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)

ۥ
(-«
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

-------