Project or issue

DEQ is proposing changes to its water quality permit fee structure. This rulemaking will increase established permit fees, as well as establish new or revised permit fees for municipal stormwater phase 1 and underground injection control major modifications, and the off-stream small-scale mining permit.

Purpose of your communication

Build support, inform persons affected by the permits, and involve all interested parties.

Key messages

1.  DEQ proposes an increase of existing water quality permit fees and new or revised fees for off-stream small-scale mining and major modifications of municipal stormwater phase 1 and underground injection control permits.

2.  DEQ is proposing the fee increases to account for elevated program costs and to recover costs associated with effectively implementing the permit program.

3.  The proposed fees will affect most, but not all, existing and future water quality permit holders. (A few exceptions exist – 700-PM, 2401, 2402.)

Background

In 2002, DEQ convened the Blue Ribbon Committee on Wastewater Permitting (comprised of industry, environmental and local government representatives) to recommend improvements to DEQ’s water quality permit program. In 2004, the committee published a report containing a variety of recommendations, including increasing fee revenue by no more than three percent each year to address increasing program costs. The annual fee increase recommendation was adopted into law in 2005, and DEQ implemented fee increases in 2007, 2008, 2010, 2011 and 2012.

Currently, major modification fees do not exist for municipal stormwater phase 1 and UIC permits. DEQ is proposing major modification fees for municipal stormwater phase 1 and UIC permits equivalent to 50.1 percent of new permit application fees. Using this methodology aligns the proposed major modification fees with existing major modification fees of other individual domestic permits. The major modification fees are proposed in an effort to recover costs associated with future major modification requests.

The mining permit (Water Pollution Control Facilities 600) regulates non-chemical off-stream mining of metals, primarily gold. Currently, small operations pay no application or annual fee. Large operations pay only a $207 application fee and no annual fee. Almost all of the permittees are small operations. There were approximately 200 permits in 2004; currently there are about 1,200 permits. The proposed application fee for small operations is intended to recover costs associated with the application process for this permit.

Goals and desired outcomes

The goal is for the rulemaking to be adopted and help move DEQ toward more stable funding for its water quality program.

Legal or program requirements

DEQ is doing the rulemaking voluntarily; there is no legal or program requirement that is directing DEQ into the rulemaking.

Constraints

Regarding the annual fee increase, existing permit fees may be increased by no more than three percent, regardless of whether program cost increases represent a greater percentage. Stakeholders may oppose fee increases due to poor program performance (specifically, the current high level of permit backlogs despite earlier fee increases to cover permit program operations).

Regarding the proposed application fee for WPCF 600 small operations, miners are generally outspoken and in opposition to all regulation of in-stream or off-stream mining. Cow Creek Tribes are interested in adequate regulation and protection of streams in their area. Some local governments are not supportive of DEQ efforts to protect water quality and beneficial uses. (Keep communications factual, value-neutral and non-judgmental.)

Worst-case scenario

Opposition could be substantial for proposed fees for the mining permit. The mining community is reasonably well organized. Overlap exits between 700-PM and WPCF 600 stakeholders. DEQ is renewing the 700-PM small suction dredge permit during this same time. Because this rulemaking is proposing only fees (no environmental regulation or de-regulation) participation from environmental groups is expected to be minimal.

Measurement

Goal: Through outreach, stakeholders understand the fee increase and are aware of the rulemaking. Fees are adopted in October 2013 and effective Nov. 1, 2013.

Method of measurement: How many questions are received following rule adoption? When were the rules adopted?  

People who may be interested and should be involved in outreach

Outreach group name (general or specific): Blue Ribbon Committee, mining stakeholders (miners and environmental groups)

Key issue or interest in this project/process: Members of the outreach group represent permittees who will be directly affected by fee increases.

Rationale for involving: Build support for fee increases.

Involved DEQ staff

Chris Clipper – subject expert, process expert, project assistant

Dennis Ades – Manager

Greg Aldrich – Administrator

Yongkie Hurd – review fiscal statement

Brian White – messaging/communications assistance

BSD Analyst – update fee database

Responsibilities and approval process

All rulemaking documentation to be completed by Chris, with approval by Dennis Ades, Greg Aldrich, Director’s Office and the Environmental Quality Commission.

Outreach tools

Tool: advisory committees, web content, Govdelivery, emails to legislators, newspaper display ads, postcards, public hearings, news releases, Secretary of State Bulletin

Target audience: permittees, stakeholders

Rationale: The tools will help achieve the purpose of this communication, which is to build support and involve stakeholders.

Timeline and task list

Review and approvals

_______________________________      _________

Plan completed             Date

_______________________________      _________

Communications and Outreach  review     Date  

_______________________________      _________

Manager’s approval           Date

Modifications reviewed and approved

Modification one: Short descriptive statement of modification

___________________________      _________

Communications and Outreach  review     Date  

_______________________________      _________

Manager’s approval           Date

RESULTS

Summary

Briefly describe whether you think this outreach effort worked. What were the major highlights? What were major concerns or unanticipated issues? Did it go according to plan? Did it stay within the expected timeframe?

Measurements

Include measurements listed in the plan and the actual results.

 Data: What did you measure?

 Result: What happened?

 Explanation: Did the result meet the threshold for success? Explain.

Analysis and follow-up

If outreach was a success, say so. If more or different outreach is needed, briefly describe options and provide some next steps for follow-up, if necessary.

bwhite, 2013-05-03T14:07:00Z
Using numeral to be consistent with your style below.

bwhite, 2013-05-03T14:07:00Z
DEQ style is to single space between sentences.

bwhite, 2013-05-03T14:07:00Z
Isn’t the main issue with program performance the backlogs, or are there other program problems warranting the “etc.”?

bwhite, 2013-05-03T14:17:00Z
These are informal comments and not part of an official public comment period, right?

bwhite, 2013-05-03T14:19:00Z
What does this date mean? Is that when we present at their meeting?