Monday, June 24, 2002 Part m Environmental Protection Agency 40 CFR Parts 122 and 450 Effiuent limitation Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards for the Construction and Development
Category; Proposed Rule 
42644 Federal RegistCl'1 Vol. 67, No. 121/Monday, lune 24, 20ld/Proposed Rules ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 122 and 450 [FRL-7217-1j FlIN 204l)-AD42 Effluent Limitation
Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards for the Construction and Development Category; Proposed Rule AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY:
EPA is proposing a range of options to address storm water discharges from construction sites, As one option. EPA is proposing technology-based effluent limitation guldelice. and standards
(ELGs) for storm water discharges from construction sites required to obtain National Pollutaot Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits. As another option, EPA is proposing not
to establish ELGs for storm water discharges from those sites, but to allow technology-based permit requirements to continue to be established based upon the best professional judgment
of the permit authority A thIrd option would establish inspection and certification requirements that would be incorporated into the storm water permits issued by EPA and States, with
other permit requirements based on the best professional judgment of the permit authority, This proposal, if implemented, is expected to sigulficantly reduce the amount of sediment discharged
from construction sites. The deposition of sediment from construction site runoff has contributed to the loss of capacity in small streams. lakes, and reservoirs. leading to the necessity
for mitigation efforts such as dredging or replacement. Today's document also requests comment and information on several variations on these options and several other significant aspects
of the proposal, such as technologies. costs, and economics. OATES: EPA must receive comments on the proposal by October 22, 2002. EPA will conduct public meetings for this proposed
rule onJuly 9, 2002; July 23, 2002; July 30. 2002 and additional dates to be announced later. ADDRESSES: Submit written comments to: Comment Clerk. Water Docket (4101). US EPA, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave.. NW.. Washington. DC 20460. (See next paxagraph regarding addresses for hand deliveries.) Pleese refer to Docket No. W-02-06. EPA requests an original and three copies
of your comments and enclosures (including references). Commenters who want EPA to ackrtowledge receipt oftheir comments should enclose a self-addressed. stamped envelope. No facsimiles
(faxes) will be accepted. Comments may also be sent via e-mall to ow-dockel@epo.gov. For additional information on how to submit electronic comments see "SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION, How
to Submit Comments." EPA will be holding public meetings on today's proposal on five sepaxate dates. The first three meetings are listed below; EPA will announce the remaining meetings
in a subsequent Federal Register document and on its website at http://www.epa.gov! waterscience!guide!construction!. No registration is required for these meetings. Seating will be
provided on a first-come, first-served basis. • Tuesday, July 9, 2002, 9 a.m.-noon, Hyatt Regency Hotel-5an Francisco Airport, 1333 Bayshore Highway, Burlingame. CA, Phone 650-3471234.
• Tuesday, July 23. 2002. 9 a.m.-noon. Wyndham Garden Hotel-Dallas Paxk Central. 8051 LllJ Freeway (1-635). Dallas, TX. Phone 972-680-3000. • Tuesday. July 30, 2002, 9 a.m.-noon, Holiday
Inn Chlcago-Ehnhurst. 624 N. York Rd.. Elmhurst.lL. Phone 630279-1100. Meeting Access: Ifyou need special accommodations at this meeting, including wheelchair access, you should contact
the Eastem Research Group Conference Registration Line at 781-674-7374. at least five business days before the meeting so that appropriate arrangements Can be made. See "Public Meeting
Information" below for additional meeting details. EPA established the public record for this proposed rulemaking under docket number W-02-06. The record is currently located in the
Water Docket, RoomEB 57, Waterside Mall. 401 M Street, SW.. Washington, DC. The record is available for inspection from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. excluding legal holidays.
For eccess eccess to the docket materials, call 202-260-3027 to schedule an appointraent. You may bave to pay a reasoneble fee for copying. Please note that several of the support documents
are avallable at no charge on EPA's website; see "Supporting Documentation') below. The Water Docket will be moving to e new office location in August 2002. For band deliveries of conunents
through August. submit to the above address. Please cail the above number for details on the new location. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information concerning today's
proposed rule, contact Mr. Jesse Pritts at 202-566-1038 or Mr. Eric Strassler at 202-566-1026. For economic information contact Mr. George Denning at 202-566-1067. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulated Entities Entities potentially regulated by this action include: North 􀁁􀁭􀁥􀁲􀁾􀀠lean Induscategory Examples ot re{Julaled enflties Iry Classificalfon 􀁓􀁹􀁳􀁾lem (NAICS)code
Industry.. Construction Site operators 􀁤􀁩􀁳􀁾􀀠turning 1 or more acres of land and performing !he following activities: Building. Devel-I 233 ' oping and Gen' eral COntracting. I'
I, Heavy Corstruetlon , 234 EPA does not intend the preceding table to be exhaustive. but provides it as a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action.
This tabie lists the types of entities that EPA is now aware could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of entities not listed in the table could also be regulated. To
determine whether your facility is regulated by this action. you should carefully exantine the applicability criteria in §450.10 of today's proposed rule and the definition of 6'construction
activity" and "small construction activity" in existing EPA regulations at 40 CFR 122.26(b)(14)(x) and 122.26(b)(15J. respectively. Ifyou have queations regarding the applicability ofthis
action to a particulax entity. consult one of the persons listed for technical information in the preceding FOR FUFlTHEFl INFORMATION CONTACT section. How To Submit Comments The public
may submit comments in written or electronic form. (See the ADDRESSES section above.) Electronic comments must be identified by the docket number W-02-06 and must be submitted as a WordPerfect.
MS Word or ASCll text file, avoiding the use of special characters and any form of encryption. EPA requests that any graphics included in electronic comments also be provided in hardcopy
form. EPA also will accept comments and data on disks in the aforementioned file formats. Electronic comments received on this notice may be filed online at many Federal 
Federal Register I Vol. 67, No. lZl/Monday, lune 24, 20u,,-/Proposed Rules 42645 Depository Libraries. No confidential business information (CBI) should be sent by a-mail. Public Meeting
Information Se. the ADDRESSES section of this document for dates end locations of public meetings. During the meetings, EPA will present information on the applicability of the proposed
regulation, the technology options selected as the basis for the proposed limitations and standards, and tha compliance costs and pollutant reductions. EPA will also allow lime for questions
and answers during these sessions. These meetings are not public hearings for the purpose of obtaining comment on the proposal. EPA will not generate a transcript of the meetings. The
public may submit comments in writing or electronically as described above. Supporting Documentation Several key documents support the proposed regulations: 1. <'Development Document
for Proposed Effluent Gnidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category," EPA-1!21-R02-007. ("Development Document") This document presents EPA's methodology and
technical conclusions concerning the C&D category. 2. "Economic Analysis of Proposed Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category," EPA-EPA-1!21-R-02--QOS.
("Economic Analysis") This document presents the methodology employed to assess economic and environmental impacts of the proposed rule and the results ofthe analysis. 3. "Envil'onmental
Assessment for Proposed Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category," EPA-EPAB21-R-02-009. ("Environmental Assessment)') Major supporting documents
are available In hard copy from the National Service Center for Environmental Publications (NSCEP), U.S. EPAINSCEP, P.O. Box 42419, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA 45242-2419, telephone 800-490-919B,
http://www.epa.gov/ncepihomi. You can obtain electronic copies of this preamble and proposed rule as well as the technical and economic support documents for today's proposal at EPA's
website for the C&D rule, http://www.epa.govlwatersciancelguidel construction. Overview The preamble describes the terms, acronyms. and abbreviations used in this notice; the background
documents that support these proposed regulations; the legal authority of these rules; a SUIllll1aI}' of the proposal; background information; and the technical and economic methodologies
used by the Agency to develop these regulations. This preamble also solicits comment and date on specific areas of interest. Table ofContent. I. Legal Authority II, Purpose & Summary
of Proposed Rule Ill. Background A. Clean Water Act B. NPDES Storm Water Permit Program 1, Storm. Water Permits fur Construction: General and Individual a. General Permits b, EPA Construction
General Permit c. State Construction General Permits d. Individual Permits 2. Municipal Storm Water Permits and Local Government Regulation of Construction Activity a, NPDES Requirements
h. EPA Guidance to Municipalities C. Other State and Local Storm Water Requirements D. EfilueJIt Guidelines and Standards Program 1. Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Availahle
(BPT) 2. Best Available Technology EconOmically Achievable (BAT) 3. Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT) 4. New Source Perfonnancc Standards (NSPS) 5. Pretreatment Standards
6. Effluent Guidelines Plan and Consent Decree E. Pollution Prevention Act IV. Scope of Proposal V. Summary of Data Collection Activities A. Existing Data Sources B. Storm Water Discharge
Sampling and Site Visits C. Industry-Supplied Data D. Summary of Public Participation VJ. Industry Profile A. Affected Industry Sectors B. Construction and Development Activities Affecting
Water Qusiity 1. Planning end Site Design 2. Clearing. Excavating and Grading 3. Erosion and Sediment Control 4. Control of Other Pollutants 5. Final Stabilization and 􀁌􀁯􀁮􀁧􀁾􀁔􀁥􀁲􀁭􀀠Storm
Water Management vn. Storm Water Discharge Characteristics Vlll. DeScription of Available Technologies A. Introduction B. Erosion and Sediment Controls and and Other Site Management
Practices 1. Goals 2. Major Categories of Best Management Practices C. Long-Term Storm Water Management Control 1. Goals 2. Major Categories of Best Management Practices IX. Development
of Effiuent Limitation Guidelines and Standards A. Industry Suhcategorization 1. Suhcategonzatlonby Site Size 2. Subcategorization hy Industry 3. Subcategorization hy Builder/Developer
Size 4. Subcatogorization Based on Hydrology, Soil Loss Potential or Other Geographic Factors 5. Suhcategorization Based on Past Land Use B. Regulatory Options Considered 1. Overview
of Regulatory Options: Erosion and Sediment Controls and Other Temporary BMPs 2. Overview of Regulatory Options: Certification and Inspection 3. Overview of Regulatory Options: Continued
Reliance on State and Local ESC Programs 4. Overview of Regulatory OptiODB Considered: Long-term Stonn Water Management X. Detetmination of Best Practicable Control Technology Currently
A vailahl. (BPT). Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (Ber), Best A vailahl. Technology Economically Achievable (BAT). and New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) A. Rationale
for Selected BPT Option B. BCT Determination 1. July 9, 1986 BCT Methodology 2. Consideration of BCT Option C. BAT and NSPS D. Summary of Provisions in Today's Proposed Rule 1. General
Provisions and SWPPP Preparation 2. Design and Installation ofErosion and Sediment Controls 3. Inspection and Certification Provisions 4. Maintenance XI. Methodology for Estimating Costs
A. Costs to the Construction and Development Category B. Costs to Permit Authorities Xli. Economic Impact and Social Cost Analysis A. Introduction B. Description ofEconomic Activity
C. Method fur Estimating Economic Impacts 1. Model Project Analysis 2. Model Firm Analysis 3. Housing Market Impacts 4. Impacts on the National Economy D. Results 1. 􀁆􀁩􀁮􀁮􀁾􀁌􀁥􀁶􀁥􀁬􀀠Impacts
2. Impacts: on Governments 3. 􀁃􀁯􀁭􀁭􀁵􀁮􀁩􀁴􀁹􀁾􀁌􀁥􀁶􀁥􀁬􀀠Impacts 4. Foreign Trade Impacts 5. Impacts: on New Facilities 6. Social Costs 7. Small Business Impacts XIll. Cost-Effectiveness
Analysis XIV. Non-Water Quality Environmental Impacts A. Air Pollution B. Solid Waste C. Energy Usage D. By-Products from BMPs XV. Environmental Assessment A. Introduction B. Methodology
for .stImating Environmental furpacts and Pollutant Reductions C. Potential Loading Reductions of Proposed Options 
42646 Federal Regist!!u Vol. 67, No. 121 I Monday, June 24, 􀀲􀀰􀀨􀀬􀁾􀀧􀀯􀁐􀁲􀁯􀁰􀁯􀁳􀁥􀁤􀀠Rules XVI. Benefit Analysis A. Benefits Categories Estimated B. Quantification of Benefits
XVII. Bonefit·Cost Comparison xvm. Regulatory Implementation A. Compliance Dates B. Relationship ofEffluent Guidelines to NPDES Pennits C. Upset and Bypass Provisions D. Variances end
Waivers 1. Fundamentally Different Factors Variance 2. Low Soil Loss Potential Waiver E. Other Clean Water Act Requirements XIX. Related Acts ofCongress. Executive Orders, and Agency
Initiatives A. Paperwork Reduction Act B. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) C. Regulalory Fu,xibility Act [RFA) as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
of 1996 (SBREF A) 1. Introduction 2. Summary of Panel Recommendations D. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Ple.nning and Review E. Ex;ecutive Order 13132: Federalism F. Executive Order
13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks G. Executive Order 13175; 13175; Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Goverrun.ents H. National
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act I. Plain Language Directive J. Eaacutive Order 13211 [Enel'!!Y Effects) XX. Solicitation ofData and Comments A. Specific Solicitation of Comments
and Data B. General Sollcitation ofComment I. Legal Authority EPA is proposing this regulation under the authorities of sections 301, 304,306.308,402 and 501 ofthe Clean Water Act (CWA),
33 U.S.C. 1311, 1314, 1316, 1318, 1342 and 1361 and pursuant to the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990. 42 U.S.C. 13101 et seq. II. Purpose and SlUDJl1a:ry ofProposed Rule Construction
and development (C&D) activity affecting water quality typically involves site selection and planning, and land-disturbing tasks dllring construction such as clearing, excavating and
grading. Disturbed soil. unot managed properly, can be easily washed off-site during storm events. Storm water discharges generaled during construction activities cancause an array of
physical, chemical and biological impacts. Water quality impairment may result. in part, because a number of pollutants axe preferentially absorbed onto mineral or argenic particles
found in fine sediment. The interconnected process of erosion (detachment of the soil particles). semment transport, and delivery is the primary pathway for introducing pollutants from
construction sites into aquatic systems. A primary concern at most construction sites is the erosion and transport process related to fine semment because rain splash, rills (small channels
typically less than one fool deep) and sheetwash (thin sheets of water flowing across a surface) encourage the detachment and transport ofthis material 10 water bodies. Although streams
and rivers naturally carry sediment loads. erosion from construction sites and runofffrom developed areas can elevate these loads 10 levels above those in undisturbed watersheds. Existing
national storm water :regulations require construction site operators to implement controls to manage construction site runoff, but do not requJre any specific level of controL One of
today's proposed approaches (Option 2) would establish effluent limitation guidelines in the form of minimum standerds far design and implementation of erosion and semment controls used
dllring the active phase of construction. This approach would cover sites with five or more acres of disturhed land, and would establish minimum requirements for conducting site inspections
and providing certification as 10 the design end completion of verious aspects of those controls. EPA acknowledges that many State and local governments have existing slandards for temporary
controls. Today. proposed effluent guidelines axe intended to work in concer! with existing requirements where equivalent, and would not supercede more stringenl requirements. In addition,
EPA is proposing two alternatives thet would not set national standards for control of storm water discherges from construction sites subject to permit reqttirements under section 402
of the CW A. Both of these approaches would rely insteed on a combination of existing State and local requJrements and additional reqttirements based on the best professional judgement
(BP)) of the permitting authority. Under one ofthese alternatives (Option 1). the proposal would establish minimum requJrements for conducting site inspections and providing certification
as to design end completion of controls requJred by the permit authority in its NPDES permit. These requJrements are similtrr to the inspection and certification requJrements in Option
2. Existing compliance determination practices for construction site stOTIll water controls rely principally on site inspections by local governments. however, enforcement efforts are
reported to be uneven nationwide. laxgely due to limited enforcemant resources at the Federal, Stete and local levels. The inspection and certification requirements in today's proposed
rule could strengthen the current permit program, Under another alternative (Option 3), no new requirements would be eslablished under this option. Both the control requirements and
the certification requJrements would be left to the best professional judgement of the permitting authorlty in order to allow them to be bettar tailored 10 local conditions. These proposed
options me discussed :in more detail in sections IX and X of today's notice. At this time, EPA is co-proposing all three options because it sees advantages to each. ill, Background A
Clean Water Act Congress adopted the Clean Water Act (CWA) to "restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation's waters" (Section 101(a), 33 U.S.C.
1251(al). To achieve this goal, the CW A prohibits the discherge of pollutants into navigable waters except in compliance with the statute. CWA section 402 requires Hpoint source" discharges
to obtain a pennit under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). These permits are issued by EPA regional offices or authorized State agencies. Following enactment
of the Federal Waler Pollution Control Amendments of 1972 (Publlc Law 92-500, October 18, 1972), EPA and the States issued NPDES permits to thousands of dischargers, hath industrial
(e.g. manufacturing, energy and mining facilities) and municipal (sewage treatment plants). As requJred under Title III of the Act, EPA promulgated effluenllimitation guidelines and
standards for many industrial categories, and these requirements are incorporated into the permits. The Water Quality Act of 1987 (Public Law 100-4, February 4. 1987) amended the CW
A. TllIl NPDES program was expanded by defining municipal and industrial storm water discharges Ill! point sources. Industrial storm water dischargers, municipal separate storm sewer
systems and other stOl'lll water dischargers designated hy EPA must ohlain NPDES permits pursuant to section 402.(p] (33 U.S.C. 1342(P)). 
Federal Regis!e" Vol. 67, No. 121/Monday, June 24. 􀀲􀀰􀀢􀁾􀀯􀁐􀁲􀁯􀁰􀁯􀁳􀁥􀁤􀀠Rules 42647 B. NPDES Storm Water Permit Program EPA's initial storm water regulations, promulgated in 1990,
identified construction as one of several types of industrial activity requiring an NPDES permit, These j'jPhase I" storm water regulations require operators oflarge construction sites
to apply for permits (40 CFR 122.26(h)(14)(x)). A large-site construction activity is one that; • Will distuxb five acres or greater; or • Will disturb less than five acres but is part
of a larger common plan of development or sale whose total land disturhing activities tota! five acres or greater (or is designated by the NPDES permitting authority); and • Will discharge
stonn water runoff from the construction site through a municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) or otherwise to waters ofthe United States. The Phase U storm water rule, promulgated
in 1999. generally extends permit coverage to sites one acre or greater (40 CFR 122.26(h)(15)). In addition to reqniring permits for construction site discharges, the NPDES regulations
require permits fur certain MS4s. The loca! governments responsible for the MS4s must operate a storm water management program. The local programs regulate a variety of business activities
that affect storm water nmoff, including construction, and the components of these programs are described in section m.B.2 of today's document. 1. Stann Water Permits for Construction:
General and Individual Pursuant to the l\'PDES Phase I storm water regulations at 40 CFR 122.26, EPA and the States began issuing permits for storm water discharges from large construction
sites in 1992. The Phase II rule requires that permits for smaller sites be obtained starting in 2003. A general description of the basic requirements for the Phase I and Phase II regulations
follows. a. General Permits. The vast majority of construction sites are covered by general permits. EPA and States use general permits to cover a group of similar dischargers under
one permit. See 40 CFR 122.28, General permits simplify the application process for the industry, provide uniform requirements across covered sites. and reduce administrative workload
for the permit authorities. EPA and the States have published documents containing the construction general permits, along with fonns and related procedures. To obtain coverage under
a general pennit, the permittee-eitherthe developer, builder or contractor for a construction project-submits a Notice ofIntent (NOI) to the permit authority. The NO! takes the place
of a lengthier application package that generally wonid be used for an individual NPDES permit. By SUbmitting the NO!. the permittee agrees to the conditions in the published permit.
Tbe permittee may begin land disturbance after a specified interval (typically 48 hours) following NOl submission unless otherwise notified or specified by the permit authority. b. EPA
Construction General Permit. EPA's Construction General Penni! (CGP) covers construction activities In six states. the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, U.S. territories, and specifically
designated portions of other states such as Indian Country and Federa! facilities. The "natioual" CGP. covering all the EPA Regions except Regions 4. 5 and 6, was published on February
17, 1998 (63 FR 7898). EPA has placed a copy of the "national" CGP in the docket for todav's proposal. Slightly different versions of the permit fur Regions 4 and 6 wern published on
April 28, 2000 (65 FR 25122) and Jniy 6.1998 (63 FR 36490) respectively. (EPA does not issue NPDES permits for states within Region 5,) EPA intends to issue a revised CGP later in 2002
to incorporate requirements promuigated in the Phase U rule. The principal reqnirement in the CGP is the preparation of a stOrm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) before submission
of the NO!. EPA's guidar>ce manual. "Storm Water Management for Construction Activities: Developing Pollution Prevention Plans and Best Management Practices/' (EPA 832fR-92-005, October
1, 1992; available on EPA's website at http://www.epa.gov!npdes!stormwater) describes the SWPPP process in detail. The plan must include a description of the site, with maps showing
drainege. discharge points, and location ofrunoff controls; a description of the "best management practices" (BMPs) , used; 1 The term "bast management practices" (BMP) is mentioned
in a few sections of the Clean Water Act. and is used extensively in EPA regulations. guidallce documents. state and local government documents, and many other technical publications,
The term has a variety ofmeanings within the water quality litefature. and is u..sed in situations involving both poinlSOun::eS and nonpoint sources. BMPs can he procedures for operation
.and mamten.ance ofmunicipal or industrl91 treatment plants. training CQ1lIS8S for plant employees, public notification procedures. or agricultu:rQl WBSte handling practices. as well
as both structural and nOIl-stroctuxal techroques for controlling storm water discharges from any source. Within the storm water field, some publications usa the tenn "B:MPs" when re!e.tring
to erosion and sediment controls, To avoid confusion, in today's document EPA is using the terms "erosion and sediment controls" (ESC) and "temporary BMPs" to describe the temporary
controls used by construction site operators during inspection procedures and reports. A copy of the plan must be kept on the construction site from the date of project initiation to
the date of final stabilization. Permittees do not routinely submit plans to the permit authority, but a copy must be readily available to authorized inspectors during nonna! business
hours. EPA's construction general pennit does not require that specific BMPs be contained in the SWPPP, except that temporary sediment basins shall be used on sites with 10 or more acres
disturbed at one time. Rether. the permit describes the genera! areas the plan must address (e.g" minimization of erosion, containment of sediment on the site, proper handling of chemicals
and debris. etc.) etc.) and leaves it to the operator to develop appropriate site-specific measures to accomplish these purposes. EPA encourages multiple operators at a construction
site to develop a comprehensive SWPPP. Other requirements in the CGP include cOIlducting regular inspections and reporting releases ofreportable quantities of hazardous substances. To
discontinue permit coverage, an operator must complete final stabilization of the site, transfer responsibility to another party (e.g., a developer transferring land to a home builder),
or for a residential property, complete temporary stabilization and transfer to the homeowner. The permittee submits a Notice of Termination (NOT) Form to the permit authority upon satisfying
the appropriate permit conditions described in the CGP. c. State Construction General Permits. For the most part. the state general permits have followed EPA's format. Some states have
modified requirements in their permits. For example, California has added discharge monitoring requirements for for sites where the receiving water body is listed as impaired (water
quality-limited) for sedimentation. (California State Water Resources Control Board. Resolution No. 2001-046, April 26, 2001; http://www.swrcb.ca.govfresdec/resltnl2001/01res.hlm!) end
Georgia has added monitoring requirements for all sites (Georgia Department of Natuxal Resources, Environmental Protection Division, General NPDES Permit For Stann Water Discharges From
Construction Activities, No. GAR100000, June 12, 2000; http://the period oI land distrubance. and "storm water manage:m,c.nt B:MPs" to rerer to the techniques and tachnologies designed
and installed by OP&I'ators fol' long-term control oI stonn water discharges. 
42648 Federal Register, "oL 67, No. i21/Monday, June 24, 􀀲􀀰􀁵􀁾􀀱􀁐􀁲􀁯􀁰􀁯􀁳􀁥􀁤􀀠Rules www.DNR.State.Ga.US/dnr/enviran/techguide-!!Ies/techguide.htm). d. IndiVIdual Permits. A permit
authority may require any site to apply for an individual permit rather than using the general permit. The individual permit is most often used for complex projects and!or projects located
in sensitive watersheds. State storm water permit coordinators have infonned EPA that this provision has heen rarely used for constructionaC'tivities. 2. Municipal Storm Water Permits and Local Government Regulation of Construction Activity Many local governments, as MS4 permittees, heve a role in the coregulation of construction
industries along with States and EPA, and are responsible for overseeing long-term maintenance of storm water management facilities. This section descrihes regulatory programs operated
byMS4S. a. NPDES Requirements. The NPDES storm water regulations require that MS4s apply for permits. In general, the Pha.. I rule covers MS4s serving populations of 100,000 or more.
The Pha..II rule extands coverage to most other MS4s in urbanized areas, and NPDES agencies may deSignate additional MS4s outside of urbanized areas for permit coverage based on State-specific
criteria. The regulations contemplate that each MS4 generally will operate a local storm water management program in order to properly control discharges into, and hence out of, its
MS4. The Phase II MS4 regulations specifically anticipate a local program for regulating storm water discharges from construction activity and managing "post-construction" (long-term)
runoff. Permits for Phase I MS4s, while not specifically required by the regulations to do so, typically administer such programs as well. See 40 CPR 122.26(d) for Phase I MS4s and 40
CPR 122.34(a) for Phase II MS4s. EPA has provided guldance to the NPDES agencies and MS4s that recommends components and activities for a 􀁷􀁥􀁬􀁬􀁾􀀠operated local stann water management
􀁰􀁲􀁢􀁾Guidance to Municipalities. EPA has issued several guldance documents to municipalities to implement the NPDES Phase nrule. • National Menu ofBMPs (http://www.epa.goy/npdeslmenuoJbmps/menu.ht
m). This document provides guidance to regulated small MS4s as to the types of practices they couid use to develop and implement their storm water management programs. The menu includes
descriptions ofBMPs that local programs can implement to reduce impacts of storm water discharges from construction activities and long-term runoff. • Measurable Goals Guidance (http://www.epa.goY/np
des/storm water! measurablegoals). This document assists small MS4s in defining performance targets for each of the six minimum measures described above. Included in the guldance are
examples of goals for BMPs to control storm water discharges from construction activities and urban runoff. • Storm Water Phase II Compliance Assistance Guide (EPA 833-R-oO-o02, March
2000, http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/storm water/smms4.cfm?pragram_id=61. Tbe guide prOvides an overview of compliance responsibilities for MS4s, small construction sites, and certain other
industrial storm water discharges affected by the Phase II rule. • Fact Sheets on various storm water control technologies, including hydrodynamic separators (EPA 832-F99-017), infiltrative
practices (EPA 832F-99-018 and EPA 832-F--99-019), modular treatment systems (EPA 832F-99-044), porous pavement (EPA 832F-99-023), sand filters (EPA 832-F-99007), turf reinforcement
mats (EPA 832F-99-002), vegetative covers (EPA 832F-99-027) and swales (EPA 832-F-99006), wet detention ponds (EPA 832-F99-048). (All fact sheets published 1999. Available at http://www.epa.gov/npdes
/stormwaterl; click on "Publications.to) C. Other State and Local Storm Water Requirements States and municipalities may have other requirements for flood control, erosion and sediment
(E&S) control, and in many cases, storm water quality. Many ofthese provisions were enacted before the promulgation of the EPA Phasa I storm water rule. All states have laws for E&S
control, control, and these are often implemented by MS4's. A summa:ry of existing state and local requirements is prodded in the Development Document. D. EffJuent Guidelines and Standards
Program Effluent limitation guidelines and standards (hereinafter referred to as Ileffluent guidelines'; or "ELGsH) are technology-based requirements for categories of point source dischargers.
These limitations are subsequently incorporated into NPDES permits. The effluent guidelines are based on the degree of control that can be achieved using various levels of pollution
control technology, as defined in Title ill of the CWA and outlined below. 1. Best Practicable Control Technology CUrrently Available (BPT) In guldelines for a point source category,
EPA may define BPT effluent limits for conventional. toxic,2 and nODconventional pollutants. In specifying BPT, EPA loob at a number of factors. EPA first considers the cost of achieving
effluent reductions in relation to the effluent reduction benefits. The Agency also considers the age ofthe equipment and facilities, the processes employed and any required process
changes. engineering aspects of the control technologies, non-water quality environmental impacts (including energy requirements), and such other factors as the Agency deems appropriate
(CWA section 304(b)(1)(Bl). Traditionally, EPA establishes BPT effluent limitations based on the average of the best performance of facilities within the category of various ages, sizes,
processes or other common characteristics. Where existing performance is uniformly inadequate, EPA may require higher levels of control than currently in place in a category if the Agrncy
determines that the technology can be practically applied. See "A Legislative History of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972." U.S. Senate Committee of Public
Works, Serial No. 93-1, January 1973, p. 1468. in addition, tha Act requires a costreasonableness assessment for BPT limitations. In determining the BPT limits, EPA considers the total
cost of treatment technologies in relation to the effluent reduction benefits achieved. This inquiry does not limit EPA's broad discretion to adopt BPT limitations that are achievahle
with available technology unless tha required additional reductions are "wholly out of proportion to tha costs of achieving such marginal level of reduction." See Legislative History,
op. cit., p. 170. Moreover, the inquiry does not require the Agency to quantify benefits in monetery terms. See, for example, American Iron and Steel Institute v. EPA 526 F. 2d 1027
(3rd Cir., 1975). In'balancing costs against the benefits of effluent reduction, EPA considers the volume and nature ofaxpected discharges after application ofBPT, tha 2In the initial
stages ofEPA CWA regulation, EPA efforts omphuized. the achievement olBPI' limitations for control of the "classical" pollutants (e.g., TSS, plio BOn,]. However. 􀁮􀁯􀁴􀁨􀁬􀁮􀁾􀀠􀁾the
face oftha statute 6Xpllcitly restricted BPT limitation to such pollutants. Following passage of the Clean Water Act of 1977 (Public Law 95-217. December 27, 1977] with its requirementfOl'
pointSouttCS to achieve best ava.il.4ble technology limitations to control discluuges of toxic pollutants. EPA shiftod its focus to developing BAT limitauans wrthe listed priority toxic
pollutants. 
Federal Registe!, vol. 67, No. 121/Monday. June 24. 20 ...􀁾􀁉􀁐􀁲􀁯􀁰􀁯􀁳􀁥􀁤􀀠Rules 42649 general environmental effects of 􀁰􀁯􀁬􀁬􀁵􀁴􀁡􀁮􀁴􀁳􀁾􀀠and the cost and economic impacts
of the required level of pollution control. In past effluent limitation guidelines and standards. BPT cost-reasonableness removal figures have ranged from $0.21 to $33.71 per pound removed
in year 2000 dollars. In developing guidelines. the Act does not require consideration ofwater quality problems attributable to particular point sources, or water quality improvements
in particular bodies of water. Accordingly, EPA has not considered these factors in developing the limitations being proposed today. See Weyerhaeuser Companyv. Costle. 590 F. 2d 1011
(D.C. Cir. 1978). 2. Best Available Technology Economicaily Achievable (BAT) In general. BAT effluent guidelines (CWA section 304(b)(2)J represent the best existing economically achievable
performance ofdirect discharging plants in the subcategory or category. The factors considered considered in assessing BAT include the cost ofachieving BAT effluent reductions. the age
of equipment 8Jld facilities involved. the processes employed. engineering aspects of the control technology, potantial process cbenges. non-water quality environmental impacts (including
energy requirements), and such factors as the Administrator deems appropriate. The Agency retains considerable discretion in assigning the weight to be accord.d to these factors. An
additional statutory factor considered in setting BAT is Ifeconomic achievability." Generally. EPA determines the .conomic achievability on the basis of the total cost to the subcategory
and the overall effect of the rule on the industry's financial health. The Agency may base BAT limitations upon effluent reductions attainable tbrough changes in a facility's processes
and operations. As with BPT. where existing performance is uniforraly inad.quate. EPA may base BAT upon technology transferred from a different subcategory or from another category.
In addition, the Agency may base BAT upon manufacturing process changes or internal controls, even when these technologies are not common industry practice. 3. B.st Conventional Pollutant
Control Technology (BCT] Th. 1977 amendments to the CWA r.qttired EPA to identify effluent reduction levels for conventional pollutants associated with BCT technology for discharges
from existing point sourc.s. BCT is not an additional limitation. but replaces Best Available Technology (BAT) for control of conventional pollutants. In addition to other factors sp.cified
in section 304(b)(4)(B), the CWA requires thet EPA establisb BCT limitations after consideration of a two-part 􀁈􀁣􀁯􀁳􀁴􀁾􀀠reasonableness" tast. EPA axplained its methodology for the
development of BCT limitations in July 1986 (51 FR 24974). Section 304(a)(4J designates the following as conventional pollutants: Biocbemical oxygen demand (BODs). total suspended solids
(TSS). fecal coliform. pH. and any additional pollutants defined by the Administrator as conventional. The Administrator designated oil and grease as an additional conventional pollutant
on July 30,1979 (44 FR 44501). A primary pollutant of concern at construction sites, sediment. is measured as TSS. 4. New Sourc. P.rformaoce Standards (NSPSJ NSPS reflect effluent reductions
thet are achievable based on the best available demonstrated control technology. New facilities have the opportunity to install the best and most efflcientproduction processes and wastewater
treatment technologies. As a result. NSPS should represent the gr.atest degree of effluent reduction attainable tinough the application of the best available d.monstrated control technology
for all pollutants (i. •.• conventional, non-conventional, and priority pollutantsJ. In establishing NSPS. CWA section 306 directs EPA to take into consideration the cost of achieving
the .ffluent reduction and any non-water quality environmental impacts and energy requirements. 5. Pretr.atment Standards The CWA also defines standards for indirect discbarges, i.i.e.
discharges into publicly owned treatment works (POTWs). These are Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES) and Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS) under section 307(b).
Because EPA has identified no d.liberate discharges directly to POTWs. EPA is not proposing PSES or PSNS for the Construction and Development Category. The information reviewed by the
Agency indicates that the vast majority of construction sites discharg. either directly to waters of the U.S. or tinough MS4s. In some urban areas. construction sites discharg. to combined
sewer systems (Le.. sewers carrying both storm water and domestic sewage tbrough a single pipe) which lead to POTWs. Sediment is susceptible to treatment in POTWs. using technologies
commonly employed such as priroary clarification. and EPA has no evidence of interference, pollutant passtinough or sludge contamination. 6. Effluent Guidelines Plan and Consent Decree
Clean Water Act section 304(m) requires EPA to publish a plan every MO years that consists of three elements. First, under section 304(mJ(1)(AJ. EPA is required to establish a sch.dule
for the annual review and revision of existing effluent guidelines in accordance with section 304(b). Section 304(b) appli.s to ELGs for dir.ct discbarg.rs and r.quires EPA to revise
such regulations as appropriat•. Second. under section 304(m)(1)(B). EPA must identify categories ofsources discharging toxic or nonconventional pollutants for which EPA has notpublisbed
BAT ELGs under section 304(b)(2) or new sourc. performance standards under section 306. Finally, under section 304(mJ(1)(C). EPA must establish a schedule for the promulgation ofBAT
and NSPS for the categories identified under subparagraph (B) not later than tinee years after being identified in the 304(m) plan. S.ction 304(1'11) do.s not apply to pr.tr.atment standards
for indir.ct dischargers. which EPA promulgat.s pursuant to section 307(b) and 307(c) ofthe Act. On October 30. 1989. Natural Resources Defens. Council. Inc. (NRDCJ. and Public Citizen.
Inc., filed an action against EPA in which they alleged. among other things. that EPA had failed to comply with section 304(m). Pleintiffs and EPA agreed to a settlement ofthat action
in a consent decree entered on January 31.1992. (Natural Resouroes Defense Council at 01 v. Whitman. D.D.C. Civil Action No. 89-2980J. The consent decree. which has been modified several
times. established a scbedule by which EPA is to propose and take final action for eleven point source categories identified by name in the decree and for eight other point source categories
identifi.d only as new or revised rules, numbered 5 tinough 12. EPA selected the Construction and Development category as the subject for New or Revised Rule #10. The decree. as modified.
calls for the Administrator to sign a proposed ELG for the C&D category no later than May 15. 2002, and to take final action on thet proposal no later than March 31. 2004. A settlement
agreement between the parties. signed on June 28. 2000. requires thatEPA develop reguiatory options applicabl. to discharges from construction. development and redevelopment, covering
site sizes included in the Phase I and Phase II 
42650 Federal Registe" Vol. 67, No. 121/Monday, June 24, 20Lw/Proposed Rules NPDES storm water rules (i.e. one acre or greater). EPA is required to develop options including numeric
effluent limitations for sedimentation and turbidity; control of construction site pollutants olber Iban sedimentation and turbidity (e.g. discarded building materials) concrete truck
washout, trash); BMPs for controlling postconstruction runoff; BMFs for construction sitesj and requirements to design stOl:m water controls to maintain 􀁰􀁲􀁣􀁾􀁤􀁥􀁶􀁥􀁬􀁯􀁰􀁭􀁥􀁮􀁴􀀠runoff
conditions where practicable. The settlement also requires EPA to issue guidance to MS4s and other permittees on maintenance of post-construction BMFs identified in Ibe proposed ELGs,
Furtbcr discussion ofapproaches not pursued by EPA at Ibis Ibne may be found in Ibe docket for today's proposal, E. Pollution Prevention Act The Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 (PPA)
(42 U,S,C. 13101 at seq., Public Law 101-508, November 5, 1990) makes pollution prevention the national policy of the Uuited States. The PPA identifies an environmental management hierarchy
in which pollution "should be prevented or reduced whenever feasible; pollution that cannot be prevented should be recycled in an environmentally safe manner) whenever feasible; pollution
that cannot be prevented or recycled should be treated in an environmentally safe manner wbenever feasible; and disposal or release into Ibe environment should be employed only as a
last resort:if • :if') (42 U.S.C. 13103). In short, prevenoog pollution before it is created is preferable to 1rying to manage, treat or dispose oHt after it is created. According to
the PPA, source reduction reduces the generation and release of hazardous substances, pollutants, wastes1 contaminants or residuals at the source, usually witbin a process. The term
source reduction u* * .. includes equipment or technology modifications, process or procedure modifications, reformulation or redesign of products, substitution of raw materials, and
improvements in housekeeping, maintenance, training. or inventory control. The term 'source reduction' does not include any practice which altars the physical, chemical, or biological
characteristics or the volume of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant through a process or activity which itself is not integral to or necessary for the production of a product
or Ibe providing of a service." In effect.. source reduction means reducing Ibe amount of a pollutant that enters a waste stream or that is olberwise released Into the environment prior
to 􀁯􀁵􀁴􀁾􀁯􀁦􀀭􀁰􀁲􀁯􀁣􀁥􀁳􀁳􀀠recycling, treatment, or disposal. Allbough the PPA does not explicitly address storm water discharges or discharges from construction sites, Ibe principles
of the PPA are implicit in many of Ibe practices used to reduce pollutant discharges from construction sites. These include controls Ibat minimize the potential for erosion such as proper
phasing of construction, retention of on-site vegetation and stabilization of disturbed areas as soon as practicable. These controls and practices are described in section DCA of today's
document. IV. Scope ofProposal EPA is proposing three options, and soliciting comment on variations on these options, for furtber control of Ibe discharge of pollutants in storm water
associated with construction and development activities. One proposed option (Option 2) would establish C&D effluent guidelines that would apply to construction site operators at sites
with 5 acres or more of disturbed area. Under Ibis option, an operator would be required to: • Design, install and maintain erosion and sediment controls; • Prepare a storm water pollution
prevention plen; • Inspect Ibe site Ibroughout lb. land-disturbance period; and • Certify that Ibe controls meet the regulatory design criteria or permit conditions, as applicable. These
provisions are explained in section X.D. of today's document. Today's proposal does not include requirements regarding Ibe selection or implementation onong-term storm water controls
at the sites using permanent BMPs. Under tha NPDES storm water permit program, State and local governments are responsible for establishing requirements for permanent storm water controls,
and for the maintenance of those permanent storm water controls. Today's proposed rule would not alter th.t responsibility. EPA has collected a significant body of tecbuical infonnation
on the design and effectiveness of various permanent storm water controls that may assist State and local governments as thay establish Ibeir requirements for construction and development
activity. EPA antiCipates releasing this document sometime after Ibis proposal, EPA is also preparing a guidance manual on storm water BMP malntenance procedures to assist State and
local governments and property owners. EPA anticipates releasing a final version of Ibis document at the time offinal action on Ibis proposal in March of 2004. A draft of Ibe document
is included in the rulemeking record of Ibis proposal. EPA is also considering a variation on Ibis option Ibat would establish C&D effluent guidelines that would apply to construction
site operators at sites with five acres or more of disturbed area, Under Ibis variation an operator would be required to: • Design. install and maintain erosion and sediment contruls;
and • Prepare a storm water pollution prevention plan. Under Ibis variation Federal inspection and certification requirements would not be established; Ibose provisions could be addressed
at the local level. Another proposed option (Option 1) would not establish C&D effluent guidelines, but rather would amend Ibe NPDES storm water requirements far construction site operators
subject to NPDES storm water requirements, i.e .• operators ofconstruction sites with one acre or more of disturbed area. (See section m.B oftoday's document for a summary of current
permit requirements,) Under Ibis option, an operator would be required to: • Inspect the site tbroughout the lend-disturbance period; and • Certify that the controls meet Ibe reguiatory
design criteria established by the Federal, Tribal, State or local government. The.. provisions are explalned in section X.D of today's document. The final proposed option (Option 3)
would not establish C&D effluent guidelines or amend the NPIJES storm water requirements for construction site operators. Rather, Ibis option would continue to rely on control practices
and any certification and inspection requirements tailored to local conditions that established by Ibe permitting authority on a BPJ basis. V. Summary ofData Collection Activities A.
Existing Doto Sources In developing today's proposal, EPA collected and reviewed existing data from a variety of sources, Including technical and professionalliteratnre; Ibe National
Storm Water Best Management Practices Database developed by the American SOCiety of Civil Engineers (ASCE); the Agency's economic analysis for the Phase n NPDES storm water rule; State
storm water and erosion and sediment control manuals and handbooks; EPA and State databases on construction general permits; the Uuited States Department ofAgricuitnre (USDA) National
Resources Inventory; the Census of Construction; and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers evaluation of 
Federal RegisteI-i vol. 67, No. 121/Monday, June 24, 􀀲􀀰􀀬􀀬􀁾􀁬􀁐􀁲􀁯􀁰􀁯􀁳􀁥􀁤􀀠Rules 42651 BMP. for small construction sites. Other infonnation sources included. Federal agencies
such as the Securities and Exchange Commission and Small Business Administration (SBA); industry and trade association puhlications; university and nonprofit organization research centers:
interviews with State and local officials; and interviews with industrv representatives and consultRnts. EPA did not conduct any questionnaire surveys of the construction and development
industry in preparing today's proposal. EPA drew heavily on the mass of data related to erosion and sediment control, and storm water techoology ead BMP applicability and efficiency
contained in the technical and scientific literature in order to develop today's proposal. Data sources collected ead evaluated include pubhshed papers and journal articles, ASCE and
International Erosion Control Association (mCA) conference proceedings, research reports from state and federal agencies such as USDA, U.S. Department ofTransportation, State Departments
ofTransportation, and the Transportation Research Board. EPA conducted a detei1ed assessment of these data sources, the results of which are summarized in the Development Document for
the Construction and Development Effluent Guidelines (see "Supporting Documentation"). The document summarizes efficiency data far most ofthe erosion ead sediment controls in common
usage. This literature and data summary was the main source of data used to evaluate BMP effiCiency and applicability far today's proposal. EPA also augmented these data sources with
data contained in the National Storm Water BMP Database. This database is a comprehensive data storage and evaluation system developed by ASCE in cooperation with EPA, The detebase contains
monitoring studies on stonn water BMPs in a consistent and traosferrable format in order to allow for a comprehensive evaluation and comparison of various BMP designs. Representative
information provided for each BMP includes test site location, researcher contact data. watershed characteristics. regional climate statistics, BMP design parameters. monitoring equipment
types, and monitoring deta such as precipitation, flow and water quality. The database can be accessed at ilttp:/Iwww.bmpdatabase.org. The U.S. Census Bureau conducted. the most recent
Census of Construction in 1997. The Census provides data on the number, size. and.t'!grapblc distribution of estabh ents; employment and payroll; financial information (such as revenues
and expenses]; speCialization by type of construction; and amount and type of work subcontracted out. EPA relied on additional Census Bureau programs for data on market conditions in
the industry. The Building Permits Program provided monthly data on the number ofbunding permits issued for new residential construction. The anoual Survey of Construction provided data
on number of housing starts, completions, and units sold; characteristics of new barnes (including size of home and building lot size]; and value of construction put in place. While
the Census Bureau programs provide substeatial data on business establishment characteristics and industry output, there is a noticeable lack of information linking establishment data
to output measures. For example, the Census ofConstruction provides average and median revenues and value ofconstruction for all eeteblishments and for establishments by employment size
class, but does not provide a distribution of establishments by number of housing units started or completed, number of construction permits issued. or number ofacres developed. For
EPA's economic analysis this was a significant data gap, since the proposed regulations would be implemented at the project level and the Agency developed its compliance cost estimates
on a per-acre basis. This led EPA to develop a method for estimatiog the number of acres disturbed per establishment. EPA was able to partially fill these data gaps using information
contained in a special Census Bureau report ("1997 Economic Census; Construction Sector Special Study Housing Starts Statistics; A Profile of the Homebuilding Industry," July 2000).
This report contains estimates ofthe number of homebuilding establishments by number of housing units built each year. EPA combined thls information with data on the average lot size
for new homes to estimate a distribution of establishments by number of ecres disturbed, EPA also used data from this report to deterro.ine the number of small builders who are likely
to disturb less than one acre ofland per year and who therefore are not covered by the storm water permit program. Another data source was important far further clarifying the size of
the industry that is covered by the storm water permit program. The single-family ead multi-family housing construction industries (NAICS 23321 and 23322) include establishments that
are engaged in new construction as well as renovation ofexisting construction. Since renovation and remodeling activities generally do not disturb one aere or more of land per site.
renovation and remodeling contractors would not be subject to the requirements being proposed today. To estimete the number of such contractors, EPA used data from a recent study completed
by the Toint Center for Housing Studies at Harvard University. This report classified establishments that derive at least balf of their revenues from remodeling activities as remodelers.
Based On this definition, the Agency concluded that a substantial portion of the single-family and multifamily housing construction sector may not be affected by today's proposal. EPA
requests comment on its assumption that firms which derive at least half their revenues from remodeling will not be affected by today's proposal. EPA obtsined informatioo on home ownership
rates, mortgage affordability, and interest rates from sources such as Faonie Mae and the Federal Housing Finance Board. Data on average costs of construction for various types of projects
were obtained from R.S. Means Ca. publications and the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB). EPA obtained deta on the amount of land converted from undeveloped to developed status
from the National Resources Inventory (NRI). This is a statistical sampling program conducted by USDA every five years that defines geographic sampling points in terms of their land
use status. The most recent NRI indicates that during the period 1992 to 1997, each year over 2.2 million acres of land previously classified as undeveloped were converted to developed
status, For developed land, the NRI does not specify the type of use (i.e., single family homes, roadways, commercial or industrial sites). In order to estimate the number of acres converted
by type of development, EPA used actual data or estimates ofthe number of projects permitted aod the average size of projects, by type. For example. to determine the number of acres
converted to residential housing development EPA multiplied the numher of new barnes permitted for construction each year by the average lot size for newconstruction. For nonresidential construction, EPA had to fill a data gap created when the Census Bureau ceased, in 1995, collecting information on the number of nonresidential building
permits issued. The Agency used historical (pre.1995) data on nonresidential starts to establish a relationship between residential aod nonresidential sterts from which current nonresidential
activity could be 
42652 Federal Registe" Vol. 67, No. 121/Monday, June 24, 20u . tProposed Rules estimated. To stratify the aggregate amount of land converted to developed status by size of development
project, EPA used data on construction project size collected from 14 municipalities in support of the NPDES Phase II storm water regulations (Economic Analysis of the Phase II Storm
Water Rule, Final Report, October 1999.) B. Storm Water Discharge Sampling and Site Visits At the time of this proposal, EPA is planning to conduct sampling and analysis of discharges
at a number of construction sites in order to better characterize the pollutants commonly found in construction site runoff. EPA has also funded several cooperative agreements evaluating
construction site pollutant loadings, erosion and sediment control effectiveness, and receiving water impacts of land development activities, C. Industry-Supplied Data EPA has reviewed
reference publications and data prepared by industry organizations including NAHB, the Construction Construction Financial Management Association and the Urban Land Institute. The Agency
received cost data and comments from several construction and development businesses during the Small Business Advocacy Review conducted in 2001, (This review is described in section
XlX.C oftoday's document.) NAHB submittad a report that presents an independent evaluation of the data contained in the initial release of the National Stormwater BMP Database. (National
Association of Home Builders, "Erosion and Sediment Control Best Management Practices Reseerch Project." Washington, DC, 2000). The report is included in the rulemaking record. D. Summary
ofPublic Participation EPA conducted an introductory public meeting in April 1999 describing the effluent guidelines development process and the regulatory issues being considered for
the C&D rule. In the Summer of 2001 EPA conducted two additional meetings to prOvide an update of progress on the rule development. Since the beginning of the rule project in 1998, EPA
has held held meetings with industry associations, State and local government officials, professional organizations and citizen groups on the C&D rule. In 2000-01, EPA conducted interviews
and group discussions with builders and developers to 100m about the land development process, builderdeveloper organizational structures, operational and business practices, and business
trends in greater detail. In 2001 EPA conducted a Small Business Advocacy Review panel pursuant to the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA). A discussion of this
process and findings are discussed in section XlX.C of today's document. VI. Industry Profile A. Affected Industry Sectors The construction and development category covers estahlishments
classified by the Census Bureau into two subsectors. • The Building, Developing and General Contracting subsector (NAlCS 233) includes land subdivision and development, and building
construction (residential and nonresidential). Land developers select construction sites, conduct site planning and design activities, and carry out other tasks such as financing and
marketing. General contractors build residential, industrial, commercial and other buildings. • Heavy Construction contractors (NAlCS 234) build sewers and other utilities, roads, highways,
bridges and tunnels. A single construction project may involve many fums from both subsectors. The number offirms involved and their financial and operational relationsbips may vary
greatly from project to project. The residential building industries have their own variety of operational relationships. Many borne building projects are initiated and managed by a
developer. using one or more generaJ contractors to supervise and/or CB.lTy out the physical construction activities. Other projects are operated by "merchant" builders. A merchant builder
is a fum that develops property, constructs homes, and markets the final product within the same company. Although these functions may be condncted by different entities, the merchant
builder conducts all ofthese activities within the same fum. In the past, industry members used the term "operative builderH to refer to a firm that conducts these activities within
the same fum. The merchant builder is organized into divisions or departments within the firm and each division or department is responsible for different functions, e.g. land development,
construction, marketing. Most builders and developers are separate entities. Typically, the developer acquires property and moves the project from raw land to finished lots. The lots
are usually sold to builders who construct houses, commercial/shopping centers, office and industrial parks, and other products for the final consumer. In some situations home builders
will construct speculatively without a contract. In other cases the home buyer will contract with a builder for a specific house. The builder hires subcontractors for carpentry, plumbing,
electrical, and other services. Some of the operating charactsristics of the heavy construction subsector include: (1) Usually government agency clients rather than private customers,
(2) public sector clients typically issue specifications to cover many projects (e.g., a bighway agency publishes road construction standards for all projects in its jurisdiction), end
(3) frequent use of unit price contracts (e.g., a local public works agency contracts for installation oia quantity ohewer pipeline). The relationship between the heavy construction
fum and the public customer is typically established through a competitive bid process. Private sector customers may initiate projects through negotiatad contracts . EPA understands
that in typical construction projects the firms identifying themselves as "operators" under a construction general permit are general building contractors and/or developers.> While such
projects may use the services of specialty contractors such as excavation companies. these firms are typically subcontractors to the general building contractor and are not identified
as operators in the storm water permit. Other classes of subcontractors such as carpentry, painting, plumbing and electrical services typically do not apply for, nor receive, NPDES permits
and EPA is not including these businesses in its popuiation estimates for the purpose of today's proposed rule. EPA is also excluding businesses classified by the Census Bureau as "non-employerOi
establishments. These establishments tend to be proprietorships with the owner providing individual constnlDtion services to the industry, and they are primarily engaged in activities,
such as remodeling, that disturb little ifany land. E. Construction and Development Activities Affecting Water Quality 1. Planning and Site Design Land development tasks that can affect
pollutant discharges typically include the following activities: .3 Under the CGP. a property owner who is not R developer or contractor, e.g., it corporation erecting an office building
for its own use. may bE! designated as a <»-permittee ifit retains control over site plans. 
i Federal Registe. r \101. 67, No. 121/Monday, June 24, 􀀲􀀰􀁾􀀮 {Proposed Rules 42653 • Site selection and analysis; • Design of subdivision and lot sizes in residential and mixed-use
projects; • Design of infrastructure (roadst sewers, utility lines, etc.). In many cases, particularly on smaller projects, a land owner may manage these tasks directly without the involvement
of a real estate developer. In larger projects, real estate developers usually manage the project, especially when local government requirements and approval processes are complex. This
is often the case for residential developments, mixed-use projects (involving housing, commercial and/or other land uses), shopping centers and large office buildings and complexes.
A real estate developer initiating a project will typically have a particular kind of project in mind (such as residential or commercial), but may not have identified a particular site.
The developer may formulate a conceptual plan for the project and then search for sites that could accommodate such a plan. During the site selection process many factors are taken into
consideration by the developer, and included among these may be the presence ofwater bodies on or near the site. For example, the developer may consider on-site water features to be
an amenity that can add value to the site. On-site water body characteristics may dictate how structures can be located on the site to avoid flooding. Some properties may have limitations
if 00site or adjacent water bodies have regulatory designations such as riparian buffers, flood plains and wetlands. Once a site has been selected and control of the property is ohtalned
(through purchase, lease, option to purchese, etc,), the developer can proceed with site analysis, design and initial proposals for local government approval. Site analysis includes
examination of topography, soils, and hydrology, Site design tasks depend on the planned uses for the land (residential, commercial, institutional, etc.) and may involve subdivision
of the the site Into individual home lots; locating commercial, institutional or industrial buildings; locating streets, sidewalks andior parking areas; and placement of utilities, including
storm drainage systems, Planning for storm water management during the early stages of project formulation allows for consideration of site designs that Can reduce the overall water
quality impacts of the site. One such planning strategy, HConservation Design," includes avoiding natural wetland areas, preserving existing trees and vegetation, maintaining stream
buffers, limiting the extent of clearing and grading activities, and identifying hlghly infiltrative soil arees for preservation. [See "Growing Green," Natural Lands Trust, inc" Medte,
PA, Available at http://www.notlands,org!planning! pJarrning.html.) The site design is subject to local government approval, and multiple agencies may be involved, depending on the size
and complexity of the site and the requirements of master planning or zoning agencies. Once the appropriate government approvals have bean obtained, the permittee may proceed with ground
breaking activities. (D, Linda Kane, "Land Development," Washington, DC: Home Builders Press, 2000), 2. Clearing, Excavating and Grading Construction on any size parcel of laod almost
always calls for a remodeling of the earth, Therefore, actual site construction typically begins with site clearing and grading. Earthwork activities are important in site preparation
because they ensure that a sufficient layer of organic material-ground cover and other vegetation, especially roots-is removed, The size of the site, extent of water present, the types
of soils, topography and weather determine the types of equipment that will be needed during site clearing and grading. Material that will not he used on the site must he hauled away
by tracior-puiled wagons, dump trucks or articulated trucks. Clearing activities involve the movement of materials from one area of the site to another or complete removal from the site,
Equipment used for lifting excavated and cleared materials include aerial-work platforms, forwarders cranes, rough·terrain forklifts, and truck-mounted cranes. Truck loaders are used
for digging and dumping earth, Excavation and grading may be performed by several different types of machines. They cao also be done by hand, but this is generally more laborintensive
and more expensive. When grading a site, builders typically take measures to ensure that new grades are as close to the original grade as possible, so as not to Greate a dis-equilibrium,
especially to avoid erosion and storm water runoff. Proper grade also ensures a flat surface for development and is designed to attaln proper drainage away from the constructed buildings,
Equipment used during excavation and grading include backhoes, bulldozers, loaders, directional drilling rigs, hydraulic excavators, motor graders, scrapers, skid-steer loaders, soil
stabilizers, tool carriers, trenchers, wheel loaders and pipeliners. The type of equipment used generally depends on the fuoctions to be performed aod on specific site conditions. Shaping
and compacting the earth is an important part of site preparation. Earthwork activities might require that fill material be used on the site. In such cases, the fill must be spread in
uniform, thick layers aod compacted to a specific density. An optinmID moisture content must also be reached. Graders and bulldozers are the most common earth-spreading machines. Compaction
is most often accomplished with various types of rollers. For removal ofrock from the site. the contractor must first loosen and break the rock Into small pieces. Thls can be accomplished
by drilling or blasting. Drilling equipment includes jackhammers, wagon drills, drifters, chum rills, and rotary drills. Dynamite and other explosives can be used to loosen rock. Once
materials have been excavated and removed and the ground has been cleared and graded, the site is ready for construction of buildings, roads, andlor other structures. 3, Erosion and
Sediment Control During the land disturbance period, affected land is generally exposed after removal of grass, rocks, pavement aod other protective ground covers. Where the soil surface
is unprotected, soil aod sand particles may be easily picked up by wind andior washed away by rain or snow melt, Thl. process is called erosion. The water carrying these particles eventually
reaches a water body, The particles are deposited in the water body, a process called sedimentation. Descriptions ofthe environmental impacts of construction site runoff are provided
In section XV of to dey's document, Contractors usa erosioo aod sediment controls (ESCs) to mitigate these impacts. Erosion controls include mulching, vegetative filter strips, diversion
berms and conveyance charmels, slope drains, bonded fiber matrices, aod rolled products such as torf reiniorcement mats. These materials and methods are intended to reduce erosion where
soil particles can be initially dtelodged on a construction site, either from rainfall, snow melt or up-slope runoff. Erosion controls may not be completaly effective, and sediment controls
are typically employed in addition, Sediment controls include sediment basins, ponds, aod traps; aod barrier methods such as silt fences, straw bales and rock barriers. ESCs are further
described in section VI[[ of today's document_ 
42654 Federal Registel, vol. 67, No. 121!Monciay, June 24, 20uu I Proposed Rules 4. Control of Other Pollutants Construction activity generates a variety of waste materials. These materials
may include concrete truck rillsate, trash, and other pollutants. Construction site operators utilize various practices to manage these wastes and minimize discharges to surface waters,
including: • Neat and orderly storage of chemicals, pesticides, fertilizers, and fuels that are being stored on the site; • Regular collection and disposal of trash and sanitary waste;
• Prompt cleanup of spills of liquid or dry materials. These procedures are described in EPA's 1992 guidance, "Storm Water Management for Construction Activities; Developing Pollution
Prevention Plans and Best Management Practices" (op. cit.), State and local government documents pertaining to construction sites, and in section VDI of today's document. 5. Final Stabilization
and Long-Term Storm Water Management Construction activities on previously undeveloped land areas can significantly alter the hydrology of a site. In order to avoid flooding on the site
and protect the newly constructed structures, the builder must design drainage facilities. The builder's site plans, as approved by the local government, specify the location of buildings
and other structures, and typically indicate the site's drainage patterns and facilities for long-term storm water management. The plans may specify permanent storm water management
facilities (or BMPs) to be constructed on the site1 to control flooding, and in some cases, to protect receiving water quality. No single BMP type can address all storm water problems.
Each type has certam limitations based on the dramage area served, available land space, cost, pollutant removal efficiency, as well as a variety of site-specific factors such as soil
types, slope and depth of groundwater table. Storm water management BMPs are further described in section VIII of today's document. VII. Storm Water Discharge Characteristics Since 1972,
EPA and the Stalas have made good progress in issuing discharge permits for a wide range of point sources dischargers. These permits have made dramatic improvements in water quality
conditions and are largely responsible for much of the success in reducing water pollution. Most of these pennits axe for continuous dischaxges with predictable effluent quality and
quantity that occur in both wet and dry weather conditions. Construction disturbance activities can generate a broad range of environmental impacts by altering the physical characteristics
of the affected land area. Construction activities typically involve the clearing, surface stripping, grading, and excavation of existing vegetation followed by the active construction
period when the affected land is usually left denuded and the soil compacted. often leading to an increase in storm water runoff and higher rates of erosion. The most significant pollutant
associated with construction activity at most sites is sediment. Total suspended solids (TSS) concentrations from uncontrolled construction sites have been found to be up to 150 times
greater than concentrations from undeveloped land.4 Ifthe denuded and exposed areas contain contaminants. such as nutrients. pathogens. metals or organic compounds, they are likely to
be carried at increased rates to surrounding water bodies via storm water runoff. The denuded construction site is only a temporary state, often less than six months. When the land is
restored with the replanting of vegetation after construction is completed! the hydrology of the site may be altered. For example. the completed construction site may have a greater
proportion of impervious surface tht,m prior to site development, leading to changes in the volume and velocity, and in some cases temperature. of storm water runoff. VlII. Description
ofAvailable Technologies A. Introduction Construction and development activities bave the potential to discharge pollutants to surface waters due to poor or inadequate site design, planning
and BMP implementation. These impacts can be mitigated by the application of design techniques to preserve or avoid areas prone to erosion and through the use of arosion and sediment
controls. The use of good site design and planning techniques also can reduce pollution control costs and bnprove the effectiveness of pollution control strategies and practices. Good
site design can also integrate, to the extent appropriate, practices to control erosion and sedimentation at active construction sites with practices to "TSS is an ''Uldicaw'' parameter
used to measure sediment discharges. 'l1te analytical test ptoceduxe f'ot TSS is called ''ResidueNonfilterable!' EPA-approved aDalytical mothods for TSS axe listed:in 40 CFR part 136,
Table I.E. control 􀁰􀁯􀁳􀁴􀁾􀁣􀁯􀁮􀁳􀁴􀁲􀁵􀁣􀁴􀁩􀁯􀁮􀀠runoff. For example. site plans may provide for the conversion of 􀁳􀁨􀁯􀁲􀁴􀁾􀁴􀁥􀁮􀁮􀀠sediment control practices such as sediment
basins into extended detention wet ponds or other long-term structural BMPs. A discussion of tecimologies and BMPs is contained in the following sections of today's document. Some states
and local governments have also published detailed manuals for ESC and or storm water management controls. Links to on-line publications are available on EPA's website at http;l! www.epa/gov!OST/guid
e/construction. B. Erosion and Sediment Cantrols and Other Site Management Practices 1. Goals Construction site activities should be managed to reduce erosion, and to the extent practical,
retain sediment onthe _ site. Erosion and sedimentation are two separate processes and the practices to control them differ. HErosion is the process of wearing away ofthe land surface
by water, wind. ice, gravity, or other geologic agents. Sedimentatino is the deposition of soU particles, both mineral and organic, that have been transported by water, wind, air, gravity
or ice" (adapted from North Carolina Erosion and Sediment Control Planning and Design Manual, September 1, 1988). Erosion can be prevented or rninimi2ed by various methods and practices.
The main strategies used to reduce erosion include minimizing the time bare soil is exposed, preventiog the detachment of soil and reducing the mobilization and transportation of soil
particles off-site. Decreasing the amount ofland disturbed can significantly reduce sediment detachment and mobilization and overall erosion and sediment control costs. After landhas
been disturbed, exposed soUs should be covered as soon as possible and runoff should be actively managed to prevent run-on flows from off-site areas and uncontrolled runoff from tbe
disturbed area(s). In addition, runoff should be managed to prevent high runoff velocities and concentrated flows thet are erosive. The continued effectiveness of erosion controls also
is dependent on frequent inspections of erosion control practices to identify maintenance needs. The control of sediment detaabed an d mobilized through erosional processes requires
a separate set ofmanagement practices. Several mechanisms can be used to remove suspended sediments sediments in runoff. They include; filtration, settling and chemical precipitation.
These mechanisms are used to trap, filter or 
Federal Registeh "01. 67, No. 121/Monday, June 24, 􀀲􀀰􀁾􀁾􀀧􀁉􀁐􀁲􀁯􀁰􀁯􀁳􀁥􀁤􀀠Rules 42655 settle soil particles so they do not enter swiaee waters. More detailed descriptions of sediment
and erosion controls can be fuund in the Development Document. 2. Major Categories of Best Management Practices Planning is the most critical elemeot in designing an effective strategy
to control erosion and sedimentation on constrnction sites. The protection of areas prone to erosion, the selection and siting of erosion and sediment control practices and the continued
effectiveness of these systems 'will depend 00 a well defined plan. Erosion and sediment control (ESC) plans and site plans provide the blueprints fur the protective activities thet
will occur on the constrnction site. The ESC and site plans may also contain descriptions oftemporary practices such as sediment basins thet will be converted into long-term storm water
management practices. Several general objectives should be addressed io an effective ESC plan: • Minimize clearing and grading 􀁡􀁣􀁴􀁩􀁶􀁩􀁴􀁩􀁥􀁳􀁾􀀠• Protect waterways and stabilize
drainage ways; • Phase construction to limit soil exposure; • Stabilize soils as soon as practicable; • Protect steep slopes and 􀁣􀁵􀁴􀁳􀁾􀀠• Install perimeter controls to filter sediment;
• Employ sediment settling controls. To ensure that builders and contractors implement effective ESC plans, MS4s may employ several other program elements, These elements ioclude an
ESC plan review process; contractor education; training, licansing and certification programs, and an inspection and enforcement process. See EPA's MS4 HMenu of BMPs" website at http://www.epa.gov/np
des/menuofbmps!menu.htm for descriptions ofthese activities. The use of erosion controls is widely recognized as beiog the most costeffective way of managiog sediment on constrnction
sites. Typical practices used to prevent and reduce soil movement include: reducing the overall area of disturbed land, minimiziog the time soils are exposed to precipitation, scheduling
clearing and gradiog events to reduce the probability thet bare soils will be exposed to rainfall, preventing off-site and on-site runoff from erodiog soils through the use of berms,
conveyances or energy dissipation devices, covaring soils or stockpiles, stabilizing exposed soils as soon as possible, and iospecling and maintaining erosion controls on a periodic
basis, e.g., after each storm event. Vegetative stabilization using annual grasses is the most common practice used to control erosion. Polymers, physical barriers such as geotexiiles,
straw, and mulch are other common methods of controlling erosion. Despite the proper use of erosion controls, some sediment detachment and movement is ioevitable. Sediment controls are
used to control (direct) and trap sediment that is entrained in runoff. Typical sediment controls include perimeter controls such as silt fences constrncted with filter fabric, straw
bale dikes, berms or swales. Trapping devices such as sediment traps and basins and inlet protectors are examples of in-lioe sediment controls. Sediment traps and basins are the primary
method used to treat and settle out sediment for small and large disturbed areas. Construction site operators manage buildiog materials and waste to reduce and eliminate potential water
quality impacts. Constrnction materials and chemicals should be bandied, stored and disposed ofproperly to avoid contemioation ofrunoff. Site management plans typically ioclude elements
such as spill prevention and remediation plans. nutrient management plans for vegetative stabilization efforts, and provisions for human waste disposal, e.g., porteble toilets. C. Long-Term
Storm Water Management Control 1. Goals After completion of constrnction, a variety of measures have been adopted to prevent floodiog and achieve local resource protection goals, such
as groundwater recharge or mainteining stream stability. For example, BMFs are often integrated ioto the overall site design, and generally approved by the local government. A number
of of States have developed storm water BMF selection and design criteria for use io their state. In addition, the Water Environment Federation (WEF) and the American Society of Civil
Engineers (ASCE) have developed. methodology for storm water BMP design. (Water Environment Federation and the American Society of Civil Engioeers, "Urban Runoff Quality Management."
1998. WEF Manual ofPractice No. 23 and ASCE Manual and Report on Engineeriog Practice No. 87. Available for purchase at htip:llwww.wef.organd htip:llwww.asce.org). 2. Major Categories
ofBest Managemant Practices Planuiug and site design are important to ensure the selection of site designs that will maet the needs of the owner and be compatible with local infrastructure.
State and local governments have a primary role in ensuriag proper pJauniog and the design of structural storm water runoff conveyance and treatment systems. Under any design approach,
runoff flow paths are designed to route the runoff though functional landscaped areas or structural structural BMPs that store, io£iltrate, evaporate, and slow the velocity of the runoff.
Storage basios, swales, bioretention cells (highly permeable engineered soils planted with vegetation), gradiog to alter topography, iocraase infiltration and decrease erosion, and depression
storage are the most typical practices used to manage runoff and reduce pollutant loadiogs. More innovative practices include rooftop storage, "green" roofs Oaodscaped roof systems designed
to store and treat storm water), re· vegetation. rainwater capture and reuse, street filters (systems fur treatment of street and highway runoff), and soil amendments.5 Pollution prevention
practices are often called source reduction practices or "non-structural" BMPs, Education. trainiog as well as proper inspections and maintenance are the primary methods to achieving
pollution prevention objectives. Information dissemioation vis outreach efforts, professional trainiog, licensing and certification combioed with effective voluntery incentives, enfurcement
and compliance efforts are essential to good practice. Product substitution or the use of alternative methods and practices are also considered facets of pollution prevention. 5 Low
Impact Development (LID) is 6 site design approach that incorporates conservation techniques along with enintegrated set of small site-level landscape runoff treatment end control features that are unifonnly distributed throughout the site in order to prevent nwoff pollution and xeduce the
impacts of development end redevelopment activities on water resOUICeS. ("Low hnpact Development Design Strategies: An Integrated Design Approach," EPA 641-B-OQ-()03, J811uary :;WOO.
Available on EPA's website athttp://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/wban.btml). Approachos similar to LID, although sometimes using different terminology, include "Better Site Design" ("lntrodm:tion
to Better Site Design." Article no. 45 in The Practice ofWatershed Protection. Center for Watershed Protection. Ellicott City, MO, 2000. http://www.stormwatercenter.net) and "JnfiJtration
Approach" ("Start at the Source: Design Guidance Manual for Slormwater Quality Protection," Bay Area Storm water Management Agencies Association. Oakland, CA, 1999). 
42656 Federal Registe" Vol. 67, No, 121 I Monday, June 24, 􀀲􀀰􀁬􀁊􀁾􀀠I Proposed Rules IX, Development of Effiuent Limitation Guideline. and Standards A, Industry Subcategorization
EPA may divide a point source category into groupings called "subcategories" to provide a method for addressing variations between products, processes, and other factors which result
in distinctly different effluent characteristics, Regulation of a category by using formal subcategories provides that each subcategory has a uniform set of effluent limitations that
take into account technological achievability and economic impacts unique to that subcategory, In some cases, effluent limitations within a subcategory may be different based on consideration
of these same factors which are identified in section 304(b)(2)(B) of the CWA, 33 U,S,C, 1314(b)(2)(B), The CWA requires EPA, in developing effluent limitation guldellnes and pretreatment
standards, to consider a number of different factors, which are also relevant for subcategorization. The statute also authorizes EPA to take into account other factors that the Agency
deems appropriate, One potential benefit of grouping similar facilities into subcategories is the increased likelihood that the regulations will ba practicable, and it diminishes the
need to address variations between facilities through a variance process (Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Cosfle, 590 F,2d 1011,1053 (D.C, Gir. 1978). In preparing today's proposal, EPA considered
several ways of subcategorizing the construction and development industry. Methods considered by the Agency include subcategorization by site size (such as disturbed acreage), development
type (such as residential, commercial, industrial and tnmsportetion), redevelopment vs. "greenfield" development (development on rural or agricultural land), geography and hydrology
(such as averege annual rainfall and soil erosivity), as well as builder or developer size (in terms of annual revenue. annual units constructed, annual land disturbance, etc,). 1. Subcategorization
by Site Size EPA is not proposing to subcategorize site sizes of 10 acres or mOTe. EPA is concerned, however I that as site sizes decrease below 10 acres the choice of controls within
site design paxameters may become more limited, For this reason, EPA is proposing in Option 2 to establish slightly modified requirements thet provide greater flexibility for sites disturbing
less than 10 acres, Specifically, EPA is proposing to require sediment basins where attainable for sites disturbing 10 acres or morel while leaving greeter flexibility in the choice
of sediment controls for sites disturbing less than 10 acres. EPA requests comment on this proposed subcategorization, Under today's proposal, Option 2, which includes both control requirements
and certification and inspection requirements, would apply to sites disturbing 5 or more acres, while Option 1, which includes certification and inspection requirements only, would apply
to sites disturbing 1 acre or more. EPA is not proposing control requirements for sites less than 5 acres at this time in order in allow the maximum flexibility to the States in balancing
the costs, availability, and effectiveness of erosion and sediment controls and to provide time for the States to demonstrate the effectiveness of permits to control discharge of pollutants
associated with construction activity disturbing one to 5 acres under Phase lI, EPA recognizes that this same logic may apply to the certification and inspection requirements and requests
comment on adopting Option 1, but with a cutoff of 5 acres rather than 1 acre. Mare generally, EPA requests comment on the appropriate acreage cutoff for both Options 1 and 2. 2. Subcalegorization
byIndustry EPA is not, at this time, proposing subcategorization by industry or industry group (Le, residential building. non-residential building, heavy construction), EPA recognizes
that there are profit differentials between industry groups that could affect their economic and financial status. Based upon EPA's current cost estimates for the options being proposed
todey, EPA has found these options to be economically achievable for all industry groups, EPA is concerned about the practical difficulty in defining an appropriate industry portion
to be subject to alternative standards, or an appropriate industry portion for whom the controls being employed todsy would be technically or economically infeasible, Since a large number
of development projects (especially larger projects) can consist ofmixed land uses (such as a large residential subdivision built along with a commercial!retail center), a Bubcategorizalion
by industry may also present implementation challenges. EPA requests comment on possible industry subcategorization and how to address the implementation issues associated with such
subcategorization. 3, Subcategorization by Builder! Developer Size EPA is not, at this time, proposing subcategorization by builder, developar Or contractor fum size (in terms of annual
construction output, revenue, or acreage disturbed). Since the dollar value of a project or revenue of a builder or developer is not necessarily related to site size or disturbed area
(due, in part, to differences in various markets), EPA bas not found a direct correlation between any ofthese factors and the amount of pollutaots in storm water discharges to receiving
waters. 4. Subcategorization Based on Hydrology, Soil Loss Potential or Other Geographic Factors EPA also considered subcategorizing the industry based on hydrology and potential for
soil loss, but determined that the existing sail loss waiver included in the NPDES Phase II regulations (40 CPR 122,26(b)(15)(i)(A)) is sufficient for exempting sites with low expected
soil loss. Geographic factors thet may be appropriate for subcategorizing the industry are based on low expected rainfall, defined periods of dry and wet weather, andior construction
during cold weather where the ground is frozen, On sites with these characteristics) the Agency expects soil erosion to be minimal, Option 2 in today's proposal would continue the provision
in EPA's current CGP for delaying implementation of site stabilization due to these geographic factors, See § 450.21(h). 5, Subcategorization Based on Past Land Use EPA considered subcategorization
of the industry based on past land use, such as classifying redevelopment sites differently from "greenfield" projects. Redevelopment projects present some sigulficant challenges in
terms of erosion and sediment control due to the petential for sile constraints and conflicts such as size. location. proximity to existing development, predevelopment site contamination
issues, land casts, as well as the nature of surrounding development. In addition, redevelopment projects are commonly perceived to ba preferable to greenfield development, due to the
proximity of redevelopment sites to existing infrastructure, the need to revitalize older neighborhoods, and the potential for providing signlficant economic stimulus to existing neighborhoods,
As a resultl many communities offer incentives in order order to enCQurage redevelopment projects and to make the 
Federal Registel, Vol. 67, No. 121 I Monday, June 24, 20udProposed Rules 42657 economics of the project viable. Imposition of expensive storm water and erosion control requirements in
such cases, in light of the constraints present, may inflict costs that render some projects to be economically unattractive to a developer. EPA does not believe that the level of controls
being proposed in Option 2 today will be a significant disincentive to redevelopment. Much of the redevelopment occurring in urban areas involves bites of less than 5 acres in disturbed
land. For the redevelopment that exceeds that site size, EPA believes that it is appropriate to require a comparable level oferosion and sediment control as is provided at greenfield
sites. The design and implementation of those controls, while comparable, may be vary different for a site that has the advantage ofexisting stormwater management infrastructure than
for other sites. In either case, EPA believes that the requirements being proposed provide sufficient flexibility to allow affordable choices for both greenfield development and redevelopment
activities. B. RegulatolY Options Considered In developing today's proposal, EPA initially evaluated several regulatory options for both erosion and sediment control and other temporary
BMFs, storm water management. and options that would not establish effluent limitation guldelines regulations. The erosion and sediment control (ESC) options represent the controls that
are typicalJy temporary and are used during the land-disturbing activities. The storm water management options represent the long-term (permanent) storm water controls that are designed
and installed by the C&D industry at the time of construction but are intended to reduce long-term storm water impacts. The following sections of today's document discuss the regulatory
options that EPA considered for today's proposal. Section X describes the specific options contained in today's proposal. 1. Overview ofRegulatory Options: Erosion and Sediment Controls
and Other Temporary BMFs For erosion and sediment control and ather temporary BMFs, EPA considered a series of regulatory options. These options are designed to control the discharge
ofsediment, storm water and other pollutants from sites when construction is taking place. Construction and development activity involves land disturbed from previous uses such as agriculture
or forest lands, or occurs as redevelopment of existing rural or urban areas. During the construction process, vegetation or surface cover is typically removed and soils become more
available for transport and discbarge from construction sites. Today'. proposal provides regulatory tools to improve management and control on construction sites to reduce and minimize
soil, storm water, and pollutant transport and discbarge from construction sites. EPA initially considered a range of options that incorporate varying levels of management and various
control strategies for sites of 1 acre or more. During the Agency's outreach activities in advance of proposal, .mall entity representatives expressed concern over the complexity ofoverlapping
and potentially inconsistent Federal, State, and local storm water regulations. These individuals questioned whether it waS appropriate to be considering additional Federal storm water
regulations at such an early stage in implementation of the existing storm water program. They further questioned EPA's assumptions regarding the level ofcontrol that would be achieved
by sites less than 5 acres under the NPDES Phase II requirements. pointing out that the compliance deadiine for those sites has not yet passed. As EPA evaluated the options for erosion
and sediment controls and other temporary BMFs. the Agency examined the merit of excluding sites less than 5 acres at this time. EPA estimates that while only 30 percent ofsites developed
each year are 5 acres or more, these sites represent over 80 percent ofthe disturbed acreage. The Agency believes that the phased approach to issulng permits for construction and development
has allowed, and will continue to allow, EPA and States to improve coordination, communication, and implementation of requirements in a more strategic way. By focusing first on the larger
sites, EPA end the States are focusing resources on the universe of sites that have the greatest potential for reducing discharge of pollutants to surface waters. These sites generally
have more control alternatives than smaller sites, and greater flexibility in desigulng erosion and sediment controls that work within overall site parameters. Implementation of erosion
and sediment controls under the NPDES Phase I storm water rule has demonstrated that even though controls may be more limited for sites as small as 5 􀁡􀁣􀁲􀁥􀁳􀁾􀀠sufficient alternatives
are available to provide significant control. Indeed, while many of the erosion and sediment control practices are not dependent on site 􀁳􀁩􀁺􀁥􀁾􀀠others (such as sediment basins)
are not always appropriate for smaller sites. Other factors also affect the availability of certain control practices. As the site size decreases, the proportion ofsites that are "in-fill"
projects constructed between currently-developed properties, or redevelopment of existing properties, likely increases. These projects present some significant challenges in tenns of
erosion and sediment control due to the potential for site constraints, land availability and costs, proximity to existing development, as well as the nature of surrounding development.
EPA is proposing not to establish effluent limitation guidelines for sites smaller than 5 acres at this time in order to allow the maximum flexibility to the States in balancing the
costs, availability, and effectiveness oferosion and sediment controls and to provide time for the States to demonstrate the effectiveness ofpermits to control discharge of pollutants
associated with construction activity disturbing one to 5 acres under Pbase II. The following discussion presents the options that EPA considered for erosion and sediment controls and
other temporary BMPs. • Codify the EPA Construction General Permit EPA considered an option (a variation on Option 2 being proposed today) that would essentially codify the provisions
contained in EPA's construction general permit (CGP) as minimum national standards for erosion and sediment control (i.e., for all states, not only those with EPA as permitting authority).
The CGP requirements that would be codified include preparing a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) or equlvalent, provisions for installing and sizing sediment basins on sites
with more than 10 acres of disturbed land, requirements for providing cover on exposed soU areas within 14 days after construction activity has ceased, and installation and maintenance
of other erosion and sediment control practices and other temporary BMFs on all construction sites. • Codify the EPA Construction General Permit, Requh:e Self-Inspection and Certification
EPA considered an option (being proposed today as Option 2] that would essentially codify the provisions contained in EPA's construction general permit (CGP) as minimum national standards
for erosion and sediment control and add inspection and certification requirements to improve operator accountability. The CGP requlrements that would b. codified are 
42656 Federal Registe, ,"Vol. 67, No. 121/Monday, June 24, 20u..;/Proposed Rules the same as in the previous option. In addition, EPA incorporated mandatory site inspection, maintenance
and reporting provisioM by site owners and operators in order to improve confidence in the implementation and performance of construction site erosion and sediment controls in this option.
These certificatinn provisions may be accomplished either through selfinspection by a qualified employee of the owner and operator (such as a professional engineer or person trained
in erosion and sediment control techniques) or inspection by a tbirdparty (such as a cOMulting fum). The certification provisions would consist of a checklist-type certification form
that the permittee would be required to complete at various stages ofthe project to certify that the prOvisions contained in the permittee's SWPPP are being implemented. Permittees would
be required to conduct periodic inspections in order to confirm that the permittee is conducting the maintenance necessary to maintain the functionality of BMPs. The specific activities
requiring certification include: SWPPP preparation; installation of perimeter controls and sediment controls; site inspections every 14 days; final stabilization of exposed soils and
removal of temporary erosion &: sediment controls. The certification and inspection forms would be retained on the site, and made available to the permitting authority and the public
upon request. This option is being proposed as Option 2 in today's document [see section X). • Numerical Design Requirements EPA considered an option thet would establish numerical requirements
for the design of sedimentbasins and traps that would vary based on local or regional rainfall patterns and site-specific soil types. However, EPA determined that there were insuffu:ient
data available to establish national criteria ofthis type, and therefore did not include this requirement in today's proposed rule. In addition, this approach would be a significant
departure from the current CGP siaing requirements, which establishes a requirement a calculated volume ofrunoff from a 2-year, 2-hour storm. or for 3.600 cubic feet of storage per acre,
for all sites of 10 or more acres. • Numerical Pallutant Removal Requirements EPA considered options that would contain n umericaI requirements for the removal ofspecific pollutants
from construction site runoff. EPA initially considered targeting a va:r!ety of pollutants including sediment, TSS, turbidity, nutrients, metals and other priority pollutants. EPA considered
a regulatory option that would establish numerical removal criteria for sediment, or an associated indicator parameter such as total suspended solids [TSS), suspended sediment concentration,
settleable solids, or turbidity. This option could be expressed as either a percent removal through sediment controls (such as sediment basiM or treps), or as a total site reduction
(incorporating coru;ideration of sheet flow and diffuse runoff in addition to discrete conveyances). However, EPA did not consider this approach to be a viable regulatory option due
to several factors. The stochastic nature of rainfall and runoff makes verification ofthe design standards difficult. In some cases, the nature of local rainfall and runoff characteristics
make it difficult to evan design BMPs to a specified performaoce level. In addition, sitespecific soil conditions greatly influence the amount of sediment mobilized during runoff events,
and the soil settling characteristics greatly influence the performance ofsediment controls. Designing an entire suite oferosion and sediment controls for a site to perform to a specified
level would likely require the use of a computer model, which could add significant costs with little assurance of increased effectiveness. Similarly, monitoring to verify attainment
of numerical requirements can also be vary difficult (see "Discharge Monitoring," below) with little demonstrated benefits. As a result, EPA did not consider numeric pollutant control
requirements a viable option. in addition to establishing numerical requirements fur the control of sediment, EPA pre1iminarily considered establishing requirements for removing fine-gra!ned
and slowly-or nonsettleable particles contained in construction-sit. runoff (such as turbidity). This option would likely have relied primarily on chem.iJ::a1 treatment of soils or construction
site runoff usIng polymers or coagulants such as alum in order to prevent the non-settleable fractions of solids from being transported off-site. EPA did not pursue this option due to
the concern over possible adverse environmental effects ofwidespread usage ofchemical or polymer treatment of soils and, thexefore. does not present costs, pollutant removals, or economic
impacts associated with such an option. HoweverI EPA recognizes that at some sites use of chemical treatment may be appropriate based on a site-specific determination. The Agency solicits
comment and data on the possible long-term environmental effects associated with this option. EPA also evaluated the inclusion of separate requirements for controlling priority toxic
pollutaots, pesticides and pathogens in construction site runoff. If these pollutants are present as a result of construction activities themselves, the most appropriate means of control
is typically through the use of source control and pollution prevention BMPs, which are already addressed in the existing NPDES regnlations through the MS4 permit requirements. The Agency
has been unable to Identify any additional BMPs that are technically and economically feasible for use at construction sites that would remove these pollutants once they are in the water
column. Therefore EPA does not present costs. pollutant removals, or economic impacts associated with such a separate option. Hence, EPA proposes to control the discharge of any such
pollutants that may be associated with construction activity only to the extent thet control of TSS will also control these pollutants. EPA is, however, planning to conduct additional
sampling activities to evaluate the frequency of occurrence and levels of these pollutants and their sources in construction site runoff for the fins! rule. EPA solicits data and comments
on the frequency of occurrence and levels of pollutaots found in construction site runoff, as well as BMPs that can costeffectively remove these pollutants from runoffwhen present. •
Discharge Monitoring EPA considered the inclusion of monitoring requirements for evaluating the effectiveness of erosion and sediment con trois. Monitoring ofstorm water discharges from
construction sites could be used to evaluate the effectiveness of individual sediment controls (such as sediment baSins), or monitoring the receiving water above and below construction
sites could be used to monitor the effects of an entire site on ambient water quality. Monitoring requirements could be incorporated with any ofthe previously discussed regulatory options
considered. Since EPA's preferred approach for addressing construction site storm water does not rely on the performance of individual sediment controls but rather on the combined performance
of a suite of erosion and sediment controls, monitoring the effectiveness of individual controls is not appropriate. Monitoring the effectiveness of the overall erosion and sediment
control requirements specified in today's proposal would be very difficult at the majority of construction 
Federal Registe" Vol. 67, No. 121/Monday, June 24, 2oudProposed Rnles 42659 sites. In order to demonstrate that the erosion and sediment control provisions at the site are achieving
a stated overall percent reduction in .ediment discharge would likely require monitoring of every discharge point on the site, or monitoring the receiving water above and below the construction
site. The high degree of variability in site parameters. regional and site-specific rainfall. and erosion and sediment contrcl effectiveness would, in all likelthood. make specification
of standard storm water monitoring reqoirements impractical for a national regnlation. The constantly-changing state of construction sites due to the action of construction equipment
would present Significant challenges in terms ofmonitoring equipment set-up and maintenance. The stochastic nature of storm events would likely require a dedicated staffing effort on
the part of the construction site operator in order to ensure preparedness of the sampling equipment for capturing nmoff events. In addition. many sites discharge to an existing storm
drain system, making monitoring of the receiving water infeasible. All of these factors would add significant expense to the construction 􀁰􀁲􀁯􀁣􀁥􀁳􀁳􀁾􀀠with little or no added assurance
in the effectiveness of control measures or expected environmental benefits. As a result, EPA is not including discharge monitoring with today's proposal. Permitting authorities may
include discharge monitoring requirements in permits, wbere it may be practical to specify sampling and monitoring procedures that are appropriate for local conditions. 2. Overview of
Regulatory Options: Certification and Inspection During the Agency's outreach activities. EPA received many < comments that an effluent guideline was unnecessary for sites covered by
the NPDES Phase I storm water regnlations. and untimely for sites that would be covered by the Phase II requirements. These commenters believed that the erosion and sediment control
requirements requirements currently being established through best professional judgement by the permitting authorities are appropriate in that they can be more effectively tailored
to regional and local conditions and respect traditional State and local authority over land use management. Some of the commenlers stated, however, that implementation of these Stete
and local requirements is not uniform. These commenters expressed concern that State and local government resources are insnfficient to provide compliance monitoring on a timely basis,
particularly where inspections by government officials are the primary mechanism for ensuring that controls are installed and maintained. As a result, according to this view. the effectiveness
of the program hinges on the amount of attention and oversight provided by the operator, and the knowledge and training that the operator has received. As a result of these comments,
EPA considered an option that would not establish ELGs at this time, but would rather require site inspection, maintenance and reportlog by site owners and operators in order to improve
confidence in the implementation and performance of construction site erosion and sediment controls. This option would include a maintenance record of site activities, including certification
that plans required by the permit meet all erosion and sediment control requirsments, certification that 􀁩􀁮􀁳􀁰􀁥􀁣􀁴􀁩􀁯􀁮􀁾􀀠stahilization and maintenance requirements Mve bean satisfied,
and certification by a qualified professional that BMPs have been adequately designed, sized and installed. This option would also include a requirement that the operator or designated
agent conduct regnlar inspections to ensure that erosion and sediment control BMPs are maintained in working order. The certification and inspection forms would he retained on the site.
and made available to the permitting authority upon request. (See section XVIII oftodays document for more information on compliance paperwork and implementation.) EPA developed this
option as a mechanism that might improve implementation of existing requirements. During Agency outreach conducted in advance of todey's proposal, some small entity representatives commented
that the problem with existing erosion and sediment control requirements is not the lack of standards, but rather the lack of adequate implementation and enforcement. including education,
bid solicitation and evaluation, proper design, installation. and maintenance of BMPs. and inspection. One small entity representative cited a recent article,6 which found that contractors
are not following good installation and maintenance practices, and recommended more inspection and education be instituted to remedy the problems. instead of additional substantive regnlatory
requirements. (l Robert G. Paterson. "Construction Practices: The Good, The Bad and tho Ugly," Article no, 60 in The Pmatice of Water.shed holec;ti(Jll. Center for Watershed Protoction.
Ellicott City. MD, 2000. Available at http://www.stonnwatercetltcr.net. EPA believes believes that one way to implement this recommendation is by increasing site accountability for implementation
to ensure that corrective steps are taken as appropriate to ensure that practices perform as designed. For example. inspection of perimeter silt fences can identify sections in need
of repair or replacement to ensure sediment containment. Because this option is not linked to specific levels of performance. but applicable to any requirements that are esteblished
by the permit writer, EPA believes that itmay be appropriate for sites between one and five acres as well as for sites of five acres or more. This option is proposed today for all sites of one acre or more as Option 1, and would
amend the NPDES permit regulations at 40 CFR 122.44. See section X for a description of the options proposed. EPA also recognizes that this option may impose disproportionate costs on
small operators who may have to rely on outside consultants to perform certifications and inspections. One way to reduce overall burden, including burden on small operators. while covering
the majority of disturbed acreage would he to limit the scope of this option to sites of 5 acres or mare. This would establish certification and inspection reqoirements for SO percent
ofthe disturbed acres. EPA thus solicits comment on limiting the scope of this option to sites of five acres and above. Under this approach, sites below 5 acres would continue to be
governed by cartification andlor inspection reqoirements based on the BPT of the permitting authority. 3. Overview of Regulatory Options: Continued Reliance on State and Local ESC Programs
EPA is also proposing an option under which no additional national regnlations would b. established at this time. Rather , EPA wouid continue to rely on existing State and local programs
to establish appropriate sediment and erosion control requirements for permitted construction sites, either on a BPJ basis or in accordance with applicable regulations, ordinances,land
use plans, etc. Under this option. EPA eouid provide additional support for training and education of construction and development operators, municipalities and State regulators, in
order to improve the effectiveness of existing programs. This would build on the existing regulatory framework by preserving State and local flexihility to tallor specific requirements
to regional and local conditions while at the same time benefitting from enhanced technical 
42660 Federal Register 􀀬􀁾􀁖􀁯􀁬􀀮􀀠67, No. 1211Monday, June 24, 􀀲􀀰􀁬􀁊􀁾􀁉􀁐􀁲􀁯􀁰􀁯􀁳􀁥􀁤􀀠Rules assistance and the latest information about emerging ESC technologies and their
effectiveness. This option is being proposed as Option 3. 4. Overview of Regulatory Options Considered: Long-Term Storm Water Maoagement EPA evaluated several regulatory options for
control oflong-term storm water discbarges from development projects. These options are designed to controi the discharge of sediment, storm water and other pollutants from sites after
construction is completed. EPA specifically considered numerical design standards for the removal of specific pollutants (e.g .• 80 percent TSS removal). limitations on postdevelopment
flows (e.g .. maintain peak flows at pre-development levels), and BMPs to address thermal loadings to sensitive cold water streams. EPA is not proposing any of these options today. The
choice ofsuch controls. whether at a specific site or throngh regional storm water management infrastructure) has historically been left to State and local governments. These governments
use a variety of regulatory and non-regulatory programs (such as land use planning) to address post-construction storm water flows in order to protect infrastructore and achieve local
resource goals. A summary ofexisting State programs is included in the rulemaking record. Some States and municipalities rely on traditional approaches, such as retention ponds and infiltration
basins. Other States and municipalities are pursuing approaches that will encourage regional planulng, lower impact development, and other progressive programs to reduce not only the
pollutant run-off from the site, but to protect receiving streams from the intensity ofrunoffthat has accompanied urbanization. Maoy of these approaches do not lend themselves to uniform
standards, but require integration with land use decisions and site deSign. EPA supports these approaches, and does not want to limit the flexibility that can be afforded at the local
level while advances axe being made. Moreover, the options EPA explored for a national ELG would have been very expensive if calculated on a total industry cost basis. Given the variety
ofapproaches being attempted across the country and the expense of imposing uniform post· construction controls, EPA considers it inappropriate to propose an ELG for long-term stonn
water management at this time. Instead, EPA has decided to confine the proposed ELG to controls on discharge ofpollutants associated with construction activity during the active construction
phase, and to maintain the traditional reliance on State and local programs to control long-term storm water management. At the same time, EPA is concerned that States and municipalities
be provided the tools to assess the variety ofpractices that are available today for long"term storm water management. Much of the technical data that EPA collected in evaluating these
options will be made available in the rulemaking record. X. Determination ofBest Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (BPT), Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology
(BCT), Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT), and New Source Perfurmance Standards (NSPS] As discussed in section m.D of today's document, in the guidelines for an
industry category. EPA defloes BPT effluent limits for conventional. toxic (priority), and non-conventional pollutants for direct discharging facilities. For the BPT costreasonableness
assessment in today's proposal. EPA used the total pounda of TSS removed. A. Rationale for Selected BPT Option EPA estimates that construction sites annually discharge 80 million tons
of TSS into the sW"face waters ofthe United States. As a result of the quantity of pollutants currently discharged directly to the nation's waters and the adverse environmental effects
of these discharges (see section vm.B of today's document], EPA determined that there may be a need for BPT regulation for the construction and development category. At the same time,
EPA recognizes that many States axe exarulning the permit requirements they are establishing in light oftheir experience with the storm water program to date. EPA's estimates of pollutant
discharges today are significantly lower than estimates at the time EPA issued the CGP. EPA is therefore co-proposing not to establish BPT requirements for the C&D category, but to allow
and encollIaga fuller implementation of the current storm water program. This co-proposal takes two forms, one in which EPA essentially codifies the inspection and certification proviSions
discussed in section IX (hereinafter called Option i), and one in which EPA does not amend the national storm water regulations at this time, hnt instead continues to rely on BPJ requirements
tailored to regional and local conditions as determined by the permitting authority [hereinafter called Option 3). As one option, the Agency is proposing codification of the CGP with
inspection and certification as the basis for BPT (Option 2). EPA's decision to co-propose BPT limitations based on this option reflects the following primary factors: (1) The degree
of effluent reductions attainable, (2) the total cost of the proposed option in relation to the effluent reductions achieved. and (3) the maturity ofthe NPDES program as it pertains
to construction activity at sites of 5 acres or greater. EPA estimates that this option will reduce pollutant discharges to waters ofthe United States by 22 billion pounds per year at
a cost of $5 05 million. EPA believes this option does not create unacceptable deleterious nonwater quality environmental 􀁩􀁭􀁾􀁣􀁴􀁳􀀮􀀠EPA has not identified a basis for formulating
different BPT limitations based on facility age, process or other engineering factors. The most pertinent factors for establishing the limitations are costs of the controls. the level
of effluent reduction benefits obtainable, and the current state of the NPDES program. As described in section IX of today's document, EPA is proposing this option for sites of five
acres or more. EPA is not proposing to establish effluent li:rnitation guldelines for sites of less than five acres at this time for the reasons described in section IX. EPA is also
considering the option (discussed in section IX) that would codify the CGP without adding the inspection and certification requirements. Althongh EPA believes that inspection and certification
requirements will help ensure the proper design, installation, and maintenance of erosion and sediment controls. EPA recognizes that including specific certification and inspection requirements
in national regulations is not the only way to accomplish this objective. EPA could instead leave the establishment of such requirements to the BPJ of the permitting authority. consistent
with State and local program requirements. Including specific certification and inspection requirements in co-proposed Option 2 accounts for S65 million per year of the $505 million
per year cost of this option. EPA is interested in minimizing recordkeeping and reporting burdens to the extent that substantive performance is not jeopardized. EPA solicits comments
on less costly means of ensuring the performance of erosion and sediment controls and the merits of leaving the establishment of specific certification and inspection requirements to
the BPJ of the permitting authority. EPA solicits comment on the option of codifying the CGP without adding specific national 
Federal Register,· vol. 67, No. 121 I Monday, June 24, 􀀲􀀰􀁴􀀬􀁾􀀯􀁐􀁲􀁯􀁰􀁯􀁳􀁥􀁤􀀠Rules 42661 certification and inspection requirements. Under this option, §§ 450.21(1) and (g) would
be reIDoVlld from the proposed rule language, except the first sentence of § 450.21(g)(1) which would be retained. B. BCT Determination 1. July 9, 1986 BCT Methodology The BCT methodology,
promulgated in 1986 (51 FR 24974), discusses the Agency's consideration of costs in establisbing BCT effluent limitation guidelines. EPA evaluates the reasonableness of BCT candidate
technologies (those that are technologically feasible) by applying a two-part cost test: (1) The publicly-owned treatment works (POTW) test; and (2) The industry cost-effectiveness test.
in the POTW test, EPA culculates the cost per pound ofconventional pollutent removed by industrial dischargers in upgrading from BPT to a BCT candidate technology and then compares this
cost to the cost per pound of conventional pollutant removed in upgrading POTWs from secondary treatment. The upgrade cost to industry must be less than the POTW benchmark of $0.25 per
pound (in 1976 dollaxs), In the industry cost·effectiveness test, the ratio ofthe incremental BPT to BCT cost divided by the BPT cost for the industry mnst be less than 1.29 (I.e., the
cost increase must be less then 29 percent). 2. Consideration of BCT Option For today's proposed rule, EPA considered whether or not to establish BCT efflueot limitation guidelines for
C&D sites that would attain incremenial levels of effluent reduction beyond BPT for TSS. EPA was not able to identify a technically feasible, discrete addition to the BPT technology
that would achieve additional TSS reductions and would be applicable nationally. For construction site erosion control, additional conventional pollutant removals would require the use
of chemical treatments such as polyacrylamide (PAM) or alum. As described in section IX,C of today's document, the Agency recognizes that these treatments are used in some parts of the
country, hut has insufficient information about the environmental effects of the treatments to recommend requiring their use nationwide. Therefore, EPA did not apply the BCT Cost Tests
and is co-proposing thet BCT be set equivalent to BPT limitations (i.e., Option 2). C. BAT and NSPS EPA generally considers the following factors in establisbing the best available technology
economically achievable (BAT) level of control: The age of process equipment and facilities, the processes employed, process chenges, the engineering aspects of applying various types
ofcontrol techniques, the costs ofapplying the control technology, economic impacts imposed by the regulation, non-water quality environmental impacts such as energy requirements, air
pollution end solid waste generation, end other such factors as the Administrator deems appropriate (section 304[b)(2)(B) of the Act}. in general, the BAT technology level represents
the best existing economically achievable performance among dischargers with shared cbaracteristics. In making the determination about economic achievability, the Agency takes into consideration
factors such as plant closures and product line closures. Where existing wastewater treatment performance is uniformly inadequate, BAT technology IIllly be transferred from a different
subcategory or industrial category. BAT may also include process changes or internal plant controls which are not common industry practice. EPA considered the same option for BAT as
discussed under BCT. The Agency is unawaxe of any additional technically feasible and economically achievable technologies for the removal ofto:>cics (i.e., priority meials and organic
chemiculs) and nonconventional pollutants under BAT bayond those considered for BPT. As discussed in section IX.C of today's document, EPA initially considered the use ofchemical treatment
of soils or the addition of polymers (such as PAM) or coagulants for the removal oftaxies and 􀁮􀁯􀁮􀁾􀁣􀁯􀁮􀁶􀁥􀁮􀁴􀁩􀁯􀁮􀁡􀀮􀁬􀀠pollutants. However, due to the conCern over the unknown
environmental effects of widespread usage of such treatment, EPA did not give this option further consideration. EPA is co-proposing BAT limitations equivalent to BPT (Option 2). When
developing NSPS, EPA generally considers that new facilities have the opportunity to incorporate the best available demonstrated technologies Including process changes, in-plant controls,
pollution prevention, and end-of-pipe treatment technologies. The NSPS co-proposed in today's rule would apply to new sources as defined in §450.11. EPA proposes to define "new source"
for purposes ofpart 450 as any source of storm water discharge associated with construction activity that results in the disturbance of at least five acres total land axe. thsl itselfwill
produce an industrial source from which there may be a discharge of pollutaots regulated by some other new source performance standard elsewhere under subchapter N. (All new source performance
standaxds promulgated by EPA for categories of point sources are codified in subchapter subchapter N.) The definition ofnew source proposed today for purposes of part 450 would mean
that the land·disturbing activity associated with constructing a particulax facility would not itself constitute a U new source" unless the results of that construction would yield a
"new source" regulated by other new source performance standards. For example, construction activity that is totended to build a new pluu:maceutical plant covered by 40 CFR 439.15 would
be subject to new source performance standards under § 450.24. EPA also seeks comment on whether no sources associated with C&D activity should be deemed "new sources.1) EPA may decline
to establish NSPS on the grounds that construction activity itself is outside the scope of those activities intended to be covered by CWA section 306. (uThe term /new source' means any
source, the construction ofwhich is commenced" * *" 33 U.S.C. 1316(a)(2)(emphasls added)). Because EPA has co-proposed 10 set NSPS equivalent to BPT, the Agency expects thet this would
not not result in eny substantive increase or decrease in the limitations imposed on any C&D activity. EPA's proposed approach to defining "new sources" is based largely on the structure
of the CWA. Under the CWA, a source may not be a f'new source" under section 306(a)(3) unlass there is or may be a discharge of pollutents from the constructed facility. A discharge
of pollutants means an addition of any pollutant to navigable waters from any point source, i.e., any discernible. confined and discrete conveyance such as a pipe, ditch or channel.
See CWA section 502(12) &: (14). Section 306[b) of the CWA itself includes a list of industries for which EPA was directed to address with NSPS. EPA proposes to treat all sourceS from
which there may be a discharge associated with construction activity disturbing five acres or greater that will result in a I(new source" as "new sources" themselves. Tbere may be sitoations
when a newly-constructed direct discharging point source would fali within an industrial category or or subcategory for which EPA has not promulgated NSPS; In thet case, the discharge
associated 
42662 Federal Registel. vo!. 67, No. 121/Monday, June 24, 20v..IProposed Rules with the construJ::tion activity would be subject to BPT limitations outlined in §450.21. Substantively,
these limitations are identical to those imposed on Hnew sOUI'ces" under this proposed rule. EPA is interested in any comments on these, or olbar possible definitions of new source in
this rule and is especially interested in comments regarding EPA's legal authority to take either of these approaches, the environmental benefits of these approaches and the potential
implications these approaches may have on administration of the NPDES permit program. D. Summary ofProvisions in Todoy's Proposed Rule The provisions in today's proposed rule are discussed
programmatically rather than in the order of the numbered options. 1. General Provisions and SWPPP Preparation Option 2 in today's proposal includes a number of specific provisions for
preparation of Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPPs) based principally on EPA's CUITent Construction General Permit (CGP). EPA is also proposing some additional provisions
for inclusion in SWPPPs. Options 1 and 3 do not include specific provisions for preparation of a SWPPP. However, under these options sites would continue to be governed by existing permit
requirements. All individual permits, EPA-issued general permits, and most State-issued general permits for discharges associated with construction activity five acres of greater require
the preparation of a SWPPP or similar pollution prevention documentation. The CGP requires owners and operators of construction sites subject to regulation to prepare a SWPPP that, among
otbar things, describes the BMPs to be selected to control runoff during the land-disturbing phase (erosion and sediment controls). While the SWPPP terminology is used in EPA-issued
CGPs, States need not use the SWPPP terminology. Instead, States may require alternate documents that are equivalent to SWPPPs. Examples include erosion and sediment control plans, storm
water management plans, or other documents. EPA bas conducted an evaluation of State-level erosion and sediment control regulations, and found that the majority of States include provisions
equivalent to those contained in the EPA CGPs. As a result, the requirements co-proposed under Option 2 today can be incorporated into SWPPPs, or alternate documents that are equivalent
to a Swppp, as long as these doc:uments address all of the provisions contained in today'. proposal. The requirements co-proposed today do not preclude permitting authorities and State.
County and Municipal erosion and sediment control regUlations or ordinances from including additional or more stringent requirements, nor do they replace existing requirements that are
mam stringent. Section 450.21(d) contains the requirements for preparing a SWPPP under Option 2. Explanations are provided below for selected provisions. • Section 450.21(d)(1). NarratJve
description ofthe construction activity. Although not an explicit requirement, EPA presumes that any individual activity on the site that will result in a disturbance ofmore than 1,000
square feet of land will be treated as a "significant" disturbance of soils and will be described in the SWPPP. • Section 450.21(d)(2). Genero! location map and site map. In most cases,
a site drawing prepared along with the erosion and sediment control plan is appropriate. Tbe site map shall be of sufficient scale and detail to allow easy identification of individual
erosion and sediment controls and storm water BMPs, as well as delineation of drainage pathways. in many jurisdictions, local agencies specify a map scale for preparation of site drawings.
• Section 450.21(d)(3). Description of available data on soils present at the site. This type of information may be obtained from soil surveys conducted during the initial stages of
project formulation, which may be needed for evaluating the engineering properUes of soils. Information of this type might also be collected during initial investigations of a site,
commonly commonly referred to by the industry as "due diligence" procedures or a HPhase r' or "Phase IT" environmental site assessmenV' • Section 450.21(d)(4). Description of BMFs to
be used to control pollutants in storm water discharges during construction. The operator may reference a State erosion and sediment control design manual used to design BMPs as an abbreviated
method for a fuller description of the BMPs in the SWPPP. Such references should cite specific BMP references and!or specifications in the manual. 1The phases rcfel'rad to,:i:n this
instam::e deSCI10es a step in an onvironmental site assessment (,ESA) process, not the NPDES "Phase Y' of ''Phase II" storm "Water regulations. ASTM lntema.lionnl [fonnedy known as the
American Society .for Testing and Materials) has published recommended ESA procedures as standard no. E1527-96. http://www.astm.org • Section 450.21(d)(5). Description of the genero!
timing (or sequence) in relation to the construction schedule when each EMF is to be implemented. Although approximate dates are useful, they are not necessary. General descriptions
are acceptable. For example, one might describe an installation of a EMP as follows: "sediment basins will be installed prior to initial clearing and grubbing of the site,.. • Section
450.21(d)(S). Estimate of the pre-development and postconstruction runoff coefficients ofthe site. Estimates of runoff coefficients may be determined by using a number of readily available
resources, including models sucb as "Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds, Technical Release 55 (TR-55)" and documents such as "Hydrology, Section 4, National Engineering Handbook (NEH-4),"
both published by USDA/Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). In addition. there are a number of commercial software packages that may also be used to estimate these parameters.
• Section 450.21(d)(a). Delineation of swpppimplementation responsibilitJes. The SWPPP must describe who is responSible for implementation ofthe controls described in the SWPPP. • Section
450.21(d)(d)(9). Any existing data that describe the storm waier runaffcharacteristics ofthe site. Include any existing data that describe the quality of any discbarges of storm water
from lba site. This does not require the permittee to collect additional data. It is important to note that the above requirements for SWPPP preparation are in addition to any requlrements
contained in other Federal, State or local regulations. Permittees should always consult permit authorities to obtain all requirements related to SWPPP preparation. In addition, §450.21(e)
would require periodic updating of the SWPPP to address changes in activities that may require updating ofthe erosion and sediment control provisions for the site. Examples where updates
may be needed include significant chaoges in the construction schedule or chaoges in the nature of construction activities. Ifperiodic inspections indicate that the selected erosion
and sediment controls are not effective in controlling pollutant discharges from the site, lba revision of the SWPPP may be necessary. It is the responsibility of the permittee to keep
the SWPPP CUITent. 
Federal Registetl <rol. 67, No. 121/Monday, June 24, 􀀲􀀰􀁬􀁊􀁾􀁬􀁐􀁲􀁯􀁰􀁯􀁳􀁥􀁤􀀠Rules 42663 2. Design and Installation ofEwsion and Sediment Controls Under all three options, permits
would require, at a minimum, compliance with any applicable State and local erosion and sediment control requirements. Under Option 2, the selection, design aod implementation of these
controls would need to also comply with the national effluent guidelines in 40 CFR450.21. Under Options 1 and 3, the selection, desigu and implementation of these controls would be governed
by BPJ-based permit conditions established by the permit authority and tailored to regional or local conditions. In practice, many of the same control technologies may be used uoder
all three options, though the design and performance could vary significantly in some locations. The erosion and sediment control provisions ofOption 2 rely on implementation of a range
ofBMPs, as well as a design-based standard for sediment basins. This standard is different from many traditional effluent guidelines in that it does not establish end-of-pipe discbarge
limitations or performance standards for storm water runofffrom construction sites, but instead establishes minimum criteria for erosion and sediment control selection, design. installation
aod maintenance. The design standard is based primarily on minimizing sediment generation and transport through the use of effective erosion controls. and secondly on controlling sediment
discharge through the use of effective sediment controls. Due to the high degree of variability in site parameters, regional and 􀁳􀁩􀁴􀁥􀁾􀀠specific rainfall, and erosion and sediment
control effectiveness, Option 2 does not contain numerical discharge standards or discharge monitoring requirements. instead, this option relies on adherence to established erosion and
sediment control principles and dsmonstration of effective deSign, installation and maintenance through regular inspection and certification. Although Option 2 does not contain monitoring
provisions, permitting authorities may require monitoring of construction site runoff or receiving waters to gauge performance. Examples of indicator parameters that may be evaluated
in order to evaluate the quality of storm water discharged from construction sites include TSS, turbidity, settleable solids, and suspended sediment concentration. (EPA-approved aoalytical
test methods for some of these parameters are listed in 40 CFR part 136.) in addition, permining authorities may also utilize numerical models to evaluate erosion aod sediment control
efficiency aod to evaluate sediment generation and delivery from construction sites. Examples include empirical models such as the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE) or process-based
models such as SEDCAD and SEDlMOT II." Under Option 2, construction site owners and operators would be required to consider the use of a range of erosion and sediment control BMPs when
preparing SWPPPs for construction sites. EPA's preferred approach is to first limit sediment generation and transport through the use of effective site planning and erosion controls,
and secondly control sediment discharges through the use of effective sediment controls. In addition, §450.21(c) would require implementation ofpollution prevention practices to prevent
contamination ofstorm water nmoff with construction materials and litter and debris. Section 450.21(0) would require that construction site owners and operators include descriptions
ofgeneral erosion and sediment controls aod BMPs in SWPPPs to retain sediment on site (to the extent practicable), and to provide interim and permanent stabilization. Stabilization measures
may include establishment of temporary or permanent vegetation, mulching, geotextiles, sod stabilization, vegetative buffer strips, and protection of trees and mature vegetation. This
section also requires the SWPPP to contain a schedule indicating when practices will be implemented. EPA recommends that all controls be properly selected and installed in accordance
accordance with sound engineering practices and, when feasible, manufecturer's specifications. In Option 2, EPA is requiring thet owners and operators implement sediment controls for
all drainage areas of 5 or more acres. For drainage areas of between 5 and 10 acres, smaller sediment basins or sediment traps shall be used where attainable. For drainage areas of 10
or more acres. sediment basins or equivalent control measures shall be installed where attainable. Where neither a sediment basin or a "Predicting Sou Erosion by Water: A Guide to Conservation
Planning with the Revisad Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE)," K.G, ReDard, CoR.Foster, G.A. Weesies. D.K, McCool, and D.C, Yoder. United Stetes Department of Agriou1tu.re, 1997, Warner, R.C. and p,J, Schwab, 1998, "SEDCAD 4 for Windows 95 &-􀁾􀀧􀁔􀀺􀀠DosJgn Manuel
and User's Guide," Civil Software Design. Ames. IA. Wilson, B,N., B.J. Barfield. AD. Ward. and I.D. Moore, 1984. "A Hydrology and Sedimentology Watershed Model. Pert1: Operational Format
and Hydrologic Component." Transactions ofthe American Society ofAgricultural Engineers 27(5}:1370-1377. eqnivalent control is attainable, silt fences, vegetative buffer strips or equivalent
sediment controls are required. Runoff from uodisturbed site areas that is diverted around disturbed are•• can be ignored when designing sediment controls. Where attainable, sediment
basins shall be designed to provide storage for a 2 year, 24-hour storm, or alternatively, 3,600 cubic feet of storage volume per acre drained. The basin sizing is based on the area
ofthe drainage that will have vegetation removed and soils disturbed [i.e., ifthe drainage area is 15 acres, but only 13 acres of this area will heve vegetation removed and soils disturhed
during the course ofthe project and the remaintog 2 acres will remain vegetated and is directed around both the disturbed area and the sediment basin, then the permanent storage volume
can be sized based on 13 acres). EPA recommends that sediment control outlets be designed to provide a detention time at the design capacity of at least 6 hours. In addition, permit
authorities may require that the basins be designed to pass larger runoff events safely, and may require the use of an emergency spillway, pursuant to state andlor local authority. EPA
encourages permittees to utilize improved sediment basin designs that incorporate features such as beffies and outlet structures such as rock or fabric filters surrounding risers, siphoning
outlets, and using surface skimmers and floating weirs. The use ofthese practices may significantly improve the performance ofsediment basins in certain cases. In addition, all basins
should be dssigned by a qualified engineer and local regulations regardiog impoundment design should be consulted. Proposed § 450.21(h) would require site owners and operators to provide
temporary andlor permanent stabilization ofexposed soil areas on construction sites. Exposed soil areas and slopes must be stabilized as soon as practicable, and in no case more than
14 days after construction activity has temporarily or permanently ceased on any portion of the site. Where construction activity has temporarily ceased on a portion of the site and
earthdisturbing activities will ba resumed within 21 days, stabilization is not reqnired on that portion of the site. Time limits for stabilization may he ext=ded where compliance is
impractical due to snow cover. frozen soil, Or other factors. Temporary or permanent erosion control measures include planting ofvegetation, sodding, mulches, bonded fiber matrices,
binders and tackifiers, polymers, and rolled 
42664 Federal Registel, Vol. 67, No. 121/Monday, Tune 24, 􀀲􀀰􀁶􀁾􀀠IProposed Rules erosion control products. Exceptions are provided for low rainfall areas and where stabilization is
temporarily impracticable. 3. Inspection and Certification Provisions Under all three options, pennit. would generally specify inspection and! or other requirements to ensure compliance.
Under Option 3, these requirements would continue to be based on State and local ESC programs and the BPJ of the pennitting authority. Both Options 1 and 2 would requlxe a variety of
site erosion and sediment control inspection and certification requlrements, including inspections every 14 days and a final site inspection and certification. The provisions in each
option are roughly equlvalent, although each would be codified differently in the regulations. Under Option 3, any inspection and certification requlrements would be based on any applicable
State and local ESC programs snd the BPJ ofthe pennitting authority. In Option I, part 122 would be amended to add conditions applicable to storm water permits for construction activity.
Section 122.44(t)(1) would requlre a pennittee (or designated agent) to maintain a site log book to track the implementation oferosion and sediment controls and other actions requlred
by the pennit. The analogous provision in Option 2 is at § 450.21(1). Any format for the site log hook could be used, as long as the specific provisions listed in the regolation are
addressed. EPA plsns to provide guldsnce on a recommended format for the site log book at the time of promulgation ifEPA ultimately promulgates inspection and certification requlrements.
EPA solicits comments on the 10$book format. Option 1 would also amend § 122.44(1)(4) to exclude construction sites subject to ELGs from discharge monitoring requinnnents, for the reasons
described in section IX of today's document. Pennit authorities would retain discretion to set monitoring requirements for construction site discharges on a case-by-case basis. Options
1 snd snd 2 would also requlre periodic inspection snd certification of various provisions. This is embodied in proposed § 122.44(t)(2) in Option 1, and §§ 450.21(1) and (g) under Option
2. The oertification. either by the pennittee or designated agent (as described below) would be an assurance by the certifying official that the various provisions concerning BMP design,
installation snd maintenance are occurring on a regular basis in order to assure effectiveness of the selected erosion snd sediment control •. The pennittee or designated agent would
not be requlred to certify as to the performsnce of selected controls, but rather that the controls Were designed and installed according to the provisions requlxed in the pennit and
that regular maintenance activities are occurring. In some States and municipalities. similar inspection systems are already being employed, end EPA believes that these systems would
generally be in conformance wi th Options 1 snd 2. The Agency requests comment on whether the proposed inspection requirements are compatible with existing State and local ESC inspection
systems. EPA recommends that these inspections be conducted by a Certified Professional in Erosion and Sediment Control (CPESC),· licensed Professional Engineer (PE), or other qualified
professional with training in erosion and sediment control principles and practices. However, since there will be a large number of inspections requlxed to cover all construction sites
nationally snd there is only a limited number of certified professionals available, EPA is not requiring that these inspections be carried out by a licensed or certified professionel.
The individual conducting the inspections should have adequate training snd a thorough understanding ofthe erosion snd serument control requirements for the site, as described in the
SWPPP. EPA envisions that in most cases, and perticularly for larger projects, the inspection and reporting requlrements will be carried out by the same consulting finn(s) or prime contractor(s)
that provided the initial site design, enginsering drawings, SWPPP preparation, snd construction supervision for that project. However, the pennittee may make other arrangements to accomplish
the inspection and reporting requlrements, such as self·inspection and self· certification. It i. important to note thet compliance with the proposed inspection and reportieg requlrements
would be the responsibility of tha permittee. Although a subcontractor, conanltant or thi:rd-party certification finn may be employed by the permittee to conduct the actual inspections,
any discrepancies or violations noted would be a violation ofthe site owner or operator's storm water pennit and corrective measures would be the responsibility of tha pennittee. EPA
would not hold subcontractors Or laThe. CPESC training program is sponsored by the Intfmlational Erosion Control Association (http://www.ieca.org) and I.ha Soil and Water Conservation
Society {http://www.swC$,org J. consultants who are providing inspection and certification services to permittees responsible for pennit violations. The site log book would be the official
record ofinspection snd maintenance activities, and a copy should be maintained by the site owner or operator in the event of a change in the entity providing the inspection mechanism
(for example, if a developer chsnges subcontractors follOwing the completion of initial grading). The site log is intended to serve multiple purposes. The first. and most important.
is as a planning tool for the pennittee and a means oftracking erosion and sediment control activities, including maintenance. The second is a tool for pennitting authorities to gauge
compliance with regolations and to aid enforcement activities. As such, it is in the best interest of ali parties involved for the pennittee to maintain a copy of the site log book and
other documents requlred by the permit (e.g., a SWPPP) on-site, and to allow access to this information by the pennitting authority. Since members of the public may also have an interest
in the complisnce related information documented in the site log book, EPA recommends thet a copy be maintained in a public location (such as a library or courthouse), or that a copy
be made available to the public upon request within a reasonable period. 4. Maintenance In Option 2, construction site owners would be requlred to remove accumulated sediment from sediment
traps and ponds when design capacity has been reduced by 50 percent. XI. Methodology for Estimating Costs in developing today's proposed rule, EPA has taken a model approach to estimating
the costs of compliance. '0 Costs were estimated thet are expected to be borne by two distinct entities: (1) Costs that are expected to be directly borne by the constnuJtion and development
category for BMP installation and administrative functions and tha consumers of the construction projects; (2) costs that are expected to be borne by pennitting authorities fur implementing
the provisions of today's proposal. All costs presented are incremental over the costs already being borne by these entities due to existing Federal. State and local regolations governing
erosion and sediment control. 10 A costmodel identifies variables and uses equations to estimate costs. The model is used to estiamte costs before and after impleme-lliation of the proposed
rule. 
Federal Registeo Vol. 67, No. 12l/Monday, June 24, 20...􀁾􀀯􀁐􀁲􀁯􀁰􀁯􀁳􀁥􀁤􀀠Rules 42665 In estimating costs oftoday's proposal to the C&D category, EPA has categorized costs as capital
costs and administrative costs. The following components were included in EPA's costing analysis: (1) Capital costs, including deSign, installation (including materials and labor), maintenance,
profit and overhead; and (2) administrative costs, including SWPPP preparation, inspections, installation and maintenance certification, permit submissionJ and records retention. In
developing cost estimates for permit authorities, EPA estimated administrative costs to revise general permits to incorporate the e£flueot guidelines requirements. Using NRI and Census
deta, EPA estimates that the C&D category converts approximately 2.2 million acres of land from rural to urban use in the nation each year. This is based on NRI data for the years 1992
and 1997. Although the use of NRI deta is likely to overestimate the amount of new acreage that is actually developed (as opposed to just being included in the new urban land use base),
EPA still chose to utilize NRI data for tha following reasons: (1) NRI date provides a consistent and comprehensive picture ofbroad land use changes for the United Stetes; (2) NRI data
is presented at the watershed scale, allOwing subsequent evaluation of environmental impacts and benefits in a consistent manner; and (3) NRI data allows evaluation ofrecent as well
as historical land use changes, facilitating the estimation of trends. For all of the environmental and economic assessments prepared for today's proposal, EPA elected to use a single
year's developed acreage as the basis for its estimations, and to present ali cost data on an annual basis. To help establish what trends exist in new urbanizing areas, EPA evaluated
published sources to define what an urbanized area contains in terms of various land uses, and used the.. land uses to apportion annual construction activity into different industries
based on on developed land area. The Agency formulated characteristics for four industries based on Census date: singlefamily housing construction, multifamily housing construction,
manufacturing and industrial building construction, and commercial and institutional building construction. A breakdown ofestimated construction acreage by sector cao ba found in Chapter
four of the Development Document. EPA's analysis indicates that betwaen 1999 and 2000 there were approximately 42,000 aCres of new urban road and highway construction in the U.S. (Highway
Statistics 1999 and Highway Statistics 2000, Federal Highway Administration). This constitutes less than 2 percent ofthe total new developed acreage in the U.S. Because new road and
highway construction is such a small percentage of annual development acreage, EPA did not conduct a separate analysis of costs of the proposed role for highway, street, bridge and tonnel
construction. EPA requests comment on this approach, as well as data on the costs of the proposed role for highway, street, bridge, and tunnel construction and any special implementation
challenges that may be found by this sector. A. Costs to the Construction and Development Category EPA used a model site approach to develop estimates of costs of the role to the C&D
category. Using the deta on development trends within each industry as a sterling point, EPA estimated a distribution of construction site sizes for each of the four industries based
on census data and on data collected during the NPDES Phase II rolemaking. The Phasa II rulemaking data identify distributions of sita sizes within each industry based on construction
permits issued in 14 urbanizing municipalities. From this data, EPA was able to develop the national distribution of construction activity by sector and size. Detailed results ofthis
analysis can be fouod in Chapter four of the Development Document. EPA developed a series ofmodel construction sites for each of the size strata and identified erosion and sediment control
practices required required under current State CGP baselIne conditions (i.e. compliance with current NPDES reguiations). The Agency identified costs of these controls using unit cost
references commoniy used by the industry to estimate their construction costs for bids (R.S. Means Co., Construction Cost Manual, 2000) as well as data from the literature. EPA also
added costs for design, O&M, as well as regional cost adjustments. EPA then applied O&M costs, design costs, and profit and overhead, using costs and frequencies based on standani industry
practice. Administrative costs for activities such as permit application and records retention were also estimated. Following development ofregulatory options, EPA estimated the increase
in costs for erosion and sediment controls due to factors such as increased sizing (for BMPs such as sediment basins), increased frequency of application (such as temporary seeding and
mulching), as well as increased administrative costs for factors such as inspection and SWPPP certification. By comparing these costs to the baseline costsl EPA was able to estimate
the incremental costs ofvarious regulatory options. (See Chapter 7 of the Development Document for a more detailed discussion of the construction control modeL) B. Costs to Permit A
athontias EPA identified additional administrative costs to permit authorities for incorporating the proposed requirements into appropriate general permits. EPA views the permit authorities
(EPA regional offices and States) as the main implementors of effluent guidelines and NPDES regulations. The Agency expects that States will integrate the proposed requirements into
their respective exosion and sediment control general permits. However. many States rely on local governments and quasigovernmental agencies (e.g., conservation districts) as partners
in implementing their ESC programs. EPA acknowledges that the administrative costs it has estimated will likely be shared among a broader range of entities than just States. (See chapter
7 of the Development Document for a mOre detailed discussion of the administrative costs to permit authorities.) fn estimating the total costs to administer today's proposed effluent
guidelines requirements, EPA has built on its earlier work related to the Phase II NPDES storm water rule ("Economic ADalysis of the Final Pbase II Storm Water Rule," EPA-<l33-R-99-002,
October 1999) in order to estimate incremental costs of effluent guidelines implementation. EPA has also built on regulatory program development costs identified in earlier effluent
guldelfnes (such as the proposed role for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, 66 FR 2960, January 12, 2001) where they are similar in nature and scope. in estimating Ibe baseline
administrative costs, EPA has assumed 100 percent implementation of existing Phase I and II NPDES storm water regulations. Applications for permits for discharges of pollutants associated
with construction activity disturbing at least one acre but less than five acres are not required before March 10, 2003. Hence, although these permits ara not required under Federal
regulations at this time, they will be when EPA takes final action on today's proposal in 2.004. 
42666 Federal Register, ;fol. 67, No. 121 IMonday, June 24, 􀀲􀀰􀁵􀁾􀀯􀁐􀁲􀁡􀁰􀁯􀁳􀁥􀁤􀀠Ru1es XII. Economic Impact and Social Cost Analysis A. Introduction EPA's Economic Analysis (see
..Supporting Documentation") describes the impacts of today's proposed rule in terms of firm closures. employment losses, and market changes, such as housing prices. In addition, the
report provides information on the impacts of the proposal on sales and prices fur residential construction. The initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) supports EPA's compliance
with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREF A). The report also presents identified, quantified, and monetized
benefits ofthe proposal. Today's document includes related sections such as the 􀁣􀁯􀁳􀁴􀁾􀁥􀁦􀁦􀁥􀁣􀁴􀁩􀁶􀁥􀁮􀁥􀁳􀁳􀀠analysiS in section xm, benefits analysis in section XVI, and benefit.;::ost
analysis in section XVII. In their entirety, these sections comprise the economic analysis (referred to collectively as the "CBdJ economic analysis") for the proposed rule. EPA's Environmental
Assessment provides the framework for the monetized benefits analysis. See the complete set ofsupporting documents fur additional information on the environmental impacts, social costs,
economic impact analysis. and benefit analyses. The C&D economic analysis, covering subsectors that disturb land (NAICS 233 and 234), uses information from, and builds upon, the NPDES
Phase II rule economic analysis (op.cit.). In addition to building upon the work completed for the Phase II rille, the CBdJ economic analysis expands the Phase II economic analysis with,
among others, an environmental assessment, economic achievability analysis, barrier-to-entry analysis, and benefit-cost analysis. In addition to CWA requirements, EPA has followed OMB
guidance on the preparation of the economic analyses for Federal reguiations to comply with Executive Order 12866. See section XIX.D of today's document. B. Description ofEconomic Activity
The construction sector is a major component ofthe United States economy as measured by the gross domestic product (GDP), a measure of the domestic output of goods and services produced
in one year by the U.S. economy. The ccnstruction sector directly contributes about five percent to the GOP. Moreover, one indicator of the economic performance in this industry, housing
starts, is also a Hleading economic indicator," one of the indicators of overall economic performance for the U.S. economy. Several other economic indicators that originate in the CBdJ
industry include construction spending. new home sales, and home ownership. During most of the 1990s, the construction sector experienced a period ofrelative prosperity along with the
overall economy. Although cyclical, the number of housing starts increased from about 1.2 million in 1990 to airnost 1.6 million in 2000, with annual cycles during this period. (U.S.
Census Bureau. "Current Construction Reports, Series C20-Housing Starts," 2000. http://www.census.govlconstlwww). At the beginning of the 21st century, the economy has begun to slow
relative to previous highs in the 1990s. The United States has been affected by global factors and events, that have led to temporarily reduced consumer spending, but the adverse impacts
on the construction and development industry appear modest at this time. The Federal Reserve money market policies to keep interest rates low, particularly mortgage interest rates, have
been a siguificant and positive force in light ofthe eccnomic factors impacting the economy. The most recent data inclicates consumer spending for new homes remains strong. For the purposes
of today's proposed rule, the Construction and Development Category is comprised ofindustries that disturb land. The category contains business establishments 11 that are involved in
building, developing and general contracting (NAICS 233) as well as heavy construction (NAICS 234). As a starting point, Table XII-l shows the number ofbusiness establishments in the
CBdJ category in 1992 and 1997. Only a portion of these establishments would be covered by the proposed regulation, because Some ofthese establishments are house romodelors and others
build on sites with less than one acre of disturbed land each ysar. (The proposed rule would cover projects one acre or more under Option II and 5 acres or more under Option 2 . See
section IV. Scope ofProposal, in today's document.) Table XII-l shows a sharp decline in the number of developers between 1992 and 1997. The decrease in the number of developers may
have been a response to cbanges in tax laws and the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act (FIRREA) of 19S9 (Public Law 101-73, August 9,1969) and the 1993 implementing
regulations. The objective of FIRREA and the lmplementing reguiations was to correct events aod policies that led to a high rate of bankruptcies in the thrift industry in the late 19aos.
The ragulations changed lending practices by financial institutions, requiring a higher equity equity position for most projects, with lower loao-to-value ratios, and more documentatinn
from developers and builders. (Kone, "Land Development," op. cit.) TABLE XII-l.-NuMBER OF EMPLOYER ESTABLISHMENTS IN CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT INDUSTRIES, 1992 AND 1997 NAtCS 233,
except 2331 ................... . 2331 ....................................... . 234 ........................................ .. 23S B ..........., ..........................., Total
................................. Industry 1992 number 1997 number Change(percent) Building, developing, and general contracting. except land 168,407 191,101 13.5 development and sulHfevelopment.
Land development and sub-development ............................. . 15.338 8,185 -46.6 Heavy construction ".", ........................ , ........ "., ....." ...•...,....n. , Specia[
trade contracting ........................... , ........... ., ............... l 37,180 14,864 , 42,557 19.771 , 14.5 33.0 􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀬􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀫􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭235.789 261.617
• Includes NAICS 23593 (Excavation contrao!ors) and 23594 (Wrecking and demolition contractors). Sources: 1992 and 1997 Census of Construction; EconomiC Analysis. "Employer establishment"
means an establishment 11 The Census BUI'68u uses the tarm with employees."establishment" to mean a place of business. 11.0 
Federal Registell Vol. 67, No. 1211 Monday, June 24, 􀀲􀀰􀀬􀀬􀁾􀀧􀀯􀀠Proposed Rules 42667 Building upon Table Xll-l, Table Xll2 shows the number of establishments that could potentially
be covered under the C&D proposed regulation, From the total of about 262,000 establishments in 1997, EPA subtracted about 62,400 establishments that are engaged in home remodeling,
and would not be subject to the proposed regulations. This estimate is based upon a study by the Harvard University Joint Center for Housing Studies ("Remodeling Homes for Changing Households,"
2001), The elimination of remodelers is based on the fact that remodeling and renovation activities generally disturb less than one acre of land, ifany at all. EPA also deducted 50,661
establishments that build one to four houses. Given an average lot size of shout 0.3 acres per house, EPA assumes that a builder that builds between one and four houses per yaar is unlikely
to disturb one acre or more in a given year, The estimate of the number of establishments building one to four houses was based upon a study and report by the Census Bureau ("Construction
Sector Special Stody Housing Starts Statistics," op,cit.), Some of the sites built upon by these establishments would be covered by NPDES storm water permits if they are located within
a "common plan of development" (I.e .. a subdivision) that is at or above the regulatory threshold. [This threshold is currently 5 acres under the Phase I rule, and will become 1 acre
under the Phase II rule in 2003.) However, the Agency does not have information on the amount ofhollses that are built within subdivisions, rather than on discrete lots, by these establishments.
EPA requests comment on its methodology for removing remodelers and finns that do not disturb more than one acre of land from the analysis. Based upon these adjustments of the total
number of establishments, EPA believes that about 150,000 establishments would be covered under Option 1. Although it is likely that fewer establishments would be covered under Option
2, EPA has not made adjustments to account for establishments that do not disturb more than five acres. The population of establishments that would be covered after the adjustments that
EPA has made may also include subcontractors. Many, ifnot most of these establishments also would not be covered by the proposed rule, because they do not disturb land. However, the
Agency has insufficient data to make any further adjustments to the population of developers and builders covered by the proposal, For example, no adjuslmen ts have been made to account
for establishments in the non-residential construction or heavy construction industries that may disturb less than one acre of land, EPA solicits comment on the Agency's estimate of
the number of establishments that would be covered under the proposal. For general discussion, EPA will refer to the 150,000 esteblishments as the covered population. As estimated from
the data SOUiC8S available, the actual estimate is 148,556 establishments. EPA requests comment and any other information avallable about the potentially covered popuiation. TABLE XII-2.-NuMBER
OF ESTABLISHMENTS COVERED BY THE CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED REGULATIONS Establishments NAlCS Industry sector Number Percent of total 2331 .,.................. ,.,., ..........
,.,.......... . Land development and subdivision .............",................................... "".... 8,185 5.5 23321 .............................................. , Single·family
residential building construction .......................................... 31,615 21.3 23322 .............................................. . 􀁍􀁵􀁬􀁴􀁬􀁾􀁦􀁡􀁭􀁩􀁬􀁹􀀠residential
building construction ,............................................ 1,718 1.1 2333 ................................................ , Nonresidential construction ...................
,""', .......".,.,...... , ....,.,.................. 44,710 30.1 234 .... , ........................ , ................... .. Heavy construction .." ..,""'''"'''',............... " ......
,''''''''''''''''''"."'''',,.,,'',,... 42,557 28.7 235 ................................................... Special trade contracting .".. "".""...... " ......... """......... " ... "
..... ,,............... 13.319,771f----j---Total ........................................ .. , ............,., .............,........"'..........:...""' ......'" ",......."""" ..",.....,.,
....,., ...., ... . 148,556 100.0 Source: Economic Analysis.C, Method for Estimating Economic Impacts EPA has conducted economic impact analyses to determine the economic achievability of each of the three coproposed options. An important methodology
used in the economic impact analysis is an assessment ofhow incremental costs wouldbe shared by developers and home builders, home buyers, and society. This method is called "cost pass·through"
analysis or CPT analysis, Details of this method may be found in Chapter 4 of the Economic Analysis. The economic analysis for the C&D proposal also uses another method called partial
equilibrium analysis that builds upon analytical models of the marketplace, These models are used to estimate the changes in market equllibrlum that could occur as result of the proposed
regulations, In theory, incremental compliance costs could shift the market supply curve, lowering the supply ofconstruction projects in the market place. This would increase the market
price and lower the quantity of output, i.e., construction projects. If the demand schedule remains unchanged, the new market equllibrium would result in higher costs for housing and
lower quantity of output. The market analysis is an important methodology for estimating the impacts ofthe provision proposed in today's document. The economic analysis also rellects
comments in the October ZOOl final report from the Smail Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) Panel submitted to the EPA Administrator as part of the requirements undsr SBREFA. EPA is making
this report available along with today's C&D effluent guldelines proposal. For the technology·based construction and development effluent guidelioes, EPA is required under Title ill
of the Clean Water Act to make a determination about the available technologies for BPT, BCT, BAT, and NSPS, EPA is required by the Act to ensure that technologies selected as the basis
for BAT are economically achievable. EPA uses a different economic test for NSPS, a "barrier to entry" tast. This test is typically applied to new sources or projects to determine ifthe
proposed regulation could pose a barrier to entry in terms of starting a new project or business. The Agency typically uses a methodology that analyzes the incremental compliance 
42668 Federal Registm, vol. 67, No. 121/Monday. June 24. 20V4/Proposed Rules costs of the rule in comparison to the total assets required to start a new project orbusiness. Ifthese costs
are excessive, then a barrier to entry could b. a problem for enirepreneurs considering new business opportunities in the C&D category. EPA used several broad cost components to estimate
the compliance costs in an engineering cost model (see the Technical Development Support Document); Hhard" compliance costs and "soft" compliance costs. Hard costs are the incremental
construction costs for controls such as sediment basins. Soft compliance costs are the incremental costs for planning. design. permits, and engineering and legal services. Detailed information
on the compliance costs is provided inthe Development Document. EPA estimated the incremental compliance costs for the BMPs using an engineering cost model that takes account cost factors
such as labor rates and material costs. In most of the economic analyses described below. however. EPA has used weighted average national costs obtained by multiplying the regionalized
costs by the sbare of total projects estimated to take place within each region of the country. EPA estimated both the incremental compliance costs and the economic impacts of each proposed
regulatory option at the project. establishment, firm. and industry (national) level. The economic impact analysis considered impacts on both the firms inthe C&D industry. and on consumers
who purchase the homes. and buy or rent industrial bulldings and commercial and office space. In the case ofpublic works projects, such as roads. schools, and libraries, the economic
impacts would accrue to the final consumers, who. in most circumstances, are the taxpaying residents of the community. The sections below describe each modeling effort in turn. Detailed
information on the data. models. methods. and results ofthe economic impact analyses aro available in the Economic Analysis. 1. Model Project Analysis EPA estimated project-level costs
and impacts for a series of model projects. The models establish the baseline economic and financial conditions for model projects and assess the significance of the change in cash flow
that results from tba incremental compliance costs. EPA used the model project analysis to indicate whether typical projects affected by the proposed regulations would be vulnerable
to abandonment or closure. The Agency developed model projects for four industries: single family residential; multi-family residential; commercial & institutional building; and manufacturing
& industrial building. The models also included various construction project site sizes: 1, 3, 7.5, 25. 70. and 200 acres. In total. EPA developed 24 different model projects (4 types
of development or land uses. multiplied by 6 project sizes) and used these models to assess the impacts of the proposed regulations at the project level. Each model project is assumed
to be undertaken in its entirety by a Single entity acting as both developer and builder. EPA recognizes that in practice there may be several parties with a financial investment and
role in a particular land development and construction project. For example. on some projects a developer may acquire the land, conduct the initial engineering and site assessments.
and obtain the necessary approvals. The land may then be sold to another developer or builder who will undertake the actual construction work. Projects are also frequently undertaken
by a consortium of firms or individuals. through various types of limited liability partnerships (U.P). While it is important to acknowledge this variation. for modeling purposes EPA
has simplified this aspect and assumed only a single entity is involved from begirming to end. referred to below as a "developerbuilder," EPA requests comment about this economic modeling
approach. The model projects reflect the range of development type and project scale seen in actual industry practice. The model project characteristics were developed from the statistical
data described in section V of today's document. information distilled from academic literature and industry publications. and information proVided to EPA in meetings with industry representatives.
The model projects account for all of the steps in a typical land development project. Although EPA has developed regional compliance costs. there were insufficient data avallable to
develop model projects reflective of specific geographic zones or real estate markets. For this reason. EPA applied weighted average national costs to lhase models. The Agency obtained
some of tba model project parameters from home builders and developers in the mid-west region. so to some extent the model projects may be more reflective of conditions in this general
market area. Land development and construction typically occurs in a series of stages or phases. The model projects developed by EPA incorporate assumptions concerning the costs and
revenues incurred at each stage. EPA has modeled all of the projects to reflect three principal develOpment stages: (1) Land acqUIsition. The starting point is usually acquisition of
a parcel of land deemed suitable for the nature and scale of development envisioned. The developer-builder puts together the necessary financing to purchase the parcel. When lenders
are involved, they may require: certain documentation. such as financial statements. tax returns. appraisals. proof of the developer's ability to obtsin necessary zoning, evaluations
of project location, assessments ofthe capacity of existing infrastructure, letters of intent from cityl IDwn to install infrastructure. enviromnental approvals. etc. To satisfy these
needs. the developer may incur costs associated with compiling these data. (2) Land development. The developerbuilder obtains all necessary site approvals and prepares the site for the
construction phase of the project. Costs incurred during this stage are divided among "softu costs for architectural and engineering services. legal work. permits. fees, and testing.
and "hard" costs such as land clearing. installing utilities and roads. and preparing foundations or pads. The result of this phase is a legally subdivided parcel with finished lots
ready for construction. (3) Construction. The developerbullder undertakes the actual construction of the housing units. A substantial portion ofthis work may be subcontracted out to
specialty subcontractors (foundation, framing. roofing. plumbing, electrical. painting, etc.). Marketing a development generally begins prior to the start of this phase. hence the developer-builder
may also incur some marketing costs at this time. Housing units may come under agreement at any time prior to, during. or after completion of construction. Marketing costs are part ofthe
baseline costs. EPA determined that no incremental marketing costs would be imposed by today's proposed rule. EPA developed estimates of the project-specific costs and revenues at each
stage of project development in the baseline scenario. The result is a cash flow analysis of the costs and revenues associated with the project. The general approach used in establishing
the baseline scenario is to assume normal returns on invested capital and normal operating profit margins to arrive at the sales price for the final product (for .xample. completed new
single-family homes in a residential development). 
Federal Register ,·,101. 67, No. 121/Monday, June 24, 20"."IProposed Rules 42669 EPA analyzed the impact ofloday'. proposed rule by adding in the regulatory costs at the appropriate
stage of the project life cycle. Tbe regulatory cost impacts on the model projects were analyzed under two alt"mative assumptions concerning cost 􀁰􀁡􀁳􀁳􀁾􀀠through. In the first scenario,
EPA assumed that the developer-billlder can pass through all of the incremental compliance costs associated with meeting the proposed regulations to the final customer (e.g., the new
home buyer, consumers ofpublic transportation services). Under this scenario. all costs are assumed to be borne by the customer in the form of higher prices for completed construction.
In the second approach, EPA assumed that the billlder-developer can not pass through cost increases to the buyer 8Ild therefore realizes a reduced profit on the project. Ingeneral, EPA
believes that builders do pass through regulatory costs to customers, and this is supported by tha acaderillc literature and industry publications. The analysis simulates the results
under two extremes in which consumers or iodustry absorb all of the cost impacts. EPA notes that under certain conditions developers might also attempt to pass regulatory costs back
to land sellers. For exarople, in a depressed market billiders may argue successfully that a regulatory cost increase would make a particular project unprofitable unless the land costs
can be reduced. Ifthe land seller is convioced that a residential subdivision project would not proceed, thay may be willing to accept a lower price for raw land. The ability of developers
to pass such costs back would likely depend on the sophistication of the land owner, their experience in land development· projects, knowledge ofthe local real estate market, and, in
particular, thair understanding ofthe regulations and their likely cost. While evidence of cost pass-back to land owners exists for fixed 8Ild readily identifiable regulatory costs such
as development impact fees, it is unclear whether a builder's claim that costs would be higher due to construction site control regulations would ioduce land owners to make concessions.
EPA requests comment on the likely success ofdevelopers attempting to pass regulatory costs for incremental storm water controls back to land owners. 2. Model Firm Analysis EPA analyzed
the impacts of the regulations at the level ofthe firm by building financial models of representative construction firms. The models for residential construction firms are based on data
from the special Census report on the homebuilding iodustry. This source prOvides the average value of construction, average employment, and average number of housing starts for firms
in various housing start classes. Within each housing starts size class, EPA constructed balance sheets and iru::ome statements by scaling published Dun and Bradstreet (D&B) data presented
for "median" firms ("1999-2000 Industry Norms and Key Business Ratios," Dun and Bradstreet, 2000).12 The The basic approach was to calculate the ratio of key components of the balance
sheet and income statement to net sales. and then scale the value of these components to the size of the model firm. For the commercial and industrial billiding construction industries,
EPA scaled the balance sheet and income statement elements according to differences between incomes for these C&D industries reported by the Census Bureau and median incomes reported
among firms sampled by D&B. EPA analyzed one model firm for these iodustries since comparable data by starts size class were not available. To deterrillne the annual compliance costs
incurred by model residential construction firms, EPA converted the costs per acre to costs per housing start using estimates of the average lot size for new home construction. and then
multiplied these costs by the number of housing units started. EPA was then able to assess the impact of the annual compliance costs on key business ratios and other financial indicators.
Speclfically, EPA EPA exarillned impacts on the following measures: (1) the Gross Profit, (2) Current Ratio, (3) Debt to Eqillty Ratio, and (4) Raturn on Net Worth. Industry publications
cite these financial ratios as particularly relevant to the construction industry (Kone, 􀁪􀁾􀁌􀁡􀁮􀁤􀁄􀁥􀁶􀁥􀁬􀁯􀁰􀁭􀁥􀁮􀁴􀀬􀁕􀀠op.cit,; M. Benshoof, "An Inside Look at Builders" Books.U
Housing Economics. National Association of Home Billiders, Washington, DC, 2001). Two of the ratios examined are based on operating income (gross profit, return on net worth), and two
are based on the balance sheet statement (current ratio, debt to equity). The impacts of the compliance costs were examined by calculatiog the values of each ratio with sod without the
compliance costs. For this analysis, EPA assumed zero cost pass-through, which is a worst-case scenario in terms ofdescribing the 􀀱􀁾􀁔􀁨􀁥􀀠D&B data are based on a sample offirms with
msponse ratios that arc greater fOr larger firms than for small finns. potential economic :impacts on this industry. To deterrillne the annual compliance costs incurred by commercial
and industrial construction firms, EPA first divided the total estimated number of construction starts by the number of establishments to obtain the average number of starts per establishment.
To estimate the average number of acres per start, the Agency reviewed industry cost data (R.S. Means, 2000. "Building Construction Cost Data, 58th Anoual Edition," Kingston, MAl for
representative projects. EPA estimated an average of three acres per start, and then used this average to calculate the average number of acres developed per establishment. The number
ofacres developed per establishment was then multiplied by the regulatory costs per acre to obtain the annual regulatory costs iocurred per establishment. As noted above, EPA exanrioed
the impact ofthese costs by exanrioing cbanges in financial ratios for the median-sized firm. To do this, EPA scaled the financial data for the median firm drawn from the D&B data to
the Census median firm, usiog the median iocome from each SOUIce as the scaliog factor. EPA requests comment on tha extent to which basiog the analysis on the median-sized firm will
appropriately capture impacts on smaller or larger firms. 3. Housiog Market Impacts EPA also developed models to assess the potential impacts of the regulations on the national housiog
market. To analyze the impacts of compHance costs on housing affordability, EPA estimated the level of iocome that would be necessary to purchase the average priced new home without
tha proposed regulation, and the change in income needed to purchase the average priced new home under each ofthe proposed regulatory options. The Agency than used income distribution
data to estimate the change io the number of households that would qualify to purchase the average priced new home under each of the regulatory options. In this way, EPA was able to
detennine the number ofhouseholds that may be priced out of the new housing market, assurillng that ali prospective buyers were targeting the averaged priced new home. The resuits of
this analysis may be found in the Econorillc Analysis. 4. Impacts on the National Economy The market model generates an estimate oftha change in the total value of construction produced
by the iodustry, Le., industry output. Two effects ofthe regulation are actiog on the 
42670 Federal Registe.,Vol. 67, No. 121/Monday, June 24, 2uu.:/Proposed Rules market value of construction output. First, the cost of construction increases. leading to a price rise
and an increase in market value of final projects. Becond, the quantity of houses sold is reduced because ofthe higher price due to compliance costs. The net effect on market value may
be either positive or negative, depending an whether the elasticity of demand for housing is less than or greater than 1. There are also secondary impacts in other markets, caused by
the shift in consumer spending, necessitated by the increased housing casts, from other goods to housing. As these changes pass throngh the economy, they generate shifts in production
and employment. The U.B. Department of Commerce uses inputoutput techniques to derive "multipliers" which indicate, for a given chenge in one industry's output, how output and employment
in the whole u.s. economy will respond. EPA has applied the multipliers from the Regional Input·Output Modeling Byswm, version 2 (RIMS TI) to the change in output estimated from the
market model to estimate the impacts on national output and employment. D. Results 1. Firm-Level Impacts EPA has estimated the economic impacts ofthe proposal at the fum level by estimating
tha number of fum closures, the number oHost jabs, and the decrease in fums' profits. The economic impact analysis at the firm level assumes that none of the incremental costs would
be passed through to the final consumer, i.e., zero cast pass-through. The Agency used this assumption for the economic impact analysis, because it presents the worstcase scenario (i.e.,
the largest impacts to the fum). However, EPA's review of the academic literature and its discussions with industry officials indicate that most, ifnot all costs, are passed through
to the final consumer and are not absorbed by firms in the industry. The fum is the responsible entity for the installation ofEBC BMPs and is the entity responsible for managing financial
and economic information. Moreover, the firm is responsible for maintaining and monitoring financial accounts. For the C&D category, most of the business establishments, as drfined by
the Census Bureau, are firms. A small number of establishments are entities within a larger firm. A small percentage of firms have multiple establishments and some firms are regional
or national in scope. Table XlI-3 presents one economic indicator, fum closures, by regulatory options and by industry (e.g., Multifamily Residential). TABLE XII-S.--FIRM CLOSURES BY
INDUSTRY FOR THE REGULATORY OPTIONS: ZERO COST PASS-THROUGH ASSUMPTION (Number of firms, percenl of Iolal firms) Single-Family , Multi·famlly res-Commercia! 􀁾􀀠Manufacturing and institutional
i and Industrial Option Resideqtlal' idential (11/%) (111%) (#/%) (#/%) 􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀮􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭--------+--------+-------1,
􀁓􀁥􀁬􀁦􀁾􀁩􀁮􀁳􀁰􀁥􀁣􀁴􀁩􀁯􀁮􀀬􀀠certification, 1 acre or more ....... " ............... ",."",,.,,,, 410.01 I I 110.02 11/0.03 210.03 2. Codification. 􀁳􀁥􀀡􀁦􀁾􀁪􀁮􀁳􀁰􀁥􀁣􀁴􀁩􀁯􀁮􀀮􀀠certificatio
n, 5 acres or more .,.,...........,. 1310.02 I 310.07 4310.11 7/0.09 3. No regulation ...................... , ..... " .... , .............................. , .................... .
010 ....J 010 0/0 010 SOurce; Economic Analysis. EPA also estimated the number of potential jobs that could be lost as a resnit of the proposal. Table XTI-4 provides the number of potential
job losses by option and by industry. TABLE XII-4. JOB LOSSES BY INDUSTRY FOR THE REGULATORY OPTIONS: ZERO COST PASS-THROUGH AsSUMPTION [Number of jobs, percent of jobs] -----------------------.,.---
---.-,.-------,-------..,.-------Option 1, Self-inspectlon. Gerofica:tion; 1 acre or more .................. , ....... " ........ ". 2, Codificationl salf..inspaction, certification;
5 acres or mare ................. Single-Family i Residential (#f%) 3410.01 I 145.0.04 􀁍􀁵􀁬􀁴􀁩􀁾􀁆􀁡􀁭􀁩􀁊􀁹􀀠Residential 􀁾􀀠(#/%) 1210.03 6110.17 Commercial and Institutional (#(#f%)
16210.03 60410.11 Manufacturing and Industrial (111"10) 43/0.03 13310.09 3. No regulation ...................................................................................... . 010.
010 010 010 Source: Economic Anafysis. EPA also estimated potential decreases in firms' profits. These results are presented in Table XTI-5 by regulatory options and by industry. The
potential changes in profits are in the range of a decrease in profits of one percent or less. TABLE XIl--5.-CHANGES IN PROFITS BY INDUSTRY FOR THE REGULATORY OPTIONS: ZERO COST PASS-THROUGH
ASSUMPTION [PelCBnt of profltsl Single family Option . (%) l.-;J{"inspeCtlon, certification; 1 􀁡􀁣􀁾􀁥􀀠or more ................................. , ..... 1 .0.23 2. COdification. self-inspection,
certification; 5 acres or more ....... , ......... I .0.52 3. No regulation ....................................................................................... o Multi-family Commercial
Industrial (%) -0.31 I (%) I-0.17 (%) .0.14 -0.95 -0.40 ·0.32 o o 1 o Source: Economic Analysis. 
Federal Regisblll"Vol. 67, No" 121/Monday, June 24, 20u.lProposed Rules 42671 For additional information on EPA's analysis ofthe change in financial pOsition, see Chapters 4 and 5 of
the Economic Analysis for the methodology and analysis on estimating firm-level impacts. 2. Impacts on Governments EPA has analyzed the impacts of today's proposed rule on government
entities. This analysis includes both the cost to governments for compliance at government-owned construction project sites (construction-related) and government costs associated with
implementation of storm water programs (administration costs). For construction-related costs EPA assumed that 100 percent of the incremental compliance costs that contractors incur
at government-owned construction sites are passed through to the goveroment. Under this assumption EPA estimates the following impacts: • Under Option 1, EPA estimates thet Stete and
local governments would incur about $12 million in annual costs and the private sector would incur about $114 million in annual costs. Of the $12 million in annual costs to Stete and
local governments, about $2 million would be incurred by small government entities, less than 50,000 population, and about $10 million annually would be incurred by large government
entities, greater than 50,000 population. • Under Option 2, about $50 million ofannual incremental costs would accrue to State and local goveroments. • Of the $50 million in costs accruing
to State and local government agencies, about $5 million per year would be incurred by small government agencies. communities with less than 50,000 population, and about $45 million
would accrue to large communities, those with more than 50,000 population. A subsidy or other complementary financing of these projects with Federal or State grants or revolving funds
could reduce the direct impact on local taxpayers. For administration costst the analysis is based upon two elements for construction storm water programs: (1) lncrernental costs to
esteblish or modify programs, and (2) incremental costs to implement the proposed options. Table XlI-6 provides information on the costs to establish or modify construction storm water
programs. The program elements to establish the proposed options may include, among other program needs, those needed to revise State general permits. In addition, the States, and to
some extent local governments, may need to provide basic program administration, education, public hearings, and public notifications as appropriate. These incremental program elements
may be in place and may not be needed by all Stetes or local governments. TABLE XIH5.-AANUALIZED ONE-TIME INCREMENTAL COSTS TO STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS FOR ESTABLISHING OR MODIFYING
CONSTRUCTION STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS Total (year 2000 $Program element million) General permit development 0.30 Program administration , ....... 0.15 Educaffon and information
distribution ........................ . 0.01 Q.07Public hearings ." ................. . Quarterly public notification .. 5.80 f----Total .............................. . 6.33 The detailed
analysis is available in its entirety in the Economic Analysis. 3. Community-Level Impacts EPA has estimated community-level impacts based upon the incremental costs ofthe proposal at
the household level. The household impacts are those that would affect local communities in terms ofthe costs ofhousing. EPA's analysis considers the impacts on the price of housing
based on the increasel decrease in the average price per house. Table XlI-7 shows the change by selected option in the price per house. TABLE XII-7.-GHANGE IN HOUSING PRICES FOR SELECTED
OPTIONS [100 Percent cosl pass-through] Average plice increase perOption house (year 2000 $) 1. Self-inspection. certiflcation; 1 acre or more .. ,," 182. Codification, self4nspec-;
tion, certification; 5 acres i 97or more .............................. i construction and development related goods and services. A significant component ofthe U.S. construction and
development category operates internationally, internationally, and. in addition, numerous foreign firms that participate in this category also operate in the U.S. EPA judged that the
potential for U.S. construction and development fll'lllS to be differentially affected by the proposed rule is negligible. The proposed rule will be implemented at the project level,
not the firm level, and will affect projects within the U.S. only. All firms undertaking such projects, domestic or foreign, will be subject to the proposed rule. U.S. firms doing business
outside the U.S. will not be differentially affected compared to foreign firms, nor will foreign firms doing business in the U.S. The proposed ruie could theoretically stimulate or depress
demand for some construction-related goods. To the extent that the proposed rule acts to depress the overall construction market, demand for conventional constructionrelated products
may decline. This decline may be offset by purchase of goods and services related to erosion and sediment control. Overall, EPA does not anticipate that any shifts in demand for such
goods and services resulting from the proposal would have a significant implication for U.S. and foreign trede. 5. Impacts on New Facilities EPA has conducted an analysis to assess the
impacts on new firms that choose to enter the C&D category. This analysis uSeS a method called ubarrier to entry" analysis. EPA examined the ratio of compliance costs to current and
total assets to determine ifnew market entrants could find it more difficult to obtein construction loans to start a project than would existing firms. The Economic Analysis provides
more complete information on the barrier to entry analysis. As discussed In more deteil in the Economic Analysis, this methodology is conservative, because it doesn't account for the
fact that a firm 3. No regulation .................... ! o would typically be expected to finence Source: Economic Analysis. The price increase per house that may be attributable to
the proposal compared to the average price ofa new house in the U.S., currently about $250,900, i. very small. For these costs, the average monthly mortgage payment would increase by
less than $5.00 per month. 4. Foreign Trade Impacts As part of its economic analysis, EPA has evaluated the potential for changes in U.S. trade (imports,exports) of 20 percent ofthe incremental compliance costs from their own financial resource to obtain the loan-not the full amount as assumed here. In addition. existing firms would
more than likely need to meet the same requirement, and therefore would not obtein a competitive advantege over new entrants. From the barrier to entry analysis, annual incremental compliance
costs under Option 2 would comprise a maximum of 0.82 percent of the current assets for the Multi-Family Residential 
42672 Federal RegistCl, vol. 67, No. 121/Monday, June 24, 20v", I Proposed Rules Building Industry. For the Commercial and Institutional Building and Manufacturing and Industrial Building
Industries. incremental compliance costs comprise less than 0.5 percent of current assets. For the Single Family Housing Industry, incremental costs comprise less than 0.2 percent of
CUITent assets. These costs are small as a percent of current assets. EPA believes that these costs pose no significant barrier to entry for potential businesses and projects. 6. Social
Costs EPA's analysis of social costs for Option 2 contains four costs components: (1) installation, design, and permitilng costs; (2) 08cM costs; (3) government costs; and (4) deadweight
loss. When summed. these four cost categories comprise the total social costs for each option. For Option 2 (codify CGP, selfinspectiofit certification. 5 acres or more), the total social
costs of the proposal are about 1>505 million annually (year 2000 $). EPA has conducted a social cost analysis for each option. The Economic Analysis provides the complete social cost
analysis for the proposed regulation. 7. Small Business Impacts Section XIX.C of today's document provides EPA's SBREFA analysis. For purposes of assessing the economic impacts of today's
rule on small entities, "small entity" is defined by SBA size standards for small businesses and RFA default definitions for small governmental jurisdictions. The small entities regulated
by this proposed rule are small land developers, small residential construction firms, small commercial, institutional, industrial and menufacturing building firms, and small heavy construction
firms. Table XII-8 shows the impacts of the proposal using the one percent and three p ereent revenue tests, a method used by EPA to eslhnate the impacts on small businesses. The table
presents the resuIts for the proposed options. TABLE XII-B.-SMALL BUSINESS ANALYSIS FOR REGULATORY OPTIONS, 1 % AND 3% REVENUE TESTS, ASSUME ZERO COST PASS-THROUGH 1% Revenue Revenue
test Option Number of IPercent of small ' small firms firms 3% Revenue test Number of small firms Pen:ent of small firms 􀁓􀁥􀁊􀁦􀁾􀁩􀁮􀁳􀁰􀁥􀁣􀁴􀁩􀁯􀁮􀀠and certffication; 1 acre or
more .......... , ..." ......................... , 1261 428 I <0.01 0.07, <0.01 <0.01􀁾􀁤􀀺􀁾􀀺􀀺􀁏􀂷􀁮􀁾􀁾􀀺􀀮􀀡􀀮􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀮􀀧􀀮􀀬􀁾􀀮􀁾􀀮􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀺􀀮􀀺􀀮􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀬􀁾􀀮􀁾􀁾􀀮􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀬􀀮􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺
􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀠\ 01 Source: Economic AnaJysis. xm. Cosl-Effediveness Analysis EPA has conducted a costreasonableness analysis that indicates that the cost of
this proposal for option 2 is about $0.01 per pound for TSS. EPA customarily performs a costeffectiveness (C-E) analysis using toxicpound equivalents. The pollutant removal calculations
in today's proposed rule are all based on TSS, a conventional pollutant. The Agency does not have a methodology for converting TSS to toxic pound equivalents for a C-E analysis. XIV.
Non-Water Quality Enviroumental Impacts Under sections 304(b) and 306 of the CWA, CWA, EPA is to consider the !Onon water quality" environmental impacts when setilng effluent limitation
guidelines and standards. EPA used various methods to estImate the NWQI for each of the options considered for today's proposed rule. Forthe purposes of today'. proposal, the Agency
interprets the tenn "non water quality" impacts to mean environmental impacts other than those related to surface water quality, and therefore is including groundwater impacts in this
section. A. AirPollution EPA estimates that today's proposed rule would bave no measurable effect 00 air pollution because none of the proposed options (including the "no change" option),
would significantly alter the use of heavy equipment at construction sites. nor the manner in which construction sites are prepared. Accordingly, the level. of exhaust emissions from
diesel-powered heavy construction equipment and fugitive dust emissions generated by construction activities would not change substantially from current conditions. B. SaUd Waste Generation
of solid waste would not be substantially affected regardless of the option selected because the majority of solid waste generated at construction activities derives from wastege of
materials brought onto and used at construction sites. Likewise, for redevelopment projects, the amount of solid waste generated, while greater than the amounts generated at new developments,
would not vary regardless of tha option selected (Including the "no change" option). C. Energy Usage The consumption of energy as a result of today's proposed rule is not expected to
be measurably affected regardless of the option selected because the operations that currently consume energy (both direct fossil fuel use and electricity) will not be changing to any
o I o substantial degree during land disturbance. D. By-Products From BMF. EPA projects that by-products from BMPs used during the construction phase as a result of today's rule would
not substantially change the pollutant types or quantities generated. Pollutant sources during the construction phase are primarily characterized by sediment from the in-place sails
[trapping and uilimate removal or repOSitioning on the site), various constituents in excess concrete slurry and wasb water (these include high pH and solids, sucb as sand and the fine
particulate matter that comprise cement), and the possible residual effects from soil amendments such as polyscrylamide (PAM). XV. Enviroumenlai Assessment A. Introduction In its Environmental
Assessment (see "Supporting Documentation"), EPA evaluated environmental impacts associated with the discharge of storm water from construction activities. Construction and land development
activities can generste a broad range of environmental impacts by introducing new sources of contamination and by altering the physical characteristics of the affected land area. In
particular, these activities can result in both shartand long-term adverse impacts to 
Federal Registe •.-\1oL 67, No. 121 I Monday, June 24, 􀀲􀀰􀁜􀀢􀁾􀀠{Proposed Rules 42673 surface water quality in streams. rivers, and lakes within the affected watershed by increasing
the loads of various pollutants in receiving water bodies, including sediments. metals, polynuclear-aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), oil, grease, pathogens. and nutrients. Groundwater Can
also be adversely affected through diminished recharge capacity. Other potential impacts may include the physical alteration of existing streams and rivers due to excessive flow and
velocity of storm water runoff. Tha 1996 National Water Qnality lnventory identifies siltation as one of the leading pollutants contributing to impairments in assessed stream miles.
and lists urban runoff and hydrologic modification as two of the leading sources ofimpairments. Sediment is an important and ubiquitous constituent in urban storm water runoff. Surface
runoff and raindrops detach soil from the land surface. and this often resuits in sediment transport into streams. Sedinlent can be divided into three distinct subgroups: turbidity.
suspended solids, and dissolved solids. Total suspended solids [TSS) are a measure of the suspended material in water. Th. measurement of TSS in urban storm water allows for estimation
of sediment transport, which can have significant effects locally and in downstream receiving waters. Turbidity is a function of the suspended solids and is a measura of the ability
of light to panetrate the water. Turbidity can exhibit control over biological functions, such as the ability of submerged aquatic vegetation to receive light and the ability of fish
to breathe dissolved oxygen through their gills. Total dissolved solids are a measure of the dissolved constituents in water and are a primary indication of the purity of drinking water.
Using total suspended solids (TSS) as an indicator pollutant. EPA quantified the impacts ofconstruction site storm water discharges on water quality. As deteiled in the economic assessment
and described in section xn of today's doctllrulnt. ecDrlOmic benefits were estimated to the extent reductions in water quality impacts could be attributed to implementetion of the proposed
rule. R Methodology for Estimating Environmental Impacts and Pollutant Reductions For purposes of the environmental assessment. EPA is using the term "impact" broadly to refer to negative
condltions related to elevated concentrations ofpollutants. physical destruction ofhabit.t by excessive flows. elevation of water temperaturel and loss of fish spawning access due to
new road crossings. The Agency was able to assess only a subset ofall of the potential environmental impacts of storm water discharges from construction sites. Construction activities
generate initial environmental impacts on each acre of land as the land is converted from an undeveloped state [e_g_. forest or rural land) to a developed condition. In addition, environmental
impacts continue long after construction activities are completed because developed lands are permanently and hydrologically altered from their predeveloped state_ Hydrologic changes
result from alterations in storm water discharge patterns and characteristics that can lead to ongoing environmental damages. In its analysis ofthe options contcined in this proposal.
EPA only considered the benefits that result from reductions In sediment discharges that occur whUe land is disturbed due to implementation of erosion and sediment controls and conducting
site inspections and certifications. The Agency limited its analysis to this category of impacts primarily because SOme environmental impacts are difficnlt to correlate with a specific
industry activity andlor assess on a national basis due to the wide variety of pollutants and sources of impairment present in a water body. The technical tools and analytical approaches
available simply do not lend themselves to isolating impacts attributable to this industry from other sources. For this analysiS. EPA first analyzed loadings that would occur nationwide
in the absence of any erosion and sediment control requirements. EPA built On an earlier analysis developed for the Phase IT rulemaking and described in the Phase neconomic analysis
lop. cit.). Tbis analysis estimated sediment discharged from a variety of "model construction sites" incorporating various site characteristics [3 soil erodibility levels with 5 slopes
in 15 climatic regions). From this model site analysis. EPA was able to estimate that the total sediment discharged from construction sites nationwide in the absence of any controls
would be about 90 million tons per year. EPA did not calcuiate the total reduction in this loading thet is expected to occur following implementation of existing Federal, State and local
requirements [the baseline condition). but rather estimated the expected incremental reduction that would result from the proposed options. For option 1, EPA estimated based on its experience
and engineering expertise that the additional site inspection and certification provisions would reduce this this national loading estimate by approximately 5 to 15 percent (a midpoint
estimate of this range was used for calculating benefits) over the reductions attributable to existing requirements. For optian 2. EPA estimated based on its experience and engineering
expertise that the additional site inspection and certification provisions along with the technology requirements would reduce this national loading estimate by approximately 25 percent
over the reductions attributable to existing requirements. EPA then further subdivided these loading estimated into two size categories, turbidity and settleable solids. in order to
estimate specific benefits estimates using appropriate indicators. EPA estimated based on its experience and engineering expertise that the sediment discharged would be comprised of
80 percent partides as settleable solids and 20 percent of partides as turbidity, by mass. The settleable solids loads are used to calculate monetized benefits for water storage capacity
and navigational dredging. The turbidity producing solids loads are used to calculate monetized benefits for water treatclent. The annual loads were reduced to reflect states with equivalent
programs for Option 1 and Option 2. The supporting documents discusses in deteil this analysis. EPA solicits data and comments on this approach. as well as the merits of conducting a
more detailed analysis that estimates actual BMP efficiencies and associated national loadings reductions. EPA also solicits data and comments on conducting an analysis that incorporates
other pollutant indicators, such as nutrients, metals and any additional pollutants that would be attached to sediments or contained in runoff discharged from construction sites. C.
Potential Loading Reductions of Propased Options EPA used TSS as the primary indicator to evaluate loadings reductions and to determine potential water quality benefits of the proposed
options. Reductions in TSS from construction sites would arise from greater oversight of construction activities and better implementation of BMPs [Options 1 and 2), as well as more
efficient BMPs in certain cases (Option 2). The estimated reductions due to implementation ofEPA's proposed Option 1 would be an annual reduction of 1.05 million tons of turbidity producing
solids per year and a reduction of 4.2 million tons of 
42674 Federal RegistCl, vol. 67, No. 121 I Monday. June 24. 􀀲􀀰􀁵􀁾􀀠IProposed Rules settleable solids per year. The estimated reductions due to Option 2 would be 2.2 million tons ofturbidity
producing solids per year and a reduction of 8.9 million tons of settleable solids per year. EPA expects that tbe potential for considerable benefits from today's proposal exists due
to decreases in sediment discharges to water bodies. EPA solicits data and comments tbat can provide information on the extent of impairments that are caused by the construction and
land de .. elopment industries. and methods of quantifying tbe benefits of today's proposal. XVI. Benefit Analysis EPA bas identified, quantified and monetized certain benefits attributable
to the construction co-proposal options in today's document. For some benefits, EPA has identified benefits categories, but is unable to quantify and/or monetize them at this time. Section
XV, Environmental Assessment, established tbe analytical framework for tbe henefits analysis. A. Benefits Categories Estimated As discussed in section XV. EPA has chosen TSS as tbe most
appropriate environmental indicator for the analysis of environmental impacts and benefits analysis. The primary environmental indicator selected was sediment entering waterways. The
Agency used a simplified approach for tbe environmental assessment, because monitoring representative sites for a cross-section of the 2.2 million acres developed would not be technically
and economically feasible. Section XV.C discusses tbe anticipated amount of TSS remo ..als as a result of today's dncument. The Agency estimates that 11.1 million Ions of TSS each year
would be removed from construction site discharges witb Option 2 and 5.3 million tons of TSS each year would be removed witb Option 1 presented in today's proposal. EPA used its experience
and enginearing expertise to determine tbe amount of TSS remo"Val that each option would achie..e. When identifying environmental impacts to assess for this industry. tbe Agency Agency
decided against analyzing impacts tbat are extremely difficult to correlate witb tbe specific industry activity and/or assess on a national basis. Large natural variations in watershed
ecology (e.g .. changes in species diversity. density ofaquatic species) and variable climatic conditions greatly complicate tbe task of determining cause and effect witb regard to construction
site storm water discharges. In particular, tbe Agency did not analyze construction impacts in the following areas: (1) Habitatlbiology. (2) stream temperatures, (3) flow and velocity,
(4) conventional pollutants and pollutant loadings. (5) human healtb, and (6) groundwater. EPA believes tbat tbese benefit categories may have substantial benefits. Howe ..er, tbe Agency
has chosen not to analyze tbese benefits at this time for tbe proposed options because EPA is unable to quantify and/or monetize tbem. EPA solicits comments on appropriate metbods to
quantify tbese benefits categories. B. Quantification ofBenefits TSS discharged from construction sites have a substantial and adverse impact on downstream property owners. The TSS is
suspended in tbe water column that may serve as a source of drinking water for a community or municipal water system. When influent for drinking water supplies is contaminated witb TSS,
tbe system would likely lllled to treat tbe water to remove tbe TSS and provida additional disinfection before distrihution to system customers. These costs willI.ad to rate increases
for drinking water system customers, Thus. the upstream actions of tbe construction activity impose botb direct costs (e.g .. higher treatment costs for utility operators) and indirect
costs (e.g .• higher water hills for system customers). These costs could be reduced by controlling construction site runoff through tbe use of erosion and sediment controls and otber
BMPs. Anotber impact oftbe discharge of sediment from construction sites is to reduce tbe capacity of water storage reservoirs. Settleable solids fall out of suspension and settle into
water storage reservoirs. Tbase accumulated solids reduce tbe capacity of tbe reservatr to hold as much water as in tbe past. Witb tbe reduced capacity oftbe water reservoir, tbe water
supply system will hear tbe direct cost of dredging the water supply reservoir or replacing tbe water reservo.ir as it is taken out of service for accumulation of sediment. Water system
customers generally bear indirect costs through rale increases. Again, by installing erosion and sediment controls and otber BMPs at construction sites, these costs can be reduced. Yet
anotber impact of construction and tb. discharge of TSS and storm water is tbe sediment thet falls out of suspension and into navigational and shipping channels. In most cases, tbe public
pays for the consequent dredging through taxes and/or higher cost of products. Use of erosion and sediment controls and construction sites can also reduce these costs. Reduced costs
for water treatment, water storage, and navigational dredging are three bellllfit categories tbat EPA is using to estimate tbe benefits of tbe proposed rule. The Agency believes thet
tbere are many more benefits to tbis rule, but tbe state-of-tbe-art of benefit analysis does not provide the tools at tbis point to quantify and monetize tbem. For example. babitat preservation
and protection is not easily quantified and estimated for benefits analysiS. However, we know that people value hahitat protection. because tbey are spending fund. to repair streams
for habitat preservation and protection. EPA has formulated a numeric estimate of tbe benefits ofthe proposed options by determining the reduction in tbe amount of sediment discharged
from construction sites and in turn quantifying certain environmental benefits. In particular, tbe amount of sediment reduced is tbe primary .. ariable in tbe benefits analysis. EPA
identified three potential economic methods to monetize the benefits, (1) Avoided damages, (2) contingent evaluation. (3) hedonic assessments ofproperty values. The Economic Analysis
provides provides tbe details of these metbods. The metbod tbat tbe Agency used initially to monetize benefits is tbe metbod of avoided damages. EPA recognizes tbat avoided dsmages is
not tbe preferred approach and is wnrking to improve its metbods. The Agency also considered contingent evaluation and hedonic assessments to validete and confirm the a..oided damages
metbodology. The avoided dsmages approach is a method tbat considers tbe damages avoided as a result of tbe proposal. EPA has analyzed tbe magnitude of costs primarily using tbe avoidad
damages. This metbod may also be referred to as tbe avoided cost approach. This metbod uses the costs of repair to estimate tbe benefits. These are costa tbat could be avoided ifconstruction
sites did not discharge sediment and storm water into surface waters, These costs are used to estimate tbe monetary value oftbe benefits of tbe proposal. EPA has also looked at academic
literature for contingent valuation stodies, such tbose used in tbe economic analysis for tbe NPDES Phase IT storm water regulations. Tba Agency bas used tbose studies to validate tbe
benefits models and for sensitivity analyses to gain a clearer picture of tbe benefits of tbe proposed rule. Additional information on tbe benefits analysis may he found in tbe 
Federal Registeb vol. 67, No. 121 I Monday, Iune 24, 􀀲􀀰􀀬􀀬􀁾􀀯􀁐􀁲􀁯􀁰􀁯􀁳􀁥􀁤􀀠Rules 42675 Environmental Assessment and The benefits analysis results are Economic Analysis. shown
in Table XVI-I. TABLE XVI-1.-ANNUAL BENEFITS FOR PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT REGULATORY OPTIONS Beneftt categories Regulatory options Option t (Self-inspection, certification;
1 acre or more} Option 2 (Codification,self«inspection, certification; 5 acres or more) Option 3 (No regulation) 􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭
􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭Turbidity Reduction Turbidity producing solids (million tons per year) ................ " .." ...... " ..."".......... """"".""",,,, .. 1.05 2.2 o Water treatment
monetized benefits (year 2000 $ millions) ................................ , .................... i OJ 0.2 o Sellleable Solids Reduction Settleable Solids (million tons per year) ....................
............ , .•••••.•..... , ..•• ",.............................. ",.............................. Water storage monetized benefits (year 2000 $ millions) .........................................
............... Navigational dredging monetized benefits (year 2000 $ mitlions) .....,..............,",....,',............. 4.2 7.6 2.7 8.9 16.0 5.8 0 0 0 Total Monetized Benefits (year
2000 $ millions) nh""''''''''''''''''''''h'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' 10.4 22,0 0 Source: Economic Analysis; Environmental Assessment. XVII, Benefit-Cost Comparison EPA has conducted
a benefit-cost analysis ofthe construction and development effluent guidelines proposed in today's docwnent The benefit-cost analysis may be found in the complete set of support docwnents.
Sections XJ1, XV, and XVI of this preamble provide additional details of the benefit-cost analysis, Table XVII-l provides the results of the benefit-cost analysiS. TABLE XVIH.-ToTAL
ANNUALIZED BENEFITS AND COSTS OF THE PROPOSED REGULATORY OPTIONS (Tons of sediment, year 2000 $J Costs Benefits Option (2000 $ millions (2000 $ millions per year) per year) Self-inspection,
certification; 1 acre or roore ......"" ............ t30 lOA Codification, self-inspection, certification; 5 acres or more .... ,', ............... 505 22.0 No regulation "'.........
0 0 XVIII. Regulatory Implementation A, Compliance Dates C&D sites must comply with the C&D regulation, once finalized, at the time of issuance, re-issuance, or modification of their
NPDES permit. New sources must comply with tbe new source performance standards (NSPS] (once it is finallzed) at the time they commence discharging process wastewater {i.e,. storm water
runoff from land disturbing construction activities). Because the final rule is not expected within 120 dsys of the proposed rule, the Agency considers the dste for compliance under
NSPS to be when the diSCharge from a new source construction site commences following promulgation ofthe final rule (see 40 CFR 122.2). See section X.D oftoday's document for the discussion
on defining new sources for the C&D category, EPA expects to issue a renewed Construction General Permit (CGP) in Z003. Following promulgation of the C&D rule, which is expected in 2004,
the Agency plans to incorporate the provisions of any effective ELG at the time ofthe next permit renewal. Based on the standard five-year period for NPDES permits, that renewal would
take place in 2008. However, States that have issued either general or individual permits may choose a different (Le. shorter) time period to implement the final effluent guidelines
requlrements. EPA requests comment on this planned scbedule. R Relationship ofEffluent Guidelines to NPDES Permits Effluent limitation guidelines and pretreatment standards act as a
primary mechanism to control the discharges of pollutants to waters of the United States. Once finallzed, the proposed C&D regulations would be applied to sites through individual NPDES
permits or a general permit issued by EPA or authorized States under section 402 of the Act. The Agency has developed the limitations for this proposed rule rule to cover the discharge
ofpollutants for this industrial category. In specific cases, the NPDES permitting authority may elect to establish technology-based permit limits for pollutants not covered by this
regulation. In addition, if State water quallty standards or other provisions of State or Federal law require limits on pollutants not covered by this regulation (or require more stringent
limits or standards on covered pollutants to achieve compliance], the permitting authority must apply those limitations or standards. C Upset and Bypass Provisions A "bypassu is an intentional
diversion ofthe streams from any portion of a treatment facility. An "upset" is an exceptional incident in which there is unintentional and temporary noncompliance with technology-based
permit effluent limitations because of factors beyond tbe reasonable control of the permittee. EPA's regulations concerning bypasses and upsets for direct dischargers are set forth at
40 CFR 122.41(m] and (nJ. Because much of today's proposal includes design standards for design, installation, and msintenance ofESC BMPs, EPA considered the need for a bypass-type provision
in regard to large storm events. However, EPA did not specifically include such a provision because today's proposed design standards only require BMPs to be designed to capture a specified
volume ofstorm runoff for pollutant removaL Because EPA is not establishing requirements for control of larger storm events, specific bypass provisions were not necessary. 
42676 Federal Registei, Vol. 67, No. 121 IMonday, June 24, 20"./Proposed Rules D. Variances and Waivers The CWA requires application of effluent limitation guidelines established pursuant
to section 301 to all direct discha:rgers. However, the statute provides for the modification of these national requirements in a limited number of circumstances. Moreover, the Agency
has astablished administrative mechanisms to provide an opportunity for relief from the application of the national effluent limitation guidelines for categories of existing sources
for toxic, conventional. and nonconventional pollutants. "Ability to Pay" and "water qualityl! waivers do not apply to conveotional or toxic pollutants (e.g .. TSS. PCBs) and, therefore,
do not apply to today's proposal. However, the variance for Fundamentally Different Factors (FDFs) may apply in some circumstances. 1. Fundamentally Different Factors Variance EPA will
develop effluent limitations or standards different from the otherwise applicable requirements ifan individual discharging facility is fundamentally different with respect to factors
considered in establishing the limitation of standards applicable to the individual facility. Such a modification is known as a "fundamentally different factors" (FDF) variance. Early
on, EPA, byreguiation provided for the FDF modifications from the BPT and BAT limitations for toxic and nonconventional pollutants and BPT limitations for conventional pollutants for
direct dischargers. For indirect dischargers, EPA provided for modifications for PSES. FDF vartances for toxic pollutants were challenged judiCially and ultimately sustained by the Supreme
Court. (Chemical Manufacturers Assn v. NRDC,479 U.S. 116 (1985)). Subsequently, in the Water Quality Act of 1987, Congress added new section 301(n) ofthe Act explicitly to authorize modifications ofthe otherwise applicable BAT
effluent limitations or categorical pretreatment standards for existing sources ifa facility is fundamentally different with respect to the factors specified in section 304 (other than
costs) from those considered by EPA in establishing the effluent limitations or prelreatroent standard. Section 301(n) also defined the conditions uoder which EPA may establish alternative
requirements. Under section 301(n), an application for approval of a FDF variance must be based solely on (1) information submitted during rulemaking raising the factors that are fundamentally
different or (2) information the applicant did not have an opportunity to submit. The alternate limitation or standard must be no less stringent than justified by the difference and
must not result in markedly moxe adverse 􀁮􀁯􀁮􀁾􀁷􀁡􀁴􀁥􀁲􀀠quality environmental impacts than the national limitation or standard. EPA regulations at 40 CFRpart 125, subpart D, authorizing
the Regional Administrators to establish alternative limitations and standards, further detail the substantive criteria used to evaluate FDF variance requests for direct dischargers.
Thus, 40 CPR 125.31(d) identifies six factors (e.g., g., volume of process wastewater, age and size of a discharger's facility] that may b. considered in determining ifa facility is
fundamentally different. The Agency must determine whether, on the basis of one or more of these factors} the facility in question is fundamentally different from the facilities and
factors considered byEPA in developing the nationally applicable effluent guidelines. The regulation also lists four other factors (e.g .. infeasibility of installation within the time
allowed or a discharger's ability to pay) that may not provide a basis for an PDF variance. In addition, under 40 CFR 125.31(b) (3), a request for limitations less stringent than the
national limitation may be approved only ifcompliance with the natiouallimitations would result in either (a) a removal cost wholly out of proportion to the removal cost considered during
development of the national limitations, or (b) a non-water quality environmental impact (including energy requirements) fundamentally more adverse than the impact considered during
development of the national limits. EPA regulatioIlJ! provide for an FDF variaooe for indirect dischargers at 40 CPR 403.13. The conditions for approval of a request to modify applicable
pretreatroent standards and factors considered are the same as those for direct dischargers. The legislative history of section 301(n) underscores the necessity for the FDF variaooe
applicant to establish eligibility for the variance. EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 125.32(b)(1) are explicit in imposing this burden upon the applicant. The applicant must show that the
factors relating to the discha:rge controlled by the applicant's permit which are clalmed to he fundamentally different are, in fact, fundamentally different from those factors considered
by the EPA in establishing the applicable guidelines. An FDF variance is not available to a new source subject toNSPS. 2. Low Soil Loss Potential Waiver Some sites may qualify for a
waiver due to low potential for soil loss. The waiver is provided for small sites (1 to 5 acres) in the existing NPDES storm water regulations. See § 12Z.26(b)(15)(i)(A). E. Other Clean
Water ActRequirements Compliance with the provisions in any of the rules proposed today would not exempt a discharger from any requirement for a permit for dredged or fill material under
section 404 ofthe CWA. XIX. Related Acts ofCongress, Executive Orders, and Agency Initiatives A Paperwork Reduction Act The infonnation collection requirements in today's proposed rule
have been submitted for approval to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 at seq. An Information Collection Request (ICR) document has been prepared by EPA (lCR No. 1842.03)
and a copy may be obtained from Susan Auby by mall at Collection Strategies Division; U.S. Envirorunental Protaction Agency (2822T); 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460,
by email at auby.susan@epa.gov, or by calling (202) 566-1672. A copy may also be dowuloaded from the internet at http://www.epa.gov/icr. In today's proposed Option 2, 40 CFR 450.21(f)
and (g) would require operators to msintain a site log. The equivalent provision in proposed Option 1 is 40 CFR 122.44(t). See section X.D. of today's document for a description of these
provisions. EPA estimates that this provision would create a total annual burden of about 760.158 hours for Option 1 and 633,033 hours fur Option 2. This estimate is the incremental
burden above the currently-approved burden level for the EPA and State construction general permits. EPA has received OMB approval for the current permit requirements under control no.
2040-0188, "Notice ofIntent for Storm Water Discha:rges Associated with Construction Activity under a NPDES General Permit." Intoday's proposed Option 2, 40 CFR 450.21(a) would require
pennittees to prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). This requiremeot would essentially codify current CGP requirements and no additional burden would be imposed. Burden
means the total time, effort. or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain. retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a 
Federal Regist •• ,·Vol. 67. No. 121 I Monday. June 24. 20v.:IProposed Rules 42677 Federal agency. This includes the tim. needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and
utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating. and verifying information, processing and malntaining information, and disclosing and providing information;
adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of 􀁩􀁮􀁦􀁯􀁮􀁮􀁡􀁴􀁩􀁯􀁮􀁾􀀠search
data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor. and a person is not required
to respond to a collection of infonnation unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CPR part 9 and 4B CPR
chapter 15. Comments are requested on the Agency's need for this information. the accuracy of the provided burden estimates. and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden,
including through the use of automated coUection techniques. Send comments on the ICR to the Director. Collection Strategies Division; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2B22); 1200
Pennsylvania Ave .• NW. Washington. DC 20460; and to the Office of Infonnation and Regulatory Affairs. Office of Management and Budget. 725 17th St .. NW. Washington. DC 20503. markad
"Attention: Desk Officer for EPA." Include the ICR number in any correspondence. Since OMB is required to make a decision concernIng the ICR between 30 and 60 days after June 24. 2002.
a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect ifOMB receives it by July 24. 2002. The final rule will respond to any OMB or public comments on the information collection
requirements contained in this proposal. B. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) Title II nf the Unfunded Mandetes Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA). Public Law 104-4. establishes requlrements
for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State. local. and Tribal governments and the privare sector. Under section 202 of UMRA. EPA generally must prepare
a written statement. including a cost-benefit analysis. for proposed and final rules with "Federal mandates" that may result in expenditures by State, local. and Tribal governments.
in the aggregate. or by the private sector. of $100 million or more in anyone year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is needed. section 205 of UMRA generally
requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly. most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the
objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than
the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final final rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before
EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or oniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of UMRA
a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small governments. enabling officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely
input in the development ofEPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates. and infonnIng, educating. and advising small governments on compliance with the
regulatory requirements. EPA has determined that this rule contains a Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State. local, and Tribal governments. in the aggregate. or
by the private sector of $100 million or more In anyone year. Accordingly. EPA has prepared under section 202 of UMRA a written statement which is summarized below. EPA is proposing
the technologybased construction and development (C&D) effluent guidelines under sections 301. 304. 306. 30B. 402.and 501 of the Clean Water Act CWA). 33 U.S.C. 1311. 1314, 1316. 1318,
1342 and 1361 and under authority of the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990.42 U.S.C. 13101 at seq.Today. EPA is co-proposing three options for this C&D effluent limitation guldeline:
(1) Construction site permittee self-inspection and certification. (z) "codify" provisions of the current EPA construction general permit with inspection and certification. and (3) no
regulation, EPA is considering each of the three options; no option is preferred over tha other. Options 1 and 2 would impose a mandare on the States. local, or Tribal governments. in
the aggregate. or private sector that would exceed $100 mlllion per year. Option 3 would not impose a mandate with costs that exceed $100 million per year for the public or private sectors.
The Agency has conducted economic analyses for each of the three options. which are provided in the Economic Analysis for today's proposed rule (see "Supporting Documentation"). Additional
summary economic information may be found in sections XII. XVI, and XVII of today's document. Option 1 would establish permittee self-inspection and certification requirements to improve
the effectiveness of ESCs at construction sites subject to NPDES storm water permits. Option 1 would apply to sites 1 acre or more. This option would require permittees to periodically
inspect their ESCs during land disturbing activities and certify that they have been properly installed and malntalned. Option 1 would cost about $130 million armually; the benefits
for this option are about $10 million per year. This option would encourage permittees to adopt better ESC practices and. in tha process, reduce discharges of sediment and other pollutants
from those sites. Under Option 1, EPA estimates that State and local governments would incur about $13 million in annual costs and the private sector would incur about $117 million in
armual costs. Of the $13 million in in armual coste to State and local governments. about $3 million would be incurred by small government entities, less than 50.000 population, and
about $10 million annually would be Incurred by large government entities. equal to or greater than 50.000 population. EPA has detennIned that this option is the least expensive of the
set of two regulatory options in today's proposal. Option 1 would amend the existing NPDES regulations and improve the effectiveness of the storm water permit program. The no regulation
option. discussed later in this section, is the least expensive proposed option in terms of direct costs outlays. Option 2 would establiSh a new national standard for ESC at construction
sites offive acres or more, basically codifying the requirements of EPA's construction general permit. In addition. this option would add permittee self-inspection and certification
requirements for ESCs to improve compliance. EPA estimates that these controls would remove, on average. BO percent of the total suspended solids (TSS) discharged from construction sites.
The problem that EPA is addressing through this proposed rule is the need to reduce construction site erosion and reduce the amount of sediment discharged during land disturbance activities.
EPA estimates that Option 2 would cost about $505 million annually and would have about $ZZ million in annual monetized benefits. The benefits of the 
42678 Federal Registm., \Tol. 67, No. 121/Monday, June 24. 􀀲􀀰􀁴􀁊􀁾􀀯􀁐􀁲􀁯􀁰􀁯􀁳􀁥􀁤􀀠Rules proposal would accrue to the public in the form of reduced sediment and polluted storm
water discharged to the Nation's surface waters. The sediment and polluted storm water is discharged from active construction sites and settles into stream beds, dxinking water reselVoirs.
and navigational channels. If the excess sediment discharged from construction sites could be reduced or avoided altogether, the public would benefit with improved water quality and
less frequent dxedging of dxinking water reservoirs and navigatinnal channels. This option is the more expensive of the options. The codification of the CGP plus self-inspection and
certification (Option 2) would iroprove controls at construction sites and in the process reduce the amount of sediment and storm water discharged from construction sites. EPA found
that the cost of sediroent removed is about $0.01 per pound. The Agency believes that this cost is reasonable for the pollutant reduction achieved. Under Option 2, about $50 million
of annual incremental costs would accrue to State and local governments and about $455 million to the private sector. The Agency does nat have data to estimate the costs to Tribal lands
and is searching for additional information about Tribal lands for the final rule. The Agency requests information about the iropacts and costs on Tribal lands. Of the $50 million in
costs accruing to State and local government agencies, about $5 million per year would be incurred by small government agencies. conununities with less than 50.000 population, and about
$45 million would accrue to large communities. those with more than 50,000 population. EPA has analyzed the impacts on small government entities. This analysis is discussed later in
this section. EPA estiroates that about $2 million of the annual benefits will come from iroprovements to State end local government-funded projects end about $20 million in benefits
will come from improvements to private sector projects. This distribution of the benefits reflects the distribution of construction and development in the United States economy. About
25 percent of all construction is funded by Federal, state and local governments, according to the 1997 Census of Construction. The Federal portion of the incremental costs ofthe proposal
are not covered by UMRA. State and local governments may find resources available at the Federal. Stata and locall.vel to defray some of the costs associated with tbe proposed rule.
The Clean Water Act State ReVolving Fund (SRF) provides capitalization grants to eligible States, that provide a twenty percent match. and then provide financial assistance to mWlicipalities
or Stete agencies. Some of these funds are eligible to finance storm water controls. In some cases, these funds are available to the private sector if projects are located in a designated
estuary. Other funds are available through alber programs such as grant and loan programs, public/private partnerships, and private sector contributions, Tliis proposal will not have
any disproportionate iropacts on particular ragions of the country. or particular State. local. or Tribal governments. or cOTIUnunities. or particular segments of the private sector,
The regulatory options proposed in today's document apply broadly to the construction and development Industry in tbe United States. The proposed options will have an iropact in tbose
locations. wherever they happen to be, in which construction and development is occurring. Over time, different regions of the country experience more construction and development than
other regions of the country. For example, at this time. California and Texas are experiencing a relatively large amount of development, along with Floride and Pennsylvania. Option 3
is tbe no-regulation option for the construction and development industry. Under Option 3, tbere would be no costs or benefits directly attributable to government entities or to the
private sector, with the following iroportant exception. Executive Order 12866 advises agencies to consider tbe stete ofthe world before end after the prospective regulation. Under the
noregulation option. the current state of the world would not be changed, nor would the discharge of sediment into the Nation's surface waters from C&D activities. These partially-controlled
sediments would continue to contribute to the loss of weter quality. and sedimentation in water reservoirs and streams. These effects can be attributed as costs iroposed on society as
an externality, and realized when choices are made to reclaim or restore the functionality of the water body. EPA's benefit methodology is Iiroited in terms of the state-of·the-art to
monetize these benefits. However, the Agency believes that the benefits may be substantially larger than EPA is claiming through monetized benefits. Additional information about the
costs and economic iropects of the proposed rule may be found in section XU of today's document In addition. section XVI and section XVII ofloday's document provide information and analyses
about the environmental assessment and benefit analysis. The analyses for these proposed options may be found in the support documents :in tbe record for this proposed action. The proposed
regulatory options would not iropos. any costs on the industry or government entities after termination of the applicable NPDES permits. Option 1 would require only permittee self-inspection
and certification activities during tbe active construction period. Option 2, in edditioo to the inspection and certification 􀁲􀁥􀁱􀁵􀁩􀁲􀁥􀁭􀁥􀁮􀁴􀁳􀁾􀀠would require installation.
operation and maintenance oftemporary ESC. during the active construction period. Option 2 would not require maintenance ofthese controls after the active construction period. EPA has
determined that the mandates under this proposal will not have a significant iropact on the national economy in the form of productivity. economic growth, full employment, creation of
productive jobs and international competitiveness. Nevertheless. the Agency has conducted an extensive analysis of the economic iropacts of the proposed rule on the construction and
development industry and the national economy. These analyses are presented :in section XU of today's document. While the iropact analysis shows that less than one percent of firms in
the industry could potentially fail under the rule and that less than one percent of jobs in the industry could be lost from the most stringent options under analysis, the Agency concluded
that. based upon tbe scale of this industry which is a major component ofthe u.s. economy, even a small percentage of jobs or firms closed is significant, especially in a sluggish economy.
Accordingly. the burden on the economy is one of the reasons the Agency rejected more stringent options. The options proposed today are a result of an extensive economic analysis of
a suite of construction and storm water options. The Agency determined that Option 1 is the least costly end least burdensome regulatory regulatory option. EPA is not required by UMRA
to consult with elected representatives (or their designated autborized employees) of the affected State. local. and Tribal governments, because the proposed rule would not iropose a
Federal mandate on State, local and tribal governments, in the aggregate. of $100 million or more in anyone year. The Agency estimates that the costs to State, local and tribal governments
is about $50 million on en annual basis. Nevertheless, EPA has conducted outreach to the public and private sectors to obtain their input on the proposed ragulations. The Agency 
Federal Registe,., vol. 67, No, 121/Monday, June 24, 􀀲􀀰􀁌􀁾􀁉􀁐􀁲􀁄􀁰􀁯􀁳􀁥􀁤􀀠Rules 42679 has conducted two national public meetings in the past year; one in Washington. DC and one
in 􀁄􀁥􀁮􀁶􀁥􀁲􀁾􀀠Colorado, Representatives of several State and local agencies, and engineering consultants representing builders and developers attended these national meetings, The
Agency also convened a 60-day Small Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) Panel on July 16, 2001 to obtain input from the small business community on the possible impacts of the proposed regulations
on small businesses, The SBAR Panel was composed of representatives of the Office of Management and Budget, the Small Business Administration, and EPA. The SBAR Panel met with small
entity representatives (SERs] and held conference calls with the SERs to discuss the impact of the proposal, The Panel issued a final report to the Administrator in October 2001. In
addition, through the auspices ofthe National Association of Home Builders (NAHB), EPA conducted conducted six focus group maatings with residential builders and developers to learn
more about the economic and business practices ofthe COTIstruetton and development industry. Finally. the Agency has conducted numerous conference calls with builders and developers
to learn more about their business and techuical praettces and participated in conferences and meetings across the country. EPA has determined that nollS of the options proposed today
might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Thus, todayls rule is not subject to the requirements of seetton 203 of UMRA, Nevertheless, the Agency has taken steps to provide
information and accessability to small government agencies, The Agency has conducted an extensive small government economic impact analysis, because the Agency wants to understand the
impacts of the proposed rule. Moreover, the Agency usually conducts a small government analysis for all effluent guidelines to comply with all applicable Federal requirements and Executive
Orders. The most expensive proposed regulatory option would impose requirements for ESC at construction sites. These requirements are technology-based requirements for construction sites
that are designed to work with the NPDES storm water program. Some construction and development projects are Innded by State and local governments, but most are Innded by the private
sector, The Agency has determined that about 12 percent of all projects Innded by State and local governments are Innded by small government entities, those with a population under 50,000,
and about 88 percent are Innded by large governments, those with a population greater than 50,000, EPA's economic analysis shows that the cost to small governments of the most costly
option is significantly less than one tenth of one percent of the revenues ofthose communities. Nevertheless, EPA considered approaches to reduce any impact and assessed methods to find
better ways to meet the objectives of the proposal with as few impacts as possible, EPA used several methods to determine costs to small communities, and each method shows thet the cost
to small communities from the most costly option is much less than one tenth of ODe percent of their annual revenues. Under one method the Agency compared the aggregate incremental costs
of the most costly option to small governments with the aggregate annual revenue of small governments, In another method, the Agency analyzed the impacts on average small government
agencies, based upon data on small government annual revenues and costs. As a resuit, this rule will not result in a siguificant cost to small communities. The Agency requests comment
on the impacts on small communities from the requirements under this proposal, The small government agency analysis can be found in the Economic Analysis, EPA is developing procedures
and methods with which to provide information about this proposal to small government agencies, In particular, the Agency has established a website to distnbute information to the public,
industry, and government entities, in particular small government agencies, about today'. proposed rule, The website may be accessed at http://www.epa.gov!waterscience!guide! construction!.
This website provides information on EPA's effluent guidatines program and will contain information about today's proposed regulation. C, Regulata'Y FlexibilityAct (RFAJ as Amended by
the Small Business Regulato'Y Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFAJ 1, Introduction The RFA, 5 U.S,C. 601 et. seq., generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility
analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rule making requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute uniess the agency certifies that the rule will
not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities, Small entities include small businesses, small organizations. and small governmental jurisdiettons, For purposes
of assessing the impacts oftoday's rule on small entities, EPA defined: (1) Small businesses, according to SBA size standards, .s construction businesses that receive less than $27,5
million in annual revenue and developers that receive less than $5 million in annual revenue; (2) small government jurisdictions as small governments of a city, county. town, school
district or special district with a popuiation of less than 50,000; and (3) small organizations as any not-for-profit enterprise that is independently owned and operated and is not dominant
In its field, In accordance with section 603 of the RFA. EPA has prepared an Initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) that examines the impact of the proposed rule on small entities
along with regulatory alternatives thet could reduce that impact, The IRFA is available for review in the docket and is summarized below. The objeettve for the proposed effluent guidelines
for the construetton and development (C&D) industry is to reduce sediment and storm water discharged from active construction sites, EPA's analysis indicates that storm water discharges
from construction construction sites contribute sediment to the nation's surface waters that is deposited In stream beds, lakes, navigational channels, and water supply reservoirs. Notwithstanding
the social policy objective of reducing sediment and storm water discharges, EPA has conducted extensive analyses of the impacts on small businesses based upon the costs and impacts
of three coproposed options. EPA used the small business analyses to identify approaches that would reduce and minimize impacts on small businesses. while at the same time striking a
balance that would achieve the highly desirable goal of reducing storm water pollution, EPA also is soliciting comments on other. less costly approaches to meet the objective of the
proposal. The Economic Analysis in its entirety and the Initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA)(Chapter 6 within the Economic Analysis) provide EPA's analysis of the proposed
requirements on small business entities. Additioual information on the economic impacts and, in particular. the impacts on small businesses, may be found in section jill oftoday's document.
EPA proposes to set technology-based effluent guidelines to control sediment and storm water discharges from active 
42680 Federal Registel, voL 67. No, 121/Monday, June 24, 􀀲􀀰􀀱􀁊􀁾􀀯􀁐􀁲􀁯􀁰􀁯􀁳􀁥􀁤􀀠Rules construction sites, Construction and development activity disturbs the soil on construction
sites, and. in the process. releases sediment and storm water into surface streams, lakes, and water supply reservoirs. See section VI.B.2. Clearing. Excavating and Grading oftoday's
document for additional details. Disturbed soil. if not managed properly. can be easily washed off-site during storm events, Storm water and sediment discharges during construction can
causean array of physical, chemical and biological inIpacts. Water quality inIpairment results, in part, because pollutants available at construction sites axe released into surface waters.
The interconnected process of erosion (detachment of the soil particles), sediment transport, and delivery is the primary pathway for introducing key pollutants, such as nutrients (nitrogen
and phosphorous), metals and organic compounds into swince waters and aquatic systems. The proposed rule would establish technology-based effluent guidelines for the control of erosion
end sediment on active construction projects. The technology-based options would complement the requirements of the existing NPDES storm water requirements, EPA is proposing this regulation
under the authorities of sections 301, 304, 306, 308. 402 and 501 ofthe Clean Water Act. 33 U,S.C, 1311. 1314.1316.1318,1342 and 1361 and under authority of the Pollution Prevention
Act of 1990,42 U.S,C. 13101 et seq_, Public Law 101-508, November 5,1990, For purposes of assessing the economic inIpacts oftoday's rule on small entities through the mFA, "smell entity"
is defined by SBA size standards for smell businesses and RF A default definitions for small governmental jurisdictions and small organizations. The small entities dixectly regulated
by this proposed rule include smell lend developers, small residential construction firms, small commercial and industrial firms, and smell special trade firms, Over ninety percent of
the businesses in the construction and development industry are smell businesses. EPA recognizes the tremendous contributions thet these .mall businesse. make to the fabric of the American
economy, Accordingly, the Agency hes attempted to reduce inIpacts to small businesses while, at the satlle time, working to identify ways to achieve the objective of today's document.
Table XlI-8 in section XlI of today's document presents the results of EPA's smell business analysis. EPA also has analyzed the projected reporting. recordkeeping, and other compliance
requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act for today'. proposed rule, including an estimate of the classes ofsmell entities that would he subject to the proposed rule. The results
of the analysis are reported in section XIlLA, Paperwork Reduction Act, EPA anticipates that small fJrms may incur some incremental costs for reporting, record keeping and other compliance
requirements. However. these incremental costs are expected to be small. EPA hes analyzed the incremental burden end costs of reporting and record keeping requirements, These costs are
covered by the approved information collection request (ICR) for the existing NPDES Storm Water Program, Moreover. these costs are included in the engineering cost models end in the
economic inIpact models that support the regulatory options in today's document. EPA has not identified any rules that duplicate, overlap, of conflict with today'. proposal. Moreover,
this proposal would complement the existing NPDES storm water regulations, There may be alternatives to the proposed options that accomplish the objectives of today's proposal. EPA is
seeking comment on variations to these options and is particularly interested in information that would accomplish these objectives and minimize any significant economic i.mpact on small
entities. The Agency as analyzed a broed suite of regulatory options and technology alternatives. The three regulatory options in today's document provide the final set of options that
the Agancy is considering for the proposal. As required by section 609{b) of the RFA, as amended by SBREFA, EPA also conducted outreach to small entities and convened a Small Business
Advocacy Review (SBAR) Panel to obtain advice and recommendations of representatives of the small entities thet potentially would be subject to the rule's requirements, On July 16, 2001,
EPA's Small Business Advocacy Chairperson convened the C&D SBAR panel under section 609{b), In addition to the Chairperson. the Panel consists of the Director of the Engineering and
Analysis Division ofthe Office of Science and TecinIology within EPNs Office of Water, the Administrator of the Office ofInformation end Regulatory Affairs within the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB), and the Acting Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA), Prior to convening the Panel on July 16,2001, EPA held a conference calli meeting
on June 14, 2001 to receive information from prospective small entity representatives (SER) about plans for convening the Panel and their early concerns about the planned proposed regulation,
EPA invited seven residential builders and developers, five heavy construction company representatives, one local government official. one trade association representative, and five
consultants to serve as potential SERe during the prepanel outreach process, The full Panel report lists tha materials provided to the SERs and sununarizes their comments, Their full
written comments also are attached to the report_ In light ofthese comments, the Panel considered the regulatory flexibility iss ues specified by RFAISBREFA and developed the findings
and discussion summarized below, Consistent with the RF A/SBREF A requirements, the Panel evaluated the assembled materials and smell-entity comments on issues related to the elements
ofthe IRFA. A copy of the Penel report is included in the docket for this proposed rule, 2. Summary ofPanal Recommendations The SBAR Panel submitted a final report ofthe sixty day penel
process, thet convened on July 16. 2001, to the Administrator of EPA in October 2001. The following issues and EPA's response provides information about the discussions between the SBAR
Panel and the SERs. The final SBAR Panel Report is available in the docket for the proposed effluent guidelines for the construction and development industry, a, Related Federal Rules
• The Panel recommended that EPA, during the development of the proposed effiuent guidelines. evaluate the adequacy ofthe current NPDES storm water program. The Panel also recommended
that EPA proceed with the development ofproposed effluent guidelines, but that in doing so, keep open the option of ultimately declining to promulgate fiual guidelines until the effectiveness
of Ph.se I and Phase n, without national effluent guidelines. can be evaluated more fully. EPA response, EPA is proposing a set of three options thet is consistent with the comments
from the Small Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) Panel. One of the options would require edditional ESCs, The three options are: (1) Selfinspection end certification for projects one acre
or more; (2) Codify the CGP with self-inspection end certification for projects five acres or more; (3) a noregulation option that considers the possibility ofnotissning a final 
Federal Registeb val. 67, Na. 121 I Manday, June 24, 􀀲􀀰􀁶􀁾􀀯􀁐􀁲􀁡􀁰􀁡􀁳􀁥􀁤􀀠Rules 42681 regulation. The Agency appreciates the cornments from the SBAR Panel, and the regulatory
options in today's document reflect the Panel's final report, • The Panel further recommended the inclusion in the proposal ofregulatory language that would provide a mechanism by which
construction sites could meet the effluent guldelines requirement by complying with State and/or local regulations that provide a comparable level ofenvironmental protection. The Panel
also noted and endorsed EPA's intention to incorporate any additional requireIrulnts for ESC and storm water management developed under the effluent guldelines into the existiog construction
general permitting system, which should ease the regulatory burden associated with the new requirements, at least in terms of permittiog and related paperwork costs. EPA response. EPA
plans to recognize States with excellent storm water programs. In those States, there would be be no additional requlrements beyond those currently in place, In addition, there would
be no incremental costs to those States or the dischargers in those States, EPA plans to implement the teclmology-based effluent guidelines through the existing NPDES storm water program,
Moreover, EPA plaos to implement the effluent guidelines through the construction general permits as recommended by the SBAR Panel. b, Regulatory Alternatives • Many ofthe SERs commented
that quantitative or numerical effluent standards are not appropriate for storm water discharges, Aoother SER indicated that numeric limits are unproven in a construction discharge context
and are extremely costineffective. The Panel recommended against establishing across-the-board storm water monitoring requirements 8S part of the effluent gnidelines, EPA response, For
the reasons discussed in section lX,B of today's document, EPA is not proposing quantitative or numerical effluent standards for construction and development, and is not proposing storm
storm water monitoring requirements in today's proposed mle, • The Panel urged EPA, as it conducts evaluations of the fea!rlbility of establishing numeric effluent limitation. to comply
with the settlement agreement with NRDC, to fully consider the many challenges associated with developing numeric effluent standards, such as monitoring difficulties, !rlte-specific
variability, and the stochastic nature of rainfall and runoff events, The Panel recommended that EPA acquire and evaluate data on both costs and effectiveness of sncb requirements from
sites across the country. reflecting a variety of geographic, weather, soil, and other site conditions, before it makes any determination on the utility and feasibility of such standards,
The Panel also recommended that any BMP certification requlrements that may be included in the guidelines be limited to design parameters only and not include performance certification
or liability of the certifier for failure of BMP. to perform as expected, EPA response, As described in the Agency's response to the previous Panel recommendation. EPA is not proposing
quantitative or numerical effluent standards. EPA has compiled date from across the country and found thet numeric limits and monitoring requirements are not the most effective tools
for management and control of storm water dischargas, • Several SERs suggested that EPA base the effluent gnidelines on the existing CGP requlrements, The panel recommended that EPA
give consideration to this approach and thet, at a minimum, EPA sbouid present it for comment in the preamble to the proposed effluent guldelines as a regulatory option under consiooratioo,
EPA response, EPA gave considerable weight to this recommendation from the SBAR Panel. The Agency has concluded that using the technology-based requirements to complement those in the
CGP has considerable advantages aod served as the basis for one ofthe options proposed today, c. Methodological Issues • The Panel recommended that EPA fully evaluate the appropriateness
of the selected baseline requirements and the estimated costs, and the regulatory requlrements and their costs in the development of the proposed mle, The Panel forther recommended that
EPA specifically consider the comments of the SERs in this effort, EPA response, EPA has assessed the baseline and understands the progress that the industry has made in improving the
implementation of ESC., The Agency has conducted an analySis that reflects the current level of progress and the progress anticipated under the existiog storm water progrems. EPA invites
comments on all aspects of this proposal and its impacts on small entities. D, Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October
4,1993), the Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is "significantlJ and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements ofthe Executive Order. The Order defines "significant
regulatory action" as one thet is likely to result In a rule that may: (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely effect in a material way the economy.
a sector oftha 􀁥􀁣􀁯􀁮􀁯􀁭􀁹􀁾􀀠productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) Create a serious
inconsistency or otherwise interfere ,vith an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) Matarially alter the budgetary impact of entitlementsf grants. user fees, or loan programs
or the rights and obligations of recipients thereofj or (4) Raise novellega! or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order, Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, EPA has concluded that this mle is a "significant regulatory action." As such. this action was submitted to OMB for
review, Changes made in response to OMB suggestions or recommendations will be documented in the public record. E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism Executive Order 13132, entitled "Federalism"
(64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure "meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies
that have Federalism implications," "Policies that have Federalism implications" i. defined In the Executive Order to include regulations that have "substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the national government and the Stetes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government." This proposed
mle does not have Federalism implications, It will not have substantial direct effects on the State., on this relationship between the national government and the StatesI or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. EPA estimetes thet the average impact on all authorized Stales and local
governments of the most expensive ofthe options 
42682 Federal Registe,. \101. 67, No. 121 I Monday, June 24, 􀀲􀀰􀀬􀀬􀁾􀀯􀁐􀁲􀁯􀁰􀁯􀁳􀁥􀁤􀀠Rules proposed today is $50 million (year 2000 $) annually. EPA does not consider an impact
of $50 million (year 2000 $) on States and local govermnents a substantial effect. Moreover, this annual cost is less than one tenth of one percent of the revenues of State and local
government. Further, the revised regulations would not alter the basic State-Federal scheme established in the Clean Water Act under which EPA authorizes States to carry out the NPDES
permitting program. EPA expects the revised regulations to have little effect on the relationship between, or the distribution of power and responsibilities amongj the Federal and State
governments_ Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule. In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA polley to promote communications between EPA and
State and local governments, EPA specifically solicits comments on this proposed rule from State and local officials. F. Executive Order 13045: Protection of ChiJdren Pram Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks Executive Order 13045, "Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks" (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that:
(1) Is determined to be "economically Significant" as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may
have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the enviromnental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children,
and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency. This proposed rule is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. This rule is based
on technology technology performance, not health or safety risks. G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments Executive Order 13175, entitled
"Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments" (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000), requireS EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure "meaningful and timely input
by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications." "Policies that have Tribal implications" is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations
that have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian Tribes. on the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal government and Indian Tribes. This proposed rule does not have tribal implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on Tribal govemmentsl on the relationship
between the Federal government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes as specified in Executive Order
13175. Today's proposed rule contains no Federal mandates for Tribal governments and does not impose any enforceable duties on Tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not
apply to this rule. In the spirit ofExecutive Order 13175, and consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and Tribal govermnents, EPA specifically solicits comment
on this proposed rule from tribal officials. H. National Technology Tronsfer and Advancement Act Section 12(d] of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA] of 1995,
(Public Law 104113, section 12(d); 15 U.S,C. 272 note] directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable
law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are
developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standerd bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, expianations when tha Agency decides not to use available and applicable
voluntary consensus standerds. The Agency is not aware of any consensns-based technical standards for the types of controls contained in today's proposal. EPA welcomes comments on this
aspect ofthe proposed rulemaking and, specifically, invites the public to identify potentially-applicable voluntary consensus standards and to explain why such standards should be used
in this regulation. I. Plain Language Directive Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write all rules in plain Janguage. EPA invites comments on how to make this proposed rule
easier to understand. /. Executive Order 13211 {Energy Effects} This rule is not a "siguificant energy action" as defined in Executive Order 13211, "Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use" (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The treatment systems required by today's proposal rely on passive treatment techniques that do not utilize mechanical equipment. The proposed rule may require larger sediment
basins in certain casesl and therefore may result in the use of additional fuel for construction equlpment conducting excavation Blld soil moving activities. EPA estimates that this
additional fuel usage will be approximately 700,000 gallons per year, which is insignificant compared to the annual consumption in the United States. XX, Solicitation ofData and Comments
A. Specific Solicitation ofComments ondDato EPA solicits comments on all aspects oftoday's proposal. In addition to the various topics on which EPA has specifically solicited comments
throughout this proposal, EPA solicits comments in several additional areas. Today's proposal at §450.21(i] specifies requirements for permittees to remove accwnulated sediment from
sediment traps and ponds when design capacity has been reduced by 50 percent. Today's proposal does not require any other specific maintenance requirements, although some additional
maintenance costs such 8S replacing mulching have been included in the costs of Option 2. EPA solicits comments on the assumption that these maintenance activities would be a natural
outcome of the inspection .requirements. Alternatively, EPA solicits comment on additional maintenance requirements that the Agency should consider requiring through regulation. as well
as the costs and benefits of such requirements. EPA solicits comments on the effectiveness and appropriateness of each of the technologies contained in today's proposal. The Agency also
solicits comment. on any other equivalent technologies the Agency should consider, as well as the costs, 
Federal Registe" Vol. 67, No. 121/Monday, JUlle 24, 20"u/Proposed Rules 42683 benefits and effectiveness of such technologies. EPA has attempted to capture all of the provisions ofthe
EPA'. "national" CGP (63 FR 7901, February 17,1998) in today's proposal. EPA solicits CO!lUllents on the components of the CGP that were inadvertently left out of todey'. proposal. as
well as the costs and benefits of such components. In addition, EPA recognizes that the EPA CGP is scheduled to be revised in 2003 and that certain provisions contained in the permit
may change prior to flllal action on the effluent guideline. EPA solicits comments on the appropriate approach to take to reconcile any cbanges made in the EPA CGP with today's proposal.
B. General Solicitation of Comment EPA encourages public participation in this rulemaking. EPA asks that commenters address any perceived deficiencies in the record supporting this proposal
and that suggested revisions or corrections to the rule, preamble or record be supported by data. EPA invites all parties to coordinate their data collection activities with the Agency
to facilitate mutoally beneficial and cost-effective data submissions. Please refer to the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION section at the beginning of this preamble for technical contacts at
EPA. List ofSubjects 4Q CFR Part 122 Envirorunental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Hazardous substsnces, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Water pollution control. 40 CPR Part 450 Environmental protection, Construction industry, Land development, Erosion, Sediment, Storm water, Water pollution control. Da.tud:
May 15, 2002. ChrisIlne Todd Whitman, Administrator. For the reasons set out in the preamble, EPA proposes to amend title 40, chapter I of the Code of Federal fulgulations as follows:
[Option lJ Part 122 is proposed to be amended to read as follows: PART 122-EPAADMINISTERED PERMIT PROGRAMS: THE NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM 1. The authority citation
for part 122 continues to read as follows: Authority: The Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 ct seq. 2. Section 122.44 is amended by reviSing paragraph (i)(4) and adding paragraph (t) to
read as follows: § 122.44 Establishing limitations, standards, and other permit conditions (applicable to State NPDES programs, see § 123.25). • • • • * (i) '" * * (4) fulquirements
to report mouitoring results for storm water discharges associated with industrial activity (other than construction activity pursuant to 40 CFR 122.26(b)(14)(x) and those discharges
addressed in paragraph (i)(3) of this section) shall be established on a case·by·case basis with a frequency dependent on the natore and effect of the discharge. * * * • • * * * (t)
Inspection and cartification for construction site storm water discharges. (1) Site log book. The permittee for a point source discharge under § 122.26(b)(14)(x) or § 122.26(b)(15) shall
maintain a record of site activities in a site log book. The site log book shall he maintained as follows: (i) A copy ofthe site log book shall be maintained on site and be made available
to the permitting authority upon request: (ii) In the site log book, the permittee shall certify, prior to the commencement of construction activities, that any plans required by the
permit meet all Federal, State, Tribal and local erosion and sediment control requirements and are available to the permitting authority; (ill) The permittee shall heve a qualified professional
(knowledgeable in the principles and practices of erosion and sediment controisl such as a licensed professional engineer, or other knowledgeable person) conduct an assessment oftha
site prior to groundbreaking and certify in the log book that the appropriate best management practices (BMPs) described in plans required by the permit have been adequately designed,
sized and installed to ensure overall preparedness of the site for initiation of groundbreaking activities. The permittee shall record the date of initial groundbreaking in the site
log book. The permittee shall also cartify that any inspection, stabilization and BMF maintenance requirements of the permit have been satisfied within 48 hours of actoally meetin& such
requirements; and (iv) The pemutte. sball post at the sitej in a publicly-accessible location. a summary ofthe site inspection activities on a monthly basis: (2) Site Inspections. The
permittee or designated agent of the permittee (such as a consultant, subcontractor. or thirdparty inspection firm) shall conduct regular inspections ofthe site and record the results
of such inspection in the site log book in accordance with paragraph (t)(l) ofthi. section. (i) After initial groundbreaking, permittees shall conduct site inspections at least every
14 calendar days and within 24 hours ofthe and of a storm event of 0.5 inches or greater. These inspections sball be conducted by a qualified professional. During each inspection, the
permittee or designated agent shall record the following information: (A) Indicate on a site map the extent of all disturbed site areas and drainage pathways. Indicata site areas that
are expected to undergo iuitial disturbance or significant site work within the next 14 days; (B) Indicate on a site map all ereas of the site that have undergone temporary orpermanent
stabilization; (e) Indicate all disturbed site areas that have not undergone active site work during the previous 14 days: (0) Inspect all sediraent control practices and note the approximate
degree of sediraent accumulation as a percentage of the sediraent storage volume (for example 10 percent, 20 percent, 50 percent, etc.). Note all sediment control practices in the site
log book that have sediraent accumulation of 50 percent or more; and (E) Inspect all erosion and sediment control BMFs and note compliance with any maintenance requirements such as verifying
the integrity of barrier or diversion systems (e.g., earthen berms or sUt fencing) and containment systems (e.g., sediment basins and sediraent traps). Identify any evidence of rill
or gully erosion occurring on slopes and any loss of stabilizing vegetation or seeding/mulching. Document in the site log book any excessive deposition of sediment or ponding water along
barrier or diversion systems. Note the depth of sediraent within containment structures, any erosion near outlet and overflow structures, and verify the ability ofrock filters around
perforated riser pipes to pass water. [ii) Prior to filing of the Notice of Termination or the end of permit term, a final site erosion and sadiraent control 
• • • • • 42684 Federal Registe" vol. 67. No. 121/Monday, June 24, 􀀲􀀨􀁪􀀱􀁊􀁾􀁉􀁐􀁲􀁯􀁰􀁯􀁳􀁡􀁤􀀠Rules inspection shall be conducted by the pennittee or designated agent. The inspector
shall certify that the site has undergone final stabilization as required by the pennit and that all temporary erosion and sediment controls (such as silt fencing) not needed for long-term
erosion control have been removed. (Option 2) Part 122 is proposed to be amended and part 450 is proposed to be added to read as follows: PART 122-EPA ADMINISTERED PERMIT PROGRAMS: THE
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE EUMINATION SYSTEM 1. The authority citation for part 122 continues to read as follows: Authority: The Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq. 2. Section
122.44 is amended by revising paragraph (i)(3) as foilows: § 122.44 Establishing limitations. standards, and other permit conditions (applicable to Slate NPDES programs, see § 123.25).
(i) * 11 * (3) Requirements to report monitoring results for storm water discharges associated associated with industrial activity, with the exception of construction activity as defined
in § 122.26(b)(14)(x), that are subject to an effluent limitationguideline shall be established on a c.seby-case basis with a frequency dependent on the nature and effect of the discharge, but in no case less than once a year. Discharges from construction
activity pursuant to § 122.26(b)(14)(x) shall be governed instead by 40 CFR part 450. 3. A new part 450 is added to read as follows: PART 45O-CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT POINT SOURCE
CATEGORY Subpart A-General Provisions Sec. 450.10 Applicability. 450.11 General Definitions. Subpart 8-Erosion and Sedlment Controls 450.21 Effluont limitations reflecting the best practicable
technology currently available (BPT). 450.22 Effluent limitations reflecting the best av.nabla technology ecooomically achievable (BAT). 450.23 Effluent limitations reflec:ting the best
conventional pollutant control technology (BCT). 450.24 New source performance standards (NSPS). Authority: Sections 301, 304, 306, 308, 402, and 501 ofthe Clean Water Act. as amended:
33 U.S.c. 1311,1314,1316.1318. 1342, and 136t. Subpart A-General Provisions §450.10 Applicability, This part applies to any point source discharges from construction and development
activities that are subject to an NPDES permit under the definition of "construction activity" at 40 CFR 122.26(b)(14)(x). This may include, but is not restricted to, construction ofresidential
buildings and non·residential buildings, and heavy construction (including highways and streets, bridges and tunnels, pipelines. transmission !inas and industrial non-building structures).
Wh6l'e there is more than one operator of a discharge at a site. the requirements of this part may be shared among operators if all the requirements of this part are met for the entire
site. The Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) required by §450.21(d) shall clearly delineate the responsibilities of all operators. §450.11 General definitions . In addition
to the definitions set forth in 40 CFR 122.2, 12Z.26(b) and 40 CFR 401.11. the following definitions apply to this part: Best Management Practices {BMFs} means schedules of activities,
prohibitions ofpractices, maintenance procedures, and other management practices to prevent or reduce the discharge of pollutants to waters ofthe United States. BMPs also include treatment
requirements, operating procedures, and practice to contrul plant site runoff, spillage or leaks, sludge or waste disposal. or drainage from raw material storage. Commencement of construction
means the initial removal of vegetation and disturbeoce of soils associated with clearing. grading or excavatiog activities or other construction activities. Final stabilization means
that either: (1) All soil-disturbing activities at the site have been completed and a uuiform (e.g, eveuiy distributed, without large bare areas) perenulal vegetative cover with a density
of 70 percent of the native background vegetative cover for the area hes been established on all unpaved areas and areas not covered by permanent structures, or equivalent permanent
stabilization measures (such as the use of riprap, gabions, or geotaxtiles) heve been employed; or (2) For individual lot. in residential construction by either: The homebuilder completing
final stabilization as specified above; or the homebullder establishing temporary stabilization including perimeter controls for an individual lot prior to occupation of the home by
the homeowner and informing the homeowner ofthe need for, and benefits of. final stabilization; or (3) For construction projects on land used for agricultural purposes (e.g., pipelines
across crop or range land). final stabilization may be accomplished by returning the disturbed land to its preconstruction agricultural use. Disturbed areas that were not previously
used for agricultural activities, such as buffer strips inlmediately adjacent to "waters ofthe Uulted States," and areas that are not being returned to their preconstruction agricultural
use must meet the final stabilization criteria in paragraph (1) or (2) ofthis defiuition. Groundbreoking means the commencement of construction activity at a site. New Source means any
source from which there may be a discharge associated with construction activity pursuant to 40 CFR 122.26(b)(14)(x) that will result in a building. structure, facility or installation
from which there may be a discharge ofpollutants reguiated by new source performance standards elsewhere under subchapter N. Operator for the purpose of this Part and in the context
of storm water associated with construction activity. means any party associated with a construction project that meets either of the following two criteria: (1) The party has operational
control over construction plans and specifications. including the ability to make modifications to those plans and specifications; or (2) The party hes day-to-day operational control
of those activities at a project that are necessary to ensure compliance with a storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) for tha site or other pennit conditions (e.g .. they are
authorized to direct workers at a site to carty out activities required by the SWPPP required by §450.21(d) or to comply with other permit conditions). Perimeter controls means best
management practices that are designed to prevent uncontrolled discharge of sediment from the site, Perimeter contruls include BMPs such as diversion dikes. storm drain inlet protection.
berms. and silt fencing. Qualified professional means a person knowledgeable in the principles and practice of erosion and sediment controls. such as a licensed professional enginser,
or other knowledgeable person. 
Federal Registm I Vol. 67, No. 121/Monday, June 24, 􀀲􀀰􀀢􀁾􀀯􀁐􀁲􀁯􀁰􀁯􀁳􀁥􀁤􀀠Rules 42685 Runoffcoefficient means the fraction of total rainfall that will appear at the conveyance
as runoff. Stabilization means covering or maintaining an existing cover over soil. Cover can be vegetative (e.g., grass, trees, seed and mulch, shrubs, or turf) or non-vegetative (e.g.,
geotextiles, riprap, or gabions). Subpart B-Erosion and Sediment Control §45O.21 Effluent limitations reflecting the best practicable technology currently available (BPT). Except as
provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing point SOUIce subject to this subpart must achieve the following effluent limitations representing the application of the best practicable
control technology currently avallable (BPT). Permittees with operational control over construction plans and specification, including the ability to make modifications to those plans
and specifications (e.g .. developer Or owner). must ensure the project specifications that they develop meet the minimum requirements of a SWPPP requlred by paragraph (d) of this section.
(a) General Erosion and Sediment Controls. Each SWPPP shall include a description ofappropriate controls designed to retain sediment on site to the extent practicable. These general
erosion and sediment controls sball be included in the SWPPP developed pursuant to paragraph (d) ofthis section. The SWPPP must include a description of interim and permanent stabilization
practices for the site, including a schedule ofwhen the practices will b. implemented. Stabilization.r::ctices may include: (1) Estahli ent of temporary or permanent vegetation; (2)
Mulching, geotextiles. or sad stebilization; (3) Vegetetive huffer etrips; (4) Protection oftrees and preservation ofmature vegetation. (b) Sediment controls. The SWPPP must include
a description of structural practices to divert flows from exposed soils, store flaws. or otherwise limit runoff and the discharge of pollutants from exposed areas ofthe site to the
degree attainable. (1) For common drainage locations that serve an area with 10 or more acres disturbed at one time, a temporary (or permanent) sediment basin thet provides storage for
a calculated volume of runoff from a 2 year, 􀀲􀀴􀁾􀁨􀁯􀁵􀁲􀀠storm from each disturbed acre drained, or equlvalent control meaSUIes. shall be provided where attainable until final stabilization
ofthe site. Wbere no such calculation has been performed, a temporary (or permanent) sediment basin providing 3,600 cubic feet of storage per acre dxained, or equivalent control measures,
shall be provided where attainable until final stabilization of the site. When computing the number of acres d.raining into a common location it is not necessary to :include flows from
off-site areas and flows from 􀁯􀁮􀁾􀁳􀁩􀁴􀁥􀀠areas that are either undisturbed or have undergone final stabilization where such flows are diverted around both the disturbed area and
the sediment basin. (2) In determining whether a sediment basin is attainable, the operator may consider factors such as site soils, slope) available area on site. etc. In any event,
the operator must consider public safety, especially as it relates to children, as a design factor for the sediment basin, and alternative sediment controls shall be used where site
limitations would preclude a safe baain design. (3) For portions ofthe site that drain to a common location and have a total contributing drainage area of less than 10 disturbed a<:res,
the operator should use smaller sediment basins and/or sediment traps. (4) Wbere neither a sediment basin nor equlvalent controls are attainable due to site limitations, silt fences,
vegetative buffer strips or equivalent sediment controls are requlred for all down slope boundaries ofthe construction area and for those side slope boundaries deemed appropriate as
dictated by individual site conditions. (c) Pollution Prevention Measures. The SWPPP shall include the following pollution prevention measures: (1) Litter, construction chemicals, and
construction debris exposed to stann water shall be prevented from becoming a pollutant source in storm water discharges (e.g., screening outfalls, picked up daily); and (2) A description
of construction and waste materials expected to be stored on-site with updetes as appropriate, and a description of controls to reduce pollutants from these materials inclucling storage
practices to mjnjmize exposure of the materials to storm water, and spill prevention and response. (d) Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. Operators subject to this part shall compile
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPPs) prior to groundbreaking at any construction site. In areas where EPA is not the permit authority. operators may be required to prepare
documents that may serve as the functional equivalent ofa SWPPP. Such alternate documents will satisfy the requirements for a SWPPP so long as they contain the necessaxy elements of
a SWPPP. A SWPPP shall incorporate the following information: (1) A narrative description of the construction activity, activity, including a description of the intended sequence of
major activities that disturb soils on the site (major activities include grubbing. excavating, grading. and utilities and infrastructure installation, or any other activity that disturbs
soils for major portions of the site]; (2) A general location map (e.g.• portion of a city or county map] and a site map. The site map shall include descriptions of the following: (i)
Drainage patterns and approximate slopes anticipated after major grading activities; (il) The total area of the site and areas ofdisturbance; (ill) Areas that will not be disturbed;
(iv) Locations of major structural and nonstructural controls identified in the SWPPP; (v) Locations where stabilization practices are expected to occur; (vi) Locations of off·site material.
waste, borrow or equipment storage areas; (vii) Surface waters (including wetlands); and (viii) Locations where storm water discharges to a surface water; (3) A description ofavailable
data on soils present at the site; (4) A description ofBMPs to be used to control pollutants in storm water discharges during construction as described elsewhere in this section; (5J
A description ofthe general tinting (or sequence) in relation to the construction schedule wben each BMP is to be implemented; (6) An estimate ofthe pre· development and post'construction
runoff coefficients of the sitej (7) The name(s) of the receiving water(s); (8) Delineation of SWPPP implementation responsibilities for each site owner or operator; (9) Any existing
date that descrihe the storm water runoff characteristics at the site. (e) Updating the SWPPP. Tbe operator shall amend the SWPPP and corresponding erosion and sediment control BMPs
whenever; (1) There is a cbange in design, construction, or maintenance that has a significant effect on the discharge of pollutants to waters of the Uulted States which has not been
addressed in the SWPPP;or (2) Inspections or investigations by site operators, local, State, Tribal or 
42686 Federal Register, .rol. 67, No, 121/Monciay, June 24, 20(' .. 1Proposed Rules Federal officials indicate that the SWPPP is proving ineffective in eliminating or significantly minimizing
pollutant discharges. (I) Site Log Book/Certification. The operator shall maintain a record of site activities in a site log book, .s part of the SWPPP, The site log book shall be maintained
as follows: (1) A copy ofthe site log book shall be maintained on site and be made available to the permitting authority upon request; (2) In the site log book, the operator shall certify,
prior to the commencement ofconstruction activities, that the SWPPP prepared in accordance with paragraph (d) of this section meets all Federal, State and local erosion and sediment
control requirements and is available to the permitting authority; (3) The operator shall have a quallfied professional conduct an assessment of the site prior to groundbreaking and
certify in the log book thet the appropriate BMPs and erosion and sediment controls described in the SWPPP and required by paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) oftbis section have been adequately
designed, sized and installed to ensure overall preparedness of the site for initiation of groundhreaking activities, The operator shall record the date ofinttial groundbreaking in the
site log book. The operator shall also certify that the requirements ofparagraphs (g), (h) and 0) ofIbis section have been satisfied within 48 hours of actually meeting such requirements:
(4) The operator shall post at the site, in a publicly-accessible location, a summary ofthe site inspection activities on a monthly basis. (g) Site Inspections. The operator or designated
agent of the operator (such as a consultant, subcontractor, or thirdparty inspection fum) shall conduct regular inspections ofthe site and record the results of such inspection in the
site log book in accordance with paragraph (I) of Ibis section, (1) After initial groundbreaking, operators shall conduct site inspections at least every 14 calendar days and within
24 hours ofthe end ofa storm event of 0.5 inches or greater. These inspections shall be conducted by a qualified professional. During each inspection, the operator or designsted agent
shall record the following information: (i) On a site map, indicate the extant of all disturbed site aress and drainage pathways. Indicate site areas that are expected to undergo initial
disturbance or significaot site work within the next 14-day period; (ii) lridicate on a site rna p all areas of the site thet have undergone temporary or permanent stabilization; [iii)
Indicate all disturbed site areas that have not undergone active site work during the previous 14-day period; (iv) Inspect all sediment control practices and note the approximate degree
of sediment accumulation as a percentage ofthe sediment storage volume (for example 10 percent, 20 percent, 50 percent, etc.). Record all sediment control practices in the site log book
that have sediment accumulation of 50 percent or more; and (v) inspect all erosion and sediment control BMPs and record all maintenance requirements such as verifying the integrity ofbarrier
or diversion systems (earthen berms or silt fencing) and containment systems (sediment basins and sediment traps). Identify any evidence of rill or gully erosion occurring on slopes
and any loss of stabilizing vegetation or seedingl mulching. Document in the site log book any excessive deposition of sediment or ponding water along barrier or diversion systems. Record
the depth ofsediment within containment structures, any erosion near outlet and overflow structores, and verify the ability ohock filters around perforated riser pipes to pass water.
(2) Prior to filing of the Notice of Termination or the end of permit term, a final site erosion and sediment control inspection shall be conducted by the operator or designated agent.
The inspector shall certify that the site has undergone final stabilization using either vegetative or structural stabiJization methods and that all temporary erosion and sediment sediment
controls (such as silt fencing) not needed for 􀁬􀁯􀁮􀁧􀁾􀁴􀁥􀁲􀁭􀀠erosion control have been removed. (h) Stabilization. The operator shall initiate stabilization measures as soon as
practicable in portions of the site where construction activities have temporarily or permanently ceased, but in no case more than 14 days after the construction activity in that portion
of the site has temporarily or permanently ceased. This requirement does not apply in the fcllowing instances: (1) Where the initiation of stabilization measures by the 14th day after
construction activity temporarily or permanently ceased is precluded by snow cover or frozen ground conditions. stabilization measures shall be initiated as soon as practicable; (2)
Where construction activity on a portion ofthe site is temporarily ceased, and earth-disturbing activities will be resumed within 21 days, temporary stabilization measures need not be
initiated on that portion of the site, (3) In arid areas (areas with an average annual rainfall of 0 to 10 inches), semiarid areas (areas with an average annual rainfall of 10 to 20
inches), and areas experiencing droughts where the inttiation of stabilization measures by the 14th day after construction activity has temporarily or permanently ceased is precluded
by seasonably arid conditions, the operator shall initiate stabilization measures as soon as practicable. (i) Maintenance, Sediment shall be removed from sediment traps or sediment ponds
when design capacity has been reduced hy 50 percent. § 450.22 Effluent limitations reflecting the best available technology economically achievable (BAT). Except as provided in 40 CPR
125,30 through 125.32, any existing point source subject to Ibis subpart must employ the best management practices (BMPs) in this section, representing the application ofthe best available
technology economically acbievable (BAT): The effluent limitations are the same as those specffled in § 450,21. § 450.23 Effluent limitations reflecllng the best conventional pollutant
control technology (BCT), Except as prOvided in 40 CPR 125,30 through 125,32, any existing point source subject to Ibis subpart must employ the best management practices (BMPs) in Ibis
section, representing the application ofthe best conventional pollutant control technology (BeT): The effluent limitations are the same as those specffled in §450,21, §450.24 New eourca
performance standarda (NSPS). Any new source subject to Ibis subpart must achieve new source performance standards (NSPS): The effluent limitations are the same as those specffled in
§ 450,21. [FR Doc. 02-12963 Filed 6-21-02; 8:45 aml 8fLUNG QOOE 􀁾􀁰􀀠
MENU OF MANAGEMENT PROGRAM OPTIONS Construction Site Storm Water Runoff Control Final Draft The following "Menu of Management Program Options" has been developed from a number of sources,
including suggestions by Regional Program participants at the Construction Site Runoff Control Workshops, local erosion and sediment control ordinances, EPA documents, and others. Participants
may consider these options in the process of developing the construction component of their municipal storm water management plan. These suggestions do not represent the complete universe
of alternatives available, nor do they represent an attempt to present a packaged storm water management plan. It is the responsibility of each city or county to develop a complete storm
water management plan that meets the regulatory requirements. Consider the regulatory goal of "maximum extent practicable" (MEP} when developing your storm water management plan and
realize that implementation of the plan and related ordinances becomes a condition of your storm water permit. Prepare a plan that is functional and can be implemented effectively in
your jurisdiction. The italicized text included below is the language for the "Construction Site Storm Water Runoff Control" Minimum Measure taken from EPA's Final Phase II Rule. The
Final Phase " Rule establishes the minimum requirements that TNRCC will use in drafting the corresponding storm water permit for small municipalities in Texas. Cities and counties should
use these requirements in planning their storm water management programs until TNRCC issues the Texas permit (TNRCC must issue the Phase" municipal storm water permit by December 9,
2002). "Your NPDES MS4 permit will require at a minimum that you develop, implement and enforce a storm water management program designed to reduce the discharge of pollutants from your
MS4 to the maximum extent practicable (MEP) [and' to protect water guality ... Your storm water management program must include the (following' minimum control measures ... " "Construction
site storm water runoff control. (i) You must develop. implement, and enforce a program to reduce pollutants in any storm water runoff to your small MS4 from construction activities
that result in a land disturbance of greater than or egual to one acre. Reduction of storm water discharges from construction activity disturbing less than one acre must be included
in your program if that construction activity is part of a larger common plan of development or sale that would disturb one acre or more. " "(ii) Your program must include the development
and implementation of, at a minimum:" "(A) An ordinance or other regulatory mechanism to reguire erosion and sediment controls. as well as sanctions to ensure compliance. to the extent
allowable under State. Tribal. or local law;" Note: For organizational purposes, this section will primarily cover policy and procedural elements of the ordinance. Technical requirements
imposed by the ordinance are covered under other sections. North Central Texas Council of Governments March 11, 2002 
Coordination with Federal/State Construction Permits and NCTCOG Regional Program • Require NPDES or TPDES construction permit coverage as part of ordinance and require copy of Notice
of Intent to be filed with MS4 operator • Establish that a violation of an NPDES or TPDES construction permit is a violation of the local ordinance • Establish local minimum training
requirements and require contractors to submit qualifications of individuals with responsibility for inspection and maintenance of storm water pollution prevention best management practices
• Require usage of best management practices (BMPs) detailed in the NCTCOG Construction BMP Manual • Require NCTCOG Construction BMP Manual recommended 70% site rating (E&S plan designed
to retain a minimum of 70% of potential sediment loss) Local Permit Options Note: The Phase II MS4 storm water regulations do not specifically require cities/counties to have a local
permit for earth disturbing activities; however a permit system may help in tracking clearing and grading activities. • Require a grading permit for any earth disturbing or filling activities;
and/or • Require a building permit for any construction (including grading) or demolition actiVities Discharge Prohibition • Prohibit all non-storm water discharges (except those allowed
by EPAlTNRCC) from the site under development; and/or • Prohibit sediment, trash, or debris from leaving the site under development; and/or • Prohibit sediment, traSh, or debris from
entering the MS4 (including streets) and receiving waters as a result of construction activities on a property Sanctions for Noncompliance Note: Provide for escalating levels of sanctions
depending on severity of violation and repeated failure of operator to correct identified deficiencies (wamings, fines, stop work orders, etc.) • Require posting of bond (or deposit)
to cover cost of restoration/final stabilization if operator defaults; and/or • Establish procedures for issuance of warning notice of violation (with no fine associated) for first time
time offense; and/or • Establish provisions for fines for violations, with each day of noncompliance constituting a separate offense; and/or • Establish provisions to issue stop-work
orders; and/or • Establish provisions for the local government to correct violations and charge the offender for reimbursement of costs incurred; and/or • Establish provisions for the
local government to take out a lien against the property to recover expenses to correct Violations; and/or • Establish prOVisions to deny further permit approvals or project authorizations
to noncomplying developers or contractors Residential Subdivision Issues • Incorporate requirement in subdivision regulations for developers and contractors to comply with state and
federal construction storm water permit rules (particularly useful for counties with limited enforcement authority) North Central Texas Council of Governments March 11 , 2002 
• Require the deveJoper to post an erosion control deposit for each lot in a residential development (Plano) • Require final stabilization of all disturbed ground prior to acceptance
of infrastructure • Require the land developer to maintain temporary and permanent erosion and sediment controls on all lots for which a building permit has not been issued (unless entire
project transferred to one builder who would then assume the responsibility) • Require the land developer to maintain all temporary and permanent erosion and sediment controls no! associated
with individual lots (inlet protection, sediment basins, common areas, etc.) until the subdivision is built-out or the project is transferred to one builder who would then assume the
responsibility for BMP maintenance • Require that all utilities be in place prior to acceptance of infrastructure • Require individual purchasers of new homes to establish final stabilization
if not conducted by homebuilder "(8) Requirements for construction site operators to implement appropriate erosion and sediment control best manaqement practices" Note: These requirements
can be included in the erosion and sediment control ordinance, or may be implemented by other procedural means such as engineering or drainage standards. Erosion and Sediment Control
Plan • Require submission and approval of an erosion and sediment control (E&S) plan prior to earth disturbing activities; and/or • Require submission of the Storm Water Pollution Prevention
Plan (SWPPP) specified by the NPDES or TPDES construction permit • Require E&S plan (or SWPPP) to be prepared by an individual with appropriate credentials (erosion control certification,
licensed engineer or landscape architect, etc.) • Require E&S plan (or SWPPP) to reflect different phases of construction (clearing, grading, infrastructure, building, completion/landscaping)
• Require E&S plan (or SWPPP) to note sequence of construction/installation of BMPs • Provide a checklist to developers, engineers, and contractors with specific erosion and sediment
control plan requirements Best Management Practices • Require BMPs to be installed and maintained as specified in the NCTCOG Construction BMP Manual (or TPWA, ASCE, etc.) • Require disturbed
area to be limited to the greatest extent possible • Require specific approval and permanent stabilization measures for cuVfili slopes over 3:1 • Require local approval for temporary
stream crossings and construction activities in waterways (in addition to any required Army Corps of Engineers approval) • Require velocity dissipation for water or fire line flushing
operations Practices for Individual Residential Lots • Require a "limited" or "generic" erosion and sediment control plan as a condition of issuing a building permit • Require a minimum
of 8' (or other appropriate width) of erosion control matting around downslope perimeter of lot or adjacent to curb face and drainage swales North Central Texas Council of Governments
March 11, 2002 
"(e) Requirements for construction site operators to control waste such as discarded building materiais. concrete truck washout. chemicals. litter. and sanitary waste at the construction
site thatmay cause adverse impacts to water qua/itv" Waste Management Plans/Procedures • Require usage of best management practices (BMPs) detailed in the NCTCOG Construction BMP Manual (orTPWA,
ASCE, etc.) • Require locations of waste containers, concrete washout facilities. chemical storage areas. refueling areas. sanitary facilities. and chlorinated water treatment facilities
to be shown on appropriate plans (construction. E&S, SWPPP. etc.) • Require waste collection areas to be located such that they do not receive substantial runoff from upland areas and
do not drain directly to the MS4 (including streets) or receiving waters • Require sanitary waste facilities (portable toilets) to be located a specified minimum distance (-10 to 20
feet) away from storm drain inlets and receiving waters; and/or • Require containment for sanitary waste facilities (portable toilets) • Require management of chlorinated water discharge
from water line sanitation operations to provide for dissipation of chlorine (and velocity) prior to discharge to MS4 or receiving waters (sheet flow over vegetation. spray irrigation
over vegetation, temporary impoundment, etc.) • Provide a checklist to developers, engineers. and contractors with waste management plan requirements • Audit facilities that collect
waste materials from construction sites to ensure they are not dumping illegally Hazardous Waste Management • Require chemicals. paint, petroleum. fertilizer, and pesticide to be stored
in a covered enclosure • Require above ground petroleum storage tanks to be placed in a bermed enclosure • Require disposal of empty/unused chemical containers in accordance with label
instructions (or provide more detailed local instructions) • Require segregation of potentially hazardous and non-hazardous wastes • Require spill control procedures and notification
of of spills to the MS4 Construction Waste and Trash Management • Require appropriate waste containers that prohibit pollutant runoff • Require daily cleanup of construction site and
placement of all waste and trash in approved containers • Require disposal of all construction site wastes at authorized disposal facilities • Require (or encourage) recycling of appropriate
waste construction materials (Frisco) "(D) Procedures for site plan review which incorporate consideration of potential water qualltv impacts" Development Review Committee • Implement
a Development Review Committee to review applicable plans to ensure compliance with erosion and sediment/waste control requirements for all public and private construction projects North
Central Texas Council of Governments March 11. 2002 
• Development Review Committee composition could include staff from engineering, public works, and environmental management as appropriate • Require a tree survey (if a tree ordinance
is in place) to be included in the development plans Pre-construction Meeting • Require a pre-construction meeting for all public and private projects to outline sediment and erosion/waste
control requirements to the developer and contractors • Include inspector with responsibility for storm water inspection for the project in the preconstruction meeting • Provide an information
packet outlining storm water program requirements to developers and contractors EducatlonfTraining for Developers, Builders, and Contractors • Conduct periodic meetings to educate companies
involved in public and private construction in the jurisdiction on local pollution prevention requirements and procedures "rEi Procedures for receipt and consideration ofinformation
submitted by the public" Complaint Response • Establish a "hotline" phone number for for citizen complaints (NCTCOG could establish regional hotline) • Establish a maximum time to investigate
and report back to person making complaint • Establish procedures for recordkeeping of complaints and corrective actions taken • Incorporate response to citizen complaints into the construction
inspection process "(Fi Procedures for site inspection and enforcement of control measures" Organization • Use existing inspection organizations (engineering, public works, building)
and incorporate inspection of erosion and sedimentfwaste controls into their normal functions; or • Create a storm water or environmental management department with sole or primary responsibility
for erosion and sedimenVwaste control inspections Training and Materials • Provide training to all personnel involved in construction inspection and enforcement on inspection of storm
water pollution prevention practices for construction • Provide training to other personnel to recognize erosion and sediment control problems and report to appropriate department •
Provide a standard form with all inspection requirements for use on inspections Inspection FrequencylNotlfication Requirements • Establish appropriate frequencies for inspection of construction
storm water BMPs for different types of development: residential subdiviSion infrastructure construction (once per week or two weeks, and/or at other required inspections): single family
residence (at each code inspection); commercial construction (clearing, grading, code inspections); and/or • Establish a general frequency of inspection of all active construction sites
(i.e. all sites inspected at least once per month); and/or North Central Texas Council of Governments March 11, 2002 
• Establish priorities for inspections of construction sites depending on probable impact (size or type of development, proximity to sensitive receiving waters, etc.) • Conduct inspections
in response to observations by local govemment personnel or citizen complaints • Require notification from contractor prior to start or on completion of various stages of construction
(filing of NOI, start of clearing, completion of installation of BMPs, completion of clearing, completion of grading, completion of final landscaping, filing of NOT, etc) Procedures
• Establish procedures for notifying operators of violations and required corrective actions depending on the type of violation • Establish allowable time for corrective action depending
on severity of actual or likely impact on receiving waters as a result of violation • Establish procedures for recordkeeping of inspections and compliance actions Enforcement Note: These
measures can be used in addition to the sanctions included in the ordinance section above. • Withhold payment on public projects (authority may need to be provided for in contract documents)
• Withhold building, plumbing, electrical, etc. inspection approvals (authority may need to be provided for in building ordinance) until corrective measures are completed • Utilize litter,
health, nuisance or other related ordinance authority to require cleanup of construction sites North Central Texas Council of Governments March 11, 2002 
4 􀁾􀁴􀁾􀀮􀁜􀀭􀁾6e.otc1"-􀁾􀁉􀁉􀁉􀁗􀀺􀀮􀁗􀀠􀁴􀁜􀁾....\: M..,...-.",...\ 􀁾c..o",y-k-H. 􀁾􀁉􀁊􀀮t<\t,,+ i":> 􀁣􀀮􀀭􀁬􀀢􀀧􀁾􀁜􀀮􀀬􀁫􀁬􀁴􀀺􀀬􀀠a..-t vJwt,J. 􀀧􀁴􀁡􀀧􀀺􀁩􀁜􀁍􀀮􀁫􀀬􀁮􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀮􀁗􀀾􀀮􀀮􀁊􀀮�
�􀀠􀁾􀀠IMPLEMENTING STORMWATER MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR DEVELOPMENT 4.1 Overview Adoption of a comprehensive and integrated set of stormwater management requirements for new development
and redevelopment projects is one of the key components of a comprehensive local stormwater management program. Performance requirements and minimum standards for controlling runoff
from development are critical to addressing both the water quantity and quality impacts of post-construction urban stormwater and are a required component of NPDES municipal stormwater
programs. Minimum stormwater management standards must also be supported by a set of design and management tools and an integrated design approach for implementing both structural and
nonstructural stormwater controls. The following elements of a local toolbox for addressing development activities are described in this chapter: • Stormwater Better Site Design The
first step in addressing stormwater management begins with the site planning and design process. The goal of better site design is to reduce the amount of runoff and pollutants that
are generated from a development site and provide for some nonstructural on-site treatment and control of runoff by implementing a combination of approaches collectively known as stormwater
better site design practices. These include maximizing the protection of natural features and resources, developing a site design which minimizes impact, reducing overall site imperviousness,
and utilizing natural systems for stormwater management. • Unified Stormwater Sizing Criteria -An integrated set of design criteria for stormwater quality and quantfty management which
addresses the entire range of hydrologic events. These criteria allows the site engineer to calculate the stormwater control volumes required for water quality, downstream channel protection,
and overbank and extreme flood protection. • Slormwater Credits for Better Site Design A set of stormwater ·credits" can be used to provide developers and site designers an incentive
to implement better site design practices that can reduce the volume of stormwater runoff and minimize the pollutant loads from a site. The credit system directly translates into cost
savings to the developer by reducing the size of structural stormwater control and conveyance facilities. • Downstream Assessments -Peak flow downstream assessments can be required to
ensure • that a proposed development is not adversely impacting downstream properties after the stormwater management requirements have been addressed. These assessments can also potentially
be used to waive the need for detention for overbank and extreme flood control. • Guidance on Structural Stormwater Controls This Manual recommends a set of structural stormwater controls
that can be used to meet stormwater management water quantity and quality goals. Specific technical guidance on how to select, size, design, construct and maintain structural controls
(as provided in Volume 2) must be provided by a community in requiring the use of structural measures. Volume 1 (Policy Guidebook) Georgia Stormwater Management Manual 4.. 1 
, • Stormwater Management Site Plans -Communities can require the preparation of a storm water management site plan for development activities. A stormwater site plan is a comprehensive
report that contains the technical information and analysis to allow a local review authority to determine whether a proposed new development or redevelopment project meets the local
stormwater regulatory reqUirements. Figure 4.1-1 illustrates how these design tools would be used in the development process to address the local stormwater management requirements.
Concept Plan Developed Using Beller Site Design Practices Downstream Final Assessment Site Peiformed Plan Unified Sizing Criteria Used to Determine Stormwater Control and Treatment Volumes
structural Controls Are Sized. Designed and Sited stormwater 'Credits" for Beller Site Design Applied to Reduce Volumes Structural Stormwater Controls Are Screened and Selected Figure
4.1·1 Typical Stormwater Management System Design Process 4.2 Minimum Standards for Development 4.2.1 Introduction This section presents a comprehensive set of minimum peiformance standards
for stormwater management for development activities. These recommended standards provide Georgia communities with an integrated approach to address both the water quality and quantity
problems associated with stormwater runoff due to urban development. They are designed to assist local governments in complying with regulatory and programmatic requirements for various
state and Federal programs including the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit program and the National Flood Insurance
Program under FEMA. These minimum standards are ideally built into a community's development ordinances and supported by the plan review process. They may be adopted by local jurisdictions
as stormwater management development requirements and/or may be modified to meet local or watershedspecifiC stormwater management goals and objectives. The'goal of stormwater management
requirements for areas of new development and significant redevelopment is to reduce the impact of post-construction stormwater runoff on the watershed. This can be achieved by (1) maximizing
the use of site design and nonstructural methods to reduce the generation of runoff and pollutants; (2) managing and treating stormwater runoff though the use of structural stormwater
controls; and (3) implementing pollution prevention practices to limit potential stormwater contaminants. The minimum stormwater management standards presented here incorporate these
concepts and cover the entire cycle of development from site planning through long-term maintenance of stormwater management facilities. 4..2 Georgia Starmwater Management Manuol Volume
1 (Policy Guidebook) 
4.2.2 Applicability It is recommended that the stormwater management standards listed below be required for any new development and redevelopment site that meets one or more of the following
criteria: (1) New development that includes the creation or addition of 5.000 square feet or greater of new impervious surface area, or that involves land disturbing activity of 5,000
square feet of land Or greater. (2) Redevelopment that includes the creation or addition of 5,000 square feet or greater of new impervious surface area, or that involves land disturbing
activity of 1 acre or more. (3) Any commercial or industrial new development or redevelopment, regardless of size, with a Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code that falls under
the NPDES Industrial Stormwater Permit program, or a hotspot land use as defined below. In addition, redevelopment sites that involve land disturbing activity of 5,000 square feet or
greater, but less than 1 acre, are required to meet Minimum Standard 8 (to meet state and NPDES construction erosion and sediment control requirements) and should be required to meet
Minimum Standards 2, 9 and 10 to the maximum extent practicable. Definitions New development is defined as land disturbing activities, structural development (construction, installation
or expansion of a building Or other structure), andlor creation of impervious surfaces on a previously undeveloped site. Redevelopment is defined as structural development (construction,
installation or expansion of a building or other structure), creation or addition of impervious surfaces, replacement of impervious surface not part of routine maintenance, and land
disturbing activities associated with structural or impervious development. Redevelopment does not include such activities as exterior remodeling. A hotspot is defined as a land use
or activity on a site that produces higher concentrations of trace metals, hydrocarbons or other priority pollutants than are normally found in urban storm water runoff. Examples of
hotspots include gas stations, vehicle service and maintenance areas, salvage yards, material storage sites, garbage transfer facilities, and commercial parking lots with high-intensity
use. Exemptions The following development activities are suggested to be exempted from the minimum stormwater management standards: (1) Developments that do not disturb more than 5,000
square feet of land; (2) Individual single family residential lots. (Single family lots that are part of a subdivision or phased development project should not be exempt from the minimum
standards); and (3) Additions or modifications to existing single-family structures Additional Requirements New development or redevelopment in critical or sensitive areas, or as identified
through a watershed study or plan, may be subject to additional performance andlor regulatory criteria. Furthermore, these sites may need to utilize or restrict certain structural controls
in order to protect a special resource or address certain water quality or drainage problems identified for a drainage area. Volume 1 (Policy Guidebook) Georgia Stormwoter Management
Manual 4-3 
􀁾􀀺􀀠􀁉􀁨􀁾􀀠􀀶􀁈􀀧􀀮􀁣􀁲􀀢􀀺􀁬􀁾􀀢􀀭-->pec..;;,';c. 􀁾􀀭􀁜􀀺􀀢􀀢􀀢􀁾......􀀮􀀩􀁾􀀠-..UVL a..<;, 0".... ..... A",\?k e<;' «."" o.W.Oo.d,. -To <-O.....􀁬􀀧􀁲􀁾􀀠􀀢􀀬􀀬􀀬􀀬􀀬􀁾􀀢􀁖􀁌􀀠.,Aor
..... 􀁾􀀭􀁜􀁕􀀠1"-0.""'":,'-'" 􀁾....-t-􀁾􀁫􀁜􀀭Uov.\,;) """-c:o..J,,?W 􀁾􀁲􀀠......<:.(.. 4.2.3 Minimum Sformwafer Management Standards ',11\. N..,N'{... wl..-..\ 􀀭􀀭􀁲􀁾􀁴􀀮􀀧􀀾􀀮􀀠The
following standards are the recommended minimum stormwater management performance requirements for new development or redevelopment sites falling under the applicability criteria above.
(The word "shall" in brackets is provided for local jurisdictions that wish to adopt these standards as part of their storm water management ordinances) A detailed technical explanation
of each minimum standard is provided in Volume 2, Section 1.2. a Minimum Standand #1 Use of Better Site Design Practices for Stormwater Management Site designs should preserve the natural
drainage and treatment systems and reduce the generation of additional stormwater runoff and pollutants to the fullest extent practicable. a Minimum Standard #2 -Stormwater Runoff Quality
All storm water runoff generated from a site shOUld [shall] be adequately treated before discharge. Stormwater management systems (which can include both structural stormwater controls
and better sfie design practices) should [must) be designed to remove 80% of the average annual post-development total suspended solids (TSS) load and be able to meet any other additional
watershed-or site-specific water quality requirements. It is presumed that a stormwater management system complies with this performance standard if: • It is sized to capture and treat
the prescribed water quality treatment volume. which is defined as the runoff volume resulting from the first 1.2 inches of rainfall from a site; and • Appropriate structural stormwater
controls are selected, designed, constructed, and maintained according to the specific criteria in this Manual. • Runoff from hotspot land uses and activities is adequately treated and
addressed through the use of appropriate structural stormwater controls and pollution prevention practices. a Minimum Standand #3 Stream Channel Protection Stream channel protection
should [shall] be provided by using all of the following three approaches; (1) 24-hour extended detention storage of the 1-year, 24-hour return frequency storm event; (2) erosion prevention
measures such as energy dissipation and velocity control; and (3) preservation of the applicable stream buffer. a Minimum Standard #4 -Overbank Flood Protection Downstream overbank flood
protection should [shall] be provided by contrOlling the postdevelopment peak discharge rate to the predevelopment rate for the 25-year. 24-hour return frequency storm event. If control
of the l-year. 24-hour storm (Minimum Standard #3) is exempted, then overbank flood protection should [shaUl be provided by controlling the postdevelopment peak discharge rate to the
predevelopment rate for the 2-year through the 25year return frequency storm events. iJ Minimum Standard #5 Extreme Flood Protection Extreme flood protection should [shall] be provided
by contrOlling and/or safely conveying the 100-year, 24 hour return frequency storm event such that flooding is not exacerbated. EXisting and future floodplain areas should be preserved
as possible, a Minimum Standard #6 -Downstream Analysis A downstream hydrologic analysis should [shall] be performed to determine if there are any additional impacts in terms of peak
flow increase or downstream flooding while meeting Minimum Standards #1 through 5. This analysis should [shall] be performed at the outlet(s) of the site, and downstream at each tributary
junction to the point(s) in the conveyance system where the area of the portion of the site draining into the system is less than or equal to 10% of the total drainage area above that
point. 4-4 Georgia 510rmwaler Management Monual Volume 1 (Policy Guidebook) 
Q Minimum Standard #7 -Groundwater Recharge Annual groundwater recharge rates should be maintained to the extent practicable through the use of nonstructural methods. Q Minimum Standard
#8 -Construction Erosion and Sedimentation Control Erosion and sedimentation control practices shall be utilized during the construction phase or during any land disturbing activities.
o Minimum Standard #9 -Stormwater Management System Operation and Maintenance The stormwater management system, including all structural stormwater controls and conveyances, should [shalll
have an operation and maintenance plan to ensure that it continues to function as designed. o Minimum Standard #10 -Pollution Prevention To the maximum extent practicable, the development
project should [shall] implement pollutant prevention practices and have a stormwater pollution prevention plan. o Minimum Standard #11 -Stormwater Management Site Plan The development
project should [shall] prepare a stormwater management site plan for local government review that addresses Minimum Standards #1 through 10. 4.3 Stormwater Better Site Design Practices
4.3.1 Introduction The first step in addressing stormwater management begins with the site planning and design process. Development projects can be designed to reduce their impact on
watersheds when careful efforts are made to conserve natural areas, reduce impervious cover and better integrate stormwater treatment. By promoting a combination of these nonstructural
approaches collectively known as stormwater better site design practices, a community can help developers reduce the amount of runoff and pollutants that are generated from a development
or redevelopment site and provide for some non structural on-site treatment and control of runoff. The goals of better site design include: • Managing stormwater (quantity and quality)
as close to the point of origin as possible and minimizing collection and conveyance • Preventing stormwater impacts rather than mitigating them • Utilizing Simple, non structural methods
methods for stormwater management that are lower cost and lower maintenance than structural controls • Creating a multifunctional landscape • Using hydrology as a framework for site
design Better site design for stormwater management includes a number of site design techniques such as preserving natural features and resources, effectively laying out the site elements
to reduce impact, reducing the amount of impervious surfaces, and utilizing natural features on the site for stormwater management. The aim is to reduce the environmental impact "footprint"
of the site • while retaining and enhancing the owner/developer's purpose and vision for the site. Many of the better site design concepts can reduce the cost of infrastructure while
maintaining or even increasing the value of the property. Better site design concepts can be viewed as both water quantity and water quality management tools and can reduce the size
and cost of required structural stormwater controls-sometimes eliminating the need for them entirely. The site design approach can result in a more natural and cost-effective storm water
management system that better mimics the natural hydrologic conditions of the site, has a lower maintenance burden and provides for more sustainability. Volume 1 (Policy Guidebook) Georgia
Stormwater Manogemenl Manual 4-5 
4.3.2 Suite of Stormwater Better Site Design Practices Listed below are the stormwater better site design practices and techniques recommended in this Manual. Each of the practices listed
here are covered ;n more detail with examples in Volume 2, Section 1.5. Figures 4.3-1 and 4.3-2 illustrate the use of some of these better site design principles for a reSidential and
office park example, respectively. Conservation of Natural Features and Resources The first step in the better site design process is to identify and preserve the natural features and
resources that can be used in the protection of water resources by reducing stormwater runoff, providing runoff storage, reducing flooding, preventing soil erosion, promoting infiltration,
and removing stormwater pollutants. Some of the natural features that should be taken into account include: • Areas of undisturbed vegetation • Aquifers and recharge areas • Floodplains
and riparian areas • Wetlands • Ridgetops and steep slopes • Soils • Natural drainage pathways • Other natural features or critical areas • Intermittent and perennial streams Delineation
of natural features is typically done through a comprehensive site analysis and inventory before any site layout design is performed. Approaches that should be followed in conserving
natural features and resources include: • Preserving Undisturbed Natural Areas • Preserving Riparian Buffers • Avoiding Floodplains • Avoiding Steep Slopes • Minimizing Siting on Porous
or Erodible Soils Lower Impact Site Design Techniques After conservation areas have been delineated, there are additional opportunities in the preliminary stages of a site design for
avoiding downstream impacts from the development. These primarily deal with the location and configuration of lots or structures on the site and include the following recommendations
and options: • Fitting the Design to the Terrain • Reducing the Limits of Clearing and Grading • Locating Development In Less Sensitive Areas • Utilizing Open Space Development and/or
Nontraditional Lot Designs for Residential Areas • ConSidering Creative Development Design Reduction of Impervious Cover Reducing the area of total impervious surface on a site directly
reduces the volume of stormwater runoff and associated pollutants that are generated. It can also reduce the size and cost of necessary infrastructure, Some of the ways that impervious
cover can be reduced in a 􀁤􀁥􀁶􀁾􀁬􀁯􀁰􀁭􀁥􀁮􀁴􀀠include: • Reducing Roadway Lengths • Reducing Roadway Widths • Reducing the Footprint of Buifdings • Reducing the Parking Footprint
• Reducing Setbacks and Frontages • Fewer or Alternative Cul-de-sacs 4·6 Georgia Stormwoter N Volume 1 (Policy Guidebook) 
• Site is Mass Graded • Natural Drainage Patterns Destroyed • Existing Tree Cover Removed • Character of Site is Destroyed • Extensive Stann Drain System Required • Amenity Center is
Only Open Space Figure 4.3-1 Comparison of a Traditional Residential Subdivision Design (above) and an Innovative Site Plan Developed Using Better Site Design Practices (below). 'e'-p
11-1---'--1'-------, • Natural Drainage Patterns Guide Layout ! .-...: 1; ---! ..x:-I "\ UndIsturbed 􀁾􀀠.. Only Building Envelopes are Graded 1I I 11-1 (\).;d" V tar I . Character of
Site is Preserved l-. __ ) I ' 􀁾􀁯-'.r ege Ion .. No Stonn Drain System Required { --i. --.. ..-J j • Impervious Cover Reduced :􀁾􀀠·-1 ,t.....j t·-It􀁆􀁾􀁖􀀧􀀢􀀠􀀮􀀮􀀭􀁲􀁾􀀠L Provide,Open
Space for CommunityIi /􀁾􀀨􀀨􀁾􀀧􀀭􀁩􀀠-!-j IL.L.L.J,,_/1 ---􀁾􀀠:r·1\􀀧􀀱􀀭􀁲􀁩􀀺􀁾􀁾􀁔􀁔􀁉􀁾􀀧􀁊􀁾􀀠􀁾: N;rrr;:r \C?[-1 􀁾􀀭􀁾􀁾􀁌􀁊􀀠􀁾􀀮􀀯􀀢􀀧􀁜􀁲􀁾􀀮􀀠􀀺􀀺􀀮􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀮􀀠'/,/(',\ 'yY"
" :, 􀀬􀀮􀁾􀀬􀀠\.:ii ...􀁾􀀡􀀠I,: ',..Y-.".􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀨􀀧􀀬􀀠\' 􀁾􀀠􀁌􀀮􀁾􀀬􀁾􀀩􀀧􀁾􀁉􀀠' '-1\;' '\' I. ... 􀀬􀁾__k: -------'\'-', ')) 􀁾􀁜􀁾􀀭􀁾􀀠I , J;Sv'TI 􀁊􀀮􀀩􀁾􀀠::?'i.:-Natural Drainage
'_)'-. c'l J-j'I'!' '(' 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀁾''''\'"C \ 􀀧􀀮􀀮􀀭􀁾􀀠.J...... t.. Pres.rved ' -......, '. •\ c))􀁾\ /--r :-',..;! iI-I\" \ i /\ 􀁾􀀧􀀠,--:-"" 􀁦􀀭􀁾􀀠'---1: .J-v (􀁉􀀭􀁾􀀠0--V"'\ 􀀩􀁾􀀠---1.._1
' 􀁾􀀯􀀢􀀠I 􀁾􀀠t-J'\ I'-I" . <'/􀁾􀀯􀁾􀀧􀀧􀁩􀀠.J__,',\. '\1---\ Und,stur:"'d 􀁾􀀭􀁟I ' 􀀯􀁾􀁾􀀠, l-. _w __ J Vegetation .'.􀁾􀀢􀀠: Cul-de-sac with , \ 􀁾l,l-J Grass Swal•• lnsload 􀁾􀀼􀀧􀀯􀁾􀀢􀀠)
I Landsca ed Island , I---II ,,-, of Curb and Guller •'---L...Y ,L ,__ 11_,J. ___􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀮􀀭􀀧􀀠VolUme 1 (Policy Guidebook) Georgio Slormwoter Manogement Manual
4-7 
---Revegetated (Disturbed) Areas Revegetaled (Disturbed) Areas 􀁾􀁾􀀭􀀽􀀽􀁾􀁟􀁾􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀺􀀽􀁾􀀮􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀮􀀺􀀮􀀺􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀁾􀁟􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁟􀁾􀁾􀀭􀁾􀁾􀀭􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭r Figure
4.3-2 Comparison of a Traditional Office Park Design (above) and an Innovative Site Plan Developed Using Better Site Design Practices (below). • Preserved Undisturbed Natural Area 4..8
Georgia Storrnwaier Management Manual Volume 1 (Policy Guidebook) 
Utilization of Natural Features for Stormwaler Management Traditional stormwater drainage design tends to ignore and replace natural drainage pallerns and often results in overly efficient
hydraulic conveyance systems. Structural stormwater controls are costly and often can require high levels of maintenance for optimal operation. Throughuse of natural site features and drainage systems, careful site design can reduce the need and size of structural conveyance systems and controls. Some of the methods of incorporating
natural features into an overall stormwater management site plan include the following: • Using Buffers and Undisturbed Areas • Using Natural Drainageways Instead of Storm Sewer Systems
• Use Vegetated Swales Instead of Curb and Gutter • Draining Runoff to Pervious Areas Se.e...\-:D""'" 4.L( -4·(. ol-'\·,·H·e...) .Ike. CCM.t'llL.t-e... dt:>(..v. ...... e.VI+ \"'.;.
a."",·\.\,,,..IoLe. o..-\:-Wu.)w, 􀁾􀁗􀁉􀀧􀁾􀁥􀀬􀀮􀁥􀁊􀁣􀁵􀀬􀀬􀀢􀀬􀁷􀁣􀀭􀁊􀀬􀀮􀁴.. c...DM.. 4.7 Guidance on Structural Stormwater Stormwater Controls 4.7.1 Introduction The impacts of
storm water runoff from development cannot be completely mitigated by land use and nonstructural approaches. Therefore, a community must develop a program to require the use of structural
stormwater control measures on new development and redevelopment sites. Structural stormwater controls (sometimes referred to as siructural best management practices or BMPs) are constructed
stormwater management facilities designed to treat stormwater runoff andlor mitigate the effects of increased stormwater runoff peak rate, volume, and velocity due to urbanization. Volume
2 recommends a number of structural stormwater controls for Georgia that can be used for meeting the minimum stormwater management standards for development and the unified storm water
sizing criteria. These recommended controls are divided into three categories: general application, limited application, and detention structural controls. The next several pages describe
the structural controls recommended for use in Georgia communities .. 4.7.2 Recommended Structural Stormwater Control Practices for Georgia Communities General Application Controls Gelleral
application structural controls are recommended for use with a wide variety of land uses and development types. These structural controls have a demonstrated ability to effectively treat
the Water Ouality Volume (WOy) and are presumed to be able to remove 80% of the total annual average TSS load in typical post-development urban runoff when designed, constructed and
maintained in accordance with recommended specifications. Several of the general application structural controls can also be designed to provide water quantity control; i.e., downstream
channel protection (CPy), overbank flood protection (Op25) andlor extreme flood protection (Of), General application controls are the recommended stormwater management facilities for
a site wherever feasible and practical. 4-22 Georgia Stormwoter Management Manual Volume 1 (Policy Guidebook) 
There are six types of general application controls, which are summarized below, Detailed descriptions of each structural control along with design criteria and procedures are provided
in Volume 2, Section 3.2. Stormwater Ponds Stormwaler ponds are constructed stormwater retention basins that have a permanent pool (or micropool) of water. Runoff from each rain event
is detained and treated in the pool. Pond design variants include: • Wet Pond • Wet Extended Detention Pond • Micropool Extended Detention Pond • Multiple Pond Systems Stormwater Wetlands
Storm water wetlands are constructed wetland systems used for stormwater management. Stormwater wetlands consist of a combination of shallow marsh areas, open water and semi-wet areas
above the permanent water surface. Wetiand design variants include: • Shallow Wetland • Extended Detention Shallow Wetland • PondiWetiand Systems • Pocket Wetland Bioretention Areas
Bioretention areas are shallow stormwater basins or landscaped areas that utilize engineered soils and vegetation to capture and treat stormwater runoff, Runoff may be returned to the
conveyance system, or allowed to fully or partially exfittrate into the soil. Sand Filters Sand filters are multi-chamber structures designed to treat stormwater runoff through filtration,
using a sand bed as the primary filter media, Filtered runoff may be returned to the conveyance system, or allowed to fully or partially exfiltrate into the soil, The two sand filter
design variants are: • Surface Sand Filter • Perimeter Sand Filter Infiltration Trenches An infiltration trench is an excavated trench filled with stone aggregate used to capture and
allow infiltration of stormwater runoff into the surrounding soils from the bottom and sides of the trench. Enhanced Swales Enhanced swales are vegetated open channels that are explicitly
designed and constructed to capture and treat stormwater runoff within dry or wet cells formed by check dams or other means. The two types of enhanced swales are: • Dry Swale • • Wet
SwaleiWetland Channel Limited Application Controls Limited application structural controls are those that are recommended only for limited use or for special site or design conditions.
Generally, these practices: (1) cannot alone achieve the 80% TSS removal target, (2) are intended to address hotspot or speciftc land use constraints or conditions, and/or (3) may have
high or special maintenance requirements that may preclude their use. Limited application controls are typically used for water quality treatment only. Volume 1 (POlicy Guidebook) Georgia
Stormwater Management Manual 4-23 
Some of these controls can be used as a pretreatment measure or in series with other structural controls to meet pollutant removal goals. Limited application structural controls should
be considered primarily for commercial, industrial or institutional developments. The follOwing limited application controls are provided for consideration in this Manual. Each is discussed
in detail with appropriate application guidance in Volume 2, Section 3.3. Biofilters • FiHer Strip • Grass Channel Filtering Practices • Organic FiHer • Underground Sand Filter Wetland
SYStems • Submerged Gravel Wetland Hydrodvnamic Devices • Gravity (Oil-Grit) Separator Porous Surfaces • Modular Porous Paver Systems • Porous Concrete Chemical Treatment • Alum Treatment
System Proprietary Systems • Commercial Stonnwater Controls Detention Controls Detention structural controls are used only for providing water quantity control (channel protection, overbank
flood protection, or extreme channel protection), and are typically used downstream of a general application or limited application structural control. Types of detention controls inclUde:
• Dry Detention and Dry Extended Detention Basins • MuHi-purpose Detention Areas • Underground Detention A detailed discussion of each of the detention controls, as well as design criteria
and procedures can be found in Volume 2, Section 3.4. 4.7.3 Suitability of Structural Stormwater Controls to Meet Stormwater Management Requirements Table 4.7-1 summarizes the stormwater
management suitability of the various structural controls in addressing each of the unified stonnwater sizing criteria. Given that many structural controls cannot meet all of the sizing
criteria, typically two or more controls are used in senes to fonn what is known as a stonnwater "treatment train: Volume 2, Section 3.1 provides guidance on the use of a treatment train
as well as how to calculate the pollutant removal effiCiency for structural controls in series. Volume 2 also provides guidance for choosing the appropriate structural stonnwater oontrol(8)
for a site as well as the basic considerations and limitations on the use of a particular structural control. 4-24 Georgia Stormwater Management Manual Volume 1 (Policy Guidebook) 
Table 4.7-1 Suitability of Structural Storm water Controls to Meet Unified Stormwater Sizing Criteria i Channel I Overbank IExfreme Flood Structural Stormwater . Wafer Quality Protection
Flood Control Volume (WQ,,) Protection I (CPv) i [Qo"') i Protection (QI) General Application . , i Stormwater Ponds ../../i ../../i Stormwater Wetlands ../../I ../../i Bioretention
Areas ../0 • • i Sand Filters ../0 • • rInfiltration Trenches ../0 • • I Enhanced Swales ../0 0 • I Limited Application Biofilters . 0 • • • Filtering Practices I ../• I • • WeUand Systems
../I • • • Hydrodynamic Devices 0 I , • • • Porous Surfaces ../i 0 i • • Chemical Treatment ../i • I • • IProprietary Systems * * I * * I Detention Controls • ../; ../../i i , i i I
I i i I I I I .,/' = Able to meet stormwater sizing criterion (for water quality, this control is presumed to meet the 80% TSS reduction goal when Sized to treat the WOv and designed,
constructed and marntaine<i properly) o =Typically provides partial treatment of WOv. May be used in pretreatment and as part of a "treatment train" o =Can be incorporated into the structural
control in certain situations • = Not typically able or used to meet stonnwater sizing criterion * =The appllcation and performance of specific commercial devices and systef'(lS must
be provided by the manufacturer and shou{d be verified by independent third-party sources and data 4.7.4 Implementing Application and DeSign Criteria for Structural Stormwater Controls
In order to implement a structural stormwater control program and requirements. a local government must first determine the suite of structural controls that will be allowed by the community,
The recommended structural controls for Georgia communities provided in this Manual is a good starting point. as these controls were selected by a task force of local govemment staff
and stormwater experts, Communities can allow controls not included in this Manual (including various commercial systems) at their discretion. but should not do so without independenUy
derived information concerning performance. maintenance. and application requirements and 􀁬􀁩􀁭􀁾􀁡􀁴􀁩􀁯􀁮􀁳􀀮􀀠Once the list of allowable stormwater controls has been determined.
specific applicetion and design guidance should be developed and provided for each structural control practice. including: Volume 1 (Policy Guidebook) Georgia SlolTTIWater Management
Manual 4-25 
•• • General Description of the Structural Slormwater Control • Stormwater Management Suitability • Pollutant Removal Capabilities and Design Removal Efficiencies • Application and Site
Feasibility Criteria • Planning and Design Criteria • Design Procedures • Inspection and Maintenance Requirements • Construction and Materials Specifications • Example Schematics • Design
Forms This guidance should be provided in a design manual or handbook along with specifiC design examples. Volume 2 contains this information for many of the recommended structural controls
listed above. Additional guidance in the form of training seminars and workshops is invaluable to educating the development community on the design, construction and ongoing maintenance
issues involved with using structural stormwater controls. 4.8 Stormwater Management Site Plans 4.8.1 Introduction To encourage and ensure that local stormwater guidelines and requirements
are implemented. communities should implement a formal site plan preparation, submittal, and review procedure that facilitates open communication and understanding between the involved
parties. A stormwater management site plan is a comprehensive report that contains the technical information and analysis to allow a community to determine whether a proposed new development
or redevelopment project meets the local stormwater regulatory requirements, This section discusses the typical contents of a stonnwater management site plan and the recommended review
and consultation checkpoints between the local government staff and the site developer, The procedures and guidelines for the preparation of a site stormwater plan should be explicilly
stated in a local ordinance. The ordinance, in tum, may refer to a design guidance document for additional detail. Ideally, site stormwater plans are developed with open lines of communication
between the developer (and developer's engineer) and the plan reviewer. Stormwater plans are more than just the preparation of a document and maps. Instead, storrnwater plans should
be thought of as a process that occurs over the planning and development cycle and then continues after buildout via regular inspection and maintenance 01 the stonnwater management system,
4.8.2 Contenfs of a Stormwater Management Site Plan The following elements are recommended components for local stormwater management site plan reqUirements. Based on a community's prerogative.
small-scale projects could be allowed to prepare a site plan that includes a defined subset of the elements outlined below. 1) Existing Conditions Hydrologic Analysis A topographic map
of existing site conditions (minimum 2-loot contour interval recommended) with the basin boundaries indicated • Acreage. soil types and land cover 01 areas lor each subbasin affected
by the project • All perennial and intermittent streams and other surface water features • All existing stormwater conveyances and structural control facilities • Direction of flow and
exits from the site • Analysis 01 runoff provided by off-site areas upstream of the project site • Methodologies, assumptions, site parameters and supporting design calculations used
in analyzing the existing conditions Site hydrology 4..26 Georgia Stormwoter Monagement Manual Volume 1 (Policy Guidebook) 
2) Post-Oevelopment Hydrologic Analysis • • A topographic map of developed site conditions (minimum 2-foot contour interval recommended) with the post-development basin boundaries indicated
• Total area of post-development impervious surfaces and other land cover areas for each subbasin affected by the project • Unified stormwater sizing criteria runoff calculations for
water quality, channel protection, overbank flooding protection and extreme flood protection for each subbasin • Location and boundaries of proposed natural feature protection areas
• Documentation and calculations for any applicable site design credits that are being utilized • Methodologies, assumptions, site parameters and supporting design calculations used
in analyzing the existing conditions site hydrology 3) Stormwater Management System • Drawing or sketch of the stormwater management system including the location of nonstructural sHe
design features and the placement of existing and proposed structural stormwater controls. This drawing should show design water surface elevations, storage volumes available from zero
to maximum head, location of inlet and outlets, location of bypass and discharge systems, and all orifice/restrlctor sizes. • Narrative describing that appropriate and effective structural
stormwater controls have been selected • Cross-section and profile drawings and design details for each of the structural stormwater controls in the system. This should include supporting
calculations to show that the facility is designed according to the applicable design criteria. • Hydrologic and hydraulic analysis of the stormwater management system for all applicable
design storms (should include stage-storage or outlet rating curves, and inflow and outflow hydrographs) • Documentation and supporting calculations to show that the stormwater management
system adequately meets the unified stormwater sizing criteria • Drawings, design calculations and elevations for all existing and proposed stormwater conveyance elements including stormwater
drains, pipes, culverts, catch basins, channels, swales and areas of overland flow 4) Oownstream Analysis • Supporting calculations for a downstream peak flow analysis using the ten-percent
rule necessary to show safe passage of post-development design flows downstream 5) Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan • Must contain all the elements specified in the Georgia Erosion
and Sediment Control Act and local ordinances and regulations • Sequence/phasing of construction and temporary stabilization measures • Temporary structures that will be converted into
permanent stormwater controls 6) Landscaping Plan • Arrangement of planted areas, natural areas and other landscaped features on the site plan • Information necessary to construct the
landscaping elements shown on the plan drawings • Descriptions and standards for the methods, materials and vegetation that are to be used • in the construction 7) Operations and Maintenance
Plan • Description of maintenance tasks, responsible parties for maintenance, funding, access and safety issues 8) Evidence of Acquisition of Applicable Local and Non-local Permits 9)
Waiver Requests Volume 1 (Policy Guidebook) Georgia Stormwoter Managemenf Manual 􀀴􀁾􀀲􀀷􀀠
4.8.3 Procedure for Reviewing Stormwater Site Plans Section 1.3 of Volume 2 describes the general procedure in the preparation of a stormwater site plan. The following steps are intended
to provide a communHy with a review process and checkpoints that complements the procedure from the site developer's perspective: (1) Pre-consultation Meeting and Joint Site Visit (2)
Review Stormwater Concept Plan (3) Review Preliminary Stormwater Site Plan (4) Review Final Stormwater Site Plan Additional steps to ensure compliance with the stormwater management
site plan include: (5) Pre-construction Meeting (6) Construction Inspections (7) Ongoing Maintenance Inspections Step 1. Pre-consultation Meeting and Joint Site Visit The most important
action that can take place at the beginning of the development project is a pre-consultation meeting between the local review authority and the developer and his team to outline the
stormwater management requirements and other regulations, and to assist developers in assessing constraints, opportunities, and potential for stormwater design concepts. This recommended
step helps to establish a constructive partnership through the development process. A joint site visit, if possible, can yield a conceptual outline of the stormwater management plan
and strategies. By walking the site, \he two parties can identify and antiCipate problems, define general expectations and establish general boundaries of natural feature protection
and conservation areas. A major incentive for pre-consultation is that permitting and plan approval requirements will become clear at an early stage, increasing the likelihood that the
approval process will proceed faster and more smoothly. The site developer should be made familiar with the local stormwater management and development requirements and design criteria
that apply to the site. These may include: • Minimum design and performance standards for stormwater management • Design storm frequencies • Conveyance design criteria • Floodplain crReria
• B ufferlsetback criteria • Wetland provisions • Watershed-based criteria • Erosion and sedimentation control requirements • Maintenance requirements • Need for physical site evaluations
(infiltration tests, geotechnical evaluations, etc.) This guidance could be provided at the pre-consultation meeting and should be detailed in various local ordinances (e.g., subdivision
codes, stormwater and drainage codes, etc). This information could be contained in a set of checklists which would be provided to the developer. App'lmdix B contains example checklists
outlining the necessary steps to prepare preliminary and final stormwater management site plans. Current land use plans, comprehensive plans, zoning ordinances, road and utility plans,
watershed or overlay districts, and public facility plans should all be consulted to detenmine \he need for compliance with other local and state regulatory requirements. Opportunities
for special types of development (e.g., clustering) or special land use opportunities (e.g" conservation easements or tax incentives) should be investigated. There may also be an ability
to partner with the site developer in the development of greenways or open space parks. 4-28 Georgio Stormwater Management Manual Volume 1 (Policy Guidebook) 
Step 2, Review Stormwater Concept Plan During the concept plan stage the site designer will perform most of the layout of the site including the preliminary storm water management system
design and layout The storm water concept plan allows the design engineer to propose a potential site layout and gives the developer and local review authority a "first look" at the
storm water management system for the proposed development The stormwater concept plan should be submitted to and approved by the local plan reviewer before detailed preliminary site
plans are developed. It is extremely important at this stage that stormwater design is integrated into the overall site design concept in order to best reduce the impacts of the development
as well as provide for the most cost-effective and environmentally sensitive approach, Step 3, Review Preliminary Stormwater Site Plan The preliminary plan ensures that local requirements
and criteria are being complied with and that opportunities are being taken to minimize adverse impacts from the development The preliminary stormwater management site plan should consist
of maps, narrative, and supporting design calculations (hydrologic and hydraulic) for the proposed stormwater management system, and should include the following elements from section
4,8.2: • Existing Conditions Hydrologic Analysis • Post.Deveiopment Hydrologic Analysis • Stormwater Management System • Downstream Analysis It should be demonstrated that appropriate
and effective stormwater controls have been selected and adequately designed, The preliminary plan should also include, among other things, street and site layout, delineation of natural
feature protection and conservation areas, soils data, existing and proposed topography, relation of site to upstream drainage, limits of clearing and grading, and proposed methods to
manage and maintain conservation areas (e,g., easements, maintenance agreements/responsibilHies, etc,) Step 4. Review Final Stormwater Site Plan The final stormwater management site
plan adds further detail to the preliminary plan and reflects changes that are requested or required by the local review authority. The final stormwater site plan should include all
of the revised elements from the preliminary plan as well as the following items: • Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan • Landscaping Plan • Operations and Maintenance Plan • Evidence
of Acquisition of Applicable Local and Non·local Permits • Waiver Requests • This process may be iterative, The reviewer should ensure that all submittal requirements have been satisfactorily
addressed and permits, easements, and pertinent legal agreements (e,g,. maintenance agreements, performance bond, etc.) have been obtained and/or executed, The completed final stormwater
site plan should be submitted to the local review authority for final approval prior to any construction activHies on the development site. Approval of the final plan is the last major
milestone in the stormwater planning process, The remaining steps are to ensure that the plan is is installed, implemented, and maintained properly. Volume 1 (Policy Guidebook) Georg;"
Stormw"ter Management Manu,,1 4·29 
Step 5. Pre-construction Meeting This step ensures that the contractor, engineer, inspector, and plan reviewer can be sure that each party understands how the plan will be implemented
on the site. A pre-construction meeting should occur before any dearing or grading is initiated on the site. This is the appropriate time to ensure that natural feature protection areas
and limits of disturbance have been adequately staked and adequate erosion and sediment control measures are in place. Step 6. Construction Inspections Project sites should periodically
be inspected during construction by local agencies to ensure that conservation areas have been adequately protected and that stormwater control and conveyance facilities are being constructed
as designed. Inspection frequency may vary with regard to site size and location; however, monthly inspections are a good target. In addition it is recommended that some inspections
occur after larger storm events (e.g., 0.5 inches and greater). The inspection process can prevent later problems that result in penatties and added cost to developers. An added benefit
of a formalized and regular inspection process is that it should help to motivate contractors to internalize regular maintenance of sediment controls as part of the daily construction
operations. If necessary, a community can consider implementing a penalty syatem, whereby fines can be assessed or even stop work orders issued. A final inspection is needed to ensure
that the construction conforms to the intent of the approved design. Prior to issuing an occupancy permit and releasing any applicable bonds, the review authority should ensure that:
(1) temporary erosion control measures have been removed; (2) stormwater controls are unobstructed and in good working order; (3) permanent vegetation cover has been established in exposed
areas; (4) any damage to natural feature protection and conservation areas has been restored; (5) conservation areas and buffers have been adequately marked or signed; and (6) any other
applicable conditions. Record drawings of the structural stormwater controls and drainage facilities should also be acquired by the community, as they are importsnt in the long-term
maintenance of the facilities. The review authority should keep copies of the drawings and aSSOCiated documents and develop a local storm water control inventory and data storage syatem.
With geographic information systems (GIS) becoming more widely used, much of these data can be stored electronically. Step 7. Ongoing Maintenance Inspections Ongoing inspection and maintenance
of a project site's storm water management system is often the weakest component of stormwater plans. It needs to be clearly detailed in the stormwater site plan which entity has responsibilHy
for operation and maintenance of all structural storm water controls and drainage facilities. Often, the responsibility for maintenance is transferred from the developer and contractor
to the owner. Communication about this important responsibility is usually inadequate; inadequate; therefore communities may need to consider ways to notily property owners of their
responsibilities. For example, notification can be made through a legal disclosure upon sale or transfer of property or public outreach programs may be instituted to describe the purpose
and value of maintenance. Ideally, preparation of maintenance plans should be a requirement of the storm water site plan preparation and review process. A maintenance plan should outline
the scope of activities, schedule, and responsible parties. Vegetation, sediment management, access, and safety issues shoUld also be addressed. It is important that the maintenance
plan contains the necessary prOVisions to ensure that vegetation establishment occurs in the first few years after construction. In addition, the plan should address testing and disposal
of sediments that will likely be necessary. Annual inspections of stormwater management facilities should be conducted by an appropriate local agency. Where chronic or severe problems
exist, the local government should have the authority to remedy the situation and charge the responsible party for the cost of the work. This authority should be well established in
an ordinance. 4.. 30 Georgia Stonnwater Management Manual Volume 1 (POlicy Guidebook) 
" •• 
MENU OF MANAGEMENT PROGRAM OPTIONS Construction Site Storm Water Runoff Control The following "Menu of Management Program Options" has been developed from a number of sources, including
suggestions by Regional Program participants at the Construction Site Runoff Control Workshops, local erosion and sediment control ordinances, EPA documents, and others. Participants
may consider these options in the process of developing the construction component of their municipal storm water management plan. These suggestions do not represent the complete universe
of alternatives available, nor do they represent an attempt to present a packaged storm water management plan. It is the responsibility of each city or county to develop a complete storm
water management plan that meets the regulatory requirements. Consider the regulatory goal of "maximum extent practicable" (MEP) when developing your storm water management plan and
realize that implementation of the plan and related ordinances becomes a condition of your storm storm water permit Prepare a plan that is functional and can be implemented effectively
in your jurisdiction. The italiCized text included below is the language for the "Construction Site Storm Water Runoff Control" Minimum Measure taken from EPA's Final Phase II Rule.
The FinalPhase II Rule establishes the minimum requirements that TNRCC will use in drafting the corresponding storm water permit for small municipalities in Texas. Cities and counties should
use these requirements in planning their storm water management programs until TNRCC issues the Texas permit (TNRCC must issue the Phase II municipal storm water permit by December 9,
2002). "Your NPDES MS4 permit will require at a minimum that you develop, implement and enforce a storm water management program deSigned to reduce the discharge of pollutants from your
MS4 to the maximum extent practicable (MEP) [and' to protect water quality ... Your storm water management program must include the {followinq' minimum control measures ... " "Construction
site storm waterrYl]off control. (i) You must develop, implement, and enforce a program to reduce pollutants in any storm water runoff to your small MS4 from construction activities
that result in a land disturbance of greater than or egual to one acre. Reduction of stann water discharges from construction activity disturbing less than one acre must be included
in your program if that construction activity is parl of a larger common plan of development or sale that would disturb one acre or more. " "(iiI Your program must include the development
and implementation of. at a minimum:" "(A) An ordinance or other regulatory mechanism to reguire erosion and sediment controls. as well as sanctions to ensure comP/iance, to the extent
allowable under State, Tribal, or local law;" Note: For organizational purposes, this section will primarily cover policy and procedural elements of the ordinance. Technical requirements
imposed by the ordinance are covered under other sections. North Central Texas Council of Governments March 2002 
Coordination with Federal/State Construction Permits and NCTCOG Regional Program • Require NPDES or TPDES construction permit coverage as part of ordinance and require copy of Notice
of Intent to be filed with MS4 operator • Establish that a violation of an NPDES or TPDES construction permit is a violation of the local ordinance • Establish local minimum training
requirements and require contractors to submit qualifications of individuals with responsibility for inspection and maintenance of storm water pollution prevention best management practices
• Require usage of best management practices (BMPs) detailed in the NCTCOG Construction BMP Manual • Require NCTCOG Construction BMP Manual recommended 70% site rating (E&S plan designed
to retain a minimum of 70% of potential sediment loss) Local Permit Options Note: The Phase II MS4 storm water regulations do not specifically require cities/counties to have a local
permit for earth disturbing activities; however a permit system may help in tracking clearing and grading activities. • Require a grading permit for any earth disturbing or filling activities;
and/or • Require a building permit for any construction (including grading) or demolition activities Discharge Prohibition • Prohibit all non-storm water discharges (except those allowed
by EPAlTNRCC) from the site under development; and/or • Prohibit sediment, trash, or debris from leaving the site under development; and/or • Prohibit sediment, trash, or debris from
entering the MS4 (including streets) and receiving waters as a result of construction activities on a property Sanctions for Noncompliance Note: Provide for escalating levels of sanctions
depending on severity of violation and repeated failure of operator to conrect identified deficiencies (warnings, fines, stop work orders, etc.) • Require posting of bond (or deposit)
to cover cost of restoration/final stabilization if operator defaults; and/or • Establish procedures for issuance of warning notice of violation (with no fine associated) for first time
offense; and/or • Establish proVisions for fines for violations, with each day of noncompliance constituting a separate offense; and/or • Establish provisions to issue stop-work orders;
and/or • Establish provisions for the local government to correct violations and charge the offender for reimbursement of costs incurred; and/or • Establish provisions for the local
government to take out a lien against the property to recover expenses to correct violations; and/or • Establish provisions to deny further permit approvals or project authorizations
to noncomplying developers or contractors Residential Subdivision Issues • Incorporate requirement in subdivision regulations for developers and contractors to comply with state and
federal construction storm water permit rules (particularly useful for counties with limited enforcement authOrity) North Central Texas Council of Governments March 2002 
• Require the developer to post an erosion control deposit for each lot in a residential development (Plano) • Require final stabilization of all disturbed ground prior to acceptance
of infrastructure • Require the land developer to maintain temporary and permanent erosion and sediment controls on all lots for which a building penmit has not been issued (unless entire
project transferred to one builder who would then assume the responsibility) • Require the land developer to maintain all temporary and penmanent erosion and sediment controls not associated
with individual lots (inlet protection, sediment basins, common areas, etc.) until the subdivision is built-out or the project is transferred to one builder who would then assume the
responsibility for BMP maintenance • Require that all utilities be in place prior to acceptance of infrastructure • Require individual purchasers of new homes to establish final stabilization
if not conducted by homebuilder "(B) Requirements for construction site operators to implement appropriate erosion and sediment control best management practices" Note: These requirements
can be included in the erosion and sediment control ordinance, or may be implemented by other procedural means such as engineering or drainage standards. Erosion and Sediment Control
Plan • Require submission and approval of an erosion and sediment control (E&S) plan prior to earth disturbing activities; and/or • Require submission of the Stonm Water Pollution Prevention
Plan (SWPPP) specified by the NPOES or TPOES construction permit • Require E&S plan (or SWPPP) to be prepared by an individual with appropriate credentials (erosion control certification,
licensed engineer or landscape architect, etc.) • Require E&S plan (or SWPPP) to reflect different phases of construction (clearing, grading, infrastructure, building, completionllandscaping)
• Require E&S plan (or SWPPP) to note sequence of construction/installation of BMPs • Provide a checklist to developers, engineers, and contractors with specific erosion and sediment
control plan requirements Best Management Practices • Require BMPs to be installed and maintained as specified in the NCTCOG Construction BMP Manual (or TPWA, ASCE, etc,) • Require disturbed
area to be limited to the greatest extent possible • Require specific approval and permanent stabilization measures for cutifill slopes over 3: 1 • Require local approval for temporary
stream crossings and construction activities in waterways (in addition to any required Army Corps of Engineers approval) • Require velocity dissipation for water or fire line flushing
operations Practices for Individual Residential Lots • Require a "limited" or "generic" erosion and sediment control plan as a condition of issuing a building penmit • Require a minimum
of 8' (or other appropriate width) of erosion control matting around downslope perimeter of lot or adjacent to curb face and drainage swales North Central Texas Council of Govemments
March 2002 
nrc) Requirements for construction site operators to control waste such as discarded building materials, concrete truck washout. chemicals, litter, and san/taN waste at the construction
site that may cause adverse impacts to water qua/ity" Waste Management PlanslProcedures • Require usage of best management practices (BMPs) detailed in the NCTCOG Construction BMP Manual
(or TPWA, ASCE, etc.) • Require locations of waste containers, concrete washout facilities, chemical storage areas, refueling areas, sanitary facilities, and chlorinated water treatment
facilities to be shown on appropriate plans (construction, E&S, SWPPP, etc.) • Require waste collection areas to be located such that they do not receive substantial runoff from upland
areas and do not drain directly to the MS4 (including streets) or receiving waters • Require sanitary waste facilities (portable tOilets) to be located a specified minimum distance (-10
to 20 feet) away from storm drain inlets and receiving waters; and/or • Require containment for sanitary waste facilities (portable toilets) • Require management of chlorinated water
discharge from water line sanitation operations to provide for dissipation of chlorine (and velocity) prior to discharge to MS4 or receiving waters (sheet flow over vegetation, spray
irrigation over vegetation, temporary impoundment, etc.) • Provide a checklist to developers, engineers, and contractors with waste management plan requirements • Audit facilities that
collect waste materials from construction sites to ensure they are not dumping illegally Hazardous Waste Management • Require chemicals, paint, petroleum, fertilizer, and pesticide to
be stored in a covered enclosure • Require above ground petroleum storage tanks to be placed in a bermed enclosure • Require disposal of empty/unused chemical containers in accordance
with label instructions (or provide more detailed local instructions) • Require segregation of potentially hazardous and non-hazardous wastes • Require spill control procedures and notification
of of spills to the MS4 Construction Waste and Trash Management • Require appropriate waste containers that prohibit pollutant runoff • Require daily cleanup of construction site and
placement of all waste and trash in approved containers • Require disposal of all construction site wastes at authorized disposal facilities • Require (or encourage) recycling of appropriate
waste construction materials (Frisco) "(D) Procedures for site plan review which incorporate consideration of potential water quality impacts" Development Review Committee • Implement
a Development Review Committee to review applicable plans to ensure compliance with erosion and sediment/waste control requirements for all public and private construction projects North
Central Texas Council of Governments March 2002 
• Development Review Committee composition could include staff from engineering, public works, and environmental management as appropriate • Require a tree survey (if a tree ordinance
is in place) to be included in the development plans Pre-construction Meeting • Require a pre-construction meeting for all public and private projects to outline sediment and erosionfwaste
control requirements to the developer and contractors • Include inspector with responsibility for storm water inspection for the project in the preconstruction meeting • Provide an information
packet outlining storm water program requirements to developers and contractors Education/Training for Developers, Builders, and Contractors • Conduct periodic meetings to educate companies
involved in public and private construction in the jurisdiction on local pollution prevention requirements and procedures "rEI Procedures for receipt and consideration ofinformation
submitted by the public' Complaint Response • Establish a "hotline" phone number for for citizen complaints (NCTCOG could establish regional holline) • Establish a maximum time to investigate
and report back to person making complaint • Establish procedures for recordkeeping of complaints and corrective actions taken • Incorporate response to citizen complaints into the construction
inspection process "(FI Procedures for site inspection and enforcement of control measures" Organization • Use existing inspection organizations (engineering, public works, building)
and incorporate inspection of erosion and sediment/waste controls into their normal functions: or • Create a storm water or environmental management department with sole or primary responsibility
for erosion and sedimentiwaste control inspections Training and Materials • Provide training to all personnel involved in construction inspection and enforcement on inspection of storm
water pollution prevention practices for construction • Provide training to other personnel to recognize erosion and sediment control problems and report to appropriate department •
Provide a standard form with all inspection requirements for use on inspections Inspection Frequency/Notification Requirements • Establish appropriate frequencies for inspection of construction
storm water BMPs for different types of development: residential subdivision infrastructure construction (once per week or two weeks, andlor at other required inspections): single family
residence (at each code inspection): commercial construction (clearing, grading, code inspections); andlor • Establish a general frequency of inspection of all active construction sites
(i.e. all sites inspected at least once per month); andlor North Central Texas Council of Governments March 2002 
• Establish priorities for inspections of construction sites depending on probable impact (size or type of development, proximity to sensitive receiving waters, etc.) • Conduct inspections
in response to observations by local government personnel or citizen complaints • Require notification from contractor prior to start or on completion of various stages of construction
(filing of NOI, start of clearing, completion of installation of BMPs, completion of clearing, completion of grading, completion of final landscaping, filing of NOT, etc) Procedures
• Establish procedures for notifying operators of violations and required corrective actions depending on the type of violation • Establish allowable time for corrective action depending
on severity of actual or likely impact on receiving waters as a result of violation • Establish procedures for recordkeeping of inspections and compliance actions Enforcement Note: These
measures can be used in addition to the sanctions included in the ordinance section above. • • Withhold payment on public projects (authority may need to be provided for in contract
documents) • Withhold building, plumbing, electrical, etc. inspection approvals (authority may need to be provided for in building ordinance) until corrective measures are completed
• Utilize litter, health, nuisance or other related ordinance authority to require cleanup of construction sites North Central Texas Council of Governments March 2002 
United <'tales Office of Waler EPA 833-F-OO-GOS Envirc Agenc, :'ntal Protection (4203) January 2000 Fact Sheet 2.6 Storm Water Phase II oEPA Final Rule Construction Site Runoff Control
Minimum Control Measure Storm Water Phase II Final Rule Fact Sheet Series Overview 1.0 -Sionn Waler Phase II Final Rule: An Overview Small MS4 Program 2.O-Small MS4 Stonm Water Program
Overview 2.1 -Who's Covered? Designation and Waivers 01 Regulated Small MS4s 2.2 -Urbanized Areas: Definition and Description Minimum Control Measures 2.3 -Public Educalion and Oulreach
2.4 -Public Participationi Involvement 2.5 -Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination 2.6 -Construction Site Runoff Control 2.7 -Post·Construction Runal! Control 2,8 -Pollution PreventioniGood
Housekeeping 2.9 -PenmiUing and Reporting: The Prooess and Requirements 2.10 -Federal and State·Operated MS4s: Program Implementation Construction Program 3.0 -Construction Program Overview
3.1 -Construction Rainlall Ernsivily W'iiJver Industrial "No Exposure" 4.0-Conditional No Exposure Exclusion for Industrial Aclivily This fact sheet profiles the Construction Site Runoff
Control minimum control measure, one of six measures that the operator of a Phase II regulated small municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) is required to include in its storm water
management program to meet the conditions of ilS National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. This fact sheet outlines the Phase n Final Rule requirements and offers
some general guidance on how to satisfy them. It is important to keep in mind that the small MS4 operator has a great deal of flexibility in choosing exactly how to satisfy the minimum
control measure requirements. Why Is The Control of Construction Site Runoff Necessary? Polluted storm water runoff from construction sites often flows to MS4s and ultimately is discharged
into local rivers and streams. Of the pollutants listed in Table 1, sediment is usually the main pollutant of concern. Sediment runoff rates from construction sites are typically 10
to 20 times greater than those of agricultural lands, and 1,000 to 2,000 times greater than those of forest lands, During a short period of time, construction sites can contribute more
sediment to streams than can be deposited naturally during several decades. The resulting siltation, and the contribution of other pollutants from construction sites, can cause physical,
chemical, and biological harm to our nation's waters, For example, excess sediment can quickly fill rivers and lakes, requiring dredging and destroying aquatic habitats. What Is Required?
Table 1 Pollutants Commonly Discharged From Construction Sites Sediment Solid and sanitary wastes Phosphorous (fertilizer) Nitrogen (fertilizer) Pesticides Oil and grease Concrete truck
washout Construction chemicals Construction debris The Phase IIFinal Rule requires an operator of a regulated small MS4 to develop, implement, and enfon:e a program to reduce pollutants
in storm water runoff to their MS4 from construction activities that result in a a land disturbance of greater than or equal to one acre. The small MS4 operator is required to: o Have
an ordinance or other regulatory mechanism requiring the implementation of proper erosion and sediment controls, and controls for other wastes, on applicable construction sites; o Have
procedures for site plan review of construction plans that consider potential water quality impacts; o Have procedures for site inspection and enforcement of control measures; o Have
sanctions to ensure compliance (established in the ordinance or other regulatory mechanism); 
Measure a Establish procedures for the receipt and consideration of information submitted by the public; and a Determine the appropriate best management practices (BMPs) and measurable
goals for this minimum control measure. Suggested BMPs (i.e., the program actlonst.ctivities) and measurable goals are presented below. What Are Some Guidelines for Developing and Implementing
This Measure? Further explanation .nd guidance for each component of a regulated small MS4's construction program is provided below. Regulatory Mechanism Through the development of an
ordinance or other regulatory mechanism, the small MS4 operator must establish a construction program that controls polluted runoff from construction sites with a land disturbance of
greater than or equal to one acre. Because there may be limitations on regulatory legal authority, the small MS4 operator is required to satisfy this minimum control measure only to
the maximum extent practicable and allowable under State, Tribal, or local law. Site Plan Review The small MS4 operator must include in its construction program requirements for the
implementation of appropriate BMPs on construction sites to control erosion and sediment and other waste at the site. To determine if a construction site is in compliance with such provisions,
the small MS4 operator should review the site plans submitted by the construction site operator before ground is broken. Site plan review aids in compliance and enforcement efforts since
it alerts the small MS4 operator early in the process to the planned use or non-use of proper BMPs and provides a way to track new construction activities. The tracking of sites is useful
not only for the small MS4 operator's recordkeeping and reporting purposes, which are required under their NPDES storm water permit (see Fact Sheet 2.9), but also for members of the
public interested in ensuring that the sites are in compliance. Inspections and Penallies Once construction commences, BMPs should be in place and the small MS4 operator's enforcement
activities should begin. To ensure that the BMPs are properly installed, the small MS4 operator is required to develop procedures for site inspection and enforcement of control measures
to deter infractions. Procedures could include steps to identify priority sites for inspection and enforcement based on the nature and extent of the construction activity, topography,
and the characteristics of soils and receiving water quality. Inspections give the MS4 operator an opportunity to provide additional guidance and education, issue warnings, or assess
penalties. To conserve staff resources, one possible option for small MS4 operators is to have these inspections perfonned by the same inspector that visits the sites to check compliance
with health and safety building codes. Information Submitted by the Public A final requirement of the small MS4 program for construction activity is the development of procedures for
the receipt and consideration of public inquiries, concerns, and information submitted regarding local local construction activities. This provision is intended to further reinforce
the public participation component of the regulated small MS4 storm water program (see Fact Sheet 2.4) and to recognize the crucial role that the public can play in identifying instances
of noncompliance. The small MS4 operator is required only to consider the information submitted, and may not need to follow-up and respond to every complaint or concern. Although some
form of enforcement action Or reply is not required, the small MS4 operator is required to demonstrate acknowledgment and consideration of the information submitted. A simple tracking
process in which submitted public information, both written and verbal, is recorded and then given to the construction site inspector for possible follow-up will suffice. What Are Appropriate
Measurable Goals? Measurable goals, which are required for each minimum control measure, are intended to gauge permit compliance and program effectiveness. The measurable goals, as well
as the BMPs, should reflect the needs and characteristics of the operator and the area served by its small MS4. Furthermore, they should be chosen using an integrated approach that fully
addresses the requirements and intent of the minimum control measure. An integrated approach for this minimum measure could include the following measurable goals: Target Date Activity
I year ........... . Ordinance or other regulatory mechanism in place; procedures for information submitted by the public in place. 2 years ......... . Procedures for site inspections
implemented; a certain percentage rate of compliance achieved by construction operatoTS. 3 years ......... . Maximum compliance with ordinance; improved clarity and reduced sedimentation
of local waterbodies. 4 years ......... . Increased numbers of sensitive aquatic organisms in local waterbodies. 
\ Fact Sheet 2.6 -Construction Site k .. _.off Control Minimum Control Measure Page 3 Are Construction Sites Already Covered Under the NPDES Storm Water Program? Yes. EPA's Phase I NPDES
storm water program requires operators of construction activities that disturb five or more acres to obtain a NPDES construction storm water permit. General permit requirements include
the submission of a Notice of Intent and the development of a storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP must include a site description and measures and controls to prevent
or minimize pollutants in storm water discharges. The Phase II Final Rule similarly regulates discharges from smaller construction sites disturbing equal to or greater than one acre
and less than five acres (see Fact Sheet 3.0 for information on the Phase II construction program). Even though all construction sites that disturb more than one acre are covered nationally
by an NPDES storm water permit, the construction site runoff control minimum measure for the small MS4 program is needed to induce more localized site regulation and enforcement efforts,
and to enable operators of regulated small MS4s to more effectively control construction site discharges into their MS4s. To aid operators of regulated construction sites in their efforts
to comply with both local requirements and their NPDES permit, the Phase II Final Rule includes a provision that allows the NPDES permitting authority to reference a "qualifying State,
Tribal or local program" in the NPDES general permit for construction. This means that ifa construction site is located in an area covered by a qualifying local program, then the construction
site operator's compliance with the local program constitutes compliance with their NPDES permit. A regulated small MS4's storm water program for construction could be a "qualifying
program" if the MS4 operator requires a SWPPP. in addition to the requirements summarized in this fact sheet. The ability to reference other programs in the NPDES permit is intended
to reduce confusion between overlapping and similar requirements, while still providing for both local and national regulatory coverage of the construction site. The provision allowing
NPDES permitting authorities to reference other programs has no impact on, or direct relation to, the small MS4 operator's responsibilities under the construction site runoff control
minimum measure profiled here. Is a Small MS4 Required to Regulate Construction Sites that the Permitting Authority has Waived from the NPDES Construction Program? No. If the NPDES permitting
authority waives requirements for storm water discharges associated with small construction activity (see 122.26(b)(I5)(i)), the small MS4 operator is not required to develop, implement,
andlor enforce a program to reduce pollutant discharges from such construction sites. For Additional Information Contact 1& U.S. EPA Office of Wastewater Management Phone: 202260-5816
E-mail: SW2@epa.gov Internet: www.epa.gov/owmlsw/phase2 Reference Documents 1& Storm Water Phase II Final Rule Fact Sheet Series Internet: www.epa.gov/owmlsw/phase2 1& Storm Water Phase
II Final Rule (64 FR 68722) • Internet: www.epa.gov/owmlsw/phase2 • Contact the U.S. EPA Water Resource Center Phone: 202260-7786 E-mail: center.water-resource@epa.gov 
Building a Storm Water Management Plan, Part 1: Construction Site Runoff Control Workshop Wrap-up An important component of the effort to assist local govemments in meeting Phase II
storm water regulations is underway. A series of workshops was recently held in each of the four main watershed areas to gather implementation options related to the Construction Site
Runoff Control Minimum Measure of the regulations. Representatives of approximately 35 Phase II cities and counties attended the meetings and shared information on activities currently
underway in their cities, along with ideas for expanding their programs to meet the regulations where necessary. Storm water management professionals from each of the seven Phase I cities
in the Metroplex were also on-hand at the workshops to provide suggestions and insight gained from years of experience with implementing construction management programs in their cities.
The ideas presented at these workshops will form the core of a "Menu of Management Program Options" to be prepared by North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG) staff. Regional
Storm Water Program participants will be able to select from the menu when developing their storm water management plans. As an example, one of the Construction Site Runoff Control Minimum
Measures is that Phase II cities and counties must have sanctions to ensure that construction site operators are implementing erosion and sediment control practices. Some of the enforcement
techniques suggested at the meetings included denying building permits, withholding building inspection approvals, fines, withholding payment to contractors on public projects, and others.
NCTCOG staff is preparing a draft of the Construction Site Runoff Control section of the menu, which will be distributed to participants and made available on the dfwstormwater.com Web
site in early December. Future workshops will address each of the remaining Phase II Minimum Measures. The next series, targeted for mid-January, will cover the Illicit Discharge Detection
and Elimination Minimum Measure. Storm water program contacts will be notified of meeting locations and dates once established. For more information, contact Jeff Rice, NCTCOG, at (817)
695-9212 or jrice@dfwinfo.com. 
MENU OF MANAGEMENT PROGRAM OPTIONS Construction Site Storm Water Runoff Control The following "Menu of Management Program Options" has been developed from a number of sources, including
suggestions by Regional Program participants at the Construction Site Runoff Control Workshops, local erosion and sediment control ordinances, EPA documents, and others. Participants
may consider these options in the process of developing the construction component of their municipal storm water management plan. These suggestions do not represent the complete universe
of altematives available, nor do they represent an attempt to present a packaged storm water management plan. It is the responsibility of each city or county to develop a complete storm
water management plan that meets the regulatory requirements. Consider the regulatory goal of "maximum extent practicable" (MEP) when developing your storm water management plan and
realize that implementstlon of the plan and related ordinances becomes a condition of your storm water permit. Prepare a plan that is functional and can be implemented effectively in
your jurisdiction. The italicized text included below is the language for the "Construction Site Storm Water Runoff Control" Minimum Measure taken from EPA's Final Phase II Rule. The
Final Phase II Rule establishes the minimum requirements that TNRCC will use in drafting the corresponding storm water permit for small municipalities in Texas. Cities and counties should
use these requirements in planning their storm water management programs until TNRCC issues the Texas permit (TNRCC must issue the Phase II municipal storm water permit by December 9,
2002). "Your NPDES MS4 permit will reguire at a minimum that yOU develop, implement and enforce a storm water management program designed to reduce the discharge of pollutants from your
MS4 to the maximum extent practicable (MEPI {andT to protect water gualitv ... Your storm water management program must include the £following] minimum control measures ... n "Construction
site storm water runoff control. (j) You must develop. implement. and enforce a program to reduce pollutants in any storm water runoff to your small MS4 from construction activities
that result in a land disturbance of greater than or egual to one acre. Reduction of storm water discharges from construction activity disturbing less than one acre must be included
in your program if that construction activity is pari of a larger common plan of development or sale that would disturb one acre or more. " "(iiI Your program must inClude the development
and implementation of, at a minimum:" "(AI An ordinance or other regulatory mechanism to require erosion and sediment controls. as well as sanctions to ensure compliance. to the extent
allowable under State. Tribal. or local law;" Note: For organizational purposes, this section will primarily cover policy and procedural elements of the ordinance. Technical requirements
imposed by the ordinance are covered under other sections. North Central Texas Council of Govemments December 17, 2001 
Coordination with FederalfState Construction Pennits • Require NPDES or TPDES construction permit coverage as part of ordinance and require submission of Notice of Intent • Establish
that a violation of an NPDES or TPDES construction permit is a violation of the local ordinance • Establish minimum training requirements and require contractors to submit qualifications
of individuals with responsibility for inspection and maintenance of storm water pollution prevention best management practices Discharge Prohibition • Prohibit all non-storm water discharges
(except those allowed by EPAlTNRCC) from the site under development; and/or • Prohibit sediment, trash, or debris from leaving the site under development; and/or • Prohibit sediment,
trash, or debris from entering the MS4 (including streets) and receiving waters as a result of construction activities on a property Pennits Note: The Phase II MS4 storm water regulations
do not specifically require cities/counties to have a local permit for earth disturbing activities; however a permit system may help in tracking clearing and grading activities. • Require
a grading permit for any earth disturbing activities; and/or • Require a building permit for any construction (including grading) or demolition activities Sanctions for Noncompliance
Note: Provide for escalating levels of sanctions depending on severity of violation and repeated failure of operator to correct identified deficiencies (warnings, fines, stop work orders,
etc.) • Require posting of bond (or deposit) to cover cost of restorationlfinal stabilization if operator defaults; and/or • Establish provisions for fines for violations, with each
day of noncompliance constituting a separate offense; and/or • Establish provisions to issue stop-work orders; and/or • Establish provisions for the local government to correct violations
and charge the offender for reimbursement of costs incurred; and/or • Establish provisions for the local government to take out a lien against the property to recover expenses to correct
violations Residential Subdivision Issues • Require the developer to post an erosion control deposit for each lot in a residential development (Plano) • Require final stabilization of
all disturbed ground prior to acceptance of infrastructure • Require the land developer to maintain temporary and permanent erosion and sediment controls on all lots for which a building
permit has not been issued (unless entire project transferred to one builder who would then assume the responsibility) • Require the land developer to maintain all temporary and permanent
erosion and sediment controls not associated with individual lots (inlet protection, sediment basins, common areas, etc.) until the subdivision is built-out (unless entire project transferred
to one builder who would then assume the responsibility) • Require that all utilities be in place prior to acceptance of infrastructure North Central Texas Council of Governments December
17, 2001 
"(B) Requirements for construction site operators to implement appropriate erosion and sediment control best management practices" Note: These requirements can be included in the erosion
and sediment control ordinance. or may be implemented by other procedural means such as engineering or drainage standards. Coordination with Regional Program • Require usage of best
management practices (BMPs) detailed in the NCTCOG Construction BMP Manual • Require NCTCOG Construction BMP Manual recommended 70% site rating (E&S plan designed to retain a minimum
of 70% of potential sediment loss) Erosion and Sediment Control Plan • Require submission and approval of an erosion and sediment control (E&S) plan prior to earth disturbing activities;
and/or • Require submission of the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) specified by the NPDES or TPDES construction permit • Require E&S plan (or SWPPP) to be sealed by an
licensed professional engineer • Require E&S plan (or SWPPP) to reflect different phases of construction (clearing. grading, infrastructure, building, completionllandscaping) • Provide
a checklist to developers, engineers, and contractors with specific erosion and sediment control plan requirements Best Management Practices • Require BMPs to be installed and maintained
as specified in the NCTCOG Construction BMPManual • Require disturbed area to be limited to the greatest extent possible • Require specific approval and permanent stabilization measures
for cut/fill slopes over 2:1 • Require specific approval for temporary stream crossings and construction activities in waterways Practices for Individual Residential Lots • Require a
"limited" or "generic" erosion and sediment control plan as a condition of issuing a building permit • Require a minimum of 8' of erosion control matting around perimeter of lot or adjacent
to curb face and drainage swales KeG) Requirements for construction site operators to control waste such as discarded building materials. concrete truck washout. chemicals, litter. and
sanitary sanitary waste at the construction site that may cause adverse impacts to water qualitv" Waste Management Plans/Procedures • Require usage of best management practices (BMPs)
detailed in the NGTCOG Construction BMP Manual • Require locations of waste containers, concrete washout facilities. chemical storage areas, refueling areas, sanitary facilities, and
chlorinated water treatment facilities to be shown on appropriate plans (construction, E&S, SWPPP. etc.) North Central Texas Council of Governments December 17. 2001 
• Require waste collection areas to be located such that they do not receive substantial runoff from upland areas and do not drain directly to the MS4 (including streets) or receiving
waters • Require sanitary waste facilities (portable toilets) to be located a specified minimum distance (-10 to 20 feet) away from storm drain inlets and receiving waters; and/or •
Require containment for sanitary waste facilities (portable toilets) • Require management of chlorinated water discharge from water line sanitation operations to provide for dissipation
of chlorine prior to discharge to MS4 or receiving waters (sheet flow over vegetation, spray irrigation over vegetation, temporary impoundment, etc.) • Provide a checklist to developers,
engineers, and contractors with waste management plan requirements • Audit facilities that collect waste materials from construction sites to ensure they are not dumping illegally Hazardous
Waste Management • Require chemicals, paint, petroleum, fertilizer, and pesticide to be stored in a covered enclosure • Require disposal of empty/unused chemical containers in accordance
with label instructions (or provide more detailed local instructions) • Require segregation of potentially hazardous and non-hazardous wastes • Require spill control procedures and notification
of the MS4 Construction Waste and Trash Management • Require covered waste containers • Require daily cleanup of construction site and placement of all waste and trash in approved containers
• Require disposal of all construction site wastes at authorized disposal facilities • Require (or encourage) recycling of appropriate waste construction materials (Frisco) "(0) Procedures
for site plan review which incorporate consideration of potentia/water quality impacts" Development Review Committee • Implement a Development Review Committee to review applicable plans
to ensure compliance with erosion and sedimentlwaste control requirements for all public and private construction projects • Development Review Committee composition could include staff
from engineering, public works, and environmental management as appropriate • Require a tree survey to be included in the development plans Pre-construction Meeting • Require a pre-construction
meeting for all public and private projects to outline sediment and erosion/waste control requirements to the developer and contractors • Include inspector with responsibility for storm
water inspection for the project in the preconstruction meeting EducationlTraining for Developers, Builders, and Contractors • Conduct periodic meetings to educate companies involved
in public and private construction in the jurisdiction on local pollution prevention requirements and procedures North Central Texas Council of Governments December 17, 2001 
• "(E) Procedures for receipt and consideration of information submitted by the public" • Establish a "hotline" phone number for citizen complaints • Establish a maximum time to investigate
and report back to person making complaint • Establish procedures for record keeping of complaints and corrective actions taken • Incorporate response to citizen complaints into the
construction inspection process "(FI Procedures for site inspection and enforcement of control measures" Organization • Use existing inspection organizations (engineering. public works.
building) and incorporate inspection of erosion and sediment/waste controls into their normal functions; or • Create a storm water or environmental management department with sole or
primary responsibility for erosion and sediment/waste control inspections Training and Materials • Provide training to all personnel involved in construction inspection and enforcement
on inspection of storm water pollution prevention practices for construction • Provide a standard form with all inspection requirements for use on inspections Inspection Frequency/Notification
Requirements • Establish appropriate frequencies for inspection of construction storm water BMPs for different types of development: residential subdivision infrastructure construction
(once per week or two weeks, and/or at other required inspections); single family residence (at each code inspection); commercial construction (clearing, grading, code inspections);
and/or • Establish a general frequency of inspection of all active construction sites (i.e. all sites inspected at least once per month); and/or • Establish priorities for inspections
of construction sites depending on probable impact (size or type of development, proximity to sensitive receiving waters, etc.) • Require notification from contractor prior to start
or on completion of various stages of construction (start of clearing, completion of installation of BMPs, completion of clearing, completion of grading. completion of final landscaping,
etc) Procedures • Establish procedures for notifying operators of violations and required corrective actions depending on the type of violation • Establish allowable time for corrective
action depending on severity of actual or likely impact on receiving waters as a result of violation • Establish procedures for recordkeeping of inspections and compliance actions Enforcement
Note: These measures can be used in addition to the sanctions included in the ordinance section above. • Withhold payment on public projects (authority may need to be provided for in
contract documents) • Withhold building, plumbing. electrical. etc. inspection approvals (authority may need to be provided for in building ordinance) • Utilize litter ordinance authority
to require cleanup of construction sites North Central Texas Council of Governments December 17. 2001 
CONSTRUCTION SITE STORM WATER RUNOFF CONTROL Phase II Minimum Control Measure Requirements and Items for Consideration The italicized text included below is the language for the "Construction
Site Storm Water Runoff Control" Minimum Measure taken from EPA's Final Phase II Rule. The Final Phase II Rule establishes the minimum requirements that TNRCC will use in drafting the
corresponding storm water permit for small municipalities in Texas. Cities and counties should use these requirements in planning their storm water management programs until TNRCC issues
the Texas permit (TNRCC must issue the Phase II municipal storm water permit by December 9, 2002). In addition to the regulatory language, included under each of the EPA requirements
is a list of items that are suggested by NCTCOG staff for consideration in developing the construction component of a municipal storm water management plan. These items were prepared
based on EPA's Erosion and Sediment Control Model Ordinance, the EPA Construction General Permit for Region 6, and the construction management programs of local Phase I cities. "Construction
site storm water runoff control. (i) You must develop, implement, and enforce a program to reduce pollutants in any storm water runoff to your small MS4 from construction activities
that result in a land disturbance of greater than or equal to one acre. Reduction ofstorm water discharges from construction activity disturbing less than one acre must be included in
your program if that construction activity is part of a larger common plan of development or sale that would disturb one acre or more." «(ii) Your program must include the development
and implementation of, at a minimum:" «(A) An ordinance or other regulatory mechanism to require erosion and sediment controls, as well as sanctions to ensure compliance, to the extent
allowable under State, Tribal, or local law;" "(8) Requirements for construction site operators to implement appropriate erosion and sediment control best management practices" Considerations
• Use separate sediment and eroSion control ordinance or incorporate into broader stormwater ordinance • Require submisSion of an erosion and sediment control plan (Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan -SWPPP) prior to earth disturbing activities • Require E&S plan/SWPPP to consider different phases of construction • Require submission of modifications made to SWPPP
• Require contents of SWPPP to mirror those required by EPA's Construction General Permit • Require usage of NCTCOG Construction BMP Manual • Require Construction BMP Manual recommended
70% site rating (E&S plan designed to retain a minimum of 70% of potential sediment loss) • Require site development permit • Who is required to get the site development permit -contractor,
owner? • Require posting of bond to cover cost of restoration/final stabilization if operator defaults • Require posting of a permit at the construction site • Require contractor to
inspect and maintain BMPs • Penalties for noncompliance: dollar amount, single fine per infraction, per day fine, stop work order, revocation of permit North Central Texas Council of
Governments October 26, 2001 
CONSTRUCTION SITE STORM WATER RUNOFF CONTROL Phase /I Minimum Measure Considerations (Continued) "(C) Requirements for construction site operators to control waste such as discarded
building materials, concrete truck washout, chemicals, litter, and sanitary waste at the construction site that may caUBe adverse impacts to water quality" Considerations • Require chemicals,
paint, petroleum, fertilizer, and pesticide to be stored in covered enclosure • Require proper disposal of empty/unused chemical containers • Require segregation of potentially hazardous
and non-hazardous wastes • Require covered waste containers • Require recycling of appropriate waste construction materials • Require sanitary facilities • Require designated concrete
washout area/controls • Require spill control procedures, riotification "(0) Procedures for site plan review which incorporate consideration ofpotential water quality impacts" Considerations
• Require concept plan review to consider development/construction impacts prior to preparation of detailed engineering plans • I ntegrate with development/construction plan review or
conduct separate review • Allowable time from application to approval or denial • Submission requirements: sketch of certain scale for concept plan review (if required), detailed SWPPP
for pre-construction approval, etc "(E) Procedures for receipt and consideration of information submitted by the public" Considerations • Establishment of "hotline" phone number • Maximum
time to investigate and report back to person making complaint • Procedures for recordkeeping for complaints and corrective actions taken "(F) Procedures for site inspection and enforcement
of control measures" Considerations • Prioritize inspection of sites depending on size or type of development • Use existing inspection organizations (building, public works) or create
new department • Use the same inspectors for different stages of development and construction (clearing and grading, infrastructure, building construction) • Percentage of construction
sites to be inspected on an annual basis • Require notification from contractor prior to start or on completion of various stages of construction: start of clearing, completion of installation
of BMPs, completion 01 clearing, completion of grading, completion 01 final landscaping, etc • Procedures for correction 01 inadequate installation, maintenance, or operation of erosion,
sediment, and trash/debris controls • Procedures for recordkeeping for inspections and compliance actions North Central Texas Council 01 Governments October 26, 2001 
United C" 'es Offfce of Water EPA 833-F-OQ..O08 Enviror 11tal Protection (4203) January 2000 Agency Fact Sheet 2.6 &EPA Storm Water Phase II Final Rule Fact Sheet Series Overview 1.0
-Storm Water Phase II Final Rule: An Overview Small MS4 Program 2.0 -Small MS4 Storm Water Program Overview 2.1 Who's Covered? Designatim and Waivers 01 Regulated Small MS4s 2.2 -Urbanized
Areas: Definition and Description MinImum Control Measures 2.3 -Public Education and Oulreach 2.4 -Public Participation! Involvement 2.5 -Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination
2.6 -Construction Site Runoff Control 2.7 -Post·Construction RunoH Control 2.8 -Pollution Prevention!Good Housekeeping 2.9 -Permitting and Reporting; The Process and Requirements 2.10
-Federal and State·Operated MS4s: Program Implementation Construclion Program 3.0-Construction Program Overview 3.1 -Construction Rainlall Erosivity Waiver Industrial "No Exposure" 4.0
-Conditional No Exposure Exclusion for Industrial Activity Storm Water Phase II Final Rule Construction Site Runoff Control Minimum Control Measure This fact sheet profiles the Constroction
Site Runoff Control minimum control measure, one of six measures that the operator of a Phase II regulated small municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) is required to include in
its storm water management program to meet the conditions of its National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. This fact sheet outlines the Phase II Final Rule requirements
and offers some general guidance on how to satisfy them. It is important to keep in mind that the small MS4 operator has a great deal of flexibility in choosing exactly how to satisfy
the minimum control measure requirements. Why Is The Control of Construction Site Runoff Necessary? Polluted storm water runoff from constroction sites often flows to MS4s and ultimately
is discharged into local rivers and streams. Of the pollutants listed in Table I, sediment is usually the main pollutant of concern. Sediment runoff rates from constroction sites are
typically 10 to 20 times greater than those of agricultural lands, and 1,000 to 2,000 times greater than those of forest lands. During a short period of time, constroction sites can
contribute more sediment to streams than can be deposited naturally during several decades. The resulting siltation, and the contribution of other pollutants from constroction sites,
can cause physical, chemical, and biological harm to our nation's waters. For example, excess sediment can quickly fiJI rivers and lakes, requiring dredging and destroying aquatic habitats.
What Is Required? Table 1 Pollutants Commonly Discharged From Construction Sites Sediment Solid and sanitary wastes Phosphorous (fertilizer) Nitrogen (fertilizer) Pesticides Oil and
grease Concrete truck washout Construction chemicals Construction debriS The Phase II Final Rule requires an operator of a regulated small MS4 to develop, implement, and enforce a program
to reduce pollutants in storm water runoff to their MS4 from construction activities that result in a land disturbance of greater than or equal to one acre. The small MS4 operator is
required to: o Have an ordinance or other regulatory mechanism requiring the implementation of proper erosion and sediment controls, and controls for other wastes, on applicable construction
sites; o Have procedures for site plan review of construction plans that consider potential water quality impacts; o Have procedures for site inspection and enforcement of contrul measures;
o Have sanctions to ensure compliance (established in the ordinance or other regulatory mechanism); 
a Establish procedures for the receipt and consideration of information submiued by the public; and a Determine the appropriate best management practices (BMPs) and measurable goals
for this minimum control measure. Suggested BMPs (Le., the program actions/activities) and measurable goals are presented below. What Are Some Guidelines for Developing and Implementing
This Measure? Further explanation and guidance for each component of a regulated smail MS4's construction program is provided below. Regulatory Mechanism Through the development of an
ordinance or other regulatory mechanism, the small MS4 operator must establish a construction program that controls polluted runoff from construction sites with a land distUIuance of
greater than or equal to one acre. Because there may be limitations on regulatory legal authority, the small MS4 operator is required to satisfy this minimum contrul measure only to
the maximum extent practicable and allowable under State, Tribal, or local law. Site Plan Review The smail MS4 operator must include in its construction program requirements for the
implementation of appropriate BMPs on construction sites to control erosion and sediment and otber waste at the site. To determine if a construction site is in compliance with such provisions,
the small MS4 operator should review the site plans submitted by the construction site operator before ground is broken. Site plan review aids in compliance and enforcement efforts since
it alerts the small MS4 operator early in the process to the planned use or non-use of proper BMPs and provides a way to track new construction activities, The tracking of sites is useful
not only for the smail MS4 operator's recordkeeping and reporting purposes, which are required under their NPDES storm water permit (see Fact Sheet 2.9), but also for members of the
public interested in ensuring that the sites are in compliance. Inspectwns and Penalties Once construction commences, BMPs should be in place and the small MS4 operator's enforcement
activities should begin, To ensure that the BMPs are properly installed, the small MS4 operator is required to develop procedures for site inspection and enforcement of control measures
to deter infractions. Procedures could include steps to identify priority sites for inspection and enforcement based on the nature and extent of the construction activity, topography,
and the characteristics of soils and receiving water quality. Inspections give the MS4 opemtor an opportunity to provide additional guidance and education, issue warnings, or assess
penalties. To conserve staff resources, one possible option for small MS4 operators is to have these inspections performed by the same inspector that visits the sites to check compliance
with health and safety building codes. In(Qrmatwn Submitted by the Public A final requirement of the small MS4 program for construction activity is the development of procedures for
the receipt and consideration of public inquiries, concerns, and information submitted regarding local construction construction activities. This provision is intended to further reinforce
the public participation component of the regulated small MS4 storm water program (see Fact Sheet 2.4) and to recognize the crucial role that the public can play in identifying instances
of noncompliance. The small MS4 operator is required only to consider the information submitted, and may not need to follow-up and respond to every complaint or concern. Although some
form of enforcement action or reply is not required, the small MS4 operator is required to demonstrate acknowledgment and consideration of the information submitted. A simple tracking
process in which submitted public information, both written and verbal, is recorded and then given to the construction site inspector for possible follow-up will suffice. What Are Appropriate
Measurable Goals? M easurable goals, which are required for each minimum control measure, are intended to gauge permit compliance and program effectiveness. The measurable goals, as
well as the BMPs, should reflect the needs and characteristics of the operator and the area served by its small MS4. Furthermore, they should be chosen using an integrated approach that
fully addresses the requirements and intent of the minimum control measure. An integrated approach for this minimum measure could include the following measurable goals: Target Date
Activity 1 year..., ........ Ordinance or other regulatory mechanism in place; procedures for information submitted by the public in place. 2 years ......... . Procedures for site inspections
implemented; a certain percentage rate of compliance achieved by construction operators. 3 years ........ .. Maximum compliance withordinance; improved clarity and reduced sedimentation of local waterbodies. 4 years ........ .. Increased numben; of sensitive aquatic organisms in local waterbodies. .. .. .. -----
Fact Sheet 2.6 -Construction Site R ..... JffControl Minimum Control Measure Page 3 Are Construction Sites Already Covered Under the NPDES Storm Water Program? Yes. EPA's Phase I NPDES
storm water program requires operators of construction activities that disturb five or more acres to obtain a NPDES construction storm water permit. General permit requirements include
the submission of a Notice of Intent and the development of a storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP must include a site description and measures and controls to prevent
or minimize pollutants in storm water discharges. The Phase II Final Rule similarly regulates discharges from smaller construction sites disturbing equal to or greater than one acre
and less than five acres (see Fact Sheet 3.0 for information on the Phase II construction program}. Even though all construction sites that disturb more than one acre are covered nationally
by an NPDES storm water permit. the construction site runoff control minimum measure for the the small MS4 program is needed to induce more localized site regulation and enforcement
effons. and to enable operators of regulated small MS4s to more effectively control construction site discharges into their MS4s. To aid operators of regulated construction sites in
their effons to comply with both local requirements and their NPDES permit, the Phase II Final Rule includes a provision that allows the NPDES permitting authority to reference a "qualifying
State, Tribal or local program" in the NPDES general permit for construction. This means that if a construction site is located in an area covered by a qualifying local program, then
the construction site operator's compliance with the local program constitutes compliance with their NPDES permit. A regulated small MS4's stonn water program for construction could
be a "qualifying program" if the MS4 operator requires a SWPPP, in addition to the requirements summarized in this fact sheet. The ability to reference other programs in the NPDES permit
is intended to reduce confusion between overlapping and similar requirements, while still providing for both local and national regulatory coverage of the construction site. The provision
allowing NPDES permitting authorities to reference other programs has no impact on, or direct relation to, the small MS4 operator's responsibilities under the construction site runoff
control minimum measure profiled here. Is a Small MS4 Required to Regnlate Construction SUes that the Permitting Authority has Waived from the NPDES Construction Program? No. If the
NPDES permitting authority waives requirements for storm water discharges associated with small construction activity (see l22.26(b)(15)(i}), the small MS4 operator is not required to
develop. implement, and/or enforce a program to reduce pollutant discharges from such construction sites. For Additional Information Contact "'T U.S. EPA Office of Wastewater Management
• Phone: 202260-5816 • E-mail: SW2@epa.goY • Internet: www.epa.gov/owmlswlphase2 Reference Documents .,., Storm Water Phase II Final Rule Fact Sheet Series • Internet: www.epa.govlowmlsw/phase2
.,., Stann Water Phase II Final Rule (64 FR 68722) • Internet: www.epa.gov/owmlsw/phase2 • Contact the U.S. EPA Water Resource Center Phone: 202 260-7786 E-mail: center.water-resource@epa.gov

CONSTRUCTION SITE STORM WATER RUNOFF CONTROL Phase II Minimum Control Measure Requirements and Items for Consideration The italicized text included below is the language for the "Construction
Site Storm Water Runoff Control" Minimum Measure taken from EPA's Final Phase II Rule. The Final Phase II Rule establishes the minimum requirements that TNRCC will use in drafting the
corresponding storm water permit for small municipalities in Texas. Cities and counties should use these requirements in planning their storm water management programs until TNRCC issues
the Texas permit (TNRCC must issue the Phase II municipal storm water permit by December 9, 2002). In addition to the regulatory language, included under each of the EPA reqUirements
is a list of items that are suggested by NCTCOG staff for consideration in developing the construction component of a municipal storm water management plan. These items were prepared
based on EPA's Erosion and Sediment Control Model Ordinance, the EPA Construction General Permit for Region 6, and the construction management programs of local Phase I cities. "Construction
site storm water runoff control. (i) You must develop, implement, and enforce a program to reduce pollutants in any storm water runoff to your small MS4 from construction activities
that result in a land disturbance of greater than or equal to one acre. Reduction ofstorm water discharges from construction activity disturbing less than one acre must be included in
your program if that construction activity is part of a larger common plan of development or sale that would disturb one acre or more. n "(ii)Your program must inClude the development
and implementation of, at a minimum:" "(A) An ordinance or other regulatory mechanism to require erosion and sediment controls, as well as sanctions to ensure compliance, to the extent
allowable under State, Tribal, or loca/law;" "(B) Requirements for construction site operators to implement appropriate erosion and sediment control best management practices" Considerations
Considerations • Use separate sediment and erosion control ordinance or incorporate into broader stormwater ordinance • Require submission of an erosion and sediment control plan (Storm
Water Pollution Prevention Plan -SWPPP) prior to earth disturbing activities • Require E&S plan!SWPPP to consider different phases of construction • Require contents of SWPPP to mirror
those required by EPA's Construction General Permit • Require usage of NCTCOG Construction BMP Manual • Require Construction BMP Manual recommended 70% site rating (E&S plan designed
to retain a minimum of 70% of potential sediment loss) • Require Site development permit • Who is required to get the site development permit -contractor, owner? • Require posting of
bond to cover cost of restorationlfinal stabilization if operator defaults • Require posting of a permit at the construction site • Require contractor to inspect and maintain BMPs •
Penalties for noncompliance: dollar amount, single fine per infraction, per day fine, stop work order, revocation of permit North Central Texas Council of Governments November 5, 2001

CONSTRUCTION SITE STORM WATER RUNOFF CONTROL Phase II Minimum Measure Considerations (Continued) "(C) Requirements for construction site operators to control waste such as discarded
building materials, concrete truck washout, chemicals, litter, and sanitary waste at the construction site that may cause adverse impacts to water quality" Considerations . • Require
chemicals, paint, petroleum, fertilizer, and pesticide to be stored in covered enclosure • Require proper disposal of empty/unused chemical containers • Require segregation of potentially
hazardous and non-hazardous wastes • Require covered waste containers • Require recycling of appropriate waste construction materials • Require sanitary facilities • Require designated
concrete washout area/controls • Require spill control procedures, notification "(D) Procedures for Site plan review which incorporate consideration ofpotential water quality impacts"
Considerations • Require concept plan review to consider development/construction impacts prior to preparation of detailed engineering plans • Integrate with development/construction
plan review or conduct separate review • Allowable time from application to approval or denial • Submission requirements: sketch of certain scale for concept plan review (if required),
detailed SWPPP for pre-construction approval, etc "(E) Procedures for receipt and consideration ofinfonnat/on submitted by the public" Considerations • Establishment of "hotline" phone
number • Maximum time to investigate and report back to person making complaint • Procedures for recordkeeping for complaints and corrective actions taken "(F) Procedures for site inspection
and enforcement of control measures' Considerations • Prioritize inspection of sites depending on size or type of development • Use existing inspection organizations (building, public
works) or create new department • Use the same inspectors for different stages of development and construction (clearing and grading, infrastructure, building construction) • Percentage
of construction sites to be inspected on an annual basis • Require notification from contractor prior to start or on completion of various stages of construction: start of clearing,
completion of installation of BMPs, completion of clearing, completion of grading, completion of final landscaping, etc • Procedures for correction of inadequate installation, maintenance,
or operation of erosion, sediment, and trash/debris controls • Procedures for record keeping for inspections and compliance actions North Central Texas Council of Governments November
5, 2001