B	C	D	E	F	G	H	I	J	K	L	M	N	O	P	Q	R	S	T	U	V	W	X	Y	Z	AA
1
2			DEQ Rulemaking								Tuesday, September 30, 2025
3										Workbook Summary
4			Increase water quality permit fees by up-to-3 percent to address increasing program costs.
5			Surface Water Mgmt. Section - water quality
6			Brief description of rule proposal					Worksheets				Do nothing severity rating
7			The 2005 Oregon Legislature adopted a recommendation that authorizes the EQC to raise fees annually in an amount not to exceed the anticipated increase in the cost of administering the permit program or 3 percent, whichever is lower . This rulemaking will increase water quality permit fees by up-to-3 percent. Permit fees will increase for most water quality permits. Fee increases were adopted by the EQC in 2007 (3 percent), 2008 (3 percent), 2010 (3 percent) and 2011 (2 percent).					1	Warm up
8								2	Basics				Risk rating low → high
9								3	Stakeholders				1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
10								4	Program			5	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
11								5	Environmental			0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
12								6	Timing				1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
13								7	Financial			5	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
14								8	Legal			0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
15								9	Technical				1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
16								10	Policy				1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
17								11	Political				1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
18								12	Implementation				1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
19
20
21		Schedule						legislative session
22
23			2012				2013				2014
24			Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4	Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4	Q1	Q2	Q3				Q4
25						<Start	---	Effective>
26							<AdvCom>
27							<Notice>
28								EQC
29		0	Environmental					The proposed rules involve
30			The proposed rules have no direct correlation to the environment.					Compliance			0	not involved
31								Penalties			0	not involved
32								Permits, certifications			6	involved, not new or expanded
33								Fees			4	increase existing fees, exempt from DAS approval
34								State Implementation Plan			0	not involved
35								Land use rules			7	involved
36			Ideal				Reality				Consequences
37			What we want to happen.				What we are trying to change.				What will happen if we don't change.
38			EQC adopts fee increase with little to no opposition from stakeholders.				Current fees do not provide enough revenue to keep up with increasing program costs.				Permitting program expenses may exceed fee revenue.
39			Alternatives considered				Research/data needed				Models
40			The only alternative is to do nothing.				BSD Budget Analyst will provide amount of fee increase using a budget model.				The budget model for fee increases already exists and has been used in previous years.
41		1	Public involvement					Affected parties
42			Interest in this proposal is low. DEQ plans to use our standing committee and estimates we will meet 1 times. We plan to ask the committee to provide advice.					Business		5	affects thousands currently regulated
43								Manufacturing		3	affects hundreds currently regulated
44								City/county/state		3	affects hundreds currently regulated
45								Individuals		3	affects hundreds currently regulated
46								Custom entry		0	not affected
47								Custom entry		0	not affected
48									Tuesday, September 30, 2025
49

	A	B	C	D	E	F	G	H	I
1	⧀ Summary
2			1	Warmed up
3
4
5				Action	Object	Driver
6				carry out	Oregon law	stable funding source			ï drop down Action/Object/Driver lists
7									ï drop down Action/Object/Driver lists
8									ï drop down Action/Object/Driver lists
9									ï drop down Action/Object/Driver lists
10									ï drop down Action/Object/Driver lists
11									ï drop down Action/Object/Driver lists
12									ï drop down Action/Object/Driver lists
13									ï drop down Action/Object/Driver lists
14									ï drop down Action/Object/Driver lists
15				Optional discussion
16
17				Process improvement
18	Go to top
19					Tuesday, September 30, 2025

	A	B	C	D	E	F	G	H	I	J	K	L	M	N	O	P	Q	R	S	T	U	V	W	X
1	⧀ Summary
2			2	Basics		Increase water quality permit fees by up-to-3 percent to address increasing program costs.
3
4				Brief description of rule proposal
5				The 2005 Oregon Legislature adopted a recommendation that authorizes the EQC to raise fees annually in an amount not to exceed the anticipated increase in the cost of administering the permit program or 3 percent, whichever is lower . This rulemaking will increase water quality permit fees by up-to-3 percent. Permit fees will increase for most water quality permits. Fee increases were adopted by the EQC in 2007 (3 percent), 2008 (3 percent), 2010 (3 percent) and 2011 (2 percent).
6
7					Rulemaking type	permanent		Chapter 340 divisions			45, 71												ï drop down Rulemaking type
8				Strengths/weaknesses going into rulemaking
9					The proposed rule…			Risk option			Riskometer
10					Had prior public input			definitely true			1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10			ï drop down to select options
11					Is backed by science			does not apply			1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10			ï drop down to select options
12					Is backed by data			definitely true			1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10			ï drop down to select options
13					Supports sustainability			does not apply			1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10			ï drop down to select options
14					Supports strategic directions			unknown at this time			1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10			ï drop down to select options
15					Furthers DEQ priorities			unknown at this time			1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10			ï drop down to select options
16					Would make DEQ's work easier			does not apply			1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10			ï drop down to select options
17					Would reduce DEQ costs			does not apply			1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10			ï drop down to select options
18
19
20							Risk average				1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
21				Ideal - What do we envision?
22				Short	EQC adopts fee increase with little to no opposition from stakeholders.
23				Long	blank
24				Reality - What are we trying to change?
25				Short	Current fees do not provide enough revenue to keep up with increasing program costs.
26				Long
27				Consequences - What will happen if we do nothing?
28				Short	Permitting program expenses may exceed fee revenue.
29				Long	blank
30				Alternatives to rulemaking already considered or to explore
31				Short	The only alternative is to do nothing.
32				Long	blank
33				Research or data needed to develop proposal
34				Short	BSD Budget Analyst will provide amount of fee increase using a budget model.
35				Long	blank
36				Models that could be leveraged for this proposal
37				Short	The budget model for fee increases already exists and has been used in previous years.
38				Long	blank
39							Land Use/SIP
40							Land use rules			Y													ï drop down to select Land Use/ SIP boxes
41
42							State Implementation Plan																ï drop down to select Land Use/ SIP boxes
43				Out of the scope for this proposal
44				Topic				Reasoning
45
46
47
48
49				Compliance, penalties, permits, certifications, registrations and licensing
50						Extent that proposal addresses listed items

51
52				Compliance
53				Penalties
54
55				Water quality																			ï drop down to select program
56
57				NPDES permit
58				Sewage Disposal Service Business Licensing
59				Stormwater Discharge permit
60				UIC Registration/Permits
61				WastewaterSystem Operator Certification
62				Water Pollution Control Facilities Permit
63				Water Quality Permit Program
64				Enter custom item here
65				Enter custom item here
66				Enter custom item here
67
68				Optional discussion
69
70				Reminders
71
72				Process improvement
73	Go to top
74								Tuesday, September 30, 2025

	A	B	C	D	E	F	G	H	I	J	K	L	M	N	O	P	Q	R	S	T	U	V
1	⧀ Summary
2			3	Stakeholders and public involvement			Increase water quality permit fees by up-to-3 percent to address increasing program costs.
3
4				"The Legislative Assembly finds and declares that it is the policy of this state that whenever possible the public be involved in the development of public policy by agencies and in the drafting of rules. The Legislative Assembly encourages agencies to seek public input to the maximum extent possible before giving notice of intent to adopt a rule. The agency may appoint an advisory committee that will represent the interests of persons likely to be affected by the rule, or use any other means of obtaining public views that will assist the agency in drafting the rule." ORS 183.333
5				Affected parties
6							Previously		Number affected
7					Not involved	Involved	unregulated		10s			100s			1,000s
8				Business											X						ï drop down to X boxes
9				Manufacturing								X									ï drop down to X boxes
10				City/county/state								X									ï drop down to X boxes
11				Individuals								X									ï drop down to X boxes
12				Custom entry																	ï drop down to X boxes
13				Custom entry																	ï drop down to X boxes
14				Stakeholder complexity
15
16
17				External stakeholder interest
18				Selecting an interest level indicates the group to the left is a stakeholder.
19				Group		Interest		Riskometer
20				Regulated community		minor interest		1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10				ï drop down interest options
21				Business and industry		minor interest		1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10				ï drop down interest options
22				Environmental groups		minor interest		1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10				ï drop down interest options
23				Public		no interest		1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10				ï drop down interest options
24				State legislators		no interest		1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10				ï drop down interest options
25				Federal environmental regulators		no interest		1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10				ï drop down interest options
26				Other state and federal agencies		no interest		1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10				ï drop down interest options
27				Local governments		minor interest		1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10				ï drop down interest options
28				Tribal nations		no interest		1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10				ï drop down interest options
29				Custom entry		does not apply		1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10				ï drop down interest options
30				Custom entry		does not apply		1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10				ï drop down interest options
31
32
33						Interest average		1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
34				Optional stakeholder information
35
36				Advisory committee appointment		Type of committee (check all that apply)
37				No advisory committee			Fiscal			Scientific
38				Use a standing committee			Policy			Rule language
39				Reconvene a committee			Technical			Legally required
40				Convene a new committee			Implementation			Custom entry
41				No. of meetings
42					1
43				Describe appointment strategy
44				Review fiscal impact statement only.
45				Describe how DEQ will use their input
46				Modify proposal as appropriate.
47
48	Advisory Committee Guide
49	ORS 183.333			Information meetings/hearings during public notice
50				Information meetings/hearings			Public notice

51				Portland area			No public notice
52				Regional			Public notice, no hearing
53					No. of meetings		Public notice with hearing
54					1,2 or 3		Re-notice
55				Optional hearing information
56				Number of hearings to be decided.
57				Reminders
58
59				Process improvement
60	Go to Top
61						September 30, 2025

	A	B	C	D	E	F	G	H	I	J	K	L	M	N	O	P	Q	R	S	T	U	V	W
1	⧀ Summary
2			4	Program			Increase water quality permit fees by up-to-3 percent to address increasing program costs.
3
4				Program name	Surface Water Mgmt. Section
5
6				Media	water																	ï drop down Media list
7				Program consequences of doing nothing					medium													ï drop down Severity list
8							Severity		1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
9				Loss of delegation
10				Failure to keep commitment
11				Failure to respond to legislature
12				Increased difficulty doing business
13				Unclear administrative rules
14				Loss of reputation
15				Loss of needed revenue
16				Enter custom consequences here
17				Subject program considerations
18
19				Other DEQ program considerations
20
21				Dependencies
22
23
24				Optional dependency information
25
26
27				Include program considerations in:						potential for minor complexity												ï drop down Complexity list
28							Complexity			1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
29				Committee charter																		ï drop down charter/map/proposal
30				Message map	Y
31				Proposal
32				Reminders
33
34				Process Improvement
35	Go to top
36							Tuesday, September 30, 2025

	A	B	C	D	E	F	G	H	I	J	K	L	M	N	O	P	Q	R	S	T	U	V	W	AA
1	⧀ Summary
2			5	Environmental			Increase water quality permit fees by up-to-3 percent to address increasing program costs.
3
4			The proposed rules		have no direct correlation to the environment.																	ï drop down environmental correlation
5				The team does not need to complete this worksheet.
6				Environmental consequences of doing nothing					does not apply
7							Severity		1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10				ï drop down Severity list
8				Science does not apply to Oregon
9				Delay in public health protection
10				Adverse effect on vulnerable populations
11	DEQ - EJ			Adverse effect on environmental justice communities
12				Enter custom environmental consequence here
13				Enter custom environmental consequence here
14				Describe environmental considerations
15
16				Environmental reach
17				Select the most expansive environmental reach of this proposed rule.
18
19
20				Links
21				2011-2015 EPA Strategic Plan
22				The proposed rules align with actions in the EPA Strategic Plan:
23				Taking Action on Climate Change/Improving AQ
24				Protecting America's Waters
25				Ensuring Safety of Chemicals/Preventing Pollution
26				Enforcing Environmental Laws
27				Cleaning Up Communities/Advancing Sustainable Development
28
29				the Natural Step
30				The proposed rules support the elimination of Oregon's contribution to:
31				The progressive buildup of substances extracted from the Earth's crust (for example, heavy metals and fossil fuels)
32				The progressive buildup of chemicals and compounds produced by society (for example, dioxins, PCBs, and DDT)
33				The progressive physical degradation and destruction of nature and natural processes (for example, over harvesting forests and paving over critical wildlife habitat)
34				Conditions that undermine people’s capacity to meet their basic human needs (for example, unsafe working conditions and not enough pay to live on)
35				Environmental data
36
37
38
39				Include environmental consideration in:						does not apply												ï drop down Complexity list
40				Committee charter				Complexity		1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10			ï drop down charter/map/proposal
41				Message map
42				Proposal
43				Reminders
44
45				Process Improvement
46	Go to top
47							Tuesday, September 30, 2025

	A	B	C	D	E	F	G	H	I	J	K	L	M	N	O	P	Q	R	S	T	U	V	W	X
1	⧀ Summary
2			6	Timing			Increase water quality permit fees by up-to-3 percent to address increasing program costs.
3
4				Rationale for developing proposal now - drivers
5				Anticipated EQC date of June 2013 to align with fiscal year.
6
7						Consider any challenges to the rulemaking for each activity below that may occurs during a legislative session (Q1 of even years, Q1 and Q2 of odd years.)
8
9						START		END
10						Year	Qtr	Year	Qtr
11				Start		2012	4																ï drop down Year and Qtr
12				Advisory committee		2013	1	2013	1														ï drop down Year and Qtr
13				Rulemaking notice		2013	1	2013	1														ï drop down Year and Qtr
14				EQC Action		2013	2																ï drop down Year and Qtr
15				Effective		2013	2																ï drop down Year and Qtr
16				Timing challenges
17				No challenge in meeting rule adoption		Compressed or extended timeframe for rule adoption					Difficult schedule, no contingencies allowed, uncontrolled changes to deadline likely
18
19
20				Include timing rationale above in:							potential for moderate complexity												ï drop down Complexity list
21				Committee charter				Complexity			1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10			ï drop down charter/map/proposal
22				Message map	Y
23				Proposal
24				Reminders
25				Potential delays may occur due to stakeholder opposition.
26				Process Improvement
27	Go to Top
28								Tuesday, September 30, 2025

	A	B	C	D	E	F	G	H	I	J	K	L	M	N	O	P	Q	R	S	T	U	V	W
1	⧀ Summary
2			7	Financial			Increase water quality permit fees by up-to-3 percent to address increasing program costs.
3
4				Funding source
5				Rulemaking	unknown
6				Implementation	unknown
7				Financial consequences of doing nothing						medium												ï drop down Severity list
8								Severity		1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
9								Optional notes
10				Loss of program funding
11				Failure to address costs
12				Loss of federal funding
13				Insufficient funding
14				Failure to address undue burden
15				Enter custom financial consequence here
16				Enter custom financial consequence here
17				Fees
18	ORS 291.055 (2)(d)			Action				DAS Fee Approval
19				Establish new fees				Required
20				Increase existing fees				Exempt under ORS 291.55(2)(d)
21				Decrease existing fees				Exempt under ORS 291.55(2)(m)
22
23				Authority to adopt, amend or repeal fees:			ORS
24				Fiscal impact on:			Impact			Riskometer
25				Regulated community			moderate cost increase			1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10			ï drop down Impact list
26				Small business (50 emp or less)			moderate cost increase			1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10			ï drop down Impact list
27				Business and industry			moderate cost increase			1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10			ï drop down Impact list
28				Local governments			moderate cost increase			1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10			ï drop down Impact list
29				Other state or federal agencies			moderate cost increase			1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10			ï drop down Impact list
30				Public			moderate cost increase			1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10			ï drop down Impact list
31				DEQ			no fiscal impacts			1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10			ï drop down Impact list
32				Program -Air Quality			no fiscal impacts			1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10			ï drop down Impact list
33				Custom entry			no fiscal impacts			1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10			ï drop down Impact list
34				Custom entry			no fiscal impacts			1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10			ï drop down Impact list
35
36
37							Fiscal impact average			1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
38				Optional fiscal discussion
39
40				Invoicing system
41				Develop new			CHRIS			TRAACS
42				Access database			HazWaste Invoicing			UST Invoice.new
43				Access template			SWIFT			WQSIS
44				Custom entry			Custom entry			Custom entry
45				Since an invoicing system is involved with this rulemaking, please consult with resource system owner early in the rulemaking process.
46				Description
47				Update fee amounts in WQSIS.
48				Include description above in:
49				Committee charter						potential for moderate complexity												ï drop down Complexity list
50				Message map	Y			Complexity		1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10

51				Proposal
52				Reminders
53
54				Process improvement
55	Go to Top
56							Tuesday, September 30, 2025
57