DRAFT
GUIDELINES
WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLANS
SECTION 303(e)
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1972
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D. C.
AUGUST 1973
-------
-------
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTI ON
Page
A. Forward I
B. Scope and Purpose I
C. Relation with Other Plans 6
D. Timing of Planning 7
E. Terminology 9
II. COMMENCING THE BASIN PLAN: CLASSIFICATION II
OF SEGMENTS
A. Assemble Existing Water Quality Data II
and Note Applicable Standards
B. Construct an Inventory of Existing II
Di schargers
C. Assemble Estimates of Existing Population, II
Employment and Land Use
D. Assemble or Construct Base Line Projections 12
of Population, Employment and Land Use for
the Next Twenty Years
E. Identify Segments and Disaggregate Basin Data 12
F. Classify Segments 12
G. Determine Order of Segment Analyses 14
III. WATER QUALITY SEGMENT ANALYSIS 15
A. Data Type I Segments 18
B. Data Type I I Segments 27
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS SEGMENT ANALYSIS 29
A. Introduction 29
B. Antidegradation 29
C. Steps in Preparation of Effluent 30
Limitations Segment Analysis
-------
V. ASSEMBLING THE BASIN PLAN 33
A. Introduction; Plan Submission 33
B. Basinwide Components 33
C. Individual Segment Analyses 36
APPENDIX A:
40 CFR Part 130
40 CFR Part 131
APPENDIX B:
Water Quality Analysis through Modeling
APPENDIX C:
Suggested Forms (Optional)
-------
TABLES
Page
I-A. Basin Planning System for 303(e) Plans 3
I-B. Level of Planning According to Segment
Classi ficat ion
I-C. Increases in Plan Complexity Over Time
I-D. Annual State Planning and Management
Actions
I-A. Load Allocations for Water Quality 17
Management
-------
INTRODUCTI ON
A. Forward.
These guidelines describe the preparation of initial plans pursuant
to the State continuing planning process (section 303(e) of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972). They are intended as
a general explanation of the 303(e) planning methodology, for use by State
and local personnel in preparing water quality management plans and by
members of the public who may wish to review and comment on the plans
during their development. Additional guidelines will be issued regarding
assessment of municipal investment requirements and for plan elements to
be included in later plans, including guidelines on nonpoint sources, land
use and clean Iakes/eutrophication.
The 1972 Amendments establish a national goal of water quality suitable
for fishing and swimming by mid-1983, and they call for a two-stage program
for attaining that goal. The principal means of water quality control for
point sources of pollution will be prescribed, uniform levels of effluent
limitations. Limitations to be achieved by the first stage, mid-1977, will
be based on current technology, which must be supplemented in individual
cases by any higher level effluent limitations necessary to achieve
applicable water quality standards. Where necessary, higher prescribed
control levels are to be achieved to meet the 1983 requirements.
Section 303(e) planning (basin planning) is a major element in the
State water quality management system for implementing these requirements
and for defining and achieving the desired water quality. Each plan will
provide for orderly water quality management by:
Outlining a planorganizing information and selecting
a cost effective plan.
Determining prioritiesassessing water quality and abatement
problems and needs throughout the basin and establishing pri-
orities, which will be the basis for awarding grant assistance,
processing permits and taking other needed steps to achieve
water quality goals.
Scheduling actionsetting forth compliance schedules or target
abatement dates and indicating necessary State and local activi-
ties such as timely permit processing and construction grant awards.
-------
Coordinating planningestablishing goals and identifying
needs and priorities for other planning activities, i.e.,
local 201 facility decision plans and 208 areawide plans,
and reflecting the results of those activities.
The basic steps to accomplish this planning are set forth in these
guidelines. A summary of the basic 303(e) planning system explained in
these guidelines is shown in Table I-A.
B. Scope and Purpose.
A basin plan is a five year water quality management plan for the
streams, rivers, and tributaries and the total land and surface water
area in one of the 267 basins defined by EPA, or any other basin unit
agreed upon by the State(s) and the Regional Administrator(s). The pur-
pose of the plan is to coordinate and direct the State's water quality
decisions on a river basin scale. The plan is neither a broad water and
related land resources plan nor a basinwide facilities plan; it is a docu-
ment that identifies the basin's water quality problemsincluding a
determination of existing water quality, applicable standards and signi-
ficant point and nonpoint sources of pollutionand sets forth a cost
effective remedial program for those problemsincluding effluent limita-
tions or other control strategies; identification of 201 facility decision
planning and 208 areawide planning needs; priorities for municipal facili-
ties planning and construction grants and for industrial permit processing,
and the timing of plan implementation.
Except in the simplest of situations, basin planning is conducted
through the analysis of individual segments (see 40 CFR §130.2(m)) as
described in Chapters M, III and IV of these guidelines. The classifica-
tion of a segment determines the order and level of planning for the segment.
(See Table I-B.)
303(e) basin management planning and actual water quality management
in the basin are continuing, integrated processes for taking immediate
program actions. Of necessity, the initial plan will be based largely on
existing or readily acquired new data and will derive its courses of action
from existing plans or preliminary outlines of alternatives. This initial
plan will be periodically reviewed as additional or more current informa-
tion and knowledge are obtained, initial objectives are accomplished, other
planning is completed and available resources and capabilities increase.
The initial plan will be expanded and strengthened over time to produce
sounder management decisions and direct further abatement actions, such as
better nonpoint source controls, as they become feasible. (See Table I-C.)
-------
C
I
U C71 >-
OJ TO O
4-> C >+-
TO TO
SEC
TO ;=
>- in
4J Q. TO
- .0 Q.
Q.. 4-1 TO
E TO C OJ -C
O 3 QJ -C O
O O- E 4->^
TO in
I- >-
to
O)
c
c
c
TO
O_
O
in
TO
CD
I TO
TO O
CT
a. i- ~S 'I
>, aJ . i_
I- 4-J 0)
TO f* 4*
ro 2 TO QJ
OJ 1- I 4-J
O) O QJ
4-1 TO M- X in
o c TO in
QJ OJ TO QJ E in -
c E > OJ m
aj . LI_ m T3
in >. 4-" o m o)
4-< ro TO OJ
- C 4-1 C
(ft ^ t-
QJ TO OJ
0)
Q.
TO
QJ in 4-J CT
l/> 0)
>. in i- u
- -O O QJ
>^ TO 4->
C 4-J O 1- TO
< Q. 3
OJ
E -a ro
OJ TO Q-
> O
Q) O
!c E 'c
1 E
(DO
(D
J3
fD
l+-4->
r- >,
ro M-
QJ c
a. TO in
>^ m
I- T3 TO
c
ro ro o
4J OJ
TO 4-> I- .
Q O
OJ .>
r TO
c
ro
OQ .^-
OQ
X
-a
4-i in c
c a. oj
OJ TO Q-
E -c a.
4-> en <_> <.
O TO 0) *'
o T3 in
in -.
4->
c
01
QJ a.
in TO
c/o
I
I/I
I/)
(TJ
C
O
Q.
ro . o
TO -~-^
i c a>
O "D LL.
L- ^ O
TO TO ^ "O
CS- 3 OJ
O1 -C 4-i
aL cn m
LJ- u 3 OJ
Q) O CTl
<_)
O
fO
-=r 3
i i
i i
< CQ
X X
en
to
(_>
X
T3 TD T3
C C C
a) CD a)
Q. D. Q.
Q. Q- Q.
TO oj
in E c
4->l_.-
c o E
E c
01
OJ
to OJ
OJ in o 4->
4J aj aj 4J
QJ
"
c in c
4-> 3 OJ Q-
E - E TO
_i ._ - i_ in QJ j:
uj Q.C o in-a4->(_>
.
E O in a) TO
O i- Q. in c: TO
C.
TO
JD
E in
0) TO in
in 4J TO
C
Q.
TO
in TO
<. "a
OJ
O in
-------
TABLE I-B
Level of Planning According to Segment Classification
Component Type of Segment
Inventory and categorization of EL, WO.
individual discharges.
Assessment of needs for publicly EL, WO.
owned treatment works.
Already established schedules of EL, WQ.
compliance, and target dates of
abatement for significant discharges
not on a compliance schedule.
Where data exist or are readily WO only,
available, an assessment of total
maximum daily loads necessary to
meet water quality standards for
the criteria beino violated.
Where data exist or are readily WQ only.
available, effluent limitations for
significant discharges consisting of
already established effluent limita-
tions or, if none, target limitations,
as necessary to achieve water quality
standards.
Where existing or readily available WQ only,
data are insufficient for waste load
analysis, the design and initiation
of a data col lection and waste load
allocation program, including a schedule
for execution of the program.
Assessment of nonpoint source pollu- WQ only,
tion and, where applicable, establishment
of needed control measures after 1-1-75.
-------
Table I-C
Increases in Plan Complexity over Time
Present unt!I July I , 1974
Management provisions (data assembly, discharge inventories, etc.)
Waste load analysis in WO segments based on existing or readily
obtained data.
Compliance schedules or target abatement dates.
Present until January I, 1975
All of the above pI us:
Data acquisition programs as necessary.
Waste load analyses based on existing and acquired data.
Assessment of municipal needs, to govern Federal construction
grant assistance.
Plans completed after January I, 1975
All of the above pI us:
Nonpoint source analysis and control, as feasible, including
State programs under section 208.
Land use controls, if necessary and feasible.
-------
303(e) planning during calendar years 1973-74 will be primarily
directed towards managing the abatement and control of point sources of
pollution in the basin for the immediate five year period and laying the
groundwork for subsequent planning. The basic objectives of initial
plans are:
To establish stringent but realistic effluent limitations and
compliance schedules or target abatement dates for point
sources, leading to achievement of water quality goals.
To identify municipal needs.
To direct construction grant awards and permit issuance on an
abatement priority basis, leading to implementation of those
limitations and schedules.
To identify and schedule further needed actions, including
localized planning and additional data collection.
The basin planning steps described in 40 CFR Part 131 and further
discussed in these guidelines are necessary to accomplish these manage-
ment objectives properly. Thus, gathering water quality and area trend
information, classifying segments and constructing discharge inventories
provide the basis for determining discharge load allocations and effluent
limitations, where needed, assessing municipal needs, and establishing
dates for the timely attainment and maintenance of water quality standards.
This information will guide specific near term management actions, such as
permit and construction grant processing; these actions will be further
programmed on a yearly basis in the annual State strategy. (See section 106
of the Act and 40 CFR 35, Subpart B.) The information will also identify
the basin's longer range planning needs. In this way, the written plan becomes
a visible statement illustrating orderly analysis and a coherent program for
immediate and continuing action and planning.
C. Relation with Other Plans.
Three types of water quality plans are provided by lawbasin plan-
ning (section 303(e)), facilities decision planning (section 201) and
areawide waste treatment management planning (section 208).
Basin plans are the water quality management plans for the waters of
the State. Viewed together they provide, statewide, an analysis of water
quality and waste source problems and a description of overall remedial
goals. Their primary use is as a management guide for area-specific actions
such as grant awards, permit processing and the identification of needed
intensive local planning. However, the 303(e) planning process may also be
used as the mechanism for carrying out particular statewide programs, such
as areawide planning by the State (section 208(a)(6) of the Act) or certain
statewide nonpoint source planning (section 208(b)(4)).
-------
By contrast with the statewide character of 303(e) planning, facilities
decision planning under section 201 of the Act and areawide waste treat-
ment management planning under section 208 are limited to a local area
within a basin. In considering particular treatment or control requirements,
they confront problems of site location and plant size and design, and
they study the cost effectiveness of alternative waste treatment management
techniques and systems. Section 201 planning is planning directly related
to a publicly owned treatment works to be constructed with Federal grant
money; section 208 planning provides comprehensive planning and regula-
tion in an area having substantial water quality control problems and must
result in a management program covering all point and, if appropriate,
nonpoint sources of pollution in that area.
The need for 201 and 208 planning may be identified through the
303(e) analysis, and 201/208 plan objectives must be consistent with
objectives established by the plan for the basin in which they are located.
CorrelativeIy, subsequent revisions of 303(e) plans pursuant to the con-
tinuing planning process must reflect the conclusions of the more detailed
subplanning within the basin. Table I-D reflects the relation between
plans.
D. Timing of Planning.
I. Timing as between types of planning.
Full implementation of the planning and management provisions of the
Act is sequenced over time. Elements which are postponed include complete
facilities planning (FY75; §20l(g)(2)), areawide planning (at least 1976;
§§208(a)(l), 208(a)(2), 208(b)(D), estab I i shment of total loads (1975;
§303(d)(2)) and liability for failure to obtain an NPDES permit (after
December 31, 1974; §402(k)). In contrast, the law mandated development of
the 303(e) process within 120 days after enactment and provided that no
State would be authorized to participate in the permit system until it had
a 303(e) planning process. Thus, the Act placed the initial planning
impetus on 303(e). This allows concentration of limited current resources
to achieve two immediate program needs: permit issuance including, where
time allows, determination through 303(e) planning of any needed effluent
limitations higher than base level; and the building of an orderly statewide
framework for the increasingly complex and area-specific planning scheduled
to foI low.
Basin plans covering the next five years and current facilities deci-
sion plans are interdependent. Facilities decisions regarding the number,
location and magnitude of waste discharges in the basin are necessarily
addressed during the preparation of basin plans. By contrast, areawide
planning involves a delayed start-up and additional complex planning
-------
\
\
x
e: -H
H i 1
sn co
rt 3
X) 0-
C 1-
H CJ
o ui rt
r^ 3 **
(-> -f-i
O 4->
tn TH in
§ tx'x
CX t)
c cit£*
r- -H
cc rt o
5«
\lx
tn
r-l ^ 4-J
H cj S rt tn
u s in no m
re -H 4-» c
H DO C '" O
C o tn u
U GJ E GJ
ft GJ rH --
f4 - H 3 i/j
« tn -t T3 T)
J C 3 0 t-
XrH S""5 £
/} CX H in rt
T
c
O
*-»
(A
(U tn -M
E JH OJ
rH P 000.
O
1 1
I-
s
a,
rt
^
3
c
S "
ri <
O V)
--i n
go
0
ei *""
/i u
t-2
ITi CQ
a g
il
^H
Kl O
a
S 3
4-> C
art
(D C -»
rH M O t9
U 4-> -» CX
.H 4-> -H
g r< U U
3 O p -H
i 1 Ul
rt o
3 -H
V
a
4-
L
C
*T
Munici
P ^
I-.
L. CO
O 0 CJ
CX +-» 00
tn c
H -fH
- i 1 |~t
00^ 3
12 QT3
C -» O
3 O T3
O-, «
o p o
,
X O O
0 U
si-3
ra *
i- *j
o rt m -
£-| S-
*-* H
tn 3* rH
n u-< 4->
O M-t O
I-H m DO
tn
D cc rt
4-1 C 4-*
3-H
4J 4->
o -/i a>
rH -H tn
^
rt
X
00
s
T3
"0
O
tn
C
« S
,
c.
gfe.3 -§..25
E LJ m (-
u
4-*
4->
rt
3
§
£
' C
o
2 H- 1
n
-H ,f,
i »
*u
- o
fi "3
< rt
o o
M CO
gi-
rt
O 4->
fe
O
*j
^
m
in
o
in
8
g
n
5)
X JU
9
3
rt: O
°"-3 'S
rt
rt DC
c
c3 *>n
o3 j
t-.
O
73
o
o
X
o
*-"
3
CJ
(-,
4->
O
T3
S
2 §
6 3
H O
a e
4-1 .p-
c o
«
I
C,
ls-%
CJJ C
rt
|3
x*6
"H in
i t
rt -
3 C
CT-H
in
!-, rt
rt c
;£ -H
Z
E
n
1
U
o
CX
&s
a
s
'u
yi
i-*
O
"O
g
/s
in
4)
tn
rt
C
in
1
(U
p.
S,
H tn
°g
O rH
-< 4-*
^
i
^
in
i-<
en
O
O
r-j
3
O
-s
o
i
cn
c
rt
CX
^ tfl
o -*
rH
'S C
CX
4-J
C T)
O C
4-) F3
c
4-
b
c
c
c-
'c
f-
c
_c
4-
c
g
rg
in ^^
c 3 tn
U r-*
c a
CJ
L ^H
C £
-H r^
ni (-
Lo rt
T
S
>
rt >;
t- o
in ,c
00
-* J-
1
^
5 4-»
c "o
I5
L
°-£3
a
3
O
tn
4-
r-
§
C
c
" J2 «
H -f-
m > v 4-
U ro O
0 -r-(
fe-sl
1
in
s
00
s
CX
in
rH
tj
rt
g
sL
a
ement.
uiidert
£o
.2n
SIS
« 1
I 1
"^ S
I =
M -3
SJ 3
4-> U
O
o e t
+-> I-. to
c3 CO O
CO (-.
ra oo o
0-5
M C C -
i-t "H o m
to rt -r- o
i-. *j u
4-J rt V*
J-H 3
CX (H 4V O
c o u*. 'Ji
M *-» -rt ft>
.52 .5 "
2S. -i|
t- o < a
in w
o o
5 h
'r. O
t* tn
cxo
r-4
vn 3
o-p
-^ «
t/I-3
13 i
i
4-
a
4-1
ig
t« T
p. i-.
i CO
.SB
t/1 CX
tn o
g-°S .
u
4.
»-C tn
I/I 4J C
"4-» o 5
rt "^ 4-1
^ N.
^
o
'
O 13
0 O 3
ra rt s
+J g *J
3 i- x rt
t GO *-> 3
|£ S i
CX S <
^ o
00 r-t -H
o u. 3 4J
rsi o O M
' c ^r u
G m TH
5 (§ S |:
3 a> o t-
r-i .c y o eu
O-, 4-» (3 M-i 4-»
M rt
S l-^feS
t- (!) C
Jc u C o
O t- t) f.
H 3 > 4-1
<-" O 6
M ni m o c
H S 4-1 '^
C CJ O S
0 *J C. >-,
z -as-0 s
O C T3 O
3 ^ e a -a
g 5-S5K
w m *-> o
rt m j-. > i-t
4-> O O O «-«
W S. O T3 rt
T
8
J-
-------
determinations. It will be directed toward the law's longer range goals,
including achievement of the levels of treatment required for July I, 1983.
2. Timing among various basin plans. (See 40 CFR §130.42.)
While all basin plans are to be completed by June 30, 1975 (see
40 CFR §!30.42(a)), the timing for completion of individual basin plans
will vary according to the severity of water quality problems in the
planning area and such other factors as the State may deem appropriate.
Factors may include plan complexity or the number of sources in an area
that are high on the State's municipal and industrial priority lists.
The schedule of plan preparation developed as a part of the continuing
planning process will establish basin plan completion dates.
3. Timing of basin plan coverage and revision.
A basin plan should generally cover a five year period. However,
completed basin plans should be revised whenever necessary, including
revisions to reflect information newly developed by facilities plans,
permits or permit applications or the results of additional monitoring or
surveillance. (See 40 CFR §131.404.) Revised plans should be expanded to
include all elements required for plans completed at the date of the revision,
(See Table I-C.) Any permit compliance schedule milestones that are re-
quired to track plan implementation should be incorporated into the appro-
priate basin plan at the first plan revision following issuance of the
permit. (See 40 CFR § I 31.209(a)(ii).) Other permit information should
also be taken into account in that revision.
E. Terminology.
Certain terms used frequently in these guidelines require a brief
explanation. The regulations contain further definitions. (See 40 CFR
§130.2.)
"303(e) plans," "basin plans" and "water quality management
plans" are the samethey all refer to the plans described
in these gui deli nes.
"Loads" or "loadings" are quantities of pollutants in the water.
The total load is an instream amount; the total maximum daily
load is the amount which may be added by all sources (without
violating water quality standards); load allocation refers to
the amount of the total maximum daily load which, it is determined,
may be added by an individual source. The load allocations are
reflected in effluent limitations (defined in §130.2) assigned to
individual point sources.
"Targets" are goals. They are not directly enforceable but
become binding when incorporated into a permit or other Federal
or State regulatory mechanism. For example, a target abatement
-------
10
date is a single date when it is expected that needed remedial
actions will have been completed. This is in contrast with a
permit's schedule of compliance, which is a formal, binding
sequence of dates for implementing specific actions. (See
section 502(17) of the Act.)
"Milestones" are interim dates in a schedule of compliance or
other action timetable. Their inclusion allows measurement of
progress towards achievement of the final objective. (Require-
ments for permit schedules of compliance are set forth at
40 CFR §124.44.)
-------
II. COMMENCING THE BASIN PLAN; CLASSIFICATION OF SEGMENTS
This chapter describes the initial steps to be taken in commencing
the basin plan, including the classification of segments. Planning
should proceed pursuant to the approved State continuing planning process.
Citations in this chapter are to relevant regulations under Part 40 of
the Code of Federal Regulations. (See Appendix A.) The applicable
regulations should be consulted throughout the plan's preparation.
A. Assemble existing water quality data and note applicable standards.
(§§131.201, 131.202.)
Existing water quality and related hydrologic and hydraulic data may
consist of outputs from ongoing State or Federal permanent monitoring sta-
tions or fields surveys, from permit applications or other discharge-related
data, or from other sources. Data should be sufficiently current and
accurate. Applicable water quality standards should be noted.
B. Construct an inventory of existing dischargers. (§§130.2(o), 130.27,
131.201, 131.206, 131.208, 131.211.)
The inventory of dischargers should identify and locate all significant
dischargers (defined as any discharger causing serious or critical water
quality problems relative to the segment to which it discharges). Existing
information as to the amount, characteristics and treatment of the effluents
from each significant source, including information from National Pollutant
Discharge Information System ("NPDES") applications or permits, if any,
should be assembled and should be described in the plan. Significant
nonpoint sources should be included, although control of nonpoint sources
may be deemphasized until after the first round of NPDES permits for point
sources has been fully processed. Minor sources which are required to
obtain permits under the NPDES should be identified. A description of their
effluents is not necessary, although a notation of readily available infor-
mation respecting minor sources may be helpful in order to estimate the
extent of their combined, total impact on the overall water quality situation,
C. Assemble estimates of existing population, employment and land
use. (§§131.206(b)(2), 131.211, 131.212.)
Estimates of the existing population, employment, and land use in the
basin should be assembled as a basis for assessing existing patterns of the
generation of pollutants and as a basis for projecting the amounts and spatia
distribution of future waste loads. Population data are available from the
Bureau of the Census; emp oyment data are available from the Bureau of Labor
Statistics (U. S. Department of Commerce). Land use data should be obtained
from official planning agencies within the basin. To the extent possible,
in-stream qualMy data assembled pursuant to Paragraphs A and B of this
chapter should be combined with population, employment, and land use data
to construct a materials balance for each significant pollutant to provide a
basis for identifying the most significant sources of pollution within the
area.
-------
D. Assemble or construct base line projections of population, employment
and land use for the next twenty years. (§§I 31.206(b)(2), 131.211, 131.212.)
Base line projections of population, employment and land use should be
assembled if available or otherwise constructed. These projections provide
a basis for making base line projections of future patterns of waste load
generation. These projections should cover the next 20 years in 5-year
increments. They should be consistent with demographic and economic projec-
tions developed by the Bureau of Economic Analysis (U. S. Department of Com-
merce) and the Economic Research Service (U. S. Department of Agriculture)
and with projections used as a basis for State planning for air quality
management; the use of any projections that deviate significantly from BEA
should be justified. BEA projections are available at level of States, BEA
economic regions, Water Resource Council regions, and for Standard Metropolitan
Statistical Areas, all of which generally include more than a single county.
If it is necessary to disaggregate BEA projections, the assumptions made in
the disaggregation process should be made explicit. Historical trends of
county population and employment data are available upon request to BEA.
Land use projections should be assembled with the assistance of officially
designated planning agencies in the area.
Using these projections and the best available estimates of waste load
generation per unit of activity, project the incremental impact of a five
year growth in waste loads from residential, commercial, industrial, and
nonpoint sources. To assure that the plan is consistent with longer range
development as well as providing for water quality management during the
immediate five year planning period, these projections should cover the
next twenty years in five year increments.
E. Identify segments and disaggregate basin data. (Preamble to 40 CFR
Part 131 and §§130.2(m), 130.11, 131.203.)
Each segment (as defined in §130.2) should be identified, and the
assembled data for the basin (paragraphs A-D, above) should be disaggre-
gated by segment. Any departures from the segment identification contained
in the State continuing planning process should be noted.
F. Classify segments.
An initial list of segment classifications was submitted by each
State as a part of the State continuing planning process submittal.
The basin plan should reevaIuate and refine those initial classifications.
Each segment must be classified as either "water quality" ("WQ")
or "effluent limitation" ("EL") in accordance with the following defini-
tions (see §§130.II, 131.203):
-------
Water qua Iity class. Any segment where it is known
that water quality does not meet applicable water quality
standards and which is not expected to meet water quality
standards even after the application of the effluent limita-
tions required by sections 30l(b)(l)(A) and 30l(b)(l)(B)
of the Act. JY
Effluent limitation class. Any segment where water
quality is meeting and will continue to meet applicable
water quality standards or where there is adequate demon-
stration that water quality will meet applicable water
quality standards after the application of the effluent
limitations required by sections 30l(b)(l)(A) and 30l(b)(l)(B)
of the Act.
WQ segments may be further classified as follows:
Data Type I: Segments for which data are sufficient
to execute load allocations without additional monitoring.
Perfect and complete data on water quality and all
point and nonpoint sources will never exist: Suf-
ficiency of data is a question of judgment.
Data Type II: Segments for which additional monitoring
is needed to acquire sufficient data to classify the segment
with certainty or to execute waste load allocations.
The classification process involves consideration of the disaggregated
basin information, including the discharger inventory, water quality data
and growth trends and baseline projections of waste loads. Classification
should be based on measured instream water quality if available or, if not,
the estimated instream water quality in the area of maximum pollutant concen-
tration. Segment classification should take into account the contribution of
pollutants from adjoining segments by assuming that water quality standards
will be met (e.g., upstream sources will comply with applicable effluent
limitations), unless violations in adjoining segments are caused by nonpoint
sources not expected to be abated within the classification period, in which
case the estimated substandard water quality must be recognized. In areas
of uncertainty, the segment is classified "WQ-II."
_[_/ The effluent limitations required by sections 30l(b)(l)(A) and (B)
are base level limitations consisting generally of best practicable control
technology currently available (BPT) for industrial point sources and
secondary treatment for municipal sources. BPT and secondary treatment
are defined in regulations issued and to be issued by the Administrator.
-------
14
G. Determine order of segment analyses.
The general order for conducting individual segment analyses should be
determined. While the order of analyses is a local planning decision, it
is generally appropriate, if feasible, to
Commence analyses of complex segments promptly, to assure their
time Iy complet ion.
Analyze adjacent or interrelated segments simultaneously, to
assure coordination of interdependent decisions.
-------
15
III. WATER QUALITY SEGMENT ANALYSIS
Introduction
Each water quality segment analysis should be prepared as described
in this chapter. Planning should proceed pursuant to the approved State
continuing planning process. Citations are to the relevant sections of
40 CFR Part 131 (see Appendix A to these guidelines), which should be con-
sulted throughout the segment analysis.
The thrust of planning in water quality segments is to establish
effluent limitations for significant sources and to indicate the time for
implementing these limitations. This provides a basis for the permits,
construction grant awards and other actions which lead to achievement of
the limitations and consequent protection of water quality.
The limitations must be at least as stringent as reauired by section
30l(b)(l) of the Act, which provides as follows:
"(b) In order to carry out the objective of this Act there
shaI I be achieved
(IMA) not later than July I, 1977, effluent
limitations for point sources, other than publicly
owned treatment works, (i) which shall require the
application of the best practicable control tech-
nology currently available as defined by the
Administrator pursuant to section 304(b) of this
Act, or (ii) in the case of a discharge into a
publicly owned treatment works which meets the
requirements of subparagraph (b) of this paragraph,
which shall reauire compliance with any applicable
pretreatment requirements and any requirements
under section 307 of this Act; and
(B) for publicly owned treatment works in
existence on July I, 1977, or approved pursuant
to section 203 of this Act prior to June 30, 1974
(for which construction must be completed within
four years of approval), effluent limitations
based upon secondary treatment as defined by the
Administrator pursuant to section 304(d)(l) of this
Act; or
-------
(C) not later than July I, 1977, any more
stringent limitation, including those necessary
to meet water quality standards, treatment
standards, or schedules of compliance, established
pursuant to any State law or regulation (under
authority preserved by section 510) or any other
Federal law or regulation, or required to implement
any applicable water quality standard established
pursuant to this Act."
The definition of water quality segment is that it is a segment
where application of the section 30l(b)(l)(A) and (B) requirements by a I I
sources would be insufficient to achieve water quality standards. It
follows that in such a segment the law requires that some significant
point sources must be subjected to controls beyond the best practicable
treatment ("BPT")/secondary treatment effluent limitations prescribed by
the Administrator, or some nonpoint sources must be controlled in order
to achieve standards, or some combination of point and nonpoint source
treatment or control must be implemented. It does not follow that such
controls will be necessary for all sources nor for all parameters of sources
requiring such controls: the base level BPT/secondary treatment limita-
tions will be adequate for all parameters discharged by some sources, and
even with sources that must achieve higher reductions in some parameters,
base level limitations will be sufficient for other parameters.
The segment analysis must define the specific problems causing the
water quality segment classification; identify the contributing responsible
sources and consider alternative remedial measures. Separate alternatives
may be derived by varying the load allocations for each discharger and thus
varying the responsibility for abatement as between sources or classes of
sources.
Modeling is generally the appropriate method of ascertaining total
maximum daily loads and determining the effects of the proposed alternative
abatement strategies. The modeling technique selected depends on the nature
and complexity of the problem. The technique should represent the minimum
level of sophistication needed to provide for accurate determinations.
(See Appendix B.)
Following the development and analysis of alternatives, a cost
effective waste treatment management strategy is to be established for
implementation in the segment. Where appropriate, the detailed strategy
will be developed through 201 or 208 planning.
Table I II-A illustrates the method and use of the load allocation
process.
-------
17
..,
--*
^
1=
s
~^
~
^
§
3
3;
_
±
2
ex
~?
^
^r
c
5
;=
p
r-
1/3 c;
*-> O
o B
^
-y
j-a "
n CD ft
r"t r-.
n
___
rt
o
rt
C
y
.S
|
4-t T:
> o - c
^ O r-
x: o u
O *j u", r
-O O nj j;
*~J 1A ^
Cj X^-
3 'J rH C
O ^- CX C
** C "5" '
c; '
S
1
w i -^
y , , £ , OQ
C 3 13 c o o
C G ^ 3 0
OC31/5 OD0 +-1
«.2 3 B) .S p
*^3 *-* "O H 4-J C ££
rH '- -H O *-> C 2 "
Cfl O rH J^ -H -H rt ^
3 -r-* -r-t U C O O
A C
^ rH ^ rt
»c t> v. r,
rM O 0
rH 4-> in
o. c +> c
<" £ in n
^r
i X X ' *^3
4-) I-H < rt -Ji o
C D. C- p ^ tj O
n r~, c» >- C- u u
C r3 ra O -f G X
- Su.M^-l0
AO - (/i cfl B* O *->
-J a, 3 -HO
0 E U ^ r-4 C
o C.-H in "3 - -**-*
j- rt - - c. pj-(
k o t. y; <:- ^
^ ^ o ' ^ ~" u
*3 "" - r; c c
^ % o o D r> -^j
o c v- e - c
r- O t*. 4« +j 4-» -»- r;
DC -. x: rt rt
*- ^ r3 o ^ O > *-
O ^ o > *-» ^ + ^
-1 ° d5 ° , *2 P
^-. 3 r-i v- rt .*(-,
u 0 o -£ b +"
3 ^r-.j^x:*-'^.'1
'T"
in
G c-
0 t3 ;p
7 !!A <
fi (id.
8
L) O
3 "-M in
T3 c c:
C 00
O "H
O tiO O 4-»
LT, C *H
CJ B -r-* C
rH I r-l fNJ
o y 4-1 ex tn
rt C r- 5 rj + O
X-^ '"c'^r^^ r-.g
p ci- i/) *-* o o 'j rt
3!/iurtt-*Ji
U}r-"' 4J C O * - ' r-t
Ot^%,,'5^'^lr;5_ AV
-0 5 ^ / ^ -% ° g /-.
rH f- J-. CJ O
3 w c; -< a ~< aju
00 BoC4---3^ U
g o o £^ JD || g = 1
^G -5^*^'^^^ ir-
i t 4- "3 -< e O + '£
o n _-*- u", ^i ' i o *-* o
j-l CJ 1- ' X +-* O +"
G1 p4-*^"F; d-H x^
^
, i, .5-
i ii .-< O O ' _C < < O
< j -3 V- 4J _» T3 y 3 3 4J
OX' ' r-i ' -^ r, O cx> O 1-
f-ir-i -r:Wl-c<-" O'T-'d.^^- - *
^ ' "3 » "*. "3 >, O O _< 4-»
t rtrH d -H 3 V, 4J U S 4-1 --I ^3 4-> 4-> O*
T .
-3
rt
1 §
in rt
4^' £
r-l GO
O1 +-1
t- S
8 -a
S ^
-------
18
A. Data Type I Segments.
Data are sufficient to execute load allocations without additional
monitor!ng.
I. Describe existing water quality and set forth applicable water
quality standards"(§131.202.)
Existing water quality and related hydrologic and hydraulic data, and
the water quality standards applicable to the segment or legal citation to
such standards, should be disaggregated from the data and standards of the
basin. (See Chapter M, Section A, of these guidelines.)
2. Determine totaI maximum daily loads. (§131.205)
Each water quality standards parameter being violated or expected to
be violated in the segment should be identified. For all parameters, whether
or not violated, the total maximum daily loads of related pollutants which
may be added to the water body by a I I point and nonpoint sources without
violating the standard must be determined.
Each total load limitation must be at least as stringent as necessary
to implement the applicable standard under the low flow critical water quality
conditions prescribed by the standards and any conditions which should be
anticipated in the individual situation, such as seasonal waste discharges.
It must include provision for seasonal variation and for a margin of safety
which takes into account any lack of knowledge concerning the relationship
between effluents and water quality as well as any uncertainty resulting from
insufficiency of data, including data from nonpoint sources, Where thermal
standards may be violated, thermal loads must be separately estimated as
provided in § I 31.205(b). For parameters which are meeting applicable
standards or which will meet applicable standards upon implementation of
the July 1977 base level effluent limitations, the antidegradation principle
applies. (See Chapter IV, Section B of these guidelines.)
3. Inventory, categorize and rank existing dischargers. (§131.206(a).)
The inventory and categorization of dischargers in the segment should
be disaggregated from the inventory and categorization for the basin,
checked for accuracy and completeness and revised if necessary. (See
Chapter II, Section B, of these guidelines.) Significant dischargers should
be ranked in order of abatement priority.
-------
19
4. Assess nonpoint sources. (§§l31.203(c)(2), 131.211.)
The segment analysis should assess the amounts and character of pollu-
tants from nonpoint sources identified in the area of the segment. It is
desirable that the segment analyses consider agricultural, si IvicuIturaI,
mining related, construction activity related, salt water intrusion related
and other nonpoint source pollution to the extent provided in §131.211.
Specific abatement or control strategies for nonpoint sources may be sug-
gested. Consistently with national priorities, these strategies should be
developed as provided in §131.21 I(c) following completion of the initial
planning required as a basis for permits.
5. Determine waste load allocations. (§§I 31.206(b), 131.209.)
i. General considerations.
A waste load allocation for a segment is the assignment of target
loads to alI significant point and nonpoint sources so as to achieve
water quality standards in a cost-effective manner. It involves, in
effect, the selection of the best practicable water quality management
alternative for the segment over a five period while taking cognizance
of longer range needs of the basin and of that particular segment. This
alternative will contain the major water related determinations for the
area and must therefore be consulted for specific management actions,
including the writing of conditions for NPDES permits and construction
grant awards.
The purpose of waste load allocations is three-fold: (I) to establish
a basis upon which effluent limitations can be assigned and permits issued
to individual dischargers to satisfy water quality standards over the next
five years; (2) to provide a basis for establishing compliance schedules or
target abatement dates and (3) to identify and provide a basis for ranking
needs of municipalities for which planning and possible construction of
Federally-assisted facilities must be initiated within the next five years.
Since a basin plan is a management plan, it prescribes the abatement strategy
for individual sources only generally. While the plan does not determine
detailed engineering specifications for particular projects, some knowledge
of alternative facilities and nonstructuraI alternatives and their associated
costs is obviously required to develop feasible, cost effective allocations.
The allocations for each industrial or municipal discharger must either
result in an attainable total effluent allowance or recognize that the
restriction may result in the discharger being forced to close or reduce
its operation to avoid being subject to possible enforcement (through action
on a permit or other enforcement mechanism under State law). To determine
feasible limits, the analysis must consider generally the alternative tech-
nical and economic capabilities available to each significant discharger.
-------
20
Where standards are being violated because of point source discharges,
the technical requirements for some point sources must be beyond base level
effluent limitations. The economic and social costs of the alternatives
available to each source must be weighed. In addition, the trade-offs
and total costs among combinations of alternatives for multiple sources must
be reviewed i n search of the mix of processes at all facilities which will
result in the most efficient overall plan for achieving standards when all
sources are in operation.
In developing waste load allocations, the following points must be
considered:
(A) Coordination with permits. (§131.209.)
Effluent limitations established by any current permit issued prior
to completion of the plan should be recognized in the plan. For
each discharger subjected to the NPDES which has not been issued
a permit the analysis must establish target load allocations.
Target allocations will generally be incorporated into any subse-
quently issued permit, subject to all rights of the permit applicant
and other interested persons to contest the targets. They are not
enforceable until incorporated into a permit or otherwise made
enforceable through State law or regulation.
(B) Coordination with facilities planning. (§131.210; 40 CFR Part 35,
Subpart F.)
Facilities planning involves detailed planning directly related
to the Federal assisted construction of municipal waste treatment
facilities. Such planning develops plans for cost effective municipal
waste treatment or control by determining the best practicable
alternative waste management system over time, its geographic cov-
erage, its service of other area sources, including industrial
sources, and the nature and amount of the planned discharge (load
reduction achieved). These decisions for the specific facility
will affect not only the source's load allocation requirements but
also the total number of industrial and municipal sources contributing
to the total load. Analysis of the segment and the facility plan
are interdependent: The facilities plan cannot disregard the overall
segment analysis, yet that analysis must respect the realities of
individual facilities needs and capabilities, with particular
attention to considerations of cost effectiveness, growth trends
and available financing. (See paragraph 8, below.)
-------
(C) Relation to areawide waste treatment management.
The waste load allocation process will help identify those
areas where areawide waste treatment management planning
(section 208 of the Act) should be initiated. Waste load
allocations and areawide planning should be coordinated: area-
wide plans should be consistent with total loadings planned for
the segment and basin.
(D) Accommodation of future growth.
Growth trend information compiled for the segment must be
considered and a determination made as to the load allotments,
if any, to be reserved for future discharges. The allotment
must be consistent with continuing achievement of standards and
preventing any significant water quality degradation. (See Chapter
IV, Section B.) The growth allotment should be separately dis-
played in the reported load allocation.
(E) Nonpoint sources.
In allocating pollutant loads among point sources, the addi-
tional pollutant contribution from nonpoint sources must be
considered, to assure that the combined total will not exceed
applicable water quality standards. Such contribution should
be separately entered in the load allocation display. The long
term point source load allocations may depend upon the abatement
and control projections respecting nonpoint sources.
(F) Upstream contribution.
The amount of pollutants expected to be entering the segment
from upstream must be added in when determining whether the total
of proposed individual point and nonpoint allowances exceeds the
allowable maximum. (See Chapter II, Section F.) For purposes of
notation and calculation, this contribution estimate necessarily
involves coordination with planning for the upstream segment.
The method of coordination, level of certainty regarding the
estimated future load and the time span covered is a matter of
of planning judgment.
(G) Clusters.
The cluster analysis requirement (§!3l.60(c), §!3l.209(c)) may dic-
tate that initial load allocations for clusters be formulated
in advance of complete planning. It may be appropriate to
accelerate the segment analysis in areas where cluster analyses
-------
22
are required. In any event, subsequent load allocations should
be consistent with the cluster determinations. (See paragraphs
(A) and (B), above.)
(H) Treatment of uncertainty in waste load allocation.
Uncertainty in waste load allocation process may consist of:
(I) uncertainty with respect to growth projections; (2) a lack of
knowledge of cause-effect relationships among effluents and water
quality; (3) pending decisions with respect to the construction
of reservoirs, withdrawals, and other developments which could
significantly alter the water quality standards applicable to the
segment, and (4) uncertainty as to the data being employed.
Growth projections.
Unanticipated growth occurring during the period covered by the
plan, if not controlled, could cause water quality conditions to
deteriorate to such a point that the classification of some
segments would be changed from effluent limited to water quality
limited, or in water quality segments higher levels of technology
if not controlled, could be required to achieve standards. Since
the rate of growth of waste loads is controlled by local decisions
with respect to annexation, industrial expansion, sewer connection
permits, etc., the plan's load projections and allocations must be
reviewed with the responsible municipalities and industries. The
discussion should note that because of the antidegradation prin-
ciple, if future growth is underestimated and hence assigned an
inadequate load allocation, projects proposed for later in time
may be foreclosed or restricted by reason of an early exhaustion
of the available load allowance.
Lack of cause-effect knowledge.
Uncertainty due to a lack of knowledge of the cause-effect
relationships among waste loads and water quality must be
taken into account in the waste load allocation process.
Experience with cause-effect modules in water quality is in-
sufficient to provide a basis for specifying tolerance levels
for prediction errors, but the use of sensitivity analysis is
encouraged. Where the social cost of errors is small, factors
of safety should be included; where the social cost of errors
is large, research and monitoring to reduce uncertainty should be
conducted or scheduled. A schedule for such activities should be
i ncluded i n the pIan .
-------
23
Pending development.
Where there is substantial uncertainty with respect to
pending development decisions, allocations should be made
under both the assumption that development will not occur
and that the development will occur. Water quality impli-
cations of the proposed development should then be brought
to the attention of the decision-makers concerned with the
project or program.
Uncertainty as to the data.
The level of confidence in the data should match the sig-
nificance of the dependent decisions. Additional confirmation
of data should be sought where the costs of possible error
so warrant.
Time periods covered by the plan should reflect the level of
uncertainty that may arise from each of these source. For example, while
the Act provides for the issuance of permits of up to 5 years' duration,
if major uncertainties exist it may be appropriate to issue a number
of permits having a shorter duration, thus assuring proper near term acti-
vities based on existing conditions but postponing a longer commitment
that might be recognized as inappropriate when further information is
obtained. In any event, plans should be reviewed and revised, pursuant
to the State's continuing planning process and consistently with any
current, issued permits, when new information is obtained, unanticipated
new permit applications are received, or other significant changes occur.
ii. Varying point source allocations according to extent of non-
point source responsibility for violations.
It will be recalled that Water Quality, Data Type I segments are
those for which sufficient data are available and violations of water
quality standards are anticipated within a five-year period even after
the application of base level effluent limitations to all point sources.
The anticipated violations must necessarily result from one of three sit-
uations: residual pollution would be primarily from nonpoint sources;
residual pollution would be primarily from treatment plant effluents after
the achievement of base level limitations, or residual pollution would result
from treatment plant effluents and nonpoint sources of comparable magnitude.
Allocations under each of these conditions should be as follows:
-------
24
(A) Dominant nonpoint. Where remaining violations, after the appli-
cation of BPT and secondary treatment by point sources, are
predominantly caused by nonpoint sources, loads should be al-
located to point sources according to those base level effluent
limitations, since water quality cannot be significantly
improved through the application of higher effluent limita-
tions. The need for nonpoint controls should be noted, and where
these conditions occur in complex urban-industrial or other
critical areas, section 208 planning activities should be con-
sidered. Any statewide planning under section 208(b)(4) must
be taken into account.
(B) Dominant point. Where remaining pollution from point sources
after the application of base level effluent limitations is the
dominant cause of anticipated violations, loads should be allo-
cated so as to achieve water quality standards in a cost effective
manner, including allocations requiring higher levels of treatment
or control. In segments where previously developed plans are
available and up to date, these plans may be sufficient to assign
waste loads to individual sources. In other segments, evalua-
tion of alternative load allocation strategies is necessary
to determine the most cost effective strategy for achieving
water quality standards. Waste loads should be allocated con-
sistently with the preferred strategy.
(C) Comparable point and nonpoint. Where remaining pollution
from point sources after the application of base level effluent
limitations and pollution from nonpoint sourceswhich may include
in place or accumulated pollutantsare of comparable magnitude,
loads should be allocated in a manner similar to that outlined for
dominant point areas, except nonpoint source controls should be
considered simultaneously with more stringent point source
effluent limitations. Again, evaluation of alternative strat-
egies is necessary to determine a cost effective means of
achieving standards. Point source loads should be assigned on
the basis of the alternative selected. The need for nonpoint
controls should be noted, and when these conditions occur in
complex urban-industrial areas, section 208 planning should be
considered. Any statewide planning under section 208(b)(4)
must also be taken into account. In the absence of any
208 planning, a target date for defining specific nonpoint
source control programs should be established. When all NPDES
permits have been processed, nonpoint source programs should
be addressed.
-------
25
Evaluation of alternatives, where required, should be carried out only
at the level of detail required to execute the waste load allocation process.
The evaluation should not reach the level of engineering design, but the
alternatives considered must be technically feasible and the cost estimates
must be soundly based.
6. Effluent limitations for significant dischargers. (§§131.206, 131.209.)
Effluent limitations, or target limitations, must be established for each
significant point source in the water quality segment. Limitations must be
set forth for every pollutant discharged by the source. Effluent limitations
established in any issued, current permit must be incorporated. Where no
permit is in effect, target limitations must be formulated. (See §131.209.)
The target limitations must be at least as stringent as necessary to meet the
requirements of the Act and applicable regulations and, for parameters for
which load allocations are required, the load allocations established for such
source.
The Administrator is publishing effluent guidelines defining secondary
treatment for municipal facilities and best practicable technology for various
classes and categories of industrial point sources. Such guidelines are
published in the Federal Register (see 40 CFR Parts 133, ). Upon publication,
copies of the guidelines and information respecting them may be obtained from
the Regional Administrator. These guidelines may be used to prescribe target
limitations for specific parameters if the resulting effluent will be consistent
with the source's assigned load allocations. Stricter limitations must be
developed where the base level restrictions would not result in achieving
compliance with the source's load allocation and with water quality standards.
7. Treatment plant residuals. (§I 31.203(e).)
The analysis should include controls over the disposition of all residual
waste from any municipal, industrial or other water or waste water treatment
processing, whenever the processing or disposal occurs within the segment.
Quantity estimates and specific disposal sites should be set forth. Additional
guidance on this subject will be published.
8. Assess municipal facilities requirements. (§131.210.)
The segment analysis must include an assessment of investment require-
ments for municipal waste treatment or control in the segment. A comparison
of these investment requirements with available financing will indicate
generally the date when implementation will be feasible. The needs assess-
ment is one of the elements used in determining, reviewing and revising the
State municipal priorities list, which governs construction grant awards.
-------
26
Pending publication of further guidance, the assessment should be
conducted as follows:
i. Ascertain the effluent load reduction which will be achieved
by the proposed facility and determine whether this reduction
is required to attain and maintain applicable water quality
standards and effluent limitations.
ii. Compile and review any available evidence concerning the cost
effectiveness of the proposed treatment or control method.
Employ engineering plans, specifications and detailed cost
estimates if available; otherwise, cost estimates must be
developed. The Administrator will issue guidelines on this
subject.
iii. Determine the population or population equivalents to be served.
Include the population trend forecasts developed at the commence-
ment of the basin planning activity. (See Chapter II, sections (C)
and (D) of these guidelines.) State the design lifetime period
used, and indicate how the population analyses employed compare
with projections used in other State and local planning activities.
9. Schedules or targets for significant dischargers. (§§131.207, 131.209,
131.210.)
A schedule of compliance or target abatement date must be determined,
as explained in this section, for each significant point source which is
not currently in compliance with the effluent limitations applicable to it
and is not anticipated to be in compliance by January I, 1975. If the State
is participating in the NPDES, target dates for the processing of permits
respecting any covered source which will not have been processed at the time
of the basin plan's completion must also be set forth.
Any schedule established by a current, issued NPDES permit must be
included in the segment analysis. Target final abatement dates must be
developed for all other significant sources and for any permitted source
having a permit with an incomplete schedule.
Each schedule or target abatement date should reflect stringent per-
formance goals, to assure implementation of the plan's required effluent
limitations in the shortest practicable time. However, all dates established
by the plan must be realistic and feasible: No segment analysis should
culminate in arbitrary, fictitious requirements which would be impossible
to meet.
-------
27
The schedules or targets should provide for timely implementation of
the statutory goals of section 301 whenever the Act's deadlines can pos-
sibly be attained. Any alleged impossibility should be clearly documented
by the discharger. No target date inconsistent with the Act will be ap-
proved, although inclusion of non-approvable target dates will not neces-
sarily preclude approval of other portions of a plan. It should be noted
that target dates contained in the plan are not directly enforceable, and
inclusion in the plan of a target compliance date inconsistent with the
requirements of law cannot guarantee the subject source any immunity from
public or private actions to enforce the law's requirements or penalize
violations thereof. It should also be noted that basin plans and the
schedules and targets contained therein are subject to revision: Improve-
ments in technology or financing prospects may result in shortening established
target dates.
JO. Monitoring program. (Part 131, Subpart C.)
Each water quality segment should be included in the State's monitoring
program. (See Part 131, Subpart C, and 40 CFR Part 35, Subpart B, Appendix A.)
A program to monitor total stream discharge loadings and instream water quality
in each water quality segment in the basin must be included in the basin plan.
Initial monitoring efforts should serve the purposes of the initial plans:
they should be directed primarily towards acquisition of data needed to allocate
loads and issue NPDES permits in Water Quality segments by December 31, 1974.
Subsequently, monitoring may also be directed towards nonpoint source analysis
and controls. The annual State program will set forth specific monitoring pro-
gram for each year.
II. National priorities.
Planning in the segment should be consistent with national priorities
as determined by the Administrator. Information respecting current priorities
may be obtained from the Regional Administrator.
12. Relationship with other plans. (§131.204.)
Planning for the segment should take into account any other water quality
or other applicable resource plan prepared or under preparation which involves
all or any part of the basin. The basin plan of which the segment analysis is
a part will identify and discuss such other planning activities in the basin.
-------
28
B. Data Type I I Segments.
Additional monitoring is needed to acquire sufficient data to classify
the segment with certainty or to execute waste load allocations.
I. Procedures for Data Type II segments.
For Data Type II segments, the following steps should be employed:
i. Select a tentative model to relate source loads to water quality
(unless an existing, current model is available). (See Appendix B
of these guidelines.)
ii. Design, schedule and execute a data collection program. (See
paragraph 2, below, and 40 CFR Part 35, Subpart B, Appendix A.)
iii. Reclassify the segment as either Effluent Limitation or Water
Quality, Data Type I, and proceed according to the guidelines
for those segments.
2. Data Col lection.
Surveys for Water Quality, Data Type II segments should be those
required as a part of each State's overall monitoring strategy. (See
40 CFR Part 35, Subpart B, Appendix A (Monitoring).) According to the
regulations, the requirement for intensive surface water monitoring
surveys should be met as a matter of priority, and beginning with Fiscal
Year 1975, the State's intensive survey capability should be adequate
to support the State's continuing planning process, including the develop-
ment of data necessary to set effluent limitations.
Surveys should measure each parameter for which the applicable
standard is being violated during the critical period for that parameter.
Using as a guide the preliminary waste load and cause-effect estimates
developed for the classification of segments, surveys should be designed
to allow simultaneous estimates of loads from point and nonpoint sources
and of their impacts on water quality. These impacts should be represented
in the form of the least sophisticated model adequate to enable planners to
predict water quality conditions under adjusted conditions of flow, temp-
erature and load allocations. (See Appendix B to these guidelines.) The
model should be properly validated.
-------
29
IV. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS SEGMENT ANALYSIS
A. Introduction.
In effluent limitations segments, either water quality is and will
continue to be at least equal to applicable water quality standards or,
if water quality does not meet the standards, it will do so after the
application of best practicable control technology by industrial sources
and secondary treatment by municipalities within the segment and compli-
ance by upstream sources with requirements applicable to them. Effluent
limitations for dischargers in EL segments are based solely on technology:
it is not necessary to relate the effluent limitations of individual dis-
chargers to water quality or permissible waste loadings, as is required
in water quality segments.
Segment analysis in effluent limitations segments accomplishes a
variety of important objectives:
It establishes an orderly, visible water quality management
scheme for the segment.
It describes existing water quality as a basis for preventing significant
degradation.
It sets forth a coordinated, prioritized schedule of compliance
for all significant sources in the segment.
It produces an inventory of dischargers in the segment for
use in formulating the annual State strategy, which in turn
is used to schedule permit processing and construction grant
awards and to set forth the State's monitoring and surveillance
program for the year.
B. Antidegradation.
Water quality should not be significantly degraded. The objective
of the 1972 Amendments is "to restore and maintain the chemical, physi-
cal, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters." (§101(a).)
The Act requires as a minimum that sources achieve effluent limitations
necessary to meet water quality standards (§30 I(b)(I)(C)), and water
quality standards must be such as to enhance the quality of water.
(§303(c)(2).) Standards generally contain antidegradation statements
further elaborating this policy.
To implement the rule against significant degradation, existing
quality should be described in the plan, using current data regarding
water quality and effluents where available and estimates where existing
data are insufficient and additional data cannot be readily obtained.
-------
30
The existing water quality level set forth in the plan will be the base
line against which to measure future changes. The definition of signi-
ficant degradation may consist of objective measurements or may be in
relation to the character of the locality, (e.g., extreme stringency
in an area constituting an outstanding natural resource), but in no case
may water quality levels be reduced to a point where standards may be
violated. The State may prevent significant degradation in a number of
ways:
Requiring installation of the effluent limitations required
by sections 301, 302, 306, and 307 of the Act.
Requiring installation of new technology as it becomes
avai lable.
Preventing excessive concentration of sources through case
by case review, development of site location alternatives,
zoning or other measures.
Establishing new source preconstruction review procedures.
Instituting zero discharge or zero growth policies, if necessary.
Assuring adequate opportunity for public comment and hearings
on all actions involving possible degradation.
C. Steps in preparation of effluent limitations segment analysis. (Generally,
§!3l.203(d).)
Each effluent limitations segment analysis should be prepared as
described in this section. Planning should proceed pursuant to the
approved State continuing planning process. Citations are the relevant
Sections of 40 CFR Part 131 (see Appendix A to these guidelines), which
should be consulted through the segment analysis.
I. Describe existing water quality and set forth applicable water quality
standards. (§131.202.)
Existing water quality and related hydrologic and hydraulic data, and
the water quality standards applicable to the segment or legal citation to
such standards, should be disaggregated from the data and standards of the
basin. (See Chapter II, Section A, of these guidelines.)
-------
31
2. Inventory, categorize and rank existing dischargers. (§131.206(a).)
The inventory and categorization of dischargers in the segment should
be disaggregated from the inventory and categorization for the basin,
checked for accuracy and completeness and revised if necessary. (See
Chapter II, Section B, of these guidelines.) Significant dischargers
should be ranked in order of abatement priority.
3. Treatment plant residuals. (§131.203(e).)
The analysis should include controls over the disposition of all
residual waste from any municipal, industrial or other water or waste
water treatment processing, whenever the processing or disposal occurs
within the segment. Quantity estimates and specific disposal sites
should be set forth. Additional guidance on this subject will be published.
4. Assess municipal facilities requirements. (§131.210.)
The segment analysis must include an assessment of investment
requirements for municipal waste treatment or control in the segment.
This assessment should be developed in the same manner as employed
in water quality segments. (See Chapter III, Section A.8., of these
gui deIi nes.)
5. Schedules or targets for significant dischargers. (§§I 31.206(c),
13).209.)
A schedule of compliance or target abatement date must be determined
for each significant point source which is not currently in compliance
with the effluent limitations applicable to it and is not anticipated
to be in compliance by January I, 1975. Schedules of compliance or target
abatement dates for effluent limitation segments are developed under the
same principles as control scheduling in water quality segments. If the
State is participating in the NPDES, target dates for the processing of
permits respecting covered sources must also be set forth as for water
quality segments. (See Chapter III, Section A.9., of these guidelines.)
6. Assess nonpoint sources. (§§203(d)(4), 131.211.)
Consideration of agricultural, si IviculturaI, mining related, salt
water intrusion related and other nonpoint source pollution, as provided
in §!3l.2ll(a), is desirable, but generally it is not required in initial
EL planning since by definition water quality in EL segments will meet
applicable water quality standards without additional controls on nonpoint
sources. Additional consideration should be given, however, where it is
dictated by special circumstances such as the necessity to act to preserve
an outstanding natural resource.
-------
32
7. National priorities. (§131.203(d)(4).)
Planning for this segment should be consistent with national priori-
ties as determined by the Administrator. Information respecting current
priorities may be obtained from the Regional Administrator.
8. Relationship with other plans. (§131.204.)
Planning for the segment should take into account any other water
quality or other applicable resource plan prepared or under preparation
which involves all or any part of the basin. The basin plan of which the
segment analysis is a part will identify and disucss such other planning
activities in the basin.
-------
33
V. ASSEMBLING THE BASIN PLAN
A. Introduction; Plan Submission.
The basin plan consists of two major componentsthe basinwide
information derived from or in support of the individual segment
analyses, and the individual segment analyses. These components should
be assembled in a single package. Five copies of the package should
be submitted by the Governor or his designee, on or before the plan's
scheduled completion date, to the Regional Administrator. The Regional
Administrator is required to approve or disapprove the plan within 30
days after its submission.
B. Basinwide Components.
Each basin plan must include the following basinwide components.
I. Maps.
i. A map of the State showing the basin in relation to other
basins, including portions of other States as necessary to show any
interstate coordination area.
ii. A map delineating the basin and identifying its segments. The
classification of the segments should be indicated on this map. (See
also paragraph 3, below.)
A comprehensive map identifying and locating significant dischargers
and monitoring stations in the basin is not required. This information
is reflected in the individual segment analyses.
2. Water quality standards.
Applicable water quality standards for the basin are identified
in the individual segment analyses and need not be repeated in the basin-
wide statement. Standards for the basin must be reviewed at least once
every three years, pursuant to section 303(c) of the Act and 40 CFR
§131.202(b)-(c).
-------
34
3. Segment classification.
The basin plan should contain a list showing the classification
of each segment in the basin, pursuant to §131.203. (See Chapter II
and paragraph I, above.) The segments should be listed in order of
abatement priority, pursuant to il3l.208(b). The system for ranking
segments in the basin should be consistent with the criteria for state-
wide ranking of segments (see §130.41) and applicable priorities.
4. Priorities.
The basin plan should identify and explain any deviation from national
priorities.
5. Industrial discharge inventory.
The basin plan should contain an inventory and categorization of indus-
trial dischargers in the basin. Significant dischargers should be ranked
in order of abatement priority; the ranking should be consistent with the
system for the State Industrial Discharge Inventory. (See §130.44.) The
basin inventory should be aggregated from the individual segments lists
and should be consistent with the priorities set forth in those lists.
(See Chapter III, A.3, Chapter IV, C.2., and Appendix C, Form 2 (optional).)
The basin inventory will be used by the State in developing the State
Inventory. (See ll31.208(a).)
6. Municipal discharge inventory.
The basin plan should contain an inventory and categorization of
municipal dischargers in the basin. Significant dischargers should be
ranked in order of abatement priority; the ranking should be consistent
with the system for the State Municipal Discharge Inventory. (See §130.43.)
The basin inventory should be aggregated from the individual segment lists
and should be consistent with the priorities set forth in those lists.
(See Chapter III, A.3., Chapter IV, C.2., and Appendix C, Form 2 (optional).)
The basin inventory will be used by the State in developing the State
Inventory. (See §131.208(a).)
The basin plan should also show the municipal facilities investment
needs in the basin. (See §131.210; see also Chapter III, A.8. and Chap-
ter IV, C.4.)
-------
35
7. Permit issuance target dates.
If the State is participating in the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System, each basin plan should include a list indicating
target dates for the processing of permits respecting any covered sources
which will not have been processed at the plan's completion. This list
should be compiled from the individual segment analysis lists. (See
Chapter Ml, A.9., Chapter IV, C.5., and Appendix C, Form 4-B (optional).)
8. Nonpoint sources.
It is desirable that the basin plan provide for consideration of
nonpoint sources. Consistently with national priorities, if planning
resources are limited, nonpoint source planning should not be pursued to
an extent which would substantially curtail planning for point sources
subject to the NPDES. If the Governor has determined pursuant to sec-
tion 208(b)(4) of the Act that consistency with a statewide regulatory
program under section 303 requires that certain nonpoint source processes
should be developed by the Governor for application to all regions within
the State, the basin plan should note such determination.
The plan should include target dates for the future consideration
of nonpoint sources and, if feasible, imposition of controls. Full
compliance with §131.211 should be initiated after January I, 1975.
9. Land use policies and controls.
The basin plan should describe the coordination of the plan with land
use policies and controls, pursuant to §131.212.
10. Relationship with other plans.
The basin plan should identify all water quality or other applicable
resource plans prepared or under preparation which involve all or any part
of the basin. These plans would include the plans described in §!3l.204(a),
any major water resource planning by the Corps of Engineers or other
authorities, and any cluster analyses undertaken in the absence of a
completed segment analysis. The basin plan should include the information
required pursuant to §131.204.
-------
APPENDIX A
-------
11
36
Legal basis of plan; Enforcement.
The basin plan should set forth briefly the legal basis of the plan,
including the basis for enforcement of schedules of compliance pursuant
to §!3l.207(b)(2).
12. Certifications.
The basin plan should include the assurances and certifications, by
the Governor or his designee, required pursuant to §131.400.
C. Individual Segment Analyses.
The separate analyses of each segment in the basin plan must be
included as a part of the basin plan. To aid in information management
and display, Appendix C suggests optional forms which may be employed
for this presentation. Use of the forms is not required. Segment and
basin information may be presented in any manner adequate to enable
public and governmental information and review and to serve as a guide
for ongoing water quality management.
-------
I TUESDAY, MARCH 27, 1973
Volume 38 Number 58
PART II
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
STATE CONTINUING
PLANNING PROCESS
Interim Regulations
No. 58~rt.
-------
8031
RULES AND REGULATIONS
Title 40Protection of Environment
CHAPTER IENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
PART 130STATE CONTINUING
PLANNING PROCESS
Notice of Interim Regulations
Notice is hereby given that these reg-
ulations are set forth as interim regula-
tions by the Environmental Protection
Agency tEPA).
Section 303(e) of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act, as amended (86
Stai. 816; 33 XJ.S.C. 1314 (1972)), re-
quires each State to submit a continuing
planning process which is consistent with
the Ac' These proposed regulations de-
scribe the necessary elements of a State's
continuing planning process. They also
set forth procedures governing planning
process adoption, submission, and revi-
sion and EPA approval. These regula-
tions also provide a mechanism for States
to satisfy portions of sections 208, 303(d)
(Critical waters and maximum daily
loads); 305(b) (State reports on water
quality and related information, includ-
ing nonpoint sources); 314 (Clean
lakes); after June 30, 1973, 516(b) (Fed-
eral/State estimate of publicly owned
treatment works construction needs);
and they provide data for 305 (a) and
104(a) (5) (Federal report on water
quality).
Purpose. The purpose of the continu-
ing planning process is to provide the
States the water quality assessment and
program management information nec-
essary to make centralized coordinated
water quality management decisions; to
provide the strategic guidance for de-
veloping the State program submittal
under section 106 of the Act; and to en-
courage water quality objectives which
take into account overall State policies
and programs, including those for land
use and other related natural resources.
Goals of the State process. The goals
of such a State process are to:
Provide a basis upon which the State's
overall program (106) will be developed.
This will be accomplished by developing
an annual strategy, Tyhich will be based
upon basin plans where they are com-
pleted and upon available information
where the plans are not completed. This
annual strategy will assist the State:
In directing resourcesplanning, mon-
itoring, permitting, and financial assist-
ance against water quality problems on
a priority basis.
In establishing a coordinated schedule
of action.
In reporting on progress in achieving
program targets and scheduled mile-
stones.
Insure that applicable water quality
standards are attained. Where water
quality standards violations occur an as-
sessment will be made whether the ap-
plication of Best Practical Control Tech-
nology (BPT) for industry and secondary
treatment for municipalities will correct
the water quality problem. If not, a maxi-
mum pollutant load will be calculated
and individual discharge allocations will
'oe made to meet these loads.
Specify the requirements for, and
schedule the completion of, section 303
basin plans for all waters.
Insure public participation m the de-
velopment of the plamrng pro* ;&s and
of plans.
The complexity and timing of a plan
for a specific area will be tailored to the
problems of the area. No process need
require individual plans to be more elab-
orate than is necessary for sound \\ater
quality management,
Classification of waters. To establish
priorities, and to assist the State in as-
sessing water quality problems, the proc-
ess provides that the waters of each State
will be classified according to the severity
of pollution and the anticipated difficulty
of developing and implementing remedial
efforts. Waters will be classified into two
classes:
(1) Water quality class: Any segment
where it is known that water quality does
not meet applicable water quality stand-
ards and is not expected to meet water
quality standards even after the appli-
cation of the effluent limitations required
by sections 301(b) (1) (A) and 301 (b) (1)
(B) of the Act.
(2) Effluent limitation class: Any seg-
ment where water quality is meeting and
will continue to meet applicable water
quality standards or where there is ade-
quate demonstration that water quality
will meet applicable water quality stand-
ards after the application of the effluent
limitations required by sections 301 (b)
U)(A) and 301(b)(l)(B) of the Act.
Content of the planning process. The
State continuing planning process pro-
vides for the development of "basin plans.
The process will:
Delineate planning areas and identify
planning agencies.
Classify waters into water quality or
effluent classes.
Identify the elements to be included
in the plans in accordance with provi-
sions of Part 131 of this chapter.
Provide a phased schedule for the com-
pletion of plans.
Establish a mechanism whereby the
State's priorities for construction of pub-
licly owned treatment works, for process-
ing waste water discharge permits and
for other program priorities will be es-
tablished. The program priorities will be
reported in the section 106 State
program.
Provide a mechanism for determining
investment requirements on publicly
owned treatment works.
Provide a basis for assessing achieve-
ment of interim program milestones and
final ambient results to be reported as
part of the section 106 State program.
Each State will prepare its plans pur-
suant to the approved process schedule
for plan preparation. If after his approval
of the process the Regional Adminis-
trator finds that the State's approved
process is deficient, he will confer with
the State as to his findings and may
request the State to revise its process
as appropriate. If the State fails to make
the necessary revisions in a timely man-
ner, the Regional Administrator may
withdraw his appro.al of thu ,,'i.jceo.s,
after1 consultation v'th the AHminis-
trator, if he finds that the pioce.s, is
grossly deficient. Such fi'idur' >nay be
based, among other things, o-i < .ibM.i'j-
tial failure of plans developed ina'-u.'nt
to the process to (onfoiiu v'th tin r-
quirements of the A^t, o>' on p. ./ib ;tm i -
failure of the State to meor. I be appro, f
phasing of planning, or on a sub.-tan'id
failure of the State to implement, plans
Federal properties, facilities, ami ac-
tivities are subject to Federal, Slate, in-
terstate, and local standards and effluent
limitations for control and abatement of
pollution. The State's planning process
should include provision for Federal
sources. It is contemplated that Federal
agencies will provide information to the
States in accordance with procedures
established by the Administrator.
Plan content. Companion regulations
under section 303(e), Part 131 of this
chapter, describe the preparation of
plans pursuant to the planning process:
Part 131 should be consulted during the
development of the planning process
under Part 130.
In effluent limitation classes the plan
should contain discharge priorities, com-
pliance schedules for discharges with
permits and target abatement dates for
other dischargers and other management
information as may be necessary; while
in water quality classes, in addition to
the above information, the plan should
establish maximum daily loads and
should determine the greater effluent re-
ductions required for dischargers to at-
tain the water quality goals. Similarly,
the monitoring and surveillance program
will focus primarily on those areas where
water quality problems are most severe
and where existing information is most
deficient.
Publication of regulations governing
Part 131, Preparation of Plans Pursuant
to State Continuing Planning Process,
has been delayed. Publication of these
regulations is expected shortly.
Prior to the adoption of final regula-
tions within 180 days from this date,
consideration will be given to comments,
suggestions, or objections which may be
submitted in writing to: Chief, Planning
and Standards Branch; Office of Air and
Water Programs; Room 1007, Crystal
Mall Building No. 2, Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, Washington, D.C. 20460.
All comments, suggestions, or objections
received on or before May 11, 1973 will
be considered.
These interim continuing planning
process regulations shall become effec-
tive on March 27, 1973. It is necessary
that these regulations take effect prior
to a 30-day period after publication be-
cause States have begun to seek EPA ap-
proval of a State operated permit pro-
gram as provided under section 402 fb)
of the Act, and because no such approval
can be made unless a State's continuing
planning process under section 303 (e)
of the Act has been first approved. See
40 CFR 124.93. For the same reason,
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 38, NO. 58 TUESDAY, MARCH 27, 1973
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
notice of proposed rule making and pub-
lic comment thereon, prior to the effec-
tive date of these regulations, is imprac-
ticable and contrary to the public in-
terest.
WILLIAM D. RUCKELSHAUS,
Administrator.
MARCH 20, 1973.
Subpart AScope and Purpose; Definitions
£-ec.
Scope and purpose.
130.1
130.2
Definitions.
Subpart BGeneral Requirements
130 10 Process coverage.
130.11 Classification of segments.
130.12 Planning agencies.
130.13 Legal authorities.
130.14 Public participation.
13015 Separability.
Subpart CContents of Basin Plans
130.20 Level of complexity of plans.
130.21 Establishment of planning areas
(basins).
130.22 Relation between plans and other
planning provisions.
13023 Water quality standards.
130 24 Total maximum daily loads.
130 25 Individual point source discharge al-
location; impact on water quality.
13026 Schedules of compliance.
130 27 Inventory of individual dischargers.
13028 Assessment of municipal needs for
publicly owned waste treatment
works.
130 29 Konpoint sources of pollutants.
130.30 Monitoring and surveillance.
13031 Intergovernmental cooperation.
130.32 Adoption of plans.
Subpart DPreparation of Annual State Strategy
130.40 State strategy.
13041 Problem assessment and priorities.
130.42 Schedule for plan preparation.
13043 State immicipal discharge inventory.
130.44 State industrial discharge inventory.
Subpart ERequirements for Approval of Plan-
ning Process; Reports
130 50 Submission of process.
130.51 Contents of process submittal.
130 52 Planning process review; approval or
disapproval.
130.53 Prohibition of approval of certain
planning processes.
130.54 Revisions.
330 55 Reports.
£ ubpart FRelationship of Process to Permit and
Construction Grant Programs
130 60 Relationship of continuing planning
process with State participation in
National Pollutant Discharge Elim-
ination System.
53061 Relationship of continuing planning
process with constrxiction grants.
AUTHORITY Sees 303 and 501, 86 Stat 816;
C-3 USC. 1314 (1972).
Subpart AScope and Purpose;
Definitions
\\ 130.1 Scope and purpose.
(a) This part establishes regulations
f pecifying procedural and other elements
which must be present in a State con-
tmum:; planning process to obtain ap-
pi'cual ol the Administrator pursuant to
action 303't ) ol the Federal Water Pol-
lution Gonti,'] Act, as amended, 86 Stat.
1116, 33 U'iC. 1314 Tins pait provides
' hat each St ite nuiM achieve compliance
'Mth the reriuuuneiitF of thr, regulation
not later tlun June 30, 1975, and in-
cludes specification of levels of compli-
ance which shall be achieved prior to
that date.
(b) The purpose of the continuing
planning process is: To provide the
States the water quality assessment and
program management information nec-
essary to make centralized coordinated
water quality management decisions; to
provide the strategic guidance for devel-
oping the State program submittal under
section 106 of the Act; and to encourage
water quality objectives which take into
account overall State policies and pro-
grams, including those for land use and
other related natural resources.
(c) The State continuing planning
process is directed toward the attainment
of water quality standards established
pursuant to sections 301 and 302 of the
Act to achieve the goals set forth in the
Act. The planning process will develop
an annual strategy for directing re-
sources, establishing priorities, schedul-
ing of actions; and reporting programs
toward achievement of program objec-
tives.
(d) The total State planning process
is comprised of:
(11 The annual State strategy, which
sets the State's major objectives and
priorities for preparing basin plans and
its annual program plan.
(2) Individual basin plans, which
establish specific targets for controlling
pollution in individual basins.
(3) The annual program plan (section
106), which establishes the results ex-
pected and the resources committed for
the State program each year. The an-
nual plan is developed from the objec-
tives and priorities of the annual State
strategy, and, when available, from the
specific targets developed in basin plans.
(4) Reports, which measure program
performance in achieving programmed
results.
The "continuing planning process" is the
process by which the State develops the
foregoing plans and reports.
(e) This part describes:
(1) The general requirements for the
planning process (Subpart B).
(2) The content of the basin plans
(Subpart C).
(3) The preparation of the annual
State strategy (SubpartD).
(4) The requirements for approval of
the planning process (Subpart E).
(5) The relationship of the process to
permit and construction grants programs
(Subpart P).
§ 130.2 Definitions.
As used in this part, the following
terms shall have the meanings set forth
below.
(a) The term "Act" means the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act, as
amended, 33 U.S.C. , et seq.
ib> The teim "EPA" means the US.
Knurr.ninental Protection Agency.
ic) The term "Administrator" means
the Administrator of the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency.
>d) The term "Regional Admimstra-
loi" means the appropriate EPA Regional
Administrator.
(e) The terms "continuing planning
process," "planning process," and "proc-
ess" mean the continuing planning
process required by section 303(e) of the
Act. Such process develops the State focal
point for water quality management
decisions. This includes phasing of plans
to be prepared during fiscal years 1973,
1974, and 1975.
(f) The term "plan" means the water
quality management plan for each
hydrologic basin or other approved bnsni
unit within a State. Such plan constitutes
a mechanism for implementing applica-
ble effluent limitations and water quality
standards, and will consist of such com-
ponents as are necessary for sound plan-
ning and program management in the
basin covered by the plan.
Requirements for the preparation of
such plans are described in Part 131 of
thia chapter.
(g) The term "effluent limitation"
means any restriction established by a
State or the Administrator on quantities,
rates, and concentrations of chemical,
physical, biological, and other constitu-
ents which are discharged from point
sources into navigable waters, the waters
of the contiguous zone, or the ocean, but
does not include schedules of compliance.
(h) The terms "schedule of implemen-
tation" and "schedule of compliance" aie
synonymous and mean a description
for each source of remedial measures to
be accomplished and a sequence of
actions or operations leading to compli-
ance with applicable effluent limitations,
water quality standards and other re-
quirements of State and Federal law.
(i) The term "municipal needs" means
the total capital funding required for
construction of publicly owned treatment
works, as denned in section 212(2) (A)
and (B) of the Act, that are required to
meet national water quality objectives
of sections 301 and 302 of the Act.
(j) The term "National Pollutant Dis-
charge Elimination System" means the
Federal permitting system authorized
under section 402 of the Act including
any State or interstate program which
has been approved by the Administrator,
in whole or in part, pursuant to section
402 of the Act.
(k) The term "phasing of planning"
means the State schedule approved by
the Regional Administrator for the
preparation of plans, pursuant to the
continuing planning process, during the
fiscal years 1973, 1974, and 1975.
(1) The term "basin" means the
streams, rivers, and tributaries and the
total land and surface water area con-
tained in one of the 267 major and minor
basins defined by EPA, or other basin
unit as agreed upon by the Stateis) and
the Regional Administrator Unless spec-
ified otherwise, "basin" shall reler only
to those portions within the bordeis ol a
smyle State.
(m) The term "segment" means a
portion of a basin the sin face \\atei\s of
which hau> common hydrologic charac-
teristics (or fiov, regulation patterns) ;
common natural physical, chemical, and
biological processes, and which have
common reactions to external Mre--'.es.
e.g , dischaige of pollutants.
KDLR/,1 K. jlSTEIi, VOL 38, NO. 58TUESDAY, MARCH 27, 1973
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
T'-.e te:m "cl'l. id" v.tviv, t'>, ' "
V".r- r'l: -hai'C'CMs which 'ii ,- Iv: i ~.F pi,l
!;'!-( 'ii s-r ;>, ') < < '!-t Mif rcn'1 l''\i-
': r >i thr-ii e'l'iK'n1.- causes >! MOV Oil ise
,.,.%;( .ulitv taru'.aid vio'.atims
~ > The ten,' "s!»,mfi ..tit dischar^-i '
:> i ! .".' ,,i y i.ivliAi1",' ' vh<. is c iii: -n,;
^>;ic.'i T .-niu'iil > >u-r qa >i;t> >u- (he sc;::i,cni to i\'!u- :i it.
H,,:'} ,0-
Each segment shall be classified
as follows.
< i) Water quality class. Any segment
whore it is known that water quality
does not meet applicable water quality
atundai da and which is not expected to
ni^el \\ater quality standards even after
t'-vi. .implication of Ihe effluent limitations
i(-i..i.Le-l by section:; 301(0;'1 > i i «.> of the Ac*.
'.'.: Efflr.-ml limitation class. Any ifg-
r-.'-i..'. ' he'.? v.ater quality is meeting and
" ill . o:iVai:2 to meet applicable water
ar.Js afh' U,-.' H-Tlu..!;<), .,
limUani. '. roqiiiifu b, j>
> 1 i i \i and itJ] i n< 1 > . U i
.'.' - Ai': r! '-MjVvJjnn -h-'li :-.>' t an/
;r t't"~'- u'y .I'iou.u,,1 ; for i iilu j;\ac\i '.LJ-
nomi- ..iif": crtno ,M-.!,,., ,,!-" >h u er at
le".st a 5-ycai i.c'T'd '.u:d 'Ui : ddiiii.u.il
allowance rerecting the- d-jf;r<'t of pic-
cision and laiidity of the t,is upon
which the ila* ,ifi( .uions an- based.
When- the analysis is irst, ]in_; ise or thtie
i.s unteitainty concerning ejrtjv ill jjro-
jfclions, a greater margin of safety shall
be required for the assignment of any
segment to an Effluent Limitation Class.
In determining the additional allow-
ance, consideration should be given to
economic and demographic projections
that are utilized in other State programs.
fSee § 131.210.)
(e) The classification of all waters
should be included in the submission of
the planning process by the Governor of
each State to the Regional Admin-
istrator.
(1) Submission and approval or dis-
approval shall also be in accordance with
§§ 130.50 and 130.52.
(2) Review and revisions of such clas-
sifications shall be made in accordance
with § 130.54.
§ 130.12 Planning agencies.
(a) (1) The Governor of a State shall
designate a State agency responsible for
conduct of the required planning. The
Governor may designate a local or inter-
state agency to conduct all or any portion
of the planning within each basin and
may assign planning responsibilities
under the process and Part 131 of this
chapter to any such designated agency.
(2) The process shall set forth the
criteria followed in designating planning
agencies pursuant to paragraph (a) of
this section and in determining the juris-
diction thereof Locally elected officials of
general purpose units of governments,
and other pertinent local and area wide
organizations within the jurisdiction of
the potentially designated agency shall
be consulted prior to any designation.
The criteria for such determinations shall
be included.
(b) (1) The initial submission shall
include a specific designation of each
planning agency responsible for conduct-
ing all or any portion of the planning
pursuant to the process within each
basin. Each designation siiall include:
The agency's name address, and
name of director.
ill) The agency's juiisdiction (geo-
graphical coverage and extent of plan-
ning responsibilities).
«2) In the event that all or a portion of
a plan is to be undertaken by an agency
other than the State water pollution.
control agency, evidence from such other
agency shall be supplied which shows
r-rceptance of .;uch designation raid that
agency's intrnt to comply within the
tin.es -~et f01 th in the process.
(3) The KUsto .nay n,a,'.r.e additional
assitnra T-ts, as set forth i;i this section,
I.'id ! .'> ' . .
T;-- f i'!.. '
11 .M.el: t.i , '
T ' .^0, S i l'uhi,« pai';, j[»j] S.H;.
Each piof'".-^ if r. * r_-v;,:nn t-1 i ;<r>">"-;p'it'nn i>i pcrf./d'.tif'O v ;'h
section iPHo) of the Ac*". 3rid any rrpn-
lation issued by the Administrator fheic-
under. Public participation with ade-
quate opportunity for public hearing
uoon proper showing shall be required
on significant elements of the planning
process including proposed State strategy
and priority lists developed under the
continuing planning process pursuant to
section 106 regulations.
§ 130.15 Separability.
If any provision of this part, or the
application of any provision of this part
to any person or circumstances, is held
invalid, the application of such provision
to other persons or circumstances, and
the remainder of this part, shall not be
affected thereby.
Subpart CContents of Basin Plans
§ 130.20 Level of complexity of phui!-.
(a) The process shall provide that
plans for water quality segments will
contain all the following parts while
plans for effluent limitation segments
shall include items (4), (5), and (6). See
§ 130.11 for segment classification,
CD An assessment of total maximum
daily loads necessary to meet water qual-
ity standards for the specific criteria
being violated;
C2) An assessment of nonpoint source
pollution and, where applicable, needed
control measures;
(3) Already established effluent limit
requirements for significant dischargers
and target limits, not previously estab-
lished, for significant dischargers that
are required to achieve water quality
standards;
(4) An assessment of needs for pub-
licly owned treatment works;
(5) An inventory and categorization
of significant individual discharges;
(6> Already established schedules of
compliance and target dates of abate-
ment for significant dischargers not on
o compliance schedule.
(b) The process will allow for basin
plans containing one or more water qual-
ity segments and/or one or more efflu-
ent limitation segments. The level of
plasm ing shall be related to lequire-
mentii of augments within the ba^ni.
g !30.21 K.-staMislmiPiit of ji! in-ii : areas
Oi-inc).
The procoas shall piovide lot estab-
lishment of planning ami,', as fol!<;^.
Except as provide;! in pr.ragrnph
i'ri i.f this Ci'-tion, t!>' 'vi.sir, boundaries
FEDERAL REG'SUR, VOL
NO
-TUESDAY, MARCH 17, 1973
-------
utojj uA\t!.ipq;tA\ aq ABUI uia;sA"g
-aui;a a3jBqosia ;UB;itnoa JBUOI;B.M o*u
UI ItOn'GrJpn.IBd 3;B;S J° IBAO.tddy UO
sssoojd SmuirETd
3uinur;uoo paAOJddB UB aABq ;ou saop
tpiqM a;B;g A"UB aOJ pBAO.lddB 3q ;OU IJ.BU.S
';oy aq; jo (S)'.B)gofr uoi;oas m papiA
-o.id uoi}t'dpi;JBd uiua;ut aqj UBq; jaq;o
ICI
jo b
jo
.jf; uoip:s
pire
[
'06'OSI § mi* aouBpjoooB ur pa^^ruiqns
aq iiBqs ssaoojd atfi jo suoisuaa (0)
qons A~q
-uoa J3}jB JO^B-nsruiuipv
paquosajd aq A'BUI se a^Bp
jo qdBjSBJBd s{q; jo (g)
05 ^uBnsand jo^Bj^sruruipv iBuorSaa aqi
A"q uonBoyr^ou SUTMOHOJ sABp 09 urmiM
ssaoojd si)r asrAai tiBqs a^^g aqj, (£)
uonoas srm J° (B) qdBjSBJBd jo
tieo3 am ajnss-B o^ a^BntiapBut AHBT^UB^S
-qns si ssaoojd am ^Bq-j a^B^g aq^ o; uriq
A"q uoi-jBoynou PUB Jo^BJ^srurtupv iBUOia
-aa aq^i A"q 3urpuu B uodn AjBssaoau SB
ssaoojd s^r aswaj n^qs a^B^g aqj, (Z)
siqi jo (B) qdB.i3B.iBd jo ieo3 aq^ ajnssB
0} a^BnbapB sauiti IIB IB sr ssaooad Sum
-UBid qons ^Bq^i Suunsui jo asodind aq^
joj ssaoo.Td SuruuBid paAOJddB
aiui-i o^ auii; moaj
aqj, (T) (q)
^oy aq^ jo
aq; q^tM A^ruuojuoo ur SBAT^
-osfqo A^iiBnt) J3^BM TBuorjBU qsncluioo
-OB HIM qotqA\ sueid ^uajano jo aouBu
-3-jutuiu PUB ^uaiudoiaAap sq; a.mssB o^
A'.iBSsaoau sq f"eui SB ssaoo.id aq^ asiAa.i
Iiuqs puu ssaoo.it; aurauBid aurmmuoo SIT
A\3TA3.l Alp3miUB HBUS 0}B-|g Oqi (B)
('09'OST § asS) 'pa^o.iJdB ion
^i ssaao.rd aqj jr UA\B,ipq;T.-A .10
oq ni\v ui3|sA"y uoi^Biuuin
^unvUI°d IBUOI^BN sq't u:
OIBJS am jo [BAo.uldu oqx 'ssdoo.id aqj
'; \iV .10 ).U'(I JO JOAOIddB JO [U\\iJ.IptntN\
"T ITII^O.I A'nui y-'-ioo.trt 3unuiB[c! oin jo
' . -i;"t -T '. \ iH«sr. \m qs-ijdtuooDB 05 a.min?,j
l > " i I }<", nilTH[-' )1UB (Ti-jrilJOp SBA\ p3rfO
-!,>'';"i ' " ':.V['T 10 u oil I ipns (;ii;;tt Aq
' vio:.. . .,', i---'}f', a in T'in ajBJipur /;BUI
«,!r',.")t'i,iTr''l ; - iiyrHJu i;ir,« IJII-A lUTfiy
-noi HI ', ;i ;,,].' , -I ; r»n- rncl p UBI'O."'
tui'id -n ni-jij "] vi; - -(j ;"'i;-;n,rai 341
jg;jnt!.iaq;
;ou
-u; 3Sji-i[.i..ip ]i!i.i):i^ U'Oi'I ?
ui'id pa.io.idd'a
Aire ui uonBzrJoSa^o pim Sup;uBi -wq;
tfjpM aouBp.ToooB ui aq U^qs ;sii OIBIS
aq; ui uonBzi.TO3a;B3 puB SUIJUIBI .tpq;
'j3A3A\oq :jaq;33o; ps;sq aq ;ou paatt
uisBq aiuss 3q; jo s.iaS.iBqostQ (Z)
'Tt'OST § utp3mB;uoo
s3ur^UB.i ;uaui3as aq; q;iM ;ua;stsuoo
siaSJBqosip tBdpiunm ;uBOijiu3is azuoS
-a;Bo pus ^UBJ HBqs a;s;g aqx (.T)
: SA\ot[oj SB pajBdajd aq UBqs A"JO;uaA
-ui aSjBqosia iBdprur-K a;B;g aqx < 0)
69'OST §o;;itBns
-jnd pajmba.t SB JB3A qoBa aouo ;sBai ;B
po;;iuiqns pus pastAaj aq UBqs A"jo;uaA
-ui aSjBqosia IBdpunjM a;B;g aqx (Q)
s;uBj3 uoi;onj;suoo jo PJBAYB
.ioj ja;dBqo stq; jo oq]
SuisBqd .ioj 3ouonl)3s V, apiAOjd i[Li[ir aju
-paqos aqx uor;Bj«da.td iretd .ioj atnpaq.is
B n':tiqB;sa nuqs sssoo.id oqx (B)
uojir irdj.id £ Jf"(){;i §
uie.r3o.id jaq^o pue 's;ruijad jo d)UBnssi
'S>[JOAV ;uaui;B3j; p3U.wo Apt[qnd jo uou
-on.ijsuoo 'sireid jo ;uauidopA&p oq} uio
-AOfl A[[ruauaS HBqs Hui5iuiu siqx (Ji
-dB Auv; ut ainijuBJ .uoq; q;iA\ ;aj;s'ib-
-uoo oq liBqs-- ;sij O;B;S aq; ut 3u!>,uB.t
.noq) 'j?A3A\oq :aoq;a3o; pa;sif UL( ;ou
pjou ui',rq -juiu-5 oi[) jo S4
QNV saina
81:08
-------
'LI HDHVW 'AVOUCH85 'ON '' C 'iOA 'iB'Sil?5'
JO;BJ;SIUIUIPV
SB S3i;UOUd
q3tq jo uoi;BAjasa.td Jtoj p33N (,£>
papgjjB uot;i;indo
!SUOI;OB uiBjaojd a;Bud
-OJddB jaq;o PUB 'suBjd uiSBq 's;ui3J3
uoi;onj;suoo 's;tuuad jo ' Suiinpaqos
PUB sai;uoijd aq; jo 2ui;sit v (E)
:suraiqojd asaq; jo sai;uotJd j33jBqosip
jo iBotqdBJSoaa am jo 3ui;sn. V (Z)
'. sutaiqojd
asaq; jo sasnBO aq; puB suia[qojd A;qisnb
aa^BM jo ;uamssassT3 apiAva^B^s y (1)
rure^uoo neqs
aqj, 'A3a;Bj;s a^B^g sq; jo
-.ioj aq^ ui sanssj ^ueoyiuSis jo
PUB uoi;i30ui;uapi sqi ui ^uamaAtoAui joj
aq'j q^m papiAOJd aq
stq jo JouaaAoo aqx '
IBHUUB ue jo uot^BiBdajd aq^ joj
aptAOjd UBqs ssaooad SutuuBjd aqj, ce)
XSOIBJIS OlBJg Of 0£t §
uoi;BJBdajj Q
siq^ jo frOfc'm
PUB TO>'T£I §§ 83S) 's^Tuuad jo aouBnssi
am q^T^ uoi^ounfuoo ut piaq ajaa s3ut
-jBaq oqqnd aaaqA\ s^uaiuSas uo 'a
joj ;piati ^isnoTAa.td a.iaA\ sSuuBaq
uejd aq^ jo suoi^iod asoq? joj
UBjd aq^ uo ppq aq itiA\ sSuwBan '3V8
-ijdoaddB SB 's3uu-eaq oqqnd aa^js 'pasiA
-aj aq £13111 su^tcj aq^ ^Bq^ pu"B
aq^ jo su^id ^uauiaSBUB
IBiotgo aq-j SB 'sSutj'Baq oqqnd
'paidopu ^nepino aq UPAS,
apuojd \IBI\S ssaoojd aqj,
suR[
'SUBld JO
PUB '(uamcIotaAap aq; ui
joj 'a;Big SUIBS aq^ ut 's^uaui
-UJ3AO3 tBOo^ aaq^o qiiM S}uaui33uB.i
-.IB jaq^o jo iBuoi^n^tis"! a^BUdoJddB ;no
AJJBD JO suijstxa azin^n o; pa§BJnooua aq
IItA\ a^B^s
^Bq; apiAOJd U^qs ssaoojd aqi (q)
CZZ'QKl § 39S) 'aiBUdo.TddB SB
utsBq aq^ ut papniout aq qiA\ PUB paMatA
-aj aq HIM s^ndut SuiuuBid. 113001 PUB
aplA\B3JB 'suBid msBq jo uoiiBjBdajd 9q;
ut iBq^t apuojd HBqs ssaoojd aqj, (B)
uoijRjadooa
CSQ'OSI §
898) 'Si6t 'I AjBnuBf Aq pajinba.i
^jodaj gq^ q^m auiuuiaaq ' (q>QO£ uotjoas
japun pajmbaj s^joda.i IBHUUB aqi Supnp
-oid joj uiBjSojd B apnpui u^qs uiBJSOJd
pu^ Sutjo^iuout qoBjj
jo
saojnos ^utod-uou Aji^uapi PUB
-sip iBnpiAtput pu-B A;itBnb ja^
-aq dtqsuonBiaj aq-) qstiq^isa :gg'0£T
OET §§ UI paquosap SB '
PUB SUOIJBOOHB PBOI 'spBoi
auiuija-jap 'SIBOS Aiq-enb
PUB qsitqB'jsa oq AjBssaoau
jo uopoanoo ainssB o; pauSisap si qotqA\
uiBjSojd aouBijiaAjns PUB Sutjojtuoui
B joj aptAOJd Ituqs ssaoojd aqx (B)
pun Siiiaoiiuoj^ OS'OSl §
ja^dBqo siq; jo
TTS'IET § ui paquosa.td SB 's^uB;nnod jo
saojnos ^uroduou .ISAO S^OJ^UOD
'atqtssod ^ua'jxg aq; o; 'PUB
'Ajiijuapt IIIA\ UBid qoBa s-juauiSas
apiAOJd HBqs ssaooad aqj,
jo §9.»nos iiiioduo^[ 6S'OSI
jo OTZ'TET § ui paquosajd SB 'utsBq
aq; ui S^JOM ;uaui;Baj; B;SBA\ p
Apnqnd joj spaau aq; SSBSSB HIA\
qaBa ;Bq; apiAOJd HBqs ssaoojd aqj,
S5J4OM.
1U9UI1G3.il JOJB*V pOUMO X|31|qnd JOJ
spoau (ediaiunui jo iu9uiss9ssy '
aoanos
;uiod jaq;o PUB 'iBu;snpui 'i-edpiunui
o; s;iuuad jo aouBnssi aq; joj (g>
;ov aq; jo s;uauia.imbaj
aq; ;aaut o; pajtnbaj sat;tipBj
a;sBA\ pauA\o Apqqnd jo 'aouB
-;SISSB IBWUBUIJ iBjapa^ q;tA\ 'uot;onj;s
-uoo Joj s;oafojd Suiutuua;3p ui (p
:pasn aq
lIBqs uoi;Bztjosa;BO PUB A\io;uaAui qons
;uaui8as Aq sjaSjBqostp asaq; jo uoi;
-BzuoSa;BO PUB sjaSjBqosip ;uBotjtu3is
jo Ajo;uaAut UB apnput HIA\ UBtd qoBa
apiAOJd nBt(s ssaoojd oqj, (B)
JS^di'ip SIUT jo (-z ;,''] 'n P
-ajd SB ;uauio;B<(.' j° ;i " ],' i"i i
-Udmoo jo FoitipdqDs ctC'toxap ;|t'-\
qji33 IBIJI apiAo.id ni'qs ssaw.ul sqj,
o.>\ii?i((litio.) jo so^npuj.t^ 9£'OV I
stq; jo o)£OE'm § "t pir(t.iosa.td SB
'3mssaoojd ;uaui;ca.i; ja)BA\ B^SBA .10 .10;
-BA\ jaq;o .to 4iBi.i;snpui 'tBdi.minui AUB
uio.ij a;si3A\ i^nptsaj \\v, jo uout-,odstp aq;
J3AO SIOI;UOD qsiiq-e-jsa qiA\ treid qoca
;Bq; spiAOJd nsqs sssaojd aqj, (,3)
ua;dT3qo siq; jo O||U
iuiod
£2'0£l
ja;dBqo siq; jo
§ ui paptAOJd SB PJBPUB;S A;t
pa;BioiA ajqBoqddB aq; ;3atu
o; pajrn&aJ 'suoi;nqu;uoo aajnos ;uiod
-uou jo uot;B.iaptsuoo Sutpnpui 'spBO[
Airep aiqtsstuijad umuiixBui IB;O; qsqqB;
-sa ittA\ UB[d aq; ;uaui§as A;qBnb ja;BA\
qoBa Joj ;Bq; apiAOJd n^qs ssaoojd aqj,
;ov aq; jo SIBOS aq; q;tA\ aoire
-rajojuoo o;ut uiaq; Suuq o; spJBpu-e;s
A;tiBnt) ja;BA\ jo suotsiAaj A-iBssaoau
aq; SUI^BUI ui ;SISSB o; sa;B;s aq; Aq
pasn auo aq; aq Heys 'ssaoojd aq; jo ;jBd
SB padoiaAap suBid utsBq aq; Suipnp
-ui 'ssaoojd aux c.ta;dBqo siq; jo ZOZ
-'1ST § aas) 'UBid aq; Aq pa.iaAoo sja;i3A\
aq; o; atqBottddB SPJBPUB;S A;t
aq; q;JOj ;as HIA\ UBid urs-eq
;-eq; apiAOJd iiei^s ssaoojd
aq;
joj su-eid saojnosaj iBjn;isu PUB asn
Sutpntoui suBid IBOO; PUB a;B;g
-dB jaq;6 PUB (ja;dBqo siq; jo
aas) UBtdqns A;qBnb JS;BA
qoB3 q;iA\ pa;Butpjooo aq HI
qo^a ;Bq; aptAOjd UBqs ssaoojd aqx
suoisiAoad Suiuuejd jai|io
pUB SUUKl IIJJ«1,)<[ UOJ1BJOJJ SS'QSl §
-sip jBnpi\ipu< jo
siq; jo TOE'TST
s;uaui3as s,uisBq aq; jo uot;Bout;uapi
UB puB a;B;g aq; utq;iA\ utsBq pasod
-ojd qoBa jo sauBpunoq aq; 8ut;Baun
-ap AIJBBP aiBOS a;BnbapB jo dBUi B apnp
-ut UBqs uoisstuiqns IBI;IUI aqx (P)
\BAOJddB joj JO;BJ;SIUIIUPV iBuoiSan
aq; o; pa;;iusqns aq HBqs satJBpunoq
Buuajjip qons Auv 'uia;sAs uiSBq Vda
aq; ui paut;u3pi asoq; tuo.ij 3uuajji.p
satJBpimoq 'SumuBtd jo ;uaiuqsnqB;sa
aq; JQJ apiAOJd ABUI ssaoojd aqx (°)
uia;sAs
UOI;BUHOJUI A;qBnb ja;BA\ yaa ^u; ui
jouiut SB paut;uapt asoq; aq
QNV saina
-------
any Stale if approval of the continuing
planning process is withdrawn following
approval, including withdrawal of proc-
ess approval based on gross failure to
comply with the schedule for plan prep-
aration (§§ 130.40 and 130.41) or on fail-
ure of plans to conform with the process
(§ 130.52).
(c) In connection with any permit is-
sued to a significant discharger in a
cluster where water quality violations
occur, or are suspected to occur, and for
which no plan has been approved by the
Regional Administrator, the water qual-
ity impact of the discharges of all mem-
bers, municipal and industrial, of the
RULES AND REGULATION
cluster to which such major discharger
belongs, must be considered in connec-
tion with the issuance of such disharger's
permit.
§ 130.61 Relationship of continuing
planning process with construction
grants.
(a) Before approving a grant for any
project for any treatment works under
section 201 (g) of the Act after June 30,
1973, the Regional Administrator shall
determine, pursuant to 40 CPR 35.925-2,
that such works are in conformity with
any applicable plan approved in accord-
ance with this part and Part 131 of this
80.19
chapter. Disapproval by the Regional
Administrator of a plan, or relevant por-
tion thereof, for the area where a project
is to be located may constitute grounds
for not approving a grant for such
project.
(b) The Regional Administrator may
suspend or terminate a grant for any
project for any treatment works in ac-
cordance with § 35.950 of this chapter if
he determines that such grant is incon-
sistent with a plan, for the area of the
project, approved subsequent to approval
of the grant.
[FB Doc.73-5641 Filed 3-26-73;8:45 am]
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 38, NO. 58TUESDAY, MARCH 27, 1973
-------
NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING
Water Quality Management Plans
Preparation Guidelines
for States
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 "M" Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[ 40 CFR Part 131 ]
WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLANS
Preparation Guidelines for States
Notice is hereby given that the regula-
tions set forth below are proposed by the
Environmental Protection Agency. The
proposed regulations are designed to as-
sist States in the preparation of water
quality management plans.
Secion 303 (e) of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act, as amended (86
Stat. 816; 33 U.S.C. 1313 (1972)), re-
quires each State to have a continuing
planning process which is consistent with
the Act. Plans under this part will be
^prepared pursuant to the State's ap-
proved planning process.
The purpose of preparing basin plans
is to provide the information the States
will need to make centralized coordi-
nated water quality management deci-
sions; to provide the strategic guidance
for developing the State program sub-
mitted under section 106 of the Act; and
to encourage water quality objectives
which take into account overall State
policies and programs, including those
for land use and other related natural
resources.
The regulations describe the prepara-
tion of plans and the procedures gov-
erning plan adoption, submission, and
revision and EPA approval. The rela-
tionship of plans with EPA grants and
the national permit system is also de-
s ribed. Provision is included for co-
ordination between plans and any per-
mit for a source located in a planning
area.
The regulations are designed to as-
sure that there may be prepared pur-
suant to this part basin plans which
will be adequate for water quality man-
agement in areas having complex water
quality problems.
Many areas of the State will present
simpler water quality management con-
cerns. Water will be classified accord-
ing to the severity of pollution as
follows:
(1) Water Quality class.Any seg-
ment where it is known that water
quality does not meet applica/ble water
quality standards, and is not expected
to meet water quality standards even
after the application of the effluent
limitations required by sections 301 (b)
(1)(A) and 301 (b) (1MB) of the Act.
(2) Effluent limitation eZoss.AAny
segment where water quality is meeting
and will continue to meet applicable
water quality standards or where there
is adequate demonstration that water
quality will meet applicable water qual-
ity standards after the application of
the effluent limitations required by sec-
tions (301(b)U)(A) and 301 (b) (1MB)
of the Act.
A basin plan can contain one or more
water quality segments and/or one or
more effluent limitation segments. The
plan in the effluent limitation segments
need employ only those elements neces-
sary to assure proper program manage-
ment in those segments; while in the
water quality segments the plan needs
to include such analysis as is necessary
to assure that control actions taken
will meet water quality standards as
well as the requirements of sound pro-
gram management. All plans under this
part should be completed by June 30,
1975. Provision for phased accomplish-
ment of planning prior to that date,
consistent with advancing national
capabilities, is included.
Federal properties, facilities, and
activities are subject to Federal, State,
Interstate, and local standards and efflu-
ent limitations for control and abate-
ment of pollution. The State's planning
process should include provision for
Federal sources. It is contemplated that
Federal agencies will provide informa-
tion to the States in accordance with
procedures established by the adminis-
trator.
Since plans under this part must be
prepared in accordance with the ap-
proved State continuing planning proc-
ess, regulations pertaining to the
planning process, set forth at part 130 of
this chapter, should also be consulted.
Prior to the adoption of the final
regulations, consideration will be given
to comments, suggestions, or objections
which may be submitted in writing to
the Chief, Planning and Standards
Branch; Office of Air anciWater Pro-
grams, room 1007, Crystal Mall Build-
ing No. 2, Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D.C. 2&460. All
comments, suggestions or objections re-
ceived on or before July 9, 1973.
ROBERT W. FRI,
Acting Administrator.
MAY 18, 1973.
Si'bpart AScope and Purpose: Definitions
Sec.
131.100 Scope and purpose.
131.101 Definitions.
Subpart BPlan Preparation
131 200 General.
131.201 Boundaries of planning unit.
131.202 Water quality standards.
131.203 Plan contentsegment classifica-
tion.
131.204 Identification of relationship of
other plans.
131.205 Total maximum daily loads.
131.206 Individual point source discharges;
impact on water quality.
131.207 Schedules of compliance; coordina-
tion with permits.
131.208 Ranking of segments and inventory
of point source discharges.
131.209 Coordination of certain planning
components and terms of permits.
131.210 Municipal facility investment re-
quirements.
131.211 Individual nonpoint source dis-
charges; impact on water quality.
131.212 Coordination with land use poli-
cies and controls.
Subpart CMonitoring and Surveillance
131.300 Relationship of monitoring and sur-
veillance to plans.
131.301 Coverage of monitoring and surveil-
lance program.
131.302 Use of monitoring surveys for plan
development.
131.303 Frequency of monitoring surveys.
131.304 Output of monitoring surveys.
131.305 Water quality data Irdm fixed sta-
tions; input to Information sys-
tem.
131.306 Provision and use of point source
discharge information Input to in-
formation system.
Subpart DCompletion and Review of Plans:
Relation to Permits and Grants
Certifications.
Public hearings.
Submission.
Plan review; approval or disapproval.
Revisions.
Prohibition of approval of certain
plans.
Prohibition of certain construction
grants.
Discharge permit terms and condi-
tions.
Separability.
131.400
131.401
131.402
131.403
131.404
131.405
131.406
131.407
131.408
AUTHORITY.Sees. 303, 501, 86 Stat. 816, 33
U.S.C. 1313, 1361.
Subpart AScope and Purpose; Definitions
§131.100 Scope and purpose.
(a) This part establishes regulations
specifying procedural and other elements
which must be present in plans prepared
pursuant to a continuing planning proc-
ess approved in accordance with section
303 (e) of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act, as amended (86 Stat. 816, 33
U.S.C. 1313),
(b) The purpose of preparing basin
plans is to provide the information the
States will need to make centralized
coordination water quality management
decisions; to provide the strategic guid-
ance for developing the State program
submitted under section 106 of the act;
and to encourage water quality objectives
which take into account overall State
policies and programs including those for
land use and otbf»i related natural
resources.
(c) The basin plans will provide the
technical, economic, social, and environ-
mental basis for the identification and
the adoption of the means of achieving
applicable water quality objectives. The
plans will assist the State in directing
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 38, NO. 99WEDNESDAY, MAY 23, 1973
-------
resources, establishing priorities and
scheduling of actions.
§ 131.101 Definitions.
The definitions set forth in § 130,2 of
this chapter shall apply to this part.
Subpart BPlan Preparation
§ 131.200 General.
(a) Each plan under this part shall be
p-epared pursuant to the process devel-
oped and approved in accordance witti
part 130 of this chapter, relating to the
continuing planning process required by
section 303 (e) of the act.
(b) Each plan shall include, but is not
li mited to, the contents described in this
subpart.
(c) The detail of planning conducted
for each segment in the plan will depend
o-i the complexity of the water quality
problems and the water quality decisions
to be made.
(d) The information in each plan shall
b3 presented in an equivalent basis to
facilitate interbasin coordination com-
parison.
§ 131.201 Boundaries of planning unit.
Each plan shall contain a delineation
of the boundaries of the basin on a map
o[ appropriate scale. Such map shall in-
c ude but is not limited to the follow-
ing:
(ai An identification of the location
of each significant discharger by river
mile and/or shore location for bays,
lukes, and estuaries.
(b) An identification of the location of
all (Federal, State, local) monitoring
stations by river mile and/or grid loca-
tion.
NOTE Such a map may omit discharger
and monitoring station locations if such loca-
tions are available in the EPA water quality
information system and If the plan includes
the listing described in section 131.206 and
a list of monitoring stations and their
iDcations.
!l 131.202 Water quality standard*.
(a) Each plan shall set forth the water
c uality standards applicable to each body
of water or segment In the basin or shall
include the legal citation of such stand-
E.rds.
(b) The Governor (or his designees)
thall from time to time, but at least once
every 3 years hold public hearings for
the purpose of reviewing applicable water
quality standards and, as appropriate,
modify and adopt standards as set forth
in section 303 (e) of the act.
(c) Modification and adoptions of
standards shall consider the objectives
(if the act specified in section 101 (a) of
1he act and the social, economic and
technical, including natural, considera-
',ions to achieving these objectives.
~ 131.203 Plan content-segment classi-
fication.
(a) Based on the following analysis,
;ach plan shall classify all waters within
che planning basin as water quality class
segments and/or effluent class segments
as follows:
(1) Effluent class segment analysis.
d> An identification of those waters by
segment where water quality is better
than applicable water quality standards
and will continue to be better after the
application of best practicable control
technology for industry and secondary
treatment for municipalities;
(ii) An identification of those waters
by segment where water quality does not
meet applicable standards, but will after
the application of best practicable con-
trol technology for industry and second-
ary treatment for municipalities;
(2) Water quality class segment
analysis.(i) An identification of those
waters by segment where water quality
is not expected to meet applicable water
quality standards even after the applica-
tion of the effluent limitations required
by sections 301 (b) (1) (A) and (B) of the
act.
(b) This analysis shall be used to re-
classify as appropriate the current State
classification of segments pursuant to
§ 130.11.
(c) For all water quality segments
within the basin, each plan shall contain
the following:
(1) An assessment of total maximum
daily loads necessary to meet water qual-
ity standards for the specific criteria
being violated
(2) An assessment of nonpoint source
pollution and, where applicable, needed
control measures.
(3) Already established effluent limit
requirements for significant dischargers
and target limits, previously not estab-
lished, for significant dischargers that
are required to achieve water quality
standards.
(4) An assessment of municipal
facility requirements
(51 An inventory and categorization of
significant individual discharges.
(S) Already established schedules of
compliance and target dates of abate-
ment for significant dischargers not on a
compliance schedule.
(d) For all effluent class segments
within the basin, each plan shall con-
tain as a minimum the following:
(1) An assessment oi municipal facil-
ity requirements.
(21 An inventory and categorization of
significant individual discharges.
(31 Already established schedules of
compliance and target dates of abate-
ment for significant dischargers not on
a compliance schedule.
(41 National priorities as determined
by the Administrator.
(el Each plan shall establish controls
over the disposition of all residual waste
from any municipal, industrial, or other
water or waste water treatment proc-
essing, whenever the processing or dis-
posal occurs within the basin.
(f) Each plan shall be revised as nec-
essary to reflect revisions of the appli-
cable water quality standards.
§ 131.204 Identification of relationship
of other plans.
(a) Each basin plan shall identify the
relationship and indicate the current
status of any other water quality or
other applicable resource plan prepared
or under preparation which involves all
or any part of the basin, including:
(1) Each areawide waste treatment
management plan under section 208 of
the act.
(2) Each facilities plan for a proposed
project for the construction of treatment
works under section 201 of the act.
(3) Each level B basin plan pursuant
to section 209 of the act or Public Law
89-90.
(4) Applicable portions of each water
quality standards implementation plan
under section 303 (a) and (b) of the
act.
(51 Applicable portions of 40 CFR
150.1 and 150.2 plans (former 18 CFR
601.32 and 601.33, 1971 ed.i.
(6) Other applicable resource plan-
ning including:
(i) State land use programs.
(ill Activities stemming from the
Coastal Zone Management Act (Public
Law 92-5831.
(iii) Activities stemming from the
Rural Development Act of 1972 (Public
Law 92-4191.
(ivl Other federally assisted planning
and management programs.
(b) Each basin plan shall separately
identify each plan which has been inte-
grated with the basin plan.
§ 131.205 Total maximum daih loads.
(a) Each plan should include, for each
water quality class segment identified
pursuant to § 131.202, the total
maximum daily loads of pollutants, in-
cluding thermal loads, allowable for a
specific criteria being violated or ex-
pected to be violated. Such loads shall be
at a level at least as stringent as neces-
sary to implement the applicable water
quality standards, including
(11 Provisions for seasonal variation.
and
(21 Provision of a margin of safety
which takes into account any lack of
knowledge concerning the relationship
between effluent limitations and water
quality, including any uncertainty in-
sulting from insufficiency of data, in-
cluding data from nonpoint sources of
pollutants.
(b) (11 Each plan shall estimate, for
each water quality segment where ther-
mal standards may be violated, the total
daily thermal load allowable in such
segment. Such load shall be at a level
at least as stringent as necessary to as-
sure; the protection and propagation of
a balanced, indigenous population of
shellfish, fish, and wildlife. Such loads
shall take into account:
(i) Normal water temperatures.
(ii) Flow rates.
(iii) Seasonal variations.
(ivl Existing sources of heat input
(v) The dissipative capacity of the
identified segment.
(21 Each estimate shall include an
estimate of the maximum heat input
that can be made into each water quality
segment where temperature is one of
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 38, NO. 99WEDNESDAY, MAY 23, 1973
-------
Uio criteria being violated and skall in-
clude a margin of safety which hikes
olio account lack of knowledge c-jiiconi
ing the development of Jhermsl wa'er
qliality criteria for protection raid propa-
gation of indigenous biota in the identi-
fied segment.
i^j Wlieie predictive mathematical
mcaelo are used in the determination of
maximum daily loads, each model shall
be identified and briefly described, and
the specific use of the model shall be
cited.
§ 131.206 Individual point source dis-
charges ; impact on water quality.
''a) Each plan shall identify each sig-
!;!'.cant point source of pollutants, set
forth rhe location of each source, and
describe, by parameter, its waste dis-
charge chara-. t--ristics. The identifica-
tion, location, u.,:d description shall in-
clude procedures for utilizing data from
the national pollutant discharge elimi-
nation system.
(b> Each plan shall establish dis-
charge load and thermal load alloca-
tions or target allocations for significant
point and nonpoint sources in each
water quality segment a,s follows:
(1) The plan shall establish a dis-
charge load allocation or target load
allocation for significant point and, to
the degree feasible, nonpoint sources in
each water quality segment identified
pursuant to § 131.203 and shall where
required establish a load allocation for
each thermal source. The total of such
discharge load allocations for each
source in the segment shall not exceed
the total maximum daily load or thermal
load allocation established or estimated
for such segment pursuant to § 131.205.
(2) Each discharge load allocation and
thermal allocation established or esti-
mated pursuant to this paragraph shall
incorporate an allowance for anticipated
economic and demographic growth over
at leaV a 5-year period and an addi-
tional Allowance reflecting the precision
and validity of the method used in deter-
mining such allowance.
(3) Establishment of discharge load
allocations and thermal load allocations
shall be coordinated with the develop-
ment of terms and-conditions of permits
under the national discharge elimina-
tion system in the manner prescribed
by § 131.209.
(4) Where permits have been issued,
the relationship of the allocations and
the schedules of compliance to the per-
mits shall be governed by § 131.209.
(c) (1) Each plan_ shall contain effluent
limitations, or target limitations, con-
sistent with the requirements of the act,
applicable to significant point sources
identified in paragraph (a) of this
section. .
12) Effluent limitations for each source
in water quality segments shall be at
least as stringent as necessary to meet
the load allocations established for such
scnirces pursuant to paragraph (b) (1)
of this section.
(3) Establishment of effluent limita-
tions shall be coordinated with the devel-
oyi)i^iit if term.-, Cind c<,i:,lit!oi:-; of
permits under the !iarr,i,al Pollutant
discharge elm:n;i1i'>n systfri in the
manner iJi-eseriLn.d oy § '.3:.20:i.
§ 131.207 Schednh'* of c!»mf.!'anre; co-
ordination with pernnlo.
(a) Each plan shall inc^ir!0 srhPriules
of compliance or target date? of abnte-
ment for significant point ^'Tiroes identi-
fied in § 131.206 which are not curienlly
in compliance with the effluent limita-
tions established in paragraph (c> of
such section and are not anticipated to
be in compliance by January 1, 1975.
(b)(l) Each schedule shall contain
realistically established milestone dates
pursuant to this subsection.
(i) -If the State or the regional ad-
ministrator has issued a permit to the
source under the national pollutant dis-
charge elimination system, the schedule
shall contain the major interim and final
dates included as terms or conditions of
the permit, if any, that are necessary to
assure an adequate tracking of progress
towards compliance. For purposes of
plan preparation the permit issued could
be attached to the plan submitted.
(ii) If the source is required to obtain
a permit under the national pollutant
discharge elimination system but no per-
mit has been issued as of the date that
the plan is submitted, the schedule shall
set forth a tentative or target date when
the source must obtain a permit, as well
as other target abatement dates that will
enable an adequate tracking of progress
toward completion of the facility.
(2) The plan shall set forth the legal
basis for enforcement of the schedule of
compliance (e.g., was adopted, as State
law; was promulgated as State regula-
tions; is or will be incorporated in waste
discharge permit).
<3) Establishment of schedules of
compliance shall be coordinated with the
development of terms and conditions of
permits under the national pollutant dis-
charge elimination system in the manner
prescribed by § 131.209.
§ 131.208 Ranking of segments and in-
ventory of point source discharges.
(a) Each plan shall include an inven-
tory and categorization of sources which
shall be used by the State in the develop-
ment of the State strategy. This strategy
is described in part 130, subpart D of this
chapter.
(b) Each plan shall include a ranking
of its segments in order of abatement
priority using, as a minimum, the criteria
specified in § 130.41 of this chapter.
§ 131.209 Coordination of certain plan-
ning components and terms of per-
mits.
(a) If the State is participating in the
national pollutant discharge elimination
system, 01 if the permit program is ad-
ministered by EPA. individual discharge
allocations, effluent limitations, and
schedules of compliance shall be devel-
oped as provided in this paragraph.
U) (i) The State will use its best ef-
forts to incorporate in permit terms and
conditions the applicable target individ-
u<;! effluent liini'.i'i. n~ and tmgK scrr-I
ill-:: of hitcripr.' ("-';,Hi :hfi by ivv
iip"»'o,'o.1 pli'i". '"ibif."'1", Vrrrpver to V!
th" ri"~>)t,s Ihn1 ',,- cvr-it .ipnlicnnt if. '
other r.it(".ei.fiair < ~.f compli-
ance in the j~o :r: >.-:";'.. , o'-.-'.lJ -
iii) The milfoU.1... . y-.,. ,-,' i
plan impietr.Cut.i:-' (,.-.; 1 r.s ;
schedule of con'.ph. rux est.ibiis!.
a pernut shall be inco;porat^d into t.
plan at the first revision of the plan to
take place following issuance of the per-
mit.
(2) Iii a planning area where a plan is
under development, permit terms and
conditions proposed for anj source and
plan piei aration shall be coordinated,
to assure that the plan reflects fnforma-
tion developed in connection with the
permit application and conditions for
effluent limitations and a schedule of
compliance proposed for the permit.
(3) Where, pursuant to the approved
phas'-ig of planning, no plan has been
approved or is under development, the
State shall not be precluded by such lack
of planning from processing any permit
(consistent with established priorities).
In such case, permit terms and condi-
tions proposed in a cluster shall be devel-
oped following the State's consideration
of all discharges in the cluster. (See
§ 130.60 of this chapter.) The State shall
retain the documentation of any cluster
analysis for use in the subsequent prep-
aration of the discharge load allocations,
effluent limitations, and compliance
schedules for the area.
§ 131.210 Municipal facility investment
reqiiireinents.
(a) Each plan shall include an assess-
ment of municipal waste treatment in-
vestment requirements. Such assessment
shall be based upon the criteria set forth
in paragraph (b) of this section.
(b) Municipal facility investment re-
quirements shall be determined accord-
ing to the following criteria:
(1) Load reduction achieved by the
identified facility, and whether this re-
duction is required to attain and main-
tain applicable water quality standards
and effluent limitations.
(2) Evidence concerning the cost
effectiveness of proposed treatment,
where available.
(3) Population or population equiva-
lents to be served, including forecast
growth or decline of such population over
the design life of the needed facility. The
time period used shall be stated. These
analyses shall take into account projec-
tions used in other State and local plan-
ning activities.
(c) Cost estimates for facilities meet-
Ing the above criteria shall be based on
engineering plans, specifications, and de-
tailed cost estimates where available.
For any facility for which detailed esti-
mates do not exist, cost estimates shaH
be made based on guidelines prepared !>y
the Administrator.
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 38, NO. 99WEDNESDAY, MAY 23, 1973
-------
g 31.211 Imlii iilu;il nonpoiut source
cliseliarjti s ; inipaet on Hater <]nalit>*
(a1 To the extent feasible and de-
pendent upon issuance of appropilate
guidelines under section 304(e) of the
act, plans .shall provide for the considei a-
ticn of agricultural .silvioultural, mining-
re; atcd, construction activity related, salt
wr.ter intrusion related and other non-
point source pollution.
(b) Each plan for each water quality
segment shall identify and evaluate non-
point source discharges including as a
minimum a description of the type of
problem and an identification of the
waters affected, including an evaluation
of the effects.
(c) Where feasible, each plan for each
wt ter quality segment shall include the
following:
1 1 ) Description of present and pro-
po~ed abatement or control stiategy;
< 2) Determination of priority tor
abatement or control;
(3> " EstaWLliment of schedule of
compliance;
'It An estimate of the costs of 1m-
ple mentation; and
t5> Assignment of responsibility of
'Abatement control.
Pita obtained froru the plan monitoring
program established pursuant to subparr
C of this part shall be employed in mak-
'i v»itli l.intl use
j>oli< i< s and .-'mlroK.
The plan should describe the extent
t<> \\hich land use decisions can be in-
fluenced to complement and reinforce
die control actions required to meet
wuter quality goals Each plan shall set
foi th any procedures established to as-
sure land i.fc re'ationships have been
given adequate consideration in the de-
velopment of the plan.
Subpart C Monitoting and Surveillance
§ 131.300 Id lalicuisliip of monitoring
anti '.Moeillanre lo plans.
ta> Each plan shall be based upon
adequate monitoring and surveillance
data, as st I forth in this subpart, from
Vvhich to determine the relationship be-
tween instioam water quality and indi-
vidual disc h.uv,ss Such data will facili-
tate implementation of the plan.
Each pla!1 -liall contain lor each
water quality segment:
(!> A proguini to monitor the total
she-am disthn.i'' loadings, including
contnuutions fium significant dis-
chargers, v, inch hall be related to the
maximum daih leads established by the
plan pursuant LO j 131 20f>, and
t'2) A (t.ntin n, ' program l.,r moni-
toring instil ,'!, attr quality ..tandaids
;u d goal-,
III e.stalill l,h. :hc' inui.itoi ing and
; u. ', < illaiu e 11 ! '.nn lor discuie water
r''t,rienl:' ct it. ui -i.i'ion sli.dl be given
to the seventy ol the pollution and ap-
plicable water quality standards and
goals including the use to be made of
the waters.
§ 131.302 I <->e of monitoring MII-M-JS lot-
plan develupmeii!.
Each plan shall incorporate the re-
suits of any monitoring survey com-
pleted prior to the date of adoption of
the plan which provides current data for
the area covered by the plan. If cur-
rent data are not available the State
should conduct an adequate monitoring
survey to obtain the necessary data be-
fore completion of the plan.
§ 131.303 Fi fqueney of monitoring sur-
veys.
Each plan shall provide that the mon-
itoring survey for the area within water
quality classified segments covered by
the plan will be lepeated at appropri-
ately defined luUi vals, depending on the
variability ol conditions and changes in
hydiologic or efiluent regimes. The sur-
vey intervals shall be stated m the plan.
§ 131.304 Output of monitoring Mir\eys.
The monitoring sur\ey shall produce
sufficient mfoimatiou to support the
planning for the area. Output shall in-
clude, but is not limited to, the following:
(a) A listing of all surface waters by
stream segment m water zone, which do
not comply with applKablc water quality
standards and goali.
In water quality segments, a de-
:-cnplion of pollutant mass balances, in-
cluding estimates of the total pollutant
loads to be controlled in the segment.
(c) Input to the EPA. water quality
information system of basic data col-
lected during the monitoring survey, and
validation anr! correction of data avail-
able piior to the sui vev.
(d) A listing of stations, parameters,
and frequencies to be monitored u> pro-
vide compliance, progress measurement,
and trend information requiied by this
chapter.
(e) A proposed schedule, based on
variability of stream quality, expected
changes in flow and effluent regimes, or
other information, for the subsequent
monitoring survey to be undertaken 111
the same basin.
§ 131.305 Water quality data from fixed
Mutions; input to information sy.slem.
ia) Each plan shall provide for the
maintenance of a small number of per-
manent in-stream water quality trend
evaluation stations at key locations in
each basin to measure progress toward
applicable water quality st-iiiditrds and
goals, trends in water quality, and com-
pliance \vith appioved ply,is, and shall
be used as a basis for completing the
section 305 ib> reports.
.>n :,hall he
made available loi u.-., in c!' '.elc.pmg 'hi
plans required in vlus part, including
data concerning the loeution. ultniiiuv-
tion. and characteii/.ution of each u,1
charge supplied by appli.Miit.-. :>'!'
permits.
'hi Other mformnl.ion on jjoin1
sources developed by inonitonr,!/ si;r\i' s
shall be assembled lor use in d"vei»p '.;;
the plans required by this pai t
(c) The State shall input Huh > ,;i.
source j.t.i to the EPA mttvrr .-,.. -
tern in sucli manner as the btuto i-.nr!
the Regional AdiiiinL-.tiafir .sliail agree
Subpart DCompletion and Review oi
Plans; Relation to Perm'ts anil GranU
§ 131.400 r:erliliealions.
Each plan shall incluue tlie foli:,v ;i.'
aasurances and certific -ition b> t!ie Ouv
ernor or his designee'
(a) That the plan is the , ftiaal Stat-
water pollution abatemeii' piaut for I u
hydrologic unit covered by sujh plan
fb) That the plan was aifoptul .''Tiii
public hearings as presented in 5 111 ; '
and that public i .c ticipatv, u «, ,i
forded in .iceordaricf v.itli e" i..i,i.'.
promulgated lor sect ion 10 H- '.1 r.
act.
ic) Th ompatib'" n/'
all plans established pursuant 10 ;
tion 303(e' of the act, o: r-.uri.ij.i.'it ;
other sections of the ac t for other >,;'>.!
within tile State and iii a::y other Stale
(except that if the plan is not wholly
compatible with any plan tor wu.rr.s in
another State, a description and expla-
nation of such incompatibility shall l»
supplied).
(d) That the plan h.is incomer ite>i
the relevant features of each pi.in ftv
the construction of publicly owned tiea'
ment works under section 201 oi tne a< '
and each areawide water qt.ahtv man-
agement plan under section 20H ol i'
act, involving all or a ji'irtion "I »he ii> -
drologic unit covered by the !jMsi'i plan,
if such plans have been ai>prc,v(>T't' nninmg
the priority for Federal ;m.l StaV ,,,-
sistance for such consti ,1-ii.'i; a- pio-
vided in § 130.43 of this chnptei
§ 131.101 1'iiMir lirur!ii»s.
the adoption or a, ' ti'i^tantr, ,i ,i.,i.jii
of the plan and afu.-r reasonable r'i;;ce
thereof, one 01 more public heaiir i; i
the proposed plan or on purls j 'he
j)lan, in accordance with the rey 'Uon-.
promulgated pursuant loseiUcx, 1,1)10
of tlie act The number and !<>< ., 'on of
hcann;;-, shall reflect the SIT 1,1 the
FFDERAL RECITER, VOL 36, NO 99WEDNESDAY, MAY. 23, 1973
-------
planning area and its population and
population distribution. Public participa-
tion and contribution shall be encour-
aged commencing with the earliest pos-
sible stages of plan development and con-
tinuing throughout the period of plan
preparation, including revisions thereof.
The State may conduct its public hear-
ing on the plan simultaneously with the
public hearing on permits in the area
covered by the plan. If the public hearing
was conducted on a segment or cluster
of the plan for the purpose of facilitating
the issuance of permits, then this por-
tion of the plan need not be subject to
additional public hearings requirements,
'b) For purposes of this section:
U) The term "substantive" includes
but is not limited to any significant revi-
sion of water quality standards, maxi-
mum daily loads for water quality seg-
ments, load allocations for individual dis-
chargers, effluent limitations, or schedules
of compliance.
(2) "Reasonable notice" includes, at
least 30 days prior to the date of each
hearing:
(i) Notice given to the public by prom-
inent advertisement announcing the
date, time, and place of each such hear-
ing and the availability of the proposed
plan for public inspection; and
(ii) Notification to the Regional Ad-
ministrator.
(c) There shall be prepared and re-
tained for submission to the Regional Ad-
ministrator upon his request a record of
each hearing. The record shall contain
at a minimum a list of witnesses to-
gether with the text of each written
presentation.
(d) There shall be submitted with the
plan a. description of any major con-
troversy raised by the hearing and the
disposition thereof.
§ 131.402 Submission.
Plan submission shall be accomplished
by delivering five copies of the plan to the
Regional Administrator, together with a
letter from the Governor (or his des-
ignee) notifying the Regional Adminis-
trator of such action.
§ 131.403 Plan review; approval or dis-
approval.
The Regional Administrator shall ap-
prove or disapprove the plan submitted
pursuant to § 131.402 within 30
days after the date of submission, as
follows:
(a) If the Regional Administrator
determines that the plan conforms with
the requirements of the act, this part,
the continuing planning process and con-
tiguous plans including neighboring
States' plans, he shall so notify the Gov-
ernor or his designee by letter.
(b) If the Regional Administrator
determines that the plan fails to con-
form with the requirements of the act,
this part, the continuing planning proc-
ess or contiguous plans including those
of neighboring States, he shall notify the
Governor or his designee by letter and
shall state:
(1) The specific revision:; necrs^iry to
obtain approval of the plans, and
(2) The time period for lesubmission
of the plan.
(c) Where plans involving interstate
waters are found to be incompatible, he
shall notify the Governors, or their des-
ignees, of the concerned States of the
specific areas of incompatibility.
§ 131.404 Revisions.
(a) The plan shall be revised from
time to time as necessary to accom-
plish national water quality objectives
in conformity with the requirements of
the act and the continuing planning
process. Procedures for revision shall be
set forth in the plan.
(b)(l) The Regional Administrator
shall from time to time review each ap-
proved plan for the purpose of Insuring
that such plan is at all times adequate
to assure the goal of paragraph (a) of
this section.
(2) The plan shall be revised as nec-
essary upon finding by the Regional
Administrator and notification to the
Governor (or his designee) that the plan
is substantially inadequate to assure the
goal of paragraph (a) of this section.
(3) The plan shall be revised within
90 days following notification by the
Regional Administrator pursuant to sub-
paragraph (2) of this paragraph, or by
such later date as may be prescribed by
the Regional Administrator after con-
sultation with the State.
(c) Revisions of the process shall be
adopted after reasonable notice and pub-
lic hearings as prescribed in § 131.401.
(d) Revisions shall be submitted in
accordance with § 131.402.
(e) Plan review and approval or dis-
approval shall be carried out in accord-
ance with § 131.403.
§ 131.405 Prohibition of approval of
certain plans.
The Regional Administrator shall not
approve any plan that does not conform
with the requirements of section 303(e)
of the act, the continuing planning proc-
ess, and this part. Substantial failure of
any plan to conform with the applicable
requirements of section 303 (e) of the act
and of this part may Indicate that the
planning process by which such plan was
developed was deficient and may result
in withdrawal of approval of the plan-
ning process or portions thereof relating
to such plan. Approval of the State's
participation in the national pollutant
discharge elimination system may be
withheld or withdrawn if the process is
not fully approved.
§ 131.406 Prohibition of certain con-
struction grants.
(a) Before approving a grant for any
project for any treatment works under
section 201 (g) of the act after June 30,
1973, the Regional Administrator shall
determine, pursuant to 40 CFR 35.925-2,
that such works are in conformity with
any applicable plan approved in accord-
ance with this part and part 130 of this
chapter D'sappro1, -\1 b; f'-.s
^dministrafor of a plan, r constitute ground1-
for not approving a grant for such
project.
(b) The Regional Adn.r.i'-! vior may
suspend or terminate a grain for any
project for any treatment works lii ac-
cordance with § 35.950 of this Chapter if
he determines that such grain is incon-
sistent with a plan, for the area of f - -
project, approved subsequent to approval
of the grant.
§ 131,407 Discharge permit terms and
conditions.
Each permit issued under the national
pollutant discharge elimination system
to any source covered by the plan shall
be prepared in accordance with the plan
as provided in § 131.209, shall be
processed pursuant to the State priority
permit issuance procedures set forth in
§ 130.44 of this chapter, and shall
contain such terms and conditions as
may be necessary to meet the applicable
requirements of the plan; subject, how-
ever, to all the rights that the permit
applicant and other interested persons
may have under State or Federal law to
contest the terms and conditions of the
permit in the permit issuance proceeding.
Failure of any permit to conform with
the requirements of this section may con-
stitute grounds for the Administrator to
object to the issuance of such permit.
§ 131.408 Separability.
If any provision of this part, or the
application of any provision of this part
to any person or circumstance, is held
invalid, the application of such provision
to other person or circumstances, and
the remainder of this part, shall not be
affected thereby.
[PR Doc.73-10306 Filed 5-22-73;8:45 am]
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 38, NO, 99WEDNESDAY, MAY 23, 1973
-------
B-l
APPENDIX B
WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS THROUGH MODELING
Water quality analysis through modeling enables planners to predict
water quality under adjusted conditions of flow, temperature and pollutant
loads. Hence, it provides a basis for load allocation and effluent reduc-
tion determinations.
Water quality analysis is conducted by the following steps:
Categorize the water body.
Conceptualize the phenomena.
Consider alternative appropriate modeling
techn iques.
Select the least sophisticated adequate modeling
techn ique.
Calibrate the selected model.
Validate the model.
Predict water quality.
These steps are discussed in further detail below. It is expected that
in the actual development of the model, additional sources will be con-
sulted to supplement this general information.
A. Categorize the water body.
Water bodies may be categorized in one of three categories: Flowing
streams, estuaries, and lakes and impoundments. Dominant transport mech-
anisms differ in each category; hence, varying modeling techniques are
appropriate for differing categories. Further, the degree of sophistication
of technique within each water body category may also vary according to
conditions in the water. A combination of techniques should probably be
employed for analyses where more than one category of water body is involved,
-------
B-2
B. Conceptualize the Phenomena.
The phenomena and interactions that occur in the water body must
be conceptualized for use in a model. Conceptualization consists of
reducing these phenomena to mathematical formulations or equations
which will describe variations of the phenomena in response to changes
in conditions. The selected model must reflect all major, relevant
phenomena.
C. Consider Alternative Appropriate Modeling Techniques.
I. Alternative modeling techniques.
The model to be used depends on the category(ies) of the water body(ies)
being analyzed (see paragHaph A), the type of wafer quality problem and the
complexity of the problem.
A preliminary investigation of the area to be modeled will indicate
the water body category(ies) and problem type(s). This investigation
normally will include review of maps and existing water quality and hydro-
logic data. (See Chapter II, Section A.) Existing data obtained in the
preliminary investigation should be used to aid in the determination of the
level of sophistication of the study. The object of the selection process
should be to utilize the minimum level of sophistication which will provide
sufficient detail to justify the selection of water quality management
strategies that will result in achieving water quality standards during
critical conditions.
For model selection purposes, the techniques may be broken into four
general typesA through D. These techniques are identified in Table B-l,
below. It should be noted that Types A, B, C and D represent arbitrary points
on a scale of techniques that range from simple to very complex, and shadings,
variations and combinations of techniques may be appropriate in a given case.
The most complex techniques, Type D, should be reserved for research efforts
into the most intricate water quality situations.
2. Data considerations in selecting technique.
While model selection is based ultimately on identifying the least
complicated adequate technique, the extent of data available or to be
acquired must also be considered.
-------
B-3
Tr.blo D-l
Waier Quality Simulation Techniques A-C
Rscsivinq V/ater Category
Type
Soon i sfi cari on
Flowing sl'reams
Esruarie:
Lnkes and irrountiiriB
A
B
C
D
A
C
D
A
B
C
D
Simplified steady state
Steady state
Transient stare
CompI ex
Simplified steady state
(one di mensionaI)
Steady state (one or two
d imensionaI)
Transient (two dimensional)
CompI ex
Compleloly mixed
One dimensional vertically
rn i xed
Strati tied
Cornp I ex
-------
B-4
The Type A simplified steady state analysis should be a first try,
unless clearly inadequate. If consistent data exist or will be collected,
Type B steady state models can be validated and applied to a low flow
analysis. The accuracy of the study is tied to the amount and complete-
ness of the data.
For Type C studies, detailed data sets are required to capture the
variations in water quality.
5. The risk factor as an element in selecting technique.
The water quality analysis and prediction developed by any model can
only approximate the actual water quality which will occur under the
various suggested hypotheses. The simpler models assume many coefficients
based on previous modeling experience. These assumptions will never be
entirely correct for the distinct water body being analyzed; hence, remedial
measures (effluent reductions) based on the model predictions will not
result in water quality exactly as predicted by the model. Since unneces-
sarily stringent measures may result in costly overbuilding and inadequate
measures may fail to protect the aquatic ecosystem and achieve established
water quality goals, model selection must consider the degree of risk to
be accepted. Risks should be minimized where large construction fund out-
lays are required or where a particularly frail or valuable aquatic system
is at stake. Conversely, complex models which create a need for high cost,
lengthy data collection are not justified where, on balance, the conse-
quences of the probable degree of error would be relatively minor.
D. Select least sophisticated adequate modeling technique.
The least sophisticated modeling technique adequate for water
quality analysis and prediction should be selected and used where
needed in water quality segments to allocate waste loads and estab-
lish effluent reduction needs based on critical conditions for each
parameter.
Table B-1 I below summarizes the criteria for the selection of an
analytical technique. The table lists criteria for each of the four
levels of complexity (A, B, C and D). As has been noted, level D
studies should not generally be used. For each level of complexity,
the table presents the type of problems and water bodies for which the
level is appropriate, the planning characteristics (complexity and risk)
associated with that level and the time required for a study.
This table only serves as starting place in the selection process.
Each of the criteria should be broken down and studied in more detail
before making the final actual technique selection.
-------
B-5
CO
<
CO
LU
O
o
LL
O
O
O
LU
LU
CO
CC
LU
a:
o
0
1- >.
"O
CT4-
0 CO
a:
L.
0 O
i
CO
u
4-
CD CO
C
C 0
c 4
CO U
ro
Q- (-
co
_C
O
^^
-Q
o
m
L_
0
4-
ro
to
0
_Q
o
1- 0
Q_
.O
>- ro
. £_
ro
ro >
O "O
c
i- CO
0
4-
ro
4-
X
0
CL
E
O
O
0
T3
O
o
CO
I/) -M
s^ 0
ro 0
Q S
1 Q)
CO 4- CO
M- S_ T3 CO "O C
O O CO C C O
^^ ro i L_ ro
-*: -a 4- en 0 4-
t/)CC0 4- CO CL
ro 0 ~o 000
L. E ro
c ^ CD JD
3roO4- O0oro
O 4- L ' -Z. +- l~
_i c ro 4-
CL > CO O t- c fO
ro c z> 4- o >
CO U 0 CT4- -Q CO U ro
ro
c
O
T3 >-
to c
C (0 CO 0
0 04-
E CO 0
"o ro ro CL "o
1 0 Z> E 0
0 U 4- O X
c 4- co u
O U1 0 ^ E
T3
c
ro
c
o
L_ *~^
ro e
U 0
^ CD
O
O 4-
Q 'c
~O '"^
0 - >~
CL 1
E ro
c
CO <
CTv CO
-C
O 4-
4- c
O
CM E
0
4- 0
(o ro I
! 4- CO CO -Q
0rocT3 0~ocro
-o4-0ro >co
O E s- - ro
E CL c O) 4- 4- CO
ro O 0 ra i/i CL >
OOL--0 C0OCO
4- !_
H- > >- 0 CD 0
3OC4- 4-0O-Q
O 0 H t-
i^: c < ro 4- 4-
co T3 ro O i- c co
C ZJ -4-03
roi-rocr4--CitoOE
1
3 01
4- V-
1 CO 0
O ro 0 >
3 C
4- O -. L
CO
1- co E
O c: co co co
0000
0 E 1- ^
C 4- !- CO
O "a 01 ro
T3
C 1
ro ro 4- i-
s_ c o co
c 0 E
O Q- O -a L. 0
-Q E a. 00
t- 0 c 4- 4- -Q
10 4- O ro ro O
U C CL 3 U
^ ^^ Q_
C T3 U CD
0 C £=>.
O CD CO CD 4- 4-
O O C 4-
D L. 0 L_ - L. CL
~o ro >-
(00 1
1
~l
CO
'*xT
CM CO
-C
O 4-
4- C
o
vo E
l l
CL c
ro O
O U s_ >~ 0 "0
4- 4- > c
M- > . ro
0 O c c 4-
4- 0 ra O ro co
ro ^ zi . c 0
L- CO T3 CT 4- L
0 c ro 0 CD
"O L. ro T) 4- 0
O ra ro 4-
S -c 4- L. < co
CD (0 C CD i-
h 0 0 4-
co -c E ~a -Q c/i
*.
to co
0 CB
V i 1
_i_ 1
ro L o ro
ro 3 c
=14-0
* 4- .-
CO CO 1- tO
L- 0 O C
0 0
> TJ 0 E
C C
a: ra o "a
3
O 1 O
CL
Q E M-
00 L-
CD 0 H 0
c: u CL C >
L. -0 E O 3 O
>- D C U-
I- O (O CO 4- 1-
co co ra 0
> - U 4-
4- to t/i ro
0 c 0 jz 3
E 10 i- CL CO
O >- => O >- E
h- CL 4- i_ l_
£= ro ro 4- ro O
O c L Z! c 4-
ro c co 0 0 ro to
CO
ro co
0 >-
c
- ro
£Z
ro ^
4- 0
C l/)
0 U 0
CL
0) 4- >-
C 0 t
ro c --^
L_
0
CO -Q
c ro
O
.
4- ro
CL >
O ro
0
O -Q
i_
4- 4-
C t/)
O 3
U E
>,
4-
.
ro
Z3
CT
CO 1_ CO
0 E
t/> 4- 0
>- CO
3 -d
ro O
c i_
ra -Q CL
-------
B-6
m
0
L >
X)
CT4-
0 CO
Qi
0 O
H
w
u
4-
CO 10
c
c 0
C 4-
ro u
ro
0_ 1-
ro
0
XJ
&
L
0
,f
~s.
in
E
0
_o
O
D-
-C
+-
n
ro >
0X3
c
i- ro
0
ro
>
._
x
c
o
E
O
O
(
-i
c
*^-
v£)
K1
in
w»
O -c
4- -
CN
H-
o
.*: -
in
_
i
(
en
X
ro
o
in
.
-^j
o
.^
"*
1
o
_j
0
XJ
0
.
ro
s
(D
0
c\
ro
s_
ro
0
E
I-
H
c
Q
£
i_
o
~^
XJ -
fZ
ro
__
ro
4
O-
ro
u
i
0
ro
s
U)
.
to
ro
c
ro
c
O
4-
ro
u
a.
t_
ro
0
c
.
I
c
o
c
ro 0
XJ 0 XJ -O
ro > c
ro i- ro 4-
h co 4- in
c 0 ro in n
0 xj c 0 E 0
£ t_ .
d >* 0) U) J">
o 4- 4- 0 o ro
l_ 1- L
c: < ro 4-
> ro o i- c ro
C =J 4- O >
0 cr 4- -Q in u ro
H
> o
_(_
4-0
ro s 4-
3 o u
cr i_0
a)- >
i- in o
0 E x: t-
4- 0 co Gi-
ro ro
3 .a in ro
O 0
(D .Q Q- (J (D
, *
*
o
Ul 10
u 0
10 Q-
4- >- >~
0 1-
c ro ^
j C
.^ ^
f
=K
.
in
_i
T
O
M-
H-
0
(~
O
L_
ro
0
10
0
i
-------
B-7
E. Calibrate the selected model.
After a model is selected its reaction coefficient and other
parameters should be calculated and adjusted for the particular water
body being analyzed.
F. Validate the model.
Once a model is calibrated its validity should be tested so that
a measure of its reliability is obtained. Validation should be done using
an independent set of observations. The calibrated model is then used to
predict water quality for conditions at the time of the validation set
sampling. The errors of estimate are then an indication of how well the
model replicates a particular state of the system. An analysis of errors
permits scaling the model reliability.
G. Predict water quality.
The model should be used to predict water quality for each parameter,
under the critical conditions for the parameter, using 5 year projected
waste loads. The first prediction should use effluent limitations based
on the best practicable technology ("BPT") and secondary treatment pursuant
to sections 30l(b)(l)(A) and (B) of the Act, unless those limitations are
clearly inadequate for the parameter. If BPT/secondary treatment is
inadequate, varying alternative load allocation/effluent reduction combi-
nations should be tried. A cost effective alternative calculated to achieve
all applicable water quality standards should be selected.
-------
C-l
Append!x C
Suggested Forms (Optional)
This appendix suggests forms which may be used in 303(e) plan-
ning. Use of these forms is optional. Any method of presenting
the necessary planning information that will enable public and
governmental information and review and guide ongoing water quality
management is acceptable.
The suggested forms show existing water quality, identify
required actions and describe the water quality expected to result
from these actions. Thus in combination they provide the desired
plan product: a quick-reference guide and supporting rat-ionale
for making coordinated water quality management decisions in the
basi n.
These forms may be used to present the following information:
Form I Instream Water Quality; Identification of
Standards Violations.
Form 2Waste Source Inventories and Rankings.
Form 3Load Allocations and Abatement Dates.
Form 4Abatement Program.
Forms I and 2 provide part of the data base needed
to determine the load allocations presented in Form 3.
It is desirable that the information presented on each form be
as complete as possible, but extensive data col lection is not re-
commended in low priority areas or wherever the marginal usefulness
of the resulting data would not warrant the time and expense of its
collection. Where data are insignificant or unavailable, the
following symbols may be employed:
NA"Not applicable" indicates that amounts of the
parameter are insignificant.
UK"Unknown" indicates that the parameter has not
been measured and cannot be vaiidly estimated.
While the forms are largely self-explanatory, the following discussion
may be he IpfuI.
-------
C-2
Instream Water Quality; Identification of Standards Violations.
(Form I)
Form I describes existing water quality. It is helpful for
water quality assessment to present information for each month.
At a minimum, the information should illustrate the critical period
for each parameter.
In completing this form, the following specific points are
recommended:
I. Monitoring stations should be entered starting at the
uppermost point and moving downstream. Location should
be entered by grid map coordinate and/or river mile.
If no monitoring station exists at either end of the
segment, measurements should be made and entered.
2. All constituents necessary to describe instream condi-
tions caused by known sources should be included. The
instream water quality data should be compared with the
criteria, and any constituent which is in violation
should be circled. The period of time of the violation
should be estimated.
-------
c
._t
o
O-
K
,
r~
!--
. J
O
i.J
<.n
a
LU
H
f
LD
ll_
o
LiJ
o!
!iJ
H
O
S
en
UJ
<:
o
'Z.
UJ
o
L J
L£
U_
0
1 L)
h-
1
t - C7>
- - |
ro >
\-
T \
d. I
^
'J~> ^
Q O)
:vi
U. O
s|
n._
1- Ol
O E
o --.
2: Dl
E
n: -^
_
S "5)
CL "
S 0
[Jj 0
1
O CO
1^ O
d
i
Q_
DC
CJ
UJ
O
"O
>~ -*- Q
+- C C L
._ (!) ._
£ (D ^
"3 I- CJ C H ^3 ^
X
OJ
X
a)
ri
o
X
nj
OJ
-C
X
a
0)
X
o
"J
a;
5
a>
X
rj
O
0)
[- l-
L 0)
O -c
H 1-
O c
^ 03
1
CL
ro c
UJ
c
o e
(D
-1- ffl
ro u
-H +-
00 U>
CN
ro
C-3
-------
C-4
Waste Source Inventories and Rankings. (Form 2)
Form 2 is suggested for use in constructing waste source inven-
tories which the regulations require to be presented, in some form,
for all segments. The inventory should include all point sources of
pollutants which will require a permit and/or construction grant, but
analysis of non-significant sources is not needed. Significant non-
point sources, if any, should be estimated and noted on this form,
together with their characteristics and location. Separate inventories
should be constructed for municipal (M); industrial (I); and non-point
(N) sources. Federal facilities should be entered on the inventory
which best characterizes the discharge (municipal or industrial) and
should be identified (e.g., "FM" or "Fl").
The form is designed to be used as follows:
I. Significant sources should be entered in order of
abatement priority.
2. Each source (significant and other) should be identifed
and located by grid map corrdinate and river mile and/or
shore location (for bays, lakes, or oceans).
3. The type of sample is indicated as:
"c" - composite.
"g" - grab.
"ci" - composite (industry supplied).
"gi" - grab (industry supplied)
4. The flow should be the discharge flow at which the con-
stituent is sampled. Note those cases where constituents
are at different flows.
5. The applicable constituents for each source should be
tabulated by maximum discharge during the critical season
for the parameter involved. Sum multiple outfalls of
the same source, including drainage from all areas served
by the source, and enter the aggregated load for the
parameter.
-------
O LU
LJ_ >
~ZL
o
o
Q.
HI
H-
O
h-
LU
CD
UJ
to
z
CO
CO
h-
CO
3 to
O Lu
O
LL_
0)
cp
CLM- d
>- O E
1 ra
CO
LU
O
or
o
LU
1
to
<
(J
o"
o
\
o
o
_J
c5
E
ct
o
0
LU
Q
O
O
LU
§
LU
CD
X
0
to
1
Q
O
_J
LU
O
K
O
I tl)
o 10
h- t-
SOURCES
Q_
O
i3
i
LU
O
3
to
SOURCES '
ALL INDUSTRIAL
U-
o
to
SOURCES
i
z
£
o
U-
0
to
C-5
-------
C-6
Load Allocations and Abatement Dates. (Form 5-A and 3-B)
These Series 3 forms are suggested for use in displaying the
selected waste load allocations. Form 3-A presents the allowable
load for all significant waste sources. Form 3-B summarizes abate-
ment timetables.
Form 3-A
Form 3-A displays a load allocation alternative for waste sources
in water quality segments. In the course of planning, one such form
may be completed for each load allocation alternative being considered,
but rejected alternatives need not be displayed in the completed plan
if water quality standards will be achieved by the alternative which is
selected. The alternative which is selected should be included in the
completed basin plan. Form 3-A may be used for this purpose. Loads
should be allocated to all existing, significant point sources, non-point
sources where applicable, and to foreseeable new sources to be added in
the near future.
Form 3-B
Form 3-B summarizes compliance schedules and target abatement
dates. The information reflected on Form 3-B must be displayed, in
some form, for both water quality and effluent limitations segments.
-------
C-7
-------
CO
-O
- *J O
j If. C_
i 3 i
0>
I
-------
C-9
Abatement Program (Form 4-A to 4-C)
The Series 4 forms may be used to identify needed actions, provide
a management schedule for their implementation and display the expected
resuIts.
Form 4-A
Form 4-A identifies State or local agency actions provided for more
than one source, such as obtaining new legislation for initiating detailed
non-point source analysis. All significant multi-source actions, including
those requiring State, regional or national decisions, should be set
forth.
Form 4-B
Form 4-B identifies agency actions required in connection with
specific sources, such as obtaining an abatement commitment through a
permit, a construction grant award or an enforcement action. Specific
problems which might hinder abatement (for example, socio-economic,
financial, institutional or technical issues) should be noted, accompanied
by a brief explanation of the planned resolution of the issue. Single
source agency action schedules should be coordinated with the abate-
ment targets for the source. (See Form 3-B.) Under "Resources to
Accomplish Task," the estimated cost and man years should be separately
stated for each agency involved in each task.
Form 4-C
Form 4-C relates WQ segment load reductions with water quality
improvements over time. A separate form should be used for each param-
eter for which load reductions are required. The information necessary '
to develop this abatement summary form can be derived from previous
detailed forms as follows:
Total load in segment. - Form 2.
Total allowable load. - Form 3A.
Reductions planned. - Form 3B.
-------
C-IO
H
j
8
1<
_ UJ
RK11
LD.T.L
Al,Tr.RN,
u -i u<:
Q
§
o U, x
p5-^"
Nil
|g§§§
B^fcu.
< U
-------
C-l I
KL
ACCO
OP
u- d. >^
. « o
Cg
o§
« o
11
i-.«
S^
-------
C-12
to
SHMENT
_J
Q-
?
V |
2 a:
e s
o
3
LJ
o:
u_
or
g
to
1
C4
0
U
1
.5
S
rt
4-1
t/]
O
QO
-------
C-13
Comparison of the allowable load with the planned reductions
over time will illustrate the quarter when the applicable water
quality standards for the parameter will be met in the segment or,
in the exceptional instance, it will indicate where reductions beyond
those currently planned are required. The need for such additional
planning should be reflected on Form 4-A and/or Form 4-B.
------- |