PRIORITY BASIN
ACCOMPLISHMENT
PLANNING
CURRENT STATUS
PRELIMINARY REVIEW
IMPACT OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION
Prepared By
DIVISION OF WATER PLANNING
OFFICE OF AIR & WATER PROGRAMS
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
OCTOBER 6, 1972
-------
OMAHA - COUNCIL BLUFFS
METRO
^iL.
GALVESTON - HOUSTON
\LOWER MISSISSIPPI
LOWER FLORIDA
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
This report describes the current status of Priority Basin Accomplish-
ment Planning (PBAP) and provides a preliminary program review. It
also discusses the expected impact of the new legislation and the
approach to the FY 74 plan submissions. Information contained in this
analysis was obtained from regional visits and from the plans submitted
in response to the October 2, 1972 deadline. Any resource data shown
is subject to change pending the outcome of resource appeals. All
other data represents the present Regional effort. This analysis is
preliminary and only a part of the analysis potential in the data
obtained has been developed and presented here.
I. Summary Page i
II. Objectives and Current Status 2
III. Projected Accomplishments 3
IV. Resource Implications 17
V, Program Impact 19
VI. Assessment of Effort
-- Conclusions and Our Assessment 26
-- Resources and Effort Required 26
-- Critique of Methodology and Resources Needed 27
-- Reporting System 28
-- Legislation 29
(V
-- Where Do Wefr'rom Here? 30
VII. Regional Organization 31
Appendix
-------
I. SUMMARY
-- Implementation and tracking of progress can begin in all basins now.
. Generally, technical analysis is sufficient now to project
accomplishment and guide actions with reasonable confidence.
. Areas of uncertainty have been identified, and in most cases
work is underway or planned to fill our knowledge gaps.
. Work planning for integrated EPA action has generally been
completed to the extent allowed by uncertainties due to
legislation, Kalur decision, and appeals from Regional re-
source allocations.
-- Headquarters emphasis in the remainder of FY 73 will be on installing
Priority Basin Accomplishment Reporting and improving the planning
methodology and guidelines, plus appropriate sequencing of PBAP and
general work planning for FY 74.
-- Regional emphasis through the remainder of FY 73 should be on
implementation and tracking of progress, plus improvement of techni-
cal analysis and updating of strategies in view of experience and
additional knowledge gained this year, as well as new legislation, land
working with states to reassess priorities and select additional
basins.
-- New Headquarters emphasis in Water Programs direction and guidance
will be responsive to needs highlighted in the PBAP's.
. Improvement of WQ data base.
. Allocation of 3(c) and modeling resources to Priority Basins.
. Scheduling of effluent guidelines development.
. Coordination of PBAP with the States, particularly 1 § 5 year
priority lists.
. Strengthening of Standards where indicated.
. Improvement of effluent information in coordination with Enforcement.
Improved computer support.
-------
II. OBJECTIVES AND CURRENT STATUS
-- Objectives
The Priority Basin Accomplishment Plans represent the regional
strategy for concentrated EPA effort to obtain tangible water quality
improvements at the earliest possible date between now and 1976 where
such water quality accomplishments are clearly feasible.
In order to implement the clean-up program and meet the very specific
legislative mandates either present or proposed, strong managment of
the program is required. By establishing priorities and setting
forth targets and milestones we can begin to end pollution problems in
selected areas. To be successful we must keep the grants staff from
doing one thing, planning and S£A another, and enforcement yet another.
The PBAP process must make EPA's water activities an integrated opera-
tion.
In view of this concern, PBAP was designed to strengthen planning and
enable it to focus the activities of the water programs on improving
water quality instead of being either the slave of grants or enforce-
ment or a useless academic exercise that has little influence on the
action decisions taken by the States and EPA.
-- Current Status
. The resubmission of all priority basin accomplishment plans was
to have been completed by October 2, 1972. The status of
regional submissions as of October 6, 1972, is as follows:
Region I
Region II
Region III
Region IV
Reg'or. V
I
MI
Received
Draft-9/21
Preliminary
mailed 10/6
Final-10/2
Partial
Zrafr 10/6
Missing Elements/Reason
Figure 7/Resources Appeal
All/Extension of Deadline
All/Need for Regional
Resource Allocation Review.
All/Submission Scheduled
October 9, 1972
All/Resources Appeal
,n the ,...>;, .,n<.?.ix gives a detailed breakdown of the status
and thr.
visits
cf these plans at the time of the
-------
II. PROJECTED ACCOMPLISHMENTS
To put the nature ol.' the problem uml arca.s covered by the priority
basin accomplishment plans in better prospective a number of tables
have been prepared from the plans.
-- Table 1 is {extracted from Figure 10 to show the waste load
reductions planned and those estimated to be required if
Standards are to be met in 1976. In some more complex areas,
standards have been shown to be met at a later time, or remain
in an "as soon as possible" status.
A summary of Table 1 is provided below.
NUMBER OF BASINS MEETING WQ STANDARDS
BY YEAR
Region FY-75 FY-76 FY-78 Indefinite
1-6 Basins 051 0
II - 5 Basins Plans not submitted.
Ill - 4 Basins 110 2
IV - 8 Basins 250 1
V -10 Basins Plans not received.
VI - 5 Basins 140 0
VII - 3 Basins 0 2 1 0
VIII - 4 Basins Plans not submitted.
IX - 5 Basins 0 30 2
X - 4 Basins 130 0
Total - 54 Basins* 5 23 2 5
* Information gf 19 Basins not yet received.
- To-)le 2 presents key basin characteristics, including estimates
; r.he mil-.*--* O; -;reas of water and the population affected. In
uk.. next year uch better data on river miles or surface area
r< t meeting standards just be developed. Progress on annual
water quality assessments will assure this improvement. Meanwhile
the regions ar;; reluctant to publicize statements on extent of
pollution .-:. "pecific areas due to lack of adequate and up-to-date
a- sessments.
-------
PLANNED/REQUIRED WASTE LOAD REDUCTIONS
AND WQ ACCOMPLISHMENTS
In Priority Basins - October 5/1972
Region/Basin
I - Boston
Androscoggin
Boston Harbor
Connecticut River
Narragaa^etl Bay
Nashua River*
St. Croix River
Pollutant
BODe
SS
BODc
ss5
BOD5
BOD5
Metals
BOD5
BODc
SS
REDUCTION
Planned
(Ibs/da)
289,500
438,000
21,000
171,000
301,000
106,000
460
140,000
82,170
9,125
Required
(Ibs/da)
253,900
438,000
316,000
486,000
301,000
106,000
460
135,000
82,170
9,125
Meet WQS
In FY 1976
yes
yes
no (FY 78)
no (FY 78)
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
"^Includes Merrimack
II - New York ' .
Lower (mid) Del.
Albany/Capital
District -- . --
New York Metro ' '
Erie-Niagara
Lake Ontario
Figure 10, the source for these data, nave not been submitted, per agreement to extend
deadline to 10/20/72.
5?
cr
-------
PLANNED/REQUIRED ViASTE LOAD REDUCTIONS
AND WQ ACCOMPLISHMENTS
In Priority Basins - October 5,'1972
ITI - Philadelphia
Delaware River Basin
Monongahela -
Ohio River Basin
(Ohio-Monongahela
River Portion)
Potomac R. Basin
Pollutant
BODr
COD
SS
N
P
grease § oil
toxic metals
BOD5
PH
TSS
TKN
P
grease § oil
toxics
total Fe
Mn-.i
Phenols
BOD
Total P
TKN-N
Planned
(Ibs/da)
314,751
272,445
597,955
71,139
14,250
72,165
39,159
108,000
Gen. increase
to within 6.5
to 8.5 from
2.2 to 9.0
260,900
3,400
200
2,700
4,277
32,925
31
202
146,100
65,000
53,000
REDUCTION
Required
(Ibs/da)'
314,751
272,445
597,955
71,139
14,250
72,165
39,159
108.000
Gen. increase
to within..
6.5 to 8.5.
260,900
3,400
200
2,700
4,277
32,925
31
202
146,100
65,000
53,000
Meet WQS
In FY 1976
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
"as much as is
practicable"
yes
"As much as is
practicable"
as above
as above
as above
as above
as above
as above
as above
"...anticipate, the
achievement of the
5 mg/1 DO level by
1976."
as above
as above
-i
PJ
cr
-------
l\e:.i_(.r-/n;u. M,
Potomac R. ^ fc<
Kanawha River Basin
Region IV - Atlanta
Lower Mississippi
Birmingham
Charlotte
PLANNED/INQUIRED WASTE LOAD REDUCTIONS
AND V.Q ACCOMPLI SL'.iLNTS
In Priority Basins - October 5/1972
Pollutant
Toxic metals
BOD5
TKN
TSS
Phosphorus
oil § grease
BODr
NH3
BOD5
TDS
TSS
' REDUCTION
Planned
(Ibs/cia)
800
104,530
. 38,517
87,726
6,794
8,125
212,000
41,800
40,000
87,000
135,000-
Required
fibs/da)
800
ss
grease § oil
BOD2o(lst stage)
BOD20(2nd stage)
SS
Colifdrra
grease § oil
arsenic
zinc
phenols
265,000
1,000
93,620
43,205
36,000
Chlorination
6,100
4.2
8,400
834
265,000
1,000
93,620
43,205
32,600
Chlorination
6,100
4.2
8,400
834
100,640
38,517
8,150
6,700
850
208,500
40,900
30,000
87,000
110,000
Meet KQS
In FY 1976
"Estimated pollution load
reduction required... to
improve other water
quality characteristics..
as above
as above
1975
1975
1975
1975
1975
1975
1975
1975
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
o>
-------
Region/Basin
Region IV (con't)
Lower Florida
Ohio River
Chat tonooga
Chattahoochee
Escambia Bay
Region V - Chicago
Wisconsin River
Lower Fox f, Green Bay
Kabash River
Cleveland Area
Dayton/Cincinnati Area
Mohoning Area
Chicago Area
Ea. St. Louis Area
Detroit-Monroe Area
St. Josephs Area
PLANNED/REQUIRED WASTE LOAD REDUCTIONS
AND KQ ACCOMPLISHMENTS
In Priority Basins - October 5/1972
Pollutant
BODc
TSS
BOD
TSS
Cd
Pd
Cl He
BOD
TKN
BOD
BOD
REDUCTION
Planned Reauired
(Ibs/da)
164,920
233,620
320,032
240,685
155
295
4,101
6,300
2,360
48,000.
5,850
(Ibs/da)
179,400
233,600
250,066
121,247
0
0
4,100
6,300
2,280
48,000
5,062
Meet KQS
In FY 1976
no /
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
depends on
EIS
(FY 75)
(FY 75)
(FY 75)
(FY 75)
(FY 75)
(FY 75)
(-«
0
-------
?L-V\MD/REQuIB2D ..Y,S7E LOAD RTDUCTIGXS
.AND WQ ACCOJ-1PLIS DENTS
In Priority Basins - October 5, 1972
R_ ^ion/B_£sin
Regjoi VI - Dallas
Calcasieu
Pollutant
Nueces
Sabine River
Lower Mississippi
Planned
(Ibs/da)
REDUCTION
ss
ODD
BOD
TOC
SED
Chlorides
oil
metals
TOC
COD '
BOD
TSS
N
P
oil § grease
metals
SS
COD
BOD
TDS
P
"NH3-H
ORG-N
metals
BOD
COD
TDS
TSS
Phenols
oil 5 grease
metals
1,000,000
1,600,000
137,000
750,000
2,900
2,500,000
22,300
14,000
3,900
43,620
23,110
19,880
855
230
950
820
982,200
1,767,000
205,000
106,680,000
18,320
26,100
10,500
. 12,700
454,000
1,800,000
8,100,000
34,500,000
1,890
51,000
203,000
Rcouired
(Ibs/da)
not projected *
not projected
not projected
not projected
Meet KQS
In FY 1976
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
5?
cr
* Region VI did not compute anticipated water quality because of the lack of data; planned for the most
practicable treatment.
-------
PLANXED/REQUIRliD \\.\SH\ lAMi ki^l^fi'XS
AND IvQ ACCOMPLIci^J:XTS
In Priority Easir.s - October 3/1372
Region VI (con1t)
Trinity
Region VII - Kansas City
Kansas City Metro
Part I/Big Blue
Part 2/Little Blue
Part 3/Kansas River
Omaha/Council Bluffs
St. Louis Metro
Pollutant
BOD
COD
IDS
TSS
P
NH3
metals
BOD
BOD
IDS
TSS
BOD
TDS
BOD
TDS
TSS
NH,
REDUCTION
Planned
(Ibs/da)
311,963
3,783
1,914
53,980
3
373
85
285
37,000
11,000
285,000
101,100
'136,680
26.5
4300.0
1465.0
4
Ro'-u i rcJ
(ibs/Ja)
287,919
not projected
BOD
TSS
P
toxics
oil 5 grease
80,000
120,000-
5,300
2,300
2,500
80,^00
120, UOO
5,300
2,500
2,500
273
40,200
ll.SSO
307,800
41,500
50,760
26
4,300
1,465
4
Meet KQS
In FY 1976
yes
yes
yes
(FY 75)
(FY 75)
(FY 75)
yes (FY 75)
yes (FY 75)
(FY 75)
(FY 75)
yes
yes
no (FY 78)
no (FY 78)
no (FY 78)
no (FY 78)
yes
yes
no
no
no
yes .
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
o>
-------
kr .
Region VIII - Denver
Cheyenne
Red River North
Jordan River
" Soi'.th Platte
Region IX - San Francisco
Pearl Harbor
Las Vegas
Lake Tahoe
Region X - Seattle
Nooksack
PLANNED/REQUIRED WASTE LOAD REDUCTIONS
AND WQ -ACCOMPLISHMENTS
In Priority Basins - October 5/1372
Pollutant
BOD
PH
Total Coliform
Planned
(Ibs/da)
REDUCTION
Re-quired
(Ibs/du)
BOD
TSS
N
P
heat
grease § oil
N
P
TDS
100%
100%
1001
1004
1001
100%
100%
100%
100%
8,030
' 8,190
1,650
839 in
6.8 X 1010 BTU/'da
. 22,140
5,780
2,840
302,000
1001
110,000
From Bellingharc Bay
average 6.4-6.6 to
criteria levels 7.8-
8.5 on the Bay.
Treatment meeting
Regional standards
430
110,000
To 7.8 - 8.5
in the Bay
Treatment meeting
Regional standards
Meet WQS
In FY 1S76
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yesj
yes
s?
cr
ICauses of low pH problems in the outer portion of the bay at present have not beer, identified.
-------
PLANNED/REQUIRED WASTE LOAD REDUCTIONS
AND KQ ACCOMPLISHMENTS
In Priority Basins - October S, 1972
Region/Basin
Puyallup
Pollutant
BOD
pH
Total
Coliform
REDUCTION
Planned
(Ibs/da)
70,000
Not Quantified
in Figure 10
Not Quantified
in Figure 10
Required
(Ibs/da)
78,000
Not Quantified
in Figure 10
Not Quantified
in Figure 10
Meet KQS
In FY 1976
no
yes1
yesj
^Pending changes in standards and outcome of modeling underway.
South Fork
Cour d'Alene
Kodiak Island
Total
Coliform
Arsenic
Cadmium.
Lead
mercury
zinc
copper
Not Quantified
in Figure lo
120
92
523
Not Quantified
in Figure 10
8,302
10
BOD
Total
Coliforms
"...documented water
quality violations of ...
turbidity, toxic sub-
stances and aesthetics,"
cited, but not included
in Figure 16;
104,000
Not Quantified
in Figure 10
Not Quantified
in Figure 10
120
92
520
Not Quantified
in Figure 10
8,302
10
100,000
Not Quantified
in Figure 10
yes
These reductions will not
bring the S. Fork Cour
d'Alene water to standards
due to non-point source
loads. However, these re-
ductions will contribute
to achieving standards in
Cour d'Alene Lake and
Spokane River.
yes
FY 75
-------
SUMMARY OF TABLE 2
PRIORITY BASIN CHARACTERISTICS
Region
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
Total (Partial)
River/Shore
Miles
2778
Plans Not Submitted
481
1714
1002
1389
230
Plans Not Submitted
789
38 (1 Basin)
8421
Other Water
Area (Sq. Mi.)
344
Plans Not Submitted
NA
330
2643
460
NA
Plans Not Submitted
10,239
DK
13,962
Population
5,375,000
Plans Not Submitted
10,730,000
5,095,000
20,542,200
4,410,000
1,314,000
Plans Not Submitted
DK
DK
38,466,200
Percent of
Reg'l. Pop.
45
Plans Not Submitted
48
16
47
22
12
Plans Not Submitted
DK
DK
NA - Not Applicable
DK - Don't Know, not provided.
fD
-------
PRIORITY BASIN CHARACTERISTICS
Priority
ion ' Basin
1 - Boston
Androscoggin
Boston Harbor
Connecticut River
Narragansett Bay
Nashua River
St. Croix River
II- New York
Lower (mid)
Delaware
River /Shore
Miles
2778
1022
120
400
400
56 .
780
Plans Not
Submitted*
. --
Other
Water Areas
Square Miles
344
--
44
--
300
"
--
Plans Not
Submitted*
--
Percent
Polluted
10%
50/10%
801
25/io%
100%
5%
Plans Not
Submitted*
--
Fcpulaticn
Land Area
Scuare Miles
5,375,000/12,079
160,000/3450
2,250,000/664
1,800,000/3000
900,000/1800
150,000/530
15,000/1635
Plans Not
Suhaitted*
--
Albany/Capitol
District
New York Metro
Area
Erie-Niagara
Lake Ontario
*Per agreement between DA and RA, 9/27/72.
-------
PRIORITY BASIN C-iA?AC7;;;..IS~.rCS
Priority
Kc-jioa Basin
III - Philadelphia
Delaware River
Basin
Monangahela -
Ohio River Basin
Potomac River
Basin
Kana\vha River
Basin
IV - Atlanta
Lower Mississippi
Birmingham
Charlotte
Lower Florida
Ohio River
Chattanooga
Chattahoochie
Escambia
River /Shore V.'acer Areas
Miles Square : iiles
481 RM
86 RM
97 RM --
256 RM
42 RM
20 30
425
201.2
270/20 300
254
250
226
68
Percent
Polluted
--
100%
90%
--
25%
9°/80%
50%
60%
75/8%
--
15%
80%
3%
Fcculaticn
Lar.d Area
Square Miles
10,730,000/---
6,000,000 Pop.
12,765 sq. miles
1,500,000 Pop.
3, 000, 000. Pop.
230,000 Pop.
5,095,000
240,000/1730
645,000/1118
350,000/542
1,268.,000/2350
860,000/500
343,000/1100
1,146,000/6500
243,000/1040 H
CT
n>
t-o
-------
PRIORITY BASIX
Rcrion
Priority .
Basin
V - Chicago
Wisconsin River
Lower Fox § Green Baiy
Wabash
Cleveland Area
Dayton - Cincinnati
Area
Mohoning Area
Chicago Area
East St. Louis Area
Detroit-Monroe Area
St. Josephs Area
VI - Dallas
Calcasieu River
Nueces River
Sabine River/Neches
Lower Mississippi
Trinity River/
River/Shore
Miles
193
39
180
. 94
130 .
30
68
157
111
1389/90
135
78
360
266
550
/60
Other
V.'::tf;- Areas
S;v.r:rc '-ales
2643
406
260.000A.
Percent
Polluted
20
/30*.
San Jacinto
15
Land Area
Scuare Miles
77 ..
100
16
53
34
100
100
100
19
18
301
101
270,000
519,700
343,700
3,000,300 .
2,387,400
536,000
7,612,300
555,000
4,704,100
613,700
4,410,000/34,150
230,000/4,000
220,000/1350
30
/5G3
360.000 174.000
9700 200
1,200,000/900
2,300,000/18,000
8-
h-i
CD
NJ
-------
PRIORITY BASIN CHARACTERISTICS
en
Priority
_, on Basin
11 - Kansas City
Kansas City Metro
Post I/Big Blue
Post 2/Little Blue
Post 3/Kansas River
Omalia/Council Bluffs
St. Louis Metro
. River /Shore
Miles
230
100
50
.40
104
25.6
V.'atsr Aro?-S
Square Miles
0
0
0
0
0
Percent
Polluted
100%.
60%
100%
38%
100%
Fc-ulaticr.
Land Area.
Square Miles
1,314,000
600,000
150,000
150,000
260,000
154,000
VIII - Denver
South Platte
Cheyenne
Jordan River
Red River North
IX - San Francisco
Lake Tahoe-Truckee River
L.A.-Long Beach Harbor
San Francisco Bay
Las Vegas
Pearl Harbor
789
70
8
700
11.4
10,239
ICO
9,630
400
10
9
-3
SB
cr
t>
0>
-------
PRIORITY BASIN CHARACTERISTICS
Rrcion
Priority
Basin
X - Seattle
Nooksach
Payallup
South Fork
Cour d'Alene
St. Paul Harbor
Kodiak
River/Shore
Miles
38 KM
Other
Water Arezs
Square Miles
Lotion
: Area
c Miles
cr
t-"
fB
tsj
-------
IV. RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS
Where regions provided their manpower requirements, even though
appealing cuts, these have been shown in Table 3 to illustrate
the magnitude of the effort orginally planned for FY 73 and 74.
Several regions have very low levels of effort. In the case of
Seattle, the region has been unable to identify substantial areas
which fit the guidelines for selection of Priority Basins which
'emphasize clean-up through actions against pont source of
pollution. The limited areas designated as Priority Basins require
relatively few resources to be expended in meeting Standards.
Plans to address the non-point contribution which have been prepared
by the Region are being oriented to PBAP and will be submitted
before the end of the year. This will increase their allocation
of resources to priority areas considerably.
Many of the levels are understated since the Regions were asked
to compute their manpower needs for professional positions only.
In general the range of 401 to 60% indicates a reasonable level
of commitment by the Regions to needed actions in the accomplish-
ment areas. Any generalization: is difficult since each basin is
unique and the concentration or dispersion of sources along with
the type require many different levels of effort. In addition,
both the numbers of sources which must be dealt with and the
number of States involved vary, and these are both important
factors in determining the levels of effort needed.
17
-------
REGIONAL RESOURCES ALLOCATED
TO PRIOF.TTY I.ASIN.S
00
1 Boston
II New York
III Philadelphia
IV Atlanta
V Chicago
VI Dallas
VII Kansas City
VIII Denver
IX San Francisco
X Seattle
FY 1973
Regional Totals (MY)**
Water Water Total
Abatement Enforcement (All MY)
fi Control
76
129
145
175
192
106
97 .
65
77
84
72
77
84
76
145
76
. 47
49
55
38
148
206
229
251
337
182
144
114
132
122
Priority Basin Allocation*
Total Percent
(Prcfessiora] MY)
47%
Plans Not Submitted
Plans Not Submitted
131
15$
85
26*
Plans Not.Sub-iitted
88
c
56%
41%
45%
18%
62%
4%
FY 1974
Priority Basin
Allocation
(Professional MY)
71
Plans Not Submitted
Plans Not Submitted
142
168
109
24
Plans Not Submitted
46
3
*The percentage is low for all Regions because of lack of accounting for non-professional resources,
**Rcvised Allotment, 8/31/72.
s-
I'
o>
-------
V. PROGRAM IMPACT
-- Table 4 identifies Water Program needs which must be met if the
accomplishment plans are to effectively meet the milestones set.
These areas are considered critical to assuring early WQ accom-
plishments and must be recognized in the management of regional and
headquarters resources. Specific issues identified are summarized
below.
. WQ Data . Over 50% of the 54 basins showed a critical need for
improved water quality data. In some locations data being
utilized comes from special studies or investigations rather
than from permanent monitoring stations. Some of these studies
are several years old. Examples include the Lake Ontario
Priority Basin and San Francisco Harbor. Some data needs depend
on State monitoring which becomes a high risk where state budgets
are tight. Basins in Region VI and some basins in several other
Regions will rely on completion of 3(c) planning grant projects.
There is need for more data relating to urban runoff and STORET
data that is not stored by latitude and longitude should be con-
verted to facilitate retrieval for irregular areas such as
Priority Basins.
. Effluent Data. Only 18 of the 55 Basins noted problems with
effluent data. In several instances RAP applications, the
source of most industrial effluent data for these plans, had
not been adequately revised when the data was needed. These
problems will generally be cleared up as RAPP efforts progress
between now and the end of December. Examples include N.Y. Metro,
both sides of the Delaware River, the Nooksack',^'kodiak. In
Region VIII there is insufficient data on the effect of discharging
wastes stored over the winter during the spring flows. Some
municipal facilities on the Connecticut River have no effluent
data.
. Modeling. A number of modeling studies are underway. Rerunning
of old models with current data is also being considered (e.g. the
Delaware). Certain additional modeling of complicated water systems
is also considered vital (e.g. the system of lakes, streams, and
the Barge Canal in Western New York State). Several models are
under development, or will be, as part of 3(c) grant supported
planning. For the Trinity PBAP the modeling effort will depend on
the successful completion of 3(c) planning grant projects.
. Fully Developec Plans. Water Quality Management Plans will be
completed in 1973 for most basins except where there is no need
for approval of construction grants in the particular basin. In
k^gicn VI there js a 3(c) planning grant for each basin. The
plar>.s for the Ohio Basin will need State or Federal support since
locc.1 funds are not being made available. One plan will be done
by EPA per agreement with the State (i.e. for the Kanawha River
in West Virgf/ur.).
19
-------
SUMMARY OF TABLE 4-
Number of Basins Having Water Planning, Standards and Monitoring Needs
Reg 'on
1
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
tsj VIII
o
IX
X
Total
Number
of Basins
6
5
it
8
10
5
3
4
5
4
54
US year
Critical Critical Necessary Fully Municipal
W Q Data Effluent Data Modeling Developed Plans Priorities
2
1
0
7
-
4
3
3
3
2
25
4
0
2
5
-
1
3
; 2
2
J
22
4
4
2
6
7
5
3
3
3
2
39
S
5
4
8
10
5
3
4
5
3
52
3
3
0
5
10
5
3
2
3
0
29
Effluent W Q
Guidelines Criteria
5
0 .
2
7
10
5
3
2
3
4
41
6
5
2
4
6
5
1
2
3
3
37
Use
Designations
6
5
0
3
5
0
0
3
0
0
22
Non-
Degradation
Statements
0
0
0
0
S
D
0
0
0
0
S
iBpleraentation
Schedules
2
- -
3
4
10
5
3
2
4
2
55
CO
or
-------
Table 4
Re:; ion
bai in
1 - Boston
AnJroxcoggin
Boston
Connecticut
\"arragansett
Nasi.ua
St. Croix
Critical
Is' L'ata
Critical
Effluent
Data
X
X
X
X
Necessary
Modeling
PLANNING, STANDARDS,
AND M5NITORING NEEDS IN
PRIORITY BASINS
Fully
Developed
Plans
165 Year
Municipal
Priorities
Effluent
Guidelines
KQ
Criteria
.-.on
L'O'jirnCst
Sta ter.ents
L-nplenentation
Schedules
t-o
Includes Merrimack
II - ;:cv York
Lower (mid) Del.
AJcary/Cap. - Det.
N'.Y. '', trc Area
Eric''Niagara
Lake Ontario X
III - Philadelphia
Del. River Basin
Monognahela - Ohio
River Basin
t'ott.'i.iiic H. basin
Kanav-.ha R. Basin
IV - Georgia
Lower .Miss.
Charlotte
Lower ilorida
Uiattonooga
X
X
X
X
X
X
To be determined.
To be detenr.inec.
To be deteiriined.
To be detenr.inec.
-------
WATER PLANNING, STANDARDS,
AND MONITORING NEEDS IN
PRIORITY BASINS
Table 4
Critical
Region Critical Effluent
Easin WQ Data Data
IV - Georgia
ChaUahc.r..ue
Escair.bia
V - Chicago
/.is. Ri,..-,
L. Fox/Green Bay
'.'.arc-sh River
Cltvclaif' Area
l.'c!ytGn/Cinn. Area
Mercians Area
Chicago Area
l;-.ft St. Louis
X
X X
L't-t. - Monroe Area
.St. Joseph Area
VI - Pall as
Calcasieu
Nucces
Sal, i no
L. ::iss.
Triidty
VII - Kansas City
KC:
Part 1/Eig Blue
PaitZ/Little Blue
1'art 5/Kan.R.
feaha/Coun. Bluff
St. Louis Metro
VIII - Denver
South Platte
Cr.evenne
Jcrdan River
Red River N.
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X X
X ' X
X X
X X
X X
X
X X
Necessary
Modeling
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
x .
X
X
X
X
Fully
Developed
Plans
X
X
X
.X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
165 Years
Kinicipal
Priorities
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Effluent
Guidelines
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
. X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
M} Use
Criteria Designations
X
X X
X X
X X
X
X X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X X
X
Non
Degradation
Statements
X
X
X
X
X
Implementation
Schedules
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
cr
I-1
CD
-------
Table 4
WATER PLANNING, STANDARDS,
AND MKITCXUNG NEEDS IN
PRIORITY BASINS
Kj-ricn Critical
I;;;- V,^ Data
"IX - San Francisco
L.A. Long Beach X
San Francisco X
Las Vegas
La're Tahoe
I'carl Harbor X
X - Seattle
Nool-sack X
Puyallup X
S.Fork
Cor d'Alene
St. Paul H.
Kodiak
Critical
Cf f\ n/%n*
ciixucnt
Data
X
X
X
X
X
Necessary
Modeling
X
-
X
X
X
X
Fully .
T\_._ _1 r^r^f^Jt
Developed
Plans
X
X
X
X
X
X
. X
X
155 Year
Municipal
Priorities
X
X
X
^ff T » nin^-
cr t luent
Guidelines
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Ncr.
WQ Use Cegrscaticr.
Criteria Desi?;r.atic-r.s Stazcr.e.-.ts '
X
X
x
X
X
X
I^Ier.entatior.
X
X
X
X
.X
X
-------
State 1-5 Year Priorities , All regions had instances where the
state priority lists did not conform to the priorities arrived
at in the PBAP's. The PBAP for Lower Florida may need an extra
allocation of construction funds in addition to the present
state's share in order to fund plants where states lack matching
funds or haven't changed priorities. New York and New Jersey lists
do not include all municipals identified in Niagara River, New
York Metro, and Delaware River Priority Plans.
Effluent Guidelines., The guidelines for the pulp and paper indus-
try are presently available, however, the regions note specifically
the need for these additional guidelines:
Tannery 2 Q 74 Distilleries 1 Q 73
Metals 2 Q 74 Oil § Petro Refining 1 Q 73
Textiles 3 Q 73 Fertilizer 1 Q 73
Chemicals 1 Q 73 Food Processing 1 Q 73
Rubber 1 Q 73 Thermal 4 Q 73
Plastics 1 Q 73 Feedlots 1 Q 73
Water Quality Criteria. Revisions were noted as being needed by
most regions. Many regions are awaiting publication of the "Blue
Book" (N.T.A.C.) scheduled in October before negotiating revisions
with the states. It should be noted that to avoid this delay, the
Water Planning Division is preparing model standards including
criteria. These criteria are based on the Green and Blue Book
where applicable. In Louisiana the DO Standard must be resolved
by 4 Q 73. Tennessee needs revision of fecal coliform and DO levels
by FY 74. Regions I and II, for example, have an active policy of
continuous standards upgrading making all existing criteria subject
to revision. Elsewhere, single criteria are being revised as needed
(e.g. quantifying "Hazardous Substances" criteria affecting the
South Fork, Cour d'Alene).
Use Designation and Nondegradation. In general the non-degradation
statements were noted as adequate. Region I, after passage of the
legislation, plans to upgrade uses to swimmable and fishable. Region IV
notes needs to raise Pascogoula River and Bay to a fish and wildlife
classification.
Implementation Schedules . To get implementation schedules in con-
formance with the PBAP's many regions are depending on enforcement
actions, e.g. 180 day notices, Standards revision conferences, etc.,
however, in the future we expect greater reliance on the use of the
procedures for revision of Water Quality Standards Implementation
Plans for this purpose. Both Georgia and Tennessee require complete
revisions of schedules by end of FY 73. In Region VII some states
are not requiring implementation schedules until 1978.
24
-------
The summary of Table 4 indicates those needs which require the
greatest effort, not only in the Regions, but also in Headquarters
if schedules are to be met. Over the next month, the following
programs in Air and Water will concentrate on meeting the needs
identified.
. Monitoring and Data Support Division will emphasize:
.. the attainment of ambient trend data in the Priority Basin.
.. aid in establishing new Stations where needed.
.. greater STORE! capabilities to aid in planning and reporting.
. Water Planning Division will emphasize:
.. monitoring 3(c) grants in PBAP's to ensure no iriteruptions in
needed planning and modeling studies.
.. targeting new 3(c) grants where Priority Basin needs have been
identified.
.. completing the Model Standards now being prepared by the Regions
to use in making desired revisions.
.. writing into FY 73 State Program Grants instructions the
States participation in accomplishment planning and the sel-
ection of new basins.
.. jwriting guidance on relating the accomplishment plans and the
proposed legislation in order to expand PBAP coverage as called
for.
. Effluent Guidelines Division will concentrate on furnishing guide-
lines as identified by the regions.
25
-------
VI. ASSESSMENT OF EFFORT
-- Conclusions and Our Assessment
From the current status of the PBAP effort and our preliminary review
we conclude that:
. Technical work has proceeded in all Regions to the point that
meaningful strategies and schedules for accomplishments can
be produced.
. Where necessary strategy and resources decisions have been made,
the work planning for Priority Basins has produced satisfactory
results for this year.
. Implementation and tracking of progress can begin in all Regions
now where substantial resource and/or strategy issues are not
remaining to be resolved, (i.e. all but Boston, New York and
Denver.)
-- Resources and Effort Required
There has been extensive effort by some regions in developing their
strategies, others have waited until the last minute. Those that
have put considerable time and resources into the effort have bene-
fited by improving regional coordination among programs, thus
beginning to work as a team. There are some complaints about the
time required, but all generally agree that this approach should
have been taken in setting any strategies for meeting our water
quality objectives. A similar response was obtained from State
Agency personnel at their national meeting in St. Louis. Summarized
below are estimates recorded from Regional offices as to the time
alloted to preparing the PBAP's for the October 2 submission.
Region Man-months Total
I 10
II 20
III 31
IV 36
V 18
VI 24
VII 19
VIII
IX 15
X 4
26
-------
-- Critique of Methodology and Resources Needed
A review of the content of tho Methodology and Program Planning and
Resources Management System figures has been made and is summarized
below. (Xir evaluation indicates that the regions have developed a
firm feel for the issues and problems in the designated basins and
arc in most cases preparing to carry out the tasks identified.
While we would like some of the plan content to be more specific
and/or definitive it is adequate for all to begin implementing their
plans.
- Methodology Tables
. Table I - Some entries for waste sources lacked complete data
thereby limiting an accurate analysis of potential problems.
Several regions greatly limited the numbers of parameters and
sources considered, raising questions as to extent of the
analysis. Continuing efforts to improve both data and analysis
are underway, particularly through RAPP.
. Table II - Water quality data below waste sources was often
very limited and in some cases there was not enough information
to project the anticipated water quality resulting from reducing
the waste loads. Several regions plan to improve their ambient.
data base and analyses in their priority areas, relying in many
cases on 3(c) planning grants already awarded, or about to be,
for both data and modeling.
. Table III - The tactical analysis for each waste source in most
cases appears too stereotyped. Plan implementation, reporting,
and FY 74 revisions should assure that these descriptions will
become more specific to reflect actions or load reductions needed
and the tasks which will accomplish them. This is important for
identifying milestones for the reporting system.
Table IV - This was generally the weakest of the tables submitted.
In most cases, the tasks fron Table III designed to reduce the
loadings were not adequately identified in Table IV, the date of
the reduction often was not clearly shown, and the levels and/or
target dates of anticipated water quality resulting from the
reductions appear vague. In part, this may be due to need for re-
vision of Tables III and IV to eliminate unnecessary redundancies
in information required.
- Program Planning and Resources Management Systems Figures
Figure 7 - Confusion as to the exact form of submittal required on
this figure arose in most Regions. The instructions will be clarified.
Figure 9 - The narrative needs to be more specific on areas
polluted indicating river miles or surface area affected, the
population and land area, and the significant issues and anti-
cipated accomplishments.
Figure 10 - The summary of reductions often appeared inconsis-
tent with the conclusion reached that standards would be met
in FY 76. The instructions for this figure will be revised to
clarify the handling of varying conditions in the same basin.
27
-------
-- Reporting System
The exception reporting approach to tracking progress in implementing
the Priority Basin Accomplishment Plans, and the draft reporting forms
were discussed with the Regions in Denver on September 19, 1972.
While the review was generally positive, certain elements of the
critique provided by the Regions need to be fully explored and resolved
before implementing the requirement. This will be done during October
in the course of developing final guidelines and forms.
The following questions will be considered:
. How can aspects of status reporting be incorporated in
the requirement (e.g. of permits and grants in process)
so that significant work effort is more fully reflected?
. How can other reporting requirements (both existing and
future) be incorporated, or at least better coordinated
with the Priority Basin Accomplishment Reporting require-
ment?
Two other issues raised by the critique must also be resolved:
. How can the planning and reporting requirements be revised
to allow primarily non-point and WQ preservation priorities
to be given due weight in determining EPA's resource alloca-
tions, especially in determining allocations to the Western
EPA regions where such problems predominate?
. How can Regional resources best be assured to handle the
workload of planning, managing and reporting on accomplish-
ments in Priority Basins?
The first of these issues must be dealt with initially in
revising current planning guidelines in preparation for
development of FY 74 operating plans. With reference to
Priority Basin Accomplishment Plans, this will be done
during October and November by the Water Planning Division
in coordination with the Office of Resources Management.
Appropriate modification of the reporting requirement will
follow before January, 1973.
The second issue must essentially be resolved by the Regional
Offices. While some degree of Headquarters guidance may be
necessary, formal guidelines or directives seem inappropriate.
- The Priority Basin Accomplishment Reporting (PBAR) requirement should
be understood to be in effect now with the first quarterly reports
due in January, while final guidelines and reporting forms will not
be available until later, maintenance of adequate management informa-
tion consistent with existing reporting requirements and the draft
PBAR forms will assure Regions the capability to report satisfactorily.
28
-------
-- Legislation
Is Priority Basin Accomplishment Planning required by the water
legislation? The answer is yes.
The new legislation will strengthen the Priority Basin Accomplishment
Planning approach in several ways. In fact, sections of the legisla-
tion extend to all Basins the requirements for information now being
developed for Priority Basins, that is:
--Section 303(e) requires the determination of maximum daily
loading of all waters and the setting effluent limits on
dischargers whose effluents result in exceeding those loads.
--Section 305(a) and (b) requires aggregate indexing and totaling
of the individual contribution of all point sources to water
quality, an assessment of present water quality, and a projection
of future water quality. No longer are we asked just what is
the water quality, but also when will it get better.
--Section 208 requires a plan to control all point and
non-point sources in an urban-industrial area.
While many changes in institutional arrangements for conducting the
nation's water pollution abatement and control programs are required
by the legislation, it is clearly the intent of Congress that tangible
progress in cleaning up the waters proceed more aggressively and
rapidly. Priority Basin Accomplishment Planning is a means to assure
such progress. EPA's role with the states will be to set planning
schedules for accomplishment and to oversee goal attainment, e.g., best
practicable treatment by mid-1977, best available treatment by 1983.
29
-------
--Where Do We Go From Here?
- To make this a reality our approach will be to:
-i - i \j i . Issue guidelines on a reporting system the end of October - the
f^ M j \ first report will be due January 1, 1973.
Issue draft guidelines on PBAP in November and meet with Regions
to discuss and revise these early in December. Final version to
be issued by February 1973.
. Issue other guidance as needed, "fee. criteria for identifying
stream miles or surface area and the quantification of those
not meeting standards.
. Over the next 4 months review the submitted plans, in detail and
discuss with each Region any questions, about the plans and
related reports.
. Work with those Regions which have an automated system to develop
national guidance on reducing form preparation costs in dealing
with standard data.
. Prepare an annual report on the status of accomplishment planning
and our successes and failures in meeting_the planned reductions.
- Emphasis in Priority Basin Accomplishment Plan development for FY 74
should.be on:
Revising guidelines on Priority Basin definitions in.conformity
with legislation and Western Regions' needs
. Tightening up and simplifying methodology guidelines;
adding to them to cover non-point sources and preserva-
tion actions.
Reducing levels of details in materials submitted to
Headquarters on technical aspects of Priority Basin
Accomplishment Plans
. Scheduling development of PBAP's in appropriate sequence
to have full impact on overall work planning for FY 74.
. Working with States, incorporation of guidelines in State
Program Plans, and selection of additional basins.
30
-------
VII. miGIONAL ORGANIZATION
The following charts represent the approach each 1'egion has
taken to produce the PRAP's for submission October 2. These
examples were obtained by telephone and are included only to
indicate how the Regions have so far organized their PBAP
activities. The purpose is to allow comparison with other
regional approaches as the regions prepare to organize to
implement their PBAP's, and to report on progress against
their plans.
-- The trend that predominates is organization with management
as the overall coordinators and Planning in Air and Water
being the principal basin coordinators. Coordinating Commi-
ttee5Awere generally not put in decision making roles.
However, in most cases other programs were either individually
responsible for development of a PBAP, or involved through
a task group as active participants in the process. In some
cases the involvement of the RA is unclear except in the formal
role of approving authority.
-- There are certain important factors which may be useful in
guiding the regions in organizing to implement their PBAP's.
These are:
. the need for active RA support, particularly their insistence
that, program managers participate.
. Since this is not an Air § Water Programs activity, it is
important that means be used to actively involve all programs
required to make implementation work.
31
-------
APPENDIX
-------
Table
Region
I Boston
(9/21/72)
1 New York
(9/28/72)
STATUS OF PRIORITY BASIN ACCOMPLISHMENT PLANNING
October 5, 1972
Priority Basins
Designated
Androscoggin River
Boston Harbqr and
Tributaries
Connecticut River
Narragansett Bay
Nashua River
St. Croix River
Lower (Mid)
Delaware
Albany/Cap!tol
District
New York Metro-
poli tan Area
Erie-Niagara
Lake Ontario
Plan Sections not
Completed as of Visit
Tables
Figures
7
II, III, IV
All
All
III , IV
III , IV
7
7
7
7
All
All
All
All
All
Plans
Received
Draft -Rec'd.
9/21
Plans to be
Completed by
ASAP after answer
is rec'd. on appeal
for resources
No schedule for
Submission *
* Data on Effluents and Ambients havebeen substantially completed, (Tables 1611) Situation Analyses
are partially complete on Tables III. No further schedule for submission of remaining parts has
been established. Deadline extended to 10/20/72 per agreement between DA and RA, 9/27/72. Regional
strategy and resource allocation decisions have not been made.
-------
Table Pi con11. 2
III Phila.
(9/27/72)
Priority Basins
Des ignated
Delaware River
Basin
Monongahela-Ohio
River frasin (Ohio-
Monongahela River
Portion)
Monongahe1a~0h i o
River Basin (Upper
Monongahela River
Port ion)
Potomac River
Basin
Plans Sections not
Completed as of Visit
Fi gures
All
I, Ml,
IV
1,111
All
Plans
Received
Draft Mailed *
(10/6/72)
Plans to be
Completed by
No schedule for
submission
Kanawha River Basin 7 "
* All plan components are subject to revision when Regional -reviews are completed.
Completed plans will.be submitted when Regional decisions on resource allocations are
finalized. Drafts of Figures 9 have been submitted and preliminary Figures 10 have
also been submitted.earlier.
IV Atlanta
(9/26/72)
Lower Mississippi
Gulf Coast Area
Bi rmi ngham
Charlotte
Lower Florida
-------
Table f\ con1t-3
IV con't.
V Chicago
(9/26/72)
VI Dallas
(9/28/72)
Priority Basins
Designated
Ohio River
Chattahooga-
Chat.tahopchee River.
Escambia Bay
Wisconsin River
Lower Fox River
and Green Bay
Wabash River
Cleveland Area
Dayton-C i nc i nnat i
Area
Mahoning Region
Chicago Area
East St. Louis
Area
Detroit-Monroe
Area
St. Joseph's Area
Calcasieu River
Basin
Plans Sections not
Completed as of Visit
Tables
1, III,
IV
All
All
All
All
Figures
7
7&10
7
10
All
All '
All
A1.1
All
Plans Plans to be
Received Completed b^
X
X
X
X
Partial Drafts 10/10/72
10/6
ii ,,
" ii
" n
" n
III , IV All
I, III,
IV
All
All
All '
All
All
All
All
-------
Table ft con't. 4
VI con't.
Priority Basins
Designated
Nueces River
Basin
Plans Sections not
Completed as of Visit
Tables
Figures
Plans
Received
Plans to be
Completed by
Sabine River
Basin
Lower Hississippi
River Basin
Trinity River-
Galveston-Houston
Area
VII Kansas
City
(9/23/72)
.
VIII Denver
(9/20/72)
Kansas City
Metropol i tan Area
Part 1
Part 2!
Part 3
Omaha-Counci 1
Bluffs Metro
St. LQuis Metro.
Area
Jordan River
South Platte
Cheyenne
Not
for
__
Not
for
III 7
Ml 7
11,111, 7
IV
7
avai lable
review
7
7
avai lable
review
,9,10
,9,10
,9,10
10A/72
No schedule for
subrniss ion .*
-------
Table ft con1t 5
Region
VI II con't.
IX San
Francisco
(9/21/72)
X Seattle*
Priority Basins
Designated
Red River North
* Accepted Extension
San Francisco Bay
Pearl Harbor
Las Vegas
Long Beach Harbor
Lake Tahoe-
Truckee River
Nooksock
Puyal lup
South Fork
Coeur d'Alene
Plan Sections not Plans Plans to be
Completed as of Visit Received Completed by
Tables
on basis of Resource
1, 'HI,
IV
II, III,
IV
III, IV
1, II.
Ill, IV
II, III,
IV
Figures
7,9,10
Appeals per Memorandum of 9/18/72 .
7,9,10 10/6/72
7,9,10
7,9 "
7,9,10 '.'
7,9,10 "
X
X
X
St. Paul Harbor- . X
Kodiak '
* No visit made at request of Regional Office, due to stage of planning work.
-------
ORGANIZATION OF PRIORITY BASIN
ACCOMPLISHMENT PLANNING
(For 10/2/72 Submissions)
-------
ORGANIZATION OF PRIORITY BASIN ACCOMPLISHMENT PLANNING
In Region I, Boston
(For 10/2/72 Submissions)
ENFORCEMENT
RAPP
\
\
. Data Support
\
\
\
MANAGEMENT
AIR £- WATER PROGRAMS
PLANNING
. Responsibility for'
six priority basin
plans /
\
TASK GROUP CONSISTS OF
. ENFORCEMENT
. S § A
. FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION
. PLANNING
S 5 A
STORET
. Data Support
-------
ORGANIZATION OF PRIORITY BASIN ACCOMPLISHMENT PLANNING
IN .REGION H, NEW YORK
(For 10/2/72 Submission)
MANAGEMENT
ENFORCEMENT
RAPP
AIR § WATER
PROGRAMS
PLANNING
T
FIELD
OFFICE
(Rochester, N.Y.)
Files available
for use by
Planning
Responsibility
for 5 Priority
Basin Plans
Information and
situation analysis
assistance
it
A
Edison, N.J.
. Data Support
-------
ORGANIZATION OF PRIORITY BASIN ACCOMPLISHMENT PLANNING
IN REGION III, PHILADELPHIA
(For 10/2/72 Submission)
MANAGEMENT
Coordinating
Committee
ENFORCEMENT
RAPP
Mgmt. Div.
Air 5 Water Div.
Enforcement Div.
. S-§- A-Div.
AIR 5 WATER PROGRAMS
PLANNING
Responsibility
for 1 Priority
Basin Plan
RAPP data
computeriza-
tion; deter-
mination of '
industrial
loadings §
reductions.
Responsibil-
ity for 1
Priority
Basin Plan
WQ Data
Responsibiltity
for 2 Priority
Basin Plans
Municipal Loadings
and Reductions
DISTRICT
OFFICE
(Wheeling, W.Va.)
AIR § WATER PROGRAMS
CONSTRUCTION
Information and
situation analysis
assistance
Current Status
§ Schedules
-------
ORGANIZATION OF PRIORITY BASIN ACCOMPLISHMENT PLANNING
IN REGION IV, ATLANTA
(For 10/2/72 Submission)
ENFORCEMENT
.MANAGEMENT
AIR § WATER PROGRAMS
PLANNING
FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION
Responsible For
4 Basins
Responsible For
Coordination
Responsible For
4 Basins
Organized task force
for each basin made up
of EOGC, S§A, and A§W
Responsible For
Data Support
-------
ORGANIZATION OF PRIORITY BASIN ACCOMPLISHMENT PLANNING
IN REGION V, CHICAGO
(For 10/2/72 Submission)
r
ENFORCEMENT
' Support
MANAGEMENT
DISTRICT OFFICES
(5)
Responsible For
10 Basins
-4-
RAPP
Support
AIR § WATER PLANNING
Support
CONSTRUCTION
GRANTS
Support
-------
ORGANIZATION OF PRIORITY BASIN ACCOMPLISHMENT PLANNING
IN REGION VI, DALLAS
For 10/2/72 Submission)
Enforcement
Air § Water
S § A
Grants
Coordination
ENFORCEMENT
RAPP
. Data Support
MANAGEMENT
. Responsible For
6 Priority Basin
Plans
AIR § WATER
Data Support
GRANTS
COORDINATION
Data Support . Data Support
-------
ORGANIZATION OF PRIORITY BASIN ACCOMPLISHMENT PLANNING
IN REGION VII, KANSAS CITY
(For 10/2/72 Submission)
ENFORCEMENT
Responsible
for 1 Basin
plus support
AIR § WATER PROGRAMS
. Data
Support
A § W PROGRAM
PLANNING BRANCH
. Responsible for
2 Basins
FEDERAL
ACTIVITIES
CONSTRUCTION GRANTS
OPERATIONS
. Support
. Support
Support
plus
Data
Support
-------
ORGANIZATION OF PRIORITY BASIN ACCOMPLISHMENT PLANNING
IN REGION VIII, DEXTER
(For 10/2/72 Submission)
REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR
ASST. FOR PLANNING
AND EVALUATION
MANAGEMENT
ENFORCEMENT
RAP?
. Coordination
AIR § WATER PROGRAMS
PLANNING.
. Data Support |
Responsibility for
4 Priority Basin
Plans-
r
I
I
S )
3 A
. Data Support
MANAGEMENT.
U-J
L_
PUBLIC AFFAIRS
1
. Computer Support
. Grants Information
. Public Information
on problems and
potentials'
-------
ORGANIZATION OF PRIORITY BASIN ACCOMPLISHMENT PLANNING
IN REGION IX, SAN FRANCISCO
(For 10/2/72 Submission)
MANAGEMENT
. Coordination
ENFORCEMENT
AIR
S
WATER
Responsibility
for 2 Priority
Basin Plans
Responsibility
for 1 Priority
Basin Plan
Responsibility
for 2 Priority
Basin Plans
Data Support
Data Support
Data Support
-------
ORGANIZATION OF PRIORITY BASIN ACCOMPLISHMENT PLANNING
' IN REGION X, SEATTLE
(For 10/2/72 Submission)
ENFORCEMENT
AIR S WATER PROGRAMS
WATER PROGRAMS BRANCH
. Review
MANAGEMENT
Reponsible
for coordi-
nation and
management
for all Basins
WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT SECTION
Supplies computer support
Review resources and
compatibility with FY 73-
work plans.
. Responsible for Data
coordination with
RAPP and
------- |