes must also demonstrate that attaining the designated use and criterion is not feasible during the term of the variance because of one of the factors listed in §131.10(g) or because actions necessary to facilitate short-term restoration through dam removal or other significant wetland or stream reconfiguration activities preclude attainment of the designated use and criterion while the action is implemented.
For a water body variance, submissions to the EPA would also require identification and documentation of the cost-effective and reasonable best management practices for nonpoint source controls related to the pollutant(s) and location(s) specified in the variance that could be implemented in the waterbody to attain the designated uses and criteria. Finally, if a variance renewal is needed, states and tribes would be required to submit documentation showing the steps that were taken to meet the requirements of the previous variance. For renewal of a water body variance, the state or tribe must also include documentation of the best management practices implemented to address the pollutant(s) subject to the variance and the water quality progress achieved during the variance period.
States and tribes that do not currently develop and document variances to the extent required by the proposed WQS regulation revisions may need to develop and review more detailed variances. However, much of the additional required information may already be available from assessing the need for a variance. For example, states and tribes could use effluent and receiving water data provided by applicants to specify interim WQS measures applicable to a variance. In addition, information provided in the variance application documenting existing operations should indicate whether technology in place is properly operated and maintained.
Analyses needed to support the justification of a variance will likely yield information that can be used to develop the numeric values of the interim water quality criteria necessary to support interim designated uses. It is also important to note that, although the majority of factors that may be used to justify the need for a variance are the same as those listed for a permanent use change, these analyses are not the same. The EPA expects that in most scenarios, states and tribes can determine a numeric criterion or numeric effluent condition reflecting the highest attainable condition during the term of the variance. This is largely because analyses needed to support the justification for a variance based on one of the regulatory factors specified in §131.14(b)(2) will likely yield information that can be used to develop the necessary numeric values.
In consideration of the above conditions, the EPA estimates that there may be incremental burden and cost associated with additional development and documentation of variance requests. The EPA estimates that the development and documentation of a single variance request currently requires, on average, approximately 125 to 150 labor hours. The EPA further estimates that if the information and documentation explicitly described in the proposed revisions are not currently included in a variance, including them would increase the labor hours require by states and tribes to fully develop and document variance requests by approximately 30%. Thus, the incremental burden associated with fulfilling the variance submission requirements in the proposed WQS regulation revision could range from approximately 40 hours (125 hours x 30%) to 45 hours (150 hours x 30%) for each variance request.
The EPA estimates that, on average each state or tribe reviews on average approximately 3 variance requests each year. States and tribes review these requests and submit them to the EPA for review and approval as a modification to their WQS. The EPA further estimates that approximately 22 states and tribes do not currently fulfill all of the submission requirements specified in the proposed WQS regulation revisions. Thus, the EPA estimates that the total incremental burden associated with the additional development, documentation, and review of variance requests for each entity is approximately 120 hours per year (40 additional hours per variance x 3 variances per year) to 135 hours per year (45 additional hours per variance x 3 variances per year), and the total incremental burden associated with development, documentation, and review of variance requests is approximately 2,640 hours per year (120 additional hours x 22 states and tribes) to 2,970 hours per year (135 additional hours x 22 states and tribes). Using the EPA's estimated average hourly wage rate of $48 (Exhibit 3-1), the cost per variance is estimated to be $1,900 (40 additional hours per variance  $48 per hour) to $2,200 (45 additional hours per variance  $48 per hour). Thus, the estimated total cost is approximately $125,400 per year ($1,900 per variance x 3 variances per year x 22 states and tribes) to $145,200 per year ($2,200 per variance x 3 variances per year x 22 states and tribes). Exhibit 3-6 summarizes the potential incremental annual burden and costs associated with additional documentation requirements for variance submissions.
Exhibit 3-6: Potential Annual Burden and Costs Associated with Additional Documentation Requirements for Variance Submissions
Burden per Entity[1] (hours/year)
Cost per Entity[2] ($/year)
Number of Potentially Affected Entities
Annual Burden (hours/year)[3]
Annual Costs ($/year)[4]
                                  120  -  135
                               $5,700  -  $6,600
                                      22
                                2,640  -  2,970
                             $125,400  -  $145,200
1. Assuming states issue three variances per year.
2. Hours per state per year multiplied by average hourly wage of $48.
3. Burden per state per year multiplied by total number of potentially affected states and tribes.
4. Costs per state per year multiplied by total number of potentially affected states and tribes.

Renewals
The proposed WQS regulation revisions will not allow variances to exceed a duration of 10 years after the date that the state or tribe adopts the variance. By requiring an expiration date for the variance and specifying the maximum duration in federal regulation, the EPA can ensure that variances are time-limited and that the conditions of a variance will be thoroughly re-evaluated and subject to a public review on a regular and predictable basis. These reviews will determine whether (1) conditions have changed such that the designated use and criteria are now attainable; (2) additional information has been gathered to indicate that the designated use and criteria are not attainable in the future (i.e., data could support a use change/refinement); or (3) feasible progress is being made towards the WQS but additional time may be needed to make further progress (i.e., renewing the variance).
Some states and tribes already grant variances that expire within the proposed maximum duration of 10 years, while others grant variances with durations longer than 10 years or with no expiration date. States and tribes that grant variances with durations longer than 10 years or no expiration date may incur incremental burden and costs as a result of the proposed WQS regulation revisions because of an increase in the frequency of variance renewal applications requiring state review and subsequent submittal to the EPA for review and approval.
The EPA estimates that states and tribes process approximately 3 variance requests each year, and approximately 4 states and tribes at least occasionally issue variances with a duration longer than 10 years (EPA, 2011b). The EPA further estimates that these 4 states and tribes will grant variances with a duration of 10 years, resulting in an additional 3 variance renewal requests each year. These additional variance renewal requests account for the previously issued variances that do not have expiration dates, and newly issued variances that may result from clarification of when and how variances may be granted. Thus, the EPA estimates states and tribes may need to process a total of 12 additional variance renewal requests per year (3 additional variance renewal requests for each state or tribe per year x 4 states and tribes).
For the purpose of this analysis, the EPA assumes that the labor hours needed to process an application to renew a variance are the same as the labor hours required to process a new variance application that satisfies the new submission requirements. The EPA used estimated labor hours to process variances that are described in Section <IP_ADDRESS> and estimated the labors hours required for each additional variance request as ranging from 165 hours (125 hours + (125 hours x 30%)) to 195 hours (150 hours + (150 hours x 30%)) for each variance. The EPA assumes this equivalency because the proposed WQS regulation revisions require that renewal applications evaluate whether: (1) conditions have changed allowing the designated use and criteria to be attained; (2) additional information has been gathered that indicates the designated use and criteria are not attainable in the future (i.e., data could support a use change/refinement); and (3) feasible progress was made towards the WQS but additional time is needed to make further progress. Thus, the EPA estimates that the total incremental burden associated with a potential increase in the number of variance requests is approximately 1,980 hours per year (165 hours per variance x 12 additional variance renewal requests) to 2,340 hours per year (195 hours per variance x 12 additional variance renewal requests). Multiplying these estimated burden hours by the EPA's estimated average hourly wage rate of $48 (Exhibit 3-1) results in an estimated total cost of approximately $95,200 per year to $112,400 per year.
Exhibit 3-7 summarizes the potential incremental annual burden and costs associated with proposed revisions to the WQS regulation requiring that the duration of a variance be no longer than 10 years.
Exhibit 3-7: Potential Annual Burden and Costs Associated with Renewing Variances
Annual Burden[1] (hours/year)
Annual Costs[2] ($/year)
                                1,980  -  2,340
                             $95,200  -  $112,400
1. Assuming that an increase in variance requests applies to 4 states and tribes that review 3 variances per year.
2. Calculated by multiplying the hours per year by the average hourly wage of $48.
Summary of Estimated Burden and Costs to States and Tribes
Exhibit 3-8 provides a summary of the estimated national costs to all states and tribes. Costs for rulemaking are one-time (nonrecurring) costs, while the costs associated with the proposed provisions for designated uses and variances occur annually. The one-time rulemaking activities will occur over an initial three-year period after promulgation of the proposed rule.
Exhibit 3-8: Summary of Potential Incremental Administrative Burdens and Costs Associated with the Proposed Rule
Provision
One-time Activities
Annual Activities

Burden (hours)
Total Cost (2013$ millions)
Annualized Cost[1] (2013$ million/year)
Burden (hours/year)
Annual Cost (2013$ millions/year)
Rulemaking Activities
                               9,500  -  47,500
                                 $0.46 - $2.28
                                 $0.03 - $0.15
                                      --
                                      --
Designated Uses
                                      --
                                      --
                                      --
                                 240  -  1,200
                                 $0.01 - $0.06
Antidegradation
                                      --
                                      --
                                      --
                              97,070  -  145,605
                                 $4.61 - $7.04
Variances
                                      --
                                      --
                                      --
                                4,620  -  5,310
                                 $0.22 - $0.26
National Total
                               9,500  -  47,500
                                 $0.46 - $2.28
                                 $0.03 - $0.15
                              101,930  -  152,115
                                 $4.84 - $7.36
 `--` = not applicable
1. Although the EPA expects one-time rulemaking activity costs to be incurred over an initial three-year period, costs are annualized at 3% discount rate over 20 years for comparative purposes.

Estimated Burden and Costs to the Agency
In addition to the potential burden and costs to states and tribes, the proposed WQS regulation revisions may potentially be associated with incremental burden and costs to the EPA. These incremental burden and costs to the EPA are associated with the potential increase in workload to review the additional WQS program materials submitted by states and tribes as a result of the proposed WQS regulation revisions. On the basis of best professional judgment, the EPA conservatively estimates the incremental burden and costs to the EPA based on costs being up to 20% of the costs to states and tribes. Thus, the EPA estimates that one-time incremental costs to the Agency would range from $91,000 ($456,000 x 20%) to $456,000 ($2,280,000 x 20%), and estimated annual incremental costs to the EPA range from $968,000 ($4,838,200 x 20%) to $1,471,000 ($7,357,400 x 20%).
The EPA assumes that the EPA staff who conduct reviews of WQS program materials are General Schedule (GS) 13, Step 5 federal employees (including EPA regional staff). In 2013, the average hourly wage rate for all federal employees at this grade and step was $47.22 per hour (U.S. Office of Personnel Management 2013). Assuming that benefits and overhead are equal to 60% of the hourly wage, the average loaded hourly wage rate for federal employees is equal to $75.55 ($47.22 per hour + (60% x ($47.22 per hour)). Full-time equivalent (FTE) employees work 2,080 hours per year (40 hours per week x 52 weeks).
Using the average loaded wage rate and the number of hours worked per FTE, the EPA estimated the number of burden hours and the EPA FTEs associated with the increased workload under the proposed WQS regulation revisions. Estimated one-time incremental burden to the EPA ranges from 1,200 hours ($91,000 / $75.55 per hour) to 6,040 hours ($456,000 / $75.55 per hour). These one-time incremental burden estimates correspond to 0.58 FTEs (1,200 burden hours / 2,080 hours worked per FTE per year) to 2.90 FTEs (6,040 burden hours / 2,080 hours worked per FTE per year). Estimated annual incremental burden to the EPA ranges from 12,810 hours per year ($968,000 / $75.55 per hour) to 19,470 hours per year ($1,471,000 / $75.55 per hour). These annual incremental burden estimates correspond to 6.16 FTEs per year (12,810 burden hours / 2,080 hours worked per FTE per year) to 9.36 FTEs per year (19,470 burden hours / 2,080 hours worked per FTE per year).
Exhibit 3-9 summarizes the potential incremental annual burden and costs to the Agency associated with the proposed WQS regulation revisions.

Exhibit 3-9: Potential Incremental Burden and Costs to the Agency Associated with the Proposed Rule
One-time Activities
Annual Activities
Costs to States and Tribes (2013$ million)
Costs to the Agency[1] (2013$ million)
Annualized Costs to the Agency (2013$ million per year)[2]
Burden
Costs to States and Tribes (2013$ million per year)
Costs to the Agency[1] (2013$ million per year)
Burden

Hours[3]
FTEs[4]

Hours per year[3]
FTEs per year[4]
                                 $0.46 - $2.28
                                 $0.09 - $0.46
                                 $0.01 - $0.03
                                 1,200 - 6,040
                                  0.58 - 2.9
                                 $4.84 - $7.36
                                 $0.97 - $1.47
                                12,810 - 19,470
                                  6.16 - 9.36
1. Assuming that the incremental costs to the EPA are equal to 20% of the costs to states and tribes.
2. Although the EPA expects these one-time costs to be incurred over an initial three year period, the costs are annualized at 3% discount rate over 20 years for comparative purposes.
3. Total costs to the Agency divided by hourly wage rate ($75.55 per hour).
4. Burden hours to the Agency divided by hours worked by full-time equivalent (FTE) employees per year (2,080 hours per year).

Summary of Potential Burden, Costs, and Uncertainties
Exhibit 3-10 provides a summary of the estimated costs to all potentially affect states and tribes, and to the EPA. To obtain a total cost estimate that accounts for both one-time and recurring costs, the EPA chose a period for analysis, calculated the costs for each year within that period, calculated the present value of the costs, and then estimated a total annualized cost. The costs of the proposed rule are the same in each year after the first year. Therefore, the EPA chose a 20 year period because 20 years extends past the time when costs have reached a steady state and for which it is reasonable to project into the future. Note that this time period may result in an overestimation of total costs because most of the one-time costs will probably have already occurred before 20 years. Using a 20-year period of analysis and a discount rate of 3%, the net present value of all costs associated with the proposed rule ranges from $86.99 million to $134.11 million, while the total annualized costs range from $5.85 million ($0.04 million + $5.81 million) to $9.01 million ($0.18 million + $8.83 million).
Exhibit 3-10: Summary of Potential Incremental Administrative Burdens and Costs Associated with the Proposed Rule to States, Tribes, and the Agency
Entities
One-time Activities
Annual Activities

Burden (hours)
Cost (2013$ million)
Annualized Cost[1] (2013$ million/year)
Burden (hours/year)
Annual Cost (2013$ million/year)
States and tribes
                                9,500 - 47,500
                                 $0.46 - $2.28
                                 $0.03 - $0.15
                               101,930 - 152,115
                                 $4.84 - $7.36
Agency
                                 1,200 - 6,040
                                 $0.09 - $0.46
                                 $0.01 - $0.03
                                12,810 - 19,470
                                 $0.97 - $1.47
Total[2]
                                10,700 - 53,540
                                 $0.55 - $2.74
                                 $0.04 - $0.18
                               114,740 - 171,585
                                 $5.81 - $8.83
1. Although the EPA expects rulemaking costs to be incurred over an initial three-year period, one-time costs are annualized at 3% discount rate over 20 years for comparative purposes.
2. The net present value of total costs over a 20-year period (using a 3 percent discount rate) ranges from $86.99 million to $134.11 million, while the annualized costs range from $5.85 million to $9.01 million.

Exhibit 3-11 provides a summary of the potential uncertainties associated with the estimates of burden and costs.
Exhibit 3-11: Uncertainties in the Analysis
Key Assumptions/Uncertainties
Potential Impact on Estimated Burdens and Costs
Comment
Labor hours required to implement various provisions based on best professional judgment.
                                       ?
Labor hours needed depends on a number of factors including state and tribe sizes, level of economic activity involving dischargers to water, existing regulatory framework, and may be higher or lower than the EPA's estimates. The estimates do not account for potential reductions in burden resulting from the increased clarity provided by the proposed rule.
Number of states and tribes affected by each provision is uncertain.
                                       ?
Actual number of states and tribes that will incur costs could be higher or lower than the EPA estimates.
Labor costs based are state government wage rates.
                                       ?
The mix of labor categories (e.g., environmental scientist, engineer, etc.) may be different for individual states from the mix that the EPA used to calculate a wage rate. Also, labor costs for authorized tribes and territories may differ from states.
No states or tribes set time limits for variances and none review variances during triennial review periods.
                                       +
Costs would be overestimated for states and tribes that already set expiration or renewal dates or adopt variances as part of their WQS.
All states and tribes would undertake a rulemaking effort in response to the proposed rule.
                                       +
States and tribes that already have policies and methods consistent with the EPA's proposed rule would not incur costs.
The number of Tier 2 antidegradation requests per year is based on information from two states (Iowa and Missouri).
                                       ?
The actual number of Tier 2 antidegradation requests per state or tribe may be higher or lower than the EPA's estimates.
States and tribes renew three variances per year.
                                       ?
States and tribes may review fewer variance requests because current variances may not qualify for renewal under the new requirements, or discharger progress toward interim goals may allow them to meet the standard.
States and tribes may be required to undertake activities related to the proposed rule that the EPA has not identified in this analysis.
                                       -
To the extent that affected states and tribes may be required to undertake additional activities that the EPA has not identified in this analysis, the analysis may underestimate actual burdens and costs.
Incremental costs to the Agency are equal to 20% of the costs to states and tribes.
                                       +
The EPA may be overestimating the burden on the Agency to review and approve WQS materials submitted by states and tribes.
Key:
"+" = Burdens and costs potentially overestimated
"-" = Burdens and costs potentially underestimated
"?" = Impact on burdens and costs uncertain

Potential Incremental Benefits of the Proposed Revisions
The CWA establishes the national objective to "restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters," and achieving "wherever attainable, an interim goal of water quality which provides for the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and for recreation in and on the water." One tool used to achieve the goals of the CWA is the WQS regulation and program. The core requirements of the current WQS regulation have been in place for over 27 years. These requirements have provided a strong foundation for water quality-based controls, including water quality assessments, impaired waters lists, and total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) under CWA section 303(d), as well as for WQBELs in NPDES discharge permits.
As with the development and operation of any program, however, a number of policy and technical issues have recurred over the past 27 years in individual standards reviews, stakeholder comments, and litigation. These issues may be addressed and resolved more efficiently by clarifying, updating and revising the WQS regulation to ensure greater public transparency, better stakeholder information, and more effective implementation. All states and tribes that implement a WQS program should benefit to some degree from the proposed clarifications and revision to the regulation. In addition, the proposed revisions should improve the CWA's effectiveness of restoring and maintaining the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation's waters.
Because these effects could be wide ranging and are difficult to quantify, the sections below describe the benefits of the proposed revisions qualitatively. These sections describe both the direct and indirect benefits of the proposed rule. The first section outlines the benefits of the proposed rule by program area. The second section describes the potential benefits of improving and maintaining the nation's waters as a result of the proposed rule.
Benefits by Proposed Program Area Change
The proposed rule will increase clarity and specificity in the following key program areas: (1) Administrator's determinations that new or revised WQS are necessary, (2) designated uses, (3) triennial reviews, (4) antidegradation, and (5) variances to WQS. The WQS regulation revisions would also provide regulatory clarification as a result of the EPA decisions relating to compliance schedules following the court decision in In the Matter of Star-Kist Caribe, Inc. (1990 WL 324290 (EPA), 3EAD 172 (April 16, 1990)). States and tribes, other stakeholders, and the public will benefit from clarification in these key areas by being able to better understand and make proper use of available CWA tools and flexibilities, while maintaining open and transparent public participation. Clear regulatory requirements and improved implementation will provide a more transparent and well-defined pathway for maintaining and restoring the biological, chemical, and physical integrity of the nation's waters.
Administrator's Determinations
Section 303(c)(4)(B) of the CWA provides the EPA Administrator with authority to determine that a new or revised WQS is necessary to meet the CWA requirements in those situations where a state fails or is unable to act in a manner consistent with CWA provisions. Such a determination is made at the Administrator's discretion, after evaluating all relevant factors. An Administrator's determination triggers the requirement for the EPA to promptly prepare and publish proposed regulations setting forth a revised or new WQS for the waters of the United States that are involved.
The process whereby the Administrator determines that new or revised standards are necessary is not always clearly understood or interpreted by the public and stakeholders. In order to ensure effective implementation of the national WQS program, provide direct, clear, and transparent feedback on state and tribal actions, and maintain an open and constructive dialogue with states and tribes and stakeholders on important water quality issues, it is essential that states and tribes have the opportunity to seek advice and views from the EPA. The proposed revision will establish a more transparent process for the Administrator to announce any determination made under section 303(c)(4)(B) of the CWA. This revision will allow states and tribes to develop their WQS without fear of litigation triggering a mandatory duty on the part of the EPA to develop WQS for a state or tribe before the Agency believes it is appropriate or necessary and before the state or tribe has the opportunity to act on the EPA's comments and guidance.
Designated Uses
Designated uses communicate a state's or tribe's environmental management goals for its waters and drive on-the-ground water quality decision-making and improvements. To establish appropriate WQS, states and tribes define the water quality goals of a water body first by designating the use(s) and second by setting criteria necessary to protect those uses. WQS are the foundation for other CWA requirements applicable to a water body, such as WQBELs for point source dischargers, as well as assessment of waters and establishment of TMDLs for waters not meeting applicable WQS.
Because designated uses play such an important role in the effective implementation of the CWA, it is essential to provide clear and concise regulatory requirements to states and tribes for designated uses. The EPA acknowledges that the current regulation may be leading to conflicting interpretations, resulting in case-by-case analysis, which can direct resources away from water quality restoration and maintenance efforts. The EPA has found when stakeholders, states and tribes collectively understand and determine the management goals for a particular water body or water bodies, stakeholders are more likely to become involved and work closely with the states and tribes in the establishment and attainment of WQS, leading to improved stewardship and watershed protection efforts. The clearer, more accurate, and refined the designated uses are in describing the state's or tribe's objective for a water body to support aquatic life, human health, recreation and other uses, the more effective those use designations can be in driving the management actions necessary to restore and protect water quality.
Under the proposed rule, if a state or tribe demonstrates through a defensible UAA that the use specified in section 101(a)(2)b or a sub-category of such a use is not attainable and subsequently removes the use, then the state or tribe shall adopt as replacement standards the highest degree of use that is attainable (i.e., the HAU). States and tribes have flexibility to adjust current designated uses through a UAA process in accordance with the provisions of §131.10(g). However, that flexibility is provided in the context of meeting the overall goals of the CWA. As part of the UAA process, a state or tribe may be able to adequately demonstrate that, for example, historic mining activities in an area result in nonattainment of applicable water quality criteria and the aquatic life use. However, if some less sensitive aquatic organisms are able to survive at the site, the goals of the CWA are not achieved by simply removing the aquatic life use designation and applicable criteria without considering if existing water quality can be maintained or, where applicable, restored. Rather, the revised provision would require that states and tribes determine through the UAA the level of aquatic life protection that would be attainable, and then designate that use. This revision will ensure that the HAU for water body is as protective of water quality as possible.
Triennial Reviews
Sections 303(a) through (c) of the CWA require that states and tribes adopt WQS applicable to their interstate and intrastate waters. Section 303(c)(1) further requires states and tribes to hold public hearings at least once every 3 years for the purpose of reviewing applicable WQS and, as appropriate, modifying and adopting new or revised standards, pending the EPA's approval of any proposed revisions. Public hearings on WQS provide an essential opportunity for stakeholders and the general public to participate in the WQS-setting process, provide input, and make their concerns known to public officials. In addition, the regulation requires states and tribes to consider whether any new information has become available and to revise standards accordingly, if uses specified in CWA section 101(a)(2) that were previously unattainable are now attainable.
Stakeholders have expressed frustration that states and tribes may retain criteria in their state or tribe standards that are no longer protective of designated uses for multiple triennial review cycles, despite the availability of new or revised EPA CWA section 304(a) criteria recommendations. The EPA is aware of instances in which states and tribes have retained certain criteria in their WQS for multiple triennial review cycles, even with new or revised criteria recommendations available, and is concerned that the existing regulatory language might be leading to confusion. The proposed rule will ensure that state or tribe standards incorporate the most current EPA criteria recommendations at the time of each triennial review, thus improving protection of the nation's waters.
Antidegradation
Section 101(a) of the CWA emphasizes the prevention of water pollution and expressly includes the objective of restoration and maintenance of the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the nation's waters (33 U.S.C. 1251). The antidegradation requirements that the EPA incorporated by regulation in 1983 into §131.12 implement the maintenance aspect of CWA section 101(a) and are an essential component of the overall WQS program. Antidegradation plays a critical role in allowing states and tribes to maintain and protect the valuable resource of high quality water, and ensuring that decisions to allow a lowering of high quality water are made in a public manner that serves the public good. High quality water provides support for aquatic life, recreation, unique and significant ecologies, and species habitat. High quality waters can provide a greater diversity of biological species and a more complex community structure than other waters. These attributes confer a special degree of resiliency and resistance to adverse effects, particularly as the nation's waters face an increasing degree of stress from anthropogenic influences.
Protection of high quality waters is central to supporting both economic and social development. High quality water contributes to public health, aquatic ecosystems, drinking water supplies, and to the welfare of families and communities. The health and growth of tourism, recreation, fishing, and businesses and the jobs they create rely on a high quality and sustainable source of water. Degradation of water quality increase public health risks, is detrimental to aquatic communities, and can increase treatment costs that must be borne by ratepayers and local governments.
Maintenance of high quality waters can save time and economic resources to a community in the long-term. If a high quality water becomes impaired, it can take significant amounts of time and financial resources to develop a TMDL, and implement activities to restore the water body. Effectively using an antidegradation program to prevent the degradation of a water body in the first place is very often more cost-effective and efficient. In addition, maintaining a water body in its initial high quality state helps ensure the preservation of unique attributes that might be impossible to fully restore. Section 4.2 of this report contains a more detailed discussion on the benefits associated with high quality water.
Identifying High Quality Waters
The proposed rule requires states and tribes to identify high quality waters on a parameter-by-parameter basis or on a water body-by-water body approach, unless the state or tribe describes an alternate approach that considers the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the water body. In the absence of data for such holistic evaluation, the state or tribe shall apply high quality water protection per §131.12(a)(2).
The EPA expects states and tribes to consider a combination of chemical, biological, and physical characteristics, using all the relevant available data to conduct an overall holistic assessment of one or more of these characteristics in order to determine whether a water body would receive Tier 2 protection. The approach should not simply limit the applicability of Tier 2 through a list of disqualifiers for Tier 2 protection (e.g., listing on the state's 303(d) list) that are potentially poor indicators of the overall quality of a surface water and the value of affording it Tier 2 protection under antidegradation. This proposed revision will ensure protection of a larger number of high quality waters under antidegradation requirements.
Alternatives Analysis
Under the proposed rule, states and tribes will only make a finding that lowering water quality is necessary, as required in §131.12(a)(2), after conducting an alternatives analysis. This analysis must evaluate a range of alternatives that would prevent or minimize the degradation associated with the proposed activity. Further, the state or tribe will implement an alternative from a group of least degrading alternatives, each of which prevents or minimizes degradation to a comparable extent. This revision provides clarification to the existing requirement that a state or tribe must make a finding that a lowering of high water quality is "necessary" before allowing it.
The proposed rule ensures that, where the alternatives analysis identifies one or more feasible alternatives to allowing the degradation, a proposed project would be modified to minimize degradation of water quality. This balanced consideration of water quality impacts along with other holistic considerations is the most thorough and publicly transparent way to determine that lower water quality is allowed only when necessary, consistent with the EPA's regulation.
Variances
The objective of the CWA is to "restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters." However, as environmental challenges become more complex, states and tribes may require more time to determine and implement the best strategies to improve water quality and attain applicable designated uses while striving to achieve the CWA goal. As an alternative to a permanent use downgrade, the EPA has encouraged states and tribes to utilize WQS variances as an important WQS tool to provide states and tribes time to make progress towards attaining a designated use and criteria.
The EPA's existing WQS regulation lacks explicit provisions on the issue of variances, and as a result, the EPA has heard from states and tribes, and stakeholders that there is confusion, inconsistency, and mixed interpretations about how, when, and where variances may be used. The proposed rule provides greater regulatory specification for implementation of a WQS variance as a time-limited designated use and criterion. This revision will encourage proper use of variances as a tool for achieving WQS and facilitating water quality improvements.
Variances are different from changes to the permanent designated use and associated criteria in that they are intended as a mechanism to provide time for stakeholders to implement adaptive management approaches that will improve water quality where the designated use and criterion currently in place are not being met. The EPA is proposing that whenever feasible, numeric criterion that reflects the highest attainable condition during the term of the variance is used. This numeric criterion must protect the interim designated use and be based on sound scientific rationale. Such a requirement is essential because it provides regulatory assurance that the variance will result in more than just maintaining the current water quality, and stakeholders may be less likely to perceive variances as a means of locking ambient conditions in place and delaying environmental improvements.
Variances allow stakeholders to implement actions that will achieve interim uses and criteria that are known to be attainable when there is uncertainty as to whether the designated use and criterion is ultimately attainable. Variances are limited in their scope, typically, to one pollutant. Variances are an environmentally preferable tool to a permanent designated use change in that designated use protection is retained for all pollutants as they apply to all sources with the exception of those specified in the variance. When properly applied, a variance can lead to improved water quality over time, and in some cases, full attainment of designated uses due to advances in treatment technologies, control practices, or other changes in circumstances, thereby furthering the objectives of the CWA.
The proposed revisions will establish a standardized set of requirements to facilitate efforts to improve water quality by allowing stakeholders to address any challenges and uncertainties associated with attaining the designated use and the associated criterion. The revisions would ensure that states and tribes base their identification and water body assessments decisions (under CWA sections 303(d) and 305(b)), and development of WQBELS in permits for pollutants and dischargers not specified in the variance, on the designated use and criterion, even under the water body variance scenario. These revisions will also provide assurance that further feasible progress toward the designated use and criterion will be made during the variance period and will also help meet CWA goals.
Compliance Schedule Authorizing Provisions
CWA section 502(17) defines "schedule of compliance" to mean "a schedule of remedial measures including an enforceable sequence of actions or operations leading to compliance with an effluent limitation, other limitation, prohibition, or standard." The EPA's NPDES regulation at 40 CFR 122.2 defines a schedule of compliance as "a schedule of remedial measures included in a `permit,' including an enforceable sequence of interim requirements...leading to compliance with the CWA and regulations." Section 301(b)(1)(C) of the CWA specifies that there shall be achieved "...not later than July 1, 1977, any more stringent limitation, including those necessary to meet WQS, treatment standards, or schedules of compliance, established pursuant to any State or tribe law or regulations (under authority preserved by section 1370 of this title) or any other Federal law or regulation, or required to implement any applicable water quality standard established pursuant to this chapter."
The EPA's current WQS regulation is silent regarding compliance schedules and compliance schedule authorizing provisions. As a result, the EPA is concerned that state and tribal permitting authorities may be including compliance schedules in permits, thus delaying compliance with a WQS-based WQBEL, even though the state or tribe may not have authorized the use of such compliance schedules in its WQS or implementing regulations. The proposed rule adds a new regulatory provision at §131.15 to clarify that a state or tribe may only issue compliance schedules for WQBELS in NPDES permits if the state or tribe has authorized issuance of such compliance schedules pursuant to state or tribe law in its WQS or implementing regulations. Any such compliance schedule authorizing provision is a WQS subject to the EPA's review and approval. The proposed provision would also clarify that individual compliance schedules issued pursuant to such authorizing provisions are not WQS but must be consistent with CWA section 502(17), the state or tribe's EPA-approved compliance schedule authorizing provision, and the requirements of 40 CFR §§122.2 and 122.47.
Compliance schedule authorizing provisions allow the state or tribe to provide a permittee additional time to comply with a WQBEL that derives from and complies with the applicable WQS beyond the date of permit issuance, which is the date upon which a permittee is otherwise required to comply with its WQBEL. Thus, a compliance schedule authorizing provision allows the state or tribe to delay when it will meet the applicable WQS. By requiring states and tribes to authorize the use of compliance schedules in their WQS or implementing regulations, the EPA ensures that WQBELs subject to appropriately issued compliance schedules are fully consistent with the requirements of WQS. Once approved pursuant to CWA 303(c)(3), the compliance schedule authorizing provision itself becomes part of the applicable WQS; therefore, any delay in compliance with a WQBEL pursuant to that permit compliance schedule would be consistent with WQS.
These revisions will ensure that permittees do not unnecessarily delay implementation of WQS that are protective of water quality.
Benefits of Improved Water Quality
As stated above, the proposed rule will improve the effectiveness of the WQS regulation in restoring and maintaining the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation's waters. Improved water quality has many human health and ecological benefits, described below.
Market Benefits
The market benefits of improved water quality are reflected in its value to water supply and use, commercial fishing, and public and private ownership.
Water Supply and Use
   > Drinking Water Treatment and Household Water Use. Reducing contaminants, nutrients, and sediment in potable water supplies lowers the cost of treating these waters, reduces the health risk from potential exposure to contaminated drinking water, and avoids the need to develop alternative raw water sources. Discharged pollutants negatively affect water quality, and require increased spending on treatment measures such as settlement ponds, filtration, and chemical treatment. Reducing nutrient loadings to surface waters reduces eutrophication, which is one of the main causes of taste and odor impairment in drinking water. Taste and odor in drinking water has a major negative impact on the public perception of drinking water safety and result in a significant increase in drinking water treatment costs to address foul taste and odor in the source waters. If adequate water treatment is not available, a temporary water source needs to be substituted (if available). If an alternative water supply is not at hand, urban areas might need to be supplied with bottled or tankered water, as has been the case in Australia and elsewhere (Steffensen, 2008). Long-term solutions might require the development of new raw water supplies, which would involve investments for acquisition of land (if available), regulatory review and permitting, development of infrastructure (dams, pumps, pipes), and watershed protection.
Agricultural Water Use. Irrigation water that contains pollutants can harm crops and reduce agricultural productivity (Clark et al. 1985). Although elevated nutrient concentrations in irrigation water would not adversely affect its usefulness for plants, concerns exist for potential residual effects due to contaminants entering the food chain. More importantly, eutrophication promotes cyanobacterial blooms that can kill livestock and wildlife that drink the contaminated surface water. The reduction in nutrients loading due to adoption or improved implementation of WQS, for example, can provide benefits in increased cattle production or avoided cost due to cattle sickness or death.
Reservoir Dredging. Water storage facilities (e.g., reservoirs) serve many functions, including providing drinking water, flood control, hydropower supply, and recreational opportunities. Sediment, one of the pollutants likely to be reduced by improved implementation of WQS, can be carried from streams into reservoirs, where it can settle and build up layers of silt over time. This increase in sedimentation rates will reduce reservoir capacity. To replace this capacity, sediment must be dredged from reservoirs, or new reservoirs must be constructed (Clark et al. 1985). Water quality criteria reduce the amount of sediment entering reservoirs and, as a result, the need for sediment mitigation measures in these reservoirs and the cost of reservoir maintenance. Because sediment mitigation is often accomplished through dredging, which itself is environmentally destructive, an additional benefit to reduced reservoir sediment buildup is the reduced environmental impact of dredging sediment and disposing of it.
Industrial Water Use. Sediment discharges may also have negative effects on industrial water users. Suspended sediment increases the rate at which hydraulic equipment, pumps, and other equipment wear out, causing accelerated depreciation of capital equipment. Sediment can also clog cooling water systems at power plants and other large industrial facilities (Clark et al. 1985). Improved water quality standard implementation will reduce sediment concentrations in source waters and thus increase the useful life of industrial equipment.
Commercial Fishing
Pollutants regulated by WQS can greatly reduce fish populations, and therefore the size of commercial harvest, by inhibiting reproduction and survival of an aquatic species. These changes negatively affect subsistence anglers, commercial anglers and fish sellers, and consumers of fish and fish products. Improvement of water quality due to the more efficient implementation of WQS will enhance aquatic life habitat and thus contribute to reproduction and survival of commercially harvested species, which in turn will lead to an increase in producer and consumer surplus.
Public and Private Property Ownership
Aesthetic degradation of land and water resources resulting from pollutant discharges (e.g., increased water turbidity) can reduce the market value of property and thus affect the financial status of property owners. Conversely, water quality improvement and protection can increase or maintain waterfront property values. Studies suggest that waterfront property is more desirable when located near unpolluted water, and therefore property values increase with improved water quality.
For example, a hedonic price study by Bejranonda et al. (1999) found that "the rate of sediment inflow entering the lakes has a negative influence on lakeside property rent" (p. 216). Sediment discharges also have a significant impact on stream morphology. For example, higher coarse sediment load leads to an increase in width of the riverbed and, as a result, bank erosion (Wheeler et al. 2003). A 1993 study of Lake Erie's housing market found that "erosion-prone lakeshore property will be discounted" (Kriesel et al. 1993). Likewise, stabilization of stream banks leads to an increase in the value of surrounding property (Streiner and Loomis 1996).
Nonmarket Benefits
The nonmarket benefits of improving or protecting water quality include those associated with human health, recreation, and nonmarket nonuse values.
Human Health Improvements
Cleaner water may lead to a reduction in illness either through reduced consumption of contaminated seafood or reduced exposure to infectious disease while recreating in contaminated waters. Some contaminants, such as mercury, PCBs, chlordane, dioxins, and DDT, may persist for long periods of time and bioaccumulate (e.g., they can be found in levels several time higher than ambient water in large fish (such as Bass), that consume contaminated bottom dwelling animals). Eating fish contaminated with mercury or PCBs may lead to developmental and neurological problems and is especially hazardous for children and pregnant women. Consumption of shellfish may lead to exposure to bacterial and other viruses that that have accumulated in the shellfish from the water in which they grow.
Swimmers, boaters, and other recreational water users may also suffer from gastrointestinal and other illnesses due to ingesting, immersing, or wading in water that contains enteric pathogens such as fecal bacteria and viruses. To the extent that the proposed rule increases the nation's water quality by reducing current exposures and illness and preventing future exposures and illness, society benefits. The benefits are reflected in the avoided cost of illness, including treatment costs and lost wages, or in the public's willingness-to-pay, which also includes the value of avoided pain and suffering.
Recreational Benefits
Benefits also include the value of improved environmental goods and services used and valued by people (even if these services and goods are not traded in markets). Aesthetic degradation of water resources can reduce owner satisfaction with the property and the residential area in general. It can also adversely affect recreational opportunities. Improved water quality from reducing pollutant discharges or preventing degradation may translate into two components of recreational benefits: (1) an increase in the value of a recreational trip resulting from a more enjoyable experience, and (2) an increase in recreational participation.
Recreational activities that may be adversely impacted by water pollution are summarized below.
Outings. Activities that take place near water such as hiking, jogging, picnicking, and wildlife viewing may be adversely affected by pollutant discharges into the water. While these activities do not involve contact with the water, murky and visually unpleasant water and odors associated with some types of pollutants may greatly detract from the enjoyment of these activities. Decreases in fish populations may cause a reduction in wildlife near the resource, affecting wildlife viewing. Pollutants may negatively affect local flora and fauna, reducing the aesthetic appeal of the area near the resource and negatively impacting wildlife viewing.
Recreational Fishing. Degraded water can reduce fish populations by inhibiting reproduction and survival of an aquatic species. This effect may lead to fewer and smaller fish, and a reduction of the game fish population. In addition, pollutants may reduce the aesthetics of the water body, which may reduce anglers' utility (enjoyment) of their fishing experience. Additionally, turbidity caused by pollutant discharges may affect recreational anglers by reducing the distance over which fish can see lures, resulting in lower catch rates (Clark et al. 1985).
Boating. Polluted water greatly reduces the aesthetic appeal of recreational boating activities. Turbidity caused by sediment and other pollutant discharges may affect the safety of boating. Turbidity may obscure underwater obstacles, making collisions more likely. Increased sediment concentrations may also create sandbars, increasing the chances of running aground. Clark et al. (1985) estimated that turbidity (from all sources) may be responsible for as many as 200 boating fatalities and many more injuries each year. Using the value for a statistical life's worth of risks ($7 million) and multiplying it by the number of boating fatalities yields the value of preventing these fatalities of $1.4 billion per year. Even if reducing discharges prevents only a small number of fatalities and injuries each year, the expected monetary value of preventing boating accidents can be significant.
Swimming. Pollution of water by toxic chemicals or by fecal indicator bacteria may cause closure of water bodies for swimming. Eutrophication caused by nutrients and turbidity caused by sediment and other pollutants also may greatly reduce a swimmer's aesthetic enjoyment of a water body. Additionally, turbidity may create safety hazards for the swimmer by reducing the ability to see underwater hazards or increasing diving accidents by impairing the ability to gauge water depth.
Hunting. Similar to the effect on outings, discharged pollutants may greatly detract from the hunters' aesthetic enjoyment of a water resource. Damage to flora and fauna may also cause a reduction in the game population, reducing the number and quality of the game available.
Nonmarket Nonuse Benefits
Even if no human activities or uses are affected by the potential positive environmental changes caused by the proposed rule, such environmental changes may still affect social welfare. For a variety of reasons, including bequest, altruism, and existence motivations, individuals may value the knowledge that water quality is being maintained, that ecosystems are being protected, and that populations of individual species are healthy, completely independent of their use value. It is often difficult to quantify the relationship between changes in pollutant discharges and the improvements in societal well-being that are not associated with current use of the affected ecosystem or habitat. That these values exist, however, is indisputable, as evidenced, for example, by society's willingness to contribute to organizations whose mission is to purchase and preserve lands or habitats to avert development (although some portion of these donations may be motivated by use values). Notwithstanding challenges involved in estimation of nonuse values, there is a substantial literature devoted to such issues (Bateman et al. 2002). This literature provides insight into analysts' ability to estimate nonuse values within various types of policy contexts, and for various types of resources.

References
Bateman, I. J., R. T. Carson, B. Day, M.; Hanemann, N. Hanley, T. Hett, M. Jones-Lee, G. Loomes, S. Mourato, E. Özdemiroglu, D. W. Pearce, R. Sugden, J. Swanson. Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques: a Manual. Edward Elgar Publishing. 2002.
Bejranonda, S. F.J. Hitzhusen; and D. Hite. 1999. "Agricultural Sedimentation Impacts on Lakeside Property Values." Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 28(2): 208-18.
Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). 2013a. Employer Costs for Employee Compensation. Employer costs per hour worked for employee compensation and costs as a percent of total compensation: State and local government workers, by occupational and industry group, Professional and related
Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). 2013b. Employment Cost Index for wages and salaries, for State and local government workers, by occupational group and industry, Professional and related.
Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). 2012. May 2012 National Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates, United States. http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm
Clark, E., J.A. Haverkamp, and W.Chapman. 1985. "Eroding Soils: The Off-Farm Impacts." Washington, DC: The Conservation Foundation. http://www.cabdirect.org/abstracts/19871912023.html;jsessionid=3A1DF6C954FBAC1013D4203E5052C706
 Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IDNR). 2008. Fiscal Impact Statement Associated with the Notice of Intended Action: Antidegradation  -  Water Quality Standards (Chapter 61).
Kriesel, W., A. Randall, and F. Lichtkoppler. 1993. "Estimating the Benefits of Shore Erosion Protection in Ohio's Lake Erie Housing Market." Water Resources Research. 29(4). 795-801.
Missouri Department of Natural Resource (MODNR). 2008. Missouri Register: Proposed Amendment: 10 CSR 20-7.031 Water Quality Standards. January 16, 2008.
Steffensen, D. 2008. "Economic cost of cyanobacterial blooms" in Cyanobacterial Harmful Algal Blooms: State of the Science and Research Needs. H.K. Hudnell (ed.) Springer Press.
Streiner, C.F. and Loomis, J.B. 1996. "Estimating the Benefits of Urban Stream Restoration Using the Hedonic Price Method." Rivers. 5(4): 267-278.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2007. Water Quality Standards Handbook, Second Edition. Available at: http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/waterquality/standards/handbook/.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2011b. Variance Compendium. Available at: http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/standards/docs/toxics/humanhealth/rulemaking/VarianceCompendium110124.pdf.
United States Office of Personnel Management. 2012. Salary Table 2012-GS. Available at: http://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/salaries-wages/2012/general-schedule/.
Wheeler, A.P., A.E. Keiter Rosenberger and P.L. Angermeier. 2003. Potential Impacts of I-73 on Stream Habitat and Biota,with Emphasis on the Federally Endangered Roanoke Logperch. Department of Fisheries and Wildlife services, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.
 If the EPA Required Adoption of Antidegradation Implementation Methods as WQS
The EPA's proposal specifies that it is considering and requesting public comment on whether to require states and tribes to adopt antidegradation implementation methods as WQS, subject to the  EPA's review and approval or disapproval.  This revision to the WQS regulations may result in incremental administrative burden and rulemaking costs associated with adoption of legally binding antidegradation implementation methods. The current regulations require states and tribes to adopt an antidegradation policy into state or tribal WQS, which are subject to review and approval by the EPA, and to identify antidegradation implementation methods.
Because adoption of an antidegradation policy into state or tribal WQS is required by current regulations, the EPA assumes for the purpose of this analysis that all states and tribes currently have adequate antidegradation policies adopted in state or tribal WQS. However, the current regulation requires states and tribes to only identify methods that implement the antidegradation policy. Although some states and tribes have implementation methods adopted into their WQS, other states and tribes either document implementation methods outside of state or tribal statute or rule (i.e., not as a WQS), or have no formal implementation methods despite the current regulation requiring them. Because the requirement that the EPA is considering would require states and tribes to adopt antidegradation implementation methods into regulation (or by reference) and submit them to the EPA for review and approval, some states and tribes may need to adopt their antidegradation implementation methods after making any necessary revisions to their existing methods or develop new methods to adopt into rule.
For the purposes of this analysis, the EPA estimated the one-time burden and costs associated with developing/revising and adopting antidegradation implementation methods as WQS.
Revising or developing and adopting as WQS antidegradation implementation methods consistent with the WQS regulation revision that the EPA is considering may result in several additional administrative activities. These activities include developing or revising implementation method language, adopting the implementation methods into a legally binding document according to state or tribal administrative procedures and the EPA's public participation requirements, conducting public hearings, responding to public comments, revising the implementation methods as necessary, and submitting the implementation methods to the EPA for review and approval.
The EPA estimates that revising existing implementation methods or developing new implementation methods could require on average approximately 400 to 800 labor hours, with the range representing the difference between minor revisions to existing methods and developing methods anew. Using the EPA's estimated hourly wage rate shown in Exhibit 3-1 ($48/hour), the EPA estimated the average incremental cost associated with revising or developing antidegradation implementation methods as ranging between $19,200 (400 hours  $48/hour) to $38,400 (800 hours  $48/hour) for a state or tribe.
The EPA estimates that 39 states have antidegradation implementation methods that do not meet the requirement that the EPA is considering. Because little information is available on antidegradation implementation methods for territories and tribes, for the purpose of this analysis, the EPA used the conservative assumption that all 5 territories, the District of Columbia, and all 39 tribes authorized to administer WQS programs and that have EPA-approve WQS do not have antidegradation implementation methods adopted as WQS. Thus, one-time incremental costs associated with developing or revising and adopting as WQS antidegradation implementation methods could range from approximately $1,613,000 ((39 + 5 + 1 + 39)  $19,200) to $3,226,000 ((39 + 5 + 1 + 39)  $38,400). These costs may be overestimated if territories and authorized tribes require less effort compared to states.
Exhibit A-1summarizes the potential incremental one-time burden and costs associated with developing or revising and adopting as WQS antidegradation implementation methods.
Exhibit A-1: Potential One-time Burden and Costs Associated with Developing or Revising  and adopting Antidegradation Implementation Methods as WQS
Burden per Entity (hours)[1]
Cost per Entity[2]
Number of Potentially Affected Entities[3]
Total Burden (hours)[4]
Total Costs (2013$; one-time)[5]
Annualized Cost[6] (2013$/year)
                                   400 - 800
                              $19,200  -  $38,400
                                      84
                               33,600  -  67,200
                           $1,613,000  -  $3,226,000
                              $108,400 - $216,800
1. Reflects potential incremental effort to develop or revise adequate implementation methods.
2. Hours per entity multiplied by average hourly wage of $48.
3. Includes 39 states, 6 territories (including the District of Columbia), and 39 authorized tribes with authority to administer WQS programs.
4. Burden per entity multiplied by total number of potentially affected entities.
5. Costs per entity multiplied by total number of potentially affected entities.
6. Although the EPA expects rulemaking costs to be incurred over an initial 3 year period, one-time costs are annualized at 3% discount rate over 20 years for comparative purposes.

If the EPA includes the requirement to adopt antidegradation implementation methods as WQS in the final rule, the total one-time burden and costs to states and tribes could be 43,100 hours to 114,700 hours and $2.07 million to $5.51 million, respectively, and total annual burden and costs would remain the same at 101,930 hours to 152,115 hours and $4.84 million to $7.36 million, respectively as shown in Exhibit A-2.
Exhibit A-2: Summary of Potential Incremental Administrative Burdens and Costs Associated with the Proposed Rule, including Requirement to Adopt Antidegradation Implementation Methods as WQS
Provision
One-time Activities
Annual Activities

Burden (hours)
Cost (2013$ millions)
Annualized Cost[1] (2013$ millions/year)
Burden (hours/year)
Annual Cost (2013$ millions/year)
Rulemaking Activities
                               9,500  -  47,500
                                 $0.46 - $2.28
                                 $0.03 - $0.15
                                      --
                                      --
Designated Uses
                                      --
                                      --
                                      --
                                 240  -  1,200
                                 $0.01 - $0.06
Antidegradation
                               33,600  -  67,200
                                 $1.61 - $3.23
                                 $0.11 - $0.22
                              97,070  -  145,605
                                 $4.61 - $7.04
Variances
                                      --
                                      --
                                      --
                                4,620  -  5,310
                                 $0.22 - $0.26
National Total
                              43,100  -  114,700
                                 $2.07 - $5.51
                                 $0.14 - $0.37
                              101,930  -  152,115
                                 $4.84 - $7.36
 `--` = not applicable